Healthcare Reform Should Equal Lower Cost

Maybe the answer should be less, not more?

"The House bill would expand insurance coverage by increasing Medicaid eligibility and delivering tax credits to people earning as much as 400 percent of the poverty level, or about $43,000 a year for an individual. Small businesses and individuals who had trouble buying insurance would be able to shop for plans through new purchasing groups dubbed "exchanges." Individuals who did not purchase insurance by 2013 would face a penalty of 2.5 percent of their income, and employers that did not provide coverage to their workers would be fined as much as 8 percent of their payroll, a provision the CBO estimates would generate $30 billion a year. "

Since we are spending a little talked about fortune on Health care, and this plan is going to cost a small fortune more, perhaps the answer lies at least somewhat in reducing costs?

Making insurance -- let alone mandatory insurance, which is far worse -- an even bigger part of the equation, seems to be quite the opposite. It would seem that at least part of the answer should lie in working towards more direct consumer involvement in their own health care and insurance, and a focus on efficient, catastrophic and other streamlined forms of "protective" rather than "convenience" insurance -- the latter of which has only served to create a fortune costing mountain of paperwork and administrative overhead, and a large fortune in insurance company profits.

It seems that this bill might well be rewarding the big lobbyists, more than anyone.

Perhaps the extremely unethical access that the Washington Post insists that it was not trying to sell, was not even really necessary after all?

The point is, anyone objective could legitimately be skewering Palin far more than has been done -- on her record, rhetoric, and constant manipulations.

This is a far different matter than sexism. And when it has even minimally been done, Palin has falsely accused her critics of precisely such sexism and other irrelevancies, using her rhetoric much like a bludgeon. And the media have played right into it. (Speaking of which; here, the winners of our sellout of the year club, giving voice to the "genius" that is Sarah Palin. We'll address the blatant manipulations in this energy and logic obscenity laced piece, a bit later.)

Of course, this is the same person, who when skeptics noted that the then vice presidential nominee's experience was limited to 20 months as governor of a state with a population under that of many small cities, and had been major of a town of around 6800, viciously wielded this same rhetoric like a weapon, vociferously claiming that they and "the media" were "attacking small town America;" Or that, in a pejorative context, then candidate (and now President) Obama was "not like you or I." Frighteningly misleading rhetoric, that.

By the way, what other famous historical rhetoritician used such type of "not like you or I" logic?

This was also a person who could not name one single news source that she read. Who held open political rallies where secret service blocked reporter's access to everyday citizens; whose own presidential campaign staffers, fairly or not, have expressed grave concerns over her, and was found by the Alaska Legislature to have "abused her powers" as Governor, and mislead about it after the fact; allegedly claimed dinosaurs and humans once coexisted (a claim that was never refuted by Palin); couldn't cite a single Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade; just like she repeatedly claimed that she opposed the "bridge to nowhere" when she had been a vocal supporter until it became a national boondoogle and Congress made it clear Alaska was not getting another dime for the project; boasted to Americans how she called for divestiture of Alaska investments in Sudan,when in fact it was her administration that blocked the bill calling for divestiture; lashed out at "Washington's 'good 'ole boy' network" while back at home taking such nepotism, cronyism, and favoritism to new heights; when explaining her foreign policy credentials because "Alaska is close to Russia" mysteriously claimed "we have trade missions back and forth;" labeled herself an energy expert yet claimed that Alaska "produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy" when in fact Alaska produces about 1/7th of that amount; as major tried to fire a librarian who wouldn't cooperate with her untoward, and multiple inquiries ("on behalf of a constituent") as to how to ban books; presided as major over the billing of rape victims for evidence gathering exams; campaigned for vice president on an anti federal pork platform, but as major went so far as to use taxpayer money to hire a lobbying firm, in raising almost 27 million dollars in federal money, for a town that averaged around 6,800 residents; did very well to distinguish us from our enemies, by proclaiming that soldiers in Iraq were on a "task from God;" etc.

But of course, how bad can she be, she is going to campaign for Democrats! What open mindedness. We'll see how many she actually campaigns for. We're pretty sure it will be zero. Of course, if she is really clever and wants to play the "skewering media" and voters like a fiddle, she actually will campaign for one, just for show.

"Unfortunately, neither Democratic nor Republican senators will decry the post-New Deal rulings that transformed our constitutional order from what Princeton professor Stephen Macedo has called "islands of [government] powers in a sea of rights" to "islands of rights in a sea of [government] powers."

So we hope that this Georgetown Law Professor, penning this today in the Wall Street Journal, was an outspoken critic of the Bush Administration impositions upon the 1st (the anticipation of enormous nets of surveillance potentially chilling, embarrassing, political or otherwise private speech) the 4th ("...to be secure in one's person's, houses, papers and effects.......no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause"), the 5th (due process), or the 9th (the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution "shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people") Amendments to the Constitution.

He must be particularly outraged by a Congress that a few years ago passed the UIGEA which effectively banned the ability to fund online poker -- telling people what games of short term chance, long term skill, they can and can't play from the privacy of their own home with their own funds, as well as other notible infringements upon individuals in what should otherwise be private matters.

He's probably horrified by the idea of indefinite detention for detainees -- detainees about whom we are not certain are guilty of any crime (more notes here).

Or does "inherent right" largely mean the right to produce any product whatsover, completely unregulated, and in so doing, pollute the very air that you, I and others breathe, even to the point of unduly, and collectively, effecting the health, and even, quite significantly, the mortality rate, of everyone who lives under the same skies? That seems to be what it is often confused with, when hears constitutional rhetoric these days. Not necessarily always by Georgetown Law professors, however (to say the least), so we don't know.

A google search, for now, didn't indicate much, in one direction or the other. More later.

We covered this below, but we still think it's kinda funny: More proof that gay marriage simply does not work.

We covered this below, but we still think it's kinda funny: More proof that gay marriage simply does not work.

Speaking of health care reform, the lack of adequate discussion of the wasteful costs involved, and just in case you otherwise missed it:

"You may have missed the story because it broke on the eve of the July 4th weekend. The publisher of THE WASHINGTON POST, Katharine Weymouth — one of the most powerful people in the nation's capital — invited top officials from the White House, the Cabinet and Congress to her home for an intimate, off-the-record dinner to discuss health care reform with some of her reporters and editors covering the story.

But she then invited CEOs and lobbyists from the health care industry to come, too — providing they fork over $25,000 a head, or a quarter of a million if they want to sponsor a whole series of these cozy little get-togethers. And what is the inducement she offers them? Nothing less than — and I'm quoting the invitation verbatim — "An exclusive opportunity to participate in the health care reform debate among the select few who will actually get it done."

It is?

And if one travels to the link that "backs up" this claim, one can also learn -- hold onto your seats now -- that the fictional movie Saturday Night Fever, was a work of fiction. Yes, I kid you not. "Did you know that ...the basis for Saturday Night Fever, and thus probably for everything you think you know about disco -- was a fabrication?" Gasp. Does Johnny Travolta know about this?

Also, apparently, "Saturday Night Fever" was really "Quadrophenia." I mean,they both had "troubled kids" revolving around a music scene. So why not.

Next this site is going to be telling us that the Who's Quadrophenia, was "made up" also.

Bob Somerby has been asking for weeks why health care reform has to cost countless hundreds of billions of dollars additional, and why we have to spend so much on health care to begin with.

He has also been repeatedly asking why the media has not been asking these questions, or even covering the issue of cost, relative to what many other industrialized countries actually spend in return for similar services.

These are actually pretty good questions.

They are also questions that do should not fall so easily fall into the over abused, and often highly misleading and improperly designated categories of so called "left," and "right" -- as government spending on medicare, and medicaid, is the second highest category of spending in our national budget, after defense. That's a lot of money.

It seems to us that perhaps "reform" should include some level of savings. And perhaps this savings could help to pay for the additional coverage that we seem reasonably, to want to be able to provide to those without any means to pay for it themselves

But we think the place to start is by moving away from excessive over insurance, which saps away much of the money actually "spent" on health care.

But most of the talk so far seems to be in the direction of furthering over insurance. This would seem to go hand in hand with the seemingly presumed idea that healh care "reform," somewhat contradictorily, needs to cost somewhere upwards of a trillion dollars over and above the gargantuan sums that we are already spending. Doesn't it?

"The word “environmentalist” usually conjures images of dreadlocked campaigners in tie-dyed T-shirts who eat only organic muesli and never travel by car." Really? To who, the far far right? Particularly since a majority of Americans identify themselves as environmentalists.

But the author of this report then notes that this is so "70s." (Except back in the 70s, who knew that muesli was actually pretty good stuff? Probably just a bunch of tie dyed wearing dread locked hippies who never travelled by car.)

More seriously, among other intriguing arguments put forth in this article in the always intriguing (and sometimes quite good) "American Conservative" magazine, the author postulates that the "green industrial complex" (you have to read the article to see what that is) "implicitly denigrates production, since all forms of modern manufacturing emit CO2."

This is a flawed, and important enough, concept, that we thought we'd briefly address it here. All forms of manufacturing emit CO2, since we were not concerned about excessive CO2 emissions. But all forms of manufacturing do not have to emit CO2, to put it mildly. In fact, the manufacturing of that which helps produce other energy sources not only does not have to produce CO2 (if non CO2 energy sources are utilized therein) but in turn helps render other manufacturing non CO2 emitting, while itself contributing further to economic growth.

The article talks about "stagnating economies," when what we are really looking at, is stagnating ideas of what growth necessarily has to be circumscribed, defined, and enabled by. There is a whole new world out there of non carbon emitting energy possibilities. But it's pretty old school not to see it, particularly when one of the main sources, the sun, is staring us in the face some dozen or so hours each day.

"The word “environmentalist” usually conjures images of dreadlocked campaigners in tie-dyed T-shirts who eat only organic muesli and never travel by car." Really? To who, the far far right? Particularly since a majority of Americans identify themselves as environmentalists.

But the author of this report then notes that this is so "70s." (Except back in the 70s, who knew that muesli was actually pretty good stuff? Probably just a bunch of tie dyed wearing dread locked hippies who never travelled by car.)

More seriously, among other intriguing arguments put forth in this article in the always intriguing (and sometimes quite good) "American Conservative" magazine, the author postulates that the "green industrial complex" (you have to read the article to see what that is) "implicitly denigrates production, since all forms of modern manufacturing emit CO2."

This is a flawed, and important enough, concept, that we thought we'd briefly address it here. All forms of manufacturing emit CO2, since we were not concerned about excessive CO2 emissions. But all forms of manufacturing do not have to emit CO2, to put it mildly. In fact, the manufacturing of that which helps produce other energy sources not only does not have to produce CO2 (if non CO2 energy sources are utilized therein) but in turn helps render other manufacturing non CO2 emitting, while itself contributing further to economic growth.

The article talks about "stagnating economies," when what we are really looking at, is stagnating ideas of what growth necessarily has to be circumscribed, defined, and enabled by. There is a whole new world out there of non carbon emitting energy possibilities. But it's pretty old school not to see it, particularly when one of the main sources, the sun, is staring us in the face some dozen or so hours each day.

More proof that gay marriage simply does not work.

Hilarious Headline of the week: "Palin Willing To Campaign For Democrats." And it's posted on the Huffington Post, among other places.

Yes, Palin is willing to campaign for Democrats. This Palin. Now attempting to play Democrats (who if you ask them, never get played) -- and of course, once again, the voters -- like a fiddle.

I suppose we could give about a thousand examples of how Machiavellian this is, and how, of course, the media (and Huff Post) is playing into it. But what would be the point.

Here's a good idea: "Congress Needs A Read-The-Bill Bill." Hear, hear.