Hucksterteeth post

Written by: proud2Bliberal on Mar 15, 2008 3:00 PM EDT

For some reason, the software was not displaying all of the comments or accepting comments, so I am writing here.  This post is a perfect example of the reason why neither Hillary's health care plan nor Obama's will work.  As long as there is a system of bureaucrats evaluating what income and expenses are allowed and disallowed in determining benefits, people will be left behind without health care.  A person who r eceives a few extra dollars by giving blood could lose eligibility for a social services program.  Similarly, would the state require a person to donate blood for pay in order to reach an income level that kicks him out of a social services program? Our tax money, federal and state, is paying for enormous social services bureaucracies.  But how much of the social work time is devoted to actually providing a service and how much time is spent reviewing applications and denying people benefits for arcane and even false or correctable reasons.  Then people are forced into lengthy appeals processes that they may not understand.  (When disabled people apply for Social Security, they often get a denial and have to go to a lawyer, so look at all of the Social Security money that goes to paying back the attorney because the agency tries to deny benefits to people.) For HUD to scrutinize something as trivial as a whether a person gave blood is an example of how far these agencies will go to find ways to exclude people.  We don't want the same situation to occur in a national health care plan.  Instead of health care, we would be paying for offices full of caseworkers deciding massive numbers of appeals cases.  (My personal opinion is that the government could also save a great deal of money if every elderly person received the same Social Security payment, rather than keeping track of the wages every person earned throughout one's life and individually determining everyone's benefit amount.  The amount could increase with every year of aging, so a person age 90 gets a lot more to help with the nursing care expenses.)

Beware of the Preventive Health Care Bogeyman

Written by: proud2Bliberal on Feb 16, 2008 10:48 AM EST

I work for a large state university system, which has recently initiated a large preventive health care benefit program.  If this is what prevention programs will be like, such a policy move should be reconsidered.  I view this program as a gigantic waste of money.  Some of the PR around this program bases it support on the assumption that what people need to take care of themselves is a "nudge."  The allocation of money for this "nudge", however, takes away money from health care rather than encouraging it.  Employees have been asked to voluntarily take part in a health assessment questionnaire.  This questionnaire includes questions on why certain steps have not been taken to improve one's health.  The questionnaire introduces statistical bias and is invalid; there is nowhere on the questionnaire where a person can state that one cannot afford the cost of the copays.   So, for example, if a person wants to lose weight and can't afford the copays for visits to the primary care physician, specialist and nutritionist, there is nowhere on the form where this becomes apparent.  The person is assumed to need a "nudge," whereas the real need is lower copays.  Upon completion of the questionnaire, the employee is given a $75 gift certificate.  The employee chooses from a list of vendors participating in the program.  Most of these vendors are large chains selling discretionary items.  Target is the only business on the list that sells food.  Although this is a preventive health program, there are no health food stores on the list.  There is also no vision care chain, dental group or hearing aid company on the list, so the employee cannot use the $75 towards the copays for these health care needs.  The $75 can be used towards university gym fees, but since it doesn't cover the full  amount, it will not help staff members afford the fee.  There is no provision for the employee to use the $75 to pay for the copays for 5 office visits.  Also, there is no provision for employees to use the $75 for necessities such as housing, gasoline or car repairs.  There is no way a person can direct the money into paying for child care or elder care.  There are some pharmacies accepting the card, but it is already cheaper to use the university pharmacy in many cases.  This means that a huge amount of money allocated as a health care benefit is actually being diverted for employees to purchase discretionary items at large chain stores that do not provide any health-related products or services at all.  Most people I know are choosing Target in the hope that the gift card can be used toward the purchase of food (if there is no exclusion in fine print).  Another "benefit" offered by the prevention plan is access to health coaches 24 hours per day by phone.  There is no way a person call and get a counselor 24 hours a day if one has an argument with one's spouse or experiences workplace stress or is exhausted from caring for an elderly parent.  But there are those health coaches 24 hours a day for all of those preventive "emergencies."  When our society is being told that there is not enough money to provide people with health care, I think we have to very careful about what the money is being spent on and whether the existing funds are being directed to where the real needs are.

Why no candidate's health care plan will work

Written by: proud2Bliberal on Feb 4, 2008 1:49 PM EST

In today's NY Times, Paul Krugman presenteed an analysis of why it is better economic policy to adopt a health care plan with mandates, as proposed by Clinton, rather than a plan without mandates, as proposed by Obama.  As a voter and not an economist, I would like to state the opinion that neither candidate has come up with a plan that will result in people getting the health care they need.  Any plan in which a beaurocracy decides how much it thinks a person should be able to pay will simply not work.  Here are some examples: suppose you have a single mother living in an apartment with one child.  She works as a secretary and earns $35,000 per year.  She had her child in Cheaper Day Care Center, but had to take her child out of there because another child was hitting her child.  She put her child in a day care center that costs an extra $100 per month, but her child is doing well there.  In addition, she can't afford to live near Suburban Stock Broker, where she works, so she incurs the cost of gasoline to drive 25 miles each way to work.  She bought a reliable car and pays higher car insurance for driving a newer car.  Having the car makes her a very reliable employee who always arrives on time.  The health insurance bureaucracy will disallow the extra cost for the daycare.  Also, they may disallow the car insurance.  (If she lost her job in an economic downturn, the food stamp program will disallow her car insurance, even though she needs the car to find another job. Will why will the government insurance bureaucracy be any different from the food stamp bureaucracy?)  So she will be charged the amount that the bureaucracy thinks she should pay.   Something has to give.  Perhaps she will just not be able to afford the copays or the dental visits, so even though there is mandated "coverage," she will not get the health care she needs.  No candidate except Kucinich has convinced me that he or she has a plan that will actually result in working class people actually getting health care.  There already is some non-profit health care in New Mexico in community health clinics and at the university clinic, so Richardson is the only who actually has experience in administering some affordable health care. 

California Propositions tomorrow

Written by: proud2Bliberal on Feb 4, 2008 1:31 PM EST

Would some of those long time California residents out there please comment on the propositions on the ballot?

Is the NY Times printing unverified rumor?

Written by: proud2Bliberal on Jan 3, 2008 7:14 PM EST

The NY Times is saying that the Richardson campaign is throwing support to Obama as a second choice candidate.  But they are quoting only Obama sources.  They did not quote anyone from the Richardson campaign.  So how do they know whether this is true?  NY Times: if this is true, then please provide the verification from the Richardson campaign.  I personally have not heard anything like that.  Richardson is serious and will do better than the NY press expects.

California Health Care Bill is a Disaster

Written by: proud2Bliberal on Dec 21, 2007 10:12 AM EST

As usual, the mass media has picked up California's health care bill with its usual superficiality and buzz-word reporting. When you look at the details, the bill, passed by non-progressive Republicans in association with the ultra-right Schwarzenegger (who opposes lunch breaks for workers).

The bill would require people who do not have insurance to buy the state plan's insurance. The problem is that it sets up the amount it thinks people should be able to pay. The premium amounts are set up as a percentage of income.

Read more

SacBee: Hustler magazine fundraiser for Kucinich

Written by: proud2Bliberal on Dec 3, 2007 10:24 AM EST

Sacramento Bee report:  Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt held a fundraiser for Kucinich.  Tell Kucinich to give back the money. 

Climate Change and the Democratic Platform

Written by: proud2Bliberal on Nov 18, 2007 7:33 PM EST

While the main purpose of the upcoming Democratic Convention is to elect a nominee, there is also the task of writing the platform.  I believe that the DFA should concentrate effort into the climate change section of the Democratic Platform.  Perhaps we in the DFA can arrive at a formal committee of people to draft private text to be used in the platform.   A well-researched and well-written document has the best chance of getting accepted.  The question for everyone is: what would you like to see in a DFA position paper on climate change?  Perhaps there are some energy experts out there reading this.  I would like to see support for telecommuting and flexible hours as part of the platform.  These actions require no funding, no research money and no waiting for futuristic technology.  They can be implemented now and would alleviate the current situation of people idling in traffic lines at rush hour.  The only change needed is a change in outdated customs and modes of thinking.  

Things we could do right now to combat climate change

Written by: proud2Bliberal on Nov 11, 2007 3:50 PM EST

The issue of climate change often arrives at a standstill because the proposed "solutions" always seem futuristic and unassured.  But there are things our society could do right now, with the technology we already have, to drmatically reduce air pollution:

(1) Telecommuting and flextime.  Every days the roads in the East and West Coasts are clogged with gridlock traffic, just because employees do not have telecommuting and flexible hours.  Just allowing employees to set a shifted schedule after the rush hour is over would ease the congestion and pollution.  The argument that enployees have to be together all day long is hogwash.  There are many jobs that could be done on shifted schedules or with some work completed at home.

(2) Support for a single lifestyle.  Paul Erlich has been speaking out about overpopulation and the hunger across the world that results from it.  Not everyone has to have a child.  Many people have children just to have them as a support system in old age.  If we had elder care alternatives, people could make the choice not to have children unless they really want to.  Right now we consider it to be a cultural anomaly not to have children.  However, the environment is at the point where some people can choose to devote their lives to other interests.

 (3) Public transporation.  After moving away from New Jersey, I began to notice something one doesn't see in the suburbs of New Jersey: buses.  The baby boomer generation is getting older and driving will be riskly.    Not only do we need to develop ubiquitous mass transit.  The buses have to be maintained.  There are too many cases of bus drivers leaving their motors on between routes because they do not know whether the bus will start again if turned off.  We need to have buses, but they should not be idling.

(4) Buying less "stuff."  In the current economy, that is not even a matter of choice.  But every extra, unneeded item bought required energy to manufacture.  The money spent on unnecessary "stuff" could be directed to contributing to one's favorite candidates.  I am talking about people throwing away perfectly usable home fixtures just on a whim to have everything redone.  Or complicated, high tech toys that rob the child of the need to use one's imagination in play.

(5) Restrict junk mail.  Every day we take the junk mail out of our mail boxes and throw it in the trash can.  There needs to be a restruction on how many pieces of mail a business can send out without the permission of the recipient.

These are just a few ideas.  Saving energy doesn't necessarily involve futuristic technologies that haven't been discovered yet.  It involves throwing away old fashioned ways of thinking.

Five Years

Written by: proud2Bliberal on Oct 17, 2007 2:08 PM EDT

Five years ago, anticipating a war we couldn't see a reason for, didn't believe the media about, and wanted to prevent, and seeing the health care crisis worsen, we, who had not been politically active before, went to meet-ups on Wednesday nights to support the Presidential candidacy of Howard Dean. Howard Dean had shared our views and was a candidate we could identify with, a real professional person with education. We started with small actions, such as writing letters to voters. Some of us stuck with it, and we should look back on what we have achieved, built and accomplished, and how this has changed our lives. Some of us never dreamed we would hold a political office, and by now many of us have held a position in public office or in the Democratic party. I had never thought a person like myself, coming from a working class, non-wealthy background, could hold a Democratic party office. We have helped candidates get elected, sometimes by narrow margins. Bush may not have changed his mind on the war, but the public is "voting with its feet." Some of us have known each other for as long as five years now. He are now connected to people all over the country who share our values.

Read more