What do you see here?

What do you see here?

Republican fear-mongering about what will happen is people are allowed to use the rest-room of their choosing, according to their gender-identity?

You might want to think again.

This is actually what all those Republican Anti-trans bathroom bills are CAUSING.
(And the exact point I no doubt did a poor job of making in the last video I did on the topic.)

Traitors and Trangressions

Up tonight... John Boehner, Ben Carver and Biggots in North Carolina.



(Yeah... I've got to say that that very poor George Takei impression at the end sounded a LOT better in my head!)

UPDATE: Earlier today, Dr. Carson apologized for his comments likening gay people to prison rapists. Apparently his comment were so idiotic that even Dr. Carson realized it!

Leonard Nimoy, Net Neutrality and Bill O'Rielly

Felling better, so here it goes:



Here is the Media Matters piece that I mentioned where, once again, Rush Limbaugh shows that he has *NO. FUCKING. IDEA.* what he's talking about.

In addition, here is a thoroughly dishonest assessment from Fox News,  some truly deranged stuff from a PA Radio Host, and the origin of the "Obama-net" smear.  (I wonder how Al Gore feels about that, you know, havign invented it and all...)

And finally, here is an actually OBJECTIVE, FACTUAL assessment on why this is important, and why the opposition and corporate arguments against it are BULLSHIT.

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!

Happy New Year!

*exhale*

Long break. Very long. And it's good to be back.

Before I get into anything substantial, over the holiday I saw four movies and read a book that I'd like to give my opinions on.

The first was Sleuth starring Michale Cain and Jude Law.  This was a remake of the 1972 Film starring Sir Laurence Olivier and (ironically) Michael Caine. I've not seen the original, but after seeing the performances or Cain and Law, I'd really like to. I highly re-commend this based mainly on the witty verbal banter that goes on between the two leads as each tries to put the other in his place. It's dry British humor and polite insults at their best. Really great stuff. And it's also interesting as it takes place entirely within a single setting (a single SET, even) and possibly with the smallest cast ever filmed, outside of a stand-up comedy routine. Very interesting and if you (still) have Netflix, if well worth a spot in your queue.

The Second was The Invention of Lying starring Ricky Gervais, Jennifer Garner, Rob Lowe and Jonah Hill. (Side note: DW went to grade school with Jennifer Garner. For real!)  An interesting high concept film, that imagines a world in which humans (except for ONE MAN) are incapable of lying, and people's words are always taken at face value.  What it lacked in production value and dynamic performances (despite a very talented cast, which also included Louis C.K., Tina Fey, Jefferey Tambor and Christopher Guest) it made up for in what I consider to be a fairly profound philosophical exploration of what we consider knowledge, how dogma forms, and the nature of humanity well beyond the fairly trivial deceits that we use to simply get through the day without killing each other. One thing I found particularly apt and amusing is that before the main character learned how to lie, there was NO RELIGION. And after he "invented" lying, he almost immediately (albeit inadvertently) started Religion and the belief in God and heaven. (And almost immediately the irreverent humans started asking questions and picking it apart. In any case, it was an amusing and had some pretty profound statements about humanity and religion (and it REALLY does a job on MARKETING!) and for that reason believe that it's well worth giving a chance. (Again, one for the Netflix queue.)

Third was The Muppets, starring Jason Segal, Amy Adams and (of course) Kermit the Frog and Company.  OK, so I saw with my kids, but I also saw it as a 38 year old kid who to this day still counts Jim Henson amongst his heroes.  I haven't seen ALL of the Muppet Movies over the years, but I've seem most and aside from the the original Muppet Movie (and apparently the Muppet Christmas Carol, which I haven't seen but I've been told is one of the best renditions ever done) most have been crap.  This one? Well, this one took me back a bit.  I'm only slightly ashamed to say that I shed more than a single tear hearing Brian Henson (sorry, it was Steve Whitmore!) singing "Rainbow Connection" through his Father's old avatar.  Also going for it was Fox's collective freak-out over the fact that it "secretly" (secretly!) tries to "turn your kids into liberals." (I mean... Jim Henson was a hippie? Who knew?!)  But yeah, this one really captured the spirit of what the Muppets had back when Jim was still running the show - arguably the first time Brian Henson (steve Whitmore) has REALLY gotten it right. If you loved them as a kid, you SHOULD see this.  There are just a few things I do have to point out... First off? Nowhere near the level of celebrity cameo's as in teh past. You could making a drinking game out of that in the first movie. This movie? I counted maybe... like three.  The musical numbers... *gag*. Too many,m and they were almost all sung by humans. Somehow...? It just goes down easier when it the Muppets doing the singing. And finally? It's very... dark. And fairly depression. It doesn't even END well, unless you include the throwaway ending during the credits. It had a really dark and depressing and somber tone throughout so many scenes. It's not a bad thing, necessarily, but it's a far cry for the sunshine and rainbows of the first movie.  (Of course this country, and world, is a far cry from the one Jim Henson lived in and made better by his presence, so maybe that's appropriate.)

Finally, we saw The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo with Daniel Craig, Rooney Mara and Christopher Plummer. Holy shit, what a fucking trip! AWESOME movie, MUST SE. In fact, it was so good that I plan to see the original Swedish version.  Mara gives a performance the likes of which you will likely never see again, immersing herself in the character on a level that I would not have imagined was possible. She deserves an Oscar, but (as usual) the Academy will likely fuck her over in favor of a  more bankable starlet.  But seriously: SEE IT. It's brutal, raw, in-your-face and AMAZING.  Shoot... I may even go back and read the book!

Speaking of books...

Over the break I read Killing Lincoln, by (of all people) Bill O'Rielly.  And while it may seem an incredible oddity for me to endorse ANYTHING by that buffoon, I have to admit: It made for one HELL of a read! Yeah, I was aware of a couple of historic inaccuracies, but overall I found it to be very balanced (even objective!) from a political standpoint and, for the most part, present a very conventional, non-revisionist view of the historical events being depicted. (Hey: It was Bill O'Rielly, not Glenn Beck!)  It's reads more like a novel than an historical text, and does an amazing job of really putting you on the ground, in the taverns and saloons, on the battlefields and into the halls of power, where the events of history played out for better and for worse.  I'd never thought I'd say it, but...

Bill O'Rielly did a fantastic job with this, and it is well worth giving it a read.

You will come away with a greater appreciation for the Civil War, and for what Lincoln, Grant, Lee, the Soldiers, the Slaves, the North, the South and Lincoln himself were facing during these times of trial.

Now, having read this, it got me to thinking...

Where the hell does all this HATE all this RAW, VISCERAL, unfiltered and unadulterated HATRED of  President Obama come from? From the Right, I mean. Seriously. What has this man DONE to justify this level of blood-boiling HATE?

While it's been largely lost to myth, one of the things that most people forget is that Abraham Lincoln was HATED, really hated and reviled by many, MANY people in this country during the Civil War, and immediately after and leading up to his assassination.  And really, regardless of how we in our modern and relatively progressive world might look back on the issue of Slavery, if you put yourself in the South at that time, one can see WHY so many felt this way.  Beyond the mere economic upheaval that abolition would bring about, these people's very ways of life were being turned upside down: Blacks as equals. Black VOTING. Blacks marrying white women, even! Holy crap: One day, one might even run for president!  We can laugh now, but when one considers the Country that Lincoln was endeavouring to Govern (and were it not for his untimely death, rebuild) it is easy to understand where those feelings come from.

Fast forward almost exactly one hundred years to Lyndon Johnson and the Civil Rights Act. Again, arguably the most partisan and divided this country had been since the Civil War and through to today. And again, regardless of how you feel about Jim Crow and segregation, it it not difficult to appreciate how profound that legislation was, and the impact it would have on what so many people considered "normal, moral and decent" for so many years.  We may shake our heads now, but in there shoes one can see why Johnson "lost the South for a Generation." (Actually Lyndon, it's been THREE so far, and counting!)

And fine... even when progressives and liberals are on the "winning side" (which is merely to say the RIGHT one, which history has shown us to ALWAYS be on) it's not hard to appreciate where the bitterness comes from when looking at someone like Lincoln, Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson.  What I DON'T understand is how these same people (generationally speaking, the Right / Conservatives) can find the same (or even a greater) level of hatred for a guy who HASN'T DONE ANYTHING.

(And not doing anything, in this case, is a reason for LIBERALS to dislike him, rather than Conservatives!)

Example: We're watching TV and the Kennedy Center Honors are up next.  And my Mother says to my Father, "Well, we don't need to watch that, unless you want to see Obama jigabooing it up on stage."

OK. Now I KNOW that my parents are Conservative Republicans, but really?  "Jigabooing?" Jigaboo isn't even a VERB!  It a NOUN. And it's second to "Nigger" as arguably the most racist and hateful noun in the dictionary! Look... You can support whichever candidate you want, but I doubt my mother could even articulate WHY she hates Obama so much. I mean... she's not racist. *cough, cough* And, as I and a thousand other bloggers have already pointed out: OBAMA HASN'T DONE ANYTHING!

He hasn't freed the slaves! He hasn't reversed a hundred years of lynching and segregation!

Shit: He hasn't even brought about low-cost health care!

(Or stopped the previous administration's policies of torture, rendition and murdering American Citizens without trial!  Again: A reason for LIBERALS to hate him, but Conservatives are he ones who STARTED that shit! They should LOVE this guy!)

And I've asked this question before: Absent racism, what explanation IS THERE to justify this level of hatred form the Right? What has Obama ACTUALLY DONE that is so offensive to them? Seriously. And they wonder why all we're left is:

1) He's black.
2) He's a Democrat.
3) He's the President.

And that's two out of three things he has in common with Eighteen other presidents, few of which (three or four) were anywhere near as reviled as much as this man.  But to be fair... this country ISN'T going to tar itself apart and fall into civil war over Obama's policies.  So... I just don;'t get it.

THANK YOU , Bill O'Rielly (of all people) for driving home that perspective.

"Tell Jake to sleep on the roof."

If you took Human Sexuality in college, that line may sound familiar to you.

I want to clarify a small part of my last post.  As I was going through my list of examples of social progress that the Conservatives had instinctively fought against and/or sought to undo, I mentioned "Reproductive Freedom."  And based on the ascending chronology of the items in the list, it would be reasonable to conclude that I intended that as no more than a euphemism for "Abortion."  Well... yes and no.  Sadly, YES, Abortion is part of what I'm talking about.  And admittedly it's curious thing to consider as "social progress" and to defend as such. However, while I feel that Abortion is a sin and a tragedy to use as a mere form of Contraception, it must be considered is part of the overarching issue of Contraceptive Rights, and the right of a woman to have a say in whether or not she will bear one man's children, or indeed ANY children.  Take away abortion, and what you've got left is something that was beautifully, and rather appropriately, characterized by Keith Olbermann as "The Rapist's Bill of Rights."  (Note: I'm sorry - I cannot find a proper attribution of that epithet. I first heard it from Olbermann, but it may well have been first said by someone else.)

No before we get sidetracked or a discussion about Abortion alone, I would like you to read the following exert from the autobiography of Margret Sanger - a feminist, nurse, reproductive rights pioneer and founder of Planned Parenthood.  More of it can be found here. I read this in college, and remembered it clearly, because it just about destroyed me.  THIS is the world that the other side of the slippery slope - the one that would limit a woman's reproductive freedom - leads to:


Then one stifling mid-July day of 1912 I was summoned to a Grand Street tenement. My patient was a small, slight Russian Jewess, about twenty-eight years old, of the special cast of feature to which suffering lends a madonna-like expression. The cramped three-room apartment was in a sorry state of turmoil. Jake Sachs, a truck driver scarcely older than his wife, had come home to find the three children crying and her unconscious from the effects of a self-induced abortion. He had called the nearest doctor, who in turn had sent for me. Jake's earnings were trifling, and most of them had gone to keep the none-too-strong children clean and properly fed. But his wife's ingenuity had helped them to save a little, and this he was glad to spend on a nurse rather than have her go to a hospital.


The doctor and I settled ourselves to the task of fighting the septicemia. Never had I worked so fast, never so concentratedly.


Jake was more kind and thoughtful than many of the husbands I had encountered. He loved his children, and had always helped his wife wash and dress them. He had brought water up and carried garbage down before he left in the morning, and did as much as he could for me while he anxiously watched her progress.


After a fortnight Mrs. Sachs' recovery was in sight. As I was preparing to leave the fragile patient to take up her difficult life once more, she finally voiced her fears, "Another baby will finish me, I suppose?"


"It's too early to talk about that," I temporized.


But when the doctor came to make his last call, I drew him aside. "Mrs. Sachs is terribly worried about having another baby."


"She well may be," replied the doctor, and then he stood before her and said, "Any more such capers, young woman, and there'll be no need to send for me."


"I know, doctor," she replied timidly, "but," and she hesitated as though it took all her courage to say it, "what can I do to prevent it?"


The doctor was a kindly man, and he had worked hard to save her, but such incidents had become so familiar to him that he-had long since lost whatever delicacy he might once have had. He laughed good-naturedly. "You want to have your cake and eat it too, do you? Well, it can't be done."


Then picking up his hat and bag to depart he said, "Tell Jake to sleep on the roof."


I glanced quickly to Mrs. Sachs. Even through my sudden tears I could see stamped on her face an expression of absolute despair. We simply looked at each other, saying no word until the door had closed behind the doctor. Then she lifted her thin, blue-veined hands and clasped them beseechingly. "He can't understand. He's only a man. But you do, don't you? Please tell me the secret, and I'll never breathe it to a soul. Please!"


These were not the words of someone trying to get a job, or borrow something from a friend, or asking the bank for a few more days to make their payment.  This was a mother, wife and human being who was looking for a way NOT TO DIE.

"Tell Jake to sleep on the roof."

And while you're mulling that over, consider that this took place in 1912: A time when 1% of women - 1 in 100 - still died in childbirth in the U.S. (Roughly 100x as many as today's rate of 11 in 100,000).  And Condoms and Diaphragms? The only existing forms of contraception, which had been around for thousands of years in one form or another? WERE ILLEGAL. And they remained illegal until Sanger "won" a court battle in 1918, appealing her 1917 Conviction for disseminating information (!) about birth control. I say "won" because her Conviction was upheld (!!) but the court issued a ruling that finally allowed Doctors to prescribe contraception.

Think about that.  So strong was the movement AGAINST this basic tenet of Woman's Right's that it took a COURT CASE to allow even DOCTOR'S to prescribe it!  (Meaning that, even in the case of LIFE THREATENING MEDICAL NEED, they had previously been barred from doing so!)

Remember: "Tell Jake to sleep on the roof."

That was their answer.  That was society's answer. 

And before anyone tries to explain to this humble blogger that the modern Conservative movement has nothing against Contraception (as long as teenagers never get a hold it, anyway *facepalm*, *shakes head*) and only one modern Church (the bass-ackwards and psychotic Catholic Church, which I am sorry to say I was raised in) opposes it's use, remember that I said that it was not ONLY about abortion.  Just as the modern (Republican) church opposes abortion, who do you think it was that lead the crusade against contraception before and at the turn of the century?

Why, who else? That great bastion of Conservatism, the MOTHERFUCKING CHURCH!  (Who, at the time, also considered it a sin for a wife not to avail herself to the sexual advances of her lawful husband, don't forget!)

Remember: "Tell Jake to sleep on the roof."

And in case you are wondering? There IS more to the story, and it does not end well...


The telephone rang one evening three months later, and Jake Sachs' agitated voice begged me to come at once; his wife was sick again and from the same cause. For a wild moment I thought of sending someone else, but actually, of course, I hurried into my uniform, caught up my bag, and started out. All the way I longed for a subway wreck, an explosion, anything to keep me from having to enter that home again. But nothing happened, even to delay me. I turned into the dingy doorway and climbed the familiar stairs once more. The children were there, young little things.



Mrs. Sachs was in a coma and died within ten minutes. I folded,her still hands across her breast, remembering how they had pleaded with me, begging so humbly for the knowledge which was her right. I drew a sheet over her pallid face. Jake was sobbing, running his hands through his hair and pulling it out like an insane person. Over and over again he wailed, "My God! My God! My God!"


So let me rephrase the sentiment that I was trying to express in my lats post:

At every crossroads on the path that leads to the future, tradition has placed 10,000 men to guard the past.

Or, to put in a less artificially politically-neutral way:
 
At every crossroads on the path that leads to the social progress, tradition has placed 10,000 Conservatives to hinder it.

And remember the statement on the Bumper sticker that led to the whole rant:

Evil flourishes when good men doing nothing.

Well... If anyone still has issues with my labelling of "Reproductive Freedom" as a great and defensible milestone of profound social progress, or for that matter any of you Right Wing Pricks who would spread all manner of lies about Planned Parenthood, and even Sanger herself, just to score cheap political points from the abortion (*see below) issue, please, by all means, come on over here a second so I CAN HIT YOU IN THE HEAD WITH A BRICK!

Do you see what's been written on the back of it?

"Tell Jake to sleep on the roof."

(And... uh... I think I also wrote "Fuck You" on the other side...)


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

*It is worth noting that Sanger herself was opposed to abortion:

...we explained simply what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way — no matter how early it was performed it was taking a life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way — it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun.

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in An Autobiography, 1938

So, really, all you people who are out there (on the 'Net, or in the Media) lying about Sanger?
I've got a brick here with your name on one of the remaining sides!


More on Margret Sanger.  More. And more.

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.

"Baby Killer" is what now passes for civil discourse.

I was going to finally get around to doing that elementray course on Keyensian economics when I ran accross THIS BULLSHIT.  So Keyenes will have to wait.  First I HAVE to deal with these funny-mentalist, anti-aboprtion, pro-"life" (pro-DEATH really, and I'll explain why) anti-abortion fucks.  I am sick and tired of the lying, right-wing, hypocritcial, uber-christian BASTADRDS.  And they have now elevated themselves, officially, to the status of "MURDERERS."  Here why...

No one, and I do me NO ONE - not Glenn Beck (because he's an idiot) and not ClassicLiberal (to give the opposite example - liberal and well-infomred) can deny that this health care bill will SAVE LIVES.  And I've said many times now that Classic is absolutely right on his FACTS, (unlike the Glenn  Beck crowd.)  And I hope that everyone read what he had to say, because it IS important. But for every flaw he's found, I'm sure even he would have to admit that, relative to the STATUS QUO, this bill will SAVE LIVES.  And it does so by elimintating the PREEXSISTING CONDITIONS.  I know, I know... not soon enough, 'kids only' for the next four years, $100 a day fine, yeah, yeah... Like I said, 'If you want the flaws, READ HIS BLOG.'  Good points all. And I don't claim it's perfect. But I'm not comparing it to what MIGHT HAVE BEEN.  Compared to WHAT WE HAVE NOW, this bill will SAVE LIVES.  How many?  Well, Harvard says 40,000 die every year from lack of coverage, but this bill doesn't cover everyone, so I don't like that number.   But potentially, it's every Cancer, Aids, Diabetes, Lupus, Transplant, etc... patient that ever changes jobs, loses their job, has their policy cancelled or wants to find a new policy.  Because, in each case, if you are denied medicine, you start DYING.  And if you're denied insurance you're denied medicine. (These thigns are EXPENSIVE.  I know Ruch Limbugh thinks that every pulls down AM Radio Talk Show Host money, but that just ain't the case!)  And if that medicine comes too late, you either DIE SOONER, or you live with whatever complications arose while you waited for that medicine.  So, bottom line... if you claim to value LIFE, you MUST. MUST. MUST. Support this bill on those grounds.  Whatever flaws it may have, long term, it gets rid of preexisting condition.  And THAT will SAVE LIVES.

So I find it ironic that some of the loudest opponents of this bill are actually people who call themselves "PRO-LIFE." Now... Let's take a look at their logic: Right now there are X number of Cancer, Aids, Diabetes, Lupus, Transplant, etc... patients - actual, grown, living Amercian Citizens - who are DYING, RIGHT NOW for lack of medical care and medicine simply because they are being denied coverage by their insurance companies (or being cancelled outright) for no other reason than... THEY'RE SICK.    BUT... according to these psychopathic Right-Wingers, we CAN'T extend coverage to them, or guarentee the coverage they're PAYING FOR, because doing so MIGHT mean that SOMEONE ELSE might ONE DAY have an abortion.  That's right: The PRO-LIFE position is to let thousands of ACTUAL, LIVING PEOPLE DIE because they're might be a slight uptick in the number of abortions that happen.  (Note: Passage or non-passage of this bill will have NO impact, whatsoever, on the millions of abortions that happen every year anyway.)

Well... seeing as how abortion is LEGAL, I think there a word or two that would describe someone who would sacrifice thousands of people over an essentially unrelated political point.  Personally, I think  MURDERER says it best.

So we have DEATH PANELS, folks.  But they're not in this bill.  They're in the boardrooms of the insurance companies and the in the form of every politician who opposes this bill on any grounds not covered over on Left Hook.  And since I support the death penalty - rare, for a liberal, but I DO - I can say right now, that I honestly believe that any politican who opposes this bill on ANTI-ABORTION grounds deserves to HUNG BY HIS NECK UNTIL HE BE DEAD, unless he is arguing for a better system. (Kuchinich, under this clause, gets a pass.)

And don't be overly concered for them: Most of these same 'pro-lifers' fully support the Death Penalty.  So fine: Let's give it to them.  The blood of every person who would die from lack of coverage, due to prexsisting condition is on their hands, should they chose to deny them on "pro-life" grounds.  Saying "No" to a cancer patient because helping them MIGHT lead to someone else possibly having an abortion at some point in the future is MADNESS. Or, more clearly: It's MURDER. 

There are reasons to oppose this bill.  I don't oppose it, personally, but I DO acknowledge the legitimate concerns that are out there.  ABORTION is not one of them.  GROW UP, you stupid fucks: It's a LEGAL PROCEDURE.  That you've been unable to change the law is not a legitimate reason to KILL EVERYONE WHO THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY DEEMS TOO EXPENSIVE TO SAVE.  The PRO-LIFE lobby has now MADE THEMSELVES into the de facto DEATH PANEL. 

They must be so proud.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And besdies... we all know that the Republcians don't REALLY want to outlaw abortion.  If they did? What reason would all that white trash then have to keep voting for them? (Well Gay Marriage, maybe, but I digress.)  Without the abortion wedge, people might start voting in their economic interests again, and that's the LAST THING the Republicans want!

"Terrific" Article on Obama from "the WSJ"

I want to take a break from the more controversial stuff for a little while, and go back to preaching the choir for a bit.  I need a break. LOL

So I'd like to share with you some of the e-mail that I occasionally receive from my conservative friends, family and co-workers.  Mind you, these are all people I love and/or respect, but I just cannot reconcile my generally positive view of them with some of the absolute trash they forward on from their inbox.  It's like these otherwise sane, mostly educated, usually intelligent people, just turn their brains off and let their eyes glave over when they get a few words of conservatism thrown their way.  It's insane. 

Anyway, I recently got the following email from my Dad. 

The subject field read: FW: A MUST READ!!! Wall Street Journal Article on Obama

It was described as a

"Terrific Article on Obama ! ! !" and an "Article from the Wall Street Journal Form by Eddie Sessions:"

Now... first off, I'll bet the house that my father honestly believes that "Eddie Sessions" is a WSJ contributor, and they Journal actually PRINTED this piece of crap.  I'm sure he has no idea that anyone can write whatever they want to on the WSJ FORUM, including himself and me.  As "terrific" as this write-up is, and as much as Uncle Ruppert has corrupted the once proud Journal, I think it's telling that even HE [Murdoch] knows this is crap, and that it's lack of veracity, utility and over-all quality is self evident for all to see. (So while he's perfectly willing to LIE, he recognizes THIS LIE as being so absurd that it's not even USEFUL.)  Here's the "terrific article on Obama" from the "WSJ" (forum.)

"I have this theory about Barack Obama. I think he's led a kind of make-believe life in which money was provided and doors were opened because at some point early on somebody or some group took a look at this tall, good looking, half-white, half-black, young man with an exotic African/Muslim name and concluded he could be guided toward a life in politics where his facile speaking skills could even put him in the White House."

Opening paragraph: One sentence.  Not a good sign, right at the onset.  It's a nice "theory" though... let's see if this simpleton can produce any EVIDENCE to support it...

In a very real way, he has been a young man in a very big hurry. Who else do you know has written two memoirs before the age of 45? "Dreams of My Father" was published in 1995 when he was only 34 years old. The "Audacity of Hope" followed in 2006. If, indeed, he did write them himself. There are some who think that his mentor and friend, Bill Ayers, a man who calls himself a "communist with a small 'c'" was the real author.

Who else do I know who's written their memoir by age 45?  I don't know.  But who else has been elected President by age 47?  Must have a pretyt interesting life.  I'm not sure why it's significant in any negative way that his previous book was published by age 34.  Seems rather a positive accomplishment, until... ***BULLSHIT ALERT***  it was written by his "communist" "friend" Bill Ayers.  You know... that close friend he barely knows.  Does Ayers get royalties from the book he wrote?  Seems he should if that were the case.  I guess it all part of the conspiracy to get a Muslim, Communist, puppet of Bill Ayers in the White House.  (Cuckoo - Cuckoo - Cuckoo.  Either it's 3:00 or this guy's crazy!)

His political skills consisted of rarely voting on anything that might be deemed controversial.. He went from a legislator in the Illinois legislature to the Senator from that state because he had the good fortune of having Mayor Daley's formidable political machine at his disposal.

OK, so... you can't find any votes you actually disagree with, so you go with the old "rarely voted on anything controversial" shar.  The next sentence pretty much means he was a Democrat from Chicago.  I'm not sure why that machinery benefited him as opposed to any other Democrat.  But, I guess those Daly's have a really good record when it comes to racial issues.  NOT!

He was in the U.S.. Senate so briefly that his bid for the presidency was either an act of astonishing self-confidence or part of some greater game plan that had been determined before he first stepped foot in the Capital. How, many must wonder, was he selected to be a 2004 keynote speaker at the Democrat convention that nominated John Kerry when virtually no one had ever even heard of him before?

So we're back to the false dilemma of either arrogance or a conspiracy that's to explain for the fact the HE WON THE ELECTION.  (Perish the though that he was the best man for the job.)  As for the second part, it might just be possible that the Howard Dean gets his knowledge and information from more that just Right Wing sources.  Just sayin'.  Also, it's becoming obvious this was written by a conservative, because all he's doing to support his "theory" is essentially giving more "theories" - Asking [scary sounding] questions, and making [ealisy debunked] implications rather than pointing to any actual FACTS to support his "theory." 

He outmaneuvered Hillary Clinton in primaries. He took Iowa by storm. A charming young man, an anomaly in the state with a very small black population, he oozed "cool" in a place where agriculture was the antithesis of cool. He dazzled the locals. And he had an army of volunteers drawn to a charisma that hid any real substance.

WTF does this even mean?  Being "cool" is somehow bad becasue famers aren't cool?  Maybe that's not it, but I just don't get it.  Remember: OBAMA was the one who knew thee guys grew Arugula, while it was the RW'ers who made fun of that and acted like ignorant morons.  But he certainly seemed to hit it of with them well enough.  Also, I don't think he meant that last bit: His "charisma" "hid" "any real substance."  I'm pretty sure he meant "hid any LACK of real substance." But that's also a matter of opinion.  So far, I'd say it's the "terrific article" that lacks any real substance.

And then he had the great good fortune of having the Republicans select one of the most inept candidates for the presidency since Bob Dole. And then John McCain did something crazy. He picked Sarah Palin, an unknown female governor from the very distant state of Alaska . It was a ticket that was reminiscent of 1984's Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro and they went down to defeat.

 The most inept candidate since BOB DOLE?!  OMG!  The ONLY republican candidate between Bob Dole and John McCain was GEORGE WALKER BUSH!!!  I'd say, clearly, that HE was the most inept candidate they've fielded is YEARS! DECADES! Shit, GENERATIONS! You'd have to go back to HERBERT HOOVER to find a worse President and ALF LANDON to find a worse candidate! You've got to stand gobsmacked at the lack of... what? SHAME? SELF-AWARENESS? Of someone who can construct conspiracy theories about OBAMA's road to the White House and suggest that Dole and McCain were inept, but BUSH was somehow both QUALIFIED and LEGITIMATE.  Remember... this was a "terrific article."

The mainstream political media fell in love with him. It was a schoolgirl crush with febrile commentators like Chris Mathews swooning then and now over the man.. The venom directed against McCain and, in particular, Palin, was extraordinary.

Wha...? First of all... Mathews in particular has a long history of kissing Republican ass, especially McCain and Giulliani, but others as well.  (MMFA named in "misinformer of the year" in 2005! Behold the liberal media!) And this "schoolgirl crush" nonsense is just the sour grapes of someone who's party lacks any charismatic eloquent speakers.  Just because YOU disagree with his policies doesn't mean he does a bad job PRESENTING them.  Also... just one paragraph ago you said McCain was CRAZY for picking Palin, who somehow transformed him into Walter Modale c.1984?  Dude? Seriously: The press did all it could to carry Palin.  They were genuinely interested in learning more about this "unknown." It's not the press' fault that she's dumb as a stone, and can't remember the name of a single newspaper.  (Or a supreme court decision, other than Roe v Wade, to give as an example of the 'Judicial Activism' she was campaigning against at the time!)  If this article had been about PALIN, the "theory" and "evidence" and conspiracy theories, while still weak, would be a lot closer to the truth.  Amazing how much these people project.

Now, nearly a full year into his first term, all of those gilded years leading up to the White House have left him unprepared to be President. Left to his own instincts, he has a talent for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. It swiftly became a joke that he could not deliver even the briefest of statements without the ever-present Tele-Prompters.

The "joke" is one that only circulates among right-wingers who would also call this "article" "terrific," can't think of anything to criticize him on substantively and are too lazy to even make something else up.  And it's a tired one.  EVERYONE use teleprompters, and Obama's repeatedly been shown to be better on his feet that McCain or Palin.  Again: PROJECTION.  Put YOUR OWN FLAWS onto someone else, so no one will notice them in YOU.  Also, I'll say it again: Just because YOU disagree with someone, that doesn't mean he said "the wrong thing."  50% of these "wrong thing's" have been outright misquotes and the rest have been things that actually MAKE A LOT OF SENSE, assuming your not blinded by right-wing group-think, or outright racism, and actually THINK about them.

Far worse, however, is his capacity to want to "wish away" some terrible realities, not the least of which is the Islamist intention to destroy America and enslave the West. Any student of history knows how swiftly Islam initially spread. It knocked on the doors of Europe , having gained a foothold in Spain ..

Refresh my memory... WHO was it that ignored the threat of Militant Islam during his first year in office?  George... something or other? (Weren't there two REALLY BIG buildings that used to be here?)  Remember folks: PROJECTION.  Whatever you biggest flaw is, make sure you say it about the OTHER GUY.  You'll look that much better by comparison.  Doesn't have to be true either. The press never bothers with mundane thigns like FACT-CHECKING anymore.  Whoever says it first WINS.  (And that will ALWAYS be the Right, since the Left don't actually possess these flaws.  So... nothing to project!)

The great crowds that greeted him at home or on his campaign "world tour" were no substitute for having even the slightest grasp of history and the reality of a world filled with really bad people with really bad intentions.

Again... I'm almost as stunned by the writer's 'grasp of history' as I am by the evidence, or lack thereof, that he presents to support this "theory."  Remember: "TERRIFIC ARTICLE." Not 'ignorant rant by some loser on an internet forum,' but a "terrific article" by the "Wall Street Journal" no less!

Oddly and perhaps even inevitably, his political experience, a cakewalk, has positioned him to destroy the Democrat Party's hold on power in Congress because in the end it was never about the Party. It was always about his communist ideology, learned at an early age from family, mentors, college professors, and extreme leftist friends and colleagues.

Again: EVIDENCE? What "communist ideology"?!  Can this moron point to ONE THING that Obama has done that has even a HINT of "communist ideology" in it? No. But why do you need evidence when you're preaching to the choir?  Remember: "Terrific Article."

Obama is a man who could deliver a snap judgment about a Boston police officer who arrested an "obstreperous" Harvard professor-friend, but would warn Americans against "jumping to conclusions" about a mass murderer at Fort Hood who shouted "Allahu Akbar." The absurdity of that was lost on no one. He has since compounded this by calling the Christmas bomber "an isolated extremist" only to have to admit a day or two later that he was part of an al Qaeda plot.

Gates was being questioned by police for breaking into his own house.  No matter what else happened, that's the bottom line.  Apparently, the writer here sees the same wisdom in that that he sees in LYNCH MOBS.  Now... so do I!  But where I see NONE, he sees 'the way things ought to be.'

He is a man who could strive to close down our detention facility at Guantanamo even though those released were known to have returned to the battlefield against America .. He could even instruct his Attorney General to afford the perpetrator of 9/11 a civil trial when no one else would ever even consider such an obscenity. And he is a man who could wait three days before having anything to say about the perpetrator of yet another terrorist attack on Americans and then have to elaborate on his remarks the following day because his first statement was so lame.

Gitmo has written Al-Quaeda's propaganda for them since the day it opened.  And the last time I checked, "fair trials" was one of the "American Values" we were fighting to DEFEND!  I thought the militant Muslims wanted to destroy our freedoma? WHY, therefore, would we want to HELP THEM succeed?!  Oh yeah... and Bush waited FIVE DAYS to make a statement following Richard Reid's failed shoe-bomb attack, so let's get over the fact that Obama waited three.  Again: Whether or not comments are "lame" is a matter of opinion.  Personally, given the propensity of the RW press to constantly mischaracterize his words, I can't see how there's anything wrong with a little "clarification."

The pattern repeats itself. He either blames any problem on the Bush administration or he naively seeks to wish away the truth.

WHO'S trying to "wish away the truth" here?  Are you beginning to see what I mean by a 'lack of self awareness?'  Remember: "Terrific Wall Street Journal Article."

Knock, knock.. Anyone home? Anyone there? Barack Obama exists only as the sock puppet of his handlers, of the people who have maneuvered and manufactured this pathetic individual's life.

It the author who's "pathetic" here.  He's yet to name WHO this 'sock puppet's' "handlers" ARE, or offer any EVIDENCE of their existance.  But a crazy conspiracy theory must be more comforting than admitting (1) that you're wrong. (2) That you're misinfoimred. (3) That you've been lied to for going on 20 years now by the RW media. (4) That your entire political philosophy and world view are informed by these lies, and you really are no more than a mindless automaton still clinging to the false words of it's master.  I can see why the author wouldn't want to consider that possibility.

When anyone else would quickly and easily produce a birth certificate, this man has spent over a million dollars to deny access to his. Most other documents, the paper trail we all leave in our wake, have been sequestered from review. He has lived a make-believe life whose true facts remain hidden.

Just curious, because I don't really watch them but does even Fox News still take the Birther's seriously?  I've got a newsflash for this intrepid reporter: He DID produce it.  He also put it on his website and had it authenticated by several official sources.  He did not spend so much as a single penny to "keep it hidden."  As for the "facts" about his "life?"  Well... as you pointed out in your second paragraph, he's written two books covering two generations of his family and then some.  WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT TO KNOW?!

The REAL question is: What "facts" will you be willing to accept?

We laugh at the ventriloquist's dummy, but what do you do when the dummy is President of the United States of America ?"

Well, speaking for myself, I counted the days until January 20th, 2009.  I also cursed the Supreme Court decision in Bsh v Gore as often as I could. (Now THAT was 'judicial actvism'!) What I DIDN'T do, and IMHO have never done, is to write a piece of crap like this and email to all my friends claiming it's a "terrific article" from the "Wall Street Journal."

If the Wll Street Journal even PRINTED this piece of crap, this blog deserves the PULLITZER Prize.

So if I ever seem overly sensitive or angry, just remember: THIS is what I have to put up with! LOL

Have a nice weekend everyone!

I urge everyone to go and read ClassicLiberal's reply to my earlier post (here) on the health care bill, over on Left Hook.  He really does a great job summing up the Left's critiques and his own frustration with the current bill.  And while I still disagree with his end judgement on the matter, as always he makes a strong, pationate, well-informed case.  And honestly, I really can't dispute most of his points. 

So check it out. 

And Left Hook's really worth your while to read, in general.  If I ever need to solicit the position of someone who is decidely to the Left of ME, he's the first place I'll go!

The Health Care Bill

Things have been busy at work the past couple weeks (the car makers must be making up for last year!) and I've hardly had any time to put my two-cents in over of MMFA lately. (Which is a good thing: in this economy, and in Michigan of all places, I'd rather have too little time on my hands than too much! LOL) So I was really rushed in this thread, so I wanted to come back and put my piece on the table regarding the pending health care legislation...

...and I don't suppose too many people, on either side of the issue, will like what I have to say about it. So let put a few "givens" out there, right up front.

1) I HATE insurance companies.  We all know the multitude of ways that they screw people over, and I'm no different. My story?  My two sons have autism.  The insurance company paid for the diagnosis, but the minute they "autism" label was stuck on them, they wouldn't pay for shit in terms of therapy. (I came across THIS once, and it really hit home.) You know... Cause they don't get any better.  (1) First of all: tell that to Temple Grandin.  (2) Second of all, neither do AIDS patients or Diabetics or Schizophrenics or Transplant Patients or a million other patients who are on medication or medical therapy for life.  But we all know that they'll throw any bullshit they can at you just to get out of paying.  It doesn't have to be logical, scientifically correct or even make sense.  They hold all the cards, so you're at their mercy.

So if anyone things I'm in the pocket of the insurance industry, I dare you to say it my face.  (And I'd then advise you to them DUCK.) I HATE. HATE. HATE. those scum-sucking bastards.  They turned their backs on my kids.  So fuck 'em.

2) The Right, the Conservatives, The Republicans, the Insurance Lobby and Fox have all told so many lies about this whole issue, that I really don't even care what they have to say anymore. (I never really did, but it's less than background noise now.)  They're so far out in Right Field it's not even funny anymore. It's pathetic and sad.  Death Panels? Lie of the year.  Deficits? Lie of the day, just depends on the issue you're discussing.  Government Takeover? I only WISH.  And I swear I'm going to punch the next person I hear crying about "socialism."  So this in not, in any way, intended to argue with the idiots on the Right.  90% of them have no fucking idea what they're talking about, and the other 10% are lying for their paychecks.  And even if every concession was given to them (and it basically has) they'd oppose it even if their own mother's life depended on it, just to see Obama and the Democrats "lose."  They're despicable bastards without heart, soul or brains.  So I'm done with them.

I want to take issue with the LIBERALS, who at this point are ready to jump ship on it.


Now... don't get me wrong.  IMHO, the only PRINCIPLED, EDUCATED opposition to this bill, and anything in it has come from the Left.  And I've laid out my own plan, which is about as close as you can get to single-payer, and yet not have the gov't run it, and still use market forces to keep costs DOWN, rather than UP as they do now.  So you know I'm no libertarian when it comes to this issue.  All that being said, in my humble opinion...

THIS IS IMPORTANT LEGISLATION.  THIS IS GOOD LEGISLATION. AND THIS COUNTRY NEEDS IT TO PASS. NOW.

I can't remember where I read it (and it may have been in this blog, so please forgive me if it was you and I forgot) but I recently read where someone call Health Care Reform the "New Deal" of our generation, and went on to call Gay Rights the "Civil Rights Movement" of our generation.  I absolutely agree, 100% with that analogy, and that is exactly what drives my thinking here:  The New Deal was not a single piece of legislation.  Neither was 'Civil Rights.'  Both represented sweeping changes in HOW WE THINK.  They represented paradigm shifts in out whole legal, economic, political and social philosophy.  They both occurred over MANY bills, MANY laws, and even MANY court cases, both in support of and in opposition to. And there was no point at which ANY single piece of legislation SOLVED THE PROBLEM. (We still have both economic instability and racial issues today, after all, and we probably will 100 years from now.)  So you could take ANY piece of legislation, in either of those two cases - the first, the last or any in between - and find some fault with it.  It doesn't go far enough.  It makes too many concessions.  It makes things worse.  But just as well, in each case, each step had to be taken, as it was, because at each stage they had to take what they could get and keep moving forward.

And that's where I part with the idealists on the Left: I'm a pragmatist.  Do I agree with Michael Moore, and Keith Olbermann and Dennis Kuccinich?  In principal? Yes.  But in practice, I do not accept the conclusion that this bill makes things worse.

Will the insurance companies profit from this? Yes, I'm sure they'll find a way to. They always do.
(I don't mind that they make a profit. What bothers me is that the currently profit more by denying care. That's the dysfunctional incentive.)

Will some people remain uncovered? Yep.  A good 20 Million as I understand it.
(That's still half what it is now, however.)

Do I like the individual mandate? Not without a public option I don't.
(But whether or not it's constitutional, is a matter for the courts to decide, not a reason to oppose it.)

BUT...  I also see this bill as a NECESSARY first step.  We'd all like single-payer.  Wasn't going to happen. Personally, I prefer MY PLAN.  Not going to happen. (Wasn't even on the table. LOL)  Public Option? Might have happened, if Harry Reid had any balls, Nancy Pelosi was worth a damn and President Obama wasn't the pragmatist that I figured him for when I voted for him, despite the Right's attempts to brand his as the most moon-bat liberal homo-sapient of all time.  And while I'd certainly have have liked it, maybe even participated in it, I can live without it, even with the individual mandate.

Why?

Pre-existing conditions.  If you want to force them to cover pre-exsisting conditions, (and we need to, with everyone switching jobs, getting laid off, etc...) and not let them totally jack up the premiums to cover them, and you DON'T want your costs to skyrocket, the only way to achieve that is to have EVERYONE pay-in.  You need healthy people who right now, whether by choice or by circumstance, aren't putting in to ante up and get covered.  And to all you wanna-be micro-economics majors out there, this is yet another instance where market forces work in strange ways.  You see... It doesn't cost more to COVER more people.  COVERING PEOPLE is a source of REVENUE.  The increased demand for coverage does not necessarily lead to higher costs.  What increases costs is more (and more expensive) CLAIMS being filed.  Does universal coverage lead to more, and more expensive, claims?  On average, per person, not really.

Remember - this gets a lot of currently HEALTHY people on board.  That will only LOWER the [insurance company's] cost, on a per person basis.  And all those uninsured SICK people?  As I laid out in my earlier health care posts, right now they wait until their on death's door and then show up in the ER.  And they then run up HUGE bills, that then don't get paid.  Well, first of all: Guess who pays them? WE DO, though higher premiums, as hospitals try to recoup unpaid bills by soaking insurance companies!  They don't just write it off, and even if they do officially, they still try to recoup it from US - the insured.  Second of all, if these same people were covered, they'd go to the doctor EARLY ON, when [whatever it is that they have] can be fixed CHEAPLY and EASILY, with FEWER COMPLICATIONS and better PATIENT OUTCOMES.  Which is exactly what we WANT THEM TO DO because it COST LESS THAT WAY!  It's ALWAYS costs more, not to mention has more negative outcomes, to treat a disease in the later stages.  It's ALWAYS better, and cheaper, to catch it and treat it EARLY. So the idea that we'll be paying for something that we're not already is misguided, no matter what model you're looking at.

Is this bill perfect? No.  No way.  Is it even good? Debatable, certainly.  But is it NECESSARY?

Yes.  I firmly believe it is.

And to some extent the details don't matter. (And I realize there are some doozies.)  This will not solve all of our problems, but neither would a public option and neither would even single payer.  But about the only idea I've heard that would make it WORSE was John McCain's '08 campaign idea to let people buy across state lines.  THAT, and some of the more "free market" solutions I've heard, would make it WORSE. Much worse. And I just don't believe this bill does.  Not in  any BIG PICTURE kind of way.  It has it's warts, but at this point, and really at any point, we need to take what we can get, celebrate the victory, and move on to the NEXT STEP.  Because whoever succeeds Obama, and whenever that happens, will STILL be dealing with health care.  No matter WHAT happens, or even might have happened with this bill.

I actually, honestly believe that we'll get to single payer eventually (though still I prefer my own model.)  But we're not going to get there in one bill. (Shit, we might not get there in my lifetime!) This will be, and has to be a gradual process.  And the necessary FIRST STEP, really the first two steps, has/have to be:

1) Everyone needs to put it / Nobody is allowed to opt out.  (And help the ones who truly can't afford it.)


2) The insurance companies can't be allowed to refuse anyone, and can't be allowed to gouge anyone.

Now... we're not there yet. But this bill brings us closer.  And we can't get on with the REAL reforms until we've achieved those first two steps.  And come November?  It's likely the Republicans will make some gains, and the already uphill climb will only get steeper.  We need to take what we can.  We need to start moving in the right direction.  We need to get the ball rolling.  And we need to do this as soon as we can.

We NEED this legislation, warts and all.  I don't LIKE it... but I do believe it's necessary.