Do you know why there will never be Republican Jeopardy? It isn’t because the may not have the IQ to provide questions to the answers. The problem is every answer is “tax cut” and they never know which question that answer applies to.
Moderator: the answer is tax cuts. Moderator: Yes, Grover Norquist. GroverNorquist: what to do when the economy has slow growth? Moderator: that is not the answer we are looking for this time. Moderator: Yes, Newt Gingrich. NewtGingrich: what is the best way to share sacrifice during a war? Moderator: also not the answer we were looking for. Moderator: Yes, Samuel…I mean Joe the Plumber JoethePlubmer: what I need to have the tax lien removed from my house? Moderator: No, that is not the answer we are looking for, but if you
happen to win you might be able to pay off that lien. Moderator: Yes, Sarah Palin. SarahPalin: what will make me able to see Russia from my house? Moderator: not the answer. How the heck would you be able to see Russia from your house because of a tax cut?
This morning on ABC’s This Week, Senator McConnell stated that he doesn’t think the government should get in the insurance business referring to Congress passing a health care reform law that provides a public option. See his comments starting about 2:00 mark.
Now, I want to bring you back in time to this summer’s town hall anger, where we heard this story:
At a recent town-hall meeting in suburban Simpsonville, a man stood up and told Rep. Robert Inglis (R-S.C.) to “keep your government hands off my Medicare.”
“I had to politely explain that, ‘Actually, sir, your health care is being provided by the government,’ ” Inglis recalled. “But he wasn’t having any of it.”
Rep. Inglis, a Republican, is partially right, the constituent’s health insurance is provide by the government, but unlike Canada, the providers are private, so just the insurance is provided by the government.
Back to Senator McConnell, either he is as clueless as the man at Rep. Inglis town hall, or he is a liar.
So when Senator McConnell makes a statement like that, either he is so clueless he should not be leader of his party in the Senate (does he even know what government does?), or more likely he is just a liar. I am going to vote that he is an idealogically driven liar.
So the America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) released a new report this weekend on the rising cost of health insurance premiums. As the New York Timesreports:
The report says that the cost of the average family coverage, now $12,300, will rise to $18,400 in 2016 under current law and to $21,300 if the Senate bill is adopted. Likewise, it said, the cost of individual coverage, now $4,600, will average $6,900 in 2016 under current law and $7,900 under the bill.
So for both family and individual plans the status quo shows a 50% increase or under the Senate plan a just over 70% increase in seven years. That is a crazy increase, and it sure makes the Senate plan look bad compared to the status quo. For those progressives, like myself, we have thought that the Baucus plan was kind of crappy, partially because it didn’t include a public option.
The funny thing is that the Lewin Group came out with a report in April 2009 that talked about the value, not that they thought it was a value, of a public option. The Lewin Group is owned 100% by United Health Group, which is a large health insurance group. So what did the report say?
If Medicare payment levels are used in the public plan, premiums would be up to 30 percent less than premiums for comparable private coverage. On average, the monthly premium in the public plan for a typical benefits package would be $761 per family compared with an average of $970 per family in the private market for the same coverage.
If as the President proposed, eligibility is limited to only small employers, individuals and the self-employed, public plan enrollment would reach 42.9 million people. The number of people with private coverage would fall by 32.0 million people. If private payer reimbursement levels are used by the public plan, enrollment would be lower, with only 10.4 million people switching to the public plan from private insurance.
If the public plan is opened to all employers as proposed by Senators Clinton and Edwards, at Medicare payment levels we estimate that about 131.2 million people would enroll in the public plan. The number of people with private health insurance would decline by 119.1 million people. This would be a two-thirds reduction in the number of people with private coverage (currently 170 million people). Here again, if the higher private payer levels are used, enrollment in private insurance would decline by only 12.5 million people.
Medicare premiums would be lower than private premiums because of the exceptional leverage Medicare has with providers. Medicare pays hospitals about 30 percent less than private insurers pay for the same service. Physician payments are about 20 percent less than under private coverage. Also, because Medicare has no allowance for insurer profits or broker/agent commissions, administrative costs for this population are about one-third of administrative costs in private health plans.
So under a public option that pays Medicare provider rates, we could see our premiums 30% lower, sign me up. Seriously what is wrong with allowing Americans to see that savings? When families are losing health insurance coverage, do we really need to worry about protecting profits? Protecting broker commissions? No we need to worry about our friends, family, and neighbor not having health insurance, not the profits and commissions.
Now they will say that Medicare underpays the health insurance providers, since they pay a lower rate. But isn’t that exactly what Wal-Mart gets credited for, using its size and clout to extract lower costs from the manufacturer that proivdes their product? Why is it good when Wal-Mart does it, but not when the US government is doing the same for its citizens? Well you could say that we are going to put the health care providers out of business. Yet, the government gets deals that we don’t get based on their size. Are you aware that hotels give a government rate? Why shouldn’t there be government rates for health care procedures? Well they do and it is the Medicare rate.
I think this week’s AHIP report in combination with this Lewin Group report this past spring make the case that the public option is the only way to go for American citizens. After all the US government is We the People, not We the Insurance Industry. So will Congress do what is right by us, not for their corporate masters?
…in my dream I would love to see someone make all 535 members of Congress fill out the applications for health insurance. In this dream, I see some members of Congress, think Michelle Bachman, balk at the intrusive questions, worse than census, that is asked about her and her family’s health.
But more importantly, in this dream, I see an awakening in members of Congress when they learn what their health insurance premiums would cost. Not that many members of Congress couldn’t afford these costs, but it might make them aware of what average Americans pay for health care, and what the true cost of these plans are to the employers who still provide health insurance.
In my dream of dreams, I would challenge each member of Congress to try and get insurance on the individual private market, and I suggest Senator McCain lead the way.
I think it was David Brooks, or it was Mike Murphy, this morning who said you shouldn’t put the president out there unless you know the results. This is a reference the supposed humilation he suffered, and by extension that America suffered since he went out an advocated for the 2016 Summer Olympic bid and didn’t get it.
Basically what is being said is that the only way that our president can show strength is by winning every time. That losing makes him look smaller, and by extension America. I think this is a load of crap. If you really wanted to extend that to its logical conclusion, then if he loses the debate on health care or stimulus funding, then he is showing the weakness of America. You could even say this is being done by traitors, you know those Republicans in Congress, because at least the IOC was by international voters who probably hate America. Except for those times when Obama is perceived to be more popular abroad than at home, but maybe not on the IOC.
I would rather have a president that advocates for an American city to host the Olympics. I would rather have a president strong enough to handle a setback that really doesn’t impact our standing in the world. I believe we have that president, now if he would get a bit bolder and stronger and kick some ass on this lame attempt at bi-partisanship and just go it alone on health care reform.
According to CNN, Honduras officials have taken the most unusual steps to stop potential looting.
The Brazilian request for a Security Council meeting came after the Honduran government isolated the embassy by cutting water, power and phone lines to the building, U.S. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly confirmed to reporters Tuesday.
Brazil’s foreign minister, Celso Luiz Nunes Amorim, called the action a “very serious” move that violated international law.
Police said that utilities were turned off in the area surrounding the embassy to discourage looting after supporters of Zelaya converged in front of the building Tuesday.
So if you are like me, you have to wonder how cutting the water, electricity, or phone would prevent looting. If someone is breaking in to my place, being able to call the police would be useful. If undesirables are gathering, being able to shine lights on them and see them would be useful, so keep the electricity on. Water? Maybe that could help defend by turning the hose on.
I really can’t see how cutting any of these utilities would help prevent forest fires looting. So I am going to have to side with the Brazilians on this, it is retailation for having overthrown President Zelaya in the embassy.
What does Sarah Palin consider the $1305 check she will receive from the Alaska Permanent Fund for just living in the state? Welfare? Socialism? Or her right as a resident of Alaska?
So some provisions of the Patriot Act are expiring this year, so to renew, we get hearings in Congress to make the case to renew them.
Thankfully we have two US Senators, Al Franken (D-MN) and Russ Feingold (D-WI), who are questioning the case for renewal. Senator Al Franken asked David Kris from the Dept of Justice about the 4th amendment as reported in the Washington Independent.
Noting that he [Al Franken] received a copy of the Constitution when he was sworn in as a senator, he proceeded to read it to Kris, emphasizing this part: “no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
“That’s pretty explicit language,” noted Franken, asking Kris how the “roving wiretap” provision of the Patriot Act can meet that requirement if it doesn’t require the government to name its target.
Kris looked flustered and mumbled that “this is surreal,” apparently referring to having to respond to Franken’s question. “I would defer to the other branch of government,” he said, referring to the courts, prompting Franken to interject: “I know what that is.”
Kris explained that the courts have held that the law’s requirements that the person be described, though not named, is sufficient to meet the demands of the Constitution. That did not appear to completely satisfy Franken’s concerns.
Meanwhile, Senator Russ Feingold asked about sneak and peak provision in the Patriot Act, from the Huffington Post.
In the debate over the PATRIOT Act, the Bush White House insisted it needed the authority to search people’s homes without their permission or knowledge so that terrorists wouldn’t be tipped off that they’re under investigation.
Now that the authority is law, how has the Department of Justice used the new power? To go after drug dealers.
Only three of the 763 “sneak-and-peek” requests in fiscal year 2008 involved terrorism cases, according to a July 2009 report from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Sixty-five percent were drug cases.
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) quizzed Assistant Attorney General David Kris about the discrepancy at a hearing on the PATRIOT Act Wednesday. One might expect Kris to argue that there is a connection between drug trafficking and terrorism or that the administration is otherwise justified to use the authority by virtue of some other connection to terrorism.
He didn’t even try. “This authority here on the sneak-and-peek side, on the criminal side, is not meant for intelligence. It’s for criminal cases. So I guess it’s not surprising to me that it applies in drug cases,” Kris said.
“As I recall it was in something called the USA PATRIOT Act,” Feingold quipped, “which was passed in a rush after an attack on 9/11 that had to do with terrorism it didn’t have to do with regular, run-of-the-mill criminal cases. Let me tell you why I’m concerned about these numbers: That’s not how this was sold to the American people. It was sold as stated on DoJ’s website in 2005 as being necessary – quote – to conduct investigations without tipping off terrorists.”
The irony is that two of the most liberal Senators, Franken and Feingold, are the one’s challenging Barack Obama’s Department of Justice on the constitutionality of the Patriot Act and how one provision is rarely used to protect us from terrorists (0.4% of sneak and peeks), but to prosecute drug dealers. And thankfully Russ Feingold is no longer alone in the Senate on this issue.
It would be nice if those right wing folks over at Fox or the teabaggers would acknowledge, that liberals and progressives, are fighting to check expanded government powers, to protect our civil liberties.
So on my third day at TIFF my middle movie was A Shine of Rainbow. I was drawn to this movie because it is about adoption, and I work in the adoption field. The movie stars Aidan Quinn as Alec the prospective adoptive father, Connie Nielsen as Maire the prospective adoptive mother, and John Bell as Tomas the orphan who may find a family with Alec and Marie.
The movie is based on a novel by Lillian Beckwith the first chapter is available here. I am not familiar with the book, and had not known that it was based on a book until the openning credits rolled. The setting is Ireland in the 1960s for the movie, which we learned during Q&A where we also learned he felt it was set in earlier maybe 40s or 50s.
SPOILERS
The movie starts with Tomas in an orphanage. He sees a pigeon trapped between a window shade and the window. He opens the window and frees the bird, which draws the wrath of the bullies who say he let their bird go and he has to fetch it for them. Fortunately he is saved in a most miraculous way, Maire had been watching him through a one way window, and selects him to be her son. Her husband Alec did not accompany her on the trip to the orphanage, using the excuse of not liking the main land, meaning the larger island that is Ireland.
Maire takes Tomas by ferry to their island to begin his new life with his new family. Tomas is rudely greeted by a neighbor boy, which Tomas takes as mean spirited teasing, fortunately his sister is also there and is always supportive of Tomas. When Tomas gets to his new home with Alec, he discovers that Alec is still dealing with his loss and grief from their infertility issues, and was hoping for a bigger boy, not the “runt of the litter.”
The lack of interest from Alec does not go unnoticed, even to the point of Tomas hiding from Alec. However, Maire continues to draw Tomas out as a child and a son. At one point, gushing tears moment for me, he asks if it would be okay to call her mom.
Later in the movie, he discovers an abandoned seal pup on the beach. He takes on the task, with the help of Alec, of feeding the seal pup. He sees his role as needing to take care of this seal who happens to be an orphan like he was, until the seal’s mother shows up.
During the movie we also learn that Maire has signed the adoption papers, but Alec has not, and his signature is required to adopt Tomas. Tomas is aware of this and it continues to strain his relationship with Alec.
End of Spoilers
I didn’t give away everything, trust me there are some other issues in the movies, and you will need tissues. That being said, it did remind me of issues in adoption, when one parent has different wants or expectations than the other, that can strain the relationship. Or when a parent doesn’t attach to the child, one-that happens, and two-the kids know, they aren’t stupid. My friend who works with an attachment team, thought this could be therpeutic tool for the families they work with, and it just might.
I talked with the producer afterwards, hoping that we maybe able to show it at our conference in the future, and learned that the expected North American release will be March or April 2010.
Here is the picture at Q&A
Here is the trailer:
I highly recommend this movie, but come prepared to cry.
So on my third day of TIFF my first movie was Cracks. This was my second day in a row of starting with a British movie about girls in a private school after yesterday’s An Education.
However, the two movies are really different movies. An Education is really about Jenny and her search for life experiences and a meaning in life. While Cracks has that element the search for the exotic and interesting, it is as much about the needs of people and the dynamics of a boarding school team.
My friend Chris saw the movie on Friday, he was a bit perplexed about the description from the Programme Guide (link above). He checked it, and they leave some big parts of the movie and plot line out of it. So if you read the description, don’t expect to know everything that is going to happen. Yes, Fiamma disrupts the social order of the team she joins, and also has a huge impact on Miss G, played by Eva Green’s, life. But there is much more to this movie than just that.
This is a picture of director Jordan Scott:
I highly recommend it, although I would go see An Education first, but I am not sure when you would get to see it as IMDB only lists it as coming out in the UK on December 4, and France December 30. If it truely going to get an Oscar push from US studios, it will probably be out in Los Angeles and New York before the New Year to be considered and out in wide release in either late December or January.
