A Great Victory!

So I bought MY lottery ticket (64 in total, actually, including the pools I'm in), and before anyone talks about the "tax on people who are bad a math" (a sentiment I'd typically share) let me just say that I've calculated MY odds of winning at least a share of the jackpot at 1 in 2.75M (much better than the official, single-ticket odds of 1 in 176M) and the expected value of a ticket right now, given the lump-sum, after-tax jackpot payout is around $2.63. So this is one of those rare times that the $1 ticket price is actually a good deal.  (Hey: If Vegas had a game that paid out $2.63 on average and only charged a buck to play, it would be dead broke in no time!)

But I couldn't care less if I win or not, because earlier today I ALREADY won: The Michigan State House passed the Autism Insurance Reform Bill and starting October first, my two sons will have their speech and language therapy covered under my BCBS plan.

I would like to thank our REPUBLICAN Governor, Rick Snyder, for making this a legislative priority (even though it was the REPUBLICAN-controlled State Senate who stalled the bills, back in 2010, after it was passed by DEMOCRATICLY-controlled State House!) and also to everyone who sent emails, made phones calls, wrote letters, walked for autism, signed petitions, donated money or in any other way supported this incredibly important legislation and cause.

But there remains much more work to do: Twenty States remain that still allow Insurance Companies to discriminate against Autistics, seven of which have legislation pending votes later this year.  For more information about Autism Insurance Reform in YOUR State, go to www.autismvotes.org.  Working together, we CAN make a difference, and my State is now part of that example!

Hot Coffee and Frivolous Lawsuits

I heard an interesting story this morning on NPR about an upcoming documentary called “Hot Coffee.” It documents the facts surrounding a certain “frivolous lawsuit” that I’m sure we’re all familiar with. I’m sure you “know” what I’m talking about: Some lady was driving along, spilled her coffee, got some burns, sued McDonalds and was awarded Millions in a case of “jackpot justice.” There’s only one problem with that:

IT’S ALL BULLSHIT

Some of the FACTS about the case include:

1) She was, in fact, a PASSENGER in a PARKED car.

2) She received THIRD DEGREE BURNS. (Would you put something in your mouth hot enough to cause third degree burns to your LEGS?!)

3) McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180 °F, which can cause  a third-degree burn in under seven seconds.

4)  From 1982 to 1992 the McDonald's had received over 700 reports of people burned by thier coffee, and had settled claims for more than $500,000. (Remember: A big part of tort is that you (a) KNOW about the problem, and (b) DO NOTHING to fix it. This is TEXTBOOK, people!)

5) She was incapacitated and underwent medical treatment for TWO YEARS.

6) In the end, she did not see MILLIONS of dollars - less than $600,000 actually, roughly $160,000 of which was just her own medical expense.

And the following is a FACT, but one who’s importance and relevance is a matter of DEBATE; one for the COURT to decide. (And thus: NOT a point of frivolity):

7) [McDonald’s] handed someone a liquid, that they prepared to a temperature that was hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns, in a container that was not strong enough, or with a lid steady enough, to contain it – the properties of which were specified by McDonalds. Think about that. Would YOU do that?! Not to someone you LIKED! (And remember: Better cup = More $$$!)

Now... I’m going to go out on a limb here, because I haven’t seen the film yet, and recommend that EVERYONE see this. And that you tell your friends about it. Because it brings up broader points about our society, and its system of justice, or the lack thereof. Let me ask you a question…

WHY does “everyone know” so much about this case that is complete bullshit? Why is everyone such an “expert” on this case despite mostly not knowing shit, and going almost entirely on misinformation?

Well… Do you remember that LIBERAL MEDIA we always hear about?

They’re the ones that origionally TOLD THE STORY. They're the one we were getting our fakts (not facts) from.  Sure, they didn’t come right out and SAY it was a “frivolous law suit.” But the fakts presented were done so entirely from McDonald’s point of view.

Hmmmmm….

Do you think that MIGHT have anything to do with the fact that for most of the past half-century, McDonalds was not only one of the largest corporations in the United States, but also one of the single largest sources of TELEVISION ADVIRTISING REVENUE? Think back to when you were a kid. How many times did you see Ronald McDonald on TV? (Mayor McCheese was always my favorite!) But hey: I’m sure the news media wasn’t being biased in their presentation of this story just because the it cast on of their corporate shareholder’s largest sources of income in a bad light. Don’t you agree?

Behold: Your LIBERAL media!

And this was almost a SIXTEEN YEARS AGO! This was 1994!

Do you know what DIDN’T exist in 1994?

The Fox News Channel, the Tea Party, House Speaker Newt Gingrich, President George W. Bush, a Republican Majority in the House, Glenn Beck’s radio program, Sean Hannity’s radio program, Ann Coulter’s bi-weekly column…

Yeah, I’m sure that our media hasn’t leaned any farther to the Right since 1994!

The bigger picture here is that when we complain about these so-called “frivolous lawsuits,” we are in fact promoting corporatism, taking the corporation’s side and voluntarily, even enthusiastically sacrificing our rights. Try reading the fine print on your phone bill or credit card statement some time. Do you see that little bit about “binding arbitration?” Do you know what this means?

It means that if you have any dispute with that company, you agree to binding arbitration where:

1) They pick the venue for the court.

2) They pick the judge.

3) They PAY for the judge.

4) The Judge is not required to provide ANY rational for his ruling. (!!!)

5) YOU HAVE NO RECOURSE OR RIGHT TO APPEAL.

And we sign more and more of this kind of fascist bullshit EVERY SINGLE DAY.

But hey, why should we complain? I mean: It’s not like you HAVE to have a cell phone. Or a credit card.

…or access to the internet.

…or the ability to buy a plane ticket.

…or the ability to rent a car.

…or the ability to build a credit history.

Yeah. That seems like a reasonable trade off: They make a profit. I have no power if they screw me. (Which, of course, NEVER HAPPENS!) And if I exercise my rights to OPT-OUT of having my rights taken away from me…?

I LOSE THAT MANY MORE OF MY RIGHTS!

And there is simply NO GOOD REASON we need to make that tradeoff!

It time to WAKE UP, America! The next time the media tells you about a “frivolous law suit?” Check to see if it’s against one of their sponsors. Whether or not it’s frivolous is a matter for the COURTS TO DECIDE. And plenty of these just get thrown out. Every day. It is not a matter for the media to decide and to use to influence public opinion on Tort Reform…

…which is just another Right Wing Code Word for taking away more of your rights as people in the name of protecting Corporations from having to PLAY BY THE RULES and OBEY THE LAW.

And remember, WHERE did I hear about this? On NPR: A PUBLIC station that does not rely on corporate sponsorship! Think about THAT the next time some Jack-Hole sends you another Right-Wing e-mail that begins, “Here’s a story the cowards in the main-stream media won’t tell you!” The only stories left untold are the ones the corporate owners and corporate sponsors don’t want you hear, or form your own opinion about.

So here’s a new rule: THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS A FRIVOLOUS LAW SUIT.

Such judgments are entirely matters for the COURT to decide for themselves.

WHICH IS WHY WE FUCKING HAVE THEM!!!

Glenn Beck is amazing!

In the Quentin Tarantino-written movie, True Romance,  Don Vincenzo (played by Christopher Walken) explains to the soon-to-be-tortured-and-executed  Clifford Whorley (played by the late Dennis Hopper) that “Sicilians are great liars,” and that “[his] father was the world heavy weight champion of Sicilian liars.”  That may have been true in the Tarantino-verse, but I’m betting that his Don Vincenzo’s father couldn’t hold a CANDLE to the new heavyweight champion of American, Right Wing Liars: GLENN “BOOM-BOOM” BECK.

Consider this. As of earlier today, Media Matters has 4,424 items from this oracle of obfuscation, dating back to January 17^th of 2006, when CNN first hired him.  That’s exactly 1,781 days ago.  Which means that Glenn Beck has lied an average of two and half (2.48) times a day*, every day, for the past FIVE YEARS! And that doesn’t even account for the time he was off the air between his ouster at CNN and when Fox picked him up.  Now… one might say that maybe he’s not “lying,” per se, because he actually believes this stuff, or that he’s not “lying,” just really bad at research, journalism, etc…  But I’m not willing to give him the benefit of that doubt here.  Because when you rake in over $30 Million Dollars a year to talk about current events, you really should GET IT RIGHT occasionally.  If you’re paid that much, and screw up two and half times a day for five years?  You’re a paid liar, and you know it.

This past week however, Glenn Beck has truly outdone himself, both with the number of lies, the diversity of subject matter, and the absolute, utter absurdity of the claims being made.  The following are just SOME of the items from MMFA, just in past couple of days:

Here’s Beck, making things up about the Food Safety Bill,

Making things up about Health Care Reform,

Making things up about the Smithsonian,

Making things up about the Federal Reserve,

Making things up about Wikipedia,

And finally, making things up about Net Neutrality.

That last one is particularly artful/egregious, as it manages to conflate the RW distortion of the Fairness Doctrine, which was taken off the books almost 10 years before the Internet was even a thing, and their idiotic opposition to Net Neutrality which (usually) amounts to little more than “It’s a violation of their freedom of speech to prohibit them from censoring you. ”  It’s also truly amazing, when you consider the long established RW opposition to Net Neutrality, that he could seriously manage to screw up the basic premise of the issue that badly.

But then… He’s Glenn Beck.  A very good candidate to become MMFA’s very first TWO-TIME Misinformer of the year!  (He’s definitely got MY vote!)

(And no, I don’t get a vote.)

*As a point of comparison, Rush Limbaugh had only 2,953 items, dating back to 1/6/06, for an average of just 1.65 lies a day. And Rush has his own section on the website! And yet Glenn Beck is still about 50% more dishonest – by just under a lie a day, over five years – than Rush Limbaugh!  Who have thought that was possible?

Worst Woman in the World...

Obscenity warning! (I’m pretty pissed off about this!)


Sharon Angle is a scumbag

With each passing day, I become less and less surprised that Conservatives' attitudes towards women are so backwards. I mean… just look at their representative sample: Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Christine O’Donnell, Sharon Angle… You know, maybe if conservative women weren’t so fucking stupid, conservative men might think more highly of women in general. (Of course that doesn’t account for the stupidity of conservative MEN, but that for an entirely different post…)

But Sharon Angle has absolutely topped my list. She’s a stupid, lying, hypocritical, self-righteous, dangerous CUNT. Her latest talking point, following months of lies, distortions, misrepresentation and misinformation? She wants to lower Insurance Costs for the people of Nevada by ending that state’s mandate that insurance companies cover “Autism.”

The “quotes” were hers, BTW. She actually said “Autism” making “quotes” in the air with her fingers.

Candidate Angle? GO FUCK YOURSELF.

A bit of disclosure here: I have two children with “Autism.” No, fuck that: They have AUTISM. And no person with two brain-cells to bounce together (which would apparently exclude Sharron Angle) would deny that they have Classic, Kanner’s Syndrome AUTISM. Another undeniable fact is that the intensive speech therapy and special supports they’ve received have helped them make tremendous progress. Without these interventions, based on the work of many PhD’s and other researchers in the field (something the conservatives always seem to be sadly lacking in) the odds are that they would be (1) Non-verbal today and (2) headed towards a lifetime of being institutionalized. (And yes, that would be on the tax payers’ dime. So really, Sharon Angle’s just an idiot.)

Now… In my home state of Michigan none of this therapy is covered by insurance. Not. One. Penny. Of. It. And up until a few years ago pretty much no states covered it. Today the number is 23 and growing every few months. Autism insurance reform has met with very little resistance outside of the insurance lobby and a very few other special interest groups that put dollars ahead of families and handicapped children. IOW: Scumbags.

Now obviously I'm pretty damned far from being an unbiased debater here. I have no problem acknowledging that I have a dog (two, in fact) in this fight. But why don’t we look at the facts here and see what this “expensive mandate” REALLY costs people.

My family spends about $30,000 per year in speech therapy. Florida (the only state I’m immediately familiar with) covers up to $35,000 per child, but we spend $30K, and have TWO. So let’s use thirty-K as a worst-case number. I don’t know what the rate of Autism is these days, but the rate of “Autism” is about 1%. I’m OK putting that in quotes, because if you use that number, you will be including many children with a level of impairment that only the foremost experts will be able to detect. And they won’t need anywhere near the level of support that my boys do. BUT, in the interest of looking at a worst case scenario, we’ll use the 1% and assume that they’ll ALL need $30 per year.

Remember now: these are absurdly expensive assumptions: We spend $30K on TWO kids, are very happy with the results we've gotten, and a huge portion of that 1% would not need that level of support.

So…

$30,000 per year.

…times a 1% occurrence rate = $300 per year, per family.

= $25 per month.

And that’s just for the 20% of people who pay entirely for their own insurance.

For the other 80% of folks, who’s employer picks up roughly ~80% of the tab?

$5.00 per month.

FIVE BUCKS PER MONTH! Fine: Six, if you want to give a break to the other 20% and not charge their policies extra for it.

FIVE DOLLARS, maybe SIX.

That’s what it costs the people of Nevada, and the other 23 states that have arrived in the 21st Century, to prevent the Insurance Companies from discriminating against people with Autism. To save her voters FIVE DOLLARS A MONTH, ($2.50 each, if we’re talking about a married couple) she’s willing to push tens of thousands of families to the brink of (or squarely into) bankruptcy and condemn tens of thousands of children to living out their lives in state institutions, cut off from the world, unable to communicate even their basic needs and feelings in the process.

Sharron Angle? You are not only a cold, heartless, soulless, hypocritical SCUMBAG, but you’re a cold, heartless, soulless, hypocritical scumbag who’d bad at math.

And remember folks… without that help? Most of these kids would end up in state institutions. That’s what used to happen. Again, I don’t know each what that costs, but it ain’t cheap. (Consider the cost of incarcerations, and tack on whatever you think the additional overhead would be to cover the additional medical and psychiatric staff.) That’s putting aside that this is NOT what anyone would prefer or choose for themselves or their children.

I guess that makes Sharon Angle a “Fiscal Conservative.”

I guess that makes Sharon Angle “Pro-Family.”

Personally I think it makes Sharon Angle a “scumbag.”

And, if I were Conservative, just more evidence that women have no place making public policy. Hey, with stupid bitches women like Sharron Angle serving as examples, I can almost see where their misogyny comes from.


------------------------------------

BTW… I’m not throwing out the word, “hypocrite” lightly here. If you caught Keith Olberman’s WPITW on Tuesday you’d have learned that:

But our winner, Sharron Angle, the radical Republican Tea Party candidate for the Senate in Nevada. You heard her plans to phase out Social Security and Medicare and her complaints about how she has to pay for other women‘s maternity leave, and how states have to pay for kids with, air quote, autism, end air quote. They were her air quotes. And you heard her talk about how Harry Reid is a socialist or an anarchist or Marxist, or whatever he is.

Turns out Sharron Angle gets government health care insurance. Her husband is retired from the Federal Bureau of Land Management. So he gets the same federal employee health program insurance he got while he worked there. And it covers his wife Sharron, as does his pension, paid for by contributions made by current civil service employees. It‘s the civil service government equivalent of Social Security.

So the next time she whines about ending this or relieving Nevada of the burden of that, let‘s see her start by cutting off that socialist insurance she gets, her insurance that you and I pay for. Sharron Angle, hypocrite, today‘s Worst Person in the World.

Keith? I love you, man. But you're going too easy on her, and I’m going to just have to try and top you here.


------------------------------------

One last note, while I’ve admitted bias in terms on my own personal interest, I want to point out that this is no Liberal / Conservative partisan bias here on my part. The majority of states that have mandated insurance coverage for Autism are in fact traditionally considered RED STATES. More Republican leaning states have passed Autism insurance reform that Democratic leaning ones. That’s a fact. An embarrassing one that many Deomcrats are working to fix, but if there’s any partisan advantage here, the benefit remains with the Republicans! (Tea-Baggers and Sharon Angle excluded.)

For a complete list, and for more information on how you can help make insurance companies do the right thing, while at the same time saving taxpayers millions of dollars in the future and allowing more people to live productive and independent lives, please visit AutsimVotes.org.


And whatever you do, don’t vote for an stupid, autism denialist like Sharron Angle.

Immigration Reform

Before I get into immigration reform, I just want to reference THIS PIECE from MMFA. It should dispel the idea, once and for all, that crime increase when the number of "illegals" does.  Make sure any Right-Winger who argues along those get s a good hard dose of the facts first!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are three basic reason to want immigration reform, if you're already an American Citizen: (1) Racism, Xenophobia and Religious Bigotry.  (2) Concerns about jobs.  Someone may also say, "and resources" but I'll explain why that's nonsense. (3) Concerns about security.

I shouldn't have to explain the bigotry angle, especially in light of my last two posts.  And it's not just Mexicans either.  How about those Muslims?  I've actually heard people say we shouldn't give them student visas!  In the words of Gorobei Katayama, "Are you kidding me?" How else do you expect the Middle East to progress and modernize and (dare we say it?) WESTERNIZE if they're young people are not given an opportunity to see first hand what the West and Modern Life has to offer?   But bigotry is not a motivation most people are willing to admit to.  So let;s give them the benefit of the doubt for now and I'll show you why this IS in fact the primary motivation.

The second reason is JOBS, and more specifically WAGES.  Now this is the one area where elements of the Left actually get on board.  Unions and Labor advocates would rather see these jobs pay higher, and go to American labor.  But the Left's opposition to immigration reform is relatively modest compared to the full-on rant-like fear mongering of the Right.  Which is funny, because it seems that this is about the only argument the Right EVER makes in favor of American Labor. Remember: Thea re the people who hate union, fight minimum age increase, outsource jobs to china, put profit ahead of safety (Massey, I'm looking at YOU!)  It seems the only time they give a shit about American Labor is when a Mexican comes looking for an opportunity to work hard, send his kids to school and make a better life for his family.  Seeing as how every WHITE person's family did that at one point, I'd say this is, at best, despicably hypocritical and at worst... well... see reason number one.

As for them 'draining our resources'?  Look: This cheap labor?  It IS a resource.  It's a resource that every single one of us benefits from.  Sure... we could force the farm owner to pay market wages for American Labor.  They'd pay several; times as much and it would certainly cut into their profits, even as it made the bulk of our produce skyrocket in price!  Would more Americans be employed?  Maybe.  And that can be good.  But does it really HELP if everything costs more and the industry that feeds us is no longer profitable?  Those people put food on your table.  You think you do, because you PAY for it? Cry me a river.  Without them there wouldn't be enough food to BUY.  At least until those good ol' market forces kicked in and drive the price high enough to justify the production and increase the supply.  And THEN you'd be complaining about how much it cost!  So rather than bitching about your kid sitting next a Mexican in the classroom (see reason #1) maybe you should try THANKING those people who busted their asses, getting paid shit, with no benefits, for helping YOU make a better life for YOURSELF.

Now the final reason might be the most principled one.  In a post 9/11 world (doesn't it seem like every Right-Wing argument starts out that way?) we can't risk having a loosey-goosey border because a terrorist could sneak in and steal our cheese.  Now... I can get behind that REASONING... But as most of you have figured out by now, I have kin of an upside-down way of looking at things and I draw a completely different conclusion from it. I say, "Let them [pretty much]  ALL in."  Here's why:

Consider what you need for security, especially knowing that we're talking about people who can just WALK here.  You need to know WHO they are, WHERE they are and you need the ability to do a BACKGROUND CHECK to look for... Terrorists, yes,  but also Drug Dealers, Fugitives, Bandidtos, etc... (Yeah, I'm kidding about the Bandidtos.)  And in order to GET this information, you need people to be WILLING to give it.  And if you keep telling people, "No, you can't come in" and "If we find you we'll you to jail or back to Mexico" then they have no reason to comply.  Especially since it's so hard to keep track of them  anyway!  So thank about the result of having a system that tries to keep people out (IOW: Panders to reason #1): In doing so, you INCREASE the opportunity for a terrorist to sneak in and hide amongst the millions of undocumented folks.

So what would I do?  Simple.  I let anyone in who passed a simple background check, provided they registered and kept us informed of their address.  I'd let them work, they'd pay taxes (as almost all do anyway) and Id let them make a life for themselves.  They can't vote, until they're citizens, but that's their choice.  As long as they obey the law?  I'd leave them be.

Who would I keep out?  Only convicted criminals, wonted men, people of the FBI's terror list, etc... Now, you might think that THESE people wouldn't bother to register.  Well, yeah, they probably wouldn't.  But if you have someone here, who's NOT in your database, who you CAN'T confirm the status off, they'd pretty much STAND OUT, at least as compared to now, where they're one of MILLIONS.  And under a system that GIVES THEM what they want, rather than tries to DENY THEM, I 9and most people) would have a lot less sympathy for those who break the rules. And hey: If every legitimate migrant worker is registered, you can bet far more confidently that the one dude that ISN'T really does have something to hide.  In any case, it would make the authorities jobs a LOT easier, if for no other reason than they have about 0.1% of their current caseload,, and THAT would make us more secure.

As for the background check?  Shoot.  They're not applying for security clearance.  It don;t take more than a few days to (1) confirm their identity, (2) Check for warrants and (3) Check for convictions.  Clean sheet? Come on in.  But we can only do those checks if people are WILLING to cooperate.  And there's no reason to expect them to if we make them wait for YEARS, and always tell them NO, and threaten to jail or deport them.  Not when then can just walk around.

If you really want to know the difference between reason 1 and reason 3, just ask yourself : Are we trying to keep out Muslim Terrorists or Migrant Farmhands.  It an both nearly impossible and completely unnecessary to TRULY secure our southern border and let NO ONE in.  Just ain't going to happen, and I don;t know why you'd want to.  Your taxes would go up to pay for it, and your grocery bill would go up because of it.  We only need to know WHO and WHERE people are.  And anyone who;'s NOT a terrorist or a drug-dealer will gladly tell you that, if you're helping them get what they want.


If anyone wants to argue these points, please review your argument against reason #1 before doing so. ;)

Just when I think I'm out... they DRAG ME BACK IN!!!

This is NOT another post on the health care bill.  I've said my piece, and  my opinion hasn't changed.

I want to USE a provison of the health care bill, and another moronic email I got from a certain conservative I know to do a little good old fashioned ranting, and demonstrate once more that while the truth depends on your point of view, some of us have a far more defensible point of view!

Background: I have two autistic sons.  If you weren't aware of how insurance companies largely treat autsim, here's a clue, from another Michigan parent of 2 autie's, that I've linked to before, that I think that sums it up pretty nicely. That was pretty much MY experience, almost word for word, anyway.

Now... in this new health care bill there is some stuff concerning this very issue.  You can read the details here but basically: plans offered by state-based exchanges will have to cover speech/behavioral therapy for autism, and plans offered in the individual and small group markets outside the exchange will also have to cover autism. 

I will say this right up front: This bill does NOT help ME.  My family is insured by a LARGE group plan, through my employer and, like most people in Michigan and about 34 other states, will continue to see their childeren discrinimated against, and refused coverage for necessary, scientifically proven and medically necessary speech and behavioral therapy.  (And for the record, I am NOT an anti-vaxxer, and I do NOT practice ANY FORM of 'alternative medicine.'  IMHO, if 'alternative medicine' was worth a damn, it would be called "MEDICINE."  And I have little patience for arguing with those who believe otherwise so, please, DON'T BOTHER.)  In any case, my children will continue to face this discrimination.  And yeah: I'm disappointed.  (Like everyone else, for one reason or another.)

However... my opinion of the provisions IN the bill, largely reflect my opinion OF the bill: They don't go far enough but, compared to the status quo, we (the autistic communtiy) are better off now than we were a week ago.

And Autism Votes felt that, despite being disappointed that the bill didn't end autism discrimination one and for all, they should recognize the hard work that was done on our behalf by three member of congress in particular:

Representative Mike Doyle, DEMOCRAT, PA
Senator Robert Menendez DEMOCRAT, NJ and
Senator Chris Dodd, DEMOCRAT,  CT

And what to my wondering eyes did appear in my inbox, from the most conservative, Republican man I know?

"Looks like our Democratic congress dropped the ball on Autsim again!"

W. T. F.?!  WHO DROPPED THE BALL?!

Even if, as ClassicLiberal pointed out, the biggest insurance company recipient in terms of dollars is Max Baucus, the fact is the Republicans didn't offer a damn thing! NOT. A. SINGLE. BLOODY. THING!

They locked themsleves out of the debate completely and sat on their hands with their thumbs up their asses doing nothing but saying no to everything and lying about the whole thing from day one!

Riiiight.  The failure was on the part of the Democrats.  Well... it was, I guess: They kept trying to please the REPUBLICANS and get any one of those bastards to vote for these needed reforms!

That being the case, I'll be dancing naked in the 9th circle of hell before I'll accept a conservative blaming any of this bill's shortcoming on the Democrats.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the interest of full disclosure, I will have to point out that the majority of States that mandate insurance coverage, about 2/3 of them, are traditionally RED STATES.  (Not surprisingly, CT, PA and NJ are among the few Blue States that do.)  So I'm plenty pissed at some of these STATE legislatures, like Michigan's, who are run at least in part by Democrats and/or have a Democratic Governor, and haven't passed this no-brainer yet. 

But I still know who our friends in CONGRESS are!

One more post on health care, then I'm done.

Unlike most Conservatives these days, there is no one on earth that I let do my thinking for me. Granted there are some people that I AGREE WITH about 99% of the time: Professor Bob Carroll, Keith Olbermann, Rachael Maddow, Lewis Black, Eric Alterman, Jameson Foser, Eric Bohlert and Karl Frisch all come to mind. But even in those cases, if I listen or read long enough, I’m bound to come across something that causes me to raise an eyebrow or shake my head. Since I have no desire to be a cult leader myself, I certainly hope that while my “followers” enjoy reading most of what I have to say, they don’t end up agreeing with everything I post. Aside from that just being really creepy, it’s no fun for me if I never get to debate anything with anyone, and I don’t get any wisdom out it myself. We can only be made better by engaging in civilized discourse with the educated few who can really challenge our point of view.  In short: I really appreciate and cheerish the disagreements that inevitably come along.

That being said, I’d like to put up what I plan to be the last post in my ongoing back-and-forth with ClassicLiberal (and Left Hook) regarding the health care bill. [Classy, if you want the last word, I’ll gladly let you have it. ;) ] And I’m going to borrow from one of those people above to do so – namely, Rachael Maddow. She gave what I felt was a phenomenal run-down on her show Tuesday night that I think hammers home that which drives my judgment on this issue and on the bill that was just signed into law. The following is from the transcript of her 3/22 show:

The minute President Obama signs health reform into law tomorrow:

• Small businesses will begin to get relief from what has been an unpredictable and yet ever-increasing financial burden of providing coverage to their employees. Small businesses can start applying for tax credits to buy health insurance for their employees.

• Are you a senior citizen? Well, the minute President Obama signs that bill tomorrow, you will start getting help paying for your prescription drugs. That dreaded donut hole that forces way too many seniors to pay way too high out-of-pocket costs for their prescriptions — that dreaded donut hole will finally begin to close. For seniors who already hit the donut hole in their drug coverage in 2010, $250 rebate checks will be on the way to you.

As of June 21st, 90 days after the bill is signed, those high-risk pools will be up and running.

• Americans who have been deemed uninsurable because of preexisting conditions, they will finally start getting a path toward health coverage. High-risk pools will be set up for them to purchase the insurance they could never get before.

The next date to mark down on your calendar -- 90 days after that— is September 23rd.

• As of September 23rd, it will no longer be legal in this country for insurance companies to deny kids coverage because of a preexisting condition.

• As of September 23rd, insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping you when you get sick. No more rescissions.

• As of September 23rd, insurance companies can no longer impose life-time limits on your benefits.

• And if you have children, they can stay on your insurance until the age of 26.

All of that will happen in just six months. But wait, there‘s more. As of the next calendar year, as of this forthcoming January 1st:

• Insurance companies will be required to spend 80 percent to 85 percent of what they take in from you on premiums on actual medical care. If they don‘t, they will owe you the difference in the form of a rebate.

• That same day, Medicare patients will start receiving free preventive care services, no co-payments, free preventive care.

Then, after all that, in 2014,

• It will no longer be legal for insurance companies in this country to deny anyone coverage based on preexisting conditions. Those who don‘t have coverage can buy some in the health insurance exchanges that will be fully operational.

• With lifetime limits on benefits already a thing of the past, in 2014, insurance companies will not be able to impose annual limits on your benefits, either.

And that’s far from everything – it IS a 2700 page bill after all – but given the points above, there is no doubt in my mind that this IS real, meaningful reform. To say that doing away with the most egregious abuses of the system is not reform is to clearly put ideology ahead of pragmatism, to let the perfect get in the way of the good. As liberals, I’m sure we’d all like a different system. Most of us would like single payer. I still believe it will happen eventually, but it was never on the table this time around, and is just not feasible or practical in the near future for many reasons, some of which, granted, have to do with the money and corruption that drives our current political system. That’s sad, but that's the world we live in and THIS BILL, in any of its forms, was never going to change that. All the same, the REFORMS listed above are HUGE. They will save lives. They will make this system work BETTER, and if they are in fact just a starting point, can go a long way towards making the system WORK.

Saying that it won’t, just because you want a different system, to me sounds no different than the conservatives’ refusal to acknowledge the good that’s happened, and the economic progress that been made under Obama, simply because they want to do things their way, and can’t bring themselves to acknowledge that our way works too. (Works BETTER, in fact!) To say this bill is bad because it makes a system you don’t like WORK BETTER, is routing against the system every bit as much as the Right has been rooting against America since 20 January, 2009. In my opinion the liberal opposition to this bill amounts to no more than: If you make the for profit system work, we’ll never get a ‘single payer’ system. But from my own POV: If the for-profit system can be made to work, WHO CARES? The biggest problems with the for profit system – namely that those profits came from DENYING care, rather than providing it – have been swept away. (OK, fine, will be swept away by 2014.) In the mean time, there will inevitably be other issues that come up. We’ll simply deal with them.

I am not so liberal as to believe that a company making a profit, and even more of a profit, and even coming from government spending, is in and of itself a bad thing. Not when that profit is derived from providing an essential service and doing so in a way that delivers what everyone needs. I’ve heard it called “corporate welfare.” But it’s NOT; at least no more than almost ALL Government spending is. Anytime the government contracts out a service, they are doing what they’re doing here: Paying a private, for-profit corporation to provide a service for the American Public. Sometimes this is done well, sometimes this is done poorly (Blackwater, Haliburton, etc…) And we, as liberals, all know that if left to their own devices, these for-profit companies will do whatever they can to maximize their revenue and minimize there costs. To this end, insurance companies started shirking their duties in a BIG WAY by refusing to give medical coverage to those who need medical coverage! (Which was their raison d'être.) So that’s absurd! In fact, it’s indefensible. It’s EXACTLY what was wrong with our system. And, as liberals, we know that it is up to the government to create industry regulations to force these companies to behave, and compete, in a responsible fashion and in a functional environment for their customers and for society. We’ve seen how well this worked (relative to what existed before) in the Airlines, the automotive industry, regulated power and water utilities and many other industries. And the extent that companies pollute, exploit, and otherwise “externalize costs” is directly proportional to the ability of Libertarians (Conservatives) to prevent the Government from serving in this regulatory role. The regulations passed in this bill have been a long time in coming, and address the worst aspects of that previously irresponsible behavior in the pursuit of profit.

It saves lives, provides increased and protected coverage, and makes things better. It is not ‘bad’ just because it makes the less preferred system work, and you cannot claim it is not ‘real reform’ simply because the only reform you accept as real would be a complete scrapping of the system in order to bring about one that better fits your ideology. I DO believe that liberal ideology is better than conservative ideology, but I DO NOT believe in its inherent goodness or perfection. I will not judge this bill, or the system that results from it, only against liberal ideology. I will judge against what we had, what we have now, and what we still have to do. This bill goes a long way towards getting from where we are to where we need to be. That someone in the private sector will make some money off it, or because it will keep a private system in place instead of going towards a public system, in and of themselves do not make it “bad.”

I am simply not THAT liberal (or that kind of Liberal.) This can work. And if it doesn’t? Well… polls show that the American Public will support MORE reforms. So we’ll just keep going until it does, or until we have single payer. In any case, I am glad this has passed. I am glad President Obama signed it. And I hope Harry Reid grows a set, forces the reconciliation vote as soon as possible, and ass-whips any Democrat who proposes any amendments, or slows down the passage of this package in any way. The books must be closed on this.

There is so much more work to be done.

Filibuster reform

Although I’m initially pleased by the idea of Senator Bennet (D-CO) introducing Filibuster Reform, I also share some of Senator Byrd’s (D-WV) concern. There’s no doubt that the Republicans have abused the process, to bring the government to a stand still, screwing over the country in an infantile attempt to make sure the Government looks as incompetent as possible on the Democrats watch, and then trying to blame it all on the Democrats. How the voting public doesn’t recognize this as anything other than TRAITOUROIUS SABOLTAGE is beyond me.


It reminds a little of watching Jurassic Park and hearing Ian Malcolm talk about “Chaos” and “Entropy” and then ride into the sunset at the end with a smug sense of satisfaction, thinking he was right. Except that Jurassic Park wasn’t brought down by “Chaos,” or because “Life found a way.” It was SABOTAGED by a fat guy with a bad credit rating. In the Senate, the part of Newman Dennis Nedry, is being played legislatively by the Republicans, most recently by Senator Bunning (R-KY). So yeah, I’d say that some changes are needed.

My concern comes with the following examples, one from the Republicans, and one from the Democrats, in mind:

1) The “nuclear option.” If you don’t listen to Fox, you may remember that this was what Trent Lott (R-MS) called the Republican proposal at the time to do away with the filibuster for Judicial Nomination and Political Appointees, back when the Minority Democrats were trying to stop some of the more Jack-Booted Right Wingers that Bush was pushing from acquiring lifetime appointments to the bench. Basically, it would have eliminated the “Hold” procedure and force an up-or-down vote. Now I didn’t like this at the time, and I still don’t, but consider how weak the Republicans would be right now if the could put holds on every Obama appointee? They have shot themselves right in the foot! Whatever you propose, you’ve got to accept that one day the tables would be turned.

2) In 2004, when John Kerry may have vacated his Senate Seat, had he won the election and become President, the Massachusetts legislature TOOK AWAY the power of then Governor Mitt Romney (R) to appoint Senate replacements, instead insisting on holding a special election. But then, come 2009 and the death of Senator Kennedy, that same legislature, fearing a Republican victory, tried to give that power BACK to Governor Duval Patrick (D). This failed, in part because people recognized the bullshit game they were playing, and Scott Brown (R-MA) won the special.

Situations like these are why I hold, as one of my stated and most sacred principles, the following maxim:

Never assume a power you won’t grant your opponent. Never place a limitation on your opponent that you wouldn’t have placed upon yourself.

Apart from just being principled as well as both the right and decent way to behave, long term it is simply in your best interests to do so! Despite what the Republicans think, the “Golden Rule” is not, “He, who has the gold, makes the rules.”

So while I applaud Senator Bennet ’s efforts, I would caution him, and all Senators who want to meddle in these things, to consider that above maxim, and remember that the balance of power will shift, and the rules may one day end up stymieing their own ability to stop some truly egregious excesses in the future. After all: if the Republicans had won on the “Nuclear Option” Obama’s administration would be in much better shape right now, and if Massachusetts had just taken their chances with Romney’s potential Senate appointment in 2004, we’d have 60 votes in the Senate today.

Be VERY, VERY careful what you wish for.