Persnickety

The Games We Play: Payroll Tax Cut

2011-12-04T05:44:00.000-08:00

Obama wishes to extend the payroll tax cut. The Republicans, the party of tax cuts, wishes to prevent this. Why? Of course, to make Obama look bad, thus giving the GOP an edge in the next election. Here is my reasoning.

Leaving aside for the moment whether we agree that this is the GOP motive, can we say that the GOP has some other reasoning for eliminating a very popular reduction in taxation? Well, they would, and do, say that a tax reduction is indeed needed for the middle classes in this time of recession, but that we need to pay for this so that the deficit is not increased--and they don't mean to pay for it with another tax increase on the rich. Because a tax increase on the rich--I mean, the job creators--would be bad for the economy. You see, the GOP states that increased taxes reduce the economic engine. Tax decreases improve the, let us say, the economic mpg. Tax reductions pay for themselves, in other words, by increasing efficiency, letting people spend as they will.

Well, if payroll taxes are reduced, that would increase the economy and pay for itself. Why vote it down with some excuse that we now suddenly need to pay for it? Do tax cuts pay for themselves or don't they?

There is only one reason for the GOP to come out against the tax cut for the middle classes: to make Obama look bad. They are willing to harm this country for their own pathetic grab for power.

The Politics of Religion

2011-12-03T03:33:00.000-08:00

The other day I was listening to WBUR with Tom Ashbrook. Someone called in and I thought his comment deserved respect and some more thought. His comment was basically this: The Mormon church has allowed its two candidates for U.S. president to behave in a normal, thoughtful, civil way, while the rest of the candidates (speaking only of those receiving media attention), who happen to be protestant with two Catholics (Gingrich and Santorum), are allowed free reign to be, well, less so.

He is wrong in one way--I'll get to that later--but he is right in his general understanding of the state of the Christian church. It is true that the Christian churches haven't exactly held the candidates collective toes to the fire, in terms of honesty and directness.

And I'm not talking about Herman Cain's recent problems, with allegations of philandering. Those are allegations; nothing is legally proven, whether you view 60-80 texts a day to a woman as moral proof or not. I'm talking about what the candidates are saying and doing. I'm talking about comparing what a candidate states to what they previously stated. I'm talking about hypocrisy, something that Jesus had quite a bit to say, it seems to me.

Jesus was rather preoccupied with the hypocrisy of his day, calling out the Pharisees and Sadducees for not exactly living up to the terms of their agreement with God. Here's a little primer on what Christ had to say regarding the hypocrites of his day:

Matt 6:5, “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full."

Matt 22:18, "But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me?"

Matt 23:13, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to."

Obviously, hypocrisy isn't something terribly cherished by Christ. Neither is an over emphasis on wealth and the creation of wealth. (cf. 1 Timothy 6:9,10; I particularly like the OT 2 Kings 23:35--Tax in proportion to wealth. Ouch!) How about Matt 19:24, "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

But we know all this. We understand that God is concerned with the poor, not the rich. For every reference to the poor in the Bible there is, well, there are no references to the rights of the rich in the Bible.

So why doesn't the Church speak out against those who pursue personal gain--election, which includes all the perks of elected office including stock purchase rights for insider information--at the expense of the poor? Why doesn't the Church speak out for Occupy Wall St? Oh, I know some brave parson out there may have, but the Church is largely silent. When a candidate lies, on record, about his record, about his past, perhaps about some fellow candidate, what does the church say about this? Nothing. It is as silent as the media, which hems and haws about "he said," "she said," or "it appears that some believe it to be deceptive." What would Christ have said? "Liar! Hypocrite!" would have been heard around the globe.

The Church often will even defend those within a certain political party, viewing itself as a virtual arm of that organization's legions. The problem with that is obvious. Politics is a dirty game. When getting in bed with a prostitute, there are two sinners involved.

Now to Romney. Remember the caller who felt so disposed to allow the Mormon community a pass on this regard? No so fast. Romney out and out lied in a recent add when his people "quoted" Obama quoting McCain. And Romney's people admitted that they were being deceptive. Did the Mormon church come out against their favorite son? Not that I have seen. It seems the Mormons can play the game of dirty politics as well as Christians.

To paraphrase Robin Meyers, a minister now in Oklahoma and author of Why the Christian Right is Wrong: A Minister's Manifesto, the church needs to get out of the politics of electing candidates. It needs to get back to the business of responding to the Gospel of Christ. It has been in the barn of politics for so long it now stinks of dung. Hypocrite, heal thyself.

Christianity has no political arm. Or it shouldn't. It is in the interest of the Church to fulfill the ideals of Christ, to love one another...as one love's oneself. To be concerned for your neighbor: Does it concern you that your neighbor is going bankrupt just because he/she is sick? Or perhaps they are dying now because they no longer have health insurance? Or their mortgage hasn't been paid because of a recession? Or this, or that? Or do you believe that going into the election booth and pulling the lever for someone of a certain party makes you somehow religious, and devout?

Here, from the Times Union's "Voices of Faith" column, December 3rd, 2011, written by Barbara DiTommaso, director of the Commission on Peace and Justice of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany:

Biblical justice is not the justice of laws, courts and the penal system. Rather, it is the living out of human solidarity, the reality that there is one human family, and we are responsible for each other's welfare.

Well said.

Evangelicals and the GOP

2011-12-02T12:02:00.000-08:00

Slate's latest article on Newt Gingrich claims that the evangelical right can forgive and forget Newt's past sinning ways.

Bob Vander Plaats, head of the Iowa FAMiLY Leader, says

“There’s been a sincere life change for Newt Gingrich...Since four or five years ago, he’s shown a very transparent grace and maturity. He’s been married to Callista for over a decade. He’s healed his relationship with his children.”

What's wrong with a little forgiveness among Christians, after all? Nothing. Forgiveness, you might say, is our bread and...butter. But this forgiveness thing, at least for evangelicals, is tempered by something else: change of life, and a change of actions.

Well, you might say, Newt's been on the wagon for ten years. No more philandering ways. Calista's got a hold on him and he doesn't seem to be straying. Wasn't King David an adulterer (and murderer) but didn't God forgive him? But ask yourself this: Are we only talking about sexual sin here? Sin comes in a variety of colors. There's the red light sin of the bordello, the green stained sin of jealousy, the yellow stained sin of dirty politics, and the dark stained sin of hypocrisy. There's probably as many sins as there are colors. More.

To an evangelical a sin is a sin. One isn't of a higher (or lower) order than any other. To say that Newt is a fine and dandy Christian with a fine and dandy character...just because he no longer struts his stuff with young interns is to forget his other foibles. Didn't Newt just say he wasn't a lobbyist? Mmmm. But calling yourself a historian and getting paid mucho pesetas to do this "historical" work sounds pretty bogus. Sounds like he's lying, in other words. If lying is too difficult a word to pronounce among evangelicals, then how about just saying Newt is just being dishonest. Newt being Newt, in other words.

OK, and how about his hypocrisy? Denouncing politicians enabling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during the Dartmouth debate...while he himself had been working for them! Libya, Global Warming, and the individual mandate for health insurance: all flip-flops. As Ron Paul states in a recent campaign ad, Gingrich is a serial hypocrite. That doesn't sound like a good Christian to me. So why do evangelicals feel they can look beyond all that? Beats me.

Jennifer Rubin recently wrote of Gingrich in the Washington Post:

Gingrich’s serial adultery and his current hypocrisy suggest not a immoral man, but an amoral one. Rules, shame, punishment, consistency and transparency are abstractions for him, tools to be wielded against political opponents while his own supposed brilliance and patriotism exempt him from the standards that mere pols must follow. Really, is this a person whose values and judgment you’d trust to manage a charity or hold a leadership position in your church, let alone occupy the Oval Office?

That Gingrich has confessed to some wrongdoings in his past affairs on a call-in radio show with James Dobson does not wash away all of this man's sins and make them white as snow. "Go and sin no more," Jesus told the adulteress. Evangelicals out there, please take note that this applies to the adulterer as well.

Groupthink in American Politics

2011-11-23T17:28:00.000-08:00

What is Groupthink

Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” (p. 9). Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making

above quoted from http://www.psysr.org

OK, so you're probably expecting some easy joke about watching FOX NEWS. But it's no joke, and it isn't just for FOX watchers or Limbaugh listeners. It applies just as much to those Madden fanatics or other left-leaning commentators. The point is we are all boxing ourselves in by limiting our awareness. And we often are not even aware of our self-imposed limits. Someone recently told me that they only watch one hour or so of FOX. He also reads The Wall Street Journal. I mentioned that the two corporations are actually just one, but I don't think I got through.

We humans love to feel that we belong to groups that think like us. At church we like to think that our fellow church-goers vote like us, dislike the same things, like the same things, and feel disgusted at the same politicians. When we find someone who stands out, who might have a different viewpoint, they are then an outlier, someone so different that it causes one to pause and reflect on how that could even be. Don't we watch the same news? Read the same papers? Go to the same church?

The more we close ourselves off from diverse opinions the more fanatical our opinions become. Those watching FOX become more and more certain of the gifts that Reagan has left us, without ever hearing or debating those less certain problems (Remember Guatemala? Remember Iran? Remember all those tax increases?).

Watching Maddow I can easily forget the corruptions of certain unions in the past, such as the Teamsters with their inglorious mixing with the mafia. The problems of teacher unions are glossed over; the America of the Left is just as controllable as that of the Right.

Irving Janis documented the following symptoms of Groupthink:

Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.
Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.
Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.
Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views.
Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.
Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.
Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.

Can you recognize modern America here? The "city on a hill" optimism of Reagan; the warnings of Climate Change going unheeded (why bother assuming that the science is good; it'll probably be fine); the belief in the inherent goodness of the American people (despite the Jim Crow South, Vietnam, Iraq, the associative guilt of genocide in Central America, discrimination, murder, theft of outrageous proportions on Wall St, etc); and we can easily find example after example of liberals calling conservatives "idiots," "numskulls," and the like (and the conservatives calling liberals "socialists," "commies," etc.), stereotyping with one broad brush. Have you ever attended a meeting where someone says something that is just assumed to be held by all attending? You feel immediately the pressure to agree or become the outlier. That is when you have to decide to say something and risk banishment or be silent and risk losing an opportunity to educate or influence.

Our "self-appointed 'mindguards'" are routinely now pastors, or professors, or managers. These people have a high moral responsibility to consider all the facts of a topic before selecting their own opinions. As mindguards they will influence all those around them, and mindguards will have their own leaders selecting information for them, influencing their thoughts in turn. More often they are the talking heads of TV. We love to turn on our favorite "news" channel, suppressing for the moment that what we seek is not news, but our echo chamber of choice. This is the appointed task that Maddow is given, and O'Reilly and Hannity and Beck. We ask of them to keep the discussion within the boundaries we are used to. We do not like to be given new information or information from a different vantage point.

As Americans board up the windows of their minds and concentrate inwards on only what they know--or think they know--they limit the learning necessary to evolve into a more discerning taste, a higher thought process, and they forget consensus and compromise.

The key for this country is for people to learn what the other, the outlier, knows; find out what they think and do not be quick to judge. "Judge not, lest thou be judged," is a key verse for politics as well as religion, at least a politics that seeks consensus. This means for those watching FOX to turn to a different channel, find out what the liberals think. And the liberals, though not likely to watch FOX, would do well to at least read some of the more educated journals such as National Review, or First Things (a fine Catholic journal). Another good source of news and commentary that seeks a middle ground is the Wilson Quarterly. Those used to watching TV will find the immersion into articles of depth a welcoming experience.

Or you could just walk over to your politically naive neighbor and start a discussion--and discussions aren't arguments. Just remember to turn off the TV.

ConocoPhillips vs. Godzilla

2011-10-19T05:26:00.000-07:00

Who hasn't seen one of those feel good ads on TV these days, touting the benefits of natural gas like it was the next cold fusion? The one I like best, but which I cannot find on the internet as of yet, shows a group of students after class having one of those ad hoc debates so common in academia these days (though I believe in real life it's more likely to involve a heated discussion of Halo). A couple of students rush into the debate all morally superior ("Big oil! What about the environment!"), getting in the faces of the others who calmly stand back while the opposition digs a deep, deep hole for themselves. And then the other two spring into action like members of some Seal-6 anti-terrorist squad. "Actually, it's cleaner!" says one about, you know, methane, or natural gas as it is commonly known. And don't you love that name, too? Natural gas, 'cause it's "natural." So it must be good for us, right? Of course, cyanide is natural too, but let's move on. So in the this ad (as in many others, here's a typical ad), we are told that natural gas is a wonder, that it is necessary for us to use the natural resources of this country and hey, it's cleaner than oil and coal. Well, is it? Let's not take the gas companies' word for it, after all. True, methane does have less CO2 emissions than coal. Less sulfur too. But the companies stop right there. It is as if some math guy began his lecture by writing on the blackboard (they still have blackboards, don't they? No?)--or white board--some long equation, but got tired and so ended up with something like this:

1+2+3+4+(Oh, forget it!) y=20, for small values of y.

And I suppose that all of that is quite true. And quite equally false...for larger values of y. You see, if y contains a larger value, say 10, then the equation is no longer true. And just as we see with math, if we also include a statement such as "Methane is over 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a 100-year period", (this from epa.gov/outreach/), then the full meaning of "clean" becomes less clear. What if we also include a statement about the polluting effects of drilling for methane, or hydrofracking? (For your viewing pleasure, please rent the movie "Gasland," which was up for an Academy Award and probably would have won if it wasn't for those crazy guys stealing our money on Wall St.) We could also say something about all the gas that is leaking through loose fittings. Did you know that the gas industry doesn't care about a gas leak, unless it deems the leak class I, a danger to public safety? Here, from the GPTC (Gas Piping Technology Committee), the "hazardous (Grade 1) leaks be repaired immediately, while "non-hazardous" (Grade 2 and Grade 3) can be allowed to continue for six months or more." [this from the American Energy Coalition citing the GPTC notes.] Be praying that your leak is graded properly. But the real point is that leaks on the whole are not prioritized by any sort of environmental concern. They don't care. Why? Well, it is clean, don't you see? If you label it "clean" then you don't have to spend any money fixing the "problem." It's like they are pouring the stuff in our oceans and streams, you know, like those other fine folks at BP and Exxon. Any industry that pumps unknown chemicals into the ground (which is to say unknown to us but quite well known to them, and which includes: oil, benzene--a carcinogen--and dozens of solvents) where our ground water lies...well, it does seem obvious to me that it cannot be called "clean." Is it "clean-er"? Maybe. Maybe it is cleaner than coal and oil. But isn't that like saying Godzilla is less of a problem than Mothra? They both end up destroying Tokyo. Sure we root for Godzilla, but we don't really know why. Would anyone try to make a pet out of the big guy? Cuddle up with him? Teach him to fetch? That's what ConocoPhillips and their corporate bedfellows are trying to convince us to do with natural gas. My solution? Maybe we could come up with a different name for the stuff: Godzilla Gas!

Declaration of Independence, part deux

2011-10-17T12:13:00.000-07:00

In light of the Occupy Wall Street protests, I thought a review of the Declaration of Independence might be apropos. Here, I think, is the salient quotation:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The new guards for the future, far from being any sort of militia, must be a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution, stating in effect that no corporation can have the standing of personhood in this country, and that the government of the United States of America shall provide funds necessary for a fair and equal election process with delineated time periods not more than two months prior to the election date.

New RINOs must lead Republicans | The Journal News | LoHud.com | LoHud.com

2011-09-26T06:58:00.000-07:00

New RINOs must lead Republicans | The Journal News | LoHud.com | LoHud.com

This article on RINOs says it all, so I'm just linking to it and leaving it at that.

Football: the perversion of the gridiron

2011-09-20T03:02:00.000-07:00

NFL 2011: The Kansas City Chiefs' sad cavalcade of torn knee ligaments. (14) - By Tommy Craggs, Stefan Fatsis, Nate Jackson, Josh Levin, Drew Magary, Barry Petchesky, and Tom Scocca - Slate Magazine

OK, so an NFL star spits up blood from a hit to the head. And what do people talk about? Fantasy football. And the chances of the guy's team winning. Check out the link and read the comments. Only one that I saw mentioned that football might be changed as a result of all these concussions (and I take his comment as nostalgic for the "good ol' days" when men were men and could kill anyone as a sign of manliness).

The recent walk-out by the players included discussion of medical benefits. John Mackey's name was bandied about as a poster-child for what can happen to a player after he retires. There is a link between concussions and Alzheimer's like disease. The name for this is Pugilistic Dementia, named after the "sport" in which one tries to induce a concussion and brain damage on another. Of course I'm speaking of boxing, but I could just as easily be speaking of football.
(here is a link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1362290.stm)

Many have said over the years that boxing should be banned, along with its cousin, mixed martial arts. Football should be mentioned just as often. It sickens to know that millions watch this "sport" without a thought, without a care, for its players. Most football players retire after two or three years of playing. Yes, they get a good salary (league minimum salary in 1996 was $196,000), but that's not a whole lot if you consider that the players often retire disabled, with little health care. A team in a small market, like Green Bay, will have an average player earn less than $1,000,000 by the time he retires. That million has to last the rest of his life, oftentimes. If you are hobbling around on bad knees, bad hips, bad back, with dementia and no health care, a million won't get you far. The league owners did recently produce a plan for taking care of their wounded warriors, and in honor of Mackey it is called the "88" plan (Mackey wore the number 88). The plan offers up to $88,000 for nursing home care. Is that enough? Most likely, no. It's also kind of like saying, "Here you go, son, play football and get the b'jesus knocked out of you, 'cause we'll pay for your nursing room later on--you'll be needing that."

The argument for football goes this way: the players know all this going in and it is their choice. Well, I doubt they know all this. I doubt they ever met a player (probably the best tight end in football history) like John Mackey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mackey_(American_football)). I am betting they've been sold a pipe dream: become a star and earn tens of millions. You'll be famous, on TV, movies, interviews. That hardly ever happens. Usually a player is quite lucky to make it to the NFL. Most players in college get the injuries and get to be slaves to the college sports program, unpaid, and most under-educated.

When you watch this depravity on TV or at the stadium, maybe the human thing to do would be to wonder about the health of those players, their likely future, and also to look around you and say, Do I want to be the kind of person who just enjoys taking in the perversion of basic moral principles?

When you think of football you shouldn't be thinking of all the pipe-dream stuff, the glory of the gridiron all that crap. You should be thinking others, the players. They are people, just like you. Love your neighbor as thyself, and turn that perversion off. And if you happen to be a parent of a child playing in youth leagues, get them out of there and into some other sport. Or better yet, teach them to play the piano or guitar or something. Something useful, something human.

Government costing jobs? Really?

2011-05-15T04:59:00.000-07:00

MarketWatch has an interesting article ("Follow the money, Mr. Speaker") that concerns a question I've had for some time. You may have noticed that the last couple of years we've heard a refrain from Republican leaders and pundits that speaks to the issue of large government deficits costing jobs, because (in the words of John Boehner, House Speaker), "The massive borrowing and spending by the Treasury Department crowded out private investment by American businesses of all sizes."

But is this true? My initial reaction to this sort of thinking was that of course it wasn't. We'd have heard of this before now. This seemed some sort of catchphrase that someone in the media felt was pithy and could knock the democrats out.

Rex Nutting, MarketWatch's commentary editor, checked into this and found that indeed there was no truth to the claim. But don't expect the Republican's to stop just because it isn't true; it's just too good a phrase: it sounds true so they'll use it.

The proof that it isn't true comes from the low borrowing rates currently available. So there is no trouble borrowing by business. Also business is currently struggling because of low demand, not high borrowing rates (there are no high rates). Mr Nutting also makes it clear that businesses have so much money in their coffers that they would not even need to borrow. They could pay cash outright for more capital spending. He also states that businesses are currently spending quite a lot ($1.14 trillion annually), 25% more than in 2009.

But the real message is that the Republicans feel they can lie their way into the White House and Senate. They will just keep saying the same thing over and over until people believe it.

So what then is a Republican?

2011-04-15T05:24:00.000-07:00

So what then is a Republican?

This question has come up since I have been weeded out by the core, extreme Republicans, as they have found my ideology wanting. I expressed the need for this country to finally solve the problem of caring for its sick, and doing away with the ugly for-profit health care "system" that exists currently, replacing it with a single-payer system and thus saving our country billions of dollars, and millions of lives.

How do we define Republicanism? By the core? Should we allow it to be encircled by the focused interiority of those most fervent--and most fanatical? Should those who do not adhere to every single jot and tittle of the party platform hang our heads and retreat to the desert region of our foes? (And would they admit us, or also vanquish us as not being suitable for their use either?)

Does fanaticism define the party unit, or something more reasonable, something more rationally defined?

Let me consider for a bit the following position: Republicanism--nor any political system, including the religious sphere--can be defined by a fanatical adherence to a set of core principles. Why? Because a political system by its very nature must be a repository of ideas, a vessel, if you will, which holds a collection of values. A vessel holds, it does not mainly restrain. A vessel brings in, it does not mainly withhold. Yet, it must be argued, a vessel containing a multitude of cracks cannot hold much. Another way of stating this, is to say that you might throw any such stuff within and call it whatever you will. Too little, too small a set of ideas, and you would not even need a bowl to hold them. Too many ideas and they spill over the side or through the many cracks. You may call whatever remains what you want but someone else will gladly call them something else: a would-be mess.

So it is clear that a party of ideas is a vessel, a bowl, that contains more than a small set of core values, but not so many that it becomes too-much-to-name. There is then an essence, a set of ingredients that most (but NOT all, for that again would distill to too small a number) might then agree to.

Another way of stating this is by using an alternate metaphor: A political party is like water. Too contained it becomes fetid; too unleashed and wild it becomes a muddied, raging river. Just right would be a very clear mountain stream, clean and clear enough to drink safely, but moving fast enough to change in time and carry away the dross.

By stating that I am not a Republican because I have one idea wrong, those fanatics have revealed themselves as being bathed in fetid waters. The ideas do not get exposed to the air of conversation and dialogue. They sink, and inevitably they stink of rottenness.

Ideas must be alive, they must be tossed about from mind to mind otherwise they rot like corpses. We keep them alive through dialogue, especially dialogue with others who do not share the ideas within our own vessel. This sharing is important, vital to not only our nation but ourselves. Sharing is part of being human, but sharing only within our own set vessel of opinions is not truly sharing, but an inbreeding resulting in defective ideas and defective selves.

In a post on The Dish (Sept. 12, 2011), Andrew Sullivan writes:

If your view of conservatism is one rooted in an instinctual, but agile, defense of tradition, in a belief in practical wisdom that alters constantly with circumstance, in moderation and the defense of the middle class as the stabilizing ballast of democracy, in limited but strong government ... then the GOP is no longer your party or mine).

Religion has replaced all of this, reordered it, and imbued the entire political-economic-religious package with zeal. And the zealous never compromise. They don't even listen.

So thinking through this problem I am a bit heartened at feeling that it is I that am the true Republican, and they that would weed me out are the truly--what to call them? The defectives. They grow rank and fetid in their little bowls, mildewy and corrosive.

You will know them by their smell. They reek of all that is ugly and extreme and fanatical. By their fruits you will know them: their branches are bare.

The preening exaltedness of the Right

2011-04-13T05:36:00.000-07:00

If there is one thing that the liberal left despises most about the conservative right, it is the attitude of preening exaltedness. Now, as a conservative myself, I usually find myself in the company of many on the right. However, I usually am quickly discovered as a closet liberal--judged so by my adherence to a single-payer system. Recently I have been captured, and interrogated by those on the extreme right on a very popular social site. (Why do I characterize them so, as extreme? Because those are there own words, how they describe themselves: extremism in the defense of liberty, yaddayadda.) Finding that I am not a Republican (though I am one), that my conservative credentials are expired--though they are not, they have tried and sentenced me. I, it seems, am really a liberal Democrat, much like Obama. Though I happen to disagree with him on many topics. Still, they say I am liberal.

Now I also believe, quite forcefully at times, I admit, to being pro-life. I believe in conservative environmental principles. I also think we need to be fiscally conservative (though apparently not conservative enough).

But tried and sentenced by the extremists, what am I to do but turn in my Republican badge?

Well that I'm not going to do. Goldwater lost in '64, but the real loser then were the Rockerfeller Republicans, their heads being held underwater until only the extremists were left.

Does that mean there is no remnant left? No progressive Republicans? (By progressive, I guess I mean those of us willing to listen to others--even Democrats.) There is a small remnant left, but big enough to form a core that one day may be able to rise up in defense of liberty, a liberty that the founding fathers saw as less a preening exaltedness of those self-proclaiming extremists, but a willingness to enter into dialogue, as Obama said in his inaugural speech.

America was not founded as a theocracy. It was not founded as a dictatorship of preening prigs either. It was founded as a melting pot, not only of people, but of ideas.

There are people out there unwilling to listen to ideas outside their own. Beware of such people. They will judge you, many calling themselves Christians. Step out of their way, be kind, be civil, but be ready to rise up and call them by their true name: Extremists.

Marines Face Questions About Rescue of Officers in Libya - NYTimes.com

2011-03-29T05:07:00.000-07:00

Marines Face Questions About Rescue of Officers in Libya - NYTimes.com

I am concerned we may have lost the free press some time in recent history. This story, questioning the events surrounding the successful rescue of the pilots downed in Libya, is the only instance I have found that has been covered by a US press. There are many other published pieces across the world, but the US press is largely silent.

Apparently as reported in the UK Daily Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8402156/Libya-US-warplanes-carried-out-strafing-runs-to-rescue-downed-pilot.html), Osprey helicopters rescued one of the pilots who had been given aid by friendly Libyans. Harrier jets apparently strafed the area around the rescue operation, injuring eight Libyans, one of whom reportedly lost a leg.

There are two important questions here: Why would the military fire on obvious friendly targets, and why wouldn't the US press be all over this story?

Lives at Risk - Google Docs

2011-01-01T10:12:00.000-08:00

Lives at Risk - Google Docs

Still dying, still arguing

2010-12-14T05:08:00.000-08:00

People are still dying.

Since America has this system whereby profit is the engine for curing disease, many will go bankrupt or simply die.

On the Huffington Post today there is a story of a little blond 5 year-old girl with leukemia, living in Montana. The father is a disabled vet and the mother works as a house cleaner. Once diagnosed, the first bill was larger than what the family makes in one year.

Another family, the Petriekis' family from Indiana, lucked out when Medicaid of Indiana refused treatment because of a bureaucratic snafu (the treatment was labeled "experimental" despite a 73% success rate) but the insurance handling Medicaid claims for that state finally stepped in. A catastrophe narrowly avoided. (One has to wonder if the insurance would have acted if the situation hadn't become widely known.)

The cases go on and on...it is not hard to find them.

Reading the comments on the Huffington Post is instructive, too. People from the U.S. are embarrassed by our country's lack of affordable care. People internationally are simply shocked at how horrific things are here.

Here, from a commenter on the Huffington Post:

If this child and her family were living in Germany where I live, or any other western European country they would not have to worry about paying for the little girl's treatment.

In these countries there is still a great sense of solidarity on which health, old age, unemployment insurance and social security are based. Those who earn more contribute more to the system. Everyone has access to the same coverage.

As the cost of medical care increases (thanks, big pharma) and more people are enemployed and contribute less to the system (they still get the benefits), there are financial strains. The bottom line is that the system continues to work very well.

My friends and familiy here are simply flabbergasted that so many Americans who themselves are only one illness away from financial catastrophe are againt universal heath insurance and brand it "socialism" and "communism".

Remember, Sarah Palin and Joe Miller admited (sic) to slipping across the border to Canada for medical treatment. Talk about hypocrits!

While money is important, finding a stem cell donor is even more important for this child. Everyone can be typed and become a potential donor for her or for other leukemia patients. Ask your doctor (If you have one) or enquire at a hospital about getting typed.

I am a donor. My stem cells went to a leukemia patient in California.

It is a scandal that Americans have to die because they cannot afford healthcare.

And still we have perhaps a majority of Americans who still label ObamaCara a government takeover, or socialism. I personally wish that it was. In truth, what we were given is the biggest gift to for-profit companies in the history of our country. Despite the speeches to the contrary, Republicans will never vote ObamaCare out, simply because the insurance companies fund their campaigns, and the insurance companies love ObamaCare.

I just wish the people of America felt as Ghandi felt, that "a nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members."

Big Pharma Spins the Science

2010-10-02T11:25:00.000-07:00

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/dangerous-spin-doctors-7-_b_747325.html#

Doctor Mark Hyman's latest blog concerns a hefty topic: How science is disappearing from our major--and still trusted--journals. He reports how French scientists selected the very best double-blind studies in the leading journals over the past year and independently verified if their conclusions were indeed correct. They found that 40% of these studies lied about the conclusions. Here, Dr Hyman writes:

In plain language, 40 percent of the studies we count on to make medical decisions are authored by scientists who act as "spin doctors" distorting medical research to suit personal needs or corporate economic interests. "Spin" can be defined as specific reporting that could distort the interpretation of results and mislead readers. If the conclusions in 40 percent of the papers published in medical journals are being spun toward independent interests, how can we consider the medicine we are practicing "evidence based?"

Big Pharma not only influences doctors' drug prescribing with their handouts of pens and sticky notes and lunches, but they directly effect what doctor's read in the medical journals by spinning the data to allow for better conclusions for their drugs. The media plays a role here too. They will often simply read the conclusions (wrong about half the time) and report on that with a nice juicy headline, rather than fully investigate. Follow the money? Not in today's media.

Is it any wonder that some state governments have had enough? (Vermont has outlawed pharmacy rep lunches and the handouts; the routine sampling by companies, which again results in huge profits, will come next.)

Another problem is the ease with which people with pharma ties go on to government positions. Here, Dr Hyman writes about the National Institute of Health:

Another example: In 2004, the National Institute of Health's National Cholesterol Education Program, dramatically lowered the ideal "bad" or LDL cholesterol level. This led to guidelines that expanded the number of Americans who "should" take statin drugs from 13 million to 36 million. There was only one problem. Eight of the nine panel members who established these new guidelines had industry ties. An independent group of over 30 scientists in a letter to the National Institutes of Health publicly opposed these recommendations.

Dr Hyman writes that 47,000 people died unnecessarily as a result of Glaxo's failure
to adhere to guidelines for posting data to the FDA. Finally, after being forced to do so on a public website, the companies data was independently analyzed and the drug came up for review. Still, the company's money trail still allowed the drug to stay on the market though under restrictive use.

So we have proof of a drug company allowing people to die so that profits can be made on a drug known to cause heart attacks. A drug company!

We have, in this country, drug companies actively killing patients for the sake of profit. We have insurance companies actively killing patients, again for profit. Yet the United States still remains convinced that private, for-profit care is the best model.

We have to one day wake up and stop trusting these corporations. They are mindless, and evil, no matter how nice and fuzzy those commercials are.

Need insurance for sick kids? Fuggedaboutit!

2010-09-22T04:28:00.000-07:00

I sometimes get looks of puzzlement when I tell people that there is plenty of money out there to support a single-payer healthcare system. But when you look at the amount of money going to support the administration of claims for all the tens of thousands of private plans out there in this country you suddenly see hundreds of billions of dollars.

Rick Ungar writes a blog for Forbes. He recently wrote an article pointing out the recent decision by some big players to pull out of the child insurance business altogether (rather than have to underwrite sick kids). I've posted the link here: http://tinyurl.com/2u2cj7m

At one point he writes:

We can’t have it both ways. If we have an obligation to provide for the health of our children – and we do – and we don’t believe it is right to put this responsibility on the shoulders of the private market, then it falls to the public sector to take care of this obligation.

I know. We can’t afford it. And why should people without sick children be obligated to assume the responsibilities of those who do have a sick child?

For the same reason that people without children bear the tax burden of paying for the public schools your children are attending. And while schools may be suffering cutbacks due to stressed out budgets, I have yet to hear anyone, with the possible exception of a few extremists, suggest we do away with our public education system.

So, I wrote him a comment, which I paste below:
Disagree with only one thing. You state we cannot afford for a socialized healthcare for our children. I believe that to be inaccurate. Not only could we afford child healthcare but we could also fold in birth-to-grave care as well. By eliminating all insurance carriers and only have single-payer we would save hundreds of billions of dollars (each year). So why not do it? Well, there’s that itsy bitsy thing called a lobbyist and he happens to own Congress.

He was kind to reply:

I don’t think I said that we cannot afford it. I was saying that those who are against say we can’t afford it or it is not someone’s responsibility to take care of another’s child.
I agree with you completely. We not only can afford it, we have to afford it – even if it means making this a higher spending priority than other expenditures — like a useless war in Afghanistan.

He also later on agreed that sadly it is too true that lobbyists for the insurance carriers control the debate on healthcare reform.

A big shout-out Thank You! to Rick Ungar for spotlighting another evil machination of our precious insurance industry.

A defense of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and citizen candidates - National conservative | Examiner.com

2010-09-04T08:19:00.000-07:00

A defense of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and citizen candidates - National conservative | Examiner.com

The last line in this little defense is a killer. I read it and just had to put my two cents in. Gov. Brewer's transparent authenticity? But let's delve into the meat of this article first. It boils down to don't judge a book by its cover. That is, TV just cannot adequately portray the substance of policy. So it doesn't matter that Brewer became absent minded in the debate. And I agree. God knows I'd be a basket case in that scenario. No question. And who wouldn't? So I don't have a problem with her embarrassing exhibition.

What I have a problem with is the substance...or lack thereof. The video of her question-and-answer session with the media showed this quite clearly. She was asked point blank about her bogus claim concerning headless bodies found in the Arizona desert. She paused. And paused. Paused some more. Then she just turned and ended the session. Just like that. How's that for substance? How's that for transparency? How's that for being authentic?

I don't think this whole immigration thing is about immigrants, to be truthful. I think it is about money. It so often is, isn't it? Gov. Brewer has been led around by her nose by the state senator with the big interest in those private, for-profit, prisons. Now that makes some sense. After all, Arizona border towns haven't shown an increase in violence or crime in ten years, so that can't be the real reason behind all this. The economic drain on our country can't be the real reason either (studies consistently show that illegal immigrants have a small positive influence on our economy).

Well, whatever the real reason behind this circus, it sure has nothing to do with transparency, nor authenticity.

Physicians know best...but not ex-lieutenant governors

2010-08-28T15:37:00.000-07:00

http://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/Physician-really-does-know-best-617040.php

Betsy McCaughey, Ph.D. (make sure you see that big ol' Ph.D. cause it's real important, though it does happen to be in constitutional history, not anything to do with medicine as letter writer Forrest Gatton point out--cf. http://tinyurl.com/24rjt6v) used to be the lieutenant governor under Pataki during his first term as governor of NY. Remember her? She was the one who insisted on standing up the entire time during Pataki's State of the State speech. You may not also know she was largely responsible for killing the Clinton health plan basing it (falsely, in this writer's opinion: cf. The White House. Analysis of New Republic article on health care reform. Little Rock: William J. Clinton Presidential Library and Museum, January 31, 2004) on a complicated algorithm that highlighted a bewildering bureaucracy. You probably do know her as the author of the so-called "death panel" report that tried to paint ObamaCare as some kind of Grandma killing machine. Thankfully, most people saw through her idiocy. So apparently she likes to dip her toe into the tepid waters of medical knowledge.

And yet it seems she has absolutely no medical knowledge to speak of. If you read her letter you will come away with the thought that somehow generics are abysmally inadequate to the task of healing. She implies that there are studies that prove this. She writes that "generics are less effective or cause side effects in some patients."

Well. I could also add that brand drugs are also less effective or cause side effects in some people. Generic drugs are bioequivalent to brand drugs and undergo scrupulous testing. There may be occasional lapses in manufacturing quality control, but that is equally true for brand drugs. Remember the Tylenol recalls of about six months ago?

Now, anyone with a scintilla of medical knowledge knows this woman is entirely ignorant as regards matters pertaining to healthcare, as this latest letter of hers attests. But I find that she is currently in New York City, as chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths. God help us. And who appointed her to that important committee? Who?

I like what James Fallows of The Atlantic Monthly says regarding her (I got this, yes, from Wikipedia): "She has brought more misinformation, more often, more destructively into America's consideration of health-policy issues than any other individual. She has no concept of 'truth' or 'accuracy' in the normal senses of those terms, as demonstrated last week when she went on The Daily Show." (If you'd like to track that show down go to August 20, 2009)

What's your total cholesterol? Who cares?

2010-08-16T04:19:00.000-07:00

Caveat: Although after reading this article you may realize there is evidence for questioning the effects of your cholesterol lowering statin drugs, always consult your doctor and have a frank, and open discussion regarding your medication.

So what is your Total Cholesterol? Well, in the article above, Dr. Joseph Mercola makes the case that your total cholesterol number is a "straw man," a number manufactured by, well, manufacturers in order to sell you medication that you probably do not need. The AMA, as the article states in the bottom third of the article:

"Eight of the nine doctors on the panel that developed the new cholesterol guidelines had been making money from the drug companies that manufacture statin cholesterol-lowering drugs."

Dr. Mercola points out that it is the underlying inflammation doing damage to your arteries that is vitally important. The body then makes more cholesterol (by your liver) in the attempt to repair the damage (cholesterol is made to repair cell membranes). Prevent the inflammation and you prevent the problem.

He goes on to also point out the many adverse effects of these expensive statin drugs. These are not innocuous agents.

Do yourself a favor: read the article and ask your doctor about these medications if you are currently taking them or thinking about the possibility.

First sentences

2010-08-15T05:37:00.000-07:00

I am endeavoring to produce a blockbuster, earthshaking, and potentially an academically career-ending theory for literary criticism:

I read the first sentence and judge accordingly.

Witness the following time saving reviews (totally at random):

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.—But can He follow that up?

On an exceptionally hot evening early in July a young man came out of the garret in which he lodged in S. Place and walked slowly, as though in hesitation, towards K. Bridge.—Heck of a sentence. I predict great things from this writer, a Mr. Fyodor Dostoyevsky. Note to Hollywood: Don't change that name.

For a long time I used to go to bed early. —Ok, maybe this loses in translation. (Swann's Way by a M. Proust.)

Look at a map that shows the north Pacific Ocean. —Obviously written by a Neanderthal. (The complete Idiot's Guide to American History, 2nd Ed.)

On my right hand there were lines of fishing stakes resembling a mysterious system of half-submerged bamboo fences, incomprehensible in its division of the domain of tropical fishes, and crazy of aspect as if abandoned forever by some nomad tribe of fishermen now gone to the other end of the ocean; for there was no sign of human habitation as far as the eye could reach.(Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness") —Well. You know darn tootin' that if this was submitted to a dozen publishers today it would be rejected right here. A red highlighter would be followed with the marginalia "Are you kidding me? I don't have time for this."

A-OK. —How cliche. (The Dictionary of Cliches.)

"The marvelous thing is that it's painless," he said. ("The Snows of Kilimanjaro," by E.Hemingway) —This first sentence proves Ol' Hem is far from painless. Reading Hemingway is like going to the dentist.

Well, I guess you by now have an idea of the time savings proffered by this revolutionary technique. Try it yourself. Your only problem will be in finding enough things to keep yourself busy, what with all the hours and hours of wasteful reading you have by then uncovered.

Death By Handwriting--escripts to the rescue!

2010-08-12T14:53:00.000-07:00

Death By Handwriting

About five years ago I read in one of my pharmacy journals about a new fangled fix for doctor's bad handwriting (technically known as "cacography" and is responsible for thousands of hospital admissions each year, billions of wasted dollars, and millions of wasted phone calls from pharmacists, so hey, no laughing matter), utilizing e-scripts, or electronically transmitted prescription which are generated on a handheld PDA by the prescriber then transmitted to pharmacies. The process, besides eliminating illegible scripts, had the additional benefit of potentially alerting MD's to possible interactions and drugs that would require prior authorizations by insurance companies before being transmitted. That way, the doctor would know that the Biaxin script he/she wrote for on a Friday night would need to be changed to something else that the patient could actually pick up.

(I personally like Montana's solution, fining a doctor $500 per illegible prescription. But who decides what is illegible?)

So, a good thing all around, yes? Well, um, I guess you could say there's a glitch or two.

First, probably because of additional costs, doctor's don't seem to be utilizing the functions, or potential functions, of these e-scripts. Prior authorizations are still common in all types of prescriptions, including e-scripts.

Second, though the scripts are easily read, what the pharmacist is actually reading isn't necessarily what the prescriber meant to write for. Many programs have the medications closely spaced together, allowing for errors of selection. Allegra-D 24 hour can be right below Allegra-D 12-hour. Whoopsies.

An interesting error that I recently ran across was an e-script that had the word "until" next to "7 days." What came out on the potential label was "l7 days." That's a lower case L, not a numerical one. It seems that some programs that doc's use do not allow for automatic line formatting. This particular error was caught by the pharmacist, as he saw that the 17 day supply was unusual. But what if it wasn't? Whoopsies.

So with the new technology we have to be aware that there will be new types of errors occurring, errors that we as yet may not even imagine.

The march of the generics!

2010-08-10T12:51:00.000-07:00

For those wishing to know, there are many medications slated to lose patent life in the next several months. One caveat: once the patent expires, there is often litigation which results in a prolongation of the legal life of the brand. There are several events that may occur that prolong brand exposure, including litigation, patent settlements (manufacturers will agree to discontinue litigation in exchange for some monetary reward--nice, huh), final FDA approval, submissions of citizen petitions on behalf of brand manufacturers to the FDA, and "at risk launches" which means that once a generic is approved the generic manufacturer can go ahead with the generic but risks further litigation with the brand manufacturer.

That being said here's a list of some drugs going off patent:
Skelid
Cardene SR
Iopidine eye drops
Vistide
Combigan eye drops
Androgel
Androderm
Arixtra
Carbatrol
Concerta
Duac
Lovenox
Lybrel
metadate CD
Sanctura
Tarka
Elestat eye drops

(S)news

2010-07-22T16:18:00.000-07:00

I grew up watching the news. My family would watch the news--network news, of course, as this was before cable--while having supper. Usually NBC. I remember the peacock logo. For the longest time, into my twenties, I assumed that that was how people knew what was going on in the country and world. The newspaper was delivered as well; my father read it dutifully. I, on the other hand, mainly read the comics and the sports section.

Eventually I came to love the print media, preferring magazines and papers for their more in-depth coverage of events and political analysis. I gave up on TV news. For a good long time.

Lately I've been watching again. More out of curiosity, to see what's being covered. What I've discovered is that there really isn't anything being covered anymore (was there ever?). Every evening there is a run-down of four or five stories, and I do mean stories. These are all feel-good human interest stories, devoid of any analysis of causes or conclusions. Tonight, on NBC, I watched a story of laid off workers at the Ameripure Oyster Company. Lasting less than three minutes, we learned next to nothing of the economics of the event, but we did get a concentration of feel-goodness about how people are helping these unfortunate unemployed people. Going to the NBC News website I thought I'd check to see if there would be some in-depth-ness but sadly, no. Only an embedded video that was identical to what I'd already watched. Pathetic.

Another story had more promise. It reported on the new Arizona immigration law. There was a sentence or two on why the Federal government was filing suit even before the law has come into effect (power, said a university professor), and there was a statement by a pro-Arizona law person condemning the Federal inaction on immigration reform. The report--again under three minutes--closed with a, you guessed!--human interest angle with a woman married to an illegal immigrant, begging that the good people be allowed an easier option to become legal civilians.

Almost enough time passed in all these stories to allow some to convince themselves that they actually learned something. But not quite. There is no question why viewers are leaving network news: no substance. What can you say in under three minutes that shows real intelligence and might be influential for viewers?

The network news programs are a desert. They are surpassed in their myopia only by FOX and, yes, MSNBC. Both have their adherents, choirs loving the sound of their own voices.

There simply are not a lot of people searching for real news. People do not search for news, they search only for the viewpoint that they already have, confirming the great amount of respect that they have for only themselves and those like them.

It is my opinion that the country would be much better off if all the conservatives watched MSNBC, and all the liberals watched FOX--OK, maybe not FOX but at least CNN. Something other than that which spoon feeds us our morsel of regurgitus.

The reason why market forces will never work with healthcare

2010-07-14T10:10:00.000-07:00

I recently underwent a preventative procedure at a local hospital. I thought it might be instructive to follow it through from start to finish, just to see how the system actually works, or doesn't work, as the case may be.

My visit began with a routine examination at my primary physician. After determining that I just turned 50 he told me that it was time to schedule a colonoscopy. Yikes, I thought, but if it was good--or bad--enough for Katie Couric then I guess I could put up with it too.

So, after giving me the name of a specialist, I called and made an appointment. Pretty simple. He advised me on what was going to happen and why it was important, what to expect and so forth. He gave me a prescription for MoviePrep and I went to the pharmacy. Being a pharmacist myself, I already knew all about the stuff so I just went to pay for it. $50! Yes, the MD had kindly given me a coupon, but that still made the total out to be $30. (Note: one month later I still haven't received the rebate.) My outlay so far totaled $22 MD visit Primary Care, $22 specialist office visit, $50 medication. $99 total (minus the $20 rebate, but I'm not holding my breath there from past experience).

Then the day of reckoning. The procedure is by far the easiest part of the whole thing. If you can get the MoviePrep (or Colyte, or GoLytely, or PEG Sol'n) down you're already pretty much done with it. They give you some valium and the opiate of choice and you're in La-La land.

Then the difficulties will start. My insurance--yes, I know, many of you won't have insurance and I hope you know by now after reading my blog that I'm a fierce advocate of Medicare-For-All--is supposed to pay 100% of any preventive care procedure like this. Of course, to an insurance company "100%" can mean so many things. You'd think it would include office visits too("100%" actually translates mathematically to "everything" after all). But such isn't the case. Does it include deductibles? It should but not necessarily.

Now let's experiment a little here. Let's suppose we're market people, capitalists all who feel that all we need to do is have low cost catastrophic insurance along with HSA accounts. That's where the employer or government puts money into an account and you can draw on that for medical bills. Sounds great. I used to think so. I lobbied for HSA's for years. Then I got one and found out that it is actually impossible to shop around for care. That is the whole idea of HSAs, to empower patients to shop around for the lowest cost, but highest quality care.

So let's say that instead of my insurance I have an HSA. I call up my doctor and ask how much the colonoscopy is going to cost. He tells me $1500. Wow, I think. I'm going to call up a few other people. Turns out they all are about $1200 to $1800. My guy is right in the middle, and what do I know about how good this guy is? He was recommended to me, but I have to honestly say I have nothing to go on but my gut (so to speak).

My HSA has about $3000 in it so I'm just going to go for it. I'll still have enough in there for the dentist and some more visits to the doctor in case I need them.

But what I didn't know was that I'd receive a bill for the Recovery Room. Hadn't thought of that. Didn't even know there was a billing for special rooms. Got a bill for Medical Supplies too. Another for those cool opiates. The one I really like, my favorite of favorites, is called "Other Hospital Services." Turns out that that one was almost the greatest amount, too. The next time someone tells me HSAs are the answer I'm going to ask him how the heck you're supposed to shop around for "Other Hospital Services." If I'd had an HSA I'd be out of luck, as the total wasn't the $1500 I'd shopped around for, but over $3000 for the "Other Services" etc.

So, you ask, what is the upshot? About 2 hours ago I received a bill from the hospital. A bill, say I? It's supposed to be free. So I dutifully call the insurance company and ask about the $300 "free" bill. I call the number on the back of the card and speak to Andrew. Andrew seems a pleasant fellow, so I with-hold my rising frustration. He tells me he's having trouble locating my ID number. I had inputted it into the ridiculous phone tree, but I tell him again. Nope, he says, I can't find it. "That prefix is for [company name XYZ], right?" he asks. Right, I say. Well, we don't handle that here. What number did you call? I told him the phone number and that it is listed on the back of the card. "Something must be wrong with their phone system," he says, pleasantly enough. I can tell he is a bit perplexed himself. "But what is your problem and maybe I can be of assistance," he offers anyway. So I tell him. It is supposed to be a free preventative service, yadayadayada. "Yeah," he says. "And I see that we paid them more than what they billed for." Well, ain't that interesting, I think.

He advises me to wait two hours and call the number again. Maybe the phone system will work then.

I call them back and this time they--Sherri, actually, this time--find me. They also locate the problem. The balance due, which should have been nothing, came out as $285 and they put that through toward my deductible. The hospital, in other words, feels they are owed this amount, even though it is a routine preventative "Wellness" procedure. So now the insurance company--actually the benefit manager for the insurance company--is going to go ahead and re-bill it again, as the customer service rep couldn't get the amount fixed over the phone. I have the option to call the hospital and basically tell them I don't owe them a thing and to wait about ten days for it to clear the insurance, or just do nothing and hope I don't get billed again in the mean time. I elect the latter, knowing through experience that healthcare billings are routinely inefficient and it will take about a month before anyone notices. At least.

So if I was the type who didn't know the system, didn't trust the company, didn't know the hidden inefficiencies, then I might just have figured I owed another $285.

Lesson: Never assume the bill is correct. Never assume even the insurance reps know what is going on. Never, ever, ever assume you will even have a clue as to what will eventually be billed.

And never believe simplistic solutions like HSAs will solve our problems. You'll just get burned.

We basically have two options: Stay with our current tinkering (and ObamaCare, while a vast improvement over the existing "non-system" is still tinkering) or go with an overhaul such as Medicare-For-All. I vote strongly for the latter.

Big Oil and Bobby Jindal (cont.)

2010-06-04T14:37:00.000-07:00

Continuing my rant from yesterday's post re Bobby Jindal's utopian air of laissez-faire oil drilling, I'd like to point to the map, specifically to Nigeria. The country, sitting in the middle of the African continent on the crook of the western coastline, is the most populous in Africa. It is rich as well. Rich in oil. Unfortunately is is poor in just about everything else, also mainly due to oil.

From 1970 to 2000, according to Nigerian government estimates, there were 7000 oil spills in the country. One of the most devastating spills has occurred in the Niger Delta, and is at least as large as the Deepwater Horizon disaster now pummeling the Gulf of Mexico.

But in Nigeria there is no camera crew to cover it. No Brian Williams to interview some government hack. There isn't even a Shell Oil executive appearing on TV wearing a look of frustration. There's pretty much nothing, except for a lot of oozing ugly greasy black stuff.

Nigerian light crude--the most desired of the grades of oil--accounts for 40% of the amount of oil the US imports. 40%! But do we care about the Nigerians living in this hell-hole? Heck no. (Nigerians now have a life expectancy of...40!) Do any of the oil companies? No. Shell waited six months to even send somebody out to the latest spill. As long as BP cleans up our mess (not a sure thing, by the way) we don't seem to have a concern. But we should. Here's why:

1) Nigeria and Mexico and other large third world countries that live on the income that oil gives them are proving grounds for the basic truth of the oil industry: Greed matters and it is the only thing that matters. Fishing industry ruined? That is not the concern of Big Oil. Human rights? Not the concern of Big Oil. General welfare of the populace? Not the concern of big oil.

2) Oil drilling is hazardous, not only to those brave souls who live--and die--doing the hard labor, but for those living nearby and those living even not so nearby. Water in Nigeria may very well become more valuable than the oil that has poisoned so many wells, simply because it is becoming scarce. Here's a clue: we can believe that oil is becoming scarce when Big Oil starts caring about all the crap it is leaving behind.

3) Oil drilling has one certainty to it: environmental disaster. Let's start adding up the real cost of oil. If we did we'd find that a gallon of gasoline doesn't truly cost $2.86 a gallon but more like $10 a gallon.

4) Bobby Jindal is one of a bunch of government flunkies that will do the bidding of Big Oil, even to the detriment of those electing him. These people get elected by ignoring the reality of the Gulf, of the Mexican spills, of the Exxon Valdez, of Nigeria. They say things like "we shouldn't have to choose between clean beaches and oil."

Well we do. We have to choose. Let's do choose and choose wisely.