Thoughts & Commentary on the Obama Administration

[CountArach]

Holy cow- they donate more to the Republicans??? Then clearly, they are all scumbags- each and every one of them. Now, had they donated more to the Democrats, they'd be saints.....

I knew you would agree with me Xiahou

[Lemur]

No matter how you feel about Obama, this is pretty cool: The Mother of All Absence Notes

John Corpus let his 10-year-old daughter, Kennedy, skip her last day of fourth grade at Aldo Leopold Community School to attend a packed town hall meeting where she could see the president of the United States up close. [...]

First, President Obama called on Corpus to ask a question about his plans for health care reform. As he posed his query, he let drop that his daughter was skipping school to see the president.

Does she need a note? Obama asked.

Playing along, Corpus said he would take Obama up on the offer. To his surprise, Obama was serious.

"What's her name," Obama asked, reaching in his suit pocket for a pen. When Corpus answered "John," Obama repeated: "Her name?"

"Kennedy," Corpus replied.

"That's a cool name," Obama said, as he started to compose the missive.

"To Kennedy's teacher," read the note, written in black ink over the president's distinctive signature. "Please excuse Kennedy's absence.... she's with me."

[Crazed Rabbit]

AMA donates more to Republicans - they aren't in this for their patients. They are in this for themselves.

*rollseyes*

No, I think a better response is sustained laughter.

The leading Senate-side recipient of its campaign contributions since 1998 has been John Ensign of Nevada, to whom the AMA has given $30,000.

Oh noes! $30k! Over ten years, so about $3k a year. Yup, that's pretty massive.

Really though, the idea that simply because they donate more to republicans they are in this for themselves is absurd. And I mean absurd. What, besides partisanship, could cause you to state that the AMA is in it for themselves instead of simply supporting candidates they believe will do the best for health care? Maybe, as doctors, they have an insight into the fact that public health care isn't good?

If you want partisanship in organizations, look to Washington's teacher's union, which donates above 90% (IIRC) to democrats.

No matter how you feel about Obama, this is pretty cool:

Yes indeed.

CR

[KukriKhan]

No matter how you feel about Obama, this is pretty cool: The Mother of All Absence Notes

John Corpus let his 10-year-old daughter, Kennedy, skip her last day of fourth grade at Aldo Leopold Community School to attend a packed town hall meeting where she could see the president of the United States up close. [...]

First, President Obama called on Corpus to ask a question about his plans for health care reform. As he posed his query, he let drop that his daughter was skipping school to see the president.

Does she need a note? Obama asked.

Playing along, Corpus said he would take Obama up on the offer. To his surprise, Obama was serious.

"What's her name," Obama asked, reaching in his suit pocket for a pen. When Corpus answered "John," Obama repeated: "Her name?"

"Kennedy," Corpus replied.

"That's a cool name," Obama said, as he started to compose the missive.

"To Kennedy's teacher," read the note, written in black ink over the president's distinctive signature. "Please excuse Kennedy's absence.... she's with me."

The note:




I wonder how long he had to practice that signature? :)

[CountArach]

Really though, the idea that simply because they donate more to republicans they are in this for themselves is absurd. And I mean absurd. What, besides partisanship, could cause you to state that the AMA is in it for themselves instead of simply supporting candidates they believe will do the best for health care? Maybe, as doctors, they have an insight into the fact that public health care isn't good?

Nope. Doctors will do better out of private healthcare because they earn more per patient. It's that simple.

[KukriKhan]

Nope. Doctors will do better out of private healthcare because they earn more per patient. It's that simple.

There's talk of eliminating 'per-patient' compensation, and making payment 'outcome based'. This, the doc's don't like much.

And gets the actuarial guys more involved, figuring the odds that x treatment will have y outcome. The fear is: if the oddsmakers decide that the odds are not good enough, = denial of compensation/funding for that treatment.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Nope. Doctors will do better out of private healthcare because they earn more per patient. It's that simple.

Those damn doctors sitting on their piles of gold and many beautiful women! How dare those capitalist pigs earn a living for themselves on the illnesses of the workers! We must crush them comrade!

[Lemur]

Nope. Doctors will do better out of private healthcare because they earn more per patient. It's that simple.

Grist for a different thread, I suppose, and we'll probably have one up once the new healthcare proposal gets made public.

That said ...

I don't know a single medical professional who's happy with the way things are now. One of the best doctors I knew in NYC stopped taking health insurance entirely, since he couldn't deal with the forms, the bureaucracy and the aggravation. You paid him cash, and you dealt with the insurance trolls.

Important fact: As the cost of healthcare has skyrocketed, precious little of that money has made it to doctors and nurses. Their incomes have remained relatively flat, certainly not advancing at 14%-20% per year like our healthcare costs.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Nope. Doctors will do better out of private healthcare because they earn more per patient. It's that simple.

So with nationalization, you lessen their pay and the incentive to become a doctor. Great plan. And if the NHS is any guide, the red tape will become worse. If I recall the one NHS doc here hates it.

One of the best doctors I knew in NYC stopped taking health insurance entirely, since he couldn't deal with the forms, the bureaucracy and the aggravation.

My Uncle-in-law joined the army as a doctor because he couldn't pay rising malpractice insurance (which might have been above $100k a year, I don't remember).

Anyways, more hospitals and medical peoples are opposing Obama: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090614/D98Q5L4O0.html

The president suggests trimming federal payments to hospitals by about $200 billion over the next 10 years, saying greater efficiencies and broader insurance coverage will justify the change. Hospitals, especially those with many poor patients, say the proposed cuts are unfair and will harm the sick and elderly.
...
Obama wants to reduce government payments for such services. He said the devices are used so frequently and efficiently that providers can spread their costs over many patients, requiring less government reimbursement.

The Access to Medical Imaging Coalition, a trade group, disagreed. It said the president's plan would "impair access to diagnostic imaging services and result in patients' delaying or forgoing life- and cost-savings imaging procedures." The group said Obama's efficiency estimates were based on a flawed survey.

And an opinion article by someone at Safeway and the plan they used to keep employee healthcare costs steady for the last four years (since the plan was implemented):

Safeway's plan capitalizes on two key insights gained in 2005. The first is that 70% of all health-care costs are the direct result of behavior. The second insight, which is well understood by the providers of health care, is that 74% of all costs are confined to four chronic conditions (cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity). Furthermore, 80% of cardiovascular disease and diabetes is preventable, 60% of cancers are preventable, and more than 90% of obesity is preventable.

As much as we would like to take credit for being a health-care innovator, Safeway has done nothing more than borrow from the well-tested automobile insurance model. For decades, driving behavior has been correlated with accident risk and has therefore translated into premium differences among drivers. Stated somewhat differently, the auto-insurance industry has long recognized the role of personal responsibility. As a result, bad behaviors (like speeding, tickets for failure to follow the rules of the road, and frequency of accidents) are considered when establishing insurance premiums. Bad driver premiums are not subsidized by the good driver premiums.

As with most employers, Safeway's employees pay a portion of their own health care through premiums, co-pays and deductibles. The big difference between Safeway and most employers is that we have pronounced differences in premiums that reflect each covered member's behaviors. Our plan utilizes a provision in the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act that permits employers to differentiate premiums based on behaviors. Currently we are focused on tobacco usage, healthy weight, blood pressure and cholesterol levels.

Safeway's Healthy Measures program is completely voluntary and currently covers 74% of the insured nonunion work force. Employees are tested for the four measures cited above and receive premium discounts off a "base level" premium for each test they pass. Data is collected by outside parties and not shared with company management. If they pass all four tests, annual premiums are reduced $780 for individuals and $1,560 for families. Should they fail any or all tests, they can be tested again in 12 months. If they pass or have made appropriate progress on something like obesity, the company provides a refund equal to the premium differences established at the beginning of the plan year.

Now, IIRC, Obama doesn't want insurers to be able to charge people with unhealthy habits more. Apparently it's unfair to the unhealthy. Who cares about the healthy - those who stay fit - or about the practical implications (people will have less incentive to stay fit).

Also, Obama is choosing some ambassadorships based on who gave him the most money in the campaign: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090612/D98OTD380.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama on Thursday tapped four big Democratic Party donors for plum ambassadorships in Europe and Latin America while naming six career diplomats to posts in Africa, the Mideast and the Pacific.

CR

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Interesting...

[Crazed Rabbit]

More of Obama's cunning diplomacy AKA angering allies:
America's 'Bermuda solution' angers Britain

America's 'Bermuda solution' angers Britain

Decision to send Guantanamo inmates to British colony sours 'special relationship'

By Kim Sengupta

Senior aides to President Barack Obama accompanied four Uighur prisoners as they were flown from Guantanamo Bay to the British colony of Bermuda, without the UK being informed, it was revealed yesterday.

In an escalating diplomatic row over the transfer of the former terrorist suspects, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton discussed the transfer with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband in what was said to be an uneasy conversation. Privately Whitehall officials accused America of treating Britain, with whom it is supposed to have a "special relationship", with barely disguised contempt.

One senior official said: "The Americans were fully aware of the foreign-policy understanding we have with Bermuda and they deliberately chose to ignore it. This is not the kind of behaviour one expects from an ally."

Is this really the improved diplomacy Obama was supposed to bring about?

CR

[KukriKhan]

On the domestic front: has anyone found yet any simple explanation of what kind of universal health care plan is being proposed/crafted? Or is it all hopelessly complicated? I keep hearing huge sums of money being thrown about (trillions), and the argument seems to be over just how many trillions it's gonna cost.

But what is being bought, exactly? From whom, and for whom?

For me personally currently, I pay about $35 per week (matched dollar-for-dollar by my employer) so that if I get in a car wreck and lose my legs (and car), I don't also lose my job, my house, and my pension to pay for fixing me up. It doesn't cover eyeglasses or dental - I pay for that out of pocket, as needed.

Is what is being discussed to provide everybody with this kind of coverage, working or not, or something more? Or less?

[Lemur]

Kukri, I don't believe any details or final proposals have been made public. Should be coming soon, though.

-edit-

Nice to see the major insurers digging holes, piling the dirt up neatly by the side, and placing convenient stone markers at the top. I mean, really, what the **** were they thinking?

Executives of three of the nation's largest health insurers told federal lawmakers in Washington on Tuesday that they would continue canceling medical coverage for some sick policyholders, despite withering criticism from Republican and Democratic members of Congress who decried the practice as unfair and abusive. [...] An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period.

It also found that policyholders with breast cancer, lymphoma and more than 1,000 other conditions were targeted for rescission and that employees were praised in performance reviews for terminating the policies of customers with expensive illnesses. [...]

But they would not commit to limiting rescissions to only policyholders who intentionally lie or commit fraud to obtain coverage, a refusal that met with dismay from legislators on both sides of the political aisle.

Experts said it could undermine the industry's efforts to influence healthcare-overhaul plans working their way toward the White House.

"Talk about tone deaf," said Robert Laszewski, a former health insurance executive who now counsels companies as a consultant.

Democratic strategist Paul Begala said the hearing could hurt the industry's efforts to position itself in the debate.

"The industry has tried very hard in this current effort not to be the bad guy, not to wear the black hat," Begala said. "The trouble is all that hard work and goodwill is at risk if in fact they are pursuing" such practices.

Current polling:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Barack Obama swatting a fly gets a video and an article in the BBC. Unbelievable.

[Xiahou]

Interesting...

That's a scandal that we haven't heard much about.

Here's a pretty lengthy writeup on the saga from Jake Tapper.

From what I get, an Inspector General finds that hundreds of thousands of dollars from Americorps were misused by St. HOPE Academy and by Obama ally Kevin Johnson personally. The IG announced that he was referring Johnson and the Academy for criminal charges and both would be ineligible to receive any federal funds until the investigation concludes. The acting Attorney General announced that he reached a settlement that involved the return of about half of the money, including $70k+ from Johnson personally. They were also to admit that they inadequately tracked the federal funds and Johnson agreed to take online courses. The settlement cleared Johnson, as mayor of Sacramento, to receive stimulus funding.

The Inspector General in question claimed he was never informed of the proposed settlement and disagreed vehemently with it. Soon after, the White House fired the IG. That alone might be enough to raise eyebrows, but the grounds of the dismissal are also suspect.

Grassley said Walpin needed to be given 30-days notice, which he said is required by the 2008 Inspector General Reform Act that President Bush signed into law and then-Sen. Obama co-sponsored.

Specifically, Section 3 of the law requires that, “the president shall communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer.”

Ironically, Obama co-sponsored this legislation. The administration has placed the IG on a 30days paid suspension prior to his firing. But, does that meet the legal requirements? By my reading of the above quote, it may not. If it's 30 days review before removal or transfer, a paid suspension sounds a lot like "removal or transfer".

Interesting indeed.

[drone]

Barack Obama swatting a fly gets a video and an article in the BBC. Unbelievable.

No, this is unbelievable.

PETA is so cute.

[CountArach]

No, this is unbelievable.

PETA is so cute.

To be honest I don't crush flies for the same reason, unless I am particularly annoyed for some reason.

Mosquitoes on the other hand...

[Lemur]

PETA, seeing that it's in a hole, decides to dig furiously.

As we all know, human beings often don’t think before they act. We don’t condemn President Obama for acting on instinct. When the media began contacting us in droves for a statement, we obliged, simply by saying that the president isn’t the Buddha and shouldn’t be expected to do everything right—if not for that, we would not have brought it up. It’s the media who are making a big deal about the fly swat—not PETA. However, we took the opportunity, when asked, to point out that we do offer lots of ways in which to control insects of all kinds without harming them. There is even a chapter in PETA President Ingrid E. Newkirk’s book, Making Kind Choices, about how to rid your home of “uninvited guests.”

We support compassion for all animals, even the most curious, smallest, and least sympathetic animals. We hope that everyone will take inspiration from Nobel Peace Prize winner Dr. Albert Schweitzer, who included insects in his realm of compassion and would stop to move a worm from hot pavement to cool earth.

I'm so old that I remember when PETA was a respectable organization.

[LittleGrizzly]

I don't see what thats wrong with what PETA did, it doesn't seem they went out of thier way to condem him for swatting a fly. They're just stating that they would prefer people didn't kill insects so needlessly.. which seems fair to me.

[Crazed Rabbit]

PETA, seeing that it's in a hole, decides to dig furiously.

I'm so old that I remember when PETA was a respectable organization.

What?! I've heard such fantastic legends before, but surely it cannot have ever been so!

Also on that site is this game: http://www.ecorazzi.com/2009/06/18/o...rds-from-peta/

Which features you directing your minions to club baby seals, and then the hippie elves that protect them, to death.

CR

[KukriKhan]

So, 106 Billion Bucks for 90 days of war-fighting, AND some domestic programs as well, all off-budget, ala the last administration.

I'm old enough to remember LBJ's "guns 'n butter" duel-funding plan for the war on Viet Nam AND the war on poverty. It worked for awhile, but neither achieved its stated goal. Maybe history doesn't always repeat itself, but I think we need to tread lightly in mixing FoPo and domestic money.

[AlexanderSextus]

As a libertarian, i'm against the idea of the government providing health care, as i don't think the government should take care of people, but rather that people should take care of themselves.

However, i'm not afraid of it, and if it works, hey why knock it? I just got done watching Sicko and neither England, nor France have problems with it. The fact that the one woman got an inhaler that would have cost her like $120 for $.05 in CUBA of all places was ASTONISHING, to say the least.

[Crazed Rabbit]

However, i'm not afraid of it, and if it works, hey why knock it? I just got done watching Sicko and neither England, nor France have problems with it. The fact that the one woman got an inhaler that would have cost her like $120 for $.05 in CUBA of all places was ASTONISHING, to say the least.

Moore's movie? That's propaganda.

From wikipedia:

MTV's Kurt Loder criticized the film as presenting cherry-picked facts, manipulative interviews, and unsubstantiated assertions.[31] While admitting that the U.S. health care system needs reform, Loder criticized Moore’s advocacy of government control, arguing that many services controlled by the government are not considered efficient by the American public. Loder points to a 2005 documentary, Dead Meat, by Stuart Browning and Blaine Greenberg, which documents long waiting lists for care in Canada. Loder points to calls for reform in Britain and France due to the same rationing.[32]

CR

[Kralizec]

Well, it's true that Cuba has quality health care.

It's so good in fact that many foreign countries gladly rent doctors and medical personel from Cuba, and because Cuba direly needs money to pay for (among other things) their elaborate health care system, they gladly accept

[rory_20_uk]

A fairer comparison is looking at what Switzerland pays and the service they receive.

McKinsey has done some good work on comparing health services. As the UK spends about 9% and the USA about 17%GDP, it should be a hell of a lot better.

[CountArach]

Moore's movie? That's propaganda.

From wikipedia:

MTV's Kurt Loder criticized the film as presenting cherry-picked facts, manipulative interviews, and unsubstantiated assertions.[31] While admitting that the U.S. health care system needs reform, Loder criticized Moore’s advocacy of government control, arguing that many services controlled by the government are not considered efficient by the American public. Loder points to a 2005 documentary, Dead Meat, by Stuart Browning and Blaine Greenberg, which documents long waiting lists for care in Canada. Loder points to calls for reform in Britain and France due to the same rationing.[32]

CR

A combination of two of the world's greatest sources

[Crazed Rabbit]

A combination of two of the world's greatest sources

*looks at CA's source in the Honduras thread*

Anyways, You know Mr. transparency and everything? Apparently the new White House web site is harder to find actual info on than Bush's, and is more oriented towards showing off flattering pictures of Obama.

Information is harder to find on the Obama Web site than it was on the site created and run by the Bush administration, according to Web site experts.

"It doesn't seem to be quite in line with the notion of the pillars of government 2.0 being openness and transparency. It seems just the opposite," said Mark Drapeau, a columnist for Federal Computer Week who writes frequently on the ways that new technologies can be used by the government.

Mr. Drapeau and others said this might be a short-term trend, as the administration has begun a long-term effort to use new technologies to open up the government that could have a big impact on the way the public interacts with the federal bureaucracy and keeps track of its actions.

The biggest difference is that the Bush Web site archived all its information by year, month and day, with a sidebar menu that allowed a user to view virtually all the information from, for example, a day in 2002 -- speech transcripts along with video and audio of the speech, press releases, official statements, nominations, letters to Congress, executive orders -- with three clicks of the mouse.

The same information on the Obama site, however, is spread across various parts of the Web site. The longer ago something happened, the harder it is to find.

"It's lots of PR and not a lot of data," said Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute, who called the site "brochureware."

CR

[CountArach]

*looks at CA's source in the Honduras thread*

I just went with what a mate linked me to. Couldn't be bothered to dig through anything else. All of the MSM just say the exact same thing and are incredibly short on details.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Moore lies and implies through his teeth. Ever since laughing through half of Bowling for Columbine I never trusted a word the man said again.

[Xiahou]

Things get awkward at a press briefing when Gibbs is questioned about Obama's use of pre-packaged "townhall" meetings.