The Unique Position Of The Medical Community

I think one thing that a huge number of people can agree on is that we need to fix our medical insurance system. Fact of the matter is that insurance has run rampant over us in just about every domain of society. And they seem to be able to manipulate legislatures and courts like puppeteers pulling the strings for their marionettes. But medical insurance cuts to the very heart of all of us (sometimes literally!).

Medical costs carry with them a very unique quality. Let's say that you went to the store to buy some eggs, and you paid for the eggs at the register. Then you got home, and a month later you get a bill from the guy who brought the eggs to the store. Funny, you had no idea that you were going to get such a bill. Then another week passed, and you get a bill from the farmer who raised the chickens. Geez, you might think. You might assume that such a thing had already been taken care of. Then a little more time passes, and you get a bill from the guy who sold the farmer the feed. Well, gosh, you might ponder, didn't the farmer take care of that? And then at the end, you get a bill from the guy who shoveled the chicken shit out of the coops. You might start getting a little pissed off.

But this is the sort of thing that regularly happens with medical care, particularly when you are hospitalized. If you are made of money, then it's not a problem. You're made of money, so you just clip your golden fingernails, and offer the shiny fingernail clippings as payment. But if you are made of money, likely you are not reading this.

And, you are told, those people all did the work, and they deserve to be paid. But so did the farmer, the feed store salesperson, the chicken truck driver, and the shit shoveler. Somehow, though, they have been taken care of without you even getting any notification of their payments.

So is it too much to ask that the hospital get together all those people and send you one bill? And is it too much to ask that the insurance make it easy to figure out what it is going to cover and not slide more and more costs onto the consumer, hidden in slippery and esoteric language about co-payments and co-insurance and lifetime deductibles and the like?

I had a bill once from a medical provider where they charged me several hundred dollars. And it was somebody who I had no idea was going to bill me, and it was after I had grilled the hospital about what my costs would be, and they had assured me that I would be billed a certain amount, and no more, and there would be no other bills. Believe me, I asked a ton of questions about it. So I was prepared to pay that certain amount.

Then I got the bill from the other folks. Well, of course, I hadn't budgeted for that, so I couldn't and didn't pay it right away. And I got notices that became nastier, telling me that insurance had covered its part and I had to pay, and they were gonna turn it over to collection, and, well, you know the drill.

Then a funny thing happened. About seventeen months after the original procedure, I got a notice telling me that the insurance had paid about eighty percent of it. Now, my understanding is that my insurance has eighteen months to pay a claim. So obviously, the provider (previously unknown to me until I got the bill from them) leaned on the insurance company, and got them to pay it under some perfectly legal and justifiable provision AT THE VERY LAST MINUTE. And that was after they had told me that insurance had already chipped in its part. Insurance companies are not in the charity business; they don't just volunteer to pay for stuff out of the goodness of their hearts. No, there has to be some contractual provision; albeit one that may be incomprehensible to the likes of regular folks like you and me.

So if I had paid that bill right away, I have a feeling that the insurance company would never have had any incentive to kick in those hundreds of dollars, and the little matter would have gone unmentioned, and I would have overpaid for the services I got.

Now, with stuff like that happening, how does anybody know that it is safe to pay any of those bills without getting ripped off?

The New Borderless Colonialism

Back in the 18th and 19th centuries, colonialism had clear boundaries. The colonial powers at the time, countries like Great Britain, Spain, France, Holland and Portugal went into lesser developed countries to plunder their raw materials and labor.

Today, with a globalist outlook, colonialism is back. Only now the borders can shift easily. Today, the U. S. is the dominant "colonial" power, with military dominance and economic push all over the world, despite our rapidly declining economy. We can get cheap labor from China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, and Latin American nations. We can get natural resources from Africa and Asia. We can dominate the military and political landscape in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, we are asserting our new colonialism more than any of the other developed countries, even though our economic circumstances are declining and our debt load is growing.

Now, given that we can't keep using up the lion's share of the world's resources and labor forever, and given that our economy is sliding into the toilet, does anybody think anybody in the world is going to treat us kindly when we are down?

The Price Of Drilling For Oil

You know, people are acting like the price of oil is this big thing that has suddenly hit us all like a hammer, and that none of it was foreseeable. But people have been talking for years about what was going to happen when we reached a peak in oil production. There is only so much oil in the world, and once it runs out, there isn't any more.

The thing is, also, that nobody is really giving us accurate estimates on how much oil they think we have left. All of the oil producing countries are pretty vague about it. Who knows if we will be going down on a slow decline, or if we all of a sudden will run out? And if we were going to run out of oil suddenly, do you really think that any of the oil producing conglomerates would have any motive to let any of us know?

Jimmy Carter tried to tell us that there was a problem with energy back in the 1970's when he was president. But nobody seemed to be in the mood to listen. Even then, it was probably a little on the too late side. M. King Hubbert predicted in 1956, probably quite accurately, that the U. S. peak in oil production would occur around 1970.

I've heard talk for years that when oil gets in short supply, that people in the exurbs will become stranded with houses that they can't get to town from and can't afford to heat. But nobody has really ever been in the mood to listen. Now urban planners are starting to get on the ball, but very few are playing along.

The Oil Age is going to end, folks, just as surely as the Stone Age and the Bronze age did. But neither of those eras ended because we ran out of stone and bronze. This is going to be a forced realignment. So are we going to plan ahead or just let really ugly things happen?

Now some conservatives are starting to push for greater drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in the offshore waters. But that will just suck things dry, won't make any difference for a long time, and would only affect the price of gas by a few pennies at most. Why mess up our environment to save three cents a gallon? Of course, the grimy little buddies of those advocating drilling in pristine areas stand to make a mint from the adventure.

George, Tim, John And The Rest Of Yez, Rest In Dirt

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Get To Where You Are Going And Then Feed Your Garden

Wow. There is a guy who has come up with a cardboard bicycle that is completely biodegradable. So you can use it as transportation, and then when you are done, you can put it in your compost pile.

It's not even just a complete throwaway thing. You can replace parts on it when they wear out, apparently pretty easily. It's interesting to see an instance of planned obsolescence that doesn't just add more toxic goop to our trash piles.

Elections Matter

Here are the words of Al Gore, in a speech endorsing Barack Obama for president earlier tonight:

"Take it from me, elections matter.

"If you think the next appointments to our Supreme Court are important, you know that elections matter. If you live in the city of New Orleans, you know that elections matter. If you or a member of your family are serving in the active military, the National Guard or Reserves, you know that elections matter.

"If you are a wounded veteran, you know that elections matter. If you've lost your job; if you're struggling with a mortgage, you know that elections matter."

'Nuff said.

Is Laura Bush Deluded?

Laura Bush gave an interview on the news today indicating that she thought her husband would have a "great legacy." What universe is she living in? I suppose when your air is so rarefied that you don't get anywhere near actual people's opinions any more, you might somehow be able to come to that conclusion, if you completely ignore the facts of what has happened in the last seven and a half years. Mrs. Bush, you are married to a war criminal...

Gay Marriages are Good for the Economy

Isn't it funny how people can't pay for health insurance, can't find jobs, and can't afford to send their kids to college, but, by God, they will get out to vote for some politician who will make sure that some gay guy they don't know can't marry another gay guy they don't know.

Well, here's an argument that kicks them in the posterior. It turns out that gay marriage is actually good for the economy! Sure, when a whole pile of extra people are hiring wedding planners, going on fancy honeymoons, throwing catered banquets and the like, more money is bound to get pumped into the economy.

So the next time some reactionary fascist tells you that gay marriage leads us "down a slippery slope that might end up with some hippie marrying a tree," point out to him that the happy union of hippie and tree just might some day employ his son.

Another Answer to the Price of Gas

Frankly, the price of gas does not affect me much when it comes to my own transportation. I don't do a whole lot of driving, and I prefer to walk, ride my bike, and sometimes I take public transportation. I live close to work, and just about everything I need is a very short distance away. I don't usually have to worry about traffic tie-ups unless I go to the other side of town.

They could probably raise the price of gas to fifteen dollars a gallon before it would affect my transportation. But it does affect all of the other things I have to pay for that are dependent on the delivery of gas. For example, the price of food is going through the roof, and that is affecting me. Also, my home energy costs are probably somewhat indirectly affected and I have been feeling the pinch on that lately.

Now, since food is going up, much of the world is having a huge problem, because in a lot of countries they don't have as much discretionary spending as we do. So what if we extrapolate to some point in the future where there is plenty of food, but none of us have enough money to buy it?

It seems like that is what has happened with housing in the last few years. The price of housing has risen to the point that it is a higher and higher proportion of the incomes of people in this country, and probably worldwide, though I don't have enough information on that to say for sure. But what if none of us could afford food, or we could barely afford it?

So I am digressing a little. I wanted to talk about a unique answer that I saw to the price of gas. And it's not exactly comparable with my bicycle, which is capable of running on brown rice and carrots. But a company called XP Vehicles is making an inflatable car.

It arrives in two boxes and requires some assembly, but supposedly even a kid could put it together. You can drive it for 2500 miles without recharging it. That's almost all the way across the United States. Oh, and you can drive it off a fifteen-foot cliff, and it will bounce.

It's not in development yet, and who knows if it will be? But it sure looks interesting.

Ubuntu, The Boston Celtics, And American Culture

I heard a report on NPR tonight about how the Boston Celtics have embraced the concept of ubuntu and how it has helped them become a winning team. Basically, this means afffirming one's humanity by acknowledging that humanity of others, or acknowledging that you cannot stand alone, because you are dependent on everyone around you.

So many people in our country live by the priniciple of "me first," rather than seeing that their efforts only bear fruit because of the efforts of everyone else around them who assists tham, and everyone else who blazed a path before them. What merchant would survive if he or she did not have any customers? What politician would get elected if there were no votes? What pop star or movie icon would be at the top of their echelon or receive acclaim if there were no fans?

We all depend on those around us to lift us up and make us successful. Anyone who "lifted themselves up by their own bootstraps" got a boost from someone at some point, and should give back to the community that made them a success.

Some people seem to think that others are not worthy of respect. True, one should earn respect, but if someone has worked hard in this lifetime to be respected, they don't deserve to be abandoned. And yet, many are being left out in the cold when it comes to health care, adequate housing, distribution of food, and simple, basic respect.

Are we truly a society that puts a premium value on those who waste our greatest resources to the greatest degree?

José López Portillo and George Bush

Many years ago, a president of Mexico named José López Portillo pledged, in the face of the possibility of a declining peso, to "defend the peso like a dog." Of course, since he was an average mealy-mouthed politician who would say anything but wouldn't do jack, he stood by while the peso plunged in value. This earned him the nickname "El Perro," and to his dying day, almost anytime he appeared in public in Mexico, he could count on somebody barking at him. So he never got to forget that he was "El Perro;" just another dog who will say anything to preserve his political position.

What does this have to do with George Bush, our president who lied to us about WMDs, who exploited a national tragedy for political gain, and who underhandedly stole two elections (to highlight his brightest accomplishments as president). What does it have to do with the guy who has declared "mission accomplished" on the war on Iraq, on our children who have been left behind, and on hunger (surely we all know that the Bush administration ended hunger overnight by rebranding it as "low food security?")

We, as a people, should think of something that we can vocally express everytime Bush shows his face in public as a private citizen, once he is ejected from the office that he dishonorably held. What should it be? Should we say, "Mission accomplished, dude?" No, that's too easily misinterpreted as real praise, especially by someone with an extremely small amount of brainpower and a huge ego. Should we cluck like a chicken and then caw like a hawk to highlight his "chickenhawk" tendencies in promoting a war, yet dodging service in the National Guard and keeping his family out of the conflict he started? No, that would just get puzzled looks.

This deserves some serious thought.

Public Financing--A Cut-And-Paste Letter

Here is a letter you can cut-and-paste to ask your state or federal representatives to support public financing. This letter is provided courtesy of Public Citizen, an organization that has been working for years to support progressive causes. Simply cut-and paste the letter written below the line that is under this paragraph and send it to the elected official of your choice. You can either print it out and mail it, or just paste it into an email.

_______________________________________________________


Dear ____________________________ ,

As one of your constituents, I hope to be able to have my voice heard above the money chase that seems to dominate most of politics today. I fear that my voice, and the voice of my neighbors, cannot be heard unless we takeaction to remove money from politics through the full public financing of all Federal elections. This will restore the trust of the people when so many of us cynically assume that our Representatives' votes can be bought and sold. A recent Pew forum poll found that 60% of American voters see no difference between campaign contributions and bribery. This is why 42% of voters, according to exit polls, said corruption was an "important issue" in determining their vote in 2006. Since you, like most Representatives, probably spend about 20-30% of your time chasing money, we would prefer you spend that time speaking with us directly. Many of our public servants operate in an ethical manner; you can remove all doubt that you only represent the interests of us, your consitituents, by supporting public financing.

Some quick facts about public financing:

*It would cost between $6-$10 per person, less than the cost of removing a few earmarks or wasteful pork projects from the federal budget.
*Voters in states with public financing report tremendous satisfaction with the system.
*Politicians who use public financing report even greater satisfation.
*It increases participation by candidates from diverse backgrounds and participation by minority and younger voters. Publicly financed politicians look more like their constituents.

Your constituents support you getting off the fundraising treadmill! We urge you to co-sponsor public financing legislation. We will back you up in the voting booth for doing so.

Thank you,


___________________________________

What Happened with the At-Large Nominations at the Texas Democratic Convention?

There was a huge brouhaha over the At-Large delegate nominations at the Texas Democratic Convention. It all started when Rep. Terri Hodge came up to the microphone and made an allegation that there was some kind of meeting going on behind closed doors. At the time, that was unrelated to the business that was going on, and the At-Large Nominations Committee had not yet released their report.

After a while, late in the evening on Saturday night, the At-Large Nominations Committee was apparently ready to issue their report, but there was some kind of serious split within the Committee. From the best information that could be gleaned at the convention, some members walked out of the room over the racial makeup of the At-Large delegates. Two opposing camps quickly started pleading their cases, and both sides had radically different stories about what happened.

The majority of the Committee stated that they had tried their best to sort out all the competing interests and had deliberated for 13 hours to try to figure out who would be an At-Large delegate. They said that they had made the fairest choices that they could make, and they had considered all of the competing interests in making difficult choices. Only about 1 in 100 of the people who applied were chosen (excuse me if I don't have the precise numbers, this is an estimation, but I think it is pretty close), so a lot of people had to be rejected.

The minority stated that they had walked out after a list was handed to the Committee containing names that were pre-determined to be chosen. They indicated that the At-Large delegates were taken from this list, and seemed to be very indignant about what had happened. They appeared to insinuate (if not directly state) that African-American delegates were deliberately excluded.

From my perspective, it was almost impossible to determine what happened from the facts that were given at the convention. There were two sides with completely divergent stories about what happened, and many people on both sides seemed to be very passionate about their version of the story.

I ended up voting with the majority, but was not completely comfortable with that. First of all, more facts seemed to be coming out during the vote from people who were there that there was indeed some sort of exclusion going on. My rationale for voting the way I did was for several reasons. First of all, if the Committee had deliberated for thirteen hours, what would take its place if we voted the selections down? After all, it was a straight up-or-down vote, so something would have to start all over again. And at the time of the vote we didn't have correct information about what would occur if it was voted down. The last information we had was that the Committee would have to re-deliberate, but after the vote was taken, new information came out stating that the Clinton and Obama campaigns would choose who would go.

Second of all, I thought that some people would be excluded no matter what, and some of them might have hurt feelings. The minority inclusion goals were only goals, from the information that was given out, and the rules seemed to be observed. There was minority representation among both sets of delegates, including GLBT, African-American, Hispanic and Asian-Americans.

Kirk Watson--A Guy Whose Stock Is Rising

I have to say, Kirk Watson is definitely going places, and I'm sure he is destined for higher office. He has been leading this convention with a vast storehouse of knowledge about the procedures, conducting himself with poise, and acting like herding over 12.000 Democratic wild mustangs is almost the easiest thing in the world.

Sure, he had some rough moments, and displayed a few flashes of impatience, but on the whole, he has really been leading a successful convention. And who wouldn't get impatient leading that many people with so many diverse viewpoints? Many tense situations came up that he was able to defuse with just the right amount of humor. I would guess that his experience as Mayor of Austin gave him a lot of insight on how to deal with people who are not at all happy about what is going on, and dealing with conflicting viewpoints.

Kicking Butt in the Progressive Populist Caucus

This morning the Progressive Populist Caucus met at the Texas Democratic Convention. The highlight of the meeting was David Van Os announcing that he would run for State Party Chair. Van Os, who is a Jim Hightower-style progressive, has been at the forefront of the protests against the Iraq War since the beginning. He has led the fight for organized laber as general counsel of the AFL-CIO, and has fought the good fight, always representing the little guy, in his law practice. He ran for Attorney General and for the State Supreme Court in the middle of the Republican desert, when others could not be coaxed to run for statewide office as Democrats because the Republicans had a stranglehold on all the top offices, the legislature and the courts. He ably acted as Travis County Convention Chair, and deserves all of our votes.

Update:

Van Os got trounced by Boyd Richie. Richie had the machine in place, and Van Os' insurgent campaign, which just materialized in the last couple weeks, could not compete with Richie's long preparation for the election. Also, it seemed like some Richie supporters were spreading some nasty rumors about Van Os throughout the convention (that don't really bear repeating here). Also, another progressive candidate also ran an insurgent campaign at the last minute and split the vote (even though the combined vote of the two progressives did not match Richie's total). Van Os got about 19% of the vote of the delegates. We can all console ourselves with the hope that David Van Os will hopefully run for a statewide office in 2010!