Vote Obama!

Sunday Morning Reading List

I like to read the Boston Globe Sunday mornings; in the Ideas Section I found an interesting article Nothing to Fear:  What if the world is safer than we think? by Thanassis Cambanis.  

Quote from the article.  “More people have died in America since 9/11 crushed by furniture than from terrorism,” Zenko says in an interview. “But that’s not an interesting story to tell. People have a cognitive bias toward threats they can perceive.”

I also found two interesting books to put on my reading list.


The Cause: The fight for American Liberalism from Franklin Roosevelt to Barack Obama by Eric Alterman and Kevin Mattson

I have to after reading the opening paragraph of the review. "One need not subscribe to all of the Left’s grandiose ideas for remaking America to grant that it has been largely responsible for much of what is actually best about the United States of the 21st Century (civil rights laws, universal suffrage, environmental protection, the 40-hour work week, food safety). And despite the rhetoric one hears too often, this has not been the work of “Kenyan socialists” (who would have thought Kenya would replace France as the great bugaboo of the right!)."

And Dosed:  The Medication Generation Grows Up by Kaitlin Bell Barnett because it looks really interesting.

Collection of Interesting Articles and Book List

I PLAYED THE NEWS TODAY, OH BOY:  Fascinating concept, and why not have video games that teach you about complex and interesting current events?

TRUSTING YOUR INSTINCTS:  CONSERVATIVES MAY ACTUALLY BE NATURAL LIBERALS AT HEART, OP-ED  I’m interested in reading the study.

Knowledge-based gibberish:  Those in politics, medicine and business who rely on annoying verbal tics often don’t have their facts straight.

Book List:

I’m interested in a few books on the Parade’s recommended reading list.

Happy MLK Day!

Martin Luther King Jr.'s I have a dream speech

and the I have a dream speech auto-tuned 

because I love it.

The Attempted Assassination of Gabrielle Griffords

I’ve gone back and forth this week, deciding who was to blame one day; then revising my thinking the next.  Of course, ultimately the blame is squarely placed on the gunman because that’s where it belongs.  But something else contributed.  Is it the uncivil political discourse?  Perhaps … but that has always been with us.  Our country was birthed in violence.  Revolution could be considered uncivil political discourse taken to the extreme.  Acts of violence have happened in the sacred halls of Congress.  Congressman Preston Smith Brooks savagely beat Senator Charles Sumner to the floor of the United States Senate with a cane and was celebrated for his actions in the south.   The Civil War was the United States’ ultimate in uncivil discourse.  But we have had other protests:  against the Vietnam War, for civil rights, the right to vote … And with violence these causes were resisted.

The political rhetoric in this country is extreme and comes with a heavy price; a price that the American people pay.  But vitriolic political rhetoric has not happened in a vacuum.  Anonymous, or not, commenters on the internet attack everyone, every cause, every system, every celebrity, every policy.  They consider themselves omniscient.   The media, some churches, political parties, government, parents, community leaders have all contributed to the daily uncivil conversation. 

 

What else hasn’t changed in America is the absolutism, the knowledge of rightness wrapped in religion or science or theory.  And when that knowledge is wrapped in the security of religion or science nothing easily pricks our truth because it is intertwined with identity, faith and pride.  And what can get through that?

Something recently changed in our society.  Columbine was the beginning; the beginning of our nation’s collective realization that the “one” could massacre the innocent.  We felt confused, dismayed and helpless.  The slaughter has continued.  There have been more school, post office, workplace shootings.  

I don’t know how to fix this or even what changed.

Is it the availability of automatic guns?  Guns have always been available in the US.  Granted one man could not have caused the damage with the guns available in earlier times.  Is it the media?  The desentization to violence we all experience?  Is it the internet that allows the ugly underside of society to congregate safely?  Is it the countrywide notoriety that inevitably ensues?  Many desire fame.  Turn on the TV and you will find any number of people willing to do anything to be on TV for an instant and if it lasts longer … then all the better! 

Is it the change in our society?  Families are changing.  Fewer adults care for their aging parents.  Personal identity is less grounded in community as many people move to frequently to put down roots; and identity has become increasing child centered but differently now – parents’ identities are becoming tied up in the child’s accomplishments.  Parents aren’t disengaging when appropriate.  Infantized adults call their parents daily when away at college, and colleges now have orientations for the parents.  The result – those children are less capable than their parents but think they are more capable.  Does any of this contribute to or explain why someone walks into a crowd one day and starts shooting?

Is it all just mental illness coupled with a willingness … nay, eagerness to kill and access to the means of murder?  I don’t know ... but I’m worried.

I recommend reading Chris Daly’s Political overtones, but mental Illness underneath from the Boston Globe and Joanna Weiss’ It’s not the violence; it’s the insurrection.

 

My favorite quote from the Weiss article is “What we’re in the process of is either dehumanizing or de-Americanizing one’s opponents,”  Leonard Steinhorn.  I believe it aptly describes our unfortunate political climate.

Captured State

When my father-in-law was visiting he mentioned an article he had read that referred to Mexico as a captured state.  I was not familiar with the term.  In 2000, Joel S. Hellman, Geraint Jones, and Daniel Kaufmann wrote "Seize the state, seize the day": state capture, corruption, and influence in transition for the World Bank.  They found that “[s]ome firms in transition economies have been able to shape the rules of the game to their own advantage, at considerable social cost, creating what the authors call a ‘capture economy’ in many countries. In the capture economy, public officials, and politicians privately sell under-provided public goods, and a range of rent-generating advantages "a la carte" to individual firms. 

Now lest you think a captured state can only refer to something outside the US here is an article authored by Gregory Hooks from the American Sociological Review that refers to the U. S. Department of Agriculture as “an agency captured by a privileged interest group.” 

Fabulous.  Of course, I knew it went on but now I have a term for another thing that pisses me off and more stuff I should read.

Bribe Fighter - The Boston Globe

“For the affluent, corruption is at worst a nuisance; for the salaried middle class, it can be an indignity and a burden; but for the poor, it is often a tragedy.”   Shashi Tharoor

Bribe Fighter - The Boston Globe

Posted using ShareThis

Is Requiring Insurance Companies to Cover Pre-Existing Conditions Immoral? No, it's Not.

My dad sent me an editorial from the Christian Science Monitor, Forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions is immoral.

I read it and responded as follows.

I am happily surprised to read of a libertarian supporting a new welfare program if even in jest. However, we have some indisputable facts.

1. The US is experiencing a health crisis and cannot continue on the current path.

2. Private insurance companies and the free market system bear responsibility for the current system.

Facts on the Cost of Health Insurance and Health Care (I chose this link in part because it was based on research from McKinsey & Co. and because the Coalition's Honorary Co-Chairmen are former Presidents George Bush and Jimmy Carter.)

“Health care spending continues to rise at a rapid rate forcing businesses to cut back on health insurance coverage and forcing many families to cut back on basic necessities such as food and electricity and, in some cases, shelters and homes.

Experts agree that our health care system is riddled with inefficiencies, excessive administrative expenses, inflated prices, poor management and inappropriate care, waste and fraud. These problems increase the cost of medical care associated with government health programs like Medicare and Medicaid, and health insurance for employers and workers and affect the security of families. . . ” (Bold added)

“According to one study, of the $2.1 trillion the U.S. spent on health care in 2006, nearly $650 billion was above what we would expect to spend based on the level of U.S. wealth versus other nations. These additional costs are attributable to $436 billion outpatient care and another $186 billion of spending related to high administrative costs.”

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

Mr. Richman asserts that companies can’t make money if they are forced to cover people who haven’t paid premiums; in many cases because they cannot afford coverage or because they were denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

How much profit is enough? A “McKinsey survey found that 78 percent of low wage workers don’t receive health benefits from their employers. Those not offered employee sponsored health coverage must find insurance on the individual market. . . [which] generally provides more expensive plans with less comprehensive benefits . . and they deny applications at a higher rate. . .

. . . Insurers have rigged the system to manufacture oversized profits while the country pays the price in the form of high premiums and poorer health.”

http://hcfan.3cdn.net/dadd15782e627e5b75_g9m6isltl.pdf

“Profits at 10 of the country’s largest publicly-traded health insurance companies in 2007 rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007, from $2.4 billion to $12.9 billion according to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission fillings. In 2007 along the chief executive officers at these companies collected combined total compensation of $118.6 million – an average of $11.9 million each. That is 468 times than the $25,434 the average American worker made that year.”

“1 out of 7 Americans under 65 are uninsured.” Does Mr. Richman believe that is because none of them want it? That’s silly.

Is there truly nothing wrong with insurance companies and shareholders profiting from the sick? Not in theory; not any more than a doctor or hospital shouldn’t profit from their education or the care he or it provides. However, in practice -- at least where the US health care system has ended up— the insurance companies are in the wrong. Health insurance, unlike an Elmo toy, is important. No one will die because they lack a toy. People die everyday because they lack insurance.

Health Insurance Companies profits are good but not breaking records.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/insurance-co-profits-good-but-not-breaking-records/

But it’s still listed as the 35^nd most profitable industry on the Forbes 500 list for 2009.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/performers/industries/profits/

Ezra Kline at the Washington Post writes, “The industry, Potter says, is driven by "two key figures: earnings per share and the medical-loss ratio, or medical-benefit ratio, as the industry now terms it. That is the ratio between what the company actually pays out in claims and what it has left over to cover sales, marketing, underwriting and other administrative expenses and, of course, profits."

Think about that term for a moment: The industry literally has a term for how much money it "loses" paying for health care.”

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/the_truth_about_the_insurance.html

No insurance program, private or public, can pay for everything for everyone nor should it. Eventually, difficult choices must be made, but not because someone lacked the insurance to pay for preventative care!

Massachusetts requires that everyone have insurance. Here is a brief overview of the program.

http://www.ehow.com/about_5217562_health-insurance-law-massachusetts.html

Mr. Richman’s imagined proposal seems designed to cost the government the most possible money by not requiring the sick to pay in (as the poor are already covered through Medicaid, Medicare, CHIP etc.) and by not letting healthy people buy in to offset costs.

The actions of for-profit insurance companies are the cause of our current health care crisis and costs. Insurance companies and medical groups are colluding together to raise profits for one group or another. A classic example is Partners and Blue Cross of MA. Because my Blue Cross is based out of California I had to pay $300 extra, out of pocket, when Lizzy had a chest x-ray at a Partners Hospital.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/01/23/partners_insurer_under_scrutiny/

A genuine alternative to the status quo is a public insurance alternative. It’s competition that will benefit Americans.

“…[P]ublic insurance [i]s about 10 percent less expensive for children and about 30 percent less expensive for adults. In addition to having higher medical costs, private insurance has administrative costs that, on average, are about twice those of public insurance.”

http://www.cbpp.org/files/5-11-07health.pdf

Since, Richman is a libertarian and I am a democrat we have some significant political differences. I don’t believe that unimpeded free markets are good for everyone. He asserts that “competition lowers prices, raises quality and universalizes access.” I think of the industrialized age in Europe, Upton Sinclair’s Jungle, and the general misery the poor, the working class and even some of the middle class experienced before regulation, unions and laws changed the lot for the majority of Americans and people throughout the first world.

And as for his assertion that competition lowers prices; yes, generally it does. Unfortunately, insurance companies in the US have consolidated their markets, and merged with other companies to stifle competition. Shall we wipe the slate clean and let them “fix” insurance. Insanity can be defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Insurance companies have refined their process and product delivery systems to be huge revenue producers. What incentive do they have to change?

Richman and I have a basic philosophical difference. He trusts business more than I do. Business exists to make money, I think it’s naïve to assume it cares about people; and because I care about people more than business, I don’t want business to thrive at the expense of people.

Private insurance is a good thing but when making money is set against life and death decisions it’s dangerous, especially because any person is just a number for insurance companies – one out of the hundreds of thousands they insure. Public insurance should be an option as well; if only to keep the private insurance companies honest.

I can’t afford to wait: son with autism

Autism is a pre-existing condition – yes, autism! I heard a mother say that because she had three girls with autism they couldn’t get insurance. So, I was compelled to research it. And horrifyingly enough, I found out that it’s true. That slapped me in the face. If we lost our insurance, the insurance industry would deny my children coverage.

I really think that most people who oppose a public option don’t really understand what it is and how it can work. And I don’t think they’ve done any research into why and how it would improve health care for the rest of us. The Republicans have certainly been very effective in scaring everyone – even if they don’t really understand why they’re scared.

It reminds me of college. I wrote my senior paper on the Effects of Existentialism on the New Left. When I told a guy about my paper he told me that he was an existentialist. Shocked, I questioned him. “You don’t believe in God?” He told me he believed in some higher power, floating thing. “Then you’re not an existentialist.” I replied. Most people who don’t support a public option remind me of this guy. They’re not sure what it is but they know it’s bad.

Al Frankin makes more sense then most of these people.

Consider me holding a sign in solidarity, “I can’t afford to wait: son with autism.”

Obtaining Health Insurance for Autistic People

A Public Insurance Option Discussion on Facebook

My cousin posted a link on her Facebook page to Free Our Health Care Now’s online petition.

I, of course and maybe stupidly, made a comment.

I posted. “I'd love a public option I could buy into that wasn't tied to a job. Most people change jobs frequently it doesn't make sense to have to change insurance every time.

But more importantly I'm not comfortable with the status quo -- health care rationing based on income.”

My cousin responded, “I'm personally not comfortable paying more money to the government. There is an entitlement attitude in our country that says we all deserve to be secure and safe, to have this and to have that. However, going around the free market isn't, in my opinion, the way to insure everyone's well-being or to solve the health care crisis. Why are we marching on Washington to solve our health care crisis? Why don't we march on our insurance companies?

As citizens of this country, we need to get back to basic principles of responsibility, hard work, honesty and sacrifice, and to quit expecting the government to solve our problems. Show me when the government has been successful in taking good care of the masses. Welfare? Social Security? Medicare? Yikes!

I say we need to not take away incentive for people to be productive, successful members of society. The more money we give to the government through taxes, the less choice we have regarding what to do with our own hard-earned money.”

One of her friends added, “Very well put.”

I responded, “You have a great point about marching on insurance companies. That’s what we’re doing! We’re doing it through government because that is where much of our power lies.

But considering that the free market is responsible for the current economic crisis, the disappearance of the middle class in the US and for the insurance problems we have now I’m not inclined to let it try to “fix” health care. It’s already “fixed” it.

Medicare and VA recipients report higher satisfaction than people with private insurance. And evidence shows that public insurance is less expensive and provides comparable if not better insurance. (I'll put links on my page.)

The advantage of a public option is that the working poor who make too much to qualify for Medicaid, the people with pre-existing conditions, and people with crappy plans have affordable options.

I feel a moral obligation to help the needy. Private charity has failed. I’m happy to pay more in taxes to help.”

Here are the links I referenced.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/mp_20090629_2600.php

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=14560

http://www.cbpp.org/files/5-11-07health.pdf

My cousin friend added, “I have one question for you. How are we going to pay for it? I'm so happy that you are more that willing to pay more taxes. If you feel that it is a moral obligation and that private charity has failed then why not try to help private charities by giving your money to them instead. All the current government health programs are broke. If you think it is going to stop with taxing those who make over$ 250,000 a year you are wrong. In 1918 they started taking the top 1% of americans wealthy. By 1938 in was the top 5% by the time world war II was over it was the top 75%. Did you also know that if you choose to have your own insurance that you will be face countless penalties. . That doesn't sound like freedom to me. This is an absolute infringement on Freedom

P.S The power lies in the People, not the government.”

My cousin said, “I guess we see things a bit differently. I have to wonder where the funding comes from for these government-sponsored programs since we all know that money doesn't grow on trees. It comes out of the pockets of those who pay taxes, the wealthier segment of society. In other words, tax payers are being forced to pay charity in the form of welfare, medicare, etc. Like Eliza, I would rather have the option of what charities or organizations we give our hard-earned money to, rather than being forced by the government to fund causes we don't believe in. I believe in supporting good and charitable causes, in fact I do. However, I also believe that a person ought to have the right to choose not to as well. It's called free agency. If we are forced to do "good", it's no longer our choice and free agency is vanquished.

P.S. I don't believe it's the free market that has failed, it's the people who are greedy, irresponsible, and dishonest that has failed the system. Those same people are in government positions as well . . . in abundance.”

I posted, “This is an interesting discussion. I found a couple of links that explain what a public option is and some of its benefits. They should also clear up some of the misconceptions, such as the idea that it promotes euthanasia, or that there would be penalties for keeping private insurance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/opinion/22dow.html

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Hacker_final_to_post.pdf

http://brown.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Sen.%20Brown%20Health%20Insurance%20Reform%20Frequently%20Asked%20Questions.pdf

http://www.cbpp.org/files/5-11-07health.pdf

I, as an insured person, already pay costs associated with the under or uninsured, those costs are passed on to me in the form of higher prices for services.

As for your taxes supporting programs you disagree with, well, that’s true for everyone.

Your P.S. would be equally true if you replaced free market with government. But I'll stop commenting now. Feel free to send me an email with any links you think I should read.”

I’m not going to add anything right now. We were limited because Facebook limits how long your comment can be and I had to cut off part of my comment.

And because I’m nice I took out ludicrous from my original sentence “such as the ludicrous idea that it promotes euthanasia . . .”

I shouldn't have brought up the whole private charity tangent. That's my issue. I'm sick of the right trying to wrap themselves up in religion and morality. I will never understand why abortion and gay rights are the only two moral issues that exist for them. I believe there are other equally important moral issues: feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, helping the sick, combating racism .....

Health Care

Pictures on the Internet

I listened to Sarah Palin’s resignation speech on the internet a couple of days ago. While she rambled on I heard her say something about people mocking her son Trig who has Down Syndrome. My ears perked up because I had heard nothing about this, so I googled it. (I will not link to it because it offends me!) I was so upset when I found a website that had superimposed pictures of other people faces onto Trig’s body and had hateful comments from people so obviously partisan that they ignored any decency they might have at one time possessed.

I frequently have been sent vicious, partisan, irrational email rants from Republicans. I hear those right-wing nut jobs on the radio and watch clips of them on the internet; but somehow I missed their left-wing equivalent; either because there are fewer or because I don’t frequent their websites.

I hereby declare both extremists groups to be the same – both lacking in decency, and rationality. I don’t understand how one can be so partisan that anything that might cause one to question one’s position is automatically discarded; but perhaps, that’s because I became a Democrat in my 20’s.

I suggest that both groups of extremists take a deep breath, and step back. Extreme Republicans perhaps you could stop suggesting that Obama isn’t a citizen (because after all even if his mom wasn’t an American citizen, he was born in a state which makes him a de facto citizen; and isn’t that part of the reason you don’t like illegal aliens to have babies here?). And extreme Democrats perhaps you could stop making fun of disabled children because that REALLY PISSES ME OFF! And it says a lot about the kind of people you are: cruel, petty and small.

Matthew Alexander vs. Dick on Torture

Matthew Alexander, who uses a pseudonym for security reasons, was a 14-year military interrogator who oversaw more than a thousand interrogations and conducted more than 300 in Iraq himself. He wrote How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq which I read earlier.

Progressive Quiz

I found a fun quiz you can take to find out how progressive you are.

Same Old Story

Charlie Rose interviewed Condoleezza Rice about Iraq. She said no one believed there was a link. Oh, really? No one? No one at all?

Watch

I'm Not Suprised . . . Just Disappointed

If you want to ruin an otherwise good day read this article from Newsweek and here's the memo from the Justice Department.

I guess it just applies to the rest of us

Politicians just don't like to pay their taxes. Now Sarah Palin has to pay back taxes on the per diem she got for living in her own house. Now that's a sweet deal!

Eight is Enough

I am amazed at all the hatred directed towards Nadya Suleman. I guess because I missed the buildup. I read that someone had octuplets and I read a small blurb in the paper that the woman’s mother was upset. Then I went to New Hampshire to get my hair cut and the women in the shop were outraged at the situation.

Then I heard more. Radio hosts were threatening to boycott any company who helped her. People said that she should be sterilized. (Last time I checked this was still the United States of America not China!)

This situation occurred at an interesting time for me. Last week, I watched an episode of Law and Order in which a lawyer for the district attorney’s office tried to take away a parent’s right to make medical decisions for their child. Stuff is going on in New York.

I wouldn’t make the same decisions that Nadya Suleman made. I think she was less thoughtful than she should have been. However, I believe that her situation will punish her more than we as a society ever could. I believe that the hatred directed towards her comes down to one issue -- the number of children. Many people believe that one or at most two children are enough. And with that belief as your reality her decision is unfathomable.

I like large families. Both my husband and I came from large families. I consider four children a medium sized family. When I considered stopping at three children I honestly considered whether it would be fair to the kids to only have two siblings because I knew they would miss out on so much. I probably would have had more children if we weren’t dealing with autism. Like many other parents of children with autism, it made the choice to have more children much more difficult. I remember meeting a pregnant woman who had three sons with autism and blurting out my surprise that she would dare have another; only to realize that people had the reaction to me when I was pregnant with Lizzy.

I’ve never thought well of anyone who had more than triplets resulting from any kind of fertility treatment because of the health risks to the babies. In this I don’t think worse of Suleman than I do the McCaughey’s. Quite frankly I’m not impressed with either. Even if Suleman was married it is unlikely she could afford the hospital bills or other costs associated with these children. People make decisions all the time that costs society money example -- drunk drivers. Any premature baby costs a tremendous amount of money.

So, what’s so different about her decision?

What frightens me about the hoopla is that freedom is fragile. When society decides that they always know best someone loses. I had normal children who became autistic two weeks after routine vaccines. Because of that, I have changed my opinion as to what health care all my children may or may not receive. With William we have aggressively pursued bio-medical treatments for him. Traditional medicine failed him. We have tried things that traditional medicine consider reckless and foolish.

But Will can now talk and is mostly toilet trained.

At one of his appointments with his developmental pediatrician, I told her that a couple of years ago I didn’t think he would ever talk. She said that she didn’t think he would either. I said that he can talk because we chelated him. I could see her brain hurting her because she was thinking he wouldn't have but chelation can't possibly work. She spent ten years diagnosing autistic kids. She’s seen Will for years and she knew that he was one of the kids who probably would never speak but her training required that she be closed to any treatment that wasn’t traditional.

What is great about living in America is that I can make decisions for myself and my children. And that is worth defending.

Irony

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Moment of Zen - Tom Daschle's Old Car

Daily Show Full Episodes
Funny Political Videos

Important Things With Demetri Martin
More Funny Videos

A message to the other Democrats out there: PAY YOUR TAXES!

My Husband knows How to Cheer Me Up

Anyone who likes Cheney should not click on this link. The rest of you can enjoy reading about Dick getting dunked!