Watching the debate on health insurance it is an obvious question. Why do employers want to keep insuring there employees?  It requires staff and I would think is a pain-in-the-butt to administer, So why do they want to do it.  Guess what, Your bosses benefits are not like your benefits and in the end the lower level workers probably help to subsidize benefits for the professional staff.

Maybe it is common knowledge that hourly workers pay more and seem to get less, or in some cases newer workers pay more, but it was news to me.  I noticed this when I went back to work for a previous employer in an hourly capacity, where I had previously worked as a salaried employee.  Before I had at least three choices of health insurance, a major medical policy an HMO or an anthem policy that seemed to cover everything, including a vasectomy for $50 co-pay. I paid  $75 per month for the Anthem policy.  My new option is the Anthem policy for $186 per month.  I asked HR if costs have gone up that much, she indicated the company was very proud that they had kept the rate the same for the last three years.  At that point I shut-up to avoid being labeled a trouble-maker.

I also called Anthem and learned that a Vasectomy would now involve a $500 co-pay.  This got me about insurance that I had a couple employers ago, they offered the same insurance to everyone but they subsidized substantially more of it for employees that had been there for more than two years. It was very rare that anyone stayed that long unless they were in upper management.

By forcing employees to buy only one kind of insurance and pay more for it, employers are forcing lower-level employees to help subsidize "professional" staff.  This is worth knowing when trying to explian the need for a public-option, where everyone would really pay the same.

Yesterdays election was a mixed bag.  Two governorships, Virginia and New Jersey went to Republicans but two congressional seats went to Democrats.  What does this mean?

In my state Colorado the same dynamic seems to be working our current Democratic governor, Bill Ritter, has spent most of his term cutting state services in an effort to balance the budget and vetoed some progressive legislation in an attempt to appear moderate.  He will probably lose in the 2010 election, although his opponent Scott Mcginnis is a self dealing moron.

Ritter should have immediately raised taxes and restored state services.  Instead he seemed to honor the pledge every Republican makes to Grover Norquist.  He might have been unpopular at first, but over four years people would have seen the benefits of having a fully functioning government and he might have had a chance at re-election, now he is about to hand the state back to the party that created the mess in the first place.

Moral of the story, if you run as a Democrat act like one when you get into office. 
My guess is that 2010 will not be a good year for Democratic governors but maybe the next time they are in power they will recognize that governing is about more than getting elected.

The debate about the public option really isn't  policy debate at all.  It is a no-brainer to implement a medicare like system that allows for reimbursement at the same scale as medicare, for everyone in America.  The real debate is about whether or not conservative can get Democrats to break a promise to the American people when they said they would give the country a public option. 
In other words it is about Republicans trying to get a political advantage and whether or not Democrats will be stupid enough to give it to them.  Republican politicians will be able to claim Democrats were lying when they promised a public option.  Even though it was mostly Republicans who made sure it didn't pass that is not what most people are going to remember.  They will remember that Democrats had a solid majority and could not pass a public option and probably for another forty years any time anyone trys to do something about the health-care in America it will be very easy to say they are lying or that they are "unrealistic".  After all at one time Democrats had a majority in both houses and their was a democratic president. 
Even if the minority party could get a bill passed through both congress and the Senate I am sure President Palin would veto it.  Democrats really need to come together and pass a health-care bill with a robust public option.  The last time they failed at health-care we wound up with eight years of Bush.

Crossposted at deadissue.com

I live within walking distance of my my congress person, Diana Degette's office, and I din't even know that until this morning.  Last night during the Racheal Maddow show one of her guests suggested that people drop in on their congressman or women and urge them to sign a letter supporting a public health insurance option.  The letter actually states that the signees(is that a word) will not vote for health care reform unless it includes a public option.  When I looked up the letter I assumed that Diana Degette would have signed it, she is in a very safe district and seems to care about the health of her constiuents, but when I looked at the letter she was not one of the signers.  At this point I decided to walk to her office, I was walking my dog anyway.

It was an interesting experience I was greeted by a very friendly staffer, who seemed unaware of the letter.  I should have probably printed a copy before going to the office, but it was very easy to make it known that as a voter this was a very important issue, I talked a little bit about what it is like to have only one option for insurance and probably complained a little more than I should have about dealng with an Aetna customer service rep who seemed to know more about my health than me or my doctor.

Even if you have a good representative in congress don't assume they are suporting the public option, drop by their and talk to a staffer, it is kind of fun, or send an e-mail.  Especially now with a bunch of gun toting idiots and crazy grand parents trying to intimidate congress people our leaders need to hear from people that live in their districts and vote for them.

One of the more interesting signs I have seen at a townhall meeting/teabagger convention was one at an event in Brighton Colorado, the sign read, "Jesus is my single payer".  The more I thought about the the more I realize the futility of including Christians in any kind of public policy debate, the person carrying this sign may or may not believe that a magical being will heal those who are sick, but she certainly doesn't want anyone to have the option of seaking more conventional medical care; and this is the problem with Christians they want people to have no other option but the supernatural to help solve their problems. 

Everyone has heard the phrase "their are no atheists in a foxhole" the main goal of christianity is to try to put everyone in the metaphorical foxhole, the only way to do this is to make bad decisions.  Any "help" given by a church based lawmaker is little more than an attempt to weaken the legislation and drive one more person into the foxhole.  Or maybe in the case of Larry Craig into the....

I couldn't vote in 1994 and like most teenagers, if I could have voted, I probably would have voted a straight libertarian ticket but even then I think it was pretty obvious people didn't vote for the Newt Gingrich and his contract with America, they just didn't vote for Democrats who couldn't get health care passed.  In fact one can argue that much of what didn't go right during the Clinton years was a result of Clinton losing enthusiastic supporters when he didn't get health care passed.  Clinton may have been personally popular but people didn't have the enthusiasm it takes to elect congress people and Senators, and the result was a bunch of petty people got elected, we had impeachment hearings and eventually the country elected Bush Jr, believing that their was no difference between Bush Jr  and Al Gore.  Which is a somewhat logical conclusion when it seems that politicians care more about corporate interests than they do the the interests of the people who elected them.

Right now many Democratic leaders seem to be putting the needs of insurance companies ahead of the needs of the American people, this leads to cynism among voters and people staying home on election day.  Unless Democrats were happy during the nineties with Republicans setting the agenda they really need to pass true health care reform and for once look at for the voters rather than businesses. 

A while back a christian friend of mine gave me the book Left Behind, she said it would "rock my world".  The book is based on christian end of times myths and basicaly what happens is that all "good" christians are whisked away leaving the rest of us to face the anti-christ.  "Good Christians" are the ones that believe in a litteral interpretation of the bible and preach to anyone who will listen and even some people who wont listen.  The book also manages to work in a section about abortion providers only being in it for the money, and the "heros" of the book are a group of survivalists who build an underground bunker under their church.

In my opinion it is just bad fiction, sort of Danielle Steele meets the X-Files(no insult to either Danielle Steele or the X-files, but they really shouldn't be mixed) A lot of other people seem to believe this stuff, and base their life on it, and you cannot have a rational discussion with these people.  About the best you can do is explain that Obama is not the anti-christ because he doesn't fit some part of the myth, and believe me they will always have an answer for you.  It turns into an argument over who is stronger Superman or mighty mouse, Religous people live in a cartoon world and the only way to discuss religion is to enter the same cartoon world, it is a no win situation.

Especially now that church sponsored terrorism seems to be on the rise, it is foolish to treat religion with respect, it just helps to validate world views that make no sense and can be dangerous.  Some people will probaby argue that that it is wrong to be dismissive of views held by so many people, but two thousand years ago most people thought the earth was flat, and more recentely most people thought the sun revolved around the earth, their is nothing wrong with being dismissive of bad ideas.

About two years ago I lost my job as medical research coordinator and since then I have definitely had a chance to see how the other half lives. 

At first I was looking forward to collecting unemployment and taking some time off, maybe mountain biking and snowboarding.  The first lesson I learned is that unemployment benefits are barely enough to cover health insurance, COBRA is incredibly expensive, and even just a major medical policy can be a couple hundred dollars a month. So doing any physical activities that involved any kind of risk were out of the question.  My six month "vacation" turned into six months of watching a lot of movies(netflix is very cheap)

The next lesson, people treat you very differentely when you apply for a job after being in the work force for a few years than they did when you were a college senior looking for that first job, when I first got out of college not only did I get many interviews, but the people who didn't hire me would call and explain why,  Even offer hints for the next interview.   

In the first six months of unemployment I had one phone interview, and it was for a tech position that I should have been able to do in my sleep, and I never got a call back.  Probably, for that very reason they figured I would sleep through it and looking back I was probably too confident, it is probably good to let them see a little desperation when you apply for a job.  

At this point my unemployment benefits were running out and I needed a job, I found a position at an animal shelter that paid 9.50 and hour and had benefits, at first I ws very excited, the people who worked there seemed very passionate and who wouldn't want to spend all day with fury friends.   I was somewhat naive as to what happens at animal shelters, young dogs and kittens find new homes most other animals don't go out the front door.  I noticed that most my co-workers seemed to drink a lot especially right after pay-day.  this kind of created a wierd moodyness to the place, where the first four or five days after everyone got paid their would be a sort euphoric party atmoshpere, which led to about three or four days of what seemed like post-acloholic depressions, where people were extremely grumpy and then a malaise until the next pay days.   At first I atributed this to the stress of the job but now I realize that most people who work at low-paying jobs seem to drink a lot.

Read more »

I hear Cheney wants more torture memo's released so that americans can see the whole picture.  My guess is that more of the picture would be even more disgusting, in addition if this information gained from torture really prevented some catostrophic attack, I am sure Dick and George would have bragged about it through Robert Novak or some other friendly source.

So what is Cheney up to?  I am starting to think that in his mind he believes that 9/11 could not have been prevented, at least not by following the eneva Convention..  Although Richard Clark seems to think otherwise and certain memos before the attacks also seem to contradict that view.  But if you were Dick Cheney and your incompetence led to thousands of deaths you might go to great lengths to pretend that your mistake was unavoidable.  Sure, if Cheney had not been so busy with his energy task force, and George Bush had not been so concerned with getting in a morning run, 9/11 may not have happened.  But for Cheney the onl way to prevent 9/11 was to torture random Arabs and other Muslims as well.

I guess I am arguing that Cheney was stupid, and letting 9/11 happen made him evil.

Anyone else notice how well the Obama administration handled the pirate crisis.  The hostage is safe and three of the pirates are dead.  My guess is pirates will think twice before seizing  American vessels in the future.  While I am not a big fan of deadly force this seems like a very good use of US power.

One can only imagine how Bush and Cheney would have handled the crisis, probably by ignoring it or invading Iran.  It is nice to have a grown-up in charge.

"the only reason you could buy a crappy car is we helped you, if not for us you would be riding the bus"   That is a some what paraphrased vrsion of a conversation I had with a customer service rep at Chase bank last night.  Basicaly he ws telling me that I owed late fees on a payment that they lost.

Recentely I got my tax refund and decided to use it to pay my car off (a 1998 Subaru).  I called Chase bank got the payoff amount and sent them a check.  I expected to recieve the title in the mail a few weeks after payment.  Instead about two weeks after I sent the check I started getting calls from the the collection department.  I think in one day I recieved ten automated calls, and when I answered a recorded voice would say "please hold" "please hold", I would hang-up assuming it was a marketing gimmick.  Finally I called the number and found out it was the collection department at Chase

Read more »

I am starting to think that someone has to be held accountable for the last eight years specificaly for the torturing of people and the wat profiteering that has taken place. At the very least anyone who has profited from the war, like oh say Dick Cheney, should face a civil suit and asset forfieture. Anyone who has condoned torture should see the inside of a jail cell.

As much as it would be nice to move foreward and look the other way, at some point we as a country have to show that our laws matter and that world law matters as well. An investigation and trial of Dick Cheney and George Bush would show that as a country we do in fact respect the law and that no one is above it. If Cheney and Bush are allowed to go unpunished we are saying that certain people are above the law, and our laws are meaningless.

Obama needs to do the unpopular thing, and prosecute anyone who committed a crime in the Bush administration; if he doesn't he risks letting his presidency seem to condone the torture and other crimes committed over the last eight years.

Looks like Bank of <a href="America'>http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/01/not_a_good_sign_1.php">America needs more money</a> to save Merril Lynch.  My guess is we will see many banks coming back for more money so that they can continue making bad investments and loaning money to people who have no prospect of repaying the loan.  I don't know the exact figure but I would guess that a large percentage of the typical consumers income is going to debt servicing, that is the money paid in interest late fees and overlimit fees, all the things that made credit card companies profitable for many years.  I dont get why no one is talking about the failure of our credit based economy.  The solution is not to give people more credit, that just creates a bigger hole down the road. 

A better sollution is to figure out a way to get people out of debt, perhaps make it easier and less stigmatizing to go bancrupt on credit cards, or start forgiving student loans; maybe even allow people to refininance their home at its current value and forgive the extra debt.  If people didn't have to spend so much of their income on debt service they might actually spend more money on consumer goods, which people keepsaying will jump start the economy.  The problem right now is that the economic plan seems to entail people getting easy credit so that they can buy more stuff and in a year or so we will be right back in the same place, just with a larger deficit.  If consumer debt was forgiven people might be able to get back to buying stuff but they would not be using borrowed money to do it, which might lead to a sustainable recovery.

The bailout should focus on the consumer and how to get the average borrower to a functional level. Obviously the people who borrowed more money than they could hope to repay are not without blame in this mess, but a bailout that encourages banks to keep giving them more money is crazy. 

Joe the plumbers hypothetical tax problem only makes sense in his hypothical world.  In the real world where licensed plumbers work they get to their job sites on public roads, which are paid for with taxes.  In the event a customer refuses to pay Joe the dispute would be resolved in a court system that is paid for with tax dollars.  The work of real plumbers is inspected and certified by building inspectors that are once agan paid for with tax dollars.

The education of employees is generally paid for with tax dollars.  the only way Joe the plumber makes sense is if you believe people magicaly appear in cities and are able to build homes and businesses without any infrastructure.

This seems to match with the conservative idea that if you blow-up a country a democracy will magically appear and it probably works about as well.  Joe the plumber is a hypothetical hero for a hypothetical world and maybe John McCain would be a good president in that hypothetical world, In the real world the country needs someone who understands the nuances of that world something that conservatism has been a complete failure at from its inception.

I have seens a few blogs argue that Obama may not be the transformative president some of us are hoping for.  The reason frequentely cited is that at heart Obama is a moderate careful person, and to this point his campiagn has seemed very moderate and careful.  The campaign has also been ingenuis and has already transformed the way elections are financed..

By funding the campaign primarily with small donations from millions of people, Obama has an almost unlimited supply of money to run his campaign, but he is not beholden to any one group or orginization.  Obama has always seemed to pick the right policy, it is much easier to do the right thing if you don't have to worry about keeping large donors happy.

For example it is much harder to create a good health care plan if you have to make sure the insurance companies are happy.  It is hard to create a good foreign policy if you have to make sure companies like Haliburton like it.

With small donors generally good policy will make them happy and benefit them.  So for people who say Obama will not be a transformative president he as already been a transformative candidate and it seems likely he will be a transformative president as well.