(First I'll say I'm always afraid to complain about my health insurance--because they could cancel me. I don't get much from it now, but if something major happened I'd need it--so I keep paying and paying--and they could cancel me at any time for any reason. Even so, it's important to speak out about what a criminal racket this really is.)
The more I deal with my insurance company, the more I realize it's a scam. I spent two hours today trying to get my insurance company to pay for a doctors visit. One pleasant rep told me one thing, I called the doctor's office, they called the insurance company who told them this wasn't true (and pretended they didn't know who I talked to). I called and spoke to another pleasant rep who knew who I'd talked to earlier (of course, it's all in my permanent record!) and said the first rep was right and the one who talked to the doctor's office was wrong and filed a grievance for me--which will take 45 days to resolve.
At issue--I get two doctors visits--a year. The insurance company counted one earlier this year for which they paid ZERO. They paid nothing, yet they counted it as one of my two visits. Then when I have a ear-nose-throat visit that needs payment, they refuse it. WTF? On one planet is this fair? No, it's a f-ing scam.
And the Senate's so-called health-reform bill is another scam which basically gives a half a BILLION dollars in tax breaks to health insurance companies. Huh? If Republicans can afford to give HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS to Health Insurance companies, why can they not afford to give Americans something, like a $1,500 per person tax credit for health care--or, better yet, a real public option like every other civilized democratic country has?
I guess money talks, and health insurance companies can afford to spend tens of millions in lobbyists and campaign contributions, and what a great deal for them--they'll get 100x return on their money!
Meanwhile, American citizens get what we always seem to get from the Senate--screwed.
It's time for us to get up in arms about this, to contact our representatives and DEMAND REAL CHANGE, not yet another givaway to big business.
Here's the email I sent to my senators:
I am mortified and disgusted that the Senate's so-called health reform bill is really yet another giveaway to big insurance companies.
We need REAL SECURITY in this country, we need a PUBLIC OPTION or at least strong laws that allow everyone, including the self-employed with pre-existing conditions, to buy AFFORDABLE health insurance.
I pay $600 a month. For that I get two doctor visits a year. Just two. this year, my insurance company has paid $40 for one visit, and NOTHING for the other. Meanwhile, they won't pay for the $400 specialist bill I have, because they counted the $0 visit as one of my two visits.
That's right, I pay $7,200 a year and they have saved me $40. This is criminal.
I simply cannot believe that the Senate is so beholden to the Insurance Industry lobbyists and campaign contributions that you cannot create a REAL HEALTH INSURANCE ACT FOR AMERICANS--NOT INSURANCE COMPANIES.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE HELP US. Insurance companies don't need help. CITIZENS NEED HELP.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Obama White House mismanages mainstream media
As he proved during the campaign, President Obama can be a great "persuader." Watch this recent weekly address to the nation and you'll see his tremendous ability to speak clearly and convincingly.
Now the question is--did you see that speech before? No? I didn't either. Where is it shown other than online? I don't know, either.
While candidate and President Obama has been very smart with his online and new-media efforts, he's failing on the mass-media front. There, screaming, crying Republicans are winning--because they're making the most noise.
There, President Obama shows up only in a few short clips per week, while the cry-babies (why people would take a crying man seriously about political issues is beyond me) are getting air time, eyes and ears.
Most people still get their news through network and cable TV.
And this is key--on TV you can't choose the stories you want to hear about--they're pushed at you. So even if you don't want to hear about Obama's strategy in Afghanistan, chances are the newscasters are going to talk about it (even if briefly, except on days when Tiger Woods private life becomes "news that affects us all."
On the web--if you don't want to read about world events, if you don't want to read about politics or the president, you can easily avoid it. Then you never know. Which is the case with the uneducated and many Republicans--they want to pretend Obama wasn't elect (even better--pretend he's not really American!).
While I agree it's important for the White House to be on FaceBook and Twitter, to have a comprehensive and useful web site and email blasts, it's clear that these forms of communication still don't have the impact of mass media--network and cable TV.
So if you aren't getting your message out--clearly--daily--then your opposition will be, and you will lose the war of minds.
As incompetent as the Bush administration was at actually running anything, from hurricane Katrina to Iraq to the economy--that's how organized and effective they were at manipulating the US mainstream media.
The Bush White House's propaganda machine (starting with the 100% political Republican propaganda) managed to make reality take a back seat to staged events that were so simple it got their message out--with no possibility of the media re-interpreting them.
Despite some apparent blunders such as "Mission Accomplished" (or, to a lesser extent, the President continuing to read to children while the twin towers were attacked on 9/11 rather than actually doing anything about it), the truth is that the mainstream media never criticized those events.
9/11 became too sacrosanct ("we must all stand behind our president--unless he's a Democrat, in which case this would have been his fault!") and the propaganda effect of "Mission Accomplished" was that most people actually believed the words--it was accomplished.
Republicans understand that all you need are the words. You don't need the actions. That makes it much easier, because all you have to say is, "We've made America a safer place!" and that line is repeated over and over, despite the fact that what you did was actually make us more vulnerable to terrorists--and now financially, too! It doesn't matter, because the ignorant masses people have heard "We have made you safe!" repeated and repeated endlessly, so that's what they believe.
Democrats, the Obama White House included, mistake actions for words. They think if they actually do things, then people will recognize, appreciate and applaud their accomplishments.
But these accomplishments are bound to be complex--the way all political solutions must be, and therefore difficult to explain in under five words. And, being smart, if not "too smart for their own good," Democrats try to explain the situation or their accomplishments in 500 words.
Now--while 500 words can be more elucidating, most listeners won't know what "elucidating" means.
The bigger problem is that if you give the press 500 words, you give them the ability to edit them down to whatever 5 words they want. The ellipsis (...) is a powerful thing.
"Health Insurance companies are taking advantage of Americans. The citizens of the United States need and want quality, affordable health care, and it is the goal of this administration to finally bring true security to the health care of Americans."
can become
"Health Insurance companies... want... to finally bring true security to the health care of Americans."
Uh oh. Wrong message.
And when delivered on TV, where the "..." are invisible--there's no way to tell that the message was changed.
While this may be an extreme example, the truth is that if you give the mainstream media too much information, you give them the power to change your message.
The other truth is that if the mainstream media was really doing its job in news reporting, it wouldn't accept five word phrases as news, it wouldn't repeat them endlessly as if they were fact.
Reporters should go out, double check stories, demand two independent sources before quoting mere rumor as fact. That's what I learned when I got a degree in Journalism. For the most part, that's not what's happening today. Today somebody, anybody, even "Joe the Plumber" just has to say the words--words remember--doesn't matter if they're true or even actually make sense--and they're repeated and repeated until they sound true, and then are taken as fact.
Another twist on all this is that there's so much more noise and information from every direction--the TV, computer, radio, SMS, Social Media... So people have more information and less time. Which means that messages must be delivered in shorter, faster ways.
Complex stories need to be distilled down to bullet points.
While it's unfortunate, and leads to the oversimplification of complex issues, it's also necessary to get your point across.
This White House already does this online. Why did President Obama find it necessary to have a "New Way Forward" in Afghanistan? Well, first, "New Way Forward" is a great propaganda term--it sounds good but says nothing, and doesn't give any hint that the new way forward sounds suspiciously like the old way backwards.
But they distilled the issue to a few bullet points (originally posted on Twitter)--and to a 4 minute version of the President's speech (though they both should be on the same web page, otherwise the bullet points are under a 30 minute speech, which few are going to watch in its entirety).
But again we get back to the problem--did you see these bullet points? No. Did you hear the condensed version of the speech? No. Did the mainstream media get and regurgitate the bullet points? No (if they got them, they didn't spit them back out--and even if they got them--guess what--there are too many of them--guess how many--that's right, 514--ten times too many.
It doesn't matter that these were originally delivered via Twitter at 140 characters each--because they add up.
What could the White House have told the media?
"The Taliban still wants to kill us!!!," is 7 words (!!! doesn't count!!!), too long, but still simple and powerful--you are going to die unless we do this. Something even bawling Fox viewers can understand. And something that can't be as easily manipulated--at least not directly.
In today's newsless world (and I saw "newsless" because what passes for news is rarely straight reportage--it's most often now a form of editorial written in a newsy way) it will always be possible for pundits and commentators to outright lie--which is how Fox News operates. Because their lies are carefully crafted to be simple, they can be stronger than honest complexity.
So the best, if not only way to fight them is to fight fire with fire--be simple in return--make your message short, sweet, and clear even to third graders (which, thanks to another Fox show, we have learned that fifth graders can be smarter than most adults, so perhaps adults can understand at a third-grade level).
Remember the old adage: KISS=Keep It Simple Stupid
Let's hope the Obama administration can do that--if not, they'll continue to be too smart for their own good.
Now the question is--did you see that speech before? No? I didn't either. Where is it shown other than online? I don't know, either.
While candidate and President Obama has been very smart with his online and new-media efforts, he's failing on the mass-media front. There, screaming, crying Republicans are winning--because they're making the most noise.
There, President Obama shows up only in a few short clips per week, while the cry-babies (why people would take a crying man seriously about political issues is beyond me) are getting air time, eyes and ears.
Most people still get their news through network and cable TV.
And this is key--on TV you can't choose the stories you want to hear about--they're pushed at you. So even if you don't want to hear about Obama's strategy in Afghanistan, chances are the newscasters are going to talk about it (even if briefly, except on days when Tiger Woods private life becomes "news that affects us all."
On the web--if you don't want to read about world events, if you don't want to read about politics or the president, you can easily avoid it. Then you never know. Which is the case with the uneducated and many Republicans--they want to pretend Obama wasn't elect (even better--pretend he's not really American!).
While I agree it's important for the White House to be on FaceBook and Twitter, to have a comprehensive and useful web site and email blasts, it's clear that these forms of communication still don't have the impact of mass media--network and cable TV.
So if you aren't getting your message out--clearly--daily--then your opposition will be, and you will lose the war of minds.
As incompetent as the Bush administration was at actually running anything, from hurricane Katrina to Iraq to the economy--that's how organized and effective they were at manipulating the US mainstream media.
The Bush White House's propaganda machine (starting with the 100% political Republican propaganda) managed to make reality take a back seat to staged events that were so simple it got their message out--with no possibility of the media re-interpreting them.
Despite some apparent blunders such as "Mission Accomplished" (or, to a lesser extent, the President continuing to read to children while the twin towers were attacked on 9/11 rather than actually doing anything about it), the truth is that the mainstream media never criticized those events.
9/11 became too sacrosanct ("we must all stand behind our president--unless he's a Democrat, in which case this would have been his fault!") and the propaganda effect of "Mission Accomplished" was that most people actually believed the words--it was accomplished.
Republicans understand that all you need are the words. You don't need the actions. That makes it much easier, because all you have to say is, "We've made America a safer place!" and that line is repeated over and over, despite the fact that what you did was actually make us more vulnerable to terrorists--and now financially, too! It doesn't matter, because the ignorant masses people have heard "We have made you safe!" repeated and repeated endlessly, so that's what they believe.
Democrats, the Obama White House included, mistake actions for words. They think if they actually do things, then people will recognize, appreciate and applaud their accomplishments.
But these accomplishments are bound to be complex--the way all political solutions must be, and therefore difficult to explain in under five words. And, being smart, if not "too smart for their own good," Democrats try to explain the situation or their accomplishments in 500 words.
Now--while 500 words can be more elucidating, most listeners won't know what "elucidating" means.
The bigger problem is that if you give the press 500 words, you give them the ability to edit them down to whatever 5 words they want. The ellipsis (...) is a powerful thing.
"Health Insurance companies are taking advantage of Americans. The citizens of the United States need and want quality, affordable health care, and it is the goal of this administration to finally bring true security to the health care of Americans."
can become
"Health Insurance companies... want... to finally bring true security to the health care of Americans."
Uh oh. Wrong message.
And when delivered on TV, where the "..." are invisible--there's no way to tell that the message was changed.
While this may be an extreme example, the truth is that if you give the mainstream media too much information, you give them the power to change your message.
The other truth is that if the mainstream media was really doing its job in news reporting, it wouldn't accept five word phrases as news, it wouldn't repeat them endlessly as if they were fact.
Reporters should go out, double check stories, demand two independent sources before quoting mere rumor as fact. That's what I learned when I got a degree in Journalism. For the most part, that's not what's happening today. Today somebody, anybody, even "Joe the Plumber" just has to say the words--words remember--doesn't matter if they're true or even actually make sense--and they're repeated and repeated until they sound true, and then are taken as fact.
Another twist on all this is that there's so much more noise and information from every direction--the TV, computer, radio, SMS, Social Media... So people have more information and less time. Which means that messages must be delivered in shorter, faster ways.
Complex stories need to be distilled down to bullet points.
While it's unfortunate, and leads to the oversimplification of complex issues, it's also necessary to get your point across.
This White House already does this online. Why did President Obama find it necessary to have a "New Way Forward" in Afghanistan? Well, first, "New Way Forward" is a great propaganda term--it sounds good but says nothing, and doesn't give any hint that the new way forward sounds suspiciously like the old way backwards.
But they distilled the issue to a few bullet points (originally posted on Twitter)--and to a 4 minute version of the President's speech (though they both should be on the same web page, otherwise the bullet points are under a 30 minute speech, which few are going to watch in its entirety).
But again we get back to the problem--did you see these bullet points? No. Did you hear the condensed version of the speech? No. Did the mainstream media get and regurgitate the bullet points? No (if they got them, they didn't spit them back out--and even if they got them--guess what--there are too many of them--guess how many--that's right, 514--ten times too many.
It doesn't matter that these were originally delivered via Twitter at 140 characters each--because they add up.
What could the White House have told the media?
"The Taliban still wants to kill us!!!," is 7 words (!!! doesn't count!!!), too long, but still simple and powerful--you are going to die unless we do this. Something even bawling Fox viewers can understand. And something that can't be as easily manipulated--at least not directly.
In today's newsless world (and I saw "newsless" because what passes for news is rarely straight reportage--it's most often now a form of editorial written in a newsy way) it will always be possible for pundits and commentators to outright lie--which is how Fox News operates. Because their lies are carefully crafted to be simple, they can be stronger than honest complexity.
So the best, if not only way to fight them is to fight fire with fire--be simple in return--make your message short, sweet, and clear even to third graders (which, thanks to another Fox show, we have learned that fifth graders can be smarter than most adults, so perhaps adults can understand at a third-grade level).
Remember the old adage: KISS=Keep It Simple Stupid
Let's hope the Obama administration can do that--if not, they'll continue to be too smart for their own good.
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
What is Obama thinking about Afghanistan?
I sent this letter to the white house today. I truly believe President Obama is a brilliant man--so I can only hope he has his reasons for continuing our military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq. The problem is--he hasn't made those reasons clear to the country--or the world. So, unfortunately, it just seems like the same old-thing, when we'd hoped for a fresh start.
So I'm asking for an explanation, that's all--that the White House help us all make sense of their decision:
Mr. President
No one in the history of the world has ever won a guerrilla war. Why do you believe we can?
Russia bankrupted itself in Afghanistan. Why do you think we won't?
We voted for you for peace--why do you not to serve the people who voted for you?
We believed in you. Why do you let us down?
I'm sure you have your reasons--you're smart. But please tell us why continuing the wars you said you'd end is so important. There must be a reason--we need to know what it is. Otherwise it seems like a continuation of the ruinous folly of the Bush Administration. And we HOPED for more from you.
Thank you.
P.S. Thank you for your work on improving health care.
It's the key to real national security and despite my feelings about your handling of Afghanistan, I do deeply appreciate the work you are doing to help Americans be more secure about their health care.
So I'm asking for an explanation, that's all--that the White House help us all make sense of their decision:
Mr. President
No one in the history of the world has ever won a guerrilla war. Why do you believe we can?
Russia bankrupted itself in Afghanistan. Why do you think we won't?
We voted for you for peace--why do you not to serve the people who voted for you?
We believed in you. Why do you let us down?
I'm sure you have your reasons--you're smart. But please tell us why continuing the wars you said you'd end is so important. There must be a reason--we need to know what it is. Otherwise it seems like a continuation of the ruinous folly of the Bush Administration. And we HOPED for more from you.
Thank you.
P.S. Thank you for your work on improving health care.
It's the key to real national security and despite my feelings about your handling of Afghanistan, I do deeply appreciate the work you are doing to help Americans be more secure about their health care.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
My health insurance company does nothing for me except waste time
I pay $600 a month for health insurance that doesn’t cover the procedures my doctors ask for, and then even makes it difficult for me to pay for them out of my own pocket. A company that would rather have me on the phone taking up their representatives time for three hours than just answer a simple question.
This is literally insane. They not only don’t provide the service I pay for, they get in the way of me paying for those necessary services myself. In no way does this make sense, or is it a useful, efficient way to run health care.
Here’s my story:
My ear nose throat doctor (who cost me $500 for one visit after insurance) wanted me to get an MRI of my sinuses, which have always been a problem for me. I'm having trouble smelling and of course he wants to know if it's a tumor or just bad genes. I'm voting for bad genes, but at some point you have to stop guessing and make sure, just in case it’s nothing serious, like a lemon sized lump in your noggin.
It takes the doctor two weeks to get an authorization (though a third-party company whose sole job is to get authorizations through insurance companies since it's clearly so hard). I get a letter saying I’m authorized, but I know better than to rush into getting the procedure, because I need to know how much this approved procedure will cost.
I call the insurance company to find out the co-pay. How much will this covered procedure cost me?"
"We can't tell you," they tell me, like that’s a good answer.
WTF? I think but don’t actually say. “Why not?” I ask, politely.
"We don't know, it depends on your policy and provider."
Well, you know my policy and here's the doctor's name.
"We still don't know. What I can tell is that we won't cover it."
WTF redux.
"You haven't met your "out of pocket" expenses."
No, I only pay $600 a month for which I get TWO doctor visits a year (that's it, just two!) and yet I haven't spent another $3,500 of my own money to pay for what they should be paying for out of the $7,200 a year I've been paying them for years--out of which I've gotten $2,600 worth of service (I know, because they do manage to keep track of that!)
It's a great deal, right? $7,600 a year for at least five years, $38,000 to get $2,600. Wow, what a value. And--even after paying them all that, they still won't cover a prescribed and approved procedure.
But--and this is great--I can get it at their contracted price! Whopee! Why am I happy? Because insurance companies usually pay less for service than individual human beings without unlimited profits do.
A few years ago I had a colonoscopy when I had no insurance. It cost me $5,000, which is when I realized I had to have insurance, because the insurance company would have paid $1,200 but the uninsured get to pay $5,000.
(Note, I've had a colonoscopy since getting insurance and and it still managed to cost me $1,500, even though according to Marin General hospital, the insurance company only paid them $1,200, so in reality insurance didn't cover anything at all, in fact, the insurance company seems to have made $300 from my procedure rather than paying me anything--and they still chalk it up to my lifetime limit of what they’ll give me!)
So now how much is their contracted price? They won't tell me. Part of their contract says that they protect doctors from the patients knowing what something really costs.
AH! Of course! Because otherwise I might know how much more I’m paying than they pay. The only reason I knew what they paid for a colonoscopy is because when I balked at $5,000 (since I was told $2,500 in advance), the hospital finance person told me that insurance would pay them $1,200 and I said, “I’ll pay that,” and she said, “We won’t accept that from you, only an insurance company.).
Oh.
I call the doctor. They don't know the price, either, it depends on the policy. Call your insurance company. Thanks.
An hour or so later of phone time (which costs the insurance company money--money they don't spend on care), I'm told I have to find out the tax ID and CTP code from my doctor. I call, and get it. Call the insurance company, go through the menus (I've memorized them, #4, my SS#, #2,#0 - waiting between each step), and give them the info and they say they'll get back to me--in a week. It takes them a week?
OK, so can they tell me? Which means they aren’t protecting the contracted price at all, which means none of this makes any sense and is just a gigantic waste of time designed to get people to simply stop bothering them.
Except they never do. I hear nothing from them. I do get an email saying I have an important confidential email in my secure email section of my online account. Well, I’ve been using the web since 1995, when it became public. I had one of the first sites on the web. I’ve worked with IBM on information design. And I could not find this magical secure email section. It’s not listed on the site at all after I log in. I try every single solitary link, even one that makes no sense to take me to WebMD or something, and there I see a link to a secure email box.
Why there couldn’t be a link in the main area is a mystery, except it seems to be part of the “let’s make it as hard as possible to do anything so they’ll give up and stop bothering us, other than to send us a check every month,” ethos.
That email turns out to be reminding me it’s time to have a physical, which I already got, on my own dime, because I didn’t want a routine office visit to count as one of my two doctor’s visits for the year, which somehow it ended up counting as anyway, meaning that they paid for an $120 visit instead of a $500 visit to a specialist.
Everything is clearly designed to simply make you the insured patient just give up. After a while it’s not worth the time or effort to get a fucking MRI that your doctor said you should have. Who the fuck cares what’s going on in my head other than the hold music of the Health Insurance call center.
Today I decide to call them back and try again. 45 minutes on the phone--they never called because the approved facility is no longer under a Health Net contract. Really? First, they couldn’t tell me this? Next--The company that does approvals didn’t know that when it’s their entire job? (They told me they get their database from the health insurance company).
I call the MRI company, get the Tax ID and CTP numbers again--they are the same.
800-blah-blah-blah, 4, ss#, 2, 0 wait... give them that information, and gee, it’s the same. That facility hasn’t been in their system since Feb 2008. Interestingly, the facility says they take my insurance, and the pre-approval company says they do, too, only the insurance company says they don’t! And it’s pre-approved, remember.
So finally, after another 45 minutes, I ask if there’s an approved facility, and she gives me another facility in my area, and will have the research department that never contacted me before contact me this time with the price. If the doc’s office would call they could find out today--but they already told me they won’t do it because it takes them a half hour and its a waste of their time--which it clearly as, just as it’s a waste of my time and the insurance company’s operator (and in this case supervisor, because she has to keep asking her, too).
BUT--first I have to now get it all approved all over again, because it’s a different facility. Same approved procedure--which will take weeks, and which, remember, the insurance company is not paying for. But in order for me to get the contracted price, it all has to be pre-approved again.
So I call the pre-approval company, MedSolutions, and they say they can make the change instantly online, it doesn’t need another approval, and they do. It’s the same procedure, it’s my legal right to have it done anywhere I want--except the insurance company never told me this--even though they’re not paying!!!
And how much will it cost? The nice woman at the pre-approver (the nicest person I’ve talked to) suggests I just call the facility and ask. I say, “I’ll try, but the other one didn’t know).
So I call the facility, Bay Area Open MRI, and yet another perky chipper nice person (Julie) answers. She knows the contracted price (how is that possible, given that nobody else does?) It’s $800. But wait--they have a special for the uninsured or those who don’t want to run it through their insurance. OK, I wait for it--since the uninsured always pay more than insurance companies who can afford to pay more.
The special price is $600.
WTFx3?
It’s the first time I’ve ever heard of an individual being charged less than an insurance company, but it probably is so much less trouble for the MRI company, and so many people are uninsured--or worse--unable to use their insurance because it won’t cover it, or get approval, or simply even return a call or an email, that I guess whoever runs this place is smart and figures that in this economy offering a 25% discount make sense (in the retail world, 15% discounts across the board are now standard--to start).
So, in the end, three hours of phone hassle is actually going to save me $200, which, amazingly, makes it a good use of my time. Of course, the insurance company could have just told me, “Here’s a place you can get it for $600” to start with, but I’m sure their contracts with doctors prohibit giving patients the best deal. Or, the insurance company could have paid for a necessary procedure, which, I used to think, is what I'm paying them $7,200 a year to do.
Now, the question is--why do Americans have to suffer through a terribly wasteful and stupid system like this? Hopefully it will be changing, but there are still many Americans who are afraid of this change. Afraid the big bad government will keep us from getting the health care we need--the way that the big bad insurance companies are already doing now.
Except with government involvement there will be caps on what we have to pay, instead of the current outrageous mortgage-sized premiums. And then we won’t be able to get canceled if we get sick (unlike now, where you can be canceled at any time, no matter how much you’ve paid--which is why I’m not naming my health insurance company here!). And then you will also be able to get insurance if you have a pre-existing condition, whereas now you simply cannot unless your employer offers it or you can pay a premium that’s higher than your mortgage (the entertainment industry insurance alliance used to be great--now it costs $1,400 a month--a month, which is a dirty trick so that the insurance companies can say, "See, we offer insurance to people with pre-existing conditions!" but they do it at such an outrageous price it's literally impossible for 99% of people to afford!
Anyone who cares about their health, and the health of their loved ones needs to support health care reform. Because even if you are afraid of the government in your health care--at least then you'll have some kind of vote on it. Now you have no say--except to not have insurance, which if so financially dangerous you can’t do it.
So give yourself a vote on health care and costs. Let the government do what good governments do--help you. That’s what they’re meant to do. That’s what they do in Canada, UK, France, Germany, Sweden, The Netherlands, Holland, Spain, Italy, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and countless other civilized free democracies. If they can do it, surely we can, too, right? Because anything they can do we can do better? Let's prove it, at long last.
This is literally insane. They not only don’t provide the service I pay for, they get in the way of me paying for those necessary services myself. In no way does this make sense, or is it a useful, efficient way to run health care.
Here’s my story:
My ear nose throat doctor (who cost me $500 for one visit after insurance) wanted me to get an MRI of my sinuses, which have always been a problem for me. I'm having trouble smelling and of course he wants to know if it's a tumor or just bad genes. I'm voting for bad genes, but at some point you have to stop guessing and make sure, just in case it’s nothing serious, like a lemon sized lump in your noggin.
It takes the doctor two weeks to get an authorization (though a third-party company whose sole job is to get authorizations through insurance companies since it's clearly so hard). I get a letter saying I’m authorized, but I know better than to rush into getting the procedure, because I need to know how much this approved procedure will cost.
I call the insurance company to find out the co-pay. How much will this covered procedure cost me?"
"We can't tell you," they tell me, like that’s a good answer.
WTF? I think but don’t actually say. “Why not?” I ask, politely.
"We don't know, it depends on your policy and provider."
Well, you know my policy and here's the doctor's name.
"We still don't know. What I can tell is that we won't cover it."
WTF redux.
"You haven't met your "out of pocket" expenses."
No, I only pay $600 a month for which I get TWO doctor visits a year (that's it, just two!) and yet I haven't spent another $3,500 of my own money to pay for what they should be paying for out of the $7,200 a year I've been paying them for years--out of which I've gotten $2,600 worth of service (I know, because they do manage to keep track of that!)
It's a great deal, right? $7,600 a year for at least five years, $38,000 to get $2,600. Wow, what a value. And--even after paying them all that, they still won't cover a prescribed and approved procedure.
But--and this is great--I can get it at their contracted price! Whopee! Why am I happy? Because insurance companies usually pay less for service than individual human beings without unlimited profits do.
A few years ago I had a colonoscopy when I had no insurance. It cost me $5,000, which is when I realized I had to have insurance, because the insurance company would have paid $1,200 but the uninsured get to pay $5,000.
(Note, I've had a colonoscopy since getting insurance and and it still managed to cost me $1,500, even though according to Marin General hospital, the insurance company only paid them $1,200, so in reality insurance didn't cover anything at all, in fact, the insurance company seems to have made $300 from my procedure rather than paying me anything--and they still chalk it up to my lifetime limit of what they’ll give me!)
So now how much is their contracted price? They won't tell me. Part of their contract says that they protect doctors from the patients knowing what something really costs.
AH! Of course! Because otherwise I might know how much more I’m paying than they pay. The only reason I knew what they paid for a colonoscopy is because when I balked at $5,000 (since I was told $2,500 in advance), the hospital finance person told me that insurance would pay them $1,200 and I said, “I’ll pay that,” and she said, “We won’t accept that from you, only an insurance company.).
Oh.
I call the doctor. They don't know the price, either, it depends on the policy. Call your insurance company. Thanks.
An hour or so later of phone time (which costs the insurance company money--money they don't spend on care), I'm told I have to find out the tax ID and CTP code from my doctor. I call, and get it. Call the insurance company, go through the menus (I've memorized them, #4, my SS#, #2,#0 - waiting between each step), and give them the info and they say they'll get back to me--in a week. It takes them a week?
OK, so can they tell me? Which means they aren’t protecting the contracted price at all, which means none of this makes any sense and is just a gigantic waste of time designed to get people to simply stop bothering them.
Except they never do. I hear nothing from them. I do get an email saying I have an important confidential email in my secure email section of my online account. Well, I’ve been using the web since 1995, when it became public. I had one of the first sites on the web. I’ve worked with IBM on information design. And I could not find this magical secure email section. It’s not listed on the site at all after I log in. I try every single solitary link, even one that makes no sense to take me to WebMD or something, and there I see a link to a secure email box.
Why there couldn’t be a link in the main area is a mystery, except it seems to be part of the “let’s make it as hard as possible to do anything so they’ll give up and stop bothering us, other than to send us a check every month,” ethos.
That email turns out to be reminding me it’s time to have a physical, which I already got, on my own dime, because I didn’t want a routine office visit to count as one of my two doctor’s visits for the year, which somehow it ended up counting as anyway, meaning that they paid for an $120 visit instead of a $500 visit to a specialist.
Everything is clearly designed to simply make you the insured patient just give up. After a while it’s not worth the time or effort to get a fucking MRI that your doctor said you should have. Who the fuck cares what’s going on in my head other than the hold music of the Health Insurance call center.
Today I decide to call them back and try again. 45 minutes on the phone--they never called because the approved facility is no longer under a Health Net contract. Really? First, they couldn’t tell me this? Next--The company that does approvals didn’t know that when it’s their entire job? (They told me they get their database from the health insurance company).
I call the MRI company, get the Tax ID and CTP numbers again--they are the same.
800-blah-blah-blah, 4, ss#, 2, 0 wait... give them that information, and gee, it’s the same. That facility hasn’t been in their system since Feb 2008. Interestingly, the facility says they take my insurance, and the pre-approval company says they do, too, only the insurance company says they don’t! And it’s pre-approved, remember.
So finally, after another 45 minutes, I ask if there’s an approved facility, and she gives me another facility in my area, and will have the research department that never contacted me before contact me this time with the price. If the doc’s office would call they could find out today--but they already told me they won’t do it because it takes them a half hour and its a waste of their time--which it clearly as, just as it’s a waste of my time and the insurance company’s operator (and in this case supervisor, because she has to keep asking her, too).
BUT--first I have to now get it all approved all over again, because it’s a different facility. Same approved procedure--which will take weeks, and which, remember, the insurance company is not paying for. But in order for me to get the contracted price, it all has to be pre-approved again.
So I call the pre-approval company, MedSolutions, and they say they can make the change instantly online, it doesn’t need another approval, and they do. It’s the same procedure, it’s my legal right to have it done anywhere I want--except the insurance company never told me this--even though they’re not paying!!!
And how much will it cost? The nice woman at the pre-approver (the nicest person I’ve talked to) suggests I just call the facility and ask. I say, “I’ll try, but the other one didn’t know).
So I call the facility, Bay Area Open MRI, and yet another perky chipper nice person (Julie) answers. She knows the contracted price (how is that possible, given that nobody else does?) It’s $800. But wait--they have a special for the uninsured or those who don’t want to run it through their insurance. OK, I wait for it--since the uninsured always pay more than insurance companies who can afford to pay more.
The special price is $600.
WTFx3?
It’s the first time I’ve ever heard of an individual being charged less than an insurance company, but it probably is so much less trouble for the MRI company, and so many people are uninsured--or worse--unable to use their insurance because it won’t cover it, or get approval, or simply even return a call or an email, that I guess whoever runs this place is smart and figures that in this economy offering a 25% discount make sense (in the retail world, 15% discounts across the board are now standard--to start).
So, in the end, three hours of phone hassle is actually going to save me $200, which, amazingly, makes it a good use of my time. Of course, the insurance company could have just told me, “Here’s a place you can get it for $600” to start with, but I’m sure their contracts with doctors prohibit giving patients the best deal. Or, the insurance company could have paid for a necessary procedure, which, I used to think, is what I'm paying them $7,200 a year to do.
Now, the question is--why do Americans have to suffer through a terribly wasteful and stupid system like this? Hopefully it will be changing, but there are still many Americans who are afraid of this change. Afraid the big bad government will keep us from getting the health care we need--the way that the big bad insurance companies are already doing now.
Except with government involvement there will be caps on what we have to pay, instead of the current outrageous mortgage-sized premiums. And then we won’t be able to get canceled if we get sick (unlike now, where you can be canceled at any time, no matter how much you’ve paid--which is why I’m not naming my health insurance company here!). And then you will also be able to get insurance if you have a pre-existing condition, whereas now you simply cannot unless your employer offers it or you can pay a premium that’s higher than your mortgage (the entertainment industry insurance alliance used to be great--now it costs $1,400 a month--a month, which is a dirty trick so that the insurance companies can say, "See, we offer insurance to people with pre-existing conditions!" but they do it at such an outrageous price it's literally impossible for 99% of people to afford!
Anyone who cares about their health, and the health of their loved ones needs to support health care reform. Because even if you are afraid of the government in your health care--at least then you'll have some kind of vote on it. Now you have no say--except to not have insurance, which if so financially dangerous you can’t do it.
So give yourself a vote on health care and costs. Let the government do what good governments do--help you. That’s what they’re meant to do. That’s what they do in Canada, UK, France, Germany, Sweden, The Netherlands, Holland, Spain, Italy, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and countless other civilized free democracies. If they can do it, surely we can, too, right? Because anything they can do we can do better? Let's prove it, at long last.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Which GOP will win: infantile, idiotic, dangerous or conservative?
The GOP is having an identity crisis. They're clearly losers--because they've lost (and this is the thing they can't stand the most--though losing to an African American man probably makes it worse for many of them).
The GOP is being exposed as "the party of NO," and as the RADICALS that they have been. They aren't conservatives, they are neo-CONS (con-men). They have given us the biggest government, the biggest deficit, the most intrusion on our personal lives of any US administration in history. They are really Fascists, controlled by corporations (that's what Fascists are) but they either don't know the meaning of the word, or pretend not to.
The GOP used to have solidarity through greed (by way of stupidity--as if what was good for the few was good for the many--instead of what Kennedy said, "A rising tide lifts all boats" which is really what happens in society).
Now the GOP has multiple directions it can go
But it's hard to imagine that the intelligent, logical, true-conservative (vs. the neo-con-men), can beat the screaming and crying which is so much easier to understand, because you don't have to understand anything at all.
The Republicans have a century long history of saying NO to anything new including Medicare and Social Security. Those both cost money and we don't want to spend our money--on other people. Though, interestingly, you don't see Republicans turning down that money and saying, "We have principals, and since we're against these programs, we aren't going to be part of them." No, they cash their checks, and then complain about the other people who had the unmitigated gall to cash theirs.
So which GOP do I think will win? The ones who are the biggest, loudest, most insincere hypocrites. Because when it comes to the history of the GOP, they usually have.
The GOP is being exposed as "the party of NO," and as the RADICALS that they have been. They aren't conservatives, they are neo-CONS (con-men). They have given us the biggest government, the biggest deficit, the most intrusion on our personal lives of any US administration in history. They are really Fascists, controlled by corporations (that's what Fascists are) but they either don't know the meaning of the word, or pretend not to.
The GOP used to have solidarity through greed (by way of stupidity--as if what was good for the few was good for the many--instead of what Kennedy said, "A rising tide lifts all boats" which is really what happens in society).
Now the GOP has multiple directions it can go
- The Palin (I'm so stupid I don't know I'm stupid and I'm afraid of smart people who might outsmart me, and I believe that stupid people are the best people to run things because they won't outsmart you except they will be so stupid they can only make things worse/Bush route).
- The "we're really conservatives--we remember what that means--we're almost libertarians but we're not wackos.
- The WE HATE EVERYBODY including ourselves *because we secretly like all the things we claim to hate)--but mostly we hate anybody who isn't one of us, because you're either with us or you're a terrorist--obviously.
But it's hard to imagine that the intelligent, logical, true-conservative (vs. the neo-con-men), can beat the screaming and crying which is so much easier to understand, because you don't have to understand anything at all.
The Republicans have a century long history of saying NO to anything new including Medicare and Social Security. Those both cost money and we don't want to spend our money--on other people. Though, interestingly, you don't see Republicans turning down that money and saying, "We have principals, and since we're against these programs, we aren't going to be part of them." No, they cash their checks, and then complain about the other people who had the unmitigated gall to cash theirs.
So which GOP do I think will win? The ones who are the biggest, loudest, most insincere hypocrites. Because when it comes to the history of the GOP, they usually have.
Monday, October 19, 2009
US Health Insurance is disgraceful--and so are the Democrats lack of backbone to fix it
I don't know what's wrong with the Democrats.
Why do they even listen to the whining and screaming of the Republicans they know are either idiots or are totally in the pocket of pharma and insurance companies?
They know almost 80% of Americans want and need reform, and that they have a majority, and they still act like they're the whipped minority bitches of the GOP.
I don't get it at all.
It was one thing when they were in the minority and had no say in things--though even then they could have put up a fight and gone to the public and done some smart marketing--but they never did. Independent groups tried, but then the congresspeople and senators did nothing to stand up to them.
If you have no power, at least you can do is create a fuss.
You have to give Republicans credit, they have two things in common--greed and fear, and when they don't have power, they make one hell of a fuss and stop any kind of progress. I don't know why this makes them feel safe, since in reality it makes everyone much more vulnerable to the kind of insecurity and abuse that we're under from the insurance and pharma companies.
As I've said, Republicans must be the dumbest creatures on the planet, because they are the only ones who will actively work against their own interest. But work it they do. Which is more than can be said for the Democrats.
Here's my latest health insurance story--I went to an ear, nose and throat doc because I'd been coughing for weeks and had trouble with my sense of smell. He gave me a lot of free drug samples (pushers always give it to you for free first :) and then said I should get an MRI.
I said I would if he got approval. It took two weeks, but a nurse from his office called and said I had approval and to schedule an appointment.
I called the insurance company to find out how much the co-pay would be. The agent said they had no approval on file (I had received a letter in the mail from a third party company saying I had approval and giving me the active code and dates!), and what's more, they wouldn't pay for anything until I'd spent all of my $3,500 out-of-pocket max for the year.
Oh--I pay $600 a month, and have given them tens of thousands of dollars. For that, I get two doctor visits a year. That's all. I get $1,000 in prescriptions (worth about $500 at Canadian drug prices). So far it's been a great deal for them, because I have no claims--for years. Surely, out of those tens of thousands of dollars they could manage to cough up, oh, I'll guess, $500 tops. But no.
Now I want a test that with a "list price" of $1106. How they get the $6 I don't know, but this is what the doctor told me. Insurance companies only ever pay a fraction of the listed price, so I know it's less than that, but don't know how much less.
The good news is that my expensive insurance allows me to get the "contracted negotiated price," which means I only have to pay what the insurance company pays--not the $1106 I'd have to pay if I didn't have insurance. $300? $900?
This has never made sense--as without insurance it should cost less, since insurance companies have more money!
OK--so how much is that "contract rate?"
THEY WON'T TELL ME. The doctor doesn't know, because it's different for each carrier and policy, so I get that. They won't call and find out, either, as that would take them 45 minutes which is expensive. The insurance company told me to call them and they tell me to call in the insurance company.
Now the insurance company says I just need the doctor's tax ID number and their CPT code which they have to give me, so I call back and get them and they give them.
I call the insurance company back (it's taken almost four hours to get to this point, whereas the insurance company could have just told me what I needed to start). I give the info to the agent who tells me I'll get the price in 24 hours via email.
Now--this is the same insurance company that said they couldn't tell me the contracted rate, because it was in the contract not to tell, but apparently if you work hard enough and call enough people and spend four hours they can tell you.
Except--they never did. I got no email. No call. No nothing. I did get an email saying I had "secure" email on their site. I went to their site and couldn't see any place to read email, secure or otherwise. After 15 minutes of clicking on EVERYTHING I found something about health history that took me to a version of webMD.com that doesn't seem all that secure, and there were four messages, like "You're late for your flu shot!!!" (which the insurance won't pay for), and other nice reminders of things I was supposed to do--had I ever known to check this email area, which I never knew existed.
But no email with the price of the MRI. So--I guess I have to call the insurance company again and ask and waste more of my time (and theirs, talking to those agents costs the insurance companies money they could be turning into pure profit, if only us pesky human beings didn't have questions they don't want to answer, so they basically don't).
OK--so here's what I've finally figured out:
THE ENTIRE SYSTEM IS DESIGNED TO MAKE YOU GIVE UP.
"No, I don't need the procedure after all, it's just too hard to find out what it costs. I'll just give up."
"Oh, the insurance company decided they weren't going to pay for something they approved and I talked to 12 people on the phone and I still have no answers and it might just be easier to write that check..."
What a disgraceful, disgusting system. Designed to make you feel grateful they'll take your money and give you little or nothing in return--with the full knowledge that they can cancel you any time--when you actually have met all their requirements and it's their turn to pay for the services you've paid for for years.
But can the Democrats do anything about it? Well, yes, they could. But do they? No. Of course, they have great health insurance--for life. No wonder they work so hard to get elected--the insurance alone is worth it!
Maybe if we all had the same insurance they had there'd be fewer idiots running for office just so they could get it!
Why do they even listen to the whining and screaming of the Republicans they know are either idiots or are totally in the pocket of pharma and insurance companies?
They know almost 80% of Americans want and need reform, and that they have a majority, and they still act like they're the whipped minority bitches of the GOP.
I don't get it at all.
It was one thing when they were in the minority and had no say in things--though even then they could have put up a fight and gone to the public and done some smart marketing--but they never did. Independent groups tried, but then the congresspeople and senators did nothing to stand up to them.
If you have no power, at least you can do is create a fuss.
You have to give Republicans credit, they have two things in common--greed and fear, and when they don't have power, they make one hell of a fuss and stop any kind of progress. I don't know why this makes them feel safe, since in reality it makes everyone much more vulnerable to the kind of insecurity and abuse that we're under from the insurance and pharma companies.
As I've said, Republicans must be the dumbest creatures on the planet, because they are the only ones who will actively work against their own interest. But work it they do. Which is more than can be said for the Democrats.
Here's my latest health insurance story--I went to an ear, nose and throat doc because I'd been coughing for weeks and had trouble with my sense of smell. He gave me a lot of free drug samples (pushers always give it to you for free first :) and then said I should get an MRI.
I said I would if he got approval. It took two weeks, but a nurse from his office called and said I had approval and to schedule an appointment.
I called the insurance company to find out how much the co-pay would be. The agent said they had no approval on file (I had received a letter in the mail from a third party company saying I had approval and giving me the active code and dates!), and what's more, they wouldn't pay for anything until I'd spent all of my $3,500 out-of-pocket max for the year.
Oh--I pay $600 a month, and have given them tens of thousands of dollars. For that, I get two doctor visits a year. That's all. I get $1,000 in prescriptions (worth about $500 at Canadian drug prices). So far it's been a great deal for them, because I have no claims--for years. Surely, out of those tens of thousands of dollars they could manage to cough up, oh, I'll guess, $500 tops. But no.
Now I want a test that with a "list price" of $1106. How they get the $6 I don't know, but this is what the doctor told me. Insurance companies only ever pay a fraction of the listed price, so I know it's less than that, but don't know how much less.
The good news is that my expensive insurance allows me to get the "contracted negotiated price," which means I only have to pay what the insurance company pays--not the $1106 I'd have to pay if I didn't have insurance. $300? $900?
This has never made sense--as without insurance it should cost less, since insurance companies have more money!
OK--so how much is that "contract rate?"
THEY WON'T TELL ME. The doctor doesn't know, because it's different for each carrier and policy, so I get that. They won't call and find out, either, as that would take them 45 minutes which is expensive. The insurance company told me to call them and they tell me to call in the insurance company.
Now the insurance company says I just need the doctor's tax ID number and their CPT code which they have to give me, so I call back and get them and they give them.
I call the insurance company back (it's taken almost four hours to get to this point, whereas the insurance company could have just told me what I needed to start). I give the info to the agent who tells me I'll get the price in 24 hours via email.
Now--this is the same insurance company that said they couldn't tell me the contracted rate, because it was in the contract not to tell, but apparently if you work hard enough and call enough people and spend four hours they can tell you.
Except--they never did. I got no email. No call. No nothing. I did get an email saying I had "secure" email on their site. I went to their site and couldn't see any place to read email, secure or otherwise. After 15 minutes of clicking on EVERYTHING I found something about health history that took me to a version of webMD.com that doesn't seem all that secure, and there were four messages, like "You're late for your flu shot!!!" (which the insurance won't pay for), and other nice reminders of things I was supposed to do--had I ever known to check this email area, which I never knew existed.
But no email with the price of the MRI. So--I guess I have to call the insurance company again and ask and waste more of my time (and theirs, talking to those agents costs the insurance companies money they could be turning into pure profit, if only us pesky human beings didn't have questions they don't want to answer, so they basically don't).
OK--so here's what I've finally figured out:
THE ENTIRE SYSTEM IS DESIGNED TO MAKE YOU GIVE UP.
"No, I don't need the procedure after all, it's just too hard to find out what it costs. I'll just give up."
"Oh, the insurance company decided they weren't going to pay for something they approved and I talked to 12 people on the phone and I still have no answers and it might just be easier to write that check..."
What a disgraceful, disgusting system. Designed to make you feel grateful they'll take your money and give you little or nothing in return--with the full knowledge that they can cancel you any time--when you actually have met all their requirements and it's their turn to pay for the services you've paid for for years.
But can the Democrats do anything about it? Well, yes, they could. But do they? No. Of course, they have great health insurance--for life. No wonder they work so hard to get elected--the insurance alone is worth it!
Maybe if we all had the same insurance they had there'd be fewer idiots running for office just so they could get it!
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Monday, August 10, 2009
Palin/Repubican thought process
Stupidity > Fear > Lies > Hysteria
Rinse and repeat.
See the latest lies about healthcare...
Sigh. They don't even bother to check the facts before they make up bald-face lies based on stupidity.
Rinse and repeat.
See the latest lies about healthcare...
Sigh. They don't even bother to check the facts before they make up bald-face lies based on stupidity.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Your life and death vs. the Republican nonsense game
Drug and Insurance companies make life and death decisions about you based on whether or not it's worth it to them for you to live or die.
These are companies that take your money but don't promise you anything in return. That's right. Insurance companies can deny your claims--based on their profits. Drug companies make persuasive claims such as:
"The benefits may outweigh the risks!" (Cymbalta anti-depressant, though a statement like that could make anyone depressed). How effective does that sound?
Wow--that's a great selling feature, since the risks include death!
Also, their site says, "The exact way Cymbalta works in people is unknown. More confidence inspiring copy! They make it and sell it but they aren't quite sure how or why it works... or if it works (since clearly, often the risks outweigh the benefits!
I find it sickening (no pun intended) to hear this "debate" about national health care--the old lying excuses as to why it's bad for all Americans to have health care, because it might not be great.
Let's also remember it was Republicans who were against Social Security and Medicare--that's right, those two vital programs for aging Americans--those two social safety nets, backbones of our system--Republicans were against them--remember that, because this is the same thing.
Well, look around folks, what we have isn't great. If you have money you can get more health care--not necessarily better, but more. Doctors are afraid to do anything other than what insurance and drug companies tell them to do--medicine by the numbers--because that way they're "safe" in terms of liability.
And even if you have health insurance now, you may not in the future. You might lose your job with tens of millions of other hard-working Americans. Your employer might not be able to afford health insurance benefits and drop them. Or your insurance company may simply drop you (or your company).
So don't feel safe even if you think you're covered now.
What will change? You will be able to feel safe that you'll get health care, no matter what happens to your job, your income, or your health.
If you have more money, you'll still get more health care--that won't change. All that will change is that you will always get health care--even if if profit-mad insurance companies won't cover you because you've ever been sick, or drop you for any reason (they don't need one--you just pay them $500 a month until they decide you might want some of it back), or you don't have $100,000 for a hospital visit you'll always get health care. Or that if you need a procedure you won't have a profit-based company saying, "No, your life doesn't make business sense for us."
The Republicans cry, "You don't want bureaucrats be making life and death decisions for you!"
Well, guess what folks, "bureaucrats" always do--that whole war on terror thing Republicans love so much is totally bureaucrats making life and death decisions for us.
And yes, I'd rather have bureaucrats who don't make a profit from my health care, deciding if I can have a procedure, than purely profit-driven businesspeople saying, "It doesn't make financial sense for him to have the medical care necessary to save his life."
That decision is made every single day by insurance companies who don't want to risk their already obscenely huge profits. I'm all for them making a profit, but not outrageously huge profits built on the backs of people they then reject for care.
So called "Socialized medicine" isn't perfect--but it is DEMOCRATIC.
True security comes not from starting wars that bankrupt the nation financially and morally. It comes from a government that takes care of its citizens--that's what government is meant to do--that's why we have it. Not to lie to us, abuse our civil rights, throw our money away on unnecessary wars that create more trouble for us--no, but to create a social network to support and care for individuals.
The 8 years of Bush were exactly the kind of bureaucracy that Republicans say they're against, and the kind we all should fear. But Republicans were fine with the horrible, lying, cheating, stealing, fascist regime that was bureaucrats at their worst.
Now that civil servants (that's right, they work for us!) are trying to do something for the people, instead of for corporations and profit--oh, that's bad. And God forbid we also raise taxes back to what they were under the Republican God Reagan. That would be horrible--except somehow it wasn't when he was in office.
How does that possibly make sense? It doesn't.
Which takes me back to one of the things my father always said to me, "You can't argue with an idiot."
So you can't argue with the Republican arguments against national health care. Because if you do, all you do is play into their nonsense game, and in the world of Republican nonsense, nobody can win, except insurance and drug companies.
These are companies that take your money but don't promise you anything in return. That's right. Insurance companies can deny your claims--based on their profits. Drug companies make persuasive claims such as:
"The benefits may outweigh the risks!" (Cymbalta anti-depressant, though a statement like that could make anyone depressed). How effective does that sound?
Wow--that's a great selling feature, since the risks include death!
Also, their site says, "The exact way Cymbalta works in people is unknown. More confidence inspiring copy! They make it and sell it but they aren't quite sure how or why it works... or if it works (since clearly, often the risks outweigh the benefits!
I find it sickening (no pun intended) to hear this "debate" about national health care--the old lying excuses as to why it's bad for all Americans to have health care, because it might not be great.
Let's also remember it was Republicans who were against Social Security and Medicare--that's right, those two vital programs for aging Americans--those two social safety nets, backbones of our system--Republicans were against them--remember that, because this is the same thing.
Well, look around folks, what we have isn't great. If you have money you can get more health care--not necessarily better, but more. Doctors are afraid to do anything other than what insurance and drug companies tell them to do--medicine by the numbers--because that way they're "safe" in terms of liability.
And even if you have health insurance now, you may not in the future. You might lose your job with tens of millions of other hard-working Americans. Your employer might not be able to afford health insurance benefits and drop them. Or your insurance company may simply drop you (or your company).
So don't feel safe even if you think you're covered now.
What will change? You will be able to feel safe that you'll get health care, no matter what happens to your job, your income, or your health.
If you have more money, you'll still get more health care--that won't change. All that will change is that you will always get health care--even if if profit-mad insurance companies won't cover you because you've ever been sick, or drop you for any reason (they don't need one--you just pay them $500 a month until they decide you might want some of it back), or you don't have $100,000 for a hospital visit you'll always get health care. Or that if you need a procedure you won't have a profit-based company saying, "No, your life doesn't make business sense for us."
The Republicans cry, "You don't want bureaucrats be making life and death decisions for you!"
Well, guess what folks, "bureaucrats" always do--that whole war on terror thing Republicans love so much is totally bureaucrats making life and death decisions for us.
And yes, I'd rather have bureaucrats who don't make a profit from my health care, deciding if I can have a procedure, than purely profit-driven businesspeople saying, "It doesn't make financial sense for him to have the medical care necessary to save his life."
That decision is made every single day by insurance companies who don't want to risk their already obscenely huge profits. I'm all for them making a profit, but not outrageously huge profits built on the backs of people they then reject for care.
So called "Socialized medicine" isn't perfect--but it is DEMOCRATIC.
True security comes not from starting wars that bankrupt the nation financially and morally. It comes from a government that takes care of its citizens--that's what government is meant to do--that's why we have it. Not to lie to us, abuse our civil rights, throw our money away on unnecessary wars that create more trouble for us--no, but to create a social network to support and care for individuals.
The 8 years of Bush were exactly the kind of bureaucracy that Republicans say they're against, and the kind we all should fear. But Republicans were fine with the horrible, lying, cheating, stealing, fascist regime that was bureaucrats at their worst.
Now that civil servants (that's right, they work for us!) are trying to do something for the people, instead of for corporations and profit--oh, that's bad. And God forbid we also raise taxes back to what they were under the Republican God Reagan. That would be horrible--except somehow it wasn't when he was in office.
How does that possibly make sense? It doesn't.
Which takes me back to one of the things my father always said to me, "You can't argue with an idiot."
So you can't argue with the Republican arguments against national health care. Because if you do, all you do is play into their nonsense game, and in the world of Republican nonsense, nobody can win, except insurance and drug companies.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
OPEN LETTER TO DICK CHENEY - Everything you have EVER said was either a LIE or WRONG. So Shut the fuck up.
It's worth repeating:
Dick Cheney: Everything you have EVER said was either a LIE or WRONG. So Shut the fuck up.
Slink back to your hidden bunker and entomb yourself there.
Dick Cheney: Everything you have EVER said was either a LIE or WRONG. So Shut the fuck up.
Slink back to your hidden bunker and entomb yourself there.
The Republikan Fascist Federation (Aka, "The party of NO"
Why is it that Republicans always resort to childish name-calling
--and get away with it?
Now they're trying to rename the Democratic party to something so ludicrous I won't even repeat it here. Yes, Republicans are masters at propaganda and distorting language. They already undermined the term "liberal," and now that the Republican party itself is shrinking and dying after eight years of not being at all "conservative" they're trying to destroy the Democratic name.
And we live in a Democracy!
So, OK, if the Republicans say they're allowed to rename somebody else's political party, then so are Democrats.
So I dub the GOP (rather than merely the "Grumpy Old Party") "The Republikan Fascist Federation." This replaces my earlier name for them, which was simply "The Nazi Party."
In this case, it's entirely true. the Bush/Cheney years were one long exercise in turning democracy into Fascism--a government run by and for corporations. And we see where that lead--to the collapse of the world economy, to the undermining of the constitution (something Fascists now try to pin on Democrats--because they're from the"I'm rubber, you're glue" school of projecting their own vices out on everyone else).
The "Republican Party of No" once again has NO new ideas, NO positive plans, NOTHING to offer other than fear, anger, hatred--all Nazi tactics. They're still the GOP, only now they're the Grotesque Old Party.
--and get away with it?
Now they're trying to rename the Democratic party to something so ludicrous I won't even repeat it here. Yes, Republicans are masters at propaganda and distorting language. They already undermined the term "liberal," and now that the Republican party itself is shrinking and dying after eight years of not being at all "conservative" they're trying to destroy the Democratic name.
And we live in a Democracy!
So, OK, if the Republicans say they're allowed to rename somebody else's political party, then so are Democrats.
So I dub the GOP (rather than merely the "Grumpy Old Party") "The Republikan Fascist Federation." This replaces my earlier name for them, which was simply "The Nazi Party."
In this case, it's entirely true. the Bush/Cheney years were one long exercise in turning democracy into Fascism--a government run by and for corporations. And we see where that lead--to the collapse of the world economy, to the undermining of the constitution (something Fascists now try to pin on Democrats--because they're from the"I'm rubber, you're glue" school of projecting their own vices out on everyone else).
The "Republican Party of No" once again has NO new ideas, NO positive plans, NOTHING to offer other than fear, anger, hatred--all Nazi tactics. They're still the GOP, only now they're the Grotesque Old Party.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Health Recovery plan
If you're self-employed and have a pre-existing condition, then you simply cannot get individual health insurance, companies don't give it to people with pre-existing conditions, plain and simple. You're out of luck (I mean, it was kind of thoughtless of you to get sick, wasn't it?)
In some states, such as California, you might be able to get state backed high-risk insurance, for $1,500 a month... but you will have to wait for someone else on the plan to die. Honestly.
If you happened to work for a company with insurance in the past, you can keep it, for a while, because of legislation like COBRA or HIPAA. But both of those programs have set limits as to how long the insurance company must cover you. And even these plans can cost $600 a month for an individual. After that, they can cancel you at any time--even after you've given them tens of thousands of dollars and never made a claim. Fair? No. Scary? Yes.
There's no other major industrialized country where citizens have to worry about health and insurance and costs like this every month. My friends in Canada, England, Germany and Australia think it's insane--and so do I.
The USA needs REAL "national security" where American Citizens are not at the sole mercy of companies who make their life and death decisions based on profits.
How can we have a real "recovery" plan without helping individual American citizens recover when they are ill? "We the people" are people, not banks or corporations.
WE NEED A HEALTH RECOVERY PLAN FOR ALL AMERICANS AT LONG LAST.
In some states, such as California, you might be able to get state backed high-risk insurance, for $1,500 a month... but you will have to wait for someone else on the plan to die. Honestly.
If you happened to work for a company with insurance in the past, you can keep it, for a while, because of legislation like COBRA or HIPAA. But both of those programs have set limits as to how long the insurance company must cover you. And even these plans can cost $600 a month for an individual. After that, they can cancel you at any time--even after you've given them tens of thousands of dollars and never made a claim. Fair? No. Scary? Yes.
There's no other major industrialized country where citizens have to worry about health and insurance and costs like this every month. My friends in Canada, England, Germany and Australia think it's insane--and so do I.
The USA needs REAL "national security" where American Citizens are not at the sole mercy of companies who make their life and death decisions based on profits.
How can we have a real "recovery" plan without helping individual American citizens recover when they are ill? "We the people" are people, not banks or corporations.
WE NEED A HEALTH RECOVERY PLAN FOR ALL AMERICANS AT LONG LAST.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
The only thing to fear...
So, Republicans have decided they are once again the only "real" patriots and must have "tea parties" to protest the new adminsitration's spending to try to keep the country moving and growing, rather than stagnating and falling into depression.
I understand that "the party of 'no'" has NO positive ideas, but this is ridiculous.
If these patriots were concerned about too much government and out of control spending, then where were they when the problem was being created--so blatently during eight years of W and Cheney?
And why is rolling back Bush's cuts to the most wealthy, a hideous form of Socialism, when they were even higher under the Republican God Reagan. They don't seem to like real history, only history invented by Fox.
All this spending and bailout was OK when Bush did it--did it once again without restrictions or oversight. Now that Obama is doing it, it's Socialism. How exactly does that work in their brains?
I'll tell you what I try to remember now when talking to people with a limited world view like this-- REPUBLICANS ARE AFRAID.
(FDR: The only thing to fear is fear itself. That still applies.)
I don't know why they weren't afraid under Bush, which, if they weren't blinded by their limited world view they would have been, but they weren't.
Now that they don't feel like "they" are in power, they are afraid, that's the root of it all, the anger, the greed, it's all fear that they might not get their little slice of the pie because big government is going to take it away from them.
Never mind that Bush's big government was the most intrusive and that it really DID take it away from them in the form of out of control spending and deficit.
But now that the government actually NEEDS to spend money ON Americans (rather than on wars and a few corporations), these same people are crying "tea" and acting as it we should just stop. Suddenly they're born-against libertarians instead of war-crazed, money-is-no-object spend spend spend just as long as you don't tax (oh, nevermind the deficit, it's good when we do it) neo-cons.
We wouldn't want them to tax their brains by thinking about the consequences of this--by making them look around and see the stores shuttered all over, the people out of work and without health care, and at the confusing mobius strip that is our world economy and how it's all interrelated and that if you just let a lot of things fall apart we can be plunged into a deep and long depression the likes of which they can't even imagine with their fearful little brains.
But those of who we CAN see the world as it is, who see how it got here, know we can no longer afford to listen to those same voices that
got us into this mess.
My hope is that the fear and anger that's blinding them can be let down long enough for them to remember that if they are really patriots, then they need to get behind our president (as even liberals did after 9/11), and work together to help our nation rebuild.
Rebuilding takes planning and effort, sacrifice, and money.
Yet these part-time-patriots have gone for eight years without planning, effort or sacrifice, and only want to spend other people's money (in the case of a deficit, their own children's)
We cannot rebuild by doing nothing or waiting for someone else to do it.
It's too late for that.
Now we have to work together.
As the great patriot Benjamin Franklin said to Americans before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
I understand that "the party of 'no'" has NO positive ideas, but this is ridiculous.
If these patriots were concerned about too much government and out of control spending, then where were they when the problem was being created--so blatently during eight years of W and Cheney?
And why is rolling back Bush's cuts to the most wealthy, a hideous form of Socialism, when they were even higher under the Republican God Reagan. They don't seem to like real history, only history invented by Fox.
All this spending and bailout was OK when Bush did it--did it once again without restrictions or oversight. Now that Obama is doing it, it's Socialism. How exactly does that work in their brains?
I'll tell you what I try to remember now when talking to people with a limited world view like this-- REPUBLICANS ARE AFRAID.
(FDR: The only thing to fear is fear itself. That still applies.)
I don't know why they weren't afraid under Bush, which, if they weren't blinded by their limited world view they would have been, but they weren't.
Now that they don't feel like "they" are in power, they are afraid, that's the root of it all, the anger, the greed, it's all fear that they might not get their little slice of the pie because big government is going to take it away from them.
Never mind that Bush's big government was the most intrusive and that it really DID take it away from them in the form of out of control spending and deficit.
But now that the government actually NEEDS to spend money ON Americans (rather than on wars and a few corporations), these same people are crying "tea" and acting as it we should just stop. Suddenly they're born-against libertarians instead of war-crazed, money-is-no-object spend spend spend just as long as you don't tax (oh, nevermind the deficit, it's good when we do it) neo-cons.
We wouldn't want them to tax their brains by thinking about the consequences of this--by making them look around and see the stores shuttered all over, the people out of work and without health care, and at the confusing mobius strip that is our world economy and how it's all interrelated and that if you just let a lot of things fall apart we can be plunged into a deep and long depression the likes of which they can't even imagine with their fearful little brains.
But those of who we CAN see the world as it is, who see how it got here, know we can no longer afford to listen to those same voices that
got us into this mess.
My hope is that the fear and anger that's blinding them can be let down long enough for them to remember that if they are really patriots, then they need to get behind our president (as even liberals did after 9/11), and work together to help our nation rebuild.
Rebuilding takes planning and effort, sacrifice, and money.
Yet these part-time-patriots have gone for eight years without planning, effort or sacrifice, and only want to spend other people's money (in the case of a deficit, their own children's)
We cannot rebuild by doing nothing or waiting for someone else to do it.
It's too late for that.
Now we have to work together.
As the great patriot Benjamin Franklin said to Americans before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Socialism new "red menace" in Repubican fear mongering
Socialism. Socialism! SOCIALISM!
"Socialism" is the new "communism" and for the Republicans it's still all about negativity--fear, greed, and mistrust if not outright hate of others who aren't "like us" (hence also repeating "Hussein" as part of Obama's name as often as possible--as if that bothered people in the election or should bother them now).
And, as always the Republicans "logic" makes no real logical sense. When Bushco had their stimulus bill, which was in essence an uncontrolled giveaway to Wall Street ($20 billion dollars in bonuses--how many teachers and firefighters would that pay for--over 3,000 jobs that actually help people)--no checks or balances--no time for that (like no time t count votes for president in 2000!), the Republicans were all for it--it was saving the country, it was patriotic.
When Obama does something similar--only with reasonable transparency and checks and balances, and with money for creating real jobs and real infrastructure, then it's terrible, it's socialism, and every single one of them votes no--because Republicans have no positive ideas, no positive plans.
Republicans are all about NO. No taxes. No services. No oversight (which is how we got into this). No control. No protection of citizens. Basically no government, except the parts they want, like the ones that tell individuals what they can and cannot do, while at the same time giving corporations free reign to use and abuse people.
This is the very definition of FASCISM. And, given that's what the Bush administration was--run by corporations, especially oil companies happy to charge $5 a gallon for gas which is now selling for half that--Republicans like Fasicism, but then this same group was often referred to as Nazi's by people all over the world--including in the USA. Because that's what their tactics were most like--starting wars, killing without compunction, a dictatorship without representation, and ruling by fear.
So Republicans still don't get it. Running a country by fear and greed doesn't work. It doesn't lead to expansion and growth, it leads to people holding tight onto what they have and being unwilling to share it--even to the point where they stop buying things, which helps set a depression in motion.
Then Republicans cry "Socialism!" when they never had a problem with the fascism they created and ran.
It's all semantics and the worst kind of "playing politics."
And then it's just what they then say the Democrats have done or are doing--because the other thing Republicans do--say others are doing precisely what they are.
Bob Cesca writes, "Hannity is once again joined in this crusade by very serious pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Steve Doocy, Alex Castellanos, Joe Scarborough, Laura Ingraham and Glenn Beck who, at one point, claimed that President Obama is both a socialist and a fascist..."
See--perfect example. After Bush allowed corporations to RUN the government, he then started socializing banks and corporations--which had been running the country into the ground--bringing them into the government--making the government bigger than ever. That was the synthesis of FASCISM.
Now the Republicans say this is what Obama is doing, when, in fact, it may be a form of Socialism, it's not Fasism--but remember--Bushco talked about Islamic Fascism. There's no such thing. There is Islamic Fundamentalism. But corporations don't run Islamic nations--and Fascism has to do with corporate control, not religious.
In fact, Bush ran Fundamentally Fascist Regime.
Socialism is GOOD for citizens who still have a true representative democracy because we need so many of the things that a government can and should provide.
Cesca says this to Socialism-hating Republicans:
"Refuse to send your kids to socialized public schools and universities; refuse to use socialized roads and highways; refuse to call upon socialized police and fire departments; shut down the socialized air traffic control; refuse to visit socialized national parks; tell grandma that her Social Security and Medicare will have to be sent back to the government; demand the immediate dismantling of our socialized American military. Sarah Palin and her supporters in Alaska should refuse all forms of "redistributed wealth" by sending back their checks from the socialized oil program there."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/sean-hannitys-ridiculous_b_168033.html?view=print
So Republicans--stop the word play and politics. Do something positive for the country for a change. I wonder if they even remember how.
In the mean time, the rest of us will actually put our money where our mouths are, we will do what we can.
"Socialism" is the new "communism" and for the Republicans it's still all about negativity--fear, greed, and mistrust if not outright hate of others who aren't "like us" (hence also repeating "Hussein" as part of Obama's name as often as possible--as if that bothered people in the election or should bother them now).
And, as always the Republicans "logic" makes no real logical sense. When Bushco had their stimulus bill, which was in essence an uncontrolled giveaway to Wall Street ($20 billion dollars in bonuses--how many teachers and firefighters would that pay for--over 3,000 jobs that actually help people)--no checks or balances--no time for that (like no time t count votes for president in 2000!), the Republicans were all for it--it was saving the country, it was patriotic.
When Obama does something similar--only with reasonable transparency and checks and balances, and with money for creating real jobs and real infrastructure, then it's terrible, it's socialism, and every single one of them votes no--because Republicans have no positive ideas, no positive plans.
Republicans are all about NO. No taxes. No services. No oversight (which is how we got into this). No control. No protection of citizens. Basically no government, except the parts they want, like the ones that tell individuals what they can and cannot do, while at the same time giving corporations free reign to use and abuse people.
This is the very definition of FASCISM. And, given that's what the Bush administration was--run by corporations, especially oil companies happy to charge $5 a gallon for gas which is now selling for half that--Republicans like Fasicism, but then this same group was often referred to as Nazi's by people all over the world--including in the USA. Because that's what their tactics were most like--starting wars, killing without compunction, a dictatorship without representation, and ruling by fear.
So Republicans still don't get it. Running a country by fear and greed doesn't work. It doesn't lead to expansion and growth, it leads to people holding tight onto what they have and being unwilling to share it--even to the point where they stop buying things, which helps set a depression in motion.
Then Republicans cry "Socialism!" when they never had a problem with the fascism they created and ran.
It's all semantics and the worst kind of "playing politics."
And then it's just what they then say the Democrats have done or are doing--because the other thing Republicans do--say others are doing precisely what they are.
Bob Cesca writes, "Hannity is once again joined in this crusade by very serious pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Steve Doocy, Alex Castellanos, Joe Scarborough, Laura Ingraham and Glenn Beck who, at one point, claimed that President Obama is both a socialist and a fascist..."
See--perfect example. After Bush allowed corporations to RUN the government, he then started socializing banks and corporations--which had been running the country into the ground--bringing them into the government--making the government bigger than ever. That was the synthesis of FASCISM.
Now the Republicans say this is what Obama is doing, when, in fact, it may be a form of Socialism, it's not Fasism--but remember--Bushco talked about Islamic Fascism. There's no such thing. There is Islamic Fundamentalism. But corporations don't run Islamic nations--and Fascism has to do with corporate control, not religious.
In fact, Bush ran Fundamentally Fascist Regime.
Socialism is GOOD for citizens who still have a true representative democracy because we need so many of the things that a government can and should provide.
Cesca says this to Socialism-hating Republicans:
"Refuse to send your kids to socialized public schools and universities; refuse to use socialized roads and highways; refuse to call upon socialized police and fire departments; shut down the socialized air traffic control; refuse to visit socialized national parks; tell grandma that her Social Security and Medicare will have to be sent back to the government; demand the immediate dismantling of our socialized American military. Sarah Palin and her supporters in Alaska should refuse all forms of "redistributed wealth" by sending back their checks from the socialized oil program there."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/sean-hannitys-ridiculous_b_168033.html?view=print
So Republicans--stop the word play and politics. Do something positive for the country for a change. I wonder if they even remember how.
In the mean time, the rest of us will actually put our money where our mouths are, we will do what we can.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Don't "penalize the successful" so everyone can be taken care of. What utter rot.
My Republican friend emailed me this:
I will continue to call the socialist policies socialist if the shoe fits... no matter what version of it it is. There is a HUGE difference between providing services for the citizens, such as schools, libraries, the military and 'spreading the wealth'. Equalizing the citizens by penalizing success is just wrong no matter what you call it. I call that socialism.
I call it corporate socialism when the US government, for the past eight years, funneled billions to corporate interests though war profiteering, through tax breaks to oil companies (what good did those do? They had record profits, they could have paid tax). To me that's a "spreading the wealth" wealth from the middle-class to the upper class.
Helping people who are sick or injured is not what I call "spreading the wealth" or penalizing the successful. I call it not punishing the families of those who were as prepared as they could possibly be, yet were not well enough prepared.
Here's a quote from another friend:
What is a person like myself to do if my insurance company cancels me? I only have insurance because I was a member of a group, then the group was canceled, and I kept insurance through a government program, HIPAA. I pay almost $600 a month, I can only see a doctor twice a year, and if I'm canceled, which I can be at any time, all the money I've put it into it is lost (since I haven't made a claim). And it will literally be IMPOSSIBLE for me to get individual health insurance again. I might not even be able to get group insurance though an employer.
Then what am I supposed to do when I need a colonoscopy, which everybody over 50 should have. The last time I had one without insurance it was $5,000. For 2.5 hours in the hospital.
If, God forbid, I had a serious illness or heart trouble, that would be hundreds of thousands of dollars without insurance. Even with insurance it can be tens of thousands.
Now--if they cancel me, which, as I said, they could do once I made a claim--what happens? Do I sell my house? Do I lose my life savings?
DO YOU THINK THIS IS RIGHT?
Should I be penalized because I was sick--though no fault of my own?
Or, do we all pitch in to pay for universal health coverage that protects ALL OF US--everyone who is in a precarious position even when they do manage to get and afford health insurance?
You cannot possible tell me that the health insurance and healthcare system in this country is working, that it is even equitable or fair.
Can you? Can you tell me that I should lose my house if I get sick?
Can you tell me that I shouldn't get health care because for-profit companies say I'm a bad risk--even though I've already paid them $50,000 and claimed nothing?
The healthcare and insurance situation in this country is horrifying--it can literally worry you sick. If I'm lucky enough to make it to 65 then I'll get medicare--which is socialism. Is Medicare bad? It's socialism pure and simple and has been derided by the right since it was created. It's also saved the lives and property of millions of families. Is that bad?
Even if you work for a big corporation and think your health insurance is secure, it's not. You could be laid off, as almost 400,000 Americans have been in the last six months. There's no guarantee once you stop working your insurance will continue--or that you'll be able to afford it.
And if the company you worked for goes into chapter 11 then all bets are off for retirees or those who were laid off. The Republicans in the senate wanted automaker retirees to no longer be funded.
My Republican friend then goes on to explain to me how for-profit corporations should be running hospitals (if not schools and everything else) because they're so much more efficient.
I had a interesting conversation with an ER Doctor. She used to work at the new hospital here in Durango. She quit last year to pursue another interest. She spoke about the difference between the non-for-profit hospital and a new surgical center run by Doctors for profit. She said the non-for-profit was run by a board with no concept of how to keep employees happy and how to just plain keep employees! The turnover is huge. Therefore the quality of care drops. Her words, not mine. On the other hand, this new surgical center desires to make a profit so it strives to keep good employees by treating them well and paying them well. They require good customer service to stay in business competing against the nfp hospital.
Just because a non-profit board doesn't run a medical companies as effectively as a for profit-one isn't an idicator of what the government would do. In fact, the most efficiently run health insurance company in the country is Medicare, which by some accounts is 10 times more efficient than any private health insurance company.
And also note, that the doctor stopped being a doctor, something that took her almost a decade and several hundred thousands of dollars to learn. why is that? Because the current private insurance run medical system is just so good? No, it's just the opposite.
My personal doctor quit, too.
Why, because insurance companies were telling her what care she could give her patients--and not just in the way you think, meaning that insurance companies were pushing drugs as the ultimate care (which many of them do--"medicine by the numbers" they call it). No, it was a combination of insurance companies deciding what doctors should be paid (which was less than their costs, unless they turned themselves into a people mill), and their other insurance companies, for malpractice, that were bleeding them dry. She couldn't make a living.
Now, I'm sure I'll hear the whole "lawyers are evil and are just ambulance chasers" but there are legitimate claims. Some people die--or are killed because of true malpractice. People who a husband or father or mother who supported them and then are left out in the cold because of not just mistakes, but malpractice.
I guess those people should be penalized because the successful can't afford to pay into a national health care plan that will even protect them should they be stupid enough to end up unsuccessful at some point in the future.
And what about people who's health insurance now is precarious, because they had the bad sense to get sick?
Another friend writes me,
I lost three units of blood, yet my doctor wouldn't return my calls because I didn't have insurance. My blood pressure was so low I couldn't stand without blacking out and so low that doctors couldn't even draw blood, it wouldn't come out.
We went to a local doctor, who saw me without insurance, who arranged for a hospital to give me a transfusion (without insurance--which was hard) and required them to let me do it without spending the night so it only cost $1,500 for a transfusion, instead of $6,500 if I'd spent the night. All that took a lot of convincing on the doctor's part, because the hospital--a for-profit one, didn't want to bother with me.
So, again I have to ask--do you think this is right?
If you think the medical system doesn't need to fixed.
If you think that people (like yourself) don't deserve medical treatment.
If people should have simply die if they can't afford the $6,500 the hospital wanted for a life-saving transfusion.
That's why I'm angry.
We have a government which gave BILLIONS in tax breaks to Oil companies that are already making the biggest profits in the history of the world, but they can't afford to help law-abiding, tax-paying American citiens with health care--because that would be "Socialism."
This country was not born on socialist principles. More government is not the answer. Oversight is ok. But mostly government needs to stay out of my business!
Hmm--the so-called Patriot act allowed the government to be in your business your most personal business, more than any time in history. You're not a terrorist. You don't fit the profile at all. It's ludicrous to even waste their time listen to your phone calls and reading your emails and looking at your bank balances and credit card payments--and the books you checked out from the library.
Yet they did all that. They were not just in your business, they were up your ass.
Yet, meanwhile, when my friend needed help with a colonoscopy, this intrusive government was nowhere to be seen. They can't bothered withg you ass--unless they thought perhaps it was harboring terrorists.
So bring on socialized medicine. And tell me about how people have to wait for health care in the UK-but they do get it.
And don't use them as the be-all end all. Use a country like Australia where people get great timely care without supplemental insurance.
So let's stop with this preposterous propagandistic linguistic game of calling it "penalizing" anyone, when, in fact, we are protecting everyone.
It's all how you look at it. If you're so greedy you can't even pay to protect yourself, then of course you don't see why you should have to pay to protect someone else. Let's just hope that those people never need help. And oddly, it often turns out they do. And then they're not adverse to the government stepping in and giving them billions in bailouts, which they then give to themselves as bonuses.
Hmm. Interesting how that works. No, don't penalize them for goodness sake.
Penalize everyone else. That makes more sense.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
America the FREE--as long as you can PAY for it
A friend of mine wrote me a heartfelt email about his mother, who is in assisted living. He writes,
My brothers and I are a bit wide-eyed right now in we thought our parents would do okay until they died, and now my mother and stepfather are each in assisted living. My mother's breathing is so bad, her care costs $14,000 a MONTH. She'll run out of easy cash in a few months, so we're trying to sell her house. None of us expected this, and my mother always said, "Don't worry about me. I have long-term disability insurance that will pay for 24-hour nursing at my house, if necessary. She's been paying on it for years. It turns out it'll pay up to $80 a day. You can't get hotels for that anymore. $2400 a month is not close to $14,000.
People like to think they're prepared for the future. We also liked to think we couldn't have another depression but that looks like a possibility now, too, due to the massive fraud, greed, governmental debt, lack of oversight, and just all around corruption.
In Australia all her needs would be taken care of--at home if she wanted. If you're sick or in an accident in Australia, they not only take care of you, they clean your house, cook your meals, take care of your kids.
But, according to my Republican friend, this is the terrible socialist big government we must avoid at all costs (let's not get into the reality of how Republicans create the biggest, most expensive governments, while cutting taxes to also create the biggest, most dangerous deficits--they like to have their cake and eat it too--while sending the bill to their children and grandchildren).
My Republican friend and I are having email debates, yet we're not convincing each other, because he's sure he's right.
Of course, I'm sure I'm right, too, which only makes me doubt myself--but I don't know if he ever doubts himself. He's SO sure, which is nice for him.
To him, socialism is bad. Bad. Bad. so bad you must repeat the word three times at least. Don't get into details of the difference between a socialist regime and democratic socialism, the whole idea of government helping people is a "nanny state' and is bad, unless they're spending trillions on defense, in which case it's a "daddy state" and it's good. This doesn't make sense to me--but then, I don't have all the answers and I'm not always right. Even so, it does seem hypocritical, doesn't it?
I chalk up a lot of this kind of "total assurance of the truth" to many religions, which teachers people from an early age that they are in the "right" religion, that God is on "their" side if they just follow the rules set up by the very political money and power bureaucracy that is the church. It's not just destructive, it causes many people to stop thinking for themselves--they don't have to, they've ceded their power to someone else ("a higher power" which is all fine and good if you're talking about true spirituality, but sad and empty if you're talking about organized religion, which, after all, is just a bunch of people.)
So here, in our "free country" it's free as long as you can pay for it. And my friend's mother worked all her life and paid for it--or thought she did.
Now she and her children find out now that the coverage she's paid for has profited the insurance company rather than her. And multiple families loses because of it--through worry about how to pay for it, and though the actual loss of the accrued work of their forebears.
The Republicans spout off about inheritance tax, calling it the "death tax." In reality, an estate of less than $3.5 million doesn't have this tax, so only few people pay it.
In the mean time, this shattering REAL "death tax" is that each generation is losing what the previous one built so they can pay for their care and death. That's so deeply wrong.
So don't let your fear of a word like "socialism" cloud the issue, that Americans are being bled dry by a government that does NOT help them, and would be far better off paying higher taxes to support a government that DID. A government that would help them even when they couldn't afford to help themselves.
That's the dirty little secret of socialism--it helps everyone, even when they can't pay for it. Geez, that's clearly not the way in the home of the free, is it? If you can't pay, it must be your fault and you must suffer. Right? You don't want to help no stinking loser who hasn't helped themselves.
And all that's OK, because it'll never happen to you, because you're prepared. You've paid all your life to make sure you're prepared. Right?
Except, as in the case of my friend's mother, who was a church-going, hard-working, well-compensated successful woman. She was as prepared as she could be--just as you may be. And when circumstances change, and all your work and investment and preparation isn't what you thought, isn't what all the experts told you it would be, then do you want to suffer, to have your family lose everything? Or do you want a government of good socialism to help?
That is your choice, after all. Because we still live in a democracy. Where you talk to your representatives and tell them what's important to you, whether it's "lower taxes no matter what," or "let's do what we can to help make people really taken care of."
Because, in the end, you may be the one who needs taking care of. You don't know. So it's good to have a social safety net, even if it's called socialism.
Friday, January 30, 2009
The Republican NAME GAME - it's not a serious debate
If you read the comments of my previous post, you'll see a response from my "Republican friend." He asked for an open dialog of ideas, and presented his, which included calling Obama the Messiah, and repeating the word "Sociamism" as if it was some horrifying specter that was casting a dark cloud over democracy, as if eight years of Fascism and true undermining of the constitution hadn't been the real culprit.
I'm fine with an open dialog of ideas, which is why I posted his reply, and am now debating his points.
---
Why is it, that when Republicans let corporations control the country, give them massive tax breaks and also funnel billions to them--the very definition of FASCISM, this is somehow OK.
But when Democrats advance a stimulus package which is not all that different, except it includes more support for individuals, and government oversight to prevent 20 billion from being given away to a few in Bonuses--TWENTY BILLION--that money could build countless schools, bridges, homes... suddenly, that's "socialism." ?
I'd rather have socialism than fascism any day, because at least in socialism it's the citizens in control, not the corporations, and the citizens who benefit, not just a few high up in the corporate and financial food chain--like royalty--while most of the people in the country suffer the greatest depression since 1929.
Socialism is, in fact, far more democratic than Fascism--which by definition strips the people of their power and rights.
Why is there such a complete double-standard based on who is doing the giving and who it goes to?
When it comes from a Republican president and goes to the same Wall Street wizards who got us into this mess--without oversight--and billions go to a few, that's OK.
But when Detroit automakers want money then the unions and workers are blamed and all asked to take pay CUTS. Pay cuts that amount to less than the money that the Wall Street wizards just stole in unwarranted bonuses taken directly from Federal aid. Or when the money is going to actual infrastructure, the way FDR did SO SUCCESSFULLY in the past, that's socialism--as if it's a dirty word.
Explain to that to me, if you can.
As for this whole "Obama Messiah" NONSENSE, it's absurd, ridiculous, and even insulting. Did anyone call the previous president (who's name I won't mention at your request, but his initial was "W") that after 9/11 when he was going to be our big savior from the rest of the world?
When he was standing for his photo ops aboard aircraft carriers announcing "mission accomplished" and he was our great white hope?
No, you know why? Because Democrats may sometimes be lame, but they aren't childish name-callers. Yet Republicans have, consistently over the years, made personal attacks and resorted to name-calling to Democrats.
As for the so-called Liberal media--they were 100% behind bush, from the time they allowed him to take office without being duly elected to not offering ANY criticism of him for years. Yet did anyone every call him "our fearless leader" or "el Capitan" or any other made up stupid insulting name? No.
When he started a war without probably cause--STARTED a war, a "holy" war, in fact, did anyone call him a savior or messiah, even though his ACTIONS were, in fact, messianic?
We called his words and actions stupid--which they clearly were. That was an actual criticism of his words and actions--not some cutesy slander, or quasi-religious smear, as if anyone thought Obama was greater than God.
To even suggest that is merely playing into the hands of those who want to create fear and hate.
NAME CALLING IS NOT adding to a "serious dialog" as you call it.
And yes, once again, somehow the magical double standard comes into play and if people are merely HOPEFUL that Obama will help--that he is actually TRYING to help, after years of a Government that did nothing but PILLAGING the resources of the country--the treasury and the people, somehow it's not OK to hope and be positive without being mocked as being mindless messiahs.
I take offense at that and don't see it as at all constructive in a serious dialog.
Now--I agree that the Democrats could have TRIED harder, during the previous administration--but, if you will remember, during the "one party" years, Republicans simply shut them out--they weren't even allowed to see legislation before votes, and the Republican majority was such that it didn't matter if all the Democrats banded together to vote against it...
And so, the "blame game" as Republicans LOVE to call it, is apt in this case, because at some point our so-called representatives must take responsibility for their actions, and we are suffering for their actions right now.
Should the Democrats have grown a set and made a fuss--yes, they should have. Should they have tried to use the press as ruthlessly (and effectively!) as the Republicans to get their message across? Yes.
But does that make the Democratic minority, which did not set the agenda or create the rules, into the people to blame? No, and yet now YOU are playing the blame game against them.
Once again, it's a double standard, my friend. Where Republican buzz-words mask the truth behind a wall of words. And they claim the Democrats are "elite" while attending the same schools and using far more sophisticated and utterly calculated linguistics to distort and manipulate. Republicans have been geniuses at manipulating the language in their favor, to the point where they made "liberal," a word our founding fathers found a powerful force for good, into a "dirty word" they sneered at.
As for the individual actions of members of Obama's cabinet--let he who has never had a tax problem throw the first stone. Maybe it's you, in which case, fire away. If we want to start counting the number of scandals among people in the Bush administration then we're going to waste a long time arguing about this. Nobody is perfect--not even Obama, and nobody should expect them to be.
There are real crimes (Blagojevich, Cheney--yes, I must mention him for his war crimes and organized rape of the treasury), and then there are trivial personal ones.
It's time to put things in perspective, stop wasting time on the trivial and start looking at the big stuff.
As for the lobbyists, they are experienced people who worked in previous administrations (from both parties, mind you), and now they've had to sign an agreement that says they won't lobby this administration if they leave--that's the difference between this and previous administrations (of both parties).
You don't not use experienced people simply because they've been a lobbyist, which is the job of choice for former officials. But you do ensure that there is no current conflict of interest, and that in the future they don't use their pull in the same area.
---
Socialism. Socialism. Socialism. Sigh. Is that all you've got? You keep clinging to that as if it's the most horrible thing you can think of.
By your definition--there are plenty of happily democratic socialistic countries in the world. Let's include Australia in that--where if you are sick or hurt for any reason your medical bills are taken care of, someone will take care of your kids in your house if you can't do it, and you don't have to worry about going bankrupt because you were injured or sick.
That's GOOD socialism.
Compare that to here, where for-profit insurance companies tell you what medical procedures you can and can't have, where they can reject valid claims for care, and where, often, you simply can't get insurance, so you can lose your house and life savings trying to pay for care that is simply a "right" in every other industrialized nation on the planet. Every one. But ours.
Again--good Socialism.
So stop trying to turn it into a dirty word--it's not.
And, like I said, I'll take socialism over fascism any day. We've had eight years of fascism (much of it out and out unconstitutional), so democratic socialism offer a HUGE IMPROVEMENT to the lives of citizens, and the health and well being of our constitution.
Stop playing the name game, my friend, and start recognizing that at a time like this, when the country and world have been thrown into such serious trouble by the uncontrolled fascist power of a few, the hope and hard work of the many is what's needed. Everybody working together for the common good is good! That's not blind faith or any of the names you're calling it.
It's the American Dream, hard at work again, after 8 years of suffocation.
I'm fine with an open dialog of ideas, which is why I posted his reply, and am now debating his points.
---
Why is it, that when Republicans let corporations control the country, give them massive tax breaks and also funnel billions to them--the very definition of FASCISM, this is somehow OK.
But when Democrats advance a stimulus package which is not all that different, except it includes more support for individuals, and government oversight to prevent 20 billion from being given away to a few in Bonuses--TWENTY BILLION--that money could build countless schools, bridges, homes... suddenly, that's "socialism." ?
I'd rather have socialism than fascism any day, because at least in socialism it's the citizens in control, not the corporations, and the citizens who benefit, not just a few high up in the corporate and financial food chain--like royalty--while most of the people in the country suffer the greatest depression since 1929.
Socialism is, in fact, far more democratic than Fascism--which by definition strips the people of their power and rights.
Why is there such a complete double-standard based on who is doing the giving and who it goes to?
When it comes from a Republican president and goes to the same Wall Street wizards who got us into this mess--without oversight--and billions go to a few, that's OK.
But when Detroit automakers want money then the unions and workers are blamed and all asked to take pay CUTS. Pay cuts that amount to less than the money that the Wall Street wizards just stole in unwarranted bonuses taken directly from Federal aid. Or when the money is going to actual infrastructure, the way FDR did SO SUCCESSFULLY in the past, that's socialism--as if it's a dirty word.
Explain to that to me, if you can.
As for this whole "Obama Messiah" NONSENSE, it's absurd, ridiculous, and even insulting. Did anyone call the previous president (who's name I won't mention at your request, but his initial was "W") that after 9/11 when he was going to be our big savior from the rest of the world?
When he was standing for his photo ops aboard aircraft carriers announcing "mission accomplished" and he was our great white hope?
No, you know why? Because Democrats may sometimes be lame, but they aren't childish name-callers. Yet Republicans have, consistently over the years, made personal attacks and resorted to name-calling to Democrats.
As for the so-called Liberal media--they were 100% behind bush, from the time they allowed him to take office without being duly elected to not offering ANY criticism of him for years. Yet did anyone every call him "our fearless leader" or "el Capitan" or any other made up stupid insulting name? No.
When he started a war without probably cause--STARTED a war, a "holy" war, in fact, did anyone call him a savior or messiah, even though his ACTIONS were, in fact, messianic?
We called his words and actions stupid--which they clearly were. That was an actual criticism of his words and actions--not some cutesy slander, or quasi-religious smear, as if anyone thought Obama was greater than God.
To even suggest that is merely playing into the hands of those who want to create fear and hate.
NAME CALLING IS NOT adding to a "serious dialog" as you call it.
And yes, once again, somehow the magical double standard comes into play and if people are merely HOPEFUL that Obama will help--that he is actually TRYING to help, after years of a Government that did nothing but PILLAGING the resources of the country--the treasury and the people, somehow it's not OK to hope and be positive without being mocked as being mindless messiahs.
I take offense at that and don't see it as at all constructive in a serious dialog.
Now--I agree that the Democrats could have TRIED harder, during the previous administration--but, if you will remember, during the "one party" years, Republicans simply shut them out--they weren't even allowed to see legislation before votes, and the Republican majority was such that it didn't matter if all the Democrats banded together to vote against it...
And so, the "blame game" as Republicans LOVE to call it, is apt in this case, because at some point our so-called representatives must take responsibility for their actions, and we are suffering for their actions right now.
Should the Democrats have grown a set and made a fuss--yes, they should have. Should they have tried to use the press as ruthlessly (and effectively!) as the Republicans to get their message across? Yes.
But does that make the Democratic minority, which did not set the agenda or create the rules, into the people to blame? No, and yet now YOU are playing the blame game against them.
Once again, it's a double standard, my friend. Where Republican buzz-words mask the truth behind a wall of words. And they claim the Democrats are "elite" while attending the same schools and using far more sophisticated and utterly calculated linguistics to distort and manipulate. Republicans have been geniuses at manipulating the language in their favor, to the point where they made "liberal," a word our founding fathers found a powerful force for good, into a "dirty word" they sneered at.
As for the individual actions of members of Obama's cabinet--let he who has never had a tax problem throw the first stone. Maybe it's you, in which case, fire away. If we want to start counting the number of scandals among people in the Bush administration then we're going to waste a long time arguing about this. Nobody is perfect--not even Obama, and nobody should expect them to be.
There are real crimes (Blagojevich, Cheney--yes, I must mention him for his war crimes and organized rape of the treasury), and then there are trivial personal ones.
It's time to put things in perspective, stop wasting time on the trivial and start looking at the big stuff.
As for the lobbyists, they are experienced people who worked in previous administrations (from both parties, mind you), and now they've had to sign an agreement that says they won't lobby this administration if they leave--that's the difference between this and previous administrations (of both parties).
You don't not use experienced people simply because they've been a lobbyist, which is the job of choice for former officials. But you do ensure that there is no current conflict of interest, and that in the future they don't use their pull in the same area.
---
Socialism. Socialism. Socialism. Sigh. Is that all you've got? You keep clinging to that as if it's the most horrible thing you can think of.
By your definition--there are plenty of happily democratic socialistic countries in the world. Let's include Australia in that--where if you are sick or hurt for any reason your medical bills are taken care of, someone will take care of your kids in your house if you can't do it, and you don't have to worry about going bankrupt because you were injured or sick.
That's GOOD socialism.
Compare that to here, where for-profit insurance companies tell you what medical procedures you can and can't have, where they can reject valid claims for care, and where, often, you simply can't get insurance, so you can lose your house and life savings trying to pay for care that is simply a "right" in every other industrialized nation on the planet. Every one. But ours.
Again--good Socialism.
So stop trying to turn it into a dirty word--it's not.
And, like I said, I'll take socialism over fascism any day. We've had eight years of fascism (much of it out and out unconstitutional), so democratic socialism offer a HUGE IMPROVEMENT to the lives of citizens, and the health and well being of our constitution.
Stop playing the name game, my friend, and start recognizing that at a time like this, when the country and world have been thrown into such serious trouble by the uncontrolled fascist power of a few, the hope and hard work of the many is what's needed. Everybody working together for the common good is good! That's not blind faith or any of the names you're calling it.
It's the American Dream, hard at work again, after 8 years of suffocation.
Bipartisanship - REPUBICANS ARE THE PARTY OF "NO"
A recent piece in the WSJ by that bastion of Truth Justice and the Pharmaceutical way, Rush Limbaugh, suggested that to be truly bipartisan, 46% of the stimulus package should be controlled by him (as if anybody elected him) to give away as tax cuts--starting with corporations.
A Republican friend sent this to me and said "This is funny!" and I replied, "this would be funny if by you mean funny as "something smells funny."
If tax cuts could prevent the current problem, then we wouldn't have it, as Bush did a lot of tax cutting to a lot of people who could well afford the taxes. Didn't help anything but the income of the upper 2%.
If this kind of stimulus bill is so bad, then why is it what Bush and his financial people started-only in their case they started it without any kind of oversight, which has already lead to top CEOs giving themselves millions of dollars while they lay off thousands of people. At least this new bill has some oversight to make sure the money isn't being wasted.
"Supply side" economics has never actually stimulated the economy, it has only taken money from the future and moved it to the present via deficits, which is what Regan created the largest of, until Bush came along.
FDR's plans DID take the country out of the depression by creating work--and creating infrastructure that's still used in this country today. The WPA and CCC and other programs were extremely effective at creating jobs that actually created things the country needed, schools, roads, bridges. Tax cuts build nothing. Create no lasting legacy. If they did, then the Bush years would have been years of growth, rather than recession.
As for corporate tax, that's the joke. In 1960 corporations paid 80% of all the tax in this country--and yet, somehow, they made profits, they hired new workers, and business grew and grew. All that with high corporate taxes.
Now individuals pay 80% of the tax and corporations pay 20%, and corporations complain they can't make a go of it, and their way out is to give millions to the CEOs who ran them into the ground, while firing tens of thousands of employees. That's not about taxes, that's about greed and mismanagement, and, in some cases, the massive corporate burden of a health care system designed for insurance and pharma companies, rather than patients and doctors.
As for bipartisanship--Obama made concessions about tax cuts for the Republicans. And NOT A SINGLE ONE VOTED FOR THE PLAN, WITH THE FEATURES THEY DEMANDED. Not one. That's no bipartisanship. That's counter-productive, playing politics, without a care for their country or constituents. They voted for it when Bush proposed it, but not when Obama did it--with more input from them. That's childish, like little children crying when they don't get their way.
Well, guess what Republican party, you didn't get your way because you made such a horrible mess of things when you got your way--with the one-party system you had for almost eight years.
You messed up as badly as any other president and congress in the history of this country and because we somehow still managed to be a democracy, the citizens, your employers, FIRED YOU.
They voted AGAINST YOU. YOU LOST, REPUBLICANS.
And if you keep up this nonsense of not even voting to help give your employers more time to switch their TVs to digital signals (who votes against that--um, Republicans!), then you are going to lose even more jobs to the point where you're going to have to come up with a whole new name for your party, and a new logo, too.
Because now--the Republican party as become THE PARTY OF "NO."
That's fine if you're consistent about no new taxes and no bigger government. But after eight years of "NO to helping citizens" and YES to helping corporations and billions in handouts to oil companies and trillions in wars, well, you can't have it both ways, my friend. At least not without what's happening now.
So when the Republicans want to be responsible again, and be consistent about smaller government and less spending and balancing the budget, then I'll first say, "Um, where were you for the eight years you ran the country?" and then I'll say, "Great idea, but first don't you think the government has some responsibility for cleaning up the mess it made in the previous 8 years?"
A Republican friend sent this to me and said "This is funny!" and I replied, "this would be funny if by you mean funny as "something smells funny."
If tax cuts could prevent the current problem, then we wouldn't have it, as Bush did a lot of tax cutting to a lot of people who could well afford the taxes. Didn't help anything but the income of the upper 2%.
If this kind of stimulus bill is so bad, then why is it what Bush and his financial people started-only in their case they started it without any kind of oversight, which has already lead to top CEOs giving themselves millions of dollars while they lay off thousands of people. At least this new bill has some oversight to make sure the money isn't being wasted.
"Supply side" economics has never actually stimulated the economy, it has only taken money from the future and moved it to the present via deficits, which is what Regan created the largest of, until Bush came along.
FDR's plans DID take the country out of the depression by creating work--and creating infrastructure that's still used in this country today. The WPA and CCC and other programs were extremely effective at creating jobs that actually created things the country needed, schools, roads, bridges. Tax cuts build nothing. Create no lasting legacy. If they did, then the Bush years would have been years of growth, rather than recession.
As for corporate tax, that's the joke. In 1960 corporations paid 80% of all the tax in this country--and yet, somehow, they made profits, they hired new workers, and business grew and grew. All that with high corporate taxes.
Now individuals pay 80% of the tax and corporations pay 20%, and corporations complain they can't make a go of it, and their way out is to give millions to the CEOs who ran them into the ground, while firing tens of thousands of employees. That's not about taxes, that's about greed and mismanagement, and, in some cases, the massive corporate burden of a health care system designed for insurance and pharma companies, rather than patients and doctors.
As for bipartisanship--Obama made concessions about tax cuts for the Republicans. And NOT A SINGLE ONE VOTED FOR THE PLAN, WITH THE FEATURES THEY DEMANDED. Not one. That's no bipartisanship. That's counter-productive, playing politics, without a care for their country or constituents. They voted for it when Bush proposed it, but not when Obama did it--with more input from them. That's childish, like little children crying when they don't get their way.
Well, guess what Republican party, you didn't get your way because you made such a horrible mess of things when you got your way--with the one-party system you had for almost eight years.
You messed up as badly as any other president and congress in the history of this country and because we somehow still managed to be a democracy, the citizens, your employers, FIRED YOU.
They voted AGAINST YOU. YOU LOST, REPUBLICANS.
And if you keep up this nonsense of not even voting to help give your employers more time to switch their TVs to digital signals (who votes against that--um, Republicans!), then you are going to lose even more jobs to the point where you're going to have to come up with a whole new name for your party, and a new logo, too.
Because now--the Republican party as become THE PARTY OF "NO."
That's fine if you're consistent about no new taxes and no bigger government. But after eight years of "NO to helping citizens" and YES to helping corporations and billions in handouts to oil companies and trillions in wars, well, you can't have it both ways, my friend. At least not without what's happening now.
So when the Republicans want to be responsible again, and be consistent about smaller government and less spending and balancing the budget, then I'll first say, "Um, where were you for the eight years you ran the country?" and then I'll say, "Great idea, but first don't you think the government has some responsibility for cleaning up the mess it made in the previous 8 years?"
Sunday, January 11, 2009
A Letter to a Limbaugh listening, Drudge reading friend
Your home page is the Drudge report. Your car radio is tuned to Limbaugh.
I love you too much to let you know exposing yourself to this kind of misinformation, propaganda, and outright hate speech.
One of my degrees is in journalism, so I have the background and experience to help you learn how to get the real facts, not those hand-picked by any individual or corporation.
I am not pleased with the state of all journalism myself now. It used to require two different sources to state something as fact, but somewhere along the way, someone merely spouting a "rumor of the day" (their actual term for it during an election), got reported as fact, not rumor. The corporate influence on news has been destructive, too, with corporate interests guiding news reporting. From major corporations such as GE owning NBC, to self-avowed right-wing Australian media magnate Rupert Murdoch owning Fox news--and now the Wall Street Journal, when corporations skew the news it's part of fascism.
My friend, I know you that you think most major sources are part of the "liberal media" but the facts show no such thing. If they were really liberal they would not have been complicit with Bush during the first 6 years of his presidency--or even the initial election.
If you look at the coverage you will see, in fact, that the so called "media elite" were highly supportive of GWBush until his poll ratings fell so low that the media felt safe pointing out his errors.
Obviously, anchormen like Keith Obermann are overtly liberal in their views--but they are vastly in the minority, given the rise of Australian Rupert Murdoch's empire, including Fox and the WSJ, which has a corporate mandate to be right-wing propaganda tools (I know you will argue with me on this, but you can save your breathe--I know journalism, and Fox is not journalism, it's propaganda).
Murdoch's stated goal is not news, but to forward his personal viewpoints and those that will make him the most money. That is the definition of propaganda.
You're right in saying that Drudge points to a lot of sources. But given that he has a specific political slant, he picks and chooses his stories, which is fine, but you don't get the full picture this way--or by viewing the news through any other single person or corporation's point of view.
With the internet there's no longer any excuse to get your news exclusively from either US or corporate media outlets.
By reading sources across the net I knew before the US invaded Iraq that the WMD documents were forged. The absolute proof of this was available online. Because of my experience in typography I could tell they were obvious fakes. so I'm sure someone in the CIA must have figured it out, too (I would hope they're smarter than I am). But somehow the major media outlets--in the US--didn't. They did in the UK, very clearly and specifically.
So I get my news from around the world and it's fascinating to see what news outlets that don't have a vested interest in a story say, because they are obviously less biased.
====
the bottom line is that to get a real view of "facts" rather than opinion (which has masqueraded as news since the start of newswriting, because reporters are people and their opinions get mixed in--much more so in recent years than in the past), you need to look at a variety of sources from around the world, including non-corporate ones.
====
Finally, I want to say that I respect and uphold your right to your political opinions.
You have firm beliefs as I have mine--and that's good.
I just don't think it's good for anyone to regularly expose themselves to people with messages of intolerance or even hate.
You're a loving person, and Limbaugh is not a healthy influence on you, or your family. It's not funny, it's hate. All Coulter is another negative influence--not funny, just hate.
Yes, there are liberal hate-mongers, too (they don't get much air time but they're there). I don't listen to them. I never have.
I did not hate Bush or Cheney personally. I hated some of their actions. Yet when I listen to right wing talk radio it's so often personal attacks on people they don't like, rather than on their actions. And one of the reasons I don't listen to it that often is because I so rarely hear positive plans of action of what they feel would better the situation and the world. "Everybody's a critic," the old line goes, but if you don't work on positive plans, you don't move in positive directions.
I just hope that you will try, whenever possible, to listen to Republicans who have POSITIVE messages. The positive messages may be "we don't think this is good because..." or "someone is wrong because" but they HAVE A REAL PLAN, not just an attack, and they deliver it way that's NOT personal, nasty, destructive, mean-spirited, or negative.
You deserve better than that, because you are better than that.
I love you too much to let you know exposing yourself to this kind of misinformation, propaganda, and outright hate speech.
One of my degrees is in journalism, so I have the background and experience to help you learn how to get the real facts, not those hand-picked by any individual or corporation.
I am not pleased with the state of all journalism myself now. It used to require two different sources to state something as fact, but somewhere along the way, someone merely spouting a "rumor of the day" (their actual term for it during an election), got reported as fact, not rumor. The corporate influence on news has been destructive, too, with corporate interests guiding news reporting. From major corporations such as GE owning NBC, to self-avowed right-wing Australian media magnate Rupert Murdoch owning Fox news--and now the Wall Street Journal, when corporations skew the news it's part of fascism.
My friend, I know you that you think most major sources are part of the "liberal media" but the facts show no such thing. If they were really liberal they would not have been complicit with Bush during the first 6 years of his presidency--or even the initial election.
If you look at the coverage you will see, in fact, that the so called "media elite" were highly supportive of GWBush until his poll ratings fell so low that the media felt safe pointing out his errors.
Obviously, anchormen like Keith Obermann are overtly liberal in their views--but they are vastly in the minority, given the rise of Australian Rupert Murdoch's empire, including Fox and the WSJ, which has a corporate mandate to be right-wing propaganda tools (I know you will argue with me on this, but you can save your breathe--I know journalism, and Fox is not journalism, it's propaganda).
Murdoch's stated goal is not news, but to forward his personal viewpoints and those that will make him the most money. That is the definition of propaganda.
You're right in saying that Drudge points to a lot of sources. But given that he has a specific political slant, he picks and chooses his stories, which is fine, but you don't get the full picture this way--or by viewing the news through any other single person or corporation's point of view.
With the internet there's no longer any excuse to get your news exclusively from either US or corporate media outlets.
By reading sources across the net I knew before the US invaded Iraq that the WMD documents were forged. The absolute proof of this was available online. Because of my experience in typography I could tell they were obvious fakes. so I'm sure someone in the CIA must have figured it out, too (I would hope they're smarter than I am). But somehow the major media outlets--in the US--didn't. They did in the UK, very clearly and specifically.
So I get my news from around the world and it's fascinating to see what news outlets that don't have a vested interest in a story say, because they are obviously less biased.
====
the bottom line is that to get a real view of "facts" rather than opinion (which has masqueraded as news since the start of newswriting, because reporters are people and their opinions get mixed in--much more so in recent years than in the past), you need to look at a variety of sources from around the world, including non-corporate ones.
====
Finally, I want to say that I respect and uphold your right to your political opinions.
You have firm beliefs as I have mine--and that's good.
I just don't think it's good for anyone to regularly expose themselves to people with messages of intolerance or even hate.
You're a loving person, and Limbaugh is not a healthy influence on you, or your family. It's not funny, it's hate. All Coulter is another negative influence--not funny, just hate.
Yes, there are liberal hate-mongers, too (they don't get much air time but they're there). I don't listen to them. I never have.
I did not hate Bush or Cheney personally. I hated some of their actions. Yet when I listen to right wing talk radio it's so often personal attacks on people they don't like, rather than on their actions. And one of the reasons I don't listen to it that often is because I so rarely hear positive plans of action of what they feel would better the situation and the world. "Everybody's a critic," the old line goes, but if you don't work on positive plans, you don't move in positive directions.
I just hope that you will try, whenever possible, to listen to Republicans who have POSITIVE messages. The positive messages may be "we don't think this is good because..." or "someone is wrong because" but they HAVE A REAL PLAN, not just an attack, and they deliver it way that's NOT personal, nasty, destructive, mean-spirited, or negative.
You deserve better than that, because you are better than that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Proof: they're screaming their heads off--AGAINST THEIR OWN SELF INTEREST. There is no other animal on the planet that's stupid enough to scream AGAINST its own self interest.
It makes no sense. These people should have disappeared through simple evolution, yet somehow they remain, probably only because they don't believe in evolution!
Why do they do this?
For starters--clearly they're none too bright.
But more than that--they're scared, it's blind fear that leads to blind rage.
And when enraged, there's no logic involved.
My father always said, "You can't argue with an idiot," and you can't--if they have no logic, then you can't "win them over" with a logical argument!
Just trying just gives them credibility where they deserve none--because they don't have a valid argument.
It's like the whole "defense of marriage" thing--who came up with that term? What is marriage being defended from? Not divorce. Not spousal ... Read Moreabuse. It's being defended from--love? No logic.
So we can't waste time arguing with idiots, we just have to forge ahead with what is really best--finally taking care of the health of the citizens of this nation, the way other civilized nations have been able to take care of their citizens for generations.
We've had eight years of doing everything out of blind irrational fear--that's lead to war, economic meltdown, and the undermining of democracy. None of that was good--because it all came from fear--not from hope for a better future.
Like I said, even the dumbest animal is smarter than some Republicans. The lesson, after 8 long, painful, stupid years, is to stop following them--or even letting them hijack the conversation for a minute.
They had eight years, they failed on every possible level. They've proven themselves fearful, stupid and unworthy of leadership. They're still proving they can't even be trusted to do the best thing for themselves--that's right, they can't even take care of themselves. What happens when people can't take care of themselves? They're institutionalized. Naturally they're going to complain about the institution, but they're insane--so you do what's best for them instead of catering to their insane delusions.