Pat Condell: a great rant!

Yes, I am a liberal and remain one.

A Case Study of Why a Democratic Supermajority Means Nothing

I remember this post from a while ago:

Relax. I think what has happened is that the R’s have gotten so bat-*hit crazy that the only ones that they will accept are those completely divorced from reality.

Look at who the Ds have: Pryor, Blanche, Landrieux (sp), Byrd, etc. These people are conservative by, say, Illinois or New York standards and would be Rs in those states. Even with 60 “D”, it is hardly a liberal juggernaut.

I’ll say it again: the current Democratic Party is a collection of centrists and conservatives (aka: “bluedogs”) and the Republicans are mostly the bat-shit insane wingnuts.

Anyway, the fact is that the Senate won’t take up health care reform this August.

I am saddened but not surprised. I give President Obama credit for trying. But the fact is that we have a sad, sad collection on our side; we’ve never had the unity that the Republicans had.

Still, when it comes to health care, at least one respected voice says that it is too early to despair.

Civil Discourse? Yet another reason it is all but impossible.

Just Read.

So, this is the work of uneducated trash right?

Well no; it was educated trash that did this:

Now, Tea Party activists trafficking in racist imagery are pretty much dog bites man. But McKalip isn’t just some random winger. He’s a Florida neurosurgeon, who serves as a member of the American Medical Association’s House of Delegates.

He’s also an energetic conservative opponent of health-care reform. McKalip founded the anti-reform group Doctors For Patient Freedom, as well as what seems to be a now defunct group called Cut Taxes Now. Last month he joined GOP congressmen Tom Price and Phil Gingrey, among others, for a virtual town hall to warn about the coming “government takeover of medicine.” And in a recent anti-reform op-ed published in the St. Petersburg Times, McKalip wrote that “Congress wants to create larger, government-funded programs for health care and more bureaucracy that ration care and impose cookbook medicine.”

Two midmorning quips; July 23 09

Talk about an interesting political stroke: the Republicans filed a nonsensical health care amendment:

Senator Tom Coburn is a physician who until recently still went home to Oklahoma to deliver babies. He believes Congress should weigh the dangers of a nationalized health system much more seriously than it has. In the tradition of someone using a 2×4 to win the attention of a mule, yesterday he successfully pressed the Senate Health Committee to approve his idea of requiring Members of Congress themselves to enroll in whatever “public plan” is passed to compete with private insurance companies.

“Let’s demonstrate leadership — and confidence in the system — by requiring that every member of Congress go into it,” Mr. Coburn told his colleagues as they were marking up the health care proposal championed by Senator Ted Kennedy. His idea wasn’t exactly greeted warmly by many public plan supporters. Senator Jeff Bingaman, a New Mexico Democrat, responded: “I don’t know why we should require ourselves to participate in a plan that no one else needs to participate in. This bill goes to great lengths to show that the choice is there for everybody.”

So, why file such a stupid amendment (one that would give MORE restrictions to Congress than to the general public?)

Here is why: look at the title of this “article”: see? EVEN CONGRESS DOESN’T WANT OBAMA CARE!!!
(of course, the amendment isn’t offering Obama care to Congress; one of the points is to allow the public to have the same options that Congress currently has).

But many of the rank and file conservative idiots don’t know that; right now on facebook and on other sites, they are going around spreading this misinformation.

No, I am not calling it a “lie”: technically the Republicans didn’t lie; they just put it out there knowing that their desperate followers will misread and misunderstand it and therefore spread this misinformation. They think that they are being honest.

It is disingenuous, really.

Scandal in New Jersey: organ selling?

Just through MSNBC at least 20 arrested including the mayors of Seacaucus and Hoboken. Preliminary reports also state a human organ transplant ring and money laundering outfit attached to the crime.

Reporting is also out showing several Rabbis being arrested. I will update this diary, or deleteit entirely if a better arrives.

The Associated Press

NEWARK, N.J. – FBI agents are sweeping across northern New Jersey Thursday, making arrests in what reportedly is described as a major corruption probe.

WNBC-TV in New York reported and showed images of the mayors of Hoboken and Secaucus being taken into FBI headquarters in Newark. The station also showed rabbis being taken into custody

23 July 09 (am)

Workout notes yoga, then a 8K (5 mile) walk (9 goose loop laps: 38:15 via 12:55, 25:56) doing the 2-1. Tired from yesterday’s festivities. I didn’t get dive bombed but the geese did hiss at me.

Note: during yesterday’s run, I actually felt my knees lift for the first two laps. If I can make my legs strong enough to lift my knees for the entire mile or 5K, my running will improve drastically and I might become a stronger walker too.

Articles: How does one test for drug use on a community wide basis? Sample the sewer water! Of course this can only help the authorities find how widespread drug use is in a community; I wonder if is only a matter of time before one can get a warrant to, say, tap into a sewer line coming outside of an individual john, building or house?

Science Here is an interesting article on how ants make a decision and it’s contrast with the human decision making mechanism.

Comment (Just saying) PZ Myers complains about the New Atheist article on Wikipedia. But here is the reason I am linking to this complaint:

This is an article that actually belongs on Conservapædia—it is that bad.

Health care: DemConWatch warns of the perils of having a health exchange with no public option:

There is no guarantee that insurance will be affordable to anyone under the Exchange system.

Trust me, I’ve looked. And I believe that since the top end of premiums is capped, the insurance companies will bump up the base rates.

Let’s look at some numbers. They vary from state to state, so your mileage may vary. These are Pennsylvania numbers from last year, and while the rates have risen, the order of magnitude remains the same.

* If you are a 23 year old who needs basic coverage, meaning no preventive care, and capped benefits for major medical (heart attack, cancer, etc.), with a high deductible, no dental, vision or prescriptions, you can get a policy for about $70/month.

* If you are a 40 year old with one pre-existing condition, say: high blood pressure, a previous high-risk pregnancy, a prior, completely treated skin cancer, IF you can get a policy, it will start at about $400/month.

* If you are a 50 year old with a serious pre-existing condition, say, a prior heart attack, Type 1 diabetes, or on-going cancer treatment, you will NOT be able to get health insurance, except from the provider of last resort (Blue Cross/Blue Shield in Pennsylvania) which will offer you limited benefits for a minimum of $900/month, and they will exclude for 2 years anything ongoing (like current cancer treatment.)

Under all the bills with an Exchange, the most they can charge someone is two times the amount they charge the person to whom they offer the lowest premium. BELIEVE ME when I tell you that the $70 premium is going away. The most base rate will have to rise to at least $300/month PER PERSON.

The insurance companies cannot give up that 15% – 20% they need for overhead, obscene salaries for C-level employees and profit for the stockholders. (What they call “administrative costs”)

You could knock at least 12% of the premium cost off if there were a Public Option, as public health insurance programs have administrative costs of 2 – 4% at most. That could decrease to 1% under Single Payer.

So when you hear the talk that “exchanges” or “co-ops” are a true change because there will be transparency, and insurers will compete with one another, don’t believe it. Think of it like pricing gasoline for your car: a lot of transparency because the prices are posted on the big signs. But there is a minimum none of the providers fall below. And if they can get an extra penny out of you, they will. They don’t care about you, they don’t care about your car. They care about profit. It’s no different here. Without a true public option, or better yet, Single Payer, there is little true change in how insurance is provided.

I warmly welcome rebuttal to this point, but informed rebuttal only please.

Paul Krugman on President Obama’s performance last night:

OK, so let me get this straight. The initial reaction of the cable talking heads was that Obama blew it because he didn’t couch his argument in terms of personal anecdotes, Reagan-style. Then, when it was pointed out that he did, in fact, offer a number of specific examples of people harmed by our current system, the whine became that he didn’t give their names.

Now, it’s true that George Bush liked to give names of people who would benefit from his tax cuts; but Ronald Reagan’s anecdotes — about, say, the Cadillac-driving welfare queen — generally didn’t name names. And there was a good reason for that: with rare exceptions, Reagan’s folksy anecdotes weren’t true.

So what are the talking heads really complaining about? It’s not what Obama didn’t do — it’s what he did, namely talk seriously about policy. How unpresidential of him!

I love this guy.

Pres. Obama: Public option will restrain insurance industry – Daily Kos TV (beta)

Full video can be found here.

more about "Pres. Obama: Public option will restr…", posted with vodpod

Note: Paul Krugman is worried because he liked the press conference too much; the President had too good of a command of the issues.

The Gates comments

Pres. Obama to GOP: Health reform isn’t a political game – Daily Kos TV (beta)

more about "Pres. Obama to GOP: Health reform isn…", posted with vodpod

Peoria Area Track Club and Meet

Yeah, I was the only one who showed up for the 1600 meter (1 mile) run.

Result: 1:38, 3:20, 5:06, 7:03
1:38, 1:42, 1:46, 1:57. Needless to say I died on the last lap! I am simply not used to running.

Here is the remaining schedule from Adam White: (meets are held at Peoria Stadium; today’s events started at 5:30, with sign ups starting at 4:30; contact Running Central for information:

Update: here is a link to the official schedule (pdf file).

Wednesday, July 22 –

50 Meters – (JH and younger)

1600 Meters – JH and older)

100 Meters

400 Meters

Long Jump – HS-Older then JH and younger

High Jump – JH and younger then HS-Older

Shot Put – JH and younger then HS-Older

Tuesday, July 28 –

50 Meters – (JH and Younger)

800 Meters – (JH and Older)

200 Meters

3000 Meters – (JH and Older)

Long Jump – HS-Older then JH and younger

High Jump – JH and younger then HS-Older

Shot Put – JH and younger then HS-Older

Wednesday, August 5 –

50 Meters – (JH and Younger)

1600 Meters – (JH and Older)

100 Meters

400 Meters

3,000 Meters – (HS and Older)

Long Jump – HS-Older then JH and younger

High Jump – JH and younger then HS-Older

Shot Put – JH and younger then HS-Older

Tuesday, August 11 – Tentative

100/110 Hurdles

50 Meters – (JH and Younger)

800 Meters

200 Meters

5000 Meters – (HS and Older)

Relay?

Long Jump – HS-Older then JH and younger

High Jump – JH and younger then HS-Older

Shot Put – JH and younger then HS-Older

Discus – HS-Older

Wednesday, August 19 – Tentative

100/110 Hurdles

50 Meters – (JH and Younger)

800 Meters

200 Meters

3000/5000 Meters – (JH and Older)

Relay???

Long Jump – HS-Older then JH and younger

High Jump – JH and younger then HS-Older

Shot Put – JH and younger then HS-Older

Discus – HS-Older

Tuesday, August 25 -

100/110 Hurdles

50 Meters – (JH and Younger)

1600 Meters

200 Meters

3000/5000 Meters – (JH and Older)

Relay???

Long Jump – HS-Older then JH and younger

High Jump – JH and younger then HS-Older

Shot Put – JH and younger then HS-Older

Discus – HS-Older

22 July 09 (am)

Workout notes I rested this morning; I might try an “all comers” track meet this afternoon (mile?)

Links

Dowd on driving, cell phones and misuse of technology while driving.

The “arresting of Harvard Professor Henry Gates incident” (via Salon).

From Daily Kos: read the comments to see what liberals are reading.

Here is an interesting essay on obesity and health care reform.

Glenn Beck

Someone made a vampire mash-up on it.

Why Civil Debate is all but impossible

Some people are picking up on stuff like this:

With the public’s trust in his handling of health care tanking (50%-44% of Americans disapprove), the White House has launched a new phase of its strategy designed to pass Obamacare: all Obama, all the time. As part of that effort, Obama hosted a conference call with leftist bloggers urging them to pressure Congress to pass his health plan as soon as possible.

During the call, a blogger from Maine said he kept running into an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. He asked: “Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?” President Obama replied: “You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.” (quote begins at 17:10)

Oh noes! President Obama is “not familiar” with that provision!

Why? BECAUSE IT ISN’T THERE.

During the July 20 edition of his Fox News program, Sean Hannity falsely claimed that “if we look at the provisions of the bill, it’s pretty astounding. For example, if you’re not — if you don’t have private insurance the year that this bill is passed, you can’t get that later on from your employer.” In fact, section 311 of the tri-committee House health care reform bill allows employers to meet coverage requirements by offering employees “coverage under a qualified health benefits plan (or under a current employment-based health plan (within the meaning of section 102(b))) in accordance with section 312.”

From section 311 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009:

SEC. 311. HEALTH COVERAGE PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS.

An employer meets the requirements of this section if such employer does all of the following:

(1) OFFER OF COVERAGE. — The employer offers each employee individual and family coverage under a qualified health benefits plan (or under a current employment-based health plan (within the meaning of section 102(b))) in accordance with section 312.

(2) CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS COVERAGE. — If an employee accepts such offer of coverage, the employer makes timely contributions towards such coverage in accordance with section 312.

(3) CONTRIBUTION IN LIEU OF COVERAGE. — Beginning with Y2, if an employee declines such offer but otherwise obtains coverage in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan (other than by reason of being covered by family coverage as a spouse or dependent of the primary insured), the employer shall make a timely contribution to the Health Insurance Exchange with respect to each such employee in accordance with section 313.

Section 312 states that an employer “offers the coverage described in section 311(1) either through an Exchange-participating health benefits plan or other than through such a plan.” It also provides that the employer must contribute a certain portion of the costs of the plan.

From section 312:

SEC. 312. EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS EMPLOYEE AND DEPENDENT COVERAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL. — An employer meets the requirements of this section with respect to an employee if the following requirements are met:

(1) OFFERING OF COVERAGE. — The employer offers the coverage described in section 311(1) either through an Exchange-participating health benefits plan or other than through such a plan.

(2) EMPLOYER REQUIRED CONTRIBUTION. — The employer timely pays to the issuer of such coverage an amount not less than the employer required contribution specified in subsection (b) for such coverage.

(3) PROVISION OF INFORMATION. — The employer provides the Health Choices Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of the Treasury, as applicable, with such information as the Commissioner may require to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this section.

(4) AUTOENROLLMENT OF EMPLOYEES. — The employer provides for autoenrollment of the employee in accordance with subsection (c).

The bill defines a “qualified health benefits plan” as “a health benefits plan that meets the requirements for such a plan under title I and includes the public health insurance option.” Title I of the bill does not prohibit employers from enrolling employees in private plans.

As Media Matters for America has noted, Hannity previously cited an Investor’s Business Daily editorial citing section 102 of Title I to falsely claim that “if you don’t have your insurance the year this legislation is implemented, you can’t have a private insurance company.” In fact, that provision establishes the conditions under which existing private plans would be exempted from the requirement that they participate in the Health Insurance Exchange. Individual health insurance plans that do not meet the “grandfather” conditions would still be available for purchase, but only through the Exchange and subject to those regulations.

From the July 20 edition of Fox News’ Hannity:

HANNITY: Now he said — he did say tonight, I think it was on the Jim Lehrer show –

DOUG SCHOEN (Democratic pollster): Jim Lehrer, yeah.

HANNITY: OK, he did say tonight that he’s willing to push off or he believes it’s inevitable that this –

SCHOEN: Let it bleed a little, I think [inaudible].

HANNITY: — artificial deadline — but the more people become aware of what’s in this thing, if we look at the provisions of the bill, it’s pretty astounding. For example, if you’re not — if you don’t have private insurance the year that this bill is passed, you can’t get that later on from your employer.

BETSY HART (Chicago Sun-Times columnist): Yeah, Sean, you know, I mean, if anybody should want a universal health care coverage plan, it’s me.

Basically, what you have are desperate, gullible people being lead about by liars.