A friend of mine was recentely laid-off from his job as a superintendant of a golf-course, he literally had worked there his entire adult life, He started when he was sixteen and with hardwork and some luck he found himself making a six-figure income, all was good, until the son of the course owner needed a job, at which time my friend was given a fourteen week severance package(one week for each year he worked) and sent on his way. 

At this point in my friends life he doesn't have "normal" expenses, a big house house, a high maintainance wife, who came with two kids, and a Porsche; he has turned down a similar job for about half the pay already because "you just can't support yourself on that". 

How do you create a job for someone like my friend? I think this is the problem with populism, their is almost no way you can create jobs where people are going to make enough money, or get enough satisfaction from them; and when the next election comes around they are going to "throw the bums out" because the bums didn't deliver. When the reality of the situation is some people will probably never be happy.

It seems to me a good safety net, where people have access to health care whether they are employed or not, and a fair banking system might go a lot farther to improving lives than trying to create survival jobs that most people don't want anyway.

I missed most of the SOTU address, due to a snowstorm, a bicycle and terrible public transportation in Denver, but I liked the highlights.  Mostly it seems like Obama is realistic about what can be accomplished and is honest enough to tell people that their isn't a magical solution to the countries problems.  For over thirty years we have been told that capitalism and the magic hand of the market will take care of everything.

If we believe, really believe, in the free-market, on Christmas morning we will get unbeleivably great presents; Obama seems willing to tell people that isn't how things work, real change takes real work and compromise.  Hopefully people will see that, and understand that it is time to pay slightly higher taxes and maybe even accept a slightly lower-standard of living, maybe we can all make do with a 2500 square foot house rather than a 3000 square foot house.  Maybe American's aren't ready to give-up on Santa Clause just yet but I admire Obama for trying to end the myth.

A few weeks back I saw a column, I think in the New York times, discussing the need for small savings accounts in the third world, I didn't think much about the column until today when I took my dog to the vet and learned he has a cracked tooth, it will cost a little over three-hundred to get the tooth pulled and get the rest of his teeth cleaned, not a lot of money, but I will probably have to use a credit card for it, make the minimum payment for a few months and then pay-off the balance with my tax refund,  Maybe I am unique, but I don't have a savings account and had never thought to open one until now. 

An informal poll of my co-workers indicates that non of them have a "rainy day fund", several of them indicated they try to keep a credit card with a zero balance for emergencies, and two of them indicated that they don't feel they need a savings account because our company has a 401k.  If 401k's really have replaced savings accounts they are a poor substitute, as they usually seem to lose money and the funds are not easily available in the case of emergencies. 

The Times column talkes about someone who instead of buying a three-liter bottle of coke every week put that money in savings, my plan is to only go out for lunch two times a week if figure that should lead to about twenty-five dollars a week to put away, in a couple of months I will have enough money to get my cats teeth cleaned(cats are cheaper than dogs)

It seems like Americans spend a lot of time telling other people how to live better lives but are not very good about following that advice ourselves, maybe it is time to realize that the U.S is closer to the third world than we like to admit.

I am getting ready to head "home" for christmas and I am realizing how much I hate christmas.  Last year I had the flu so I didn't go, I am pretty sure it was the best christmas ever, watching TV in a Alka Seltzer plus haze, is far better than pretending to believe in Santa for the benefit of my nieces and nephews, and the whole Jesus thing, at least it would be cool if Santa really did exist. Not to mention the expense of presents and travel.  Plus a few years ago my dog growled at one of my relatives, he was just saying what I thought, so now I have to board him as well.  Not only is that expensive I am deprived of an excuse to leave for a few hours to take him on a walk. 

I don't think I am alone in my dislike of Christmas and it makes me wonder how many other things we as a country pretend to like when we know they suck, I am pretty sure this ties in with our healthcare system somehow, but I have a nine-hour drive ahead of me so I can't think of why right now.

I hope everyone has a Merry Christmas 

A few weeks ago it was recomended that people cut back on breast cancer screenings and prostate exams.  Especially in the case of the latter I am happy to agree, apparentely though, most people love to have their breasts and prostates examined.  At least that is what I got from the public outcry; I blame those medical shows where all the medical professionals are attractive, who wouldn't want to be fondled by an attractive doctor.  That has to be the only reason, as these exams are not leading to better health,

Given the public outcry it seems pretty obvious that cost controls are not going to be possible, even in cases where it is in the best interest of the patient, Americans will always believe more is better, even when it involves a prostate exam.  The point is you can't reform one part of the system, the payor side, without also reforming the payee side, and right now that is not possible.  Where do we go from here?

The first step to meaningful reform might be to limit the drug adds so people don't think they need Cialis and a bath tub(does anyone get the bath tub part?).  Of course that idea would cut into television revenues and that is not going to happen.  At this point we are demanding a for profit system for an area that should be completely non-profit and until we realize that reform will probably be impossible.

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.