markpkessinger
markpkessinger's JournalAn article of mine on health care just published on the "Working Class Heroes" blog...
This is a piece I wrote for the blog, "Working Class Heroes."
Mark Kessinger, a WCH contributor and IT support specialist, is a passionately progressive political investigator and writer.
I’ve seen several people of late, in discussing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”, or in many circles, “Obamacare”), complaining about increases in their health insurance premiums as some of the regulations of
the PPACA have begun to become effective. It may well be that, particularly in the short run, some folks’ insurance premiums will go up. But before moaning and groaning too much about the higher premiums, perhaps they should consider the things they will get under the new law that they didn’t have before—and what they stand to lose if the Supreme Court overturns the PPACA.
The coverage for preexisting conditions alone is an enormous benefit to almost everyone, whether they realize it or not. Oh, you think you don’t have a preexisting condition and none of your loved ones has one either? You might want to rethink that. Consider this: if you or one of your family members has ever been treated for hypertension, high cholesterol, asthma, diabetes, arthritis, obesity—even, in many cases, common emotional and mental health issues such as depression or anxiety (and we haven’t even mentioned any of the really major stuff like coronary artery disease, cancer, stroke, etc.), then you (or your loved one) has a preexisting condition which, under the old underwriting rules, could be used as a basis to deny you health insurance coverage in the future. That is, should you for any reason lose your current coverage say, as a result of a job loss or change, the health insurance plan offered by your next employer (assuming it is offered at all), would be legally entitled to either deny you coverage or charge you a premium that is astronomically higher than what everyone else pays. Look at that list above again. Have you, or a loved one, ever been prescribed medication for any of those conditions? I think it’s fair to say that most of us have either been treated for one of those conditions or has a family member who has.
The PPACA also bans lifetime benefit caps—another source of worry for someone with a preexisting condition that requires ongoing medical monitoring and maintenance. Under the old system, you could find yourself having managed your condition very well for years, but then later on having another, unrelated serious health issue arise that requires expensive treatment. It is possible that treatment will be unavailable to you unless you either have the money to pay for it yourself, or you have not maxed out your lifetime benefit under your health care plan. . . .
< . . . >
The new law is not perfect. Many of us would have preferred to see a single-payer system or even a national health care system like most of the developed world enjoys. But make no mistake: the existing law accomplishes some hugely important things that will benefit virtually everybody. Yes, premiums might be higher at the outset; but over time you will actually pay less out of pocket for healthcare than you now do. Don’t you think that’s worth it?
Read full article.
ThinkProgress: Dempsey Hits Ryan For Calling Military Brass ‘Liars’
There's a very interesting parallel between Ryan's accusing the military brass of lying, and the accusations of Senator Joe McCarthy to the effect that the entire U.S. Army command had been infiltrated with Communist sympathizers. When McCarthy's insanity got to this point, it heralded the end of his anti-Communist witch hunts. Let's hope Ryan's insanity similarly heralds the end of today's version of right-wing psychosis!
[font size=4]Dempsey Hits Ryan For Calling Military Brass ‘Liars’: ‘I Stand By My Testimony’ In Support Of Obama DOD Budget[/font]
Yesterday during a policy discussion hosted by the National Journal, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the House GOP’s supposed budget guru, said that America’s top military brass were lying about their support for President Obama’s Pentagon budget. When asked why the GOP’s budget — which passed the House yesterday — ignores the generals advice and increases military spending, Ryan replied, “We don’t think the generals are giving us their true advice.”
Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Martin Dempsey fired back at Ryan, the Wall Street Journal reports:
“There’s a difference between having someone say they don’t believe what you said versus … calling us, collectively, liars,” Gen. Dempsey told reporters aboard a U.S. military aircraft after a four day visit to Latin America. ”My response is: I stand by my testimony. This was very much a strategy-driven process to which we mapped the budget.”
Dempsey — who said in February that the Pentagon’s new budget will “maintain our military’s decisive edge and help sustain America’s global leadership” — added that the budget “was a collaborative effort” among the nation’s top military officers as well as combat leaders.
< . . . >
Read full article.
If the Court strikes down the healthcare legislation...
... , and it is looking more and more like they probably will, then all I can say is that the voters ought to demand that Congress immediately get to work on passing and implementing a single-payer, Medicare-for-all type of system (which always was a better option anyway); and if Congress is unwilling to do that, then voters should demand that ALL taxpayer provided healthcare coverage provided to ALL members of the legislative and judicial branches, and their families, be immediately terminated and remain so until such time as Congress can figure out a way to make affordable healthcare accessible to ALL of the rest of us!
Rescued elephant herds inexplicably gather to mourn South Africa’s “Elephant Whisperer”
Amazing story!
For 12 hours, two herds of wild South African elephants slowly made their way through the Zululand bush until they reached the house of late author Lawrence Anthony, the conservationist who had saved their lives.
The formerly violent, rogue elephants, destined to be shot a few years ago as pests, had been rescued and rehabilitated by Anthony, who had grown up in the bush and was known as the “Elephant Whisperer.”
For two days the herds loitered at Anthony’s rural compound on the vast Thula Thula game reserve – to say good-bye to the man they loved. But how did they know he had died March 7?
< . . . >
“They had not visited the house for a year and a half and it must have taken them about 12 hours to make the journey,” Dylan is quoted in various local news accounts. “The first herd arrived on Sunday and the second herd, a day later. They all hung around for about two days before making their way back into the bush.”
Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2012/03/rescued-wild-elephant-herds-inexplicably-gather-to-mourn-lawrence-anthony-south-africas-elephant-whisperer.php#ixzz1qA5byxCn
Omar Sharif's grandson's couragious coming out and his challenge to the new Egypt
A college friend of mine shared this with me. It is an open letter to the people of Egypt in which actor Omar Sharif's grandson comes out of the closet not only as gay, but also as being half Jewish. Mr. Sharif goes on to challenge the government and people of Egypt to embrace full inclusion of sexual and religious minorities, and to resist the forces of fundamentalism now attempting to hold sway.
As I read it, I am absolutely in awe of what an extraordinary act of courage it was for this young man to write this piece. And also how inspiring: here's a man who, given his social status, would be likely to be able to go about living his life any way he wanted to with little danger of being harassed, irrespective of how tolerant or intolerant the society of post-revolution Egypt turned out.l The fact that he is willing to put all of his social status and reputation on the line in order to try to bring about a society that is more just for members of all sexual, religious and cultural minorities makes him an exemplar of the kind of humanity to which all of us should aspire!
Below is an excerpt and a link:
The troubling results of the recent parliamentary elections dealt secularists a particularly devastating blow. The vision for a freer, more equal Egypt — a vision that many young patriots gave their lives to see realized in Tahrir Square — has been hijacked. The full spectrum of equal and human rights are now wedge issues used by both the Supreme Council of the Egyptian Armed Forces and the Islamist parties, when they should be regarded as universal truths.
I write this article despite the inherent risks associated because as we stand idle at what we hoped would be the pinnacle of Egyptian modern history, I worry that a fall from the top could be the most devastating. I write, with healthy respect for the dangers that may come, for fear that Egypt's Arab Spring may be moving us backward, not forward.
And so I hesitantly confess: I am Egyptian, I am half Jewish, and I am gay.
That my mother is Jewish is no small disclosure when you are from Egypt, no matter the year. And being openly gay has always meant asking for trouble, but perhaps especially during this time of political and social upheaval. With the victories of several Islamist parties in recent elections, a conversation needs to be had and certain questions need to be raised. I ask myself: Am I welcome in the new Egypt? . . .
Read full story at: http://www.advocate.com/Print_Issue/Features/Coming_Out_Story_Were_Not_in_Cairo_Anymore/
It SHOULD backfire, and one certainly hopes it WILL backfire . . . and yet . . .
. . . I've noticed, certainly among friends and family of mine who are Republicans, there seems to be an almost impenetrable wall of denial as regards the radical extremist agenda that is being pursued by elected Republicans. Rank-and-file Republicans, en masse, seem to be doing their very best ostrich imitation. One of my sisters and her husband falls into this category. They are perfectly reasonable, decent people insofar as their own beliefs are concerned -- sure, they are a bit more conservative fiscally speaking, but they aren't really interested in dismantling the social safety net, and they certainly aren't interested in the extreme social agenda that the GOP is currently pursuing. Yet, when I try to have a discussion with them about the facts of what elected Republicans are actually pushing by way of legislation across the country, their eyes sort of glaze over and they fall into rote dismissals of the concern, invoking (false) equivalency, etc. They simply refuse to look at what is going on. So I wouldn't bet on it necessarily backfiring, at least not to the extent it really should.
Hilarious comment by 87 year-old former NYC Mayor Ed Koch...
...Heard this evening on NY1:
If Obama runs against Santorum, it will be like running against Cotton Mather!
Great Benjamin Harrison Quote
It's one I never heard before the other day, and which I am adopting as part of my signature tag:
I pity the man who wants a coat so cheap that the man or woman who produces the cloth will starve in the process. -- Benjamin Harrison
The RC bishops' reaction to the President's compromise betrays their true objective
The RC bishops' reaction proves what their real motive has been all along -- to find a back door way to prevent women who work in their institutions, even those who are not Roman Catholic, from having access to birth control. If their motive truly was, as they have insisted, a matter of religious conscience and of not being forced to pay for something of which they don't approve, then they should have no problem with this compromise No one can now say that these institutions' freedom of religion is in any way being infringed upon.
The Roman Catholic Church can't even get its own faithful to abide by this teaching. So, they thought they could strong-arm the president into giving them power over women's bodies for which they have no legitimate claim whatsoever.
NY Times/The Certainty of Doubt
[font size=3]By CULLEN MURPHY
Published: February 11, 2012[/font]
[font size=2]< . . . >
(Moral Certainty) sweeps objections aside and makes anything permissible if pursued with an appeal to a higher justification. That higher justification does not need to be God, though God remains serviceable. The higher justification can also be the forces of history. It can be rationalism and science. It can be some assertion of the common good. It can be national security.
The power of the great “isms” of the 20th century — fascism, communism — has dissipated, but moral certainty arises in other forms. Are certain facts and ideas deemed too dangerous? Then perhaps censorship is the answer. (China’s Great Firewall is one example, but let’s not forget that during the past decade, there have been some 4,600 challenges to books in schools and libraries in the United States.) Are certain religions and beliefs deemed intolerable? Then perhaps a few restrictions are in order. (Bills have been introduced in several states to ban recognition of Islamic Shariah law.) In a variety of guises, a conviction of certainty lurks within debates on marriage, on reproduction, on family values, on biotechnology. It peers from behind the question “Is America a Christian nation?”
An “ism” that retains its vitality — terrorism — is justified unapologetically by moral certainty. In a vastly different way, not always recognized, so have been some of the steps taken to combat it. Necessity overrides principle. The inventory of measures advanced in the name of homeland security during the past decade would fill a book. In the United States, the surveillance of citizens and noncitizens alike has become increasingly pervasive. The legal system has been under pressure to constrict protections for the accused. The National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law in December by President Obama despite his own reservations, gives the government enhanced powers to detain, interrogate and prosecute.
< . . . >
The idea that some single course is right and necessary — and, being right and necessary, must trump everything else, for all our sakes — is a seductive one. Isaiah Berlin knew where this idea of an “ultimate solution” would lead — indeed, had already led in the murderous century he witnessed: “For, if one really believes that such a solution is possible, then surely no cost would be too high to obtain it: to make mankind just and happy and creative and harmonious forever — what could be too high a price to pay for that? To make such an omelet, there is surely no limit to the number of eggs that should be broken. ... If your desire to save mankind is serious, you must harden your heart, and not reckon the cost.” [/font]
Read full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/opinion/sunday/the-certainty-of-doubt.html?pagewanted=1&ref=opinion
Profile Information
Member since: Sat May 15, 2010, 04:48 PMNumber of posts: 8,401
