I listened to the patronising musings of the press, bewildered by his latest confessions. Don't you get it? The man is hoplessly in love with Maria and using you to shout it from the housetops.
Here is the gist of what he said to the Associated Press:
1. I may have flirted too physically with a handfull of women since my marriage, but never since I met Maria. (Up for Maria, Down for Wife)
2. Maria is my soul mate, the love of my life, and no matter what happens I am glad I have had the wonderful experience of loving her and being loved by her. Few men are fortunate enough to experience love like this.
3. (I know my duty) I am going to try to fall in love with my wife all over again.
It seems he is tired of subterfuge and is being completely honest about at least one thing, his emotions. He is not even pretending to feeling guilty. The only person whose feelings and dignity he preserves at all costs is Maria. Neither political career nor wife can be allowed to interfere. Furthermore statement 3 above closes off his wife's options. To keep her self respect she now has little choice but to cut him loose.
This is probably what he wants and expects.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Fraud in the Private Healthcare Industry
Senator Bernie Sanders wrote a piece on Huffington Post about fraud by some of the largest players in the Health Care Industry. He listed huge fines paid by some well known names for fraudulent charges against Medicare and others.
Please read his article at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/we-must-stop-the-rampant_b_222510.html
Please read his article at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/we-must-stop-the-rampant_b_222510.html
Saturday, June 27, 2009
We spend more than 2x Britain per citizen on Health Care
Britain spends less than half as much per person as we do on health care. According to the CBS evening news, they spend an average of $2700 for each man, woman and child living there. Yet 90% of Britons rate the care they get as excellent. Just consider how good their health care could be if they spent an average of say $5000.
But even this figure would be much less than the average of $6700 that we spend. In spite of spending so lavishly our privately controlled system leaves 47 million without any medical insurance coverage and bankrupts many thousands more every year.
Obama's failure to emphasize the effectiveness of single payer systems has been a big mistake. This has left room for the Republicans to paint the loss of private insurance as public disaster when it would clearly be a blessing. The public is watching. He is not leading boldly. We will not be impressed with some fig leaf that turns out to be a bonanza for the health care industry.
But even this figure would be much less than the average of $6700 that we spend. In spite of spending so lavishly our privately controlled system leaves 47 million without any medical insurance coverage and bankrupts many thousands more every year.
Obama's failure to emphasize the effectiveness of single payer systems has been a big mistake. This has left room for the Republicans to paint the loss of private insurance as public disaster when it would clearly be a blessing. The public is watching. He is not leading boldly. We will not be impressed with some fig leaf that turns out to be a bonanza for the health care industry.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Gays are upset with Obama
I heard Jim Fouratt on The Colbert Report last night. He told us how upset the homosexual community is that the new president has not given their issues the priority they think they have earned by voting for him.
I don't think they were listening. On the campaign trail Senator Obama promised to be the president of the whole country. That means giving priority to urgent issues that concern the whole country rather than issues of special interest groups. So the president has given priority to rescuing the economy, healthcare reform, financial reform, the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea. He has been criticized for attempting to do too much at once and is obviously at full stretch in his first five months in office. Which one of these issues does Mr. Fouratt think should take second place to pushing congress to repeal the marriage act.
Mr. Fouratt compares the civil rights situation of Gays to the situation of African Americans before 1968. This is patently absurd. Gays as individuals have the same rights as the rest of us. There are no "separate but equal facilities for Gays". Black and white Gays mingle without danger of being lynched.
Many of the facilities like health insurance protection, were extended by the state and employers on the presumption that the earning potential of a wife would be limited by childbearing and child rearing. The producing and raising of future citizens is a public service.
Where this does not happen, the state is in danger of decline. That is the situation in Russia today.
Gay couples by and large do not make this contribution to the state and escape the associated responsiblities. Therefore, it is hard to see why the same family related benefits should be extended to them except perhaps in cases where they have adopted children.
In any case, I think it is time for us to stop obfuscating on this marriage issue. No right thinking person wants to place gay couples at a practical disadvantage financially or legally. The problem lies at deeper level. The gay community wants the religous community to recognize their unions as the moral equivalent of traditional heterosexual marriages. However, the fundamental basis of traditional marriage is the raising of a family. Indeed the Catholic church considers it a sin for a married couple to have even one sexual encounter which was not open to the possibility of conception. To the religous community, heterosexual behavior entails responsibilities Gays escape. So in my opinion, this demand for moral equivalence is not a reasonable demand.
I don't think they were listening. On the campaign trail Senator Obama promised to be the president of the whole country. That means giving priority to urgent issues that concern the whole country rather than issues of special interest groups. So the president has given priority to rescuing the economy, healthcare reform, financial reform, the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea. He has been criticized for attempting to do too much at once and is obviously at full stretch in his first five months in office. Which one of these issues does Mr. Fouratt think should take second place to pushing congress to repeal the marriage act.
Mr. Fouratt compares the civil rights situation of Gays to the situation of African Americans before 1968. This is patently absurd. Gays as individuals have the same rights as the rest of us. There are no "separate but equal facilities for Gays". Black and white Gays mingle without danger of being lynched.
Many of the facilities like health insurance protection, were extended by the state and employers on the presumption that the earning potential of a wife would be limited by childbearing and child rearing. The producing and raising of future citizens is a public service.
Where this does not happen, the state is in danger of decline. That is the situation in Russia today.
Gay couples by and large do not make this contribution to the state and escape the associated responsiblities. Therefore, it is hard to see why the same family related benefits should be extended to them except perhaps in cases where they have adopted children.
In any case, I think it is time for us to stop obfuscating on this marriage issue. No right thinking person wants to place gay couples at a practical disadvantage financially or legally. The problem lies at deeper level. The gay community wants the religous community to recognize their unions as the moral equivalent of traditional heterosexual marriages. However, the fundamental basis of traditional marriage is the raising of a family. Indeed the Catholic church considers it a sin for a married couple to have even one sexual encounter which was not open to the possibility of conception. To the religous community, heterosexual behavior entails responsibilities Gays escape. So in my opinion, this demand for moral equivalence is not a reasonable demand.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Iran hearing President Obama
I said in my previous blog that I hoped the Iranians heard the threat implicit in the President's comment that Iran's relationship with the West would be influenced by the way its leaders treated peaceful protesters.
It seems they heard. Ahmadin.... has angrily attacked the President for interfering in Iranian affairs and their diplomats are trying to frame the CIA for the infamous murder of Neda Soltan. Unfortunately for them, the Iranian doctor who tried to save her life is now safely in England where he declared emphatically that the killer was a member of the security forces.
The president's skillful approach may be having some restraining influence.
It seems they heard. Ahmadin.... has angrily attacked the President for interfering in Iranian affairs and their diplomats are trying to frame the CIA for the infamous murder of Neda Soltan. Unfortunately for them, the Iranian doctor who tried to save her life is now safely in England where he declared emphatically that the killer was a member of the security forces.
The president's skillful approach may be having some restraining influence.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Iran-The Presdent's threat
"There is a peaceful path.. to legitimacy" Obama said " and we hope they take it." He continued that Iran's "faith, sovereignty and traditions" can be accepted while the country's government nevertheless adheres to a set of "international norms and principles" regarding violence and the right of peaceful dissent.
I noted that the press did not grasp the severity of the threat implicit in the President's statement. Let me translate. If the Iranians do not treat the demonstrators humanely (within what the President regards as the norms of democratic society), all offers are off the table. This includes most notably America's offer of respectful treatment as an equal in the search for a solution to outstanding issues and normalization of relations. He reserves the right to chart a new course.
I hope the Iranian leadership get this. It was carefully said in a way that does not seek to humiliate them.
I noted that the press did not grasp the severity of the threat implicit in the President's statement. Let me translate. If the Iranians do not treat the demonstrators humanely (within what the President regards as the norms of democratic society), all offers are off the table. This includes most notably America's offer of respectful treatment as an equal in the search for a solution to outstanding issues and normalization of relations. He reserves the right to chart a new course.
I hope the Iranian leadership get this. It was carefully said in a way that does not seek to humiliate them.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
The Bombasters-(McCain et al) endangering Iranian lives
In 1956 a communist government aligned with Moscow ruled Hungary. In that year the Hungarians grew tired of the oppression and began to agitate in the streets. Prominent politicians in the United States stood up for American Democratic principles with their mouths. The Hungarians were encouraged and their aspirations grew. Finally they overthrew the Communists and installed a more democratic government to loud cheers from our blowhards
However when the Russians invaded Hungary to restore Communist Rule, the United States did nothing to help the fledgling democracy. Tens of thousands of Hungarians died in the hopeless struggle.
When Russia invaded Georgia last year, McCain declared himself a Georgian. This did not do the Georgians a bit of good. The Russians marched all over Georgia and left when they were good and ready. They even declared two Georgian provinces free states under their protection.
As the Iranians have strained at their bonds over the past week, some of our politicians have again been issuing empty word of support, standing up for American Democratic principles. Now that blood is flowing in the streets of Teheran, what do they have to offer but more hollow words of encouragement. Meanwhile Mahommad Khatemi has just released a statement saying he is preparing himself for martyrdom.
When will these blowhards understand that bombastic references to American values can't stop bullets.? In a revolution, you have to put your life where your mouth is.
Our president has been very wise. The Supreme Leader of Iran has been unable to link the protesters with the United States. I cannot overstate the significance of this kind of association. If the Iranian authorities can portray the demonstrators as agents of foreign enemies of the state, they can justify bloody suppression.
Our blowhards are endangering the lives of these brave Iranians.
However when the Russians invaded Hungary to restore Communist Rule, the United States did nothing to help the fledgling democracy. Tens of thousands of Hungarians died in the hopeless struggle.
When Russia invaded Georgia last year, McCain declared himself a Georgian. This did not do the Georgians a bit of good. The Russians marched all over Georgia and left when they were good and ready. They even declared two Georgian provinces free states under their protection.
As the Iranians have strained at their bonds over the past week, some of our politicians have again been issuing empty word of support, standing up for American Democratic principles. Now that blood is flowing in the streets of Teheran, what do they have to offer but more hollow words of encouragement. Meanwhile Mahommad Khatemi has just released a statement saying he is preparing himself for martyrdom.
When will these blowhards understand that bombastic references to American values can't stop bullets.? In a revolution, you have to put your life where your mouth is.
Our president has been very wise. The Supreme Leader of Iran has been unable to link the protesters with the United States. I cannot overstate the significance of this kind of association. If the Iranian authorities can portray the demonstrators as agents of foreign enemies of the state, they can justify bloody suppression.
Our blowhards are endangering the lives of these brave Iranians.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Why Single Payer is our Only Affordable Choice
Some of our Health Care institutions are the best in the world at what they do. If you want to separate conjoined twins we can do it. Technically we are the best.
But measured by outcomes, our so called health care system is one of the worst in the world. Last check impoverished Cubans have a longer life expectancy and a lower infant mortality rate than we do. Yet we spend far more per capita on health care than any other country in the world. If this is a system, it is extraordinarily inefficient.
I suggest we do not have a health care system at all. We have a number of subsystems designed to benefit limited groups of participants. The largest Government run subsystem is the Medicare System designed to care for the elderly. This is the most efficient system in the country in terms of delivering medical treatment with a low overhead cost of 3.6%. Each HMO constitutes a health care subsystem with an average overhead cost of 11.7%. The overhead cost of the Canadian Government run health care system is 1.3%. Because we spend so much more per capita, if we spent the money we now devote to health care as efficiently as Canada or Britain, every American could enjoy health care far superior to what they have.
Why then do we have this outcry about the potential cost of health care reform?! That is because all the proposals on the table keep the present system intact. Therefore the cost of covering the 45 million uninsured and filling the gaps in HMO coverage that cause many thousands of bankruptcies each year will be expenditure additional to what we already spend. That means spending much more per capita on health care than the excessive amount we now spend. Some reasonably argue that we cannot afford this extra expenditure.
In practice a system designed to guarantee health care security to everyone, that is based on payment of premiums to private insurers, would be an administrative nightmare. Suppose a participant paying his own premiums into such a system loses his job, what is the mechanism for continuing payment of premiums? One can only imagine the red tape involved in managing continuity of coverage and the endless disputes and law suits resulting from HMOs refusal to pay for illnesses during periods of unpaid premiums. Then there are the millions of chronically unemployed and casually employed who cannot contract to pay premiums. Covering the majority of those now uninsured through the private insurance industry would be a costly administrative nightmare for the Federal Government and a massive transfer of wealth from the taxpayers to the HMO industry.
Contrast this morass with the administrative simplicity of a single payer system. Every citizen and legal resident gets a “Medicare Plus Card” He takes this card to any doctor in the country and presents it for treatment. The doctor treats him and bills Medicare Plus. The patient pays an out of pocket based on income. He takes his card and his prescription to the Pharmacy. The prices of his medications have been negotiated by Medicare. He pays his out of pocket and leaves. This freedom of choice is what all Medicare patients enjoy today.
The conclusion staring us in the face is that we can only pay for universal health care by wringing the fat and profit out of the present system. Inevitably that means a single payer system like Medicare paid for by additional taxation. For a few dollars a year more in taxes we get total health care security. I don’t think this is Socialism because I understand Socialism would be bad for us while affordable universal health care would create the greatest good for the greatest number. This I believe is the ultimate objective of any democratic society.
Nevertheless, such a change would bring disaster to the HMOs, the health care insurance brokers and other dependents on the present system. The reforms in the automobile manufacturing industry have caused similar losses to the stake holders in that industry. Why should the health insurance industry fare any better?! In the free market system, disaster is what happens to industries that are unable to meet the needs of the public.
But measured by outcomes, our so called health care system is one of the worst in the world. Last check impoverished Cubans have a longer life expectancy and a lower infant mortality rate than we do. Yet we spend far more per capita on health care than any other country in the world. If this is a system, it is extraordinarily inefficient.
I suggest we do not have a health care system at all. We have a number of subsystems designed to benefit limited groups of participants. The largest Government run subsystem is the Medicare System designed to care for the elderly. This is the most efficient system in the country in terms of delivering medical treatment with a low overhead cost of 3.6%. Each HMO constitutes a health care subsystem with an average overhead cost of 11.7%. The overhead cost of the Canadian Government run health care system is 1.3%. Because we spend so much more per capita, if we spent the money we now devote to health care as efficiently as Canada or Britain, every American could enjoy health care far superior to what they have.
Why then do we have this outcry about the potential cost of health care reform?! That is because all the proposals on the table keep the present system intact. Therefore the cost of covering the 45 million uninsured and filling the gaps in HMO coverage that cause many thousands of bankruptcies each year will be expenditure additional to what we already spend. That means spending much more per capita on health care than the excessive amount we now spend. Some reasonably argue that we cannot afford this extra expenditure.
In practice a system designed to guarantee health care security to everyone, that is based on payment of premiums to private insurers, would be an administrative nightmare. Suppose a participant paying his own premiums into such a system loses his job, what is the mechanism for continuing payment of premiums? One can only imagine the red tape involved in managing continuity of coverage and the endless disputes and law suits resulting from HMOs refusal to pay for illnesses during periods of unpaid premiums. Then there are the millions of chronically unemployed and casually employed who cannot contract to pay premiums. Covering the majority of those now uninsured through the private insurance industry would be a costly administrative nightmare for the Federal Government and a massive transfer of wealth from the taxpayers to the HMO industry.
Contrast this morass with the administrative simplicity of a single payer system. Every citizen and legal resident gets a “Medicare Plus Card” He takes this card to any doctor in the country and presents it for treatment. The doctor treats him and bills Medicare Plus. The patient pays an out of pocket based on income. He takes his card and his prescription to the Pharmacy. The prices of his medications have been negotiated by Medicare. He pays his out of pocket and leaves. This freedom of choice is what all Medicare patients enjoy today.
The conclusion staring us in the face is that we can only pay for universal health care by wringing the fat and profit out of the present system. Inevitably that means a single payer system like Medicare paid for by additional taxation. For a few dollars a year more in taxes we get total health care security. I don’t think this is Socialism because I understand Socialism would be bad for us while affordable universal health care would create the greatest good for the greatest number. This I believe is the ultimate objective of any democratic society.
Nevertheless, such a change would bring disaster to the HMOs, the health care insurance brokers and other dependents on the present system. The reforms in the automobile manufacturing industry have caused similar losses to the stake holders in that industry. Why should the health insurance industry fare any better?! In the free market system, disaster is what happens to industries that are unable to meet the needs of the public.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)