For the Record...

How Pro-Lifers are killing women

Hey, William.... Remember when you said that there weren't any women having their health harmed by the Right's constant attacks on Abortion Rights?

Well, FUCK YOU.

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

“Today’s mothers are twice as likely to die of pregnancy- or childbirth-related causes than their mothers were. There is no reason, given our vast resources, knowledge and technology, why we should be going backwards in this area.” – Laura Gilkey, coordinator of The Safe Motherhood Quilt Project, a nonprofit based in Sarasota, Fla. 

Globally, only a few countries have seen a rise in the rate of maternal deaths in recent years. Those include Afghanistan, El Salvador, South Sudan and the United States of America.
--------------------------------------------------

Well done, Republicans, I hope you're happy. First you destroyed the traditional family unit, and now you're actually killing women.

How much longer do we have to suffer these psychopaths, America? How long before more of you start to realize what I've been saying all along: Right-Wing Conservative Republicans only come in two flavors : EVIL and STUPID. One's lying and the other's buying.

How much more damage must we let them do? How many more lives will we let them destroy?

Gotta love that free-market health care!

I'm not going to go into the details of why for-profit, free-market health DOES. NOT. WORK.

(And is just ill concieved and improperly motivated, right for the start.)  We all know these already.

But here's another recent example of the failure of market forces to provide adequate health care.

Welcome back!

Welcome back! I hope everyone had a safe and happy holiday. I spent about a week visiting relatives in Massachusetts. Since my parents live in Florida, we don’t get up to Massachusetts very often. So from that perspective, it was good to see everybody again. From another… Well, one thing I’ve noticed as I’ve gotten older and presumably, though probably not proportionately, wiser is that I’ve become more aware of what’s going on under the surface of things. Underneath that polite veneer that’s presented to the world, and which as a child I assumed there was nothing behind – that we were just a big happy family with no politics or strife. And that’s not to say that we aren’t, but my god… It drives me nuts just how much into everyone else business they insist of getting, and how much petty sniping goes on in terms of who’s thinks what, and who said what, and who didn’t go to who’s party, or who’s more generous or more stingy, who got the better gifts… Holy hot hopping hell, it’s like going around the table at Thanksgiving and everyone declaring how good everyone else has it! (And realize that these folks are all very well off! No one’s losing their house, or living on the edge.) But seriously, I could never stand having that many people up in my business all time! Oh my God… It drives you nuts after a while! (And the relative lack of that in my life is one of the advantages of living where I do!)

Anyway, we’re home now. And I must say that while overall we DID have a good time, there were some interesting political discussions that happened on this trip that I’d like to share with you all. I’ll say up front, that most of these I was little more than an observer or a devil’s advocate. For the most part I’m keen to let the family partisans fight it out – no one’s really listening to anyone else anyway, or has any intention of changing their position, so I’d rather not waste my breath burning bridges.

The first involved the Massachusetts State Law regarding care for the elderly. In Massachusetts, as in many other places, If a person cannot pay for their own long term care - and let’s face it: if you don’t have a lot of money, LTC insurance and a decent source of income into retirement, few can – then when you need to enter a nursing home, the state will provide this service, taking care of those elderly and indigent people who can no longer care for themselves. These facilities are not great places of course – the one in question was a real shithole. And yet… the costs are still astronomical. Well beyond what most people could afford even for a short time, let alone indefinitely. Now, when you are in these institutions, you are now a ward of the State. The State gets your pension, your social security, and gives you just a small weekly allowance (to spend on what, I wonder? No one ever leaves the building!) They also take any assets you have, to cover the costs of your care. If you own a house? The state will take it. Car? Same. (Etc…) There are ways around this, of course. Since laws are written by lawyers, to give more work to other lawyers, there are trusts and other estate planning tools that will allow your family to keep most or all of these assets. One has to wonder why you would write a law, and then immediately create another law whose sole purpose is to circumvent the first law, but that’s the biggest problem with politics and legislation. Beyond any Liberal or Conservative issues, the primary problem is that laws are written by legislators who are primarily – like 90% of them – LAWYERS. And their “secret agenda” is not Liberal or Conservative per se - it’s primarily to drum up more business for lawyers. If they can write a law that will result in more law suits? Or that can further complicate tax law or estate law and thus make even more work for tax and estate lawyers? They’re all over it.

ANYWAY… Feel as you will about the idea of the State taking your house, or about the fact that if you pay a lawyer to write up a new trust every couple of years, your family can keep the house, the fact is that caring for the elderly is expensive. And SOMEONE, SOMEHOW needs to pay for it! The real point of contention, and where my Father – a staunch Conservative, Republican, borderline Tea-Party type - started chiming in is that in addition to what I’ve mentioned already, Massachusetts does what they call a “five-year look back” to see if you made any large gifts over the past five years. And if you did? The State can go after the recipient to get them back! Again, this sounds really unfair, but MANY States have these look-back periods. They’re basically meant to prevent people from giving their assets away to family in order to get around paying for the care they’ll receive from the State. And, while it seems like it sucks at first, when you think about it, it’s basically FAIR. Well… My father’s having none of that: To him it’s bullshit that the State would take property, let alone look back five years and take it from other people! Now, he understood WHY they do this. He KNOWS that people could easily cheat the system, were it not for the look back system. So I asked him: How would you pay for it then? Shitty a lifestyle though it may be, this is a necessary, expensive service that’s being provided! Why is it wrong to ask the recipients of that service to pay whatever they can for it? I then added the kicker, reminding him that the alternative was socializing it, through higher taxes, spreading the cost across everyone, and making everyone pay for it. That’s a solution that I don’t really have a problem with: it would be part of my overall health care system. But I KNEW he’d never go for it. And, big surprise, he admitted that he had no ideas for alternatives, although he did point out that the family themselves used to care for their elderly relatives in house. (Yeah: Back when you could raise a family on one income, and people didn’t live nearly as long!) Anyway, I learned a long time ago that you can never get a Conservative to admit he’s wrong, but if you can get them to admit that they have no ideas? Count that as a win. For me? I just see it as evidence that Conservatives are basically whiny little bitches who want something for nothing. (And in this case a Government handout and socialized medicine! Imagine that!) But PAY FOR IT? What kind of liberal nonsense is that?!

Also hilarious, to me anyway, is hearing someone like my dad (a very wealthy man, I should add) talk about how we should just go to a “flat tax.” Now… first off all, he’s a deficit hawk, big time. Granted, he’s your typical Right Winger when it comes to the deficit: Lower Taxes (huh?), cut entitlements, trim defense (at worst), no earmarks, no pork, etc… in other words, basically shitty ideas that will do nothing to fix the deficit, and do great harm to the economy and to people’s lifestyles. But when he talks about a flat tax, I wonder if he’s even capable of basic arithmetic. Because if you assume a rate that doesn’t INCREASE the deficit, YES, his rate would go down, but the rates of ~98% of Americans would go UP. A LOT. When 1% of you population make 20% of the income (note: I just made that up – whatever the actual numbers are, it pretty bad) you cannot lower their tax bracket without raising everyone else’s, if you (1) want everyone to have the same rate. And (2) don’t want to increase the deficit / debt. So… why, you might ask would a Conservative be so much in favor or RAISING everyone’s taxes? I don’t have a clue. No, my dad’s not a stupid man. A bit self-centered in his perspective maybe, but he’s not DUMB. He just suffers for the typical Conservative’s disease of completely lacking logical consistently, self-awareness and principled pragmatism.

Another bit topic of conversation was the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” To which I say, “It’s about damned time, and what the hell took so long?!” But my Brother in Law was in the Navy and my Cousin was a Marine, and they’re both Conservatives – my brother-in-law to a kind of annoying, Sean Hannity degree, my cousin to a more psychotic G.Gordon Liddy / Mike Savage degree. And of course, despite the fact that they both served with gays, whether they knew it or not, this was of course going to signal the death knell of American Military Dominance. Putting aside of course that we spend twice on defense what England, France, Russia and China do combined. Putting aside that almost every other non-Muslim country has already done the same thing, and it’s had no impact. Putting aside that polls showed that even 70% of White Evangelical Christians supported its repeal… It all over. We’re doomed. And it seemed like everyone else (most of whom range from Massachusetts Democrats to Massachusetts Liberals) just LOVED to get my cousin torqued up about it, and get him going on one of his homophobic rants. Don’t get me wrong: I love a good rant as much as the next guy, even when I disagree with the speaker. It’s fun to see a man feeding off his own hatred, anger and fears. It’s fun to see someone just lose it. I know. I’m human too! But as I listened to him, a theme started to emerge that I found rather… disturbing.

I can’t really cite any one thing he said, but he acted like the Marines were their own entity. As if they were a club that could make their own rules and their own policies, rather than an arm of the democratically elected Government, created to enforce theirs. He acted like the Marines existed only to fight – which, yes, they do – but beyond that, as if their whole raison detre was fighting for fighting’s sake alone, or for any reason they alone saw fit, and that other factors, like actual foreign policy and actual American Values like freedom and equality were not the REASON they were fighting. I’m not going to suggest that he speaks for all Marines, but to hear him going off, in an almost thug-like, borderline-Nazi manner, you’d think he thought that it was the Marines, and the mentality of Marines like him that decided (not SHOULD decide, but ACTUALLY decided) what they should be fighting for, what the country stands for, and how the laws should be made and that somehow anything that goes against that fascist psychosis somehow constitutes a betrayal of our brave men and women in uniform. But answer me this: If you’re in the Middle East fighting a bunch of misogynistic, theocratic homophobes, and yet you DON’T believe in religious freedom, or equality, then WHAT THE FUCK ARE FIGHTING FOR?! At that point, you can only be fighting for fighting’s sake. I don’t believe, as he does, that America is betraying that part of the Military by allowing Gays to serve openly. I believe that for many years, large parts of the Military have been betraying American values by not respecting, supporting and fighting for what America actually believes and stands for: Equality and religious freedom.

And one point he actually said, “I don’t judge them [gays], but they’re deviants!” Remember what I said about lacking self-awareness?

Of course, the TSA and Muslim profiling came up. At which point I had to point out (again) that the terrorists were not the ones with long beards and turbans, but rather the clean-shaven ones wearing suits. Also that a turban was rarely indicative of a MUSLIM, and far more often indicative of a HINDU. And that the average Hindu hates Muslims even more that then average American bigot does. Now this lead to a brief conversation about other religions, and which point my Mom asked me what religion “those kids I went to school with were.” I knew the ones she meant: The ones who wore turbans and never, in their life, have cut their hair. To which I answered that they were Sikhs. My brother-in-law chimed in, adding that they “wear daggers around their necks” which is technically true, but also a grossly misleading oversimplification. After which my Father commented that it was a religious with “weird beliefs.” I asked him, “What religion DIDN’T ask you to believe weird things?” and then said, “Do you know what you call a religion without weird beliefs? SCIENCE. (And maybe Philosophy.)” That earned me a wink and a nod from my Uncle, by far the most liberal man in the room, and one of the most liberal men I know.

Speaking of weird beliefs… Do notice how some people will believe anything about someone they don’t like politically?

There was an article – on the front page of the Boston Globe no less – about the fact that the late Senator Edward Kennedy’s dog died. (Yes the Kennedy’s are still royalty in Massachusetts to the point where the death of a dead Kennedy’s dog is front page news!) Now… I noticed something in the article that, I thought, revealed either a gross display of bad taste, or a complete lack of self-awareness on the part of the late Senator. The dog’s name? SPLASH. Seriously. A guy who will forever be remember for driving his car off a bridge, drunk, into a river and allowing a female campaign aid worker to die in the icy water… named his dog SPASH. Now… although I’m not a particular critic of the late Senator, I found this point to be at least a bit perversely humorous - my favorite kind of humor - so I pointed it out. At which point Sean Hannity my brother-in-law started talking about how Kennedy often used to “joke about killing that woman,” and how he was such a scumbag, etc… Now… He works at the Pentagon. And he does occasionally rub elbows with people who actually may have had conversations and even a relationship with the late Senator. But the way he told the story? “I heard,” “People say,” that sort of thing? Just makes me file it under “People will believe anything about someone they disagree with politically.” I don’t know if it happened or not. I have no idea. It could have. But what I do know? Is that a Conservative’s burden of proof is fairly low, when it comes to bad things being said about Progressives or Liberalism.

Anyway, while it was still a good time overall… It’s definitely good to be home


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

BTW… There’s was this John Stossell thing that ran on Fox while we were up there that I’d like to debunk, but this post is long enough, and that’s a post that should probably be its own post anyway.

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?

Another failure of free-market economics and health care...

By now y'all are well aware of my disadain of the for-profit, free-market model of health care.

Here's another example of just how utterly uselss it is.  The same kind of thing applies to rare diseases.  Get a disease that "only" kills a few hundered people a year?  Well, sucks to be unprofitable you.

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!

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.

Revisiting Healthcare

Awhile back I agrued the there was some wisdom in philosophical conservatism.  Of course, I went on to demostrate how most of this wisodm is missing from the modern American Conservative movement... But I also think that there are exceptions to the darwinian idea that wheatever we have now must be good, since it has withstood all competing ideas and mdoels and has emerged though a process of competition and survival of the fittest.  The most glaring example of this, IMHO, is our health care system. 

Rather than something that has competed whole cloth against alternative models, our current health care system is a band-aided-all-to-hell version of a system that was inherently flawed form the start, but which conservatives have not let us meaingfully reform.  So over the years, rather than evolve, our system has instead mutated sprouting arms and legs as needed to fill one more role until, in the end, we're left with an ungangly mess of appendages that NO ONE would have concieved naturally, if they just sat down one day to design a health care system with the laudable goal of providing universal care.

If someone had presented me with the following, as their initial proposal for a system, I'd ask them if they joking, and have them fired on the spot if the said, "No."  This is my interpretation of what that might have looked like, given how our system has ended up looking like:

Just LOOK at this mess!  FYI: The Blue Arrow represents CARE.  My Doctor provides me with care.  Green Arrows represent PAYMENT: I currenltly pay out to (1) my doctor, (2) my insurance comapny, (3) my employer and (4) the government, who is also paid by my employer.  Doctors recieve payments from three different sources: Me, the Insurace Companies and the Governement.  Insurance companies are also paid from three sources: Me, my employer and the Government.  Then you have the Red Arrows.  These represent RED TAPE or DA RULZ.  Governement tells (in far too few cases, I might add) the insurance companies how to operate as well as any doctors, who collect medicare/medicaid payments. (And this is not even considering standards of care, regulating safety, the FDA, etc... I'm only considering the PAYMENT side of things here!)  Insurance companies make the doctors jump through hoops to get paid, and also create all kinds of red tape for their customers, just to justify not paying out or not covering them in the first place.  In addition, because of their involvement, my company gets to dictate all kinds of stuff to me.  A couple of gems that my company madnates:  We have to declare our non-use of any tobacco products or else face a $50.00 insurance surcharge.  And don't think for a minute that the insurance company's are giving us non-smokers a break. (Yeah right!) Even if they were, I'm not sure the $2 a month I'm saving is worth the invasion of privacy.  (And lying on this form is grounds for termination!) What's more, if you have a working spouse that qualifies for benefits under her employer's health care plan, the s/he MUST be insured with them, otherwise you'll pay an additional premium to inusre your spouse under our plan.  Yes, it's already more to insure a spouse, so why the hell should it be EVEN MORE just be she'sotehrwise insurable?!  Insuring a spouse ALREADY costs more! WTF?

Bottom line, you shouldn't have to pay out to (or get paid by) three or more different entities and you shouldn't have red-tape going in every direction.  None of this complexity is necessary or has anything to do with providing health care.  And it doesn't even WORK!  We're the wealthiest nation in the world, with health care RESOURCES to spare, and yet tens thousands die (or declare bankrupcy?!) every year from lack of coverage! And even putting that aside, NO ONE, if tasked to design a health care system form the gound up, would have come up with anything like this monstrosity right form the start. No way. It's like... if you asked someone to design the perfect household pet, chances are they come up with something simple, like a dog or a cat.  There's basicaly no way they'd invision something resembling some sort of land-based octopus with five mouths.

By comparison, here is the same chart, based on what I proposed with my own health care plan:

See how simple this is?  The Gov't creates the policy. A UNIVERSAL health insurance policy with little or ideally no out-of-pocket expense to me. Everyone is covered the same way: Completely. They pay for it with increased taxes (from me and my employer), but the increase in taxes is offset by none of us having to pay insurance premiums or other health care costs out of pocket.  They then contract and pay the insurance companies to manage it, negotiate prices with doctors, etc... Insurance companies pay the doctors and the doctors give me care.  There. Done. Simple.  And if you read my original post, and the few follow-up posts I think you'll see that market forces are harnessed in functional ways that keeps costs low, using good old fashioned competion, in a way that guarentees universal care, rather than promising more profit the more people get refused coverage.

Now... I'm not saying this MUST be the BEST plan EVER, but thus far I have not seen one that's really made me think, "Yeah, that could work too!"  Not even truly single payer.  (The laws of Microeconomic[supply and demand] guarentee that true single payer will always either have shortages or cost more than it needs to.)  Based on what we have as far as resources, THIS is how I'd have it work.  And depending on your POV, it's both more conservtive than single payer, or even medicare/medicaid and yet more radical that anything being proposed by congress.  And it's sustainable.

But it would never pass.  It just make too much sense!

Fort Swine and Hood Flu

First things last...

I want to say something about Fort Hood first. Every day more and more right wingers conclude that this was "terrorism" because the shooter was "religiously motivated," largely on the basis that every day more and more right wingers conclude that this was "terrorism" because the shooter was "religiously motivated." Now... as if that wasn't bad enough...

I'm on the way home, listening to NPR. They're reading letters from their viewers and there was one from a LIBERAL who was "appalled" that NPR suggested that Religion and/or Politics MAY HAVE influenced or motivated the shooter. (Or may they were "disgusted" as the suggestion, I can't exactly remember.)

Now... earlier today I was arguing that the Liberal position was NOT that religion/politics played NO role, but rather that it is TOO EARLY to conclude anything and that EVERYONE should wait for the Military to conduct their investigation. Now... I HOPE that I was not overestimating the common sense possessed by the average Liberal, and that NPR merely picked THAT ONE letter because it was contrary to the others. Because it really IS too early to conclude ANYTHING! It's as absurd to say that Religion played NO ROLE, more so really, than it is to conclude with any certainty that this was an act of TERRORISM. The fact is that there are MANY questions that NEED to be explored. Nothing should be ruled in or out at this point from either side. So let's ALL take a deep breath and let the Army do it's job, K?

Something else is bothering me too. I was posting the other day on the Detroit Tiger's Fan Club Forum to promote my new All-Time Teams Baseball Blog, having just finished the All-time Tigers (if you're a baseball fan, check it out, let me know what you think) and I came across a message about how "Obama's #$%@ Health Plan passed!" Now, putting aside...

1) That this is a BASEBALL board, and not a place to discuss partisan politics. (It looks like they've since taken the post down, which shows some good sense on the part of the moderators.) (Same goes for my other blog as well: keep the politics HERE.)

and

2) It's not a LAW yet, it's just passed the first of several votes that will be needed. (So the poster fails Civics 101, on top of it.)

There was one part that REALLY pissed me off. He said, "The government couldn't even distribute enough H1N1 Vaccine, now they're going to run the entire Health Care system!"

AGAIN... putting aside that no version of ANY of the health care bills ever amounted to an anything CLOSE to a "government takeover" of the health care system...

It was not the GOVERNMENT that's caused the shortages of the H1N1 vaccine. The government is only involved at all because PRIVATE ENTERPRISE failed to develop it in time and PRIVATE ENTERPRISE failed to make enough to meet the demand. So the Gov't is involved only to make sure that those with the greatest MEDICAL NEED get it first, rather than those with the greatest financial means. They are REACTING to the shortage, not CAUSING it! If H1N1 was a failure, iot was a filure of PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.

And WHICH party has all the politicians that were obstructing all the funding that would have allowed for better production and distribution? Yeah: That would be the, da-da-dahhh: REPUBLICANS.

You got to love how the Right makes themselves into an obstacle at every turn, and then has the nerve to claim that OBAMA and the DEMOCRATS can't get anything done. What makes me SICK is how many ignorant dupes (American voters) keep falling for it time and time and time again! And who's the most complicit in enabling all this nonsense? Our great liberally biased media.

Yeah... RIGHT.

A couple more ideas on health care...

I wanted to add a few ideas to the health care proposal I laid out before. The first two have to deal with malpractice. Malpractice is a big part of health care costs and, because of the surplus of lawyers in this country, it really doesn't act in any ways that bring us better care. And, according to the theory of macroeconomics, if you can lower the cost of production, holding the price steady, you can increase supply. And THAT would help us achieve better care. So here are a couple of areas we could address.

The first is anything stemming from a decision or recommendation or test interpretation that your doctor gives you. The kind of "you DO have cancer / you DON'T have cancer" kind of thing. As part of the plan I've laid out, I would automatically cover SECOND OPINIONS. So if you have a lump, and he says, "it's not cancer," there would then be four possibilities.

1) you accept that information, and he's right.
2) you accept that information, and he's wrong.
3) you get a second opinion and the second doc reaches the same conclusion
4) you get a second opinion and the second doc reaches a different conclusion

In case (1), no problem. In case (2), because you waived the second opinion that you were entitled to, in doing so you are also waiving your right to sue for anything resulting form that information. In case (3) you have confirmation, but they could still BOTH be wrong. Guess what? STILL can't sue. Why? State of the Art. If two (or more) doctors reach the same conclusion - WITHOUT CONSULTING WITH EACH OTHER (obviously) that this would fall under the category of "technology just isn't advanced enough" or "you had a really weird case." Sucks to be you, BUT: It's not the doctor's fault! Your medical expenses from here out are covered anyway, and in absence of entitlement to punitive damages, what are you going to sue for? If you end up in case FOUR, well... time to start asking QUESTIONS, and being part of the process of deciding what the right option is for you: 'Wait and see' or 'Play it safe, but risk the more invasive option.' Depending on the possible risks, you may choose one way or the other, but you have to OWN your choice - can't sue - so ASK QUESTIONS. Find out if one doctors tends to follow one philosophy or the other, find out which one suits your own, after all: the final decision belongs with the PATIENT.

And for anyone who thinks this would put a huge strain on the system, I don't think it would. Most of the things we hear from the doctor we just accept. I don't need a second opinon for a broken arm, or antihistamines for allergies or stitches for a laceration. And if two sets of eyes is what I need to feel at ease about that suspicious lump? Then so be it. Get a second. (In case (4) I'd even cover a THIRD.) Knowing they can't be sued merely for giving an opinion, more Doctors would be likely to GIVE one. So the supply issue will mostly fix itself.

The other major areas for malpractice is mistakes and negligence. Now right of the bat, I want to say that the burden of proof for this would be a lot higher. One of the things that a patient accepts when s/he goes under the knife is the very real possibility that they'll stay there. We usually take for granted that nothing will happen, but every patient must be informed of the chances of death or other complications when they decide to go through with a procedure. (Remember the philosophy that drove the first section? Same thing applies here: You take your chances!) So the mere presence of a dead body DOES NOT entitle someone to some money. And remember: all subsequent medical expenses are covered anyway, so there's no need to sue for that. Unless it's something as obvious as "he left an instrument inside you when he stitched you up" chances are, it's just one of those things that happen. Not everyone can be saved. BUT...

What do you do about BAD DOCTORS? Well, part of Obama's plan that I really like is the requirement for electronic records. I'd take this a step farther a keep records of all of the procedures that a Doctor performs, along with any preexisting complicating factors in the patient and the outcome. To keep it simple, each outcome would be given a 1-5 rating. Something like...

5) No complications, full recovery.
4) Minor complications, full recovery after treatment.
3) Serious complications or only partial recovery.
2) Serious complications, with lifelong or chronic issues
1) Fatality

And in doing this, you can compare any given doctor's performance against the industry standard. In really simple terms, if the "average" for triple-bypass surgery is 4.5 and you've got a doctor who's been a 2.5 for, say, two years now, the answer is NOT to simply pay off patents anyway. The answer is: STOP HIM FROM PERFORMING TRIPLE BYPASSES! He could still practice medicine, but not that procedure. Only maybe only that procedure in a supporting role. And when stripped of the "why's" and "what happened's" you end up with an objective score that the doctor's can't conspire among themselves to fix or hide. (As many suspect happens when a hospital investigates an incident on it's own.)

Now... if it CAN be determined that something went fantastically wrong: they amputated the wrong leg, for example, or sewed up a retractor inside of you, then YES, you can still be compensated - but by the SYSTEM. And the SYSTEM will determine on it's own how to handle the DOCTOR.

We need to get rid of this "us versus them" mentality that we have right now. It doesn't help us, and it doesn't improve our care.

I've got some other ideas about 'tort,' but I'll save those for a later post. Let me know what you think!

A little more on the free market, and health care...

I just realized that I'd forgotten a few things about why free market theories don't really apply to health. I mentioned the flat demand curve, and relatively static supply, but there are two other equally, if not more, important points that I forgot.

FIRST...

For a free market to really work, I need to KNOW what something costs and be able to compare, or shop around. Now in SOME CASES you might be able to do this, but consider this: You've cut yourself. You're bleeding. You need stitches. There's a hospital a block away, so you go there. Do you know it's going to cost? At best, you might know what % your insurance is supposed to cover, but % of what?! Chances are, none of the doctors you see will even be able to give you an estimate of the cost. And even if they did, that doesn't mean they know what price the hospital negotiated with the insurance company. Bottom line: You have NO IDEA what a trip to the hospital will cost until you get the bill. You. Have. No. Idea.

And if you did, what would you do? SHOP around?! Do you have time for that? Would you drive and hour to save $100? You might if you were buying a sofa, but YOU'RE BLEEDING! (Or having a stroke, heart attack, seizure, etc...) And even if you could shop around, do you have any objective way of determining quality? Not really. Anecdotal evidence, if you're lucky. (Or go online.) And that's about it. Is Dr. Smith better than Dr. Jones? There is basically no way to find that out! None!

So you can't compare quality and you have no idea what it costs. Some efficient market that will make!

SECOND...

A free and efficient market CAN be a beautiful thing. But we don't have one when it comes to health care, and we really never had. Putting aside that many of us have our choice of doctor narrowed down by our insurance company or HMO, most people DO NOT CHOOSE their insurance company. THEIR EMPLOYER DOES! To get a better plan, you have to change jobs.

And that's not the same as saying, "Get a better job." If I want a Mercedes, I very well might need a better job - one that pays MORE. But to get a given health care plan, it's not a function of the money I make, because I'M NOT BUYING IT! I can't buy it! Employers pick up about 80% of the cost of premiums, so THEY are the ones that choose the plan. To get a given plan, I might have to go to a worse job that pays LESS, just because that company might be the only one that offers the plan I want!

There is no other 'market' that operates that way. None. So it's NOT a market. Not for individuals anyway. And getting back to the idea of risk pooling, the only way to get the best care for the lowest price is to get as many people as possible into one plan. That's why even if I could afford what some other company pays for their employees' coverage, I won't be able to get the same price. Insuring one person is extremely expensive. But insuring a whole bunch of people is cheap, at least on a per person basis. So there's no benefit to everyone going around and negotiating their own plan. Risk pooling will always, automatically get you a lower cost than you'll ever be able to find (or negotiate) for yourself. Better coverage too. So a market just won't work, and really doesn't exsist anyway.

If you're still not convinced, I offer this: The micro economic factors that I've already mentioned here and in previous posts worked to make health care so expensive in the first place that being sick became something that we need to insure against. Market forces made that insurance so expensive that the only way to sell it way with employers paying for most of it. NOW insurance is so expensive that HUGE, BILLION DOLLAR corporations can no longer afford it. (GM? Chrysler? Yeah, pretty much killed by health care costs.) And it is not despite market forces, but precisely BECAUSE OF THEM that we have the situation that we do. And this trend is thirty years in teh making. I little deregulation isn't going to reverse it.

The 'free market' just won't work in this case. There are many areas where it will (almost all, in fact) but Health Care is one of the rare exceptions.

Oh yeah...

I also want to deal with a common talking point: That since medicare is going broke, that means that gov't health care 'doesn't work.' Here's the thing: Everyone's health care costs are going up. There's no denying that. Private companies just raised their rates. And yours went up too, I guarantee it! But what are you going top do? It's not like you had a choice, remember? But for MediCare's budget to go it means MORE TAXES. So while there costs have gone up, they haven't been able to increase their revenue the way insurance companies can. And THAT'S why it's failing. But with my plan, costs can fluctuate. And if, in future, the taxes you pay for gov't health care go up, this is in lieu of your premiums going up: so your still no worse off!

As for the whole government efficiency remember: Insurance companies run it; like contractors. But they won't have the same dysfunctional profit motives that they have now. They can still make money, but it won't be like before. No more huge salaries for CEO's, not generated by health care premiums anyway! They'll want as many new babies as they can get, since that lowers their average cost, and increases their revenue, so they won't risk losing those to their competition by over bidding.

FINALLY...

I want to, once and all, eviscerate the idea that Senator McCain (R) proposed on the 2008 campaign trail that we could benefit by eliminating state boundaries. Now... this COULD work, in the short term. I live in Michigan. I have two autistic sons. At the moment, speech theraphy is not covered for Autistics in Michigan. So I could, say, buy from Florida, where it IS covered. Sounds great right? Two problems.

First of all: I'M NOT BUYING IT! It's still going to be up to my employer to buy it. And THEY are likely to choose the cheapest plan, which is likely in the state with the leats regulation and least mandated coverage. So there goes my coverage! What's more, in the long term, if anyone can buy form any state, then the insirance companies will all move their plans to the one state with the least regulations. (So Autism reform, for example, won't happen for ANYONE unless ALL FIFTY states pass it! And when was the last time Alabama and Massachusetts agreed to do anything together?!)

So, Mr McCain, all your plan will do is make it IMPOSSIBLE for a given State to regulate it's insurance industry. And here I thought Republican's were all about states rights. Ha!

Some of the more sticky questions about my health care plan...

Ok. Many of you probably think that MediaMatters is nothing but a bunch of pinko, commie, liberal, lefties. Well, they are a lot of them over there, and I fit right in with 'em! But they also have more than a couple regular posters who lean sharply conservative. I've locked horns with many of them over the past couple years, and some of them have posed some very reasonable questions that deserve answers.

So here goes.

Why should abortion be covered? You say you don't cover other voluntary procedures, why cover abortion? Isn't abortion a 'voluntary procedure'?

First off, let me say that if you feel abortion is IMMORAL, I'm with you! The thing is... so are most liberals and pro-lifers! MORALITY isn't the really key issue here, it's LEGALITY. And the difference between a liberal (like me) and a pro-lifer is that while I BELIEVE (meaning, IN MY OPINION) that abortion is immoral, I DO NOT feel the need to infect my opinion onto anyone else. If you don't like abortions? DON'T HAVE ONE. No one will ever force you to and whatever anyone else does is none of your business to tell them one way or the other.

Second... There is more to excluding voluntary procedures than just the fact that they're voluntary. It's also because they're EXPENSIVE and there's no reason anyone else should have pay for them! The alternative to having a boob-job is NOT having one: Which costs nothing. The alternative to abortion is BIRTH, which always costs MORE. I'm not begrudging those who wish to have children (another voluntary decision, mind you!) BIRTH will always be fully covered, but if a person wants to ASK LESS of the system by terminating the pregnancy early, as long as the procedure remains legal there is no rational reason not to do this! (Fair enough: If you managed to OUTLAW it, it won't be covered. Of course, in theory, it won't be PERFORMED either, so the question of coverage is moot either way.

Which brings me to the next part of the question:

What if I don't want to subsidize someone else getting one?

This is just stupid for many reasons. First of all, if you currently buy private insurance, chances are you're already doing this. You are not paying for anything other than YOUR COVERAGE and YOUR FAMILY'S. So mind your own business and stop worrying about the choices other people make with theirs! And again, we can't have individuals deciding what they do and don't want to cover for themselves, or you lose all the benefits of risk pooling - which is how our CURRENT SYSTEM works! I'm sure 90% of AIDS patients didn't think they'd ever get AIDS, and thus may have been tempted to exclude AIDS coverage if they could save a few bucks a months. And while SOME may have changed their behaviors, most would still eventually get the disease. (And where would THAT leave them now?)You can't have people estimating their own chances of getting something. That's what insurance companies are for and they have thousands of experts crunching reams of data all day long to figure it out. So let THEM figure that out. Just take you gold-star, universal coverage and stop whining about it!

This same line of reasoning, BTW, applies to pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for birth-control pills (for example) for religious reasons. This is BULLSHIT. Anyone pharmacist who refuse to fill a doctors prescription for moral reason should lose their license and business. PERIOD. Why, you ask? What about respecting people's beliefs, you ask? Again, BULLSHIT. If you're Catholic (for example) and you believe the use of birth control is a sin, then YOU can't use, and YOU can't be partners with someone else who does! The Catholic Church's prohibition of contraception DOES NOT (and by the First Ammendment to the Constitution, CAN NOT) APPLY to non-Catholics, and isn't observed by 99% of practicing Catholics anyway! A pharmacist refusing to let SOMEONE ELSE use contraception is nothing more than him or her forcing their religious beliefs onto another person. Someone else's sin is not theirs and don't give me any hogwash about enabling it, either. What's next? Holding gun manufacturer's responsible for every murder that's committed? Not THIS liberal!

Why do we even need this? What wrong with the FREE MARKET setting the price? Wont this lead to RATIONING?

First things last. The 'free market' IS a system of rationing. That what market forces DO. They give resources to those willing (and able) to pay the marker price for a given good or service. Those that aren't willing (or able) to pay DON'T GET the good or service. And the volume available (supply) is only a function of the market price. It is not a function of actual need - the opposite in fact, the more something is needed, the HIGHER the price. In this way the free market serves to ration EVERYTHING.

And that is EXACTLY why it's a lousy way to manage HEALTH CARE: Because the demand curve for health care is essentially flat. Here's what that means in English: Let's say a bag of Doritos cost $100. What would happen? First of all, a WHOLE LOT of people would start making Doritos! But who would pay that much when POTATO CHIPS still cost $1? You see? There a diminished demand for certain goods at higher prices because I have COMPETING CHOICES. And thus the price is kept low, to compete with those alternatives. If I can't afford a Mercedes, I can buy a Chevy. If I can't afford a house, I can rent an apartment. If I can't afford fillet, I can buy chuck.

But if I can't afford chemo... (and I'll give you a clue: nobody can)... then I DIE.

Now, death may be the low-cost alternative to most health care procedures, but it's not one I'm ever likely to choose, is it? It's basically not an acceptable alternative for anyone. So HOW MUCH will your triple-bypass cost? Well... How much do you have?! Since I know that you won't go without, and I know that there's no competing alternatives, there's nothing to reign in my cost. 'Give me all you got and more!' is therefore the only answer one can expect from a free market. (Thankfully, most hospitals are non-profits entities!)

AND not only is the demand curve FLAT, but the SUPPLY curve is unique as well. You see, the supply of oil, potato chips, cars or beef can fluctuate. If demand for something goes UP, we can usually just make more. But the number of DOCTORS we have at any time doesn't really go up with demand, because doctors come from MEDICAL SCHOOLS and med schools take only a very small percentage of applicants. And medical fellowhips (needed for specialties) only take a small percentage of applicants from that pool! And they're not about to lower their standards just because doctors salaries have gone up and more people want to be doctors. So we can't really allow the supply to fluctuate like a regular commodity does, because it takes to long to increase the supply!

What about the unemployed? Or illegals aliens? Why should I pay for them?

First off, you already are. The unemployed already get coverage: Medicaid. And you already pay for that. You still will, but in a less dysfunctional system. You also already subsidize the UNINSURED (which includes illegal aliens) in exactly the way I've already described. SO get over it. Better they get GOOD TREATMENT that costs everyone LESS than get lousy treatment that costs everyone more.

And we REALLY don't want hospitals to put off treatment until they verify legal status, do we? Imagine you've had a stroke or heart attack. Every second counts. Do you really want there to be ANY possibility that your treatment is delayed? That could be fatal! So, just as they are now, hospitals will treat their patients according to medical need, NO QUESTIONS ASKED. They don't have to worry: THEY'LL GET PAID. And is there really any benefit to saying, "Sorry, that guy was an illegal, so we won't pay you for treating him?" NO! Now we're right back to the hospitals baking in unreimbursed expenses, just as they do now, and WE END UP PAYING ANYWAY!!! So get over it. There's no way to avoid it without screwing everything up with red tape and you won't save a single penny anyway!

JUST TAKE YOUR UNIVERSAL COVERAGE AND STOP WHINING!!!

BTW, this is one of my pet peeves with conservatives on a lot of things... They're always more concerned about making sure that the WRONG PEOPLE (whoever they are) don't benefit, than they are are making sure that the RIGHT PEOPLE (whoever they are) don't get hurt. In this case, they'd create a whole system of gov't bureaucracy that will end up killing someone who was entitled to care just to stop someone who isn't from receiving it. Not only is this a senseless trade off, going against the very conservative Principal of limited gov't and making the conservative's fear of a gov't bureaucrat getting between you and your health care a reality, but WHAT IS SO WRONG with saving a life?! Why should the HOSPITAL get punished, by not being paid for services rendered (and costs incurred,) just because they saved the wrong person's life. That's just... psychotic. So get over your xenophobia, conservatives. And besides, there's no reason that the Mexicans would flood over our borders just to get free health care... THEY ALREADY GET PUBLIC HEALTH IN MEXICO!

SO let me knwo if you have any other questions. I'll do my best to satisfy you. I've spent a lot of time thinking about this from many different angles, and I'm confident it's the best way to go. So I'll take all comers!

Now let me have it!
LOL