One Term More, A Song Parody

Song parodies are a silly waste of time. Anyone can do them.

Yet today I am sending you a song parody. The reason? It’s just too good to miss!

Set to the music of Les Mis, the lyrics are both clever and devastating. Even better, the voices are glorious. I hope you can listen through a decent set of speakers.

I could easily write paragraphs expanding upon each line of text in the performance. If you follow the headlines you will understand most references; if not, ask me. The link here takes you to the version that includes subtitles so that you don’t miss a word.

http://www.onetermmore.com/video_subtitles.html
(UPDATE: something changed and the link seems to have stopped working. But if you go to the upper right corner, you can still click on the Watch Video tab and it will play.  Unfortunately, the version with sub-titles seems to stay locked.)

Thanks for caring about the truth.

Ken

Debunking Obamacare Myths

No need for a big preamble here. Simply, this NY Times column does a spot-on job of debunking the major myths about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Pay particular attention to the section, “OBAMACARE IS A FEDERAL TAKEOVER OF HEALTH INSURANCE.”  That is exactly what Mitt claimed minutes after the Supreme Court decision came down upholding the ACA.  I watched him say that, looking directly into the camera, and I wondered, “what am I missing?”  Nothing, it turns out. But facts seem to be irrelevant in the GOP anti-health-care campaign.

And just for fun … but with a tremendously serious message, check out this clip from The Daily Show; it hilariously exposes the truth about Mitt’s slippery effort to take make us believe he was able to “retroactively retire” from Bain when it suited his political needs. He wants credit for good stuff Bain did, but none of the blame for the bad stuff.

Be sure to watch both segments.

Thanks for caring about the truth.

Ken

 

Big Win for Obamacare — and the U.S.!

 Yesterday’s decision by the Supreme Court to uphold all of the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare) surprised just about every pundit out there.  As with those who predict the stock market, it’s all just so much hot air.

A few hours after the decision was announced I received an email with the link below. I assumed it was an analysis of the decision, but it turned out to be the actual Court documents! It’s dense and boring, but I scanned it nevertheless.

For those who wonder why the AHCA has the “individual mandate” which requires virtually all Americans to buy health insurance, read this excerpt I’ve conveniently cut out for you. I’ve even highlighted some of the most relevant lines.

It’s all there in black (and red) and white. And it leaves little wiggle room for arguments against the mandate.

By the way, Romney said yesterday “Obamacare puts the Federal government between you and your doctor.”  No it doesn’t. I fervently hope reporters will call him out for that outrageous statement.

https://www.sentinelgroup.com/main/SentinelBenefits/media/Sentinel-Benefits/Documents/SCOTUS-Opinion.pdf

Page 70

Federal and state law, as well as professional obligations and embedded social norms, require hospitals and physicians to provide care when it is most needed, regardless of the patient’s ability to pay. See, e.g., 42 U. S. C. §1395dd; Fla.Stat. §395.1041(3)(f) (2010); Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§311.022(a) and (b) (West 2010); American Medical Association, Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, Code of Medical Ethics, Current Opinions: Opinion 8.11—Neglect of Patient, p. 70 (1998–1999 ed.).

As a consequence, medical-care providers deliver significant amounts of care to the uninsured for which the providers receive no payment. In 2008, for example, hospitals, physicians, and other health-care professionals received no compensation for $43 billion worth of the $116 billion in care they administered to those without insurance. 42 U. S. C. §18091(2)(F) (2006 ed., Supp. IV).

Health-care providers do not absorb these bad debts. Instead, they raise their prices, passing along the cost of uncompensated care to those who do pay reliably: the government and private insurance companies. In response, private insurers increase their premiums, shifting the cost of the elevated bills from providers onto those who carry insurance. The net result: Those with health insurance subsidize the medical care of those without it. As economists would describe what happens, the uninsured “free ride” on those who pay for health insurance.

The size of this subsidy is considerable. Congress found that the cost-shifting just described “increases family [insurance] premiums by on average over $1,000 a year.” Ibid. Higher premiums, in turn, render health insurance less affordable, forcing more people to go without insurance and leading to further cost-shifting.

And it is hardly just the currently sick or injured among the uninsured who prompt elevation of the price of health care and health insurance. Insurance companies and health-care providers know that some percentage of healthy, uninsured people will suffer sickness or injury each year and will receive medical care despite their inability to pay. In anticipation of this uncompensated care, health-care companies raise their prices, and insurers their premiums. In other words, because any uninsured person may need medical care at any moment and because health-care companies must account for that risk, every uninsured person impacts the market price of medical care and medical insurance.

The failure of individuals to acquire insurance has other deleterious effects on the health-care market. Because those without insurance generally lack access to preventative care, they do not receive treatment for conditions—like hypertension and diabetes—that can be successfully and affordably treated if diagnosed early on. See Institute of Medicine, National Academies, Insuring America’s Health: Principles and Recommendations 43 (2004). When sickness finally drives the uninsured to seek care, once treatable conditions have escalated into grave health problems, requiring more costly and extensive intervention. Id., at 43–44. The extra time and resources providers spend serving the uninsured lessens the providers’ ability to care for those who do have insurance.

 

Thanks for caring about the truth.

Ken

Please pass this message on.

And if you know of someone who should be reading these messages, please provide their email address. 

The Truth About Obamacare

Here’s what you need to know about why we need the Affordable Health Care Act, sometimes called Obamacare.

  1. The U.S. spends more, far more, on health care per person than any other industrialized nation.
  2. Despite that, as Fareed Zakia points out in his strongly pro-Obamacare article in Time magazine, “We do worse than most other countries on almost every measure of health outcomes: healthy-life expectancy, infant mortality and–crucially–patient satisfaction. Put simply, we have the most expensive, least efficient system of any rich country on the planet.
  3. Republicans did nothing about this situation during all the years they were in power!
  4. Prior to the AHCA, insurance companies could tack on a lifetime limit of payments. That means you could be in the hospital being treated for a life-threatening disease, and you are suddenly on the hook for all medical payments. After Obamacare, that can no longer happen.
  5. More than 17.6 million children with pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied coverage.
  6. The controversial “individual mandate” that you heard about means that everyone is required to buy health insurance. (Poor people will get assistance in buying the insurance.) Right now, more than 30 million Americans don’t have that insurance, but if they go to an emergency room, they get treatment. Who pays? Everyone else! That’s exactly the kind of “free-loader” stuff that usually gets right-wingers angry, and in fact, the individual mandate was proposed years ago by the conservative Heritage Foundation, and prior to Obama, it had been proposed by many Republicans. But now that Barack wants it, they don’t! (Mitt Romney signed it into law when he was governor of Massachusetts.)
  7. There are many more benefits of Obamacare. Check out this summary. And check this site out to learn about the myths and facts.

Right now the Supreme Court is considering whether to overturn all or parts of the Affordable Health Care Act, and Romney says if elected he would push to kill it.

It’s a crazy situation, and it’s another reason we need Obama, and Democrats, to win in November.

Ken

 

Obama and Israel II

Despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, many continue to believe that Obama is “anti-Israel.”

Thomas Friedman, Pulitzer-prize winning author and columnist, spends big chunks of the year abroad, developing a keen sense of the inter-connectedness of nations. He frequently focuses on the Middle East.

He is not an unwavering Obama fan. In fact, he has been calling for the formation of a new third party movement because of his dissatisfaction with both Republicans and Democrats.

Nonetheless, his recent column gets right to the point with stunning clarity. It begins:

“The only question I have when it comes to President Obama and Israel is whether he is the most pro-Israel president in history or just one of the most.”

Friedman goes on to explain how Obama brilliantly re-framed the issue of Iran getting a nuke from being an Israeli problem to being a problem for America, the entire Middle East and indeed, the whole world.

Friedman closes the column with another powerful paragraph:

“If it comes to war, let it be because the ayatollahs were ready to sacrifice their whole economy to get a nuke and, therefore, America — the only country that can truly take down Iran’s nuclear program — had to act to protect the global system, not just Israel. I respect that this is a deadly serious issue for Israel — which has the right to act on its own — but President Obama has built a solid strategic and political case for letting America take the lead.”

As I’ve said previously, disagreeing with the President’s policies is fine; labeling him as anti-Israel is absurd.

 

Occupy This.

Why are the Occupy-ers upset? Their complaints are many, their solutions are few. But a recent NY Times column by the normally dry-as-dust Floyd Norris summed it up nicely.

“For companies, these are boom times. For workers, the opposite is true.”

Within the article are a series of graphs that paint a clear picture; it’s a great time to be a corporation, especially a big one. Not so for almost everyone else.

The graphs also showed that effective tax rates, both corporate and personal, are well below where they were during most of the past 50 years.

So again, beyond any doubt the rich are getting richer while everyone else treads water. Or worse.  And yet so many of my fellow one-percenters are whining about “class warfare” being waged by Obama. The class warfare, if such a thing exists in the U.S., is built into the system. (I’ll have more to say on this topic in a later post.)

And speaking of my fellow Wall Street insiders (which I’m not really), I’m happy to report that a few agree with me that the system is dangerously unbalanced. Here’s an article that shows that yes, some insiders “get it.”

Reporter Jesse Eisinger interviewed a few enlightened insiders and gives us some of the best lines written about both the financial collapse and the (non)reaction to it. He presents the problem in a nutshell …

Wall Street is already occupied — from within.

The insiders have a critique similar to that of the outsiders. The financial industry has strayed far from being an intermediary between companies that want to raise capital so they can sell people things they want. Instead, it is a machine to enrich itself, fleecing customers and widening income inequality. When it goes off the rails, it impoverishes the rest of us. When the crises come, as they inevitably do, banks hold the economy hostage, warning that they will shoot us in the head if we don’t bail them out.

I would love to hear from anyone who disagrees with those damning words.

Obama, Israel and Jews

Well, everyone knows Barack Obama hates Israel.  Ask any Republican. Ask any right-wing Israeli. Ask former NYC Mayor Ed Koch, a Democrat who endorsed a Republican (who was running against an Orthodox Jew!) in that special election to fill Anthony Weiner’s Congressional seat.  Koch said it was his way to “send a message” to Obama on his policies toward Israel. And of course, you can ask that Murdoch-controlled rag, the NY Post, whose editorial board wrote of “Obama’s radically anti-Israel stance.”

Except for one thing – Obama is flat out pro-Israel.  He does not kowtow to the hardline conservatives who dominate the current Israel government, nor should he.  Within days after Obama’s May 20th speech on his vision for the area, a full-page ad ran in the NY Times in support of his plan. It was signed by dozens of Israel’s most highly honored citizens. Are they “radically anti-Israel” as well?

Is every American president supposed to rubber stamp whatever any Israeli government demands? What happens when the next Israeli government comes into power?

Obama’s proposals are an amalgam of proposals from previous Israeli governments. His (their) vision may be right or wrong. But labeling him as anti-Israel because he doesn’t agree with Netanyahu is as silly as claiming that an Israeli who supports, say, Rick Perry, is anti-American.

New York Magazine’s Sept. 26th cover shows a close-up of the back of Obama’s head, covered with a white yarmulke. The headline: “The First Jewish President.” The sub-head is, “The truth? Barack Obama is the best friend Israel has right now.” And when you go inside to the story, it begins,

“Barack Obama is the best thing Israel has going for it right now. Why is that so difficult for Netanyahu and his American Jewish allies to understand?”

The writer of the piece, John Heilman, goes into great detail to back up those claims. And if you need further details of Obama staunch pro-Israel actions (along with some fair criticism), check out this editorial from the NY Times.

Personally, I am saddened and slightly disgusted by American Jews who vote based on what they perceive is best for Israel. If that’s their major concern, they should make aliyah and move there. While you live here, you should vote based on what’s best for America! Every U.S. president will strongly support Israel – they just may not do it in a way that suits every Jew everywhere.

And finally, as a close friend reminded me, the Christian religious right supports Israel not because of any love of the country or Jews but because Israel’s statehood fits their Biblical prophesies for the coming “End of Days.”

So the next time you hear Rick Perry profess his love for Israel, please keep that in mind.

L’shona tova.