 |
 Latest |
 Greatest |
 Lobby |
 Journals |
 Search |
 Options |
 Help |
 Login |
 Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs! |
jbnow's Journal
They will be demanding any premium they want and people will not have claims because they will not be able to afford the deductibles and higher percentages. The premiums go right into the insurers pockets and stay there. The savings will go straight to the stockholders and not to the public. OK...they call the amount spent on claims "medical loss ratios". Nice. They will be have that ratio be 80 or 85%, much lower than it is now for all but big employers. If the 85% premiums is not spent on medical care the difference must be refunded to members of the plan. Currently guidelines from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners says MLRs must be minimum 50-60% Some states have established MLRs but not as high as these bills. (House bill has 85%) There are so many regulations and they needed more without the simpler check of a strong public option. Revised Senate bill has over 400 pages of regulations, including on price increases. They will all depend on oversight and enforcement Then the comment "We voted for single payer." Really? We voted for Dennis Kucinich? He was the only advocate of single payer. Who is this "we" that wants no part of it? The millions who can't get insurance now because of preexisting conditions? The insured and uninsured forced into bankruptcy by medical debt? Those who have reached the lifetime limit in treatment for their condition? So we are very unlikely to get the public option now. That sucks. The weak po of the senate sucked too. But people with incomes up to 400% of poverty level will get some help. That is $43,320 for single $58,280 couple $73,240 family of 3 and so on) There is a cap on what people pay in premiums and subsidies cover the rest. At lowest end (after those who go on Medicaid) their share is 2.8% At the top it is 9.8% It's 4 or 6% at levels between. Which also sucks but is an improvement for most. Another help is the out of pocket cap. Still too much but will avoid medical bankruptcy. Those earning less than 22K (single) will pay no more than 2,000 out of pocket, at 33 K it is 3K, at 44 K it is 4K and so on, maxing out at 5,900 Might not help much for most who don't see doctor often or have some big crisis. It will be a huge help for those who do need some expensive care for accident or illness. One thing this bill will do right away is stop bias against children with preexisting conditions... and set up some federal pool for adults with conditions to use until exchange kicks in. Banning rescinding policies will be almost immediate Hoping the exclusion is eliminated for everyone sooner. There will be no copay on many preventative services/tests or for well baby care. If you find out for free you have cancer, diabetes, heart disease then probably you will find you can afford the 20 or 30% copay to get treatment. (That only goes until you reach your pout of pocket cap and then there is no copay) The exchange won't be a mish mash of crap policies, they will have to meet standards, at least one choice will be non-profit. There will be standard for basic benefit packages, labeling of products based on comprehensiveness, standardized definitions between plans of product services. Reid is/has been working with Consumers Watchdog, American Cancer Society and other patient advocacy groups to close loopholes. This is so much better than what is available now, so much better for so many. It isn't close to what we want. We'd better change Senate rules if we ever want that and I wasn't thinking of that 60 vote thing. I was thinking of how much money they can take from lobbyists. They outnumber congress 5 to 1 and average daily spending by health lobby over last 2 years is $860,000 per day and lobbyists become senate staffers and vice versa. How is that even legal? But we just have to accept "It doesn't affect my vote/bill amendment". We could write a far better bill...but we also have to pass it. Yes bush got bill through with smaller majority but his policies were on the side of big money! Not a big challenge. That will haunt us and stop real reform on every major issue we face. So we could have done so much better and we keep fighting to make it better...but there is so much to be glad for now. I've been reading how other countries got to their current coverage and it was not in one step, not even close. Anyone who doesn't think this is a huge step forward may bot have actually read what this contains.
Read entry | Discuss (7 comments)
they were faring in December of 2007.
They are all up from a year ago but have not nearly recovered worth from 2 years ago (even my little retirement shares have recovered 83% of 12/2007 worth.) They all dropped slightly after passage of bill Some examples (from Google Finance) Wellpoint WLP this weekend 59.28 Monday 12/21 at 60.55 Wednesday 12/23 at 60.66 12/2007 at 89+ Aetna AET this weekend 33.73 Monday 12/21 at 34.45 Wednesday 12/23 at 34.29 12/2007 at 57+ Humana HUM this weekend 45.44 Monday 12/21 at 45.12 Wednesday 12/23 at 46.02 12/2007 at 79+ Not good to believe rumors instead of fact checking no matter who we hear them from. Even worse to spread rumors before checking them. Of course they would be up somewhat, there had been such uncertainty and we all know it could and should have been worse for them. Single payer, they'd have plunged. Public option as weak as we had made it might or might not have changed this pattern. If you recall CBO expected po rates to be slightly higher than private plans. I still wish we had it because they might have slowed growth rate and already being established would be easier to change. They didn't mean higher than current rates, the exchange will have lower rates than now available for individuals and small business. Those predicted rates are what weak po would not have beaten. I am sure they like having so many more clients while they do not like the new demands and regulations. Imagine how much more it costs to actually accept, cover and keep sick people. We have to keep working because we know the lobbyists will.
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
like what you are saying except some other people saying such things with no sources at all.
Harkin says http://harkin.senate.gov/pr/p.cfm?i=320366 The bill will also ensure that Americans will no longer be denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions and will no longer be subject to gender rating or rate hikes because of health history. The Washington post says (12/17) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte... supposed to eliminate discrimination based on preexisting conditions. But the legislation allows insurance companies to charge older Americans up to three times as much as younger Americans, pricing them out of coverage. Salon says (12/18) http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/200... However, the bill dictates that premium rates can only vary based on age (older people can be charged up to three times as much for insurance as other plan holders) or tobacco use (smokers or other users can be charged up to 1.5 times as much for insurance). Everything I have found says these are the only things that can affect rates 1. based on age (by a 3 to 1 ratio) 2. geographic area 3. tobacco use (by a 1.5 to 1 ratio) (and the number of family members) That's bad enough but way too many rumors are being spread
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Stupak amendment?
OK, how should we feel if it is stripped? A lot luckier than millions of our sisters. The House health care bill would do this http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33531099/ns/po... / For those at even lower incomes, the bill provides for an expansion of Medicaid, the state-federal health program for the poor. Adults up to 150 percent of poverty — individuals making up to $16,245 and a family of four up to $33,075 — would be covered, a provision estimated to add 15 million to Medicaid. That's millions more women on Medicaid. No one argues that the Hyde amendment clearly bans any abortion coverage except for the same restrictions the Stupak amendment has... rape, incest and life of the mother. So...if we got our way and the amendment was stripped... it would still leave new millions of those LEAST able to pay for an abortion without coverage. Most of us could pay for an abortion if needed or at least put it on our credit card. The ones going on Medicaid would have a lot harder time with that. So hurray, we protect all the women except the ones who need it most? I don't know how many women are already on medicaid... The same restrictions on abortion apply to Medicare. Disabled women who get Medicare have paid into Medicare all their working life, continue to pay every month for the Medicare they are getting and many buy private supplemental insurance (medi-gap) with their own money too. The private insurance has the same restrictions because they are on Medicare. Even if pregnancy and childbirth will worsen the health condition of the woman abortion isn't covered unless it could actually kill her. There is the added factor that disability can certainly make raising a child more difficult. Then we have federal employees who pay a portion of their premiums and the military People are saying women have never been so betrayed. Well yes, we sure as hell have. http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/choice-act... Every year since 1995, Congress has passed a spending bill that contains language barring federal employees from choosing a health plan that provides insurance coverage for abortion. The only exception is when the life of the woman would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term or where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. The military health care is federal funds, OK, but this goes well beyond Hyde amendment Retired and current military personnel and their dependents are also prohibited from obtaining coverage for abortion care through military health plans, even if a pregnancy resulted from an act of rape or incest. The plans only allow a narrow exception for abortion coverage where the life of the woman would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term. The rape part is chilling considering the news. This is just a portion of the results from this first search page... http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&num=... # Sexual assault in military 'jaw-dropping,' lawmaker says - CNN.com Jul 31, 2008 ... "Women serving in the U.S. military today are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq." ... www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/31/military.../inde... - Cached - Similar # Sexual Abuse By Military Recruiters - CBS News Aug 19, 2006 ... More Than 100 Women Raped Or Assaulted By Recruiters In Past Year. ... of the military, has had 722 recruiters accused of rape and sexual ... www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/19/.../mai... - Cached - Similar # The private war of women soldiers - Salon.com Mar 7, 2007 ... Rape, sexual assault and harassment are nothing new to the military. They were a serious problem for the Women's Army Corps in Vietnam ... www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/.../wom... - Cached - Similar # Think Progress » Harman: women in military 'more likely to be ... Mar 31, 2008 ... “Women serving in the U.S. military are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq. ... thinkprogress.org/2008/03/31/harman-military-rape/ - Cached - Similar # Sex Abuse of Military Women / Alarming rates of harassment, rape ... May 12, 1995 ... Sex Abuse of Military Women / Alarming rates of harassment, rape reported. Articles. Ninety percent of women under 50 who have served in the ... www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/... - Cached # War Among Comrades: 1 in 3 Women Raped in the Military Study finds that 1 in 3 women in the military are raped. This week, Veterans for Peace (VFP), a national organization of veterans working together for peace ... www.care2.com/.../womens.../war-among-comr... - Cached # BBC NEWS | Americas | Women at war face sexual violence Apr 17, 2009 ... According to several studies of the US military funded by the Department of Veteran Affairs, 30% of military women are raped while serving ... news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8005198.stm - Cached If they get pregnant they can just pay for it themselves by golly. We don't want to spend taxpayer money for abortion. How sick is that? So yes the Stupak amendment is bad...but it sure as hell isn't worse. Our concern should be a lot wider than just for the group it affects
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
he's gotten to Matt too, though it was more personal.
Congressman who went werewolf on me now spooks Fed officials I have personal experience with… well, let’s call it the unique personality of Alan Grayson. In his capacity as an attorney he once basically threatened to have me dismembered and have my body parts dumped in a tin canister and fired into the center of a burning supernova. And that’s actually underselling the real language he used. We were having a disagreement about the use of information given to me by a certain source in a story about military contracting, and in the middle of what had been a normal contentious argument between two sane adults, dude suddenly assumed this crazy monster-voice and just went medieval on me. He was roaring into the telephone about how he was going to crush me, how I was going to wish I had never messed with him, how I didn’t know who the hell I was dealing with, and so on. One phrase I remember in particular was, “I am going to strip the bark off of you!” It came totally out of the blue and it was like being on the telephone with a metamorphosing werewolf — the whole performance genuinely freaked me out. I may even have peed a little, I can’t remember. When I heard Alan Grayson was running for Congress, I remember thinking to myself, That Alan Grayson? The lunatic? It can’t be, I thought. I kept imagining trails of half-eaten sheep leading to his campaign appearances. But it turned out to be true. And when I checked, his platform turned out to be quite sane and even kind of interesting. Then he got elected and I suddenly started seeing his name attached to all of these calls for transparency, various crusades for FinReg reforms, etc. And now every time I see Alan Grayson, he’s tearing some freaked-out bureaucrat a new asshole in the middle of some empty conference room in the Capitol somewhere. I see the looks on the faces of these poor souls and I know exactly what they’re going through. Which is just hilarious, frankly. Especially since these people all tend to deserve it, like this nebbishy little creep Alvarez quite obviously does. So you have some good company there. Like what he stands for but the delivery??? And you didn't even pee yourself
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
The plan sure isn't single payer but "The President has basically has reduced the public option to a marginal welfare style program for 5% of the population" isn't related to reality.
5% was an estimate of how many would chose that option. The only people who are not eligible for it are people who get insurance through their employer. Anyone else would be free to chose from any option on the exchange. To be on the exchange a plan must meet or exceed set standards, just like public option will. These include things like No bias on preexisting conditions. Can't deny anyone, can't charge more or close anyone due to them. Also a limit to how much more you can charge due to age...a ratio between cost of most and least expensive No lifetime or annual limit on treatment Limit on maximum annual out of pocket costs for policyholders In main house bill it is set pretty high for lower income people, $5000 for individual and $10,000 for family. (Don't know if they get help on that as well as premiums) It might be a hardship it is workable through a payment plan for most of us, it's not a bankruptcy No copay on certain preventative care or well baby care I'm not sure if it will include what he is suggesting: Adult children can be covered on parents policy to age 26 All employer plans must at least meet the minimum standards required of plans on the exchange. Both individuals and small business are free to buy into any plan on the exchange. People who are eligible for subsidy can use it toward any plan on the exchange. If set up like current plans the exchange itself drops prices lower than they are. That is because whatever plan on exchange you join you are part of the big group and rates are set that way. Right now administrative costs included in the premium cost is about 7-10% for largest companies and jumps to 25% for small business and is even higher for individual policies. Theoretically all buyers on an exchange would get big company rate The article says rather than seeing it as a way to break the monopoly of the private health insurance companies, thereby helping to reduce costs. He's basically forcing everybody into a private health insurance run program. Opening ones mouth (or running ones fingers) when you don't know what you are talking about it a bad idea. Maybe listening to what Obama says about it time after time after time would be good. here And I do think that having a public option as part of that would keep the insurance companies honest, because if they've got a public plan out there that they've got to compete against, as long as it's not being subsidized by taxpayers, then that will give you some sense of what -- sort of a good bargain for what basic health care would be. (Applause.) and later Now, the only thing that I have said is that having a public option in that menu would provide competition for insurance companies to keep them honest. Now, I recognize, though, you make a legitimate -- you raise a legitimate concern. People say, well, how can a private company compete against the government? And my answer is that if the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining -- meaning taxpayers aren't subsidizing it, but it has to run on charging premiums and providing good services and a good network of doctors, just like any other private insurer would do -- then I think private insurers should be able to compete. They do it all the time. (Applause.) Then there is here Every plan should include an affordable, basic benefits package. And if you can't afford one of these plans, we should provide assistance to make sure that you can. (Applause.) I also strongly believe that one of the options in the Exchange should be a public insurance option. (Applause.) And the reason is not because we want a government takeover of health care -- I've already said if you've got a private plan that works for you, that's great. But we want some competition. If the private insurance companies have to compete with a public option, it'll keep them honest and it'll help keep their prices down. (Applause.) this is the speech the author got the skewed ides from I just want to hold them accountable. The insurance reforms that I’ve already mentioned would do just that. But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. Let me be clear – it would only be an option for those who don’t have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5% of Americans would sign up. The 5% is an estimate, not a limit. I guess he clumsily worded the way he said it??? Usually he says "If you like your plan you can keep it and then goes on to say 'otherwise you can look up the exchange...' There are more examples...but I have never heard him talk about the public option without saying what he is accused of not saying I realized as I was typing this people surely noted the same thing further down the thread, I started responding before I kept reading...but it was a lot of work with my slow typing and HTML and stuff so I will post anyway. And if kicking for truth the truth should be near the top since it is not in the article.
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
can document they have done the same thing when previous presidents spoke
May 13 1986 Reagan http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/spee... November 14, 1988, President Reagan http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/spee... And this The lesson plan that went with it (pdf) There was a lot of policy in speeches though some through question and answer. Some just in the text of speeches like this We have to remain economically competitive, and that means being aware of two things: first, what makes economies tick, and second, what works in other societies. We've been trying very hard in Washington to make America even more economically fit by really overhauling our entire tax structure. When we came into office, the top personal tax rate that the Federal Government could put on your income was 70 percent. Now, you can understand, I think, that if you were getting up in those brackets -- there were 14 different tax brackets, depending on the amount of money in each bracket you earned. And when you could look and say, ``If I earn another dollar, I only get to keep 30 cents out of it,'' you can imagine the lack of incentive there. Well, we lowered it to 50 percent, and the economy really took off. Now we're trying to lower it yet again so that families can keep more of their money and so the national economy will be lean and trim and fit for the future. And bush? His September 12 1989 drug talk...well it came a few days after his September 5 speech about drugs to the bation. You know how they show a couple Dems there saying it was a political ad? That's because it was. He was pushing Congress to pass his anti-drug program (more prisons and prosecutors and such republican answers. Republicans (including bush) were rejecting drug treatment and prevention measures to the bill Then 10-1-91 He gave a speech in a classroom that was televised live to students http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/publi... The interesting part Write me a letter -- and I'm serious about this one -- write me a letter about ways you can help us achieve our goals. I think you know the address. So all the things people flip out about also happened with prior presidents. Surely they did the same thing with prior speeches
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
mandated safeguards is worse than a bill with no public plan that has those safeguards if there is some kind of price control built in.
The safeguards I'm talking about are some of the minimum standard set for plans on the exchange (and employer plans have to at least meet these. They include things like No bias on preexisting conditions. Can't deny anyone, can't charge more or close anyone due to them. Also a limit to how much more you can charge due to age...a ratio between cost of most and least expensive No lifetime or annual limit on treatment Limit on maximum annual out of pocket costs for policyholders It is set pretty high for lower income people, $5000 for individual and $10,000 for family. (Don't know if they get help on that as well as premiums) It might be a hardship it is workable through a payment plan for most of us, it's not a bankruptcy No copay on certain preventative care or well baby care Adult children can be covered on parents policy to age 26 All employer plans must at least meet the minimum standards required of plans on the exchange. Along with the subsidies these are the things that will help millions, save lives, improve health. A strong public plan could keep prices down...but the one proposed in house is not that strong. An option to buy into medicare would be strong! Wish we had that. But what is being proposed isn't medicare rates or even medicare plus a percentage. They won't set rates, they would negotiate like any insurance company. The whole cost of plan would be fully funded by premiums. Basically it would be a really good nonprofit plan (without CEO salary in the millions like even some nonprofits have) Like Obama has said...show him something else that can provide competition and keep other plans honest. It's main role is to keep prices down. If set up like current plans the exchange itself drops prices lower than they are. That is because whatever plan on exchange you join you are part of the big group and rates are set that way. Right now administrative costs included in the premium cost is about 7% for largest companies and jumps to 25% for small business and is even higher for individual policies. Theoretically all buyers on an exchange would get big company rate I say theoretically because I don't trust Baucus bill or how much sway it will have. Without some control from a public plan I don't trust how rapidly the rates will inflate. So how people should vote and if Obama should sign depends on the whole of the bill. It would be ridiculous to veto a good bill that could help millions because of lack of private plan. Just as ridiculous if the safeguards aren't in all the exchange plans. If only the public plan has them then it would get all the people the worst problems and it would spike the plan rates making it not competitive...There would be many more problems with it but this is long post already. I would hope we get both but without bribes or blackmail the votes just might not be there. I couldn't vote in this poll. Of course he shouldn't sign any plan he gets. He should sign any good plan
Read entry | Discuss (3 comments)
the inverse relationship between smoking and Parkinson's disease. (The longer you smoke and the more you smoke the lower the chance you develop the disease. There have been many, many retrospective studies including with twins and twin findings just replicate the many huge retrospective studies...that is the result finds
Within twin pairs, risk of PD is inversely correlated with the dose (in pack-years) of cigarette smoking. (snip)These results are compatible with a true biologic protective effect of cigarette smoking. The same is found in prospective studies as well Cigarette smoking and the incidence of Parkinson's disease in two prospective studies. In both cohorts, the strength of the association decreased with time since quitting (among past smokers), increased with number of cigarettes per day (among current smokers), and increased with pack-years of smoking. These prospective findings confirm that an inverse association between smoking and the incidence of Parkinson's disease exists in both men and women. Oh and also the protective effect nicotine has on the brain overall. The neuroprotective effect has been known for some time, it is only the mechanism still being figured out. For instance A POSSIBLE EXPLANATION FOR NICOTINE’S NEUROPROTECTIVE EFFECT New evidence of an anti-inflammatory mechanism in the brain by which nicotine may be protective against neuronal injury and death was reported in the March 15 online edition of the Journal of Neurochemistry. Preliminary findings suggested “the existence of a brain cholinergic pathway that regulates microglial activation through alpha7 nicotinic receptors,” reported investigators from the University of South Florida College of Medicine in Tampa. “Negative regulation of microglia activation may also represent an additional mechanism underlying nicotine’s reported neuroprotective properties,” they proposed. There are other theories as well that google to point you to if you are interested in how nicotine is protective of the brain, particularly the aging brain. Guess we have nicotinic receptors for a reason Nicotine is also beneficial to disorders as varied as ulcerative colitis to Impact of Smoking on Clinical and Angiographic Restenosis After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (Restenosis is the re-narrowing of a coronary artery after it has been treated) In patients undergoing contemporary PCI, cigarette smoking is associated with a lower rate of subsequent TLR without affecting angiographic restenosis. These findings have important implications for the follow-up of smokers after PCI and suggest that cross-study comparisons of rates of clinical restenosis must account for the potential confounding effect of smoking. I could also show studies that show it seems to hale resistant forms of tuberculosis and certain forms of skin cancer, a particular form of asthma. Even breast cancer Brunet said that the incidence of breast cancer was 54 percent lower among heavy smokers than among nonsmokers. The effect, he said, was ``dose related''; that is, the more a woman with a BRCA gene mutation smoked, the less likelihood of her developing breast cancer. I could name another dozen disorders shown to be alleviated by nicotine. Still I know what you mean. Smoking stinks and it is the cause of many health problems. It isn't nearly as expensive to society as obesity plus smokers pay a huge amount of money TO society through taxes and of course the tobacco company paid billions for damages to states...although sadly very little of that was set aside to help people quit smoking or to offset health costs ahead. Part of why smoking isn't as bad for society as obesity is because the health problems it might cause come generally come in older age, after retirement. Obesity starts causing problems during peoples working years A lot more could be said about that too. Wonder what has spiked the obesity rate so much. (Though that just increases societal cost. On individual basis the cost (of healthcare, medicine, lost work) is greater for obesity in any case. Imagine smoking wouldn't be so fatal if we didn't chose to use the cheapest fertilizer to grow it that adds the infamous polonium 210 to the cigarette. As the 1977 Phillip Morris report on Polonium in Fertilize said "210-Pb He also suggested that switching to another fertilizer could probably help the situation: "...using ammonium phosphate instead of calcium phosphate as fertilizer is probably a valid but expensive point..."
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
 hears Perry and is a little bit amused but he isn't too impressed 
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
was part of both of those speeches.
2007 So let's make a promise right now that if you're a teacher or a principal doing the hard work of educating our children, we will reward that work with the salary increase that you deserve. If you're willing to teach in a high-need subject like math or science or special education, we'll pay you even more. If you're willing to take on more responsibilities like mentoring, we'll pay you more. And if you excel at helping your students achieve success, your success will be valued and rewarded as well. Here's the key: we can find new ways to increase pay that are developed with teachers, not imposed on them and not based on some arbitrary test score. That's how we're going to close the achievement gap that exists in this country and that's how we're going to start treating teachers like the professionals you are. 2008 And when our educators succeed I will not just talk about how great they are, I will reward them for their greatness with better pay across the board and more support. Under my plan districts will be able to design programs to give educators who serve as mentors to new teachers the salaries that they have earned. We will be able to reward those who teach in under served areas, they take on that added responsibility. And if teachers learn new skills that serve their students better or they consistently excel in the classroom, that work can be valued and rewarded as well. In some places we have already seen that it is possible to find new ways to increase teacher pay that are developed with teachers, not imposed on teachers. Now I know this wasn't necessarily the most popular part of my speech last year but I said it then and I say it again today because that is what I believe, now I will always be an honest partner to you in the white house. It's not his only solution but it sure is one he has believed in. I hope he lives up to letting teachers be a big part of determining the "how" of this Whatever you think of his policies it's good that he didn't hide his intent from those that would care most. He spoke of merit pay to teachers, a year ago he told Wall Street that they needed new and more regulation, before that he went to Detroit and told auto executives I know these are difficult times for automakers, and I know that not all of the industry's problems are of its own making. But we have to be honest about how we arrived at this point. and then told them about the part that was of their own making. After the speeches people said things like "Well he know the NEA won't support him" or no chance in MI and unions would go to Edwards and Wall street goes republican so he had nothing to loose. He also talked about these educational things at length in town halls when it came up. It has always been a big deal with him
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
and found the announcement in one of the papers where the info comes directly from the hospital only. (It varies by paper)
To their credit the person released this information, so giving up on Obama not being a citizen by birth went on to a new theory of how he gave up his citizenship later. Factcheck who saw the birth certificate provides link to blog thread about announcement http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/bo... Here is the post Lori Hi, I’ve talked to the Department of Vital Records and the Honolulu Advertiser.In 1961, the hospitals would take their new birth certificates to Vital Records. At the end of the week, Vital Records would post a sheet that for the news paper to pick up that contained births, deaths, marriages and divorces. The Advertiser routinely printed this information in their Sunday edition. This is not a paid announcement that his grandmother could arrange. This is information that comes from Vital Records - we know this because this particular section reflects those records. They didn’t have a provision for paid, one sentence announcement that would be included in the Vital Records. At the time, if a child was born outside a hospital, the family would have 30 days to apply for a birth certificate and Vital Records would expect to see prenatal care records, or pediatrician records of the first check up, etc. They’d also want the notarized statement from the mid-wife. Of course, they can apply later but that would noted as a different kind of birth certificate. I think TD has already addressed that. This information was received by Vital Records the first week of his birth = that suggests the hospital. Next, the announcement is from Sunday, August 13th and Obama was born on Friday, August 4th. Hospitals usually don’t take birth certificate information the first couple days to avoid changes. So it was likely filled out on the 4th or so, as hospital stays were usually 3 - 5 days at the time. Lastly, having worked in a newborn nursery in college, hospitals don’t ask for documentation. If mom says she’s married, that’s what they write. They have no authority to question her statement. In Honolulu at the time, paid birth announcements weren’t in vogue. Frequently families would post one year announcements that included pictures from the party, etc. I haven’t checked to see if that exists. I hope that finishes clearing this up. The guy who's case went to SCOTUS has the claim that even if he was born here his torn loyalties from having a Kenyan father means he is not natural born. I am sure the infant Obama lost a lot of sleep over this country allegiance and had long talks with his father about it before father left when he was two. Or something.
Read entry | Discuss (2 comments)
You raise good points
As republican as she is last Sunday she said she had not decided who she'd vote for. She said some other things on MTP Text NOONAN: Well, the—I think more and more with Mr. McCain—we’re seeing two different things with the candidates. Mr. McCain has—there’s a sense of containment that you see with him more and more, where he is containing a certain amount of "hm," indignation, anger, what it is, but—whatever it is, but he has to contain it. MS. IFILL: Not terribly well. I mean, sarcasm really is not containment. (snip) MS. NOONAN: Sort of like he’d rather deck the guy, and—but instead he’s a little sarcastic. With Obama, there is a greater sense that if there’s a tiger in that tank, he doesn’t have to work hard to contain it. There’s still that languidness and calm that is serving him well, and it is one of the unspoken things that’s helping him now, I think. American people in the past year in this long campaign have gotten to watch him long enough that they don’t know him quite, but they kind of have a sense of him. (snip) What we need now is grace. We need real patriotism, which patriotism isn’t used as a weapon in a campaign. Patriotism actually needs grace in order to function. We got to be our best selves right now. We got to hit our game in a higher way. We got to be forbearing. We got to be adults. I sometimes think one of the problems in America is there are too many people that don’t want to embrace the role of the simple grown-up and show the maturity and forbearance of a grown-up. It's not that I trust her or don't think she'll play games for her party but she won Peggy won a little piece of my heart when Wright clips broke and hype was at full steam. Peggy came on to Morning Joe that Monday Morning. Everyone else was panting and foaming and howling about Wright (only a slight exaggeration). In the midst of that when asked if this was it for Obama her calm and thoughtful voice and words were a relief. She didn't defend Wright but she did defend Obama, that Wrights words in no way reflected Obama. While she said she didn't know how the campaign would do through it what she did know was Obama could make it a healing moment for this nation like no one else could. She said he should use his enormous talent, sit alone and write from his heart and then give a speech to the country about the issue of race, turn this whole thing to the good. She spoke so well of him and his heart and intellect and authenticity, his ability to speak to us like grown ups. In the midst of the maelstrom I cherished that. I looked to see what she wrote after the speech...and she appreciated all of it except... can't recall exact words but to paraphrase. Never mind, I looked it up http://www.peggynoonan.com/article.php?art... Here’s what didn’t work. Near the end of the speech, Mr. Obama painted an America that didn’t summon thoughts of Faulkner but of William Blake. The bankruptcies, the dark satanic mills, the job loss and corporate corruptions. There is of course some truth in his portrait, but why do appeals to the Democratic base have to be so unrelievedly, so unrealistically, bleak? This connected in my mind to the persistent feeling one has—the fear one has, actually—that the Obamas, he and she, may not actually know all that much about America. (snip) But most people didn’t experience the past 25 years that way. Because it wasn’t that way. Do the Obamas know it? That was the one time I ever looked for her column and left a comment. On that part I suggested that her rejecting how bleak things were for so many people meant that she was the one who did not know much about America in the middle class and below. I'm sure I said it politely...because of her kindness in the crazy time and she wrote so much more about what was right with the speech than the little part she found wrong. Some examples I thought Barack Obama’s speech was strong, thoughtful and important. Rather beautifully, it was a speech to think to, not clap to. It was clear that’s what he wanted, and this is rare. (snip) This is all, simply, true. And we are not used to political figures being frank, in this way, in public. For this Mr. Obama deserves deep credit. (snip The speech assumed the audience was intelligent. This was a compliment, and I suspect was received as a gift. It also assumed many in the audience were educated. I was grateful for this, as the educated are not much addressed in American politics. Here I point out an aspect of the speech that may have a beneficial impact on current rhetoric. It is assumed now that a candidate must say a silly, boring line—“And families in Michigan matter!” or “What I stand for is affordable quality health care!”—and the audience will clap. The line and the applause make, together, the eight-second soundbite that will be used tonight on the news, and seen by the people. This has been standard politico-journalistic procedure for 20 years. Mr. Obama subverted this in his speech. He didn’t have applause lines. He didn’t give you eight seconds of a line followed by clapping. He spoke in full and longish paragraphs that didn’t summon applause. This left TV producers having to use longer-than-usual soundbites in order to capture his meaning. And so the cuts of the speech you heard on the news were more substantial and interesting than usual, which made the coverage of the speech better. People who didn’t hear it but only saw parts on the news got a real sense of what he’d said. If Hillary or John McCain said something interesting, they’d get more than an eight-second cut too. But it works only if you don’t write an applause-line speech. It works only if you write a thinking speech. They should try it. (snip My sense: The speech will be labeled by history as the speech that saved a candidacy or the speech that helped do it in. I hope the former. That was not the first or the last time she has spoken very well of him, much better than she has on McCain...and it didn't stop when the primary ended. She is also critical of him but she is harsher on McCain. Again I don't doubt she'll shill if needed but unlike people like Will or Murphy who are very willing to criticize McCain she often shows appreciation of the unique gifts Obama brings with him. She has always appreciated grace and being talked to like a grown-up, it is no surprise she'd be fond of Obama.
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
I'll start with ones you listed... from rcp
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ma... / Virginia Obama +2.4 04 Bush +8.2 00 Bush +8.1 North Carolina Obama +0.5 04 Bush +12.4 00 Bush +12.8 Colorado Obama +3.0 04 Bush +4.7 00 Bush +8.4 Indiana McCain +2.2 04 Bush +20.7 00 Bush +15.7 I never knew Indiana was THAT red before And a few more Iowa Obama +9.5 04 Bush +0.7 00 Gore +0.3 New Mexico Obama +7.8 04 Bush +0.7 00 Gore +0.1 Obama is about 10 behind in Montana and Texas but bush got both states both years by over 20. Obama is polling much better than Gore or Kerry did in Florida, Ohio,(ahead by 3 in both states instead of losing by.1 to 5+) Pennsylvania and Michigan (Ahead 7+ and 9+ compared to winning by a little) These are just poll averages and we have a month to go but still it's more fun to see him doing better instead of worse
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
but always just a starting point and never simple agreement. It was effective part of making his point
Well, I think Senator McCain's absolutely right that we need more responsibility, but we need it not just when there's a crisis... and then he went on to talk about the "years in which the reigning economic ideology has been what's good for Wall Street" Well, Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused (snip)And he's also right that oftentimes lobbyists and special interests are the ones that are introducing these kinds of requests, although that wasn't the case with me. But let's be clear: Earmarks account for $18 billion in last year's budget. Senator McCain is proposing -- and this is a fundamental difference between us -- $300 billion in tax cuts to some of the wealthiest corporations and individuals in the country, $300 billion... It's good Obama agrees with not abusing earmarks and especially the lobbyist/special interest part. Now, John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he's absolutely right. Here's the problem: There are so many loopholes that have been written into the tax code, oftentimes with support of Senator McCain, that we actually see our businesses pay effectively one of the lowest tax rates in the world... It was important to affirm what McCain had said because it's true and we always hear it but the key is what Obama then gets into Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families. They have done a brilliant job, and General Petraeus has done a brilliant job. But understand, that was a tactic designed to contain the damage of the previous four years of mismanagement of this war. And so John likes -- John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007. You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003, and at the time when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong.... Always good to praise the military...and then he got into that nice attacks you're absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say. But, you know, coming from you, who, you know, in the past has threatened extinction for North Korea and, you know, sung songs about bombing Iran, I don't know, you know, how credible that is... Good one-agree with John and then use his own point against him... The fact that the media is too dense to notice how the agreements were used to further his own point... oh well I think Obama polled so high and got such positive responses live (you know the live feedback where they show the response lines) even when he hit John with these things was because he led into it so nicely. When McCain got into his Obama doesn't understand crap his lines went way down, even with republicans. He went down with his attacks. Independents liked Obama (their lines often went higher than the Dem lines did). They did not like McCain. I think the Obama campaign might have a strategy.
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
|
Latest Threads
The ten most recent threads posted on
the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums. MadFloridian... By formercia FL GOP tries to close state pension system to new workers, yet take THEIR pension at 2X accrual rate By seafan FL GOP denies $51 billion federal Medicaid to poor, yet order cheap health care for themselves By seafan Happy Mother's Day By formercia I love DU2! By Enthusiast Florida Senate President Don Gaetz (R) ran company now accused of Medicaid fraud (Rick Scott redux) By seafan Mediterranean diet cuts risk of heart dis-ease By No Elephants Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted
on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the
last 24 hours. Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Discussion Forums
Big Forums
More Forums
Today's Featured Forums
|
