Personal Health Care Experience

Wow, my last post created quite a discussion, so I thought I would chime in with my own personal experience with our "wonderful" health care system.

My previous wife past away almost 2 years ago from a long-term illness she had been battling for over 10 years. During that 10 years I was fully employed and had employer provided insurance (and it was pretty decent coverage on the surface). However over the course of that 10 years I had paid out of pocket expenses totaling over... wait for it, it's a big one... $200,000! That's right, enough to pay for a nice modest house, and that's with insurance! The bulk of that was paid during the last 4 years. How is the average American expected to deal with that?

I had to fight my insurance provider every step of the way with their pre-authorization requests, and other tactics. They would deny procedures and treatment based on all kinds of reasons that are too long to go into here. The point is, they were in control, not me, not my wife, and not our doctors! What are you supposed to do when the insurance company denies coverage of a procedure, forgo the procedure? We are talking about a person's life here! Most of the time I didn't even have that option, I usually found out they weren't going to pay for something after it was billed by the doctor/hospital. They put every effort into trying to prevent giving you the very coverage you are paying for. So those of you who are afraid of a public health plan because you think the government is going to take control over you and your doctor, I have news for you, you're not in control now. It wouldn't matter if the US did have the most advanced medicine in the world since damn few people can ever get it, even if they have "great" health "insurance".

So my question for those who are opposed to any type of government run plan, are you prepared to outlay the same type of expenses for yourself or family member that I did? What do you do if you lose your job, as millions of Americans have in the past several months, can you afford the COBRA costs with your unemployment check? Don't be naive and think it can't happen to you.

WE NEED HEALTH CARE REFORM NOW! WE NEED A PUBLIC OPTION NOW!

Hate Mongering

Watch the following clip of Shepard Smith.



Nice insight into the minds of, as Sarah Palin would call them, "real Americans" out there. This crap started during the election and has continued to grow ever since, and guys like Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and Glenn Beck have been fanning the flames of this craziness. If you think I'm wrong, just do what Shepard Smith's guest suggested and spend some time on the blogs. As a matter of fact, start with Sean Hannity's own forum on his site where this kind of rhetoric is a daily occurance, or look back on last summer's campaign trail.

The difference between John McCain and Sarah Palin became clearest in the middle of the campaign last summer.

At a town hall meeting, McCain was confronted by an elderly woman who told McCain that she was a supporter of his because Obama was "an Arab." McCain was clearly uncomfortable, and it was patently obvious why. It had nothing to do with McCain's feelings about Arabs. It had to do with an old-school Republican accidentally moving the rock, and coming face to face with what actually lived beneath it. He recognized that the woman was making an unambiguously racist statement about his opponent, and he was mortified to be asked to answer it.

The Republican party has been hijacked by racists and religious fanatics who deride education and achievement as "elitist." Sure, they might only be a small portion of the party, but they certainly are among the loudest!

Sarah "Screw the Political Correctness" Palin, on the other hand, seemed right at home. She marched into those same crowds grinning and winking, and "Yoo betcha-ing" like she was onstage at the Miss Alaska pageant. While her supporters waved watermelon slices and stuffed monkeys, Palin talked about who the "real Americans" were, and who was "palling around with terrorists." She refused to address the blatant racism of her fans, or address the obvious exploitation of Obama's middle name, Hussein, and the implication she herself was making with her "terrorist" comments.

One can almost appreciate the horrible honesty of the racists among the McCain-Palin supporters who were able to admit what the others obfuscated: that they didn't want a black man in the White House. Certain videos from their rallies are deeply disturbing. They showcase the seething racism and hate of her most ardent followers.

Obama's citizenship was reportedly also something of an obsession for James W. Von Brunn, and likely very much on his mind when he walked into the museum and opened fire to make a statement about what "his" America ought to look like. It's not hard to conclude which radio stations he listened to, or which pundits best represented his baseline political ideology.

I think the scariest part of the video above was the tail end which gets caught in the audio fade. Smith says, "More and more it seems people are taking the extra step and getting the gun out."

Missed Opportunity

Today I learn of yet another instance where compensation restrictions that could have prevented the AIG bonus blowout were ignored!

Senator Ron Wyden said on Tuesday that the furor surrounding AIG's bonus payments could have been avoided had the Obama White House and members of Congress simply backed legislation that he and Sen. Olympia Snowe introduced more than a month ago.

In an interview with the Huffington Post, the Oregon Democrat noted that during the crafting of the stimulus package, he and his Republican colleague from Maine introduced a provision that would have forced bailout recipients to cap their bonuses at $100,000. Any amount paid above that would have been taxed at 35 percent. The language made it through the Senate, but during conference committee with the House, it was inexplicably removed.

"The reality is, had that legislation been passed it would have been a very strong disincentive to anybody paying out bonuses in the future," said Wyden.

AIG Bullsh*t!

I'm sure everybody has heard about this fiasco by now! This situation is infuriating on so many levels, I don't even know where to start!

Let's start at the obvious place, AIG itself. Do these Wall Street people ever learn a lesson? It was excessive greed that got them into financial trouble and they continue to reward that greed with taxpayer-funded bonuses. The head of AIG, Edward M. Liddy, and the US Treasury tried to justify this outrage by stating that AIG was under contract to pay these bonuses and might be sued if they were not paid. To combat this argument, I give you this...

On March 15 NPR reported the union of the employees of the San Francisco Chronicle agreed with management to renegotiate its contract to allow the company to fire workers without regard to seniority, work longer hours than the contract called for, and take fewer paid days of leave.

Contracts can be renegotiated! You may say, "Well the union had no choice, as the paper was on the edge of bankruptcy." Well, AIG is in the same place.

The worst excuse I have heard is, "We cannot attract and retain the best and brightest talent to lead and staff the AIG businesses... if employees believe that their compensation is subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. Treasury." Can you believe this? If our current economy and the fate of AIG is the result of "the best and brightest talent" we could only hope they would quit if they didn't receive their undeserved bonuses!

Bonuses are for performance. Any contract that grants executives bonuses whether or not they deliver, even when they drive their corporation off the cliff, is a violation of the corporate board's obligations to the shareholders. Such contracts should be renegotiated, surely as a precondition for receiving public funds, which brings me to the next part of my rant...

Is anyone buying the politicians' bullsh*t outrage? First off, Obama says that Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary, has "stepped in and berated them (AIG), got them to reduce the bonuses following every legal means he has to do this". Yet Geithner himself tied his own hands back in February when he successfully fought against more severe limits on executive pay for companies receiving government aid. He resisted those who wanted to dictate how banks would spend their rescue money. And he prevailed over top administration aides who wanted to replace bank executives and wipe out shareholders at institutions receiving aid.

The Bush administration, the Obama administration and Congress had numerous opportunities to attach limits on executive pay to legislation authorizing bailout money, and everytime, they refused or watered it down. They easily could have put conditions on the bailout money. They could have capped salaries and bonuses. They could have taken these companies into bankruptcy, where the executives would not be legally entitled to their salaries or bonuses.

Now the Obama administration is trying to make them pay back the $165 million in bonuses as a condition of receiving the next $30 billion in federal aid. Who are they kidding? Let me see if I understand this, if AIG gives the government $165 million, they get $30 billion in return! Where can I make that kind of deal? Can AIG just have it deducted directly from the $30 billion?

I've really tried to be patient with all of this, but I think it's time to stop screwing around and nationalize these institutions, kick out the "best and brightest talent" and start over! I don't think the American taxpayer can endure much more of this!

The Crisis of Credit Visualized

Here is a great video that I think does an awesome job of explaining the current bank implosion. This is a must watch!



The Crisis of Credit Visualized from Jonathan Jarvis on Vimeo.

The only thing I would add to this is that it leaves out the governmental impact. Everytime a home was sold, the property would be reassessed, meaning higher tax rates that were then transferred to state capitals and thus borrowed against in the form of bonds. The bonds were then used for public works, deferred maintenance, and other projects. The federal, state and local governments wanted additional revenue streams and wanted more home owners to buy bigger and more expensive homes causing homeowners to get into greater debt.

Politicians kept quiet.

There Is No "Trickle-Down" Economics!

How many times does this have to be discussed? How many different ways does this have to be presented? Just recently Brit Hume of FoxNews was making the classic argument that the top 5% of income earners pay like 60% of the taxes and that the share of income taxes paid by the higher income people over the years has not gotten smaller under the Republicans, it's gotten larger. Blah, blah, blah!

Well, no crap! The reason for this is simple, Americans are earning less and less each year. The median household income over the last 30 years hasn't kept pace with the economic output of this country.

The Reagan-style free economy is not great for most Americans, eventually. Bubbles and credit expansion can only hide the truth only for so long.

Even by then, was it difficult to see through the rosy numbers? Why does this graph have no political impact?

US Defense Spending vs The World

I want to take this time to put in perspective just how much we spend on defense. If you look at the chart below, you'll notice that we outspend everybody in the world by several times over! Is this really necessary considering all that money did nothing to stop a few terrorists on 9/11. I think to realistically attack the national debt, we are going to have to look towards the Pentagon to do some serious cutting. It was Dwight Eisenhower (a Republican) who warned us of a "military-industrial complex" when he said

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence - economic, political, even spiritual - is felt in every city, every State House, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society."