It's a shame that Roll Call operates behind a subscription wall, because Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), who chairs the House's special committee on global warming, has a great op-ed there today summarizing where things stand moving forward from the solid energy bill framework that congressional Democrats hope to pass, “Global Warming At the Starting Gate.” One key highlight:
Seventeen states (representing over 46 percent of Americans) have adopted or will soon adopt global warming emissions standards for vehicles. The federal district court in Vermont recently held that federal law does not prohibit such measures. What remains to be seen this year is whether the Bush EPA will grant these states the waiver they need to enforce these tailpipe standards, or spurn their ambitious action.
In addition to loving Markey's framing of Congress' movement as a launching point for so much more, we cannot stress the point he makes above with any more emphasis. Given the trends in the courts (which Markey also notes) and the rising tide of action at all levels, the spotlight is now on the EPA regardless of what happens with the energy bill. Now that Congress has smartly resisted pressure to do anything that remotely borders on preemption, it's incumbent on the administration to follow suit.
Yesterday's veto threat on the energy bill doesn't exactly inspire confidence along those lines, as White House economic advisor Allan Hubbard's letter to Speaker Pelosi pretty much reiterates the industry's ideal outcome in its language regarding auto efficiency (emphasis ours):
Unfortunately, while assigning new requirements to the Department of Transportation, the proposed legislation leaves ambiguous EPA's role in CAFE regulations, and likely creates substantial amounts of regulatory uncertainty and confusion…Legislation should clarify that there should be consultation between the agencies, while clearly establishing a single fuel economy regulatory standard.
There is a remote theoretical possibility that Hubbard is asking for something less troubling than it would appear. And some reports indicate that this may partly be bluster to try and wring out more compromises or satisfy industry-based pressure (and possibly worse still, Cheney-based-pressure) on EPA's regulatory process.
Yet quite frankly, NO ONE should give the benefit of the doubt to an administration that, even as momentum has shifted against its long-standing arguments, has delayed and blustered at best while (rather pathetically) plotting intransigence at worst. The proposed energy bill, thankfully, gives EPA no excuses to shirk its responsibilities, either to California or to its own post-Mass v. EPA deliberations on greenhouse gas emissions. That shouldn't give it license to instead come up with twisted logic of its own.
The ball is EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson's court, with rumors abounding that he'll be announcing GHG regulations in the coming weeks (hoping to give the administration something to brag about in international climate negotiations) and a vow that he'll rule on California's waiver by year's end. He'd best not drop it.
Yup, this is part 3 in the series. Today, a snazzy letter from Andy Stern aficionado Tyrone Freeman, president of United Long-Term Care Workers’ Union, another union with over 100,000 members. He seems to be a proponent of just gettin ‘er done. Freeman gives no indications of what plan he’s talking about, but you get the sense that some plan, any plan, would work with him. Be that ABx1 1 or whatever it is that Arnold’s got cooking.
The funny thing is, Arnold’s plan isn’t really on the table. The Democrats aren’t going to just drop their demands of affordability, nor are the other It’s OUR Healthcare coalition partners (I’ll let others speak to that with more insight though). SEIU alone doesn’t determine whether Arnold’s healthcare will pass. Is Arnold’s plan better than Massachusetts? Probably, but it’s still not good enough for California. And that’s what’s frustrating about this excerpt from the letter:
• Healthcare reform, as it realistically could be passed this year, will set a benchmark, like a minimum wage, where currently there is none.
We can’t half-ass this and expect to come back to healthcare in 3 years. It’s just not going to happen. And when you make it law that everybody must pay for insurance to a cartel of insurance providers, you better be damn well sure that you cover all your bases and provide a workable system.
December 3, 2007
Dear Andy,
It is most disheartening to see one of the most significant issues of our time characterized as an internal political squabble, where it is implied that UHW alone has the “courage to continue to stand up for our principles.” Nothing could be farther from the truth. The facts are this: SEIU International has set a progressive and innovative course to lift up and protect the working people of this country. SEIU International has rightly recognized that old methods and tactics don’t work-that we are facing a new day that requires, not compromise, but a different type of dialogue, where approaches are no longer strictly adversarial, but, in contrast, seek to find common ground. This isn’t acquiescence, it’s pragmatism, and it is the road to opening doors, where for years they have been closed.
Central to SEIU’s mission is the provision of healthcare for all—the front-burner issue facing the state of California and the nation. California is at the precipice of enacting far-reaching, meaningful healthcare reform. Those who typically stand at ideological odds have come together to hash out a proposal that is a big step toward making inroads in a decades-long struggle to provide healthcare to those who go without. While it may not mirror the panacea we may have put forth in our internal meetings, it represents important progress toward providing coverage for the six million Californians who have none.
At our core, we represent working people.
• Healthcare reform, as it realistically could be passed this year, recognizes that employers must play a fundamental role in paying for coverage.
• Healthcare reform, as it realistically could be passed this year, expands public programs and provides subsidies to make coverage affordable for working people.
• Healthcare reform, as it realistically could be passed this year, will set a benchmark, like a minimum wage, where currently there is none.
What is being proposed is not perfect. No one is saying otherwise. As a labor union, we can and must continue to be visionary. But being visionary also means being able to recognize an opportunity to pass a sweeping reform that pragmatically restructures our health care system to make quality care available and affordable.
I make this statement as a Local leader who represents 150,000 low-income long-term care workers in California. My view of this issue is clear, and it stretches from northern California to southern California, from the largest urban centers to the most rural. Healthcare reform is what our members want and need, and we must do what we can to make it a reality. I take great exception to our efforts being portrayed as some kind of insurgency or takeover among SEIU Locals. California State Council has been without a leader since October 15, 2007. This is not a new development; it is part of a program agreed upon as part of our reorganization. We are now preparing to fulfill our democratically-agreed upon process to select new leadership that will determine the direction of our State Council.
SEIU’s dedication to its members and commitment to universal healthcare is clearly evidenced by our track record. The majority of California leaders stand ready to work energetically toward the enactment of realistic and significant healthcare reform that will surely make a great difference to our members and their families.
In a rare moment of unusual candor, a wanton display of unrestrained recklessness, an attempt to wag his “strong-on-Terra” manhood (or a combination of some or all of the foregoing), the absentee chickenhawk congressman of the 3rd congressional district of California reached into the darkest crevices of his soulless being and bravely declared as follows:
I cannot say, per se, that waterboarding is torture.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, your taxes at work – this is the congressional representative of the people of CA-03. Watch and weep (barf bag highly recommended).
Presented below is the response from Dr. Bill Durston, the Democratic challenger who (with your support and able assistance) will defeat this congress critter in the next election and help restore the needed sanity and prestige to the United States’ Congress.
Please meet Dr. Bill Durston (THE Prescription for Change), in his own words:
Lungren “Cannot Say that Waterboarding is Torture”
By Bill Durston, M.D.
At a town hall meeting in Folsom, California, on November 28, Congressman Dan Lungren was asked, “What’s your position on waterboarding?”
Lungren replied, “I cannot say, per se, that waterboarding is torture.”
Waterboarding, which has been used since the Spanish Inquisition, involves restraining a captive on his back on a board while water is repeatedly poured over the subject’s face. Although waterboarding may leave no lasting physical injury, it can result inhalation of water into the lungs and death. Even when there are no lasting physical effects, waterboarding causes extreme and often prolonged mental distress. Subjects are rarely able to tolerate the agony for more than a few seconds before begging their captors for mercy.
Waterboarding has long been regarded as a form of torture by most military and legal experts. Torture is prohibited by the U.S. constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment, by similar provisions in U.S. military law and the Geneva Conventions, and by the United Nations Convention Against Torture. U.S. soldiers who have been caught waterboarding enemy captives have been prosecuted by the U.S. military as long ago as the Spanish American War and as recently as the Vietnam War.
Waterboarding came to public attention in 2005 when ABC News reported that terrorism suspects in U.S. custody were being subjected to waterboarding during interrogations. Congress reacted by passing an amendment to the 2006 Defense Authorization Act prohibiting torture of detainees. Republican Senator, John McCain, who was himself subjected to torture while a prisoner of war in Vietnam, authored the amendment. McCain described waterboarding as “very exquisite torture.”
The November 28 Folsom Town Hall Meeting was not the first time that Lungren has faced questions about torture. Lungren voted against the prohibition on torture in the 2006 Defense Authorization Act. During his re-election campaign in 2006, Lungren was asked in a debate in Elk Grove about his position on torture. Lungren replied, “Some people confuse the question of torture and aggressive means of interrogation.”
The same night that the question on waterboarding was posed to Lungren in Folsom, the question was posed to Republican presidential hopefuls on a nationally televised debate. Senator McCain re-emphasized his position that waterboarding is torture and expressed astonishment when Mitt Romney, like Lungren, equivocated. During Senate confirmation hearings earlier this month, Attorney General Michael Mukasey also refused to characterize waterboarding as torture.
Senator McCain knows what torture is. As he has repeatedly stated, waterboarding is torture, plain and simple. Like other forms of torture, it is illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional. It is also an ineffective method of gathering reliable intelligence. Most tortured subjects will tell their captors whatever they believe their tormentors wish to hear. In an extensive report published in December 2006, the Intelligence Science Board concluded that the information gathered by the torture of subjects held in U.S. custody in the 21st century was just as unreliable as the information gathered by torture during medieval times.
The fact that candidates for high level government positions in the United States of America are being asked in 2007 about their positions on torture, and that some of them do not condemn it, is an indication of how traumatized our country remains following the September 11 terrorist attacks, and how far we have strayed from the principles upon which our country was founded.
These are frightening times, and the threat of terrorism is real. But torture is both morally reprehensible and forensically unreliable. A ban on cruel and unusual punishment is one of the key principles upon which our country was founded. In difficult times, we should return to these principles, not abandon them.
As you can see, there is no doubt that Bill Durston’s position contrasts vividly against the pernicious and glib response given by his opponent in the referenced video. There is no doubt that a majority of humanity agrees with Bill Durston on this and that a change is warranted, given what we know about his opponent. We are working assiduously to make this change happen in the next election cycle and we implore you to please help draw the needed attention to this race by contributing, volunteering or just talking about it. We are not merely looking to make this a “competitive” race this time around – we are determined to (and confident that we will) WIN it outright. But we cannot do so without your support.
As you may have noticed from recentposts, I’m a big fan of Naomi Klein’s new book The Shock Doctrine. It’s one of the best books published this decade, and provides perhaps the best overview of the last 30 years yet offered. Her argument is essentially this:
The shock doctrine, like all doctrines, is a philosophy of power. It’s a philosophy about how to achieve your political and economic goals. And this is a philosophy that holds that the best way, the best time, to push through radical free-market ideas is in the aftermath of a major shock. Now, that shock could be an economic meltdown. It could be a natural disaster. It could be a war. But the idea, as you just saw in the film, is that these crises, these disasters, these shocks soften up whole societies. They discombobulate them. People lose their bearings. And a window opens up, just like the window in the interrogation chamber. And in that window, you can push through what economists call “economic shock therapy.”
She also links this to torture – quoting from CIA interrogation manuals that explain how the application of shock can open a window in which the subject is weakened and suggestible, a window that torturers or free market economists can use to push through a radical agenda that might otherwise be resisted. This works on individuals, societies…and labor unions.
It’s in this context that two recent posts from the United Hollywood blog should be understood. In it, they explain the basics of management, union-busting strategy – that a successful anti-union strategy relies on precisely these tactics of terror, disorientation, and shock to destroy worker solidarity. That the writers appear to understand this could give them a powerful advantage in their ongoing strike, and these insights not only suggest how unions can win, but how the shock doctrine and union busting are inextricably tied together.
The AMPTP strategy…is to gain control over ‘New Media’ by breaking the unions. First us, then the rest. Then the Internet will be a non-union town.
In his book Confessions of a Union Buster, Martin Jay Levitt details the techniques he learned in his many years attacking unions. A key element is the demoralization of the union members during any industrial action against the company. Taking away people’s hopes, their aspirations for a quick resolution to any labor dispute – that was Levitt’s job. “If you can, make the union fight drag on long enough, workers…lose faith, lose interest, lose hope.”
According to Robert Muehlenkamp, an SEIU Local 1199 organizer at Harper Grace hospital in the 70’s, where Levitt was hired to consult management:
“Union busters wield great power through a program of terror and manipulation – people don’t, can’t possibly know what’s going on and who’s telling the truth…. The first time this happens to regular people, they’re terrified.”
And terror is the goal. The union buster hopes to control employees by employing terror.
This is, of course, precisely the situation we find ourselves in today. We are the example that is being used to intimidate the other unions. The studios want the actors, the directors, the Teamsters, IATSE, all to look at our struggle and see us lose. See us fractured and divided. With the hope that they will be frightened by what they see, and accept whatever deal the studios offer.
The emphasis is mine, and it reminds me EXACTLY of what Naomi Klein is describing in the shock doctrine. Terror and manipulation…”the first time this happens to regular people, they’re terrified” – that is the exact phenomenon that Klein believes has been repeatedly employed over the last 30 years to push through radical neoliberal economic policies. Whether it was Pinochet’s coup against Allende, the September 11 attacks in the US, the collapse of the Soviet Union, or Hurricane Katrina, the result is the same – societies are terrorized because they are experiencing something alien, frightening, something they never expected they’d face.
* Lower the expectations of the other side, divide and conquer.
* Raise and lower the expectations of the other side, divide and conquer.
* Do everything possible to destroy the credibility of the other side’s leadership, divide and conquer.
* Use confidants and back channels to go over the heads of the stronger leaders to the softer targets. Divide and conquer.
* When you figure out the other side’s bottom line, offer a fraction. It’s surprising how many times that stands.
Sound familiar? If you examine the recent “leaks,” comments, and press releases from the other side, you’ll realize this is exactly the strategy the Companies are employing against us today. And why not? It’s worked for them for the last 20 years! They are putting us on an emotional roller coaster by raising and lowering our expectations, attacking our leaders, trying to pit the town against us, refusing to move on the issues that matter to us, bragging about their generosity when the opposite is true, fear mongering and claiming we’re going to ruin this industry – hoping we’ll splinter, lose faith in and attack each other, negotiate against ourselves, and cave.
Again the emphasis is mine, and hopefully you can see what I saw – a link to the “terror and manipulation” described above. These negotiating tactics are primarily designed to shock the rank and file, and the coaliton that supports the strikers. The act of rapidly raised and dashed expectations, of dramatically dividing workers and coalition partners, are all aimed at producing a moment of shock that will allow management to gain the upper hand and conclude negotiations on favorable terms – or to break the union entirely.
Schulman went on to write:
But this time, in every way possible, we must let them know we’re on to them and their strategy won’t work. We understand their game, our solidarity and resolve are greater than ever, and we’re going to stay strong – and reasonable – until we get a fair deal.
The key to beating the shock doctrine is to understand what is coming, to not let a disorienting event damage your unity and defense of your values, and to understand that the shock always wears off. As long as the writers do those things, they will have that much better a chance at victory in what will still be a long and difficult struggle – and perhaps point the way forward for the rest of us.
This morning, Ralph Wheeler of the Dean Democratic Club of Silicon Valley noticed that the Secretary of State’s website lists the first version of Electoral College Initiative as withdrawn on November 27th.
Anthony F. Andrade, Jr., the backer of the first initiative, failed to raise enough money to complete the signature gathering. Read his interview on Bradblog
New deep pocket donors stepped forward last summer. Thomas W. Hiltachk, a former associate of Schwarzenegger, introduced a second almost identical initiative, 1284, on July 10. The new donors were reportedly tied to the Giuliani campaign, currently in trouble in Iowa. The Hiltachk initiative has a deadline of March 1, 2008 to gather signatures, but is falling short of qualifying for the June primary. If it does qualify, it is likely to be on the November 2008 ballot.
If the initiative passed in November, it would be up to the California Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether it would apply to the 2008 election. Is a repeat of Bush v. Gore in the offing? Read the Sacramento Bee article at http://www.sacbee.com/111/stor…
Thanks in part to Robert in Monterey, Carolyn Curtis and David Cohen of DDSCV for the updated information. (The author takes sole responsibility for errors.)
The Fair Political Practices Commission is proposing new disclosure laws for travel expenses for legislators, which are obviously in response to revelations about Fabian Nuñez’ lavish globetrotting. The regulations would require public proof that all activities had a legitimate government purpose, before the fact rather than after it comes out in the media.
Under a proposal made Monday by the state’s ethics watchdog, detailed public disclosure of who benefited from such spending would be required of state officeholders, if given final approval next month. In addition, certain nonprofit groups involved in political campaigns would be forced to reveal their donors under a separate proposal by the Fair Political Practices Commission […]
Under the new proposal, politicians and candidates would have to publicly list the gift recipients by name and the nature of the gift. They also would have to provide the dates of meals, the number of people at a meal and whether the diners included the politician’s family or staff.
For out-of-state travel, politicians would have to disclose the dates and destination of travel and whether expenditures covered family and staff.
In all of these categories, the reports “shall state facts sufficient to demonstrate the political, legislative, or governmental purpose of the expenditure.”
The rule also would require campaign account treasurers to make available to the commission, but not necessarily to the public, the names of all people who benefited from travel and meal expenditures.
The proposal was met favorably by the Nuñez camp as a way to improve accountability and increase sunshine. I can’t see anyone, even the non-profits, finding this disagreeable unless they want to closely guard their own personal secrets. This is a common-sense measure to ensure taxpayers that their good name – and their money – is being used legitimately and to the benefit of the state.
(This thing is starting to make more sense to me. There is a firm deadline to make the June ballot, January 24. Secretary of State Bowen recommended an early deadline because local election boards basically have no time to do all the random counting needed to qualify the initiative. By missing that deadline the dirty tricksters risk missing the June ballot, as election boards must ramp up for the February 5 primary and that takes priority. The SacBee article is one of the first to inform what’s really going on here. – promoted by David Dayen)
The SacBee is reporting tonight that State Election officials are saying that backers of the California electoral college initiative are at risk of missing the June ballot. Election officials said it will be difficult to finish counting the signatures in time for the January 24th state deadline.[Link]
Despite a recommendation from Secretary of State Debra Bowen that the proponents submit the signatures to the counties three weeks ago, they have yet to submit the necessary signatures. Supporters of the initiative need 433,971 signatures to qualify for the ballot. They are aiming at collecting 700,000 signature to ensure that they have enough to qualify for the ballot.[Link]
Supporters originally the aimed at turning the in the signatures by Friday December 1st. They received a late infusion of cash when the Orange County Lincoln Club made a $100,000 contribution to the initiative effort.[Link] The Republican political consultant Dave Gilliard, who is heading up the effort to qualify the initiative for the ballot, didn't return phones repeated phones calls to the SacBee on Monday.[Link]
Well, after so many grossly unfair debate formats that virtually tell each audience which candidates they are supposed to be interested in, Dennis Kucinich finally figured out a way to highlight this fundamental absurdity to his own advantage: Socratic Irony!
After again not receiving a fair amount of time to the other candidates, when it was his turn to participate in a segment that called for each candidate to actually ask a question to any candidate they choose to, Kucinich managed to display that sense of sarcastic wit and pragmatic questioning that Socrates turned into philosophical method; a dialectic which both entertains an audience preoccupied with what will be shown to be absurdity, as well as instructs to something more rational.
What’s more, Kucinich asked a question no moderator ever would:
Are you the only candidate that is offering a single-payer, not-for-profit healthcare system…”
That’s a question that we will not be hearing in any of the future debates, never mind the question of why the other candidates won’t take on the insurance/pharmaceutical companies and offer a single-payer, not-for-profit system like Kucinich or virtually every other major industrialized nation.
The media, just as our other Democratic Candidates, usually like to ignore the option. Whenever the issue does arise they mindlessly “argue” that it “cannot pass through Congress”, or more aggresively propogate the many false criticisms regarding the system.
For them I’ve put together this short Q&A that debunks the most common of these myths and further begs this issue: Why will no one besides Kucinich actually offer what is the most rational and comprehensive solution to our healthcare crisis?
Here’s some responses to the false, but commonly made, criticisms of single-payer health care plans. H. R. 676 is a Congressional bill co-authored by Dennis Kucinich, has now gained over 75 cosponsors and the endorsements of powerful unions and organizations, such as the AFL-CIO, California Nurses, PNHP and One Care California, as well as Michael Moore. It would set up a national, not-for-profit, health care system in the United States and provide fully comprehensive health care to ALL Americans, including all primary, emergency and long term care, office visits, medication costs, dental, vision and mental health, as well as drug and alchohol counseling. Further it, eliminates all co-pays, deductibles and medication costs. It is the simplest, most reasonable and dependable solution for the U.S. health care crisis.
1.) We already spend so much on healthcare, so we can’t afford a universal healthcare system that covers everyone:
This is false. In fact, H.R. 676 spends $56 billion less each year, while covering all Americans with fully comprehensive medical benefits. The reason is because, as a for-profit industry, the current private system wastes 31% of the $2.2 trillion spent each year on non-healthcare related costs such as, marketing/advertising, billing and paperwork, and corporate profit. H.R. 676 eliminates profit and is thus able to operate at a much more efficient 3% administration cost, saving over $4oo billion a year. Utilizing this money is what makes true universal healthcare for all Americans possible.
2.) I’ve read about other countries with healthcare systems similar to H.R. 676 that have experienced rationing. Wouldn’t H.R. 676 lead to rationing:
No. There are quite a few things to be said about rationing, but first and foremost, H.R. 676 is designed to eliminate rationing. Though other countries operating with a single payer healthcare system have sometimes experienced rationing, they devote only half as much money towards the system. And that is the critical point involved here. Under H.R. 676, the U.S. will spend almost twice as much as other countries and get the best care because of it. Under the current private system, the U.S. also spends twice as much as any other country, yet ranks consistently lower on vital indicators of health, such as infant mortality, average lifespan, and rates of terminal illness like heart disease and diabetes. As stated above, this is because the current system wastes more than 1/3 of all healthcare spending on non-healthcare related costs. To paraphrase Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, for other countries the problem is money, for the U.S. it is the system.
Furthermore, it must be pointed out that the current private system is already effectively rationing access to healthcare. Same-day access to primary-care physicians in the U.S. is 33%, significantly lower than other single payers like the U.K. at 41%, Australia at 54%, and New Zealand at 60%. Poll after poll reports many Americans admitting to going without needed care because of out-of-pocket expenses like co-pays and deductibles. Moreover, 46 million Americans are uninsured and another 50 million are considered underinsured.
3.) H.R. 676 is socialized medicine:
This is false. H.R. 676 is not socialized medicine. It is a publicly financed, privately delivered healthcare system. This means that the government is the sole provider of insurance, paying the healthcare providers (physicians, nurses etc.) who remain private. So, under H.R. 676 you have free choice of healthcare provider. There is no out-of-network.
4.) I wouldn’t want my benefits to drop and also, I wouldn’t want to change physicians:
Under H.R. 676 the large majority of Americans’ benefits would dramatically increase. This is fully comprehensive coverage including office visits, hospitalization, long term care, all prescription medications, and even dental, vision, and mental health services.
You will not have to change physicians unless you choose to. You have free choice of provider. Further, when changing jobs or place of employment, under the current private system people often must change physicians or even go without coverage temporarily. However, under H.R. 676 coverage is not affected and patients can continue to see the same physician.
5.) Isn’t government control of our healthcare system going to lead to a much less efficient and more bureaucratic operation:
No. In fact, the current private system is much more bureaucratic and much less efficient. Not only does the current system waste 1/3 of all spending, but it interferes in the patient-physician relationship, making doctors justify every test and procedure-while attempting to influence these decisions through financial penalties and incentives. Physicians have to hire administrators just to keep up with the excess of claims and administration. Insurance companies also invest in drug companies, so when covering medications they have corporate duty to cover these medications even if others are cheaper and/or more effective. When further considering the confusing mass of bills, E.O.B.’s, deductibles, co-pays and the up, down and in the middle communication of physicians to insurance companies, insurance companies back to physicians and then the patient’s to both, the current private system is one impressively bureaucratic system, indeed.
H.R. 676 eliminates the administrative waste, patient billing, co-pays and deductibles, by funding the system directly through tax dollars. Further, H.R. 676 leaves the medical decisions to the physicians themselves, reviewing their performance regularly instead of directly interfering with the patient-physician relationship.
6.) Isn’t the market based competition of the current private based system the best way to control costs:
Obviously not, since the costs of premiums rose 86% between 2000 and 2006; three times faster than inflation. The rise of income in the same period rose only 15%. Medical bankruptcies are up 2200% since 1981 and profits for the largest pharmaceutical companies hit $62 billion back in 2004.
H.R. 676 addresses cost control immediately by cutting out the profit and wasteful administration of the private system. Further, by being the sole insurer, the government will have the necessary influence to negotiate fair drug prices. Finally, the promotion of preventative medicine, which is virtually non-existent in the private based system, will control costs in the long term by reducing chronic diseases that require expensive treatment, such as cancer, heart disease and diabetes.
7.) Isn’t the reason that healthcare costs keep rising is that we are unhealthy as a country:
Yes and no. First, through there are many factors to rising costs in healthcare, one important reason is poor health; with the consequent cost of treating chronic diseases. But, it is here again that the private system fails us. As a for-profit industry, there is no incentive to promote preventative medicine, the cost of such programs being immediate and the long-term financial dividends uncertain; uncertain because clients often switch coverage and companies. The fact is, not only do the private insurance companies rarely promote preventative medicine, they actually invest in industries that cause chronic illnesses. For instance, an insurer may invest in the tobacco industry.
However, the “no” is that there are other important factors in the rapid rise of healthcare costs, not the least of which are corporate profit, poor administration, and the outrageous cost of medication.
8.) I’ve read that trial lawyers and malpractice suits are driving up healthcare costs:
Yes and no. These do drive up costs, but only fractionally compared to the factors mentioned above, accounting for only 0.46% of our total healthcare spending. This is not the real problem.
9.) There seems to be a lot of factors involved in the high costs of healthcare. Can’t we just make reforms to the current system instead of changing over to another system:
This is the critical point: no matter what reforms take place, keeping the for-profit, private insurance healthcare system requires wasting billions of dollars on non-healthcare costs. This system exists first and foremost to make money, not provide care. In fact, as a business it is in their best interest not to pay on claims, to deny claims whenever possible. As for-profit companies, they must use money to market themselves to prospective clients, they must hire administrators and marketers to do the job, and this is factored in to every premium dollar. As for-profit companies they must profile clients and underwrite them, they must promote medications based upon money instead of efficacy. And they must generate billions in profit; billons which don’t go towards healthcare.
Consider further that as for-profit companies they have a vested interest in not insuring the elderly or the sick because they are too “expensive”, that they pass off the chronically ill to government programs in the long run anyway. And consider their inability to control pharmaceutical prices. With these considerations, as well as those of above, it becomes evident that reform is not really an option. For, it is the for-profit system that is the problem.
Pettis, Mayor Pro-Tem of Cathedral City and Candidate for the CA 80th Assembly District, enjoyed a warm reception tonight from members of the Desert Business Association at the DBA Special Holiday Mixer at Blame It On Midnight. Sponsored by the Desert Business Association and Blame It On Midnight, local business people celebrated the beginning of the Holiday Season. Entertainment was provided by Bruce Mangum, accompanist from The Caballeros Mens Chorus.
Desert Business Association boardmembers in attendance included DBA President Jim DeHart (YTB Running Travel), Doug Wylie (Warm Sands Villas), Barbara Barrett (Attorney at Law), Brian Beard (Prudential California Realty), Bob Bogard (Palm Springs Chamber of Commerce), Don DeBoer, and Michael Genova (Wells Fargo Bank). Others in attendance included George Zander, President of the Desert Stonewall Democrats.
turneresqon Clinton Blasting Obama for Character Problems
Whose Afraid of Barack Obama? byFrank Rich, a must read
Hillary Clinton is having a rough time, lately. Now she is attacking Obama for not only asking students for their votes, but to ask them to come back from out of state to vote for him. The thing is this, it is legal. The Secretary of State in Iowa said it is within the law. Now she is whining that Iowa is for Iowans. Ummmm. Disenfranchising students? What is next? psericks, runs it down here.
NPR on Polls, Iowa; DNC Fall Meeting, Speech by Obama(real player required); Michelle Obama in Indianola, IA (real player required); Brown & Black Recap; Video of Obama Supporters @ Black & Brown Forum
Office Opening in Tuscaloosa, AL; AFSCME Illinois Backs Obama; Des Moines Mayor Frank Cownie Backs Obama; Salt Lake Office Opens; Linda Nelson, President of Iowa State Eduacation Association, Endorses Obama; Obama Opens San Diego Office; Iowa State Representative Deborah Berry Endorses Obama
Dodd and Clinton, Stop Killing the Democratic Pary, byDemocraticLuntz
Need Obama information? Don’t know where to go? Well, here is the Obama Campaign one-stop-shop for information, right here. Everything you need to know pertaining to media is a click away. Also, the Obama Campaign has launched a fact check page which is part of their website. This is critically important since Senator Hillary Clinton has decided to go all out negative, due to the Des Moines Register Poll, released Sunday. Obama is about addressing the issues and having a civil, lively debate. But when the opposition decides to attack character, you need to protect yourself with fact.
Does Oprah Winfrey’s endorsement help Sen. Barack Obama? She doesn’t hurt.
The question seems to be on everyone’s lips. Obama’s campaign announced Monday that Winfrey will join the presidential hopeful next month in the important lead-off states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
I doubt that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, was thrilled to hear that news. The conventional wisdom holds that celebrity endorsements don’t mean much, if anything. But, hey, this is …Oprah!
We’re talking about the queen of all media taking on the diva of Democratic politics. Chicago Tribune
The first thing I ever heard about Barack Obama was that he had a white mother and a black father. I heard this over and over again, never in a snide or gossipy way, always matter-of-factly. Apparently this was the way we Americans had to introduce Obama to each other. For some reason, knowledge of his racial pedigree had to precede even the mention of his politics–as if the pedigree inevitably explained the politics.
Of course, I am rather sensitive to all this because I, too, was born to a white mother and a black father, though I did not fully absorb this fact, which would have been so obvious to the outside world, until I was old enough to notice the world’s fascination–if not obsession–with it. To this day it is all but impossible for me to actually stop and think of my parents as white and black or to think of myself, therefore, as half and half. This is the dumb mathematics of thinking by race–dumb because race is used here as a kind of bullying truth that pushes aside the actual human experience. Time
Our country is in serious trouble. The gap between the wealthy elite and the working majority grows ever larger, tens of millions of Americans lack health insurance and others risk bankruptcy when they get seriously ill, and many public schools do a poor job of educating the next generation. Due to the arrogant, inept foreign policy of the current administration, more people abroad mistrust and fear the United States than at any time since the height of the Vietnam War. Meanwhile, global warming speeds toward an unprecedented catastrophe. Many Republicans and overwhelming numbers of Independents and Democrats believe that, under George W. Bush, the nation has badly lost its way. The 2008 election thus comes at a critical time in the history of the United States and the world.
We endorse Barack Obama for president because we think he is the candidate best able to address and start to solve these profound problems. As historians, we understand that no single individual, even a president, leads alone or outside a thick web of context. As Abraham Lincoln wrote to a friend during the Civil War, “I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me.” more
icebergslim’s last word: terror of the polls. negative attacks. kindergarten essays.
Well, David Yepsen wrote an op-ed piece about getting hot. And the candidate who is hot since the JJ Dinner is Barack Obama.
It is apparent by the new Des Moines Register Iowa Poll. This poll shows that Barack Obama is up 3 points and that the race is fluid and within the margin of error. But the most telling of the information is the lost ground by Hillary Clinton to women. Women are moving towards Barack Obama and away from Clinton.
Why telling? Women are her firewall. They are. And this is scaring her to death. So, what happens? She is going negative and toward attacking Barack Obama’s character.
I say, bring it on. Why? Hillary Clinton does not own the trust nor honesty issue. She does not. Repeatedly in polling this has been her weakness. Now it has come to fruition. People are questioning her truthiness, unwilling to be candid, do they like her, and if they trust her.
All the above are valid. And we must thank her husband for his lapse of truth when he announced he opposed the War in Iraq, from the start, only to get blasted because he supported the War in Iraq. All this is a reminder of the Throwback Clinton Years that Democrats are finding out they don’t want again.
I am for a jousting, civil debate on the issues. I am. But, when you go negative to attack one’s character that is a stretch for me. If many recall wasn’t it Clinton crying about her contemporaries attacking her? And hasn’t it been Bill Richardson, lately when given a microphone, stating in nice subliminal terms, “Don’t attack each other?” Now, Hillary has thrown all of this out of the window because of one poll?
Damn. She must really live and breathe polls. If one poll does this, what will she do if she loses Iowa or New Hampshire? Perish the thought!!
And finally, Hillary, I thought you of all the candidates were the most thorough on oppo research. To have to read that you are citing Barack Obama’s kindergarten and very early school years for his ambition to be president is well, just desperate. For a child to aspire to be president is a good thing. What is wrong with that? Clinton does not get it. Now she has resorted to taking Obama’s kindergarten and early school essays of “I Want to be President”, as serious oppo research and is using this against him. This is truly profound and pathetic.
I would hope any child would aspire to be that president, astronaut, teacher, doctor, nurse, firefighter, policeman, etc. These are proud professions that aid the public, but to actually use his kindergarten aspirations as an attack weapon?
All I can write is, “Hillary have you lost your mind?”
Washington Post on February 5th Organizing bypsericks
::
If you appreciate the weekly Obama Roundup, then Tip My Obama Jar!! Minimum five dollars. This contribution goes directly to the Obama Campaign. We are in the last stretch of fundraising, Quarter 4, it ends December 31st. Remember to make your contribution.
::
As the Iowa Caucus is nearing, need to know what to do? Find everything at The Caucus Center.
as the cold is starting to set in and the holidays are upon us, remember we must stay focused and resolved. many of us are taking time off work, leaving family members at home, to push senator obama over the top in these early states. we are the obama advocates and supporters. whether you donate money, time, trips to these early states, always remember to focus on obama and not the drama. because the drama is being slung, rapidly.
