Goliath's random ramblings on Politics, History and {Real} Football

Just to show how backward WE are

Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:17:46 GMT

You think United States of America are not backward?

Consider this:

A recent Harris poll included questions on evolution and creationism, with unsurprising results. According to Harris's report (PDF), those surveyed were given a list of topics — including God, miracles, heaven, Jesus as God or the son of God, angels, survival of the soul after death, the resurrection of Jesus, Hell, the virgin birth, the Devil, "Darwin's theory of evolution," ghosts, creationism, UFOs, astrology, witches, and reincarnation — and asked, "Please indicate for each one if you believe in it, or not." For evolution, 45% of respondents indicated that they believed in it, 32% indicated that they don't believe in it, and 22% indicated that they were not sure. For creationism, 40% of respondents indicated that they believed in it, 30% indicated that they don't believe in it, and 30% indicated that they were not sure.

The results varied by religion: 51% of Catholics, 32% of Protestants, 80% of Jews, and 16% of born-again Christians believed in Darwin's theory of evolution, while 37% of Catholics, 56% of Protestants, 20% of Jews, and 68% of born-again Christians believed in creationism. Overall, the results were basically unchanged from 2007, when 42% of respondents believed in evolution and 39% of respondents believed in creationism. The poll was conducted on-line on November 2 and 11, 2009, among 2303 adults in the United States; figures were weighted to reflect the composition of the adult population. "Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in the Harris Interactive panel," the report explains, "no estimates of theorical sampling error can be calculated."

40% of our own society believe Creation's story over the Evolution! 55% do not believe in Evolution or are unsure! We're so far behind other nations that our being backward is not even an opinion. IT'S A FACT!

I wonder how many people believe in the Theory of Gravitation?

The "usefulness" of waterboarding

Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:30:34 GMT

This morning's New York Times' article highlights what many in the intelligence community have already known - waterboarding does not work. Other methods work better and, to tell you the truth, torture, in general, also strengthens the resolve of our enemies.

Abu Zubaydah had revealed a great deal of information before harsh methods were used and after his captors stripped him of clothes, kept him in a cold cell and kept him awake at night. The article said interrogators at the secret prison in Thailand believed he had given up all the information he had, but officials at headquarters ordered them to use waterboarding.

He revealed no new information after being waterboarded, the article said, a conclusion that appears to be supported by a footnote to a 2005 Justice Department memo saying the use of the harshest methods appeared to have been “unnecessary” in his case.

He told them all he knew BEFORE being waterboarding! Without torture! And the torture gave no new information. Did we want the information, really? or did we just get off on torturing the guy?

Obama tries to be the new FDR and Republicans continue to be themselves

Tue, 08 Dec 2009 18:26:37 GMT

So, finally, it seems, it dawned on Obama that if he needs to follow in FDR's footsteps in combatting an economical crisis, he needs to create jobs. And, since our infrastructure has come in such disrepair (just like it was in the 30s), there is no better way to provide a short-term boost to the job market than to invest in infrastructure. FDR did it once and HALVED the unemployment while improving infrastructure. Obama has announced that his administration is embarking on a new plan, which includes a significant investment in infrastructure. About time.

In a speech at the Brookings Institution, Obama said he wants to give small businesses tax breaks for new hires and equipment purchases. He also wants to expand American Recovery and Reinvestment Act programs and spend some $50 billion more on roads, bridges, aviation and water projects.

Of course, there are unhappy (read - Republicans). How dare he try to create jobs?

Republicans have blasted the idea of tapping any unexpected fiscal headroom from TARP for job creation. Instead, they say that any gains on government investments in banks or unexpected savings should be used to pay down the skyrocketing deficit.

Of course, they must think improving market will take care of the job creation. Obviously, however, since the "Market" led us into the crap that we're in, this is, at best, a 50-50 bet.

Can we afford a 50-50 bet?

Simple and Uncontrovertible truths that are not being said in the Media about the Health Care Reform

Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:37:36 GMT

By now we have heard all kinds of scary stories of what would happen with the passage of the Big Bad Health Care Reform. I understand some people's hesitation. But the true problem is that many don't realize how bad we have it now.

Check out the article by Ezra Klein that explains where we are now and where the health Care Reform will take us in relation to our current state of health care.

One of the most improtant points we need to understand is that if our health care were to be taken over by the state, the growth in taxes would be only one side of the medal. Our employers, paying millions of dollars for our health care (of our own hard earned money) would be liberated to not even care about medical plans and to pay that money TO US, THE EMPLOYEES.

As Ezra Klein says:

The reason is not that people haven't heard grim warnings about the future. It's because they don't understand what's going on in the present. In 2009, the average employer-sponsored health-care plan cost a bit less than $13,500. But virtually no one cut a check for $13,500. Employers generally pay more than 70 percent of their employees' health-care costs. To employees, that seems like a good deal, particularly given how fast costs are growing. A "benefit," as it's called.

But health-care coverage is not a benefit. It's a wage deduction. When premium costs go up, wages go down. When premium costs go down, wages go up. Yet workers don't know that. In fact, the information is hidden from them. That means that cost control seems like all pain and no gain, which makes it virtually impossible for Congress to pass. It's like asking someone to diet when they don't realize it will help them lose weight.

So, as the burden of health care premiums would be removed from the employers, the benefits will turn into cold hard cash. In our pockets. That would greatly (and more than sufficiently) offset the growth in taxes to pay for government health care. And, in case with single payer plans, we would, actually, be able to pool more people and, thus, get larger discounts. Which SHOULD be music for the ears of people who do not even realize that despite private health care system, Americans PAY MORE IN TAXES FOR HEALTH CARE THAN TAXPAYERS IN COUNTRIES WITH "SOCIALIZED" MEDICINE.

That should be a no-brainer. It is not, because the simplest and clearest information about the Health Care Reform and Health Care, in general, doesn't reach the average American. It gets drowned out by the cacophony of right-wing and corporate-friendly noise in our "mainstream" media.

And we're left holding our dicks on the sideline.

Senate is moving on the Health Care Bill!

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:53:16 GMT

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid finally provided us with the full text of the Senate Health Care Bill. I think it is a strong bill. It includes the following:

•Insurance exchanges will be set up in 2014 to help the uninsured get coverage.
•A public option will be available on these exchanges.
•Anyone below 133% of the federal poverty line will be eligible for Medicaid.
•Anyone between 133% and 300% of the poverty line will get subsidies to buy insurance.
•Insurance companies will be required to accept all new customers, even with preexisting conditions.
•Annual and lifetime limits on coverage will be prohibited.
•Insurance companies will be forbidden from canceling policies when a person got sick.
•Insurance companies will not be allowed to charge sick people more than healthy people.
•Employers with more than 50 employees will be fined for not providing health insurance.
•Small businesses will receive tax credits to help them buy insurance for their employees.
•Uninsured individuals will be fined $750 per year.
•The size of the Medicare donut hole will be reduced by $500.
•Children will be allowed to stay on their parents' policies until age 26.
•Policies will have to explain their benefits in a standardized form in simple English.
•An appeals process will be created so patients can fight back when coverage is denied.
•There are many provisions encouraging preventive medicine.

It is of course, expensive, but it will, in best traditions of the Democratic "Pay as You Go" principle, be covered by the new federal revenue streams and will actually REDUCE federal debt.

For those who are interested in the full text of the bill, here's the link to all 2074 pages of it. :)

Finally, we're moving in the right direction!!! Now, Senate, vote it in!

Health Care train has left the station, finally

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:07:25 GMT

Last week, Saturday, to be precise, the US House of Representatives had finally passed their version of Health Care bill. I am extremely optimistic that the health Care reform in this country has finally moved forward, despite significant opposition from the conservatives and blue dog Democrats. It seems that, from this point on, the resistence will remain staunch all along the way. Some people are either happy with today's health care or really do not care for it much at all.

I see these conservative types argue that Government-run health care is an assault on capitalism, an assault on freedom, etc. Various slogans are hurled about without any elaboration on the side of those who support these slogans.

How is government-run health care destroying our freedom? Should we ask those who are using Medicare, Medicaid, VA, whether their freedom is being assaulted?

Are those who are not using government-run health care enjoying freedom in their health care? Not really. Unless you're really well off (and I am talking about the top 1%), you have to use an HMO or PPO (EPO) of some sort. You do not select a doctor and neither the doctor nor the patient select the course of treatment. Your plan does. Your plan decides which doctors you can see, which treatments are allowed for whatever ails you, and what sicknesses you're even allowed to address.

At least, the government is not looking for profit, nor engages in multi-million dollar advertisement campaigns.

When was the last time you saw a commercial for Medicare, Medicaid, or VA?
Exactly.

Why I'm a Liberal #1

Fri, 16 Oct 2009 03:53:52 GMT

Reason #1 why I'm a liberal:

Florida Progressive Coalition Blog

Obama stands with the relevant march

Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:31:58 GMT

This march on Washington was far more relevant than the "march" filled with "birthers" and "tea baggers" led by the loony man-child Beck a few weeks back.

This march did not include silly slogans and already-disproven phony myths. This was a march of people fighting for what America had been built on - equal opportuinity, protection from discrimination, equal rights. You know, the things that do matter. Marchers did not want "their America back". They wanted what most Americans already had - respect and equality.

And Obama was listening.

"The National Equality March coincided with National Coming Out Day, and came a day after President Obama delivered a supportive speech to the nation's largest gay and lesbian rights group.

Obama was praised for his remarks to the Human Rights Campaign, where he said he has urged congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and to pass the Domestic Partners Benefit and Obligations Act. But Obama has also been criticized by gay rights activists who say he has put those issues -- and the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which bans homosexuals from openly serving in the military -- on the back burner.
"

Obama met the march with an important policy speech. He became the first American president to show such a support for the Gay and lesbian movement for equal rights. He did not forget his election platform promises and, perhaps, regained some of the momentum with us, liberals, for standing together with Gay and Lesbian movement. I am satisfied. For now. Actions speak louder than words. Time to repeal the Defense of marriage act and the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy.

Bravo, Rep. Grayson.

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 05:36:09 GMT

The Sick finally have a lobbyist in US Congress. He is Rep. Grayson (D-FL). My kind of a Mensch! He stood up on September 29th and showed the GOPers that some Democrats do have balls. See for yourself. I do not think comments will be necessary.

We're indebted to Rep. Grayson. I have his back. So do millions of other progressive people.

Health Care Public Option - An Easy Description

Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:24:50 GMT

That's it. Easy. Safe. Don't listen to rightwing Fuckers, they're too awash in the Pharma and HMO money to let this happen.

Fuck McCain! Fuck o'Reilly. Fuck Hannity. Fuck Joe Freakin Wilson.

Health Care for everyone - what a concept.

The new face of Republican party

Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:57:49 GMT

Behold, the Republican party has found its new face and its new voice!

It's Joe Wilson (R-SC)!

"As soon as Rep. Joe Wilson was identified as the person whose angry and audible outburst disrupted President Obama's health care speech to Congress, condemnation was swift -- and brutal."

Maaaan, I am loving it. While I do not believe in sanctity of presidential speeches or that anyone should ever be muzzled or crucified for speaking out of turn, this is funny. This guy underlines what the Republican Party has become. A walking, talking, "you are an asshole but who am I?" machine.

No substance, but empty condemnation.

Indeed, whatever he hoped to achieve while heckling the president during Barak Obama's health care speech (BBC's reaction to the speech), he may have given the Democrats the momentum and the higher ground in the health care debate.

And, I am hearing, his opponent for his next election is raising large amounts of money. As far as I am concerned, Joe Wilson's opponent, Mr. Rob Miller (D), should just replay the "You Lie" moment over and over and over, just plaster every available wall with a poster with Joe Wilson gaping-mouth finger-pointing outburst. Joe Wilson's bird is cooked.

What's all the brou-ha-ha over Obama's address?

Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:29:09 GMT

I don't get it.

How can a "stay in school" message be political, partisan, or even Socialist (I've seen all three epithets being used in media already)?

I guess some people want to raise a controversy where there isn't any.

Here's the full speech transcript prepared by the White House. Please, anyone, tell me what's partisan or biased about this speech.

And if you don't want your child to see/hear the speech, please formulate your objections in light of the speech itself, not how it is framed by the Right Wing circle jerk.

What did we expect?

Mon, 07 Sep 2009 14:41:29 GMT

One of the very few supposed Bush foreign policy successes that ever gets mentioned is Afghanistan. We're no longer even calling it a military success, just the political success. We are spreading democracy, you see. Then we count a number of any sorts of elections they have and pat ourselves on the back.

And then THIS happens. So, as we have been hearing ever since these Afghani "elections" have been held, this had basically been a fraud. And not a very good one. This Hamid Karzai guy we installed as our puppet at the top of Afghanistan, did not turn out to be a benevolent nation leader. He turned out to be a greedy, power hungry tribal leader, looking to hold on to power any which way he can.

This just proves that Democracy can not be built from the outside. The subjects must want it themselves, they must understand what it means and they must themselves fight for it. Otherwise it is a sham.

Ted Kennedy Died

Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:42:43 GMT

Last night after a prolonged struggle with brain cancer, one of the foremost Democratic politicians in this country, Ted Kennedy, has died.

Ted Kennedy was a strong supporter and leader in liberal causes and liberal legislation. After 40 years in Congress, he has left a powerful legislative legacy and a strong and principled image. He was revered by friend and foe alike. He was truly "the Lion of the Senate".

Rest in Peace, Senator.

Edward Moore "Ted" Kennedy
(February 22, 1932 – August 25, 2009)

Paul Krugman on Health Care methodologies or The Swiss Menace

Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:20:15 GMT

In his Monday article, Paul Krugman explains what to expect from various implementations of health care in wealthy countries other than US.

It was the blooper heard round the world. In an editorial denouncing Democratic health reform plans, Investor’s Business Daily tried to frighten its readers by declaring that in Britain, where the government runs health care, the handicapped physicist Stephen Hawking “wouldn’t have a chance,” because the National Health Service would consider his life “essentially worthless.”

Besides being vile and stupid, however, the editorial was beside the point. Investor’s Business Daily would like you to believe that Obamacare would turn America into Britain — or, rather, a dystopian fantasy version of Britain. The screamers on talk radio and Fox News would have you believe that the plan is to turn America into the Soviet Union. But the truth is that the plans on the table would, roughly speaking, turn America into Switzerland — which may be occupied by lederhosen-wearing holey-cheese eaters, but wasn’t a socialist hellhole the last time I looked.

Let’s talk about health care around the advanced world.

Every wealthy country other than the United States guarantees essential care to all its citizens. There are, however, wide variations in the specifics, with three main approaches taken.

In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We’ve all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false. Like every system, the National Health Service has problems, but over all it appears to provide quite good care while spending only about 40 percent as much per person as we do. By the way, our own Veterans Health Administration, which is run somewhat like the British health service, also manages to combine quality care with low costs.

The second route to universal coverage leaves the actual delivery of health care in private hands, but the government pays most of the bills. That’s how Canada and, in a more complex fashion, France do it. It’s also a system familiar to most Americans, since even those of us not yet on Medicare have parents and relatives who are.

Again, you hear a lot of horror stories about such systems, most of them false. French health care is excellent. Canadians with chronic conditions are more satisfied with their system than their U.S. counterparts. And Medicare is highly popular, as evidenced by the tendency of town-hall protesters to demand that the government keep its hands off the program.

Finally, the third route to universal coverage relies on private insurance companies, using a combination of regulation and subsidies to ensure that everyone is covered. Switzerland offers the clearest example: everyone is required to buy insurance, insurers can’t discriminate based on medical history or pre-existing conditions, and lower-income citizens get government help in paying for their policies.

In this country, the Massachusetts health reform more or less follows the Swiss model; costs are running higher than expected, but the reform has greatly reduced the number of uninsured. And the most common form of health insurance in America, employment-based coverage, actually has some “Swiss” aspects: to avoid making benefits taxable, employers have to follow rules that effectively rule out discrimination based on medical history and subsidize care for lower-wage workers.

So where does Obamacare fit into all this? Basically, it’s a plan to Swissify America, using regulation and subsidies to ensure universal coverage.

If we were starting from scratch we probably wouldn’t have chosen this route. True “socialized medicine” would undoubtedly cost less, and a straightforward extension of Medicare-type coverage to all Americans would probably be cheaper than a Swiss-style system. That’s why I and others believe that a true public option competing with private insurers is extremely important: otherwise, rising costs could all too easily undermine the whole effort.

But a Swiss-style system of universal coverage would be a vast improvement on what we have now. And we already know that such systems work.

So we can do this. At this point, all that stands in the way of universal health care in America are the greed of the medical-industrial complex, the lies of the right-wing propaganda machine, and the gullibility of voters who believe those lies.

Fight the Myth. And the messenger.

Mon, 17 Aug 2009 04:33:02 GMT

So, what about all those oft-repeated myths about health care that are promulgated from the Right. That's all they are - myths.

A great blog by Nita Chaudhary (of MoveOn.org) neately undresses the most agregious of them:

Lie #1: President Obama wants to euthanize your grandma!!!

The truth: These accusations—of "death panels" and forced euthanasia—are, of course, flatly untrue. As an article from the Associated Press puts it: "No 'death panel' in health care bill." What's the real deal? Reform legislation includes a provision, supported by the AARP, to offer senior citizens access to a professional medical counselor who will provide them with information on preparing a living will and other issues facing older Americans.

If you'd like to read the actual section of the legislation that spawned these outrageous claims (Section 1233 of H.R. 3200) for yourself, here it is. It's pretty boring stuff, which is why the accusations that it creates "death panels" is so absurd. But don't take our word for it, read it yourself.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lie #2: Democrats are going to outlaw private insurance and force you into a government plan!!!

The truth: With reform, choices will increase, not decrease. Obama's reform plans will create a health insurance exchange, a one-stop shopping marketplace for affordable, high-quality insurance options. Included in the exchange is the public health insurance option—a nationwide plan with a broad network of providers—that will operate alongside private insurance companies, injecting competition into the market to drive quality up and costs down. If you're happy with your coverage and doctors, you can keep them. But the new public plan will expand choices to millions of businesses or individuals who choose to opt into it, including many who simply can't afford health care now.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lie #3: President Obama wants to implement Soviet-style rationing!!!

The truth: Health care reform will expand access to high-quality health insurance, and give individuals, families, and businesses more choices for coverage. Right now, big corporations decide whether to give you coverage, what doctors you get to see, and whether a particular procedure or medicine is covered—that is rationed care. And a big part of reform is to stop that.

Health care reform will do away with some of the most nefarious aspects of this rationing: discrimination for pre-existing conditions, insurers that cancel coverage when you get sick, gender discrimination, and lifetime and yearly limits on coverage. And outside of that, as noted above, reform will increase insurance options, not force anyone into a rationed situation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lie #4: Obama is secretly plotting to cut senior citizens' Medicare benefits!!!

The truth: Health care reform plans will not reduce Medicare benefits. Reform includes savings from Medicare that are unrelated to patient care -- in fact, the savings comes from cutting billions of dollars in overpayments to insurance companies and eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lie #5: Obama's health care plan will bankrupt America!!!

The truth: We need health care reform now in order to prevent bankruptcy—to control spiraling costs that affect individuals, families, small businesses, and the American economy. Right now, we spend more than $2 trillion dollars a year on health care. The average family premium is projected to rise to over $22,000 in the next decade—and each year, nearly a million people face bankruptcy because of medical expenses. Reform, with an affordable, high-quality public option that can spur competition, is necessary to bring down skyrocketing costs. Also, President Obama's reform plans would be fully paid for over 10 years and not add a penny to the deficit.

So, do your homework and fight a good fight. Be prepared to fight the messenger.

P.S. Following Sources had been used to support the above text:
Sources:

1. "No 'death panel' in health care bill," Associated Press, August 10, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51747

2. "Stop Distorting the Truth about End of Life Care," Huffington Post, July 24, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51730

3. "Reality Check FAQs," WhiteHouse.gov, accessed August 11, 2009. http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq#i1

4. "Why We Need a Public Health-Care Plan," Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51737

5. "Obama: 'If You Like Your Doctor, You Can Keep Your Doctor,'" Wall Street Journal, 15, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51736

6. "Reality Check FAQs," WhiteHouse.gov, accessed August 10, 2009. http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq#r1

7. "Obama: No reduced Medicare benefits in health care reform," CNN, July 28, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51748

8. "Reality Check FAQs," WhiteHouse.gov, accessed August 10, 2009. http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq#s1

9. "Reality Check FAQs," WhiteHouse.gov, accessed August 10, 2009. http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq#c1

10. "Premiums Run Amok," Center for American Progress, July 24, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51667

11. "Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies," CNN, June 5, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51735

12. "Reality Check FAQs," WhiteHouse.gov, accessed August 10, 2009. http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq#c1

Sources for the Five Lies:

#5: "Obama's 'Public' Health Plan Will Bankrupt the Nation," The National Review, May 13, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51744

#1: "A euthanasia mandate," The Washington Times, July 29, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51732

#2: "It's Not An Option," Investor's Business Daily, July 15, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51743

#3: "Rationing Health Care," The Washington Times, April 21, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51742

#4: "60 Plus Ad Is Chock Full Of Misinformation," Media Matters for America, August 8, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51734

And who else is behind?

Sat, 15 Aug 2009 04:54:30 GMT

No further comments are necessary...

What's behind the recess Townhall "disruptions" and WHY?

Sat, 15 Aug 2009 04:51:00 GMT

Who hasn't read over the last few days about a number of national democratic legislators whose townhalls had been invaded by the raucous and unruly anti-health care reform citizen groups

Some may say that the 1st amendment protects their rights to free speech. Really? So get on the dais, get to the microphone, get up and address the legislator. Engage in a debate. Do not try to attack, threaten, or shout out the legislator. Be heard and let others be heard.

But they're not interested in debate. They want debate killed. They will lose the debate and they know it. That's why they make up the lies, paint Obama - Hitler comparisons (and superimpose Hitler's handlebar mustache on Obama portraits). They have no reasonable alternative.

Look, what is their alternative to the health Care reform? Continue not covering people, continue to pay more for healthcare per capita than any other developped nation, continue to provide worse medical outcomes. But it will continue to pad HMOs and Big Pharm's pockets.

US health Care System through the eyes of a Canadian Doctor - required reading.

Mon, 03 Aug 2009 21:09:24 GMT

Here's a Los Angeles Times piece that should be required reading to all those screaming and railing against the socialized medicine:

A Canadian doctor diagnoses U.S. healthcare

By Michael M. Rachlis

August 3, 2009

The caricature of 'socialized medicine' is used by corporate interests to confuse Americans and maintain their bottom lines instead of patients' health.

Universal health insurance is on the American policy agenda for the fifth time since World War II. In the 1960s, the U.S. chose public coverage for only the elderly and the very poor, while Canada opted for a universal program for hospitals and physicians' services. As a policy analyst, I know there are lessons to be learned from studying the effect of different approaches in similar jurisdictions. But, as a Canadian with lots of American friends and relatives, I am saddened that Americans seem incapable of learning them.

Our countries are joined at the hip. We peacefully share a continent, a British heritage of representative government and now ownership of GM. And, until 50 years ago, we had similar health systems, healthcare costs and vital statistics.

The U.S.' and Canada's different health insurance decisions make up the world's largest health policy experiment. And the results?

On coverage, all Canadians have insurance for hospital and physician services. There are no deductibles or co-pays. Most provinces also provide coverage for programs for home care, long-term care, pharmaceuticals and durable medical equipment, although there are co-pays.

On the U.S. side, 46 million people have no insurance, millions are underinsured and healthcare bills bankrupt more than 1 million Americans every year.

Lesson No. 1: A single-payer system would eliminate most U.S. coverage problems.

On costs, Canada spends 10% of its economy on healthcare; the U.S. spends 16%. The extra 6% of GDP amounts to more than $800 billion per year. The spending gap between the two nations is almost entirely because of higher overhead. Canadians don't need thousands of actuaries to set premiums or thousands of lawyers to deny care. Even the U.S. Medicare program has 80% to 90% lower administrative costs than private Medicare Advantage policies. And providers and suppliers can't charge as much when they have to deal with a single payer.

Lessons No. 2 and 3: Single-payer systems reduce duplicative administrative costs and can negotiate lower prices.

Because most of the difference in spending is for non-patient care, Canadians actually get more of most services. We see the doctor more often and take more drugs. We even have more lung transplant surgery. We do get less heart surgery, but not so much less that we are any more likely to die of heart attacks. And we now live nearly three years longer, and our infant mortality is 20% lower.

Lesson No. 4: Single-payer plans can deliver the goods because their funding goes to services, not overhead.

The Canadian system does have its problems, and these also provide important lessons. Notwithstanding a few well-publicized and misleading cases, Canadians needing urgent care get immediate treatment. But we do wait too long for much elective care, including appointments with family doctors and specialists and selected surgical procedures. We also do a poor job managing chronic disease.

However, according to the New York-based Commonwealth Fund, both the American and the Canadian systems fare badly in these areas. In fact, an April U.S. Government Accountability Office report noted that U.S. emergency room wait times have increased, and patients who should be seen immediately are now waiting an average of 28 minutes. The GAO has also raised concerns about two- to four-month waiting times for mammograms.

On closer examination, most of these problems have little to do with public insurance or even overall resources. Despite the delays, the GAO said there is enough mammogram capacity.

These problems are largely caused by our shared politico-cultural barriers to quality of care. In 19th century North America, doctors waged a campaign against quacks and snake-oil salesmen and attained a legislative monopoly on medical practice. In return, they promised to set and enforce standards of practice. By and large, it didn't happen. And perverse incentives like fee-for-service make things even worse.

Using techniques like those championed by the Boston-based Institute for Healthcare Improvement, providers can eliminate most delays. In Hamilton, Ontario, 17 psychiatrists have linked up with 100 family doctors and 80 social workers to offer some of the world's best access to mental health services. And in Toronto, simple process improvements mean you can now get your hip assessed in one week and get a new one, if you need it, within a month.

Lesson No. 5: Canadian healthcare delivery problems have nothing to do with our single-payer system and can be fixed by re-engineering for quality.

U.S. health policy would be miles ahead if policymakers could learn these lessons. But they seem less interested in Canada's, or any other nation's, experience than ever. Why?

American democracy runs on money. Pharmaceutical and insurance companies have the fuel. Analysts see hundreds of billions of premiums wasted on overhead that could fund care for the uninsured. But industry executives and shareholders see bonuses and dividends.

Compounding the confusion is traditional American ignorance of what happens north of the border, which makes it easy to mislead people. Boilerplate anti-government rhetoric does the same. The U.S. media, legislators and even presidents have claimed that our "socialized" system doesn't let us choose our own doctors. In fact, Canadians have free choice of physicians. It's Americans these days who are restricted to "in-plan" doctors.

Unfortunately, many Americans won't get to hear the straight goods because vested interests are promoting a caricature of the Canadian experience.

Michael M. Rachlis is a physician, health policy analyst and author in Toronto.

Ukrainian U-19 NT wins European Championships!

Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:24:11 GMT

Yes, it is only U-19s. Yes, it was on Ukrainian soil.

Fuck it! We're European Champions! For the first time in its history, Ukraine had won a footballing continental title!

Path to the title:
GR1 Ukraine - Slovenia 0-0
GR2 Ukraine - England 2-2 (1-1) Petrov (2)
GR3 Ukraine - Switzerland 1-0 (0-0) Rybalka
1/2 Ukraine - Serbia 3-1 (2-1) Shakhov, Garmash (2)
F Ukraine - England 2-0 (1-0) Garmash, Korkishko

Yea!

Conservatives have no control over basic facts

Wed, 29 Jul 2009 14:00:28 GMT

One of the often-repeaten Republican criticisms of socialized medicine is that Medicaid and Medicare costs grow much faster than the private insurance costs.

Bill Kristol: "One reason the price of health care is going up so fast is because of government programs," says Kristol. "The price of Medicare and Medicaid have gone up faster than private insurance. That's well-documented."

Truth is Medicare spending grows slower than private insurance spending

Likewise, Medicaid expenditures grow slower than private health care spending, as well...

I am sure Kristol knows that. He either disregards his audience's ability to check his claims or he disregards his audience's mental capacity. Or both.

Why Liberals SHOULD be able to dominate the next 20-30 years

Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:29:21 GMT

Why do I think Liberals should have an unimpeded 20-30 year reign? Just see who we have to deal with:

Bill o'Reilly is an idiot! And so are people who believe him!

It is hard to make Paul Krugman speechless. but that piece of doo-doo made him just that.

Following is one of Paul's latest New York Times The Conscience of a Liberal blog post. The whole post. I am not kidding:

July 28, 2009, 7:24 pm

Speechless

Bill O’Reilly explaining that of course America has lower life expectancy than Canada — we have 10 times as many people, so we have 10 times as many deaths.

I need a drink.

A belated tribute to Walter Cronkite

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:38:39 GMT

RIP Walter Cronkite (11/04/1916 - 07/17/2009).

I know, this is about 5 days too late. Been busy but I have to say something. I wasn't in this country when Walter Cronkite did his work. I wasn't even around when he did most of his prescient reporting. But for millions of the baby-boomers, Walter Cronkite WAS the news. They grew up hearing his voice reaching us from the screens of the old black-and-white TV screens half a century ago. His career in news reporting spanned a dozen administrations, dozens of local and not-so-local wars. He was not about bells and whistles. His reporting style included giving you the news supported by the most profound insight that a few minutes of reporting could give you. He did not report on Spring Break in Cozumel or reality TV brawls in Manhattan. Walter Cronkite's news mattered. With his death we have lost one of the last vestiges of THAT news culture when providing news coverage was what news shows were all about.

Today, one may survey the multitude of news channels and news shows available out there in the TV broadcast world and find maybe 1 such voice. Maybe none at all.

Is Obama doing enough?

Tue, 14 Jul 2009 11:41:25 GMT

I have to agree with Mr. Krugman's (blog) assessment that the two biggest problems facing us right now are Economy and Climate Change. I totally agree with the author that the administration is not doing enough to combat both.

As far as Economy is concerned, as Krugman writes, "At this point, however, the acute crisis has given way to a much more insidious threat. Most economic forecasters now expect gross domestic product to start growing soon, if it hasn’t already. But all the signs point to a “jobless recovery”: on average, forecasters surveyed by The Wall Street Journal believe that the unemployment rate will keep rising into next year, and that it will be as high at the end of 2010 as it is now.

Now, it’s bad enough to be jobless for a few weeks; it’s much worse being unemployed for months or years. Yet that’s exactly what will happen to millions of Americans if the average forecast is right — which means that many of the unemployed will lose their savings, their homes and more.

To head off this outcome — and remember, this isn’t what economic Cassandras are saying; it’s the forecasting consensus — we’d need to get another round of fiscal stimulus under way very soon. But neither Congress nor, alas, the Obama administration is showing any inclination to act. Now that the free fall is over, all sense of urgency seems to have vanished.

This will probably change once the reality of the jobless recovery becomes all too apparent. But by then it will be too late to avoid a slow-motion human and social disaster.". What that means is despite some encouraging signs, one of the most important indicators, the jobless rate, may recover much slower and much later, if at all. That is scary. Especially, if you're part of that statistic. Economy may recover but what consolation is it to you if you still can't find a job?

Just as desperate are the problems with Environment. "if the consensus of the economic experts is grim, the consensus of the climate experts is utterly terrifying. At this point, the central forecast of leading climate models — not the worst-case scenario but the most likely outcome — is utter catastrophe, a rise in temperatures that will totally disrupt life as we know it, if we continue along our present path. How to head off that catastrophe should be the dominant policy issue of our time.

But it isn’t, because climate change is a creeping threat rather than an attention-grabbing crisis. The full dimensions of the catastrophe won’t be apparent for decades, perhaps generations. In fact, it will probably be many years before the upward trend in temperatures is so obvious to casual observers that it silences the skeptics. Unfortunately, if we wait to act until the climate crisis is that obvious, catastrophe will already have become inevitable.

And while a major environmental bill has passed the House, which was an amazing and inspiring political achievement, the bill fell well short of what the planet really needs — and despite this faces steep odds in the Senate.

What makes the apparent paralysis of policy especially alarming is that so little is happening when the political situation seems, on the surface, to be so favorable to action.

After all, supply-siders and climate-change-deniers no longer control the White House and key Congressional committees. Democrats have a popular president to lead them, a large majority in the House of Representatives and 60 votes in the Senate. And this isn’t the old Democratic majority, which was an awkward coalition between Northern liberals and Southern conservatives; this is, by historical standards, a relatively solid progressive bloc.". basically, the question is why, if we have a solid progressive majority, a progressive administration, and a somewhat more receptive public, the things are moving so slowly? Why aren't we combating the environmental threat more decisively? Who's holding things up and why?

Maybe the problem is that some do not see these problems the way we Liberals do. Some don't see them as problems at all. Some do not see these problems as worthy of pressures on our economy or worth spending. I see these people as misguided, misdirected, involved in one instinctive Conservative knee jerk while History torpedoes their arguments. And going against History would be akin repeating it.

I see president Obama as trying to be everything to everybody. No need to do that. Can't make everyone happy. How about making your base happy? We've suffered long enough.

Palin has resigned as a Governor of Alaska

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:11:00 GMT

In a move that made totally no sense, Governor Palin has resigned as a Governor of Alaska.

So Long, Sarah. may we never hear from you again. Somehow, though, I think we will hear of real reasons that prompted her resignation. I suspect they will be BIG. Maybe a scandal or two? I always agreed with those who thought she was unfit to govern to begin with...