Dear Senators, Why Bother

When is an insured an uninsured? (4.00 / 2)

My daughter-in-law just told me about someone in her neighborhood who pays $185/month for a policy with a $10,000 deductible and other onerous conditions such as lifetime cap, etc. Something happened recently that he thought resulted in a sprain. He stayed home from work for three weeks waiting for it to get better, but it got worse so he finally went to a doctor last week. Now he needs expensive surgery to repair a torn ligament or tendon, which he might (or might not) have avoided if he'd seen a doctor in the first place, as a person with reasonable insurance would have done.

My DIL's question, and my question, is what about this guy's insurance situation is good? Yet, he is against meaningful health care reform.

Ideology doth make fools of us all, I guess. The strongest opposition in general to substantial reform comes from politicians in states with the highest uninsured rates, which also are the states which express the strongest sentiment for opting out. And then there's Joe Lieberman.

Incomprehensible.

I fear that if this attempt fails, another attempt won't be made for at least 10 years, and I sort of understand the desire to pass something, anything. The legislation seems to be shaping up to be worse than nothing, though. If there was any evidence that another attempt would begin as soon as this bill failed, I would be for killing it and starting over. Meanwhile, I guess the only thing to do is keep up the pressure.

---

by: count @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 08:13:09 AM UTC

This is... (4.00 / 1)

This is worse than "worse than nothing", though...

Because after this bullshit giveaway to the insurance industry passes (and it will), we'll be lucky if we see another attempt to fix things for 40 or 50 years, let alone 10.

This shit didn't fix anything, all it did was feed millions more Americans to the private insurers, to do with as they please.  As long as they don't "say no".

But imo, saying "gimme $2,000 a month or you'll be reported to the government", equals something like 17 steps backwards from where we are now.

It's as if we put 'Vinnie Gorgeous' or Junior Gotti in charge of our national "health care" system.  The end result couldn't be any worse...

Woe be upon the next fucking Democrat who asks me for a campaign contribution.

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 10:00:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

next fucking Democrat (4.00 / 1)

Even Wyden?

---

by: count @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 13:33:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Especially him... (4.00 / 1)

The only two statewide Oregon politicians I have any love for at this moment are Jeff Merkley and John Kitzhaber...

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 14:14:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

By the way... (4.00 / 1)

I do not know whether that person's insurance is through his employer, or if he is on his own.

---

by: count @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 13:11:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

oy so if he gets cancer or hit by a bus (4.00 / 1)

first it will ruin him financially and THEN the insurance will kick in and pay the rest.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 18:52:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

maybe... (4.00 / 1)

if they can't figure out how to disallow the coverage THEN... and we all know how hard they work to do THAT!

---

by: chimene @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 20:27:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

maybe... (0.00 / 0)

if they can't figure out how to disallow the coverage THEN... and we all know how hard they work to do THAT!

---

by: chimene @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 20:27:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

reconciliation (4.00 / 1)

Dean seems to want part of the Senate bill to go through on reconciliation rules. The problem with that, as I understand the situation, is that Budget then takes control and HELP is out of the loop.

Budget Committee

Does anyone see a problem there? Notice who occupies the chair? Do you also see that the committee is so fucked up it cannot even function as a committee? Both parties have their own damned websites! They are a disgrace, and a pox on both their houses.

The committee does have some good members, but I don't know how much influence they would have.

Budget Committee membership

---

by: count @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 08:32:45 AM UTC

This is what we get... (4.00 / 1)

...when the well fed, healthy and Privileged Elite get to sit comfortably around in well appointed rooms and determine lobbyist-friendly policy for the rest of us through the mainstream media's filter.

While we pay their salaries and expenses, and oh.... their health coverage, too!

I guess I'm fortunate enough to not be in the "pre-existing condition" boat... but I'm in another one.  Back in Jersey, we called it "protection money" -

'Ay, pay up.  Otherwise, it'd be a shame if something happened to that thumb of yours...

Wonderful.  I can make my payoffs to The Black Hand BlueCross BlueShield and I can go homeless, or I can be fined by the government!

"Hope", yay!!!

Why can't we just have real health reform? Why can't they just give Medicare to everybody?

"Yes, we can!"  If we'd only form lobbying firms of our own and throw millions towards "our representatives" in the hopes of influencing them to see things our way...

Ain't America grand?

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 09:48:40 AM UTC

I saw part of it and tivoed the rest (4.00 / 2)

I'm a former Deaniac. If this crap gets passed, the turn out next year for Dems will be horrid..

this bill is bad on so many levels. And you know its looks like the PO will be thrown under the bus to appease these 4
ass holes
Lierberman
Landrieu
B Nelson
Blanche Lincoln

fyi..in Arkansas Lincoln is called plantation Blanche

---

by: LeeN @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 12:26:44 PM UTC

Thinking the same thing... (4.00 / 1)

Although as someone who'd also be classified as a former "Deaniac" myself, I reject the term...

I couldn't care less about the guy himself, I was just ecstatic that somebody in the Democratic Party finally gave voice to what we were thinking!!!

Wasn't that a great feeling, Lee?

:)

Anyways...

It's pretty much solely a testament to the failure of the modern Republican Party that Democrats control things these days to begin with.  It's not like D's won on ideas and spine, they pretty much backed into their current majority in 2006 because Americans don't want to live in a radical right-wing theocracy.

And we still don't.

So that's why I'm not worried about 2010, but shit...

In the end?

All the R's actually really need is another Gingrich-style stooge who can take over their message without spewing overt biblicalism.

It's really frightening how close they are to that, as I think we should count our "blessings" that they don't realize or can't take advantage of it...

Now can we get some Democrats with fucking spines, please?!?!

Because sooner or later, the bad guys are gonna get their shit together.  And I don't wanna live through that...

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 12:51:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're right.. (4.00 / 1)

I didn't want to accept your assertion without checking, so I looked it up. You're correct.

---

by: count @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 13:06:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

turn out next year for Dems (4.00 / 1)

You're probably right, if it passes. If the legislation fails, though, the result could be some interesting primaries with high Dem turnout.

---

by: count @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 13:18:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

employers (4.00 / 1)

Although employer participation has hardly been a small ripple in the national discussion pond, I am sad that we are incontrovertably missing the opportunity to relieve employers of the responsitility to provide health insurance. This burden afflicts all employers large and small, even the ones who cannot or choose to not provide health insurance - employers would be better off if their employees had insurance. I had real hope for this in 2008 - then Obama changed his mind, congressional leaders are strongly committed to the current system...

It's a shame.

---

by: count @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 13:27:39 PM UTC

employer participation (4.00 / 1)

Mind you, employers would need to pay into the funding (the dreaded spectre of increased taxes) but many employers would think that a good bargain.

I wonder if the taxation bugaboo is why politicians continue to want the onus to be on employers, despite all good sense. Maybe so.

---

by: count @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 13:31:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think, and I could be wrong here, I'll have to ask my brother about this (4.00 / 1)

but I think that if you are an employer offering medical insurance, you don't pay taxes on that insurance. In other words, it doesn't count as paid employee compensation.

My brother with the marble shop has employees he provides with medical insurance. It's Kaiser, but it's better than nothing.

Follow me on this one. If I as an employer, pay, say $1,000/month for insurance premiums for coverage for my employee, I get to deduct 100% of that as a business expense, but it doesn't count as wages. If, instead, I give that money to the employee instead of giving them medical coverage, now I've increased that employee's wages by $12,000/year. That bumps the employee into a higher tax bracket, so they will only get to see around 2/3 or less of that $12,000 in their pocket. In addition to that, now I get to pay 6-7% social security/fica, and it increases the workers comp that I pay which is set not only by the type of work the employee is doing, but also I pay according to gross wages (it's set to a certain ammount per $100 in wages at least that's how it's done here in Oregon), I also get to pay more in unemployment comp (both state and federal). Perhaps the unemployment comp has a cap, it's been a while since I had to study on that subject to get my contractors license, I'll have to look into it, I'm pretty sure that workers comp does not have a cap, the more you pay out in wages, the more workers comp you pay to the state or who ever is insuring you.

I have an idea that's one reason why the employers are still OK, by and large, with keeping insurance for their employees. It's essentially non taxable employee compensation. It also gives the employer some leverage to keep employees. Quit your job, loose your insurance. Get fired, loose your insurance.

Now, when I was in the bricklayers union, we were self insured and I think that the premium for our insurance was around $3/hour that the employer paid into the local for the coverage. That way, the employer still got to compensate us with insurance, but we weren't tied to a specific contractor.

Regarding locavores as elitists - explain to me how supporting local business is elitist....

---

by: Joanne Rigutto @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 21:11:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

2.074 pages (4.00 / 1)

That's how long the Senate healthcare bill is.

Senate Democrats barely won a vote Saturday night to open debate on the 2,074-page bill. The debate on amending the proposal is expected to last for weeks and won't begin until after Thanksgiving.

That probably is about 1,874 pages of legalized graft and corruption, and it will be much worse by the time the amending is finished.

---

by: count @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 13:51:12 PM UTC

Did you look at it? (4.00 / 1)

there's like fifty words per page on some pages, it's not like it's all small text.

---

by: Curtis Abbey @ Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 08:14:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is a very cynical thread (4.00 / 1)

Except for Joanne's comment and most of count's first one I don't agree.

Jill: Our state is not gonna opt out. A triggered public option will not become law. The public option will be available to you. Why can't they give Medicare to everyone? Because every Republican is against it, plus a lot of Conservative democrats that live in states with lots of insurance jobs.

Jay: I think you're wrong about the giveaways and the strength of the mandates, and about Wyden.. what's not to like?

Check out the bill.. It's HR 3590. Don't take Rachel's word for it, she is prone to being skeptical. She'll readily admit that. She's great on stuff that's happened, always negative about the uncertain future.

---

by: Curtis Abbey @ Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 08:54:45 AM UTC

I agree with you to a point on the cyincism (4.00 / 2)

One thing I think that a lot of people keep forgetting is that with such a sweeping new thing as "universal" health care, especially a public run program, the problem is always with funding.

Now I've heard a lot of people, here and elsewhere, say, "Let's just put a tax on soda or some other ubiquitous product", or let's make so-and-so over there pay for my medical care, which we actually do with medicare. Harold is 80 years old, my dad is 84. Both have medicare and use it regularly. The medicare premium they have to pay is $50/month or there abouts. The cheapest insurance I can find is around $100/month and comes with a $10,000 deductible. It's not meant to cover anything other than a catastrophic illness or emergency. And if I get it  it'll be there so that if I come down with cancer, get kicked in the head by livestock, have to have a joint replaced, or an organ transplant I'll be in debt for $10,000 plus other relatively small expenses, as opposed to either dieing, or being in hock for $500,000 or a million.

The only reason medicare is possible is because you and I and everyone else who makes any money in this country is forced to pay for it with our taxes. The type of insurance they get through medicare would cost over $1,000/month for an individual, and over $2,000/month for a family.

I have always been in favor of access to medical coverage for everyone in this country. But that's feindishly expensive, and that's where the hitch is - how are WE going to pay for it? Also, how are you going to force everyone into paying for it. That's why social secturity and other taxes are mandatory, if we didn't have everyone in this country paying in, no one would be able to have medicare. In order for a system like this to work, you have to have a lot of people paying smaller ammounts of money in to support the few who actively use the system.

That means that you and I and everyone else are going to have to pay in, and the only way to do that is to force people to buy insurance, and fine them if they don't. That's how government does things. For big sweeping programs like this, I think it's the only way government knows how to do things.

Regarding locavores as elitists - explain to me how supporting local business is elitist....

---

by: Joanne Rigutto @ Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 14:00:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agree (4.00 / 1)

I think this bill will cut that $50/month medicare advantage cost to $0/month in 10 years. If this bill were a giveaway to the insurance companies it wouldn't do that. They love being able to charge Medicare patients.

As a small business owner Joanne you'll be exempt from the mandate but eligible to buy insurance through the national exchange.

The more I read this bill the more I like it.

Check out Title II Subsections B + C they are CHIP fixes. That's another good reason why doing this is better than nothing, if something needs to be fixed it can be in future bills. (S.S. D+F show that too with Medicaid)

---

by: Curtis Abbey @ Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 16:38:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'll have to check those out. (4.00 / 2)

I downloaded the pdf from your link. At least now that the house and the senate have both passed something we have actual language to annalyse. It was a bitch before, as there were so many bills floating around that it was a constantly evolving situation.

At 2074 pages this ones as intimidating as the house version to wade through, but we all gotta do it.

Regarding locavores as elitists - explain to me how supporting local business is elitist....

---

by: Joanne Rigutto @ Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 17:17:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Something other countries can do, (4.00 / 2)

we should be able to figure out how to do. Nothing about being American forces us to be collectively stupid or incompetent. What plagues us more than anything else right now is the weight of the cold dead hand of tradition, and fear of change. (I think.)

Requiring employers to provide insurance is an aspect of this that is particularly messed up. In the 1990s, defined benefit pension plans were largely replaced by 401(k) plans. Employers contributed, but their costs were reduced and huge amounts of business resources were freed up for productive use. Sure there was some deregulation, and Republicans probably try to assert that deregulation was responsible for the facts that 23 million jobs were created and the Dow Jones Index increased 327% during the Clinton years, but I think the switch to 401(k) was much more important.

My expectation is that getting employers out of the business of providing health insurance would similarly be hugely productive. Congress could mess it up. As your comment about your brother's business indicates, the present system has good points, and Congress could make the situation worse. I don't think they would.

I'm not aware that employers are particularly OK that the burden of providing health insurance falls on them. The official stance of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposing reform is rooted in anti-Communist ideology, but many Chamber member firms want change. I do think that, as long as we have the present system, employers want to be able to choose whether or not to provide insurance, and the Senate bill does not have the mandate contained in the House bill. The cost of providing health insurance is a significant reason businesses go off shore, and a major reason businesses oppose unionization. HHS released a report recently, last week I think, showing problems with the present system. To take one example that surprised me, there are more than 70,000 small businesses in Minnesota. More than 40% of those employers do not provide health insurance to their employees. That's in a state with high rates of coverage compared to other states, and the situation is much worse in Dixie, where most of the opposition to "Obamacare" resides.

(A couple of southern states have pretty good coverage rates, I think because of the foreign-badge vehicle plants.)

---

by: count @ Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 17:14:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A couple notes about Minnesota (4.00 / 1)

They don't have for-profit insurance. That could be why many people that work at small businesses don't get it through their work, it's not that expensive.

Also Minnesota was one of the reason why this bill didn't tie rates to Medicare. Because Medicare pays out on a fee-for-service basis rather than an outcome-oriented basis, which is what Minnesota already does. So Minnesota docs gets underpaid compared to other states.

---

by: Curtis Abbey @ Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 19:28:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

non-profit insurance (4.00 / 1)

How many states have non-profit insurance, do you know? Is Minnesota the only one remaining?

I think a reason for me to (grudgingly) support the conference bill, whatever it turns out to be, is that we have a system in which insurance is regulated by the 50 states separately (I don't know who regulates insurance in D.C.), and the legislation won't abolish this regime. Instead, D.C. and the 50 states (and the territories, I suppose) will need to realign their programs. This will probably involve a lot of indigestion and some false starts until we find out what all the unintended consequences are. We'll need time to let it shake out and settle down, and can then come back to the issue later. A kind of variation of Joanne's "big sweeping programs" argument, perhaps.

---

by: count @ Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 20:08:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't know how many (4.00 / 1)

I would guess there are a couple of other ones in the North East. I just heard about Minnesota because I've been following Al Franken.

The state regulation system debate is interesting. The Republicans (who usually claim to be for States rights) want the regulations opened up so that you could buy insurance from another state that doesn't jive with your state's regulations. I've heard a number of things, and I have no idea which is true. Some say this will lead to a race to the bottom, others say it won't do anything to bring down cost for insurance that actually covers stuff. I'd like to know which states have regulations that raise the cost of care and take a look at that, rather than just opening the state borders up.

---

by: Curtis Abbey @ Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 20:15:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Opening up state borders (4.00 / 1)

Doesn't that seem like nothing more than a rhetorical diversion, to keep people from focussing on what's real? The point supposedly is, if a company in Montana or Arkansas (or Minnesta) sells insurance more cheaply than any company in Maryland, Maryland buyers would choose the out-of-state carrier. But let's say Maryland coverage is expensive because care is expensive. Let's say healthcare is more expensive in Maryland because it has one of the highest per-capita or per-family incomes in the country. Perhaps it's more expensive because of a sky-incidence of bogus malpractice suits and a record of high judgements. Would the Montana company sell coverage to Maryland residents at the same price it sells to Montanans? I don't think so. Would the Montana company want to insure care provided by medical professionals and institutions not licensed in Montana? I think not. Would Marylanders want to buy insurance from a company that requires any disputes to be mediated (or sued) in Montana? Questionable.

The argument seems bogus to me, but maybe I just don't understand it.

---

by: count @ Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 22:18:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Glaring logical flaw... (4.00 / 1)

Forcing everyone to pay into Social Security is not the same as forcing everyone to buy private insurance.

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 01:59:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I was talking about MEDICARE not SOCIAL SECURITY (0.00 / 0)

I wasn't talking about social security. I was talking about Medicare. A program supported by tax dollars - yours, mine, and everyone else's, and without those tax dollars, a program that could not deliver the type of medical care that Harold and my father could enjoy with a paltry $50-$100 monthly premium.

Forcing some one into buying into a private retirement account would be comperable to forcing everyone to pay into social security.

But getting back to medicare -

Believe me Jay, if you're working, you're paying into medicare whether you like it or not, and whether you want to or not, if you make enough money to pay taxes. And God help us all, medicare will still be there for us when each of us get to the age where we can start using that insurance, because I believe that if not for medicare, none of us would be able to afford private medical insurance if we could even find an insurer who would come within a half mile of us.

On another note, tell me, what the difference is between being forced to pay into private insurance or being forced to buy public medical insurance. Both will be forced on us, both will cost money (although I admit one or the other will be more expensive - we don't know which yet), both will offer some kind of coverage immediately (maybe).

Also, exactly how did you expect all this would be paid for without everyone being forced to contribute? More loans from the Chinese or our other creditors?

Regarding locavores as elitists - explain to me how supporting local business is elitist....

---

by: Joanne Rigutto @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 03:13:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, it wouldn't... (0.00 / 0)

Forcing some one into buying into a private retirement account would be comperable to forcing everyone to pay into social security.

Because the solvency of social security isn't subject to the whims of Lloyd Blankfein and his taste in cappuccino machines, whereas private retirement plans would.

There's your answer to the other questions you asked.

I don't believe private corporations have our best interests in mind, and I have the entirety of American (and hell, world...) history to back me up on that.

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 03:23:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'll clue you into something Jay (0.00 / 0)

I don't believe private corporations have our best interests in mind, and I have the entirety of American (and hell, world...) history to back me up on that

Neither does the US government.

Regarding locavores as elitists - explain to me how supporting local business is elitist....

---

by: Joanne Rigutto @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 03:33:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Under whom? (0.00 / 0)

Neither does the US government.

It did once, and it could again.

And I'll take my chances with government over CEOs and CFOs and corporate stockholders and the rest of their ilk any day of the week, thankyouverymuch...

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 03:39:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Under whom?" (4.00 / 1)

Under either party.

That's why, even though I've been a registered democrat since I was 18 (I'm 47 now) and while I've had people try to convince me to leave the democratic party and join the republicans, and other's have tried to convince me to join the independants, I haven't done so, because I see no substantive differences between the republicans or the democrats as far as implemented policy. At least not since I voted for Carter.

I know that's a pretty cinical way of looking at things, and it doesn't mean that I don't believe that individual legislators don't believe that what they do they do for the good of the country and their constituents, because I do believe that there are an awful lot of people on both sides of the isle who are trying their damndest to do good by all of us.

But it means that I'm looking at the behavior of the group as a whole, kind of like how I sometimes work with individual horses and sometimes I work with the herd (I know, another odd annalogy but bear with me here). Looking at the democrats and the republicans, I see essentially the same type of policy decisions being made.

You can take your chances with government over CEOs and CFOs, that's your choice, but in the end it won't make much difference. Health care will still cost a lot of money, and it will still be rationed. Only instead of CEOs and CFOs rationing it, it'll be your fellow countrymen telling you that the heart transplant or the hip replacement is too expensive, and it'll be our senators and representatives telling us that we have to raise taxes or premiums to cover all the medical services that we've come to expect.

Either way, the end result will ultimately be the same.

Regarding locavores as elitists - explain to me how supporting local business is elitist....

---

by: Joanne Rigutto @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 04:00:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Now we're getting somewhere! :) (0.00 / 0)

I think we pretty much agree on everything, except for my complete lack of faith that corporations can ever possibly have even one half of a shred of human decency.

Such a thing is simply impossible due to the very nature of our economic system.  Business exists to make profit, and the public sector exists to protect us and to ensure a fair playing field for all.  

When we start to blur lines between the two is when we begin to see trouble.  Enter the American "health system".

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 04:11:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree with you on the corporations in a way (0.00 / 0)

When you say corporations, I'm assuming you're talking about the very large corporations, not the mom and pop corp or other company. I think it's size that has the biggest impact on how a business behaves toward the public, etc.. That's not to say that very small businesses can't be bad actors. The reason we have all these laws requiring independant contractors to cary insurance, be registered with the state, etc. is because there were (still are actually) individuals doing shoddy work for people and when the job fails, they just disapear into the mist. Or worse, people pay money up front and the work just doesn't get done period.

I think that the bigger a company gets, and the more removed the top management of the company gets from the customers, and others, the easier it is to forget to be responsible in dealing with people and society as a whole.


Regarding locavores as elitists - explain to me how supporting local business is elitist....

---

by: Joanne Rigutto @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 12:17:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And to expand a bit upon that... (0.00 / 0)

No, government doesn't have our best interests in mind... when it's run by Republicans and other so-called "conservatives" who base their entire public careers upon the philosophy that "government doesn't work".

Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The problem with the way things are run now is that cowardly, spineless Democrats are still quivering in fear of "the next Newt Gingrich and Ronnie Reagan", and the Republicans are of course their usual destructive Norquist-ian selves, seeking to "drown government in the bathtub".

The better so that they can drown us in our own bathtubs without having to worry about liability suits, I suppose...

My current problem with government is that Obama pretty much = Clinton.  Who pretty much = HW Bush, who = Reagan, so on and so forth.

It's truly a shame that Richard fucking Nixon was the last president who actually got anything done in America.

We need FDR.  Not Goldman Sachs.

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 03:45:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is absurd (0.00 / 0)

Obama pretty much = Clinton.  Who pretty much = HW Bush, who = Reagan, so on and so forth.

I'd stick around to answer but I doubt that'd do either of us any good.

---

by: Curtis Abbey @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 06:57:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, sorry... (0.00 / 0)

I only see things as they are, and I don't "hope" they'll prove to be any better.  I only see things as they are.

Whatever.

Okay then, I'm "absurd".  Tell you what man, walk a lifetime in my shoes and then tell me Obama is any better.

I really do wish you'd stick around, but if you don't feel that doing so will do any good?  Well then that's your problem, not mine.

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 07:10:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I didn't mean I was gonna leave the site (4.00 / 1)

Just that I didn't feel like responding and wasting both of our time.. since we're both pretty set in our ways on this.

---

by: Curtis Abbey @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 07:22:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Also I didn't call you absurd (4.00 / 1)

Just that statement.. and your general opinion of Obama's administration. You know we agree on everything else, this is the only place where we butt heads.  

---

by: Curtis Abbey @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 07:25:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Cool... (4.00 / 1)

And I'm sorry I misread you there.  My bad!

Although, in reference to your comment above the one to which I'm replying, I never feel that debate is a "waste of time".

You know we agree on everything else, this is the only place where we butt heads.

Okay, agreed.  You know I love you, man...

:)

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 07:39:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

For sure (4.00 / 1)

and I can see why you thought that. I have threatened to quit before. And I took a break for a while after that.. but it wasn't because of the argument we had more that I wanted to blog about other stuff besides food issues.

---

by: Curtis Abbey @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 08:02:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Okay... (4.00 / 1)

I don't remember when you last threatened to quit; but I sure know I have over at GOS, specifically.

Breaks are good for all of us, and then there are places where we can all enjoy friendly community.

And I hate to think that a policy disagreement between me and somebody I really like (that would be you!) would discourage same...

I have a paragraph ready to go in reply to your other comment you've just posted.  But I'm not gonna type it here.  If you wanna discuss it, that's of course fine with me.

Email?  Another blog?  Drop it?

Up to you...

I hope you know that I really like you, and that just because we may disagree on a thing or two that'll never change.

I have threatened to quit before. And I took a break for a while after that.. but it wasn't because of the argument we had more that I wanted to blog about other stuff besides food issues.

Gack!  Did that other thing have something to do with me, too?!

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 08:14:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

And to expand even further... (4.00 / 1)

"Government" is not some sort of abstract enemy, government is us.

We are the government (at least in our system), and we can change it.  The only reason government doesn't represent you and I as best they can is solely due to private corporate interests and lobbyists.  It's all about the $$$$$$$.

Take a Joel Salatin.  What are his ultimate problems with government?  That he knows how to do things better than Tyson, yet he's not allowed.  And I agree!  But why can't he do those things?  Might it perhaps be due to the influence companies like Tyson have upon our regulatory system?

The same applies to an infinite number of other small businesspeople who find themselves in unfavorable situations when trying to do what they know is right, no matter their field, but being told they can't.

Public agencies don't write and enforce oppressive rules because they got an idea from the astrology pages.  Big business is where the influence for these laws and regulations come from.  

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 04:02:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree with you that WE are the government (0.00 / 0)

that's what makes this country so great. Unfortunately, in addition to us, the rank and file citizens of this country being government, so are the people running the corporations. Those individual humans vote and are constituents too, as are their share holders. The companies and other associations have more time and money to lobby legislators and other policy/rule makers than we do.

And it's not just business that lobbies government, NGOs do to.

I don't think that government is the enemy (although it can act like it). The problem is the environment that government exists in. We are all products of our environment, and that includes government.

I always have to laugh at Ronald Regan's 9 scarriest words "I'm from the government and I'm here to help". Well, depending on who's here to help and how they're trying to help, those words might be scary and they might not.

Regarding your comment about farms like Salatins and the comparison to large outfits like Tyson, I agree with you to a point.

One of the problems with government regulating things, is that the only experience most of them appear to have is with large operations like the ones that Tyson runs. And, because a lot of us haven't stayed in contact with our lawmakers, the only input they get is from outfits like Tyson, and the producer organizations that supply those markets.

Small outfits like Salatin have very little in common with the very large producers/processors, but because the regulators don't seem to understand this, the same controls they place on the big companies get applied to the small companies/farms. It's why we're probably going to get food safety regs that will (maybe) make large processors safer (cross your fingers) and will hurt small farms like my own.

Kind of reminds me of the contracting situation in Oregon. A few years ago the Associated General Contractors (AGC) lobbied the state legislature to require "Continuing Education" for all contractors, and to require exempt contractors such as myself to carry workers comp insurance on myself. The reason I'm registered as an exempt is because I'm a sole proprietor who has no employees. It's just little old me doin' your tile. It would be stupid for me to carry workers comp on myself because of the potential for fraud. Also, because of that potential, I'd probably be denied no matter what. I've been around those investigators.

But I think the AGC only sees their own kind (mostly contractors with employees) and they're probably not too happy that someone like myself can go in and undercut them on certain types of jobs. Not only am I exempt from the workers comp regulations, but also from unemployment comp, minimum wage laws, etc. I can do work for free if I want and be perfectly legal, I can work for wages or by the foot, or by the job, and be perfectly legal, and I can do work for other contractors on jobs, and not have to play by any of the labor laws in the state of Oregon as far as my own labor is concerned. Contractors with employees can't do that. You have to pay by the hour, you have to provide workers comp, unemployment comp and all the rest of that, you also must provide breaks at specified intervals, and the government tells you the minimum you must pay per hour, as well as making time and a half pay mandatory in certian situations such as working over 40 hours, etc..

That's got to be potentially very threatening to a contractor with employees, especially if enough of us independants were to get together and bid competatively against them by forming joint ventures on specific jobs. So, it looks like AGC tried to level the playing field, by getting the legislature to require people like me to carry insurance on myself that I will probably never be allowed to use. The legislature, not knowing any better went along with something that sounded good. If the little independants like me had been bird dogging the folks down in Salem, we would have known about that and may have been able to push back, but we didn't and there was no pushback.

Regarding locavores as elitists - explain to me how supporting local business is elitist....

---

by: Joanne Rigutto @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 12:01:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Reply to Jay: Money + Politics are Oil + Water (4.00 / 1)

Despite me saying I wouldn't reply I will now that I read your last comment which I agree with. (PS. I put this on the left side or otherwise it would have been a mess)

We'll probably not have any of the structural changes until we close the revolving door between gov't and industry and until we get further tighten the rules on campaign finance. You know this yet you're still willing to blame Obama for so much stuff. If you were around in FDR's time you'd be bitter he put Joe Kennedy at the SEC. The thing is, Obama doesn't have FDR's situation. FDR had MASSIVE majorities in Congress and this was before there were 100 Senators and before 60 votes was the threshold. I think at one point FDR had 76 Democratic Senators and Republicans on the other side willing to support him, including the Senate Majority Leader. FDR wouldn't be doing much differently in Obama's position. Consider the forces Obama has to contend with versus FDR.. FDR didn't have a military industrial complex eating up 1/4 of the budget, FDR didn't have to contend with entrenched hundred billion dollar interests diametrically opposed to his agenda like Obama does. I could go on and on.. Imagine Obama doesn't pick Geithner and picks a real reformer, does the stock market recover to 10K or do we lose a few million more jobs? Beyond that he could then count on much harder opposition from business interests on the rest of his agenda.  

---

by: Curtis Abbey @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 07:21:54 AM UTC

Reply to Curtis Abbey... (4.00 / 1)

Just because it seems like a good title.

;-P

Anyways.

First, don't use your time machine to tell me what I would and would not be "bitter" about.

I've never put words into your mouth, and I'd appreciate if you'd grant me that same consideration.

Thank you very much.

As for the rest...

What exactly are we "recovering" to?  The resumption of a so-called consumer "economy" built upon the assumption of continued massive amounts of plastic-based consumer debt?

More sprawl?  Lending further legitimacy to the idea that we can continue to convert greenland to driveways and McMansions, and pretend that same is "sustainable" as long as we tip our hats to the Green Building Council?

I'll grant you current circumstances.

Republicans are the enemy of mankind, and Congressional Democrats certainly don't put up much of an alternative.

But would FDR have responded to the Dust Bowl with a proposed "remedy" of the same policies, only moreso?  Did FDR respond to the Depression with "ideas" based around further temporarily propping up the monopolies and entrenched business interests of his day?

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 07:35:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I see what it is... you're a FDR-bot (0.00 / 0)

Joe Kennedy brings down the stock market and it's fine by you he gets paid with your tax money. :P

The short answer to your question is sort-of. We are trying to resume the so-call consumer economy.. the one that spurred this communication machine you and I are talking on, and a lot of other good shit as well. But no we're not going back to as much plastic debt. Consumers are saving more up to 4.5% from a negative rate not so long ago and credit lines are shrinking.

Republicans are the enemy of mankind, and Congressional Democrats certainly don't put up much of an alternative.

Congressional Democrats aren't much better than the enemy of mankind? I disagree.  

---

by: Curtis Abbey @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 07:59:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hah (4.00 / 1)

I realized I painted a pretty rosey picture here.. I don't want to paint a picture that I'm happy with everything, just that I feel like Obama is working hard and getting what he can. And he's really limited by his own party, the opposing party, the status quo in business, military, media.. etc.

Lets call it a night I need a beer!  

---

by: Curtis Abbey @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 08:08:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sure :) (4.00 / 1)

I'm raising a Deschutes Inversion IPA your way right now!!!

:)

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 08:16:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]