Don’t much about geography

Well whoever was pulling the image clips for the Newshour tonight sure didn’t do their homework.  After reporting on the large snowfalls in the East, they mention the need for snow in Vancouver for the 2012 Olympics.  Nice segue, but it would have been better if they had used an image clip that was of Vancouver.

You may recognize the CN Tower and Rogers Centre (formerly known as the Skydome) in the image.  Those landmarks are located in Toronto, not in Vancouver.

Thanks for reinforcing that American’s don’t know our geography.

-Josh

Election prediction

Now this is a prediction of who will run, but a prediction of what will happen depending on who wins.

If Martha Coakley wins – the price of health insurance stocks will go down.

If Scott Brown wins – the price of health insurance stocks will go up.

And really, those are very basic predictions, heck a monkey could make them.

Apparently abortion isn’t controversial in America

A title like that probably has you thinking I should get one of those jackets that makes me hug myself…a strait-jacket.  But I have a reason to make such a claim and it is based on the actions of CBS.

Apparently Focus on the Family has purchased an ad time during the 2010 Superbowl called Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.  This ad, like its title is going to be pro-life.  It is hard to say what this ad will look like, will it be very overt in its pro-life message or more subtle?  The thing that is strange, is that CBS is running the ad that could be considered controversial, after all this Gallup poll finds that 51% of Americans identify as pro-life and 42% as pro-choice.  As I have written in the past, I feel that I am more pro-life because of my positions than many conservatives that are against abortions.

It goes without saying that the issue of abortion is one of the most contentious and controversial aspects of American life, or at least American politics, so CBS must be open to controversy when they allow some ads run during the Superbowl that they are airing.  The funny thing about history is that it can show some hypocrisy, you may remember that in 2004 Move On wanted to run an ad during the Superbowl, but their ad was deemed too controversial (so was another by PETA). Below is the ad that was to run, Child’s Play.

Note: I am surprised that Republicans haven’t tried to copy it or adopt the ad for their new found fiscal responsibility.

It is really too bad that people think the media is liberal because it only is if you don’t think about what really happens, or if you are Republican that gets off on crying victim.  The reality is that the vast majority of media is owned and run by corporations and they know that Republicans are more likely to loosen regulations on them then Democrats are (although there are plenty of corporate Democrats that are ready to kiss ass) and they pander to the Republicans and issues they support.

This hypocritical approach to ad buys for the Superbowl is just another in a long list of examples that show that the media isn’t too liberal.

-Josh

The impossible world of Republican Jeopardy

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.
Grover Norquist: 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.
Newt Gingrich: 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
Joe the Plubmer: 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.
Sarah Palin: 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?

-Josh

Is Senator Mitch McConnell really that clueless?

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.

What kind of insurance does the Federal Government provide – Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare (insurance for military), Veterans Affiars (socialized medicine like Canada), State Childrens Health Insurance Plan (SCHIP), flood insurance, and Social Security (social insurance), those are just the ones that I can rattle off, there maybe more.

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.

-Josh

Doesn’t the new health insurance report make the case for public option?

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 Times reports:

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?

-Josh

I have a dream…

…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.

-Josh

Is our president really that fragile?

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.

-Josh

The most interesting tactics to prevent looting

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.

-Josh

Question of the Day – September 24, 2009

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?

-Josh

« Older entries