It looks like the Duracell batteries are not the only things that keep going and going and going. Our beloved lawmakers in Congress are still haggling over a Public Option for the proposed Health Care Reform Act.
First of all, any reasonably intelligent person knows that the Public Option is good, let me repeat, good for the uninsured and under-insured citizenry. That is the main reason that the "bought and paid for" members of Congress, both Democrat and Republican, have pretended to find fault with it. No one but the greedy and heartless Insurance Industry executives would be against this reform. Any kind of real reform (i.e., Public Option) would threaten their bloated incomes.
That, my friends, is all that this opposition is about. I don't know why the smart politicians, including our beloved President will not just come out and say it. They know it - we all know it.
And now, the Congress is playing along with the opponents by offerring a Public Option with an Opt-Out (for the States) Option. By definition and description, anything that is offerred as an "option" is already optional. You don't need an invitation to "opt-out", only to "opt-in". But, in reality, what does the State need any kind of "option" for anyway? This (the Plan, as well as the Option) is for the individual, not for the State. The individual needs to have an option of enrolling in the Public Insurance Plan or a private insurance plan. Of course, this is the very reason why so many of the people do not currently have adequate insurance, because there is NO option. The Insurance giants gladly take advantage of this by over charging us and what's more, by reducing or refusing coverage of certain conditions. If the U.S. Lawmakers do the right thing, by providing the Government-run (non profit) Insurance Plan, then the private insurers know that they would no longer be free to "fleece the flock", if I may borrow that religious phrase.
So we can only hope that the Congress and President will come to their collective senses and do the right thing. For once, give their constituents more than "lip service". As I said earlier, why would your State need an Option, especially an option to "opt-out"? Again, this is just a smoke screen to hide their "bought and paid for" obligation to the Insurance Giants, who have bankrolled the Politicians' elections. And now they are simply calling in their bets.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
Just a Note
Hmm! I guess they got tired of me writing my opinions in the Chronicle. This is the 2nd time I've written something, submitted it for approval and then it disappeared. Oh well, I guess I'll just stick with this blog for now. Perhaps tomorrow I will put down a few words on this Public Option debacle. TTYL y'all.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
AMERICA! BLESSED … OR NOT?
During virtually every speech given by the President, he ends it with "God bless the United States of America", or words to that effect.What´s more, it is commonly expressed by Americans, that we are a Christian nation, or at least one that was founded on Godly principles.This gives the impression that we have been and are being truly blessed by God. But just what does that mean? What exactly do we mean we speak those phrases and what do others think when they hear us speaking such? I won´t give a direct answer to these questions here. Instead, let me just point out a few observations.In fact, let me respond with another question or two. Do we really know what a blessing is? Would we recognize one if we saw or experienced it? Our words infer that we certainly do expect blessings from God. But if that is the case, then what do we do – how do we handle a blessing? First of all, we have to recognize that the blessing has come.I would like to discuss only one for this writing. And I will try to look at it from a non-partisan view.For the past 9 months, we have been fortunate to have (indeed blessed with) one of the most brilliant and caring men to ever occupy the Whitehouse. Although he inherited the biggest challenge that a new President has faced, at least in the last 70-75 years, he has accepted the challenge with profound eagerness. If ever a man was made for times like these, it seems that this is what we have in our current President. And if we could make a comparison with previous holders of this office, he has to be one of the hardest working Presidents of all time. He not only has rolled up his sleeves and tackled the job at-hand but he eagerly seeks out new challenges and seemingly never complains.
The points listed in the previous paragraph more than makes my point, but there is one more thing that is noteworthy. It is amazing to me, and I´m sure others too, how he has persevered and performed his work unnerved and almost un-detracted by personal attacks. And it seems like he simply does not even know how to retaliate against his opponents. This is truly amazing! I don´t know how long this will last, for everyone has his or her breaking point. But for now, I must say, God truly has blessed the United States of America.
The points listed in the previous paragraph more than makes my point, but there is one more thing that is noteworthy. It is amazing to me, and I´m sure others too, how he has persevered and performed his work unnerved and almost un-detracted by personal attacks. And it seems like he simply does not even know how to retaliate against his opponents. This is truly amazing! I don´t know how long this will last, for everyone has his or her breaking point. But for now, I must say, God truly has blessed the United States of America.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
IS INFLATION INFLATED?
Who invented Inflation? The short answer is, the Government. But common sense should tell you that it was driven, like so many things in our world, by big business.
If we would look up the definition of Inflation, we would find a lot of nice sounding rhetoric pertaining to: goods and services; supply and demand; economic downturn; economic growth; purchasing power; debt relief; job growth; yah-da, yah-da, yah-da. And your economic experts and political spokesmen would make it all sound good, although complicated and not easy to be understood by mere humans.
Of course, I’m convinced that it is just a bunch of baloney that they have to use in order to justify their misuse and abuse of things. There is not now, nor has there ever been, a good reason for the exorbitant price increases on goods and services provided to consumers. I didn’t say that there has never been a reason – just never a good reason. There may be tens or perhaps hundreds of reasons but they are all rooted in the soil of GREED. That’s right, plain old money grubbing greed. And the driving force behind such greedy people is to feed their enormous egos and need to feel superior to almost everyone else. Yes, it is a power trip.
Now, of course my position would be hard to prove and part of the reason is because we would have to go way back in time, perhaps to where most people live off the land. We would have to go back to the time before we became so industrialized and commercialized. You can’t really start in the middle of a matter such as this and make sense of it any more than you can un-fired a gun after the bullet has left the barrel. For now, we would simply go round and round with one merchant point the finger at the other merchant and each one claiming that they are just trying to catch up. And in large part, that would be true.
So when I say that there is no good reason for inflation or inflated prices, I do understand that we cannot actually undo it now. I just want to try and put an end to the lie that we’ve been led to believe, that says it’s inevitable or that it just happen due to circumstances rather than by human design. If you don’t stop to think about it, most of us just believe that prices have to go up simply due to the passage of time. There is not one good reason for a loaf of bread or a pair of shoes or a piano or a chair or a car or a necklace or a pencil or a baseball bat or … to cost any more today than it did 50 years ago. Now before you go and start defending the business community with the lines that we’ve been fed over the years about how it costs more to make or produce these items now, remember what I am talking about. I have already acknowledged that once we started down this slippery slope then, of course it affects every other business connected down the line. But I’m talking about the real reason for price increases in the first place. For we know that it not only does not cost more to produce goods now, in most cases the cost is actually less, due to modern technology. We can even dig ditches today with much less manpower than was needed 50 years ago, though with much greater production due to our advanced technology.
I could go on and on with examples to support my position, but I hope you get the point. It’s all about being rich; and then being richer, and richer, and richer. And it didn’t help matters much when, a couple of decades ago, they started paying athletes and entertainers ungodly sums of money just to “play” and practice their trades. I am sure that this only drove the “greedy” to become even greedier. After all, they couldn’t let a singer or ball player be anywhere near their equals. Being a millionaire didn’t mean much anymore. Now they had to become a billionaire or, at least a multi-multi millionaire. Of course, caught in the middle of race was the middle class and average Joe, being squeezed right out of house and home.
And if that was not enough, all of this has virtually killed the dollar’s buying power. Believe it or not, this hurts everyone, including the ones at the top. I don’t know how all of this is going to play out or if it can be turned around or slowed down, but as the line in the movie goes “something’s gotta give”. Even with our highly publicized economic meltdown of recent months, the Wall Street-ers, the Insurance Executives, the Bankers and others still don’t seem to get it. They are still seemingly hell-bent on that road of callous greed and destruction. Of course, the politicians are in their pockets too. In fact, at this stage, they sort of feed off each other and neither seems capable of sensible or moral behavior. Just this week, a highly paid utility executive in California announced that he is leaving his job as the head of the department to take a position elsewhere. And, believe it or not, the city’s political leaders want to keep paying him his salary for at least the remainder of the year. Then there is also talk of keeping him on the payroll (as a consultant, they say) at his same ridiculously high salary. And this kind of thinking makes sense to your politicians today. That’s SCARY! Well, we could perhaps amuse ourselves for a moment, due to the fact that it is October, and say that it’s because halloween is fast approaching. But no, this is what happens all the time!Boo! Hoo!
If we would look up the definition of Inflation, we would find a lot of nice sounding rhetoric pertaining to: goods and services; supply and demand; economic downturn; economic growth; purchasing power; debt relief; job growth; yah-da, yah-da, yah-da. And your economic experts and political spokesmen would make it all sound good, although complicated and not easy to be understood by mere humans.
Of course, I’m convinced that it is just a bunch of baloney that they have to use in order to justify their misuse and abuse of things. There is not now, nor has there ever been, a good reason for the exorbitant price increases on goods and services provided to consumers. I didn’t say that there has never been a reason – just never a good reason. There may be tens or perhaps hundreds of reasons but they are all rooted in the soil of GREED. That’s right, plain old money grubbing greed. And the driving force behind such greedy people is to feed their enormous egos and need to feel superior to almost everyone else. Yes, it is a power trip.
Now, of course my position would be hard to prove and part of the reason is because we would have to go way back in time, perhaps to where most people live off the land. We would have to go back to the time before we became so industrialized and commercialized. You can’t really start in the middle of a matter such as this and make sense of it any more than you can un-fired a gun after the bullet has left the barrel. For now, we would simply go round and round with one merchant point the finger at the other merchant and each one claiming that they are just trying to catch up. And in large part, that would be true.
So when I say that there is no good reason for inflation or inflated prices, I do understand that we cannot actually undo it now. I just want to try and put an end to the lie that we’ve been led to believe, that says it’s inevitable or that it just happen due to circumstances rather than by human design. If you don’t stop to think about it, most of us just believe that prices have to go up simply due to the passage of time. There is not one good reason for a loaf of bread or a pair of shoes or a piano or a chair or a car or a necklace or a pencil or a baseball bat or … to cost any more today than it did 50 years ago. Now before you go and start defending the business community with the lines that we’ve been fed over the years about how it costs more to make or produce these items now, remember what I am talking about. I have already acknowledged that once we started down this slippery slope then, of course it affects every other business connected down the line. But I’m talking about the real reason for price increases in the first place. For we know that it not only does not cost more to produce goods now, in most cases the cost is actually less, due to modern technology. We can even dig ditches today with much less manpower than was needed 50 years ago, though with much greater production due to our advanced technology.
I could go on and on with examples to support my position, but I hope you get the point. It’s all about being rich; and then being richer, and richer, and richer. And it didn’t help matters much when, a couple of decades ago, they started paying athletes and entertainers ungodly sums of money just to “play” and practice their trades. I am sure that this only drove the “greedy” to become even greedier. After all, they couldn’t let a singer or ball player be anywhere near their equals. Being a millionaire didn’t mean much anymore. Now they had to become a billionaire or, at least a multi-multi millionaire. Of course, caught in the middle of race was the middle class and average Joe, being squeezed right out of house and home.
And if that was not enough, all of this has virtually killed the dollar’s buying power. Believe it or not, this hurts everyone, including the ones at the top. I don’t know how all of this is going to play out or if it can be turned around or slowed down, but as the line in the movie goes “something’s gotta give”. Even with our highly publicized economic meltdown of recent months, the Wall Street-ers, the Insurance Executives, the Bankers and others still don’t seem to get it. They are still seemingly hell-bent on that road of callous greed and destruction. Of course, the politicians are in their pockets too. In fact, at this stage, they sort of feed off each other and neither seems capable of sensible or moral behavior. Just this week, a highly paid utility executive in California announced that he is leaving his job as the head of the department to take a position elsewhere. And, believe it or not, the city’s political leaders want to keep paying him his salary for at least the remainder of the year. Then there is also talk of keeping him on the payroll (as a consultant, they say) at his same ridiculously high salary. And this kind of thinking makes sense to your politicians today. That’s SCARY! Well, we could perhaps amuse ourselves for a moment, due to the fact that it is October, and say that it’s because halloween is fast approaching. But no, this is what happens all the time!Boo! Hoo!
Friday, October 2, 2009
What Does Reform Look Like?
I've tried to write about and think about other subjects,but it seems like this Healtcare Reform is still at the top of the list. As I was thinking about the constant news reports coming out every day, the usual things came to my mind. But it seems to all boil down to how can we get around all of the yelling and accusations from (some on) the right. As all of us must know by now, it's easier to "win" this debate by "not debating". Instead one needs only to do and say things that create some level of doubt and confusion among the listeners.
It does not matter whether the accusations are true or not, in fact, it is easier if they are not true. That is because, the goal here is not to engage honest debate with those you disagree with, but to do something (anything) that might confuse others. For, when people get confused or find themselves doubting any proposed CHANGES in life, many of them will simply go with the status quo. The opponents of health care reform know this very well, whether they be politicians or insurance executives.It is ironic but this is perhaps,the best example of how our criminal justice system is supposed to work. You've all heard the old saying, "innocent until proven guilty" or "the burden of proof is on the prosecution - the defendant does not have to prove anything, i.e., his innocence". At least that's what we are told. Of course, that is not always the way it plays out in a real life court of law. But in the healthcare debate, it seems to work quite well.The opponents start off by making false accusations and exagerations of what will happen if the bill is passed. Then these statements are repeated over and over again, sometimes with a few new wrinkles added. This tactic keeps the proponent(s) constantly busy trying to rebut the allegations and defending the bill from the untruths that appear to be, but really are not part of the bill.
Earlier today, I was conversing with an elderly friend of mine and this subject, understandably, came up. Her sentiments, like that of so many others I've spoken with, can be summed up with, "I don't know who is telling the truth. I don't know who to believe". So there you have it: Doubt! The poor citizens don't realize that they are being duped, that they are being used as pawns. But as I stated earlier, the goal is to do just that - create doubt or confusion. For once that is created, many people, perhaps most, will settle for the status quo. And the opponents (who have craftily put themselves in the "defendants" chair) end up never having to prove anything; never having to present their case, just knock down the prosecutions cae. HOW CLEVER!But then it has just recently dawned on me that even I do not know what is in the bill. That's right. I have taken a position IN FAVOR of reform, but I really don't know enough about it. Because I don't know much about it, I am only 51% in favor, but in favor nonetheless. This is because I too have been caught up watching "the side show". I should know more about the contents (of the President's proposal)than I do. I think I know what it basically says, but I don't really know. So from now on, I am no longer going to be ensnared by the sideshow trappings; I am going to become focused and informed. I hope you will too!
It does not matter whether the accusations are true or not, in fact, it is easier if they are not true. That is because, the goal here is not to engage honest debate with those you disagree with, but to do something (anything) that might confuse others. For, when people get confused or find themselves doubting any proposed CHANGES in life, many of them will simply go with the status quo. The opponents of health care reform know this very well, whether they be politicians or insurance executives.It is ironic but this is perhaps,the best example of how our criminal justice system is supposed to work. You've all heard the old saying, "innocent until proven guilty" or "the burden of proof is on the prosecution - the defendant does not have to prove anything, i.e., his innocence". At least that's what we are told. Of course, that is not always the way it plays out in a real life court of law. But in the healthcare debate, it seems to work quite well.The opponents start off by making false accusations and exagerations of what will happen if the bill is passed. Then these statements are repeated over and over again, sometimes with a few new wrinkles added. This tactic keeps the proponent(s) constantly busy trying to rebut the allegations and defending the bill from the untruths that appear to be, but really are not part of the bill.
Earlier today, I was conversing with an elderly friend of mine and this subject, understandably, came up. Her sentiments, like that of so many others I've spoken with, can be summed up with, "I don't know who is telling the truth. I don't know who to believe". So there you have it: Doubt! The poor citizens don't realize that they are being duped, that they are being used as pawns. But as I stated earlier, the goal is to do just that - create doubt or confusion. For once that is created, many people, perhaps most, will settle for the status quo. And the opponents (who have craftily put themselves in the "defendants" chair) end up never having to prove anything; never having to present their case, just knock down the prosecutions cae. HOW CLEVER!But then it has just recently dawned on me that even I do not know what is in the bill. That's right. I have taken a position IN FAVOR of reform, but I really don't know enough about it. Because I don't know much about it, I am only 51% in favor, but in favor nonetheless. This is because I too have been caught up watching "the side show". I should know more about the contents (of the President's proposal)than I do. I think I know what it basically says, but I don't really know. So from now on, I am no longer going to be ensnared by the sideshow trappings; I am going to become focused and informed. I hope you will too!
Healthcare, Abortion, etc.
I thought you might enjoy reading this piece.
By Ellen Goodman
My favorite moment so far in the health care debate was when Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl argued against mandating maternity benefits as part of a basic insurance coverage. “I don’t need maternity care,” he blurted out. At which point, Michigan’s Debbie Stabenow quipped, “I think your mom probably did.”
For that matter, so did his wife and daughter. But never mind. We had one brief glimpse into the mind of a politician who doesn’t quite see women’s health concerns as equal to his own.
Michelle Obama referred to this connection between health care and equality when she told a group of women that overhauling the system was “the next step” in women’s advancement for opportunity. Women are not only less likely to have insurance at work, but more likely to face discrimination from insurance companies. They also, she added, can be denied coverage just for the pre-existing condition of having had a C-section.
It is becoming obvious that just having a female reproductive system is a pre-existing condition in the health care debate. The up-and-coming sticking point is abortion. The Senate Finance Committee beat back some restrictions, but the question for Congress is still whether the “reform” that is supposed to increase coverage will instead reduce it. Will women who now have coverage for abortion in their private plans end up losing it?
In the days before Roe v. Wade, we had a hodgepodge of different state laws governing abortion. The argument in favor of abortion rights was not just about equality between men and women, but equality along economic lines. It was unjust, many argued, to have a system in which a wealthier woman could find and afford a safe abortion while a poorer woman had to put herself at risk.
After Roe, abortion opponents regrouped and went looking for a restriction that would appeal to the ambivalent middle. They latched onto the idea that taxpayer money shouldn’t be used to pay for abortions. This not only stigmatized abortion, separating it from “legitimate” health care, it reintroduced a two-tier health system for poor women on Medicaid.
Today, those tiers have expanded. Women on Medicaid can get abortion coverage only when states pick up the bill. Women in the military have no coverage, not even if they were raped. Doctors on the military payroll aren’t allowed to provide abortions even for soldiers who can pay their own way. Nor is there coverage for federal employees.
So what now? We were told that health care reform would be “abortion neutral,” that it wouldn’t change the shaky status quo, or rile the troops in the abortion wars. One compromise in the House proposed by California Rep. Lois Capps would keep it that way. Abortion would be neither mandated nor banned. There’d be no federal funds in subsidized plans for lower-income people; the money would be segregated.
But it turns out that finding neutrality in the abortion wars is elusive. We now have pro-life Republicans and Democrats—most notably Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan—demanding that any health plan offering abortion be banned from the newly created health care exchange.
And guess what that will mean? More than 80 percent of private insurance plans cover abortions. But any insurance plan that wants to be eligible for the huge wave of new clients would have to drop the abortion coverage it offers.
So let’s regroup. The first target was poor women on Medicaid, then came women in the military, now women needing subsidized plans. Next? “The millions of women who presently have private insurance would lose it if they [abortion opponents] are successful in putting in an all-out ban,” says Nancy Keenan of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
This isn’t supposed to happen. The pro-choice president said, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” Not if folks like Stupak get their way.
No woman expects to have an abortion. But one in every three women has one by the age of 45. That’s a whole lot of women to stigmatize ... or ignore.
The irony is that this attempt to enforce a federal moral rule over everyone’s health comes from precisely the people who are most angry at the idea of a government takeover of health care.
This leads me to my second most favorite moment in the health care debate: when Republican Jim Bunning of Kentucky loudly railed, “I do not support a government takeover of the health care system,” and then fell asleep.
I’m sure he’s covered for narcolepsy.
Ellen Goodman’s e-mail address is ellengoodman1(at)me.com.
© 2009, Washington Post Writers Group
By Ellen Goodman
My favorite moment so far in the health care debate was when Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl argued against mandating maternity benefits as part of a basic insurance coverage. “I don’t need maternity care,” he blurted out. At which point, Michigan’s Debbie Stabenow quipped, “I think your mom probably did.”
For that matter, so did his wife and daughter. But never mind. We had one brief glimpse into the mind of a politician who doesn’t quite see women’s health concerns as equal to his own.
Michelle Obama referred to this connection between health care and equality when she told a group of women that overhauling the system was “the next step” in women’s advancement for opportunity. Women are not only less likely to have insurance at work, but more likely to face discrimination from insurance companies. They also, she added, can be denied coverage just for the pre-existing condition of having had a C-section.
It is becoming obvious that just having a female reproductive system is a pre-existing condition in the health care debate. The up-and-coming sticking point is abortion. The Senate Finance Committee beat back some restrictions, but the question for Congress is still whether the “reform” that is supposed to increase coverage will instead reduce it. Will women who now have coverage for abortion in their private plans end up losing it?
In the days before Roe v. Wade, we had a hodgepodge of different state laws governing abortion. The argument in favor of abortion rights was not just about equality between men and women, but equality along economic lines. It was unjust, many argued, to have a system in which a wealthier woman could find and afford a safe abortion while a poorer woman had to put herself at risk.
After Roe, abortion opponents regrouped and went looking for a restriction that would appeal to the ambivalent middle. They latched onto the idea that taxpayer money shouldn’t be used to pay for abortions. This not only stigmatized abortion, separating it from “legitimate” health care, it reintroduced a two-tier health system for poor women on Medicaid.
Today, those tiers have expanded. Women on Medicaid can get abortion coverage only when states pick up the bill. Women in the military have no coverage, not even if they were raped. Doctors on the military payroll aren’t allowed to provide abortions even for soldiers who can pay their own way. Nor is there coverage for federal employees.
So what now? We were told that health care reform would be “abortion neutral,” that it wouldn’t change the shaky status quo, or rile the troops in the abortion wars. One compromise in the House proposed by California Rep. Lois Capps would keep it that way. Abortion would be neither mandated nor banned. There’d be no federal funds in subsidized plans for lower-income people; the money would be segregated.
But it turns out that finding neutrality in the abortion wars is elusive. We now have pro-life Republicans and Democrats—most notably Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan—demanding that any health plan offering abortion be banned from the newly created health care exchange.
And guess what that will mean? More than 80 percent of private insurance plans cover abortions. But any insurance plan that wants to be eligible for the huge wave of new clients would have to drop the abortion coverage it offers.
So let’s regroup. The first target was poor women on Medicaid, then came women in the military, now women needing subsidized plans. Next? “The millions of women who presently have private insurance would lose it if they [abortion opponents] are successful in putting in an all-out ban,” says Nancy Keenan of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
This isn’t supposed to happen. The pro-choice president said, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” Not if folks like Stupak get their way.
No woman expects to have an abortion. But one in every three women has one by the age of 45. That’s a whole lot of women to stigmatize ... or ignore.
The irony is that this attempt to enforce a federal moral rule over everyone’s health comes from precisely the people who are most angry at the idea of a government takeover of health care.
This leads me to my second most favorite moment in the health care debate: when Republican Jim Bunning of Kentucky loudly railed, “I do not support a government takeover of the health care system,” and then fell asleep.
I’m sure he’s covered for narcolepsy.
Ellen Goodman’s e-mail address is ellengoodman1(at)me.com.
© 2009, Washington Post Writers Group
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
