Health Care Summit

I watched the Health Care Summit today on C-Span. Before I go further, I'd like to give kudos to the network.  They did a fabulous job.

Here's my take on the Summit:

Republicans were intent on arguing for a reset.  Getting a "do over" on the legislation would be a significant win for them.  Not only could they claim credit for "stopping a government takeover of health care," (which incidentally is a misrepresentation..) they would gain more time to whittle away at any attempt for reform in an election year.  Democrats would be fools to sacrifice their advantage at this stage in the game, so my money says the Republicans will be disappointed.

The President handled the matter very well today.  He appeared very Presidential and kept himself above the fray.  Throughout the day, he sought to keep the focus on solutions and grounds for compromise rather than political points.

John Boehner is a lying sack of shit.  Not only does his proposed legislation do nothing to ameliorate the health care problem in any appreciable way, it would exacerbate it.  The true beneficiary would be John Boehner and his re-election committee. Boehner outright lied through his teeth with his figures--his misuse of data was so extreme that calling him a liar is to defame real liars everywhere.

Dick Durbin nailed the problem succinctly.  He asked everyone present if they would be willing to give up their insurance so they would understand the plight of millions of Americans.  Wonder how many of those rich people would do that?  I smell a "let them eat cake" obliviousness run rampant.

Jim Cooper acquitted himself appropriately.  He reiterated that every delay in reform costs lives and pushes the debt onto succeeding generations.  Excellent point.  Jim doesn't photograph well though....

Some annoyances:  John McCain needs to get a clue.  Henry Waxman, although rather accurate, is no Mr. Personality.  

My ultimate opinion:  I think the Summit was a success.  It forced everyone to put forward their ideas to be judged on the merits.  It reduced the partisan advantage of health care reform.

The President and the Democrats have extended the olive branch of bipartisanship (moreso than the Republicans).  I suspect they will push their agenda and pass reform, either with or without Republican help.  If they're smart they'll push ahead.

We'll see.

Health Care Reform - Negotiating 101

The President is playing the Republicans masterfully with his proposed Health Care Summit.  Here's a Summary of Obama's Plan.

For too long the Republicans have complained about the lack of bipartisanship in the Health Care Reform business.  Bipartisanship for those ideological windbags means nothing more than giving them everything they want and getting nothing for yourself.  In my book that's not bipartisanship but being spoiled.

With the Health Care Summit looming, the Republicans, who've been nothing but obstructionist since the beginning of Obama's term, have everything to lose and nothing to gain.  Here's why:

If they refuse to participate in the summit, then the accusation that they are the "Party of NO" begins to stick in an election year.  The American People don't want obstruction, they demand real work get finished.  Refusing to play ball makes the Republicans look more partisan than ever; that will not help in an election where the best way to get elected is to look more moderate.

Secondly, if the Republicans do participate, then their role of lobbing bombs is taken from them and they must contribute to a solution.  This mean compromise is the order of the day.  Unfortunately, this batch of Republicans is the most extreme bunch we've seen in a long time, so their ability to compromise is handicapped ab initio.

The net result:  Obama and his team look reasonable and industrious while working for the greater good.  The Republicans look like partisan hacks who are only in it for advantage, but really offer nothing substantive to the debate.

Fascinating and brilliant tactic if you ask me.

It's been a long time, but I'm back: Health Care Reform Screw up.

I want to apologize for my dilatory posting.  My focus has been on Health Care Reform and I wanted to see how the legislation fared.

With the election of Scott Brown to fill Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts, it appears as if the health Care Bill is dead in its tracks.  Kudos to the Republicans for getting back in the game, but shame on them for ignoring the plight of real Americans to help their real constituencies, viz. Big Insurance, Big Hospitals, and Big Pharma.

You can't support policies that help fat cats and also claim to be working for the little guy.  It's hypocrisy at its finest.  Making it worse in my book is all the idiots who are little guys that believe the propaganda and not the results.

Health Care Reform

Health Reform was the driving issue for my vote during the Presidential Election.  Obama promised to use his political capital (All of it I might add...) to get Health Reform passed.

The failure of the Senate and the House to pass meaningful Health Reform falls squarely at Obama's feet.  Instead of leading the battle for this historic legislation, Obama chose to play it cool and stand back while the Legislature did what it does best: Screw up.

I saw this coming, but was hopeful that surely the Democrats wouldn't mess up something so vital  to not only the nation's financial health, but also their political future over the venal scumbaggery so evident in the Republican Party.

But, alas it was not to be.  With the likes of Ben Nelson holding up passage to get some special favors and other Democrats too worried about their political careers to concern themselves with the literal health of our nation, we got nothing but a lot of drama culminating in a loss of Ted Kennedy's seat.

Obama played it too cool on this issue and he "cooled" himself right out of success.

As a lifelong Democrat I am ashamed of my party.  I'm a Democrat because I can't bring myself to support a party that advocates policies for the wealthy and powerful at the expense of everyday folks.  When you fight the well-financed and hypocritical forces of the right, you can't play fair because they won't--they're on a mission from God.

I said it before Obama was elected and I repeat it:  You must fight assholes with assholes. If your aim is to protect the nation's working people and powerless, you must fight fire with fire.  Politics is not the place for playing Jesus and turning the other cheek.

When Good Faith meets Bad.

I've watched the Health Care fracas stunned by the ignorance, stupidity, and partisanship on display.

The Democrats, like they usually do, checked their spines at the doors of the Capitol and allowed themselves to be fooled into thinking the Republicans would actually exercise good faith.

The Democrats are fools for expecting the most extreme Republicans this country has seen in decades to act within the bounds of decency.

As a group, the Republicans have shown their complete dearth of intellectual integrity.  They follow the lead of their demagogue-in-chief, Rush Limbaugh, and misrepresent facts (golly, a politician lying?!); they prey upon the fears of the elderly and rile up the stupid.  

And for what?

Partisan advantage.  

By their actions, the Republicans manifest their desire for victory over any sort of fiscal responsibility.  Health Care reform will bankrupt us unless we make dramatic changes, but these bozos don't care.  Their agenda is more important than the future of the country.


What about the President?

He's made the mistake of pushing for good faith bipartisanship--but with a group lacking any desire to participate.

He's been a chump.

The President is smarter than this.  It's time for him to man-up and  push the agenda WITHOUT Republican support. 


You can't expect morons and partisans to act with reason and mutual regard for the country's best interest.  It's not in their nature to compromise nor even to understand the complexities of the issue.  

They've deliberately planted their flag on the dunghill over-simplification to rouse the nincompoops to their ramparts.


I knew that failing to pass the Health Care bill prior to the August recess was a mistake.  You give a mouthy and trenchant minority an inch, they will take a mile.  Stupid mistake.

Now, we have people crying "socialism" and other such nonsense.  Those calling Health Care reform "socialism" when in fact it is the moral and fiscally responsible thing to do don't deserve a response. They clearly wear blinders to the failings of capitalism--failings that threatens to ruin us.

Does that make me a socialist?  Not hardly.

Ignoring the failings of the private market or glossing over them doesn't make us immune to the impending collapse of our economic well-being brought on by the booms, busts, and fiscal failures created by completely unregulated markets.

I got a message for all the free-market, kool-aid, addicts out there:  Free-markets don't always correct, free-markets don't always fix things.  Don't believe me?  Look at the most recent banking debacle.


I'm sick to death of idiots spouting ideologies adopted as a short-cut to certainty--all because they lack critical thinking skills and an inability to logically and effectively evaluate issues separate from a talking points memo. 


It's time for the adults to show up and take charge of this mess and for the morons on the right and in the Republican party to sit down and learn something from us thinking folks.  

I would like to see the President do his damn job and make the right thing happen, in spite of the Republicans.  The Republicans lack the  intent to engage in constructive bipartisanship.  So quit trying to "play nice." 

In the long run it will be better for the country if we don't allow a bunch of radicalized windbags and their fiscally idiotic constituents to run the table.


Disagree?  Look to your history.  The economy always does better under Democratic presidents.  That's a fact.  It's time the President give the minority party a bloody nose and push this through.

Passing of an Era: So long Teddy

Teddy Kennedy passed away today after a struggle with brain cancer.

He had a long a storied career. Whether you loved him or hated him, it's undeniable that he left a mark on our country.

He lived his life in the public eye. Sometimes that made his foibles seem larger than life. His mistakes were tried in the pubic realm. Similarly though, I think his strengths must also be viewed as larger than life too.

Ted Kennedy stood for the positive impact that government could have on our lives.

Too many today live in a binary world where government is either all bad or it should be a nanny state. Either extreme is irrational.

Ted Kennedy attempted to straddle the middle. Sometimes he failed, but still he tried to bring about good government that works for the benefit of the people it's designed to represent. Ted Kennedy saw government as a tool for the betterment of people--he believed until the end in the edifying power of good government.

I met Ted Kennedy once. He treated me as if we were lifelong friends and with a graciousness far beyond what his position and history would suggest.

I'm moved for the loss that we all suffer by his passing.

So long Teddy.

Law Enforcement wants an end the War on Drugs.

When you have law enforcement advocating for the legalization of drugs, in my mind it means that we have a serious problem without our drug laws.

Two longtime law enforcement officers submitted an editorial to the Washington Post providing gory, first-hand, details of the real War on Drugs.

If doctors got results like we've obtained from the War on Drugs, they'd be out of business. Not only is it morally questionable for the punishment for drug use to be all out of proportion the danger posed--it's also Constitutionally suspect via the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel & unusual punishment.

Drug users are typically non-violent. Drug violence arises primarily from the dealer side or from users who commit crimes to support their habits--habits that if brought into the open could be treated medically rather than ignored by the criminal justice system.

Our War on Drugs forces users underground. In the past, lepers were forced from normal society because of a disease beyond their control. Drug users are marginalized similarly by our stupid War on Drugs, yet even worse is that nothing is really done to deal with the problem.

It's time to use our heads. Deal with drug use as a medical issue and not a criminal justice matter. The criminal justice system has never successfully treated a medical condition. To keep pouring the political snake oil known as the War on Drugs onto it won't fix it. Our political leaders need to man-up.

Health Care Protesters violating the spirit of the Constitution--shameful.

I've watched the debate on health care with some interest. As a person denied coverage due to preexisting condition, I have a dog in this fight.

The protests occurring at town hall meetings have me alarmed. Not because I think they are wrong, but because of their tactics.

"Why would you want to deny citizens their 1st Amendment Right?" you may ask.

I am the last person to argue for an abridgment of 1st Amendment rights. I think every citizen has the right to speak publicly their mind and opinion. I think the Constitution protects every citizen who endeavors to address their duly elected representatives.

The protests at the town hall meetings are different.

The purpose, it seems, behind many of the protests is not the free exercise of 1st Amendment rights. Citizens are exercising their 1st Amendment rights, not to engage in civil discourse, but to deny others the free exercise of their rights.

What do I mean?

Simply this: A person's 1st Amendment Right to flap their lips ends where it prevents me from exercising my 1st Amendment Right to flap mine.

By analogy: If I were to exercise my Right to Bear Arms in a way that prevented you from exercising your Right to Bear Arms, then my act would be outside the law.

Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins, so to speak. This utilitarian doctrine underscores many of our freedoms.

Now, if citizens wish to debate on the merits of health care reform, then by all means the law protects them in civil discourse. These protests are not civil and they are not designed to discuss, but bludgeon. Civil discourse demands respect for the rights of others.

But, if the purpose is to thwart discourse, then it defies Constitutional protections and smells of tyranny.

As a nation, we cannot allow the loud voices of a few to drown out civil dialogue necessary to the proper functioning of our Republic.

Crybaby complainers who lie and misrepresent because they can't get their way is not the American Way.

Adult discussions based on facts, based on civility, and based on reason--now, that's the American Way.

Apple in danger of Antitrust violations over App Store policies: The Rise of Cydia

For those of you enamored of the Apple IPhone or its litte brother the ITouch, the App store provided by apple may be your only avenue for finding those beloved features to make you phone work.

Yet, Apple draws many complaints because of its often "tyrannical" App store policies. Some make it through, while many others do not. Making matters worse, those successfully lighting in the App Store rarely make enough cash to justify their investment of time and money to create the App. Apple makes money regardless of how well an app sells because they invest no money nor time (save the approval process) to create the app.

What to do when you blow your life savings to create an app that fails to curry favor with the gatekeepers at Apple? You go to market anyway--just down the street at Cydia.

Cydia is the marketplace for all the misfit apps.

This was bound to happen sooner or later. Apple established a system demanding high investment for entry, low chance of return, and they topped it off with a gate-keeping system known more for whimsy than for integrity.

The market will always find a way around monopolistic aggression. When the market doesn't Antitrust Law will.

Either way, Cydia is the result.

Republicans receive support from Al Qaeda

How convenient. It seems that the Republicans have found an ally in Al Qaeda.

For a time, the Republicans have bashed Obama. Hell, there's a contingent of wingnuts claiming Obama isn't really American by birth.

Now, Osama bin Laden's number two is siding with the Republicans and their extremist leader (Limbaugh), their extremist hatchet man (Hannity), their extremist court jester (O'Reilly) and their extremist idiot (Beck).

Who'd a thunk it: Republicans and Al Qaeda on the same team!

A note on religious hypocrisy -- 500th posting!

500th posting!!

Plenty of people in my life remain dumbfounded as to why I'm not religious. Aside from the fact that nothing positive in my life has ever been linked to religion, is the fact that many of those of the Christian stripe provide poor references for their faith because of their utter hypocrisy.

To quote George Orwell on Socialism: "As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents."

George makes a good point. Adding more weight to this general antipathy toward faith of any kind, I give you the story of Tennessee State Senator, Paul Stanley.

Senator Stanley preaches evangelical values and a socially conservative agenda. He's a Republican.

What makes him a poor advertisement for evangelical Christianity is his utter hypocrisy.

Of course, many apologists will give bumper sticker responses to my claim: Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven. Hate the sin, love the sinner, etc.

I call bullshit on those sloganistic rationalization for bad behavior.

There's a real simple solution to all this hypocrisy: Don't be a hypocrite. Do what you say. Preach, not with your mouth, but with the example of your life.

I know many atheists and agnostics. Not a one engages in such immoral behavior.

So this begs the question: Maybe its faith that makes people morally weak? You gotta create a problem in order to sell the solution...right?

I don't know. I do know that such hypocrisy is what keeps many people from organized religion.

Corporate welfare is okay with Congress, but not health care reform? Explain that to me please!

When it comes to welfare, it seems that our Congress has skewed priorities.

When health care reform comes up, we get gnashing of teeth and rending of clothes about the cost---from Democrats, no less. Republicans become apoplectic at the mere mention of government oversight of the system.

I recall Ronald Reagan--Republicanism's modern hero--advocating against Medicare in the 1960's saying that it would lead to socialism. Never happened--in fact, Medicare is a good model for health care reform today.

How soon we forget the lies of conservatives past when they recycle their deceits again to scare us from real reform.

But I digress...

Congress decries socialism when it comes to health care reform, but when lining the pockets of defense contractors, our fine legislature becomes a paragon of profligacy and wealth redistribution. Making it worse, the Pentagon objects to the excess, but does anyone listen?

No.

I'll be writing my Congressman and Senator about the disconnect.

The duty of our elected officials is to serve the needs of the many. Instead, they feather their beds by serving wealth and the will of a few.

Maybe it's time for a change from business as usual.

Congress, Senate, and the President should waive all health care insurance until they pass health care reform--it shows solidarity with America.

I've watched the health care drama with close scrutiny.

As a working, middle class, American priced out of medical insurance, you can damn well bet I have an interest in reform.

As with most Americans, I think we need reform.

Insurance has failed in its appointed task: To spread the risk by covering as many people as possible. In fact, insurance companies reduce costly beneficiaries that cost them profits. In the short-term, their bottom line benefits, but it defeats the central premise of good insurance practice, viz., spreading the risk.

Policy makers have a conflict of interest. All of them... ALL OF THEM have coverage paid for with tax dollars. Their judgment is skewed since the sword of Damocles doesn't hang over their heads.

In order for the health care legislation to reach a suitable and equitable conclusion, I suggest a change for our policy makers.

All of them. Every last elected official with the power to vote for or against health care reform must waive any insurance coverage for themselves and for their dependents until every working American has access--real access-- to affordable health insurance.

I suspect that none of them will take my suggestion. That underscores the real point. None of them has a clue about the struggles and the fears that real Americans live with daily due to our current system of insurance and health care.

This isn't surprising though. My Congressman and Senator both come from money and have never done without, so they haven't a clue about the rest of us.

Political Porn: Television & Radio talking heads arouse emotions to short-circuit critical thought

I make a point to ignore talking heads on television and the radio. I also make a point to avoid pornography. I keep clear of both for the same reason.

They arouse desire devoid of meaning and significance.

Do I think we should outlaw talking heads and pornography? Absolutely not. Free speech is protected.

Talking heads, of both the left and right, offer little in the way of substantive analysis or well-reasoned argument. Their purpose is to incite and arouse, much like agitators, who then sit back and decry their innocence when people act on their inflamed emotions.

It's nothing more than cowardice and bullshit, all concealed behind the 1st Amendment.

The problem with talking heads is like the problem with pornography: Both are legal, and they should remain so, but both degrade critical thought and honest emotion.

We recognize porn addiction.

Maybe it's time we recognize political porn addiction represented by talking heads and radio personalities.

As with most addictions, you can't reason someone out of it; the addict must first recognize their problem.

Your Recession: Economic theory taken to a religious extreme has put us where we are today.

Finally, a reputable magazine is finally reporting on a problem that has festered for too long among the financial classes in our country, viz., the infection of ideology.

The Economist points out that much of the economic mess we find ourselves in results from slavish adherence by our financial and economic priesthood to the conceptual ideals of economic theory.

I regularly instruct my students on the conceptual assumptions of economics: supply & demand curves, the invisible hand, rational actors, self-interest. I go the extra step to remind them that humans aren't entirely rational. Markets don't always correct properly without some assistance.

The incentives of the financial world boil down to money. When the goal is to maximize the cash, an ideology justifying greed easily takes root. Like all good memes, the language of economics eliminates or hides any threats to its existence.

Those reifying economic theory to validate and justify their self-interest (greed) fell victim to the irrationalities that their faith ignored. They took us along with them.

Religions and ideologies provide ready-made concepts to explain events; it's a type of reductionism to avoid internal inconsistency--Economics As Religion is no different.

We--and by that I mean those pushing the economic levers of power--must disengage from the ecstasy of their ill-conceived, economics-driven faith.

It's time for a reality check. As a nation, we can't afford any more flights of religious or ideological fancy.

Tennessee Court rules against opponents of gun law change.

I posted a few days ago about the hoopla surrounding a change in the criminal law in Tennessee removing the penalty for handgun permit holders who carry their weapons into restaurants.

I noted that it was a tempest in a teapot.

I got some flack from friends who disagreed.

It seems the court generally agreed with my assessment today.

My prediction was that restaurant owners could post a sign prohibiting patrons from carrying guns. The judge said essentially the same thing.

So the effect? The law goes into effect tonight.

The judge will entertain arguments in three months on vagueness.

The Law is the Law: No one is above it.

Before people begin taking sides in the whole "failing to disclose to Congress" matter, perhaps we should examine the obligations imposed by law n the Executive Branch.

Specifically, 50 U.S.C. Section 413 reads in paragraph (a):

The President shall ensure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity as required by this subchapter.

I think the statute is pretty clear that the Executive Branch has an affirmative obligation to keep Congress informed.

I'm sure we can all agree that the Executive Branch is NOT above the law since it derives its power from said law.

For Dick Cheney to argue that his failure to disclose such activities was in furtherance of ostensibly protecting our national security is bullshit, plain and simple. This is an either/or situation: Either the Executive Branch followed the law OR they failed to do so. Where's the middle ground?

The Executive Branch lacks Constitutional and statutory authority to ignore this law. It does so at its peril to the law. Every good, law-abiding, citizen should demand prosecution for this illegal conduct.

Apparently, too many place party loyalty above the Constitution and the law, since they argue against prosecution.

Patriotism is not merely for our convenience.

AG Holder should prosecute.

Cussing has palliative value.

These results are awesome!

Now, I have a scientific excuse for my foul mouth.

When you hurt yourself, it's good to let fly with a stream of expletives to reduce the perception of pain.

Cool!

Traitors in our midst--Cognitive Dissonance must give way to justice.

For years I've complained of the illegality of warrantless wiretapping by the Bush administration. My patriotism and my support for our War on Terror has been questioned because I exercised my duty as a citizen to question our government. The founding fathers would be aghast at the ideological demands of the right.

Now, it seems my criticisms of the Bush administration's flaunting of the law in an effort to thwart the Constitution were not so far off the mark.

When the executive branch of our government goes to great lengths to conceal illegal activities, regardless of the motive, then we have a serious problem.

Dick Cheney and his cronies skirted the law, much like Nixon. They violated their oaths to uphold the Constitution and to support the laws of our nation.

These traitors deserve justice.

Fudging the law to fight our enemies makes us no better than those who attacked us. If you ignore these crimes because of party affiliation or ideology, then perhaps you should read the Constitution again.

Health care rationing is a reality but Wall Street makes the decisions instead of doctors

When I read this article, I became quite angry because the subject says what we already know to be the case, viz.,. Insurance Companies get rid of costly customers for their bottom line.

Our current system violates every moral fiber of my being. The subject of the article finally awoke to the immorality of serving Wall Street over Main Street.

The best point made by the article: Health Care rationing is a reality.

The reality: Insurance Executives do the rationing now to mollify their Wall Street masters.

This begs the question: Who would you rather ration your health care? An executive whose primary interest is to shareholders?

OR

A government that is subject to the will of the electorate at least every couple of years?

I don't know about you, but I'd prefer a government beholden to me and my fellow citizens over an executive beholden only to shareholders.

I leave you with this: What's the moral choice here? Leave the greedy in charge or let doctors, patients, and elected officials decide?

Tennessee authorizes gun permit holders to carry weapons in restaurants---big deal.

Tennessee has changed the law to authorize concealed carry permit holders to exercise their right to carry in restaurants.

Everybody is up in arms about this---to a ridiculous degree.

Even a Nashville restaurant owner has gotten in the act by suing to have the law declared unconstitutional.

My reading of the State Constitution at Article I, Sect. 26 tells me the lawsuit won't succeed. The legislature has plenary power to make laws related to the right to bear arms. They've done so here.

Here's why I think it's a tempest in a teapot: Nothing in the law requires a restaurant owner to admit anyone who carries a gun. The law only authorizes those with a permit to carry it in a restaurant.

Randy Rayburn needs to take a chill pill and just put up a sign on his door that reads: No Guns Allowed.

If he does so, the law will back him up if he wants to throw someone out. Simple enough.

Instead, everybody has to go all ape-shit over nothing just for press attention. Makes me sick.

I support the 2nd Amendment, but I also support the right of restaurant owners to bar those who wish to pack heat too. This law doesn't interfere with either right.