Healthcare Reform...Dead or Alive?

The three basic problems that health care reform seek to solve are effectiveness, cost, and access to care. The belief is healthcare problems will remain the same as they were in 2009 and will most likely face the same forces that combined to defeat health-care reform in 1945 and 1994. Democrats are still trying to decide what to do: push forward, back down, or take a new approach to salvage healthcare reform, the centerpiece of their domestic agenda. Pelosi promised that Democrats will pass "something," yet Democratic leaders are admittedly slowing down and thinking about their options. Though President Obama urged Congress in his State of the Union address to "finish”. The choice they make will likely hinge on several things, including balancing what the White House wants against what Democratic leaders think they can get, interpreting what voters in Massachusetts were saying, and divining what, if anything, the outcome means for the November midterm elections. The loss of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's seat to Republican Scott Brown leaves Democrats with 59 votes, one shy of what they need to block a filibuster. That means the old plan of merging the bills passed by the House and Senate and then sending a new bill through both chambers is dead unless the Senate tries to vote on something before Brown is seated. But President Obama, along with several Senate Democrats, quickly ruled that out. "Shell-shocked" is the way Democrats kept describing their reaction to Scott Brown's election victory in Massachusetts. Hill aides sounded weary and uncertain. Gone was the hope that healthcare reform was close to clearing its last hurdle. Gone was the sense of inevitability that had sprung up around the effort. In its place were hastily arranged private meetings convened by Democratic leaders. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spent the day rotating among caucus members. They were assessing,re-evaluating, and doing damage control. President Obama, House and Senate Democratic aides insist that healthcare reform is not dead and say that it will move forward in some form. The task, they say, is to regroup, not to retreat. "I think what we've learned is that change is not easy," says a House Democratic aide. "Bringing about real change, sweeping change, is not a quick process. There are going to be people on both sides saying you haven't done enough or you've done too much." The challenge, the aide says, is finding the comfort zone of the American people. Is this the best we'll get from our elected reps, as the economy continues to fissure and the dreams and security of more and more of us buckle and break, and decent medical coverage becomes increasingly a matter of luxury or luck? Perhaps, things aren't bad enough for real change yet, or maybe the demand for it still remains a low priority in comparison to the lobbying pressures of Big Insurance and the prevailing free-market issues among establishment politicians. The for-profit health care guarantees that many people will not be able to get coverage. There's no escaping this. As a result, basic health care for all Americans -- however cost-effective and spiritually healthy it would be for the nation -- does not yet have the status of, for instance, gun ownership: It is not a right. Approximately 1,300 profit-making private insurance companies administer thousands of separate plans and waste about $400 billion a year on administrative costs, profiteering, high CEO compensation packages, and advertising. Health care providers spend another $210 billion on administrative costs, mostly to deal with insurance paperwork. As a result, the United States spends $7,129 per person on health care, almost double the amount spent by nearly any other industrialized country. Ultimately, 46 million Americans do not have any health insurance, and for millions more the coverage is inadequate but budget-breaking. And as a result, the U.S. ranks among the lowest of developed countries in both general health and life expectancy. Currently, healthcare reform has been placed on hold until further notice. The Democratic leaders’ goals are to regroup and find the comfort zone of the American people. The Democrats have insisted the healthcare reform will not be defeated and have vowed to pass something. Will the same forces that combined to defeat health-care reform in 1945 and 1994 defeat the current healthcare reform proposal? Is it now or never on healthcare reform for the American people? www.ihavenet.com › BUSINESS - Cached - Similar www.newsless.org/.../the-3-key-parts-of-news-stories-you-usually-dont-get/ - www.ihavenet.com › BUSINESS - Cached - Similar www.newsless.org/.../the-3-key-parts-of-news-stories-you-usually-dont-get/ -

Are Universities really a Four Year College?

Colleges are there to help us further our education and find better jobs to help support better lives. Most of us prefer beginning to further our education at a four year institute. Why is that? It is because a four year college seems to be more promising than a community or technical college. But does it only take four years to complete a Bachelors degree? In most four year colleges you will need 120 credit hours to graduate. 12 hours each semester is considered full time. Four 3 credit classes will equal full time hours. Four classes for winter and fall semesters only counts up to 96 hours in four years. This means taking more classes for the winter and fall semesters and/or taking classes in the summer. That does not include the internship or senior project. Does that seem fair to those of us who have jobs, children, or both? All of those classes would be so time time consuming that there you won't have time for the other things in your life. Now it is time to drop a few or sign up for less classes, again taking longer than four years. What about those classes that you really don't need for your future career but only take them to earn more credits to graduate? Is that really necessary or is it a waste of time? I know it is better to take classes you don't need than to need classes and not take them but college is to expensive. By all means I am not trying to discourage anyone but want to know if I am the only one who feels this way. I have not been able to take four and five five classes every semester and of course that takes longer, my life is still going on and I am not getting any younger. Guess I am ready to move on with my life.

Sarah Palin

I don’t care what anyone says. I like Sarah Palin. True, we’re quite different and have nothing in common but gender. She’s White. I’m Black. She’s conservative. I’m liberal. She has five children. I have none. She’s riding above the economic crisis. I’m being crushed underneath. So, why do I like Sarah Palin? Well, she’s able to reduce progressives (formerly known as liberals) to apoplectic fits by just the sound of her voice. Now, why would I hold such a grudge against progressives, indeed the “Democrat” party, that I should take pleasure in their distress? The Democratic primary of 2008 is a start.

I supported Hillary Clinton over Barak Obama because I believed we needed a leader with more experience and less corrupt than Obama. (Considering the past year under an Obama administration, I’d say my concerns were justified.) Those who opposed Clinton's nomination cited her Iraq War vote, close ties to the “establishment” and corporations, her centrism and even their revulsion at Bill Clinton returning to the White House as First Gentlemen. These reasons are legitimate enough I suppose, even though Obama has never been a leftist, let alone a socialist as he's often accused of by Republicans. Obama supported the Iraq War with his Senate votes to fund it. Obama also received support from the same corporations and banks that are currently fleecing our savings…with Obama’s blessing. Nevertheless, I could accept opposition to Clinton’s nomination based on the reasons listed.

No, what bothered me – besides the ignorance of neophyte voters, enthralled Blacks not voting their interests yet again and Whites looking for absolution – was the sexism and misogyny that came from the Democrat party, the current home of liberalism. Liberals aren’t supposed to base arguments on sexism or racism. These “–isms” are an anathema to our ideology. Yet there was MSNBC guest host David Schuster presenting a cackling Hillary Jabber Jaw pen and MSNBC Countdown' commentator Keith Olbermann’s suggestion to “beat” Hillary Clinton out of the primaries. There was the 527 organization, Citizens United Not Timid (note the uppercase letters), created to tell us all about what Hillary Clinton really was. There were also the Hillary nutcracker dolls, her sexual orientation was questioned and “B**ch” became her pet name on blogs. From Huffington Post to Daily Kos, sexism and misogyny was exploited and encouraged by none other than progressives. I’d expected Republicans to take this tactic. John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, had already begun when he chuckled at this question at a townhall. But liberals?

After a contentious primary battle, Obama was eventually selected as the Democratic nominee but before there was time to heal, John McCain selected Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. If you recall, hell broke loose. I thought Hillary Clinton had it bad, but I felt downright sorry for Gov. Palin. Within hours after her nomination, progressive blogs attacked her children, labeled her a bimbo, trailer trash, and replaced the epithet "b**ch" with “whore”. Progressives, who still consider themselves gender equality advocates, donned t-shirts emblazoned with “Sarah is A C**t”. For Halloween, her effigy was lynched on a reveler’s front porch. Amazingly enough, progressives even argued that Palin was a bad mother for having a career.

Even though the McCain/Palin ticket lost, in part due to the sudden economic downturn which acted as an assist to the Obama/Biden ticket which had been lagging in the polls, progressives still can’t let go of Palin. Their constant harping about a losing vice-presidential candidate has extended Palin's 15 minutes into years. There’s a name for progressives’ reaction to Sarah Palin. It’s called PDS or Palin Derangement Syndrome. It’s similar to CDS, Clinton Derangement Syndrome, except its victims are more unhinged, nasty and self-destructive.

The latest and lamest attack to date is “PalmGate”. Sarah Palin, best-selling author and a recent contributor to Fox news, made an appearance at the first National Tea Party convention this weekend. The National Tea Party is a grass-roots movement comprised of conservatives, libertarians and independents who rose in opposition to the stimulus package and bailouts to banks. Palin was paid $100,000 to speak which infuriated progressives since, according to them, she’s an idiot. During the Q & A portion of the convention, she referred to crib notes written in the palm of her hand. Criticizing her on this is fair. It’s petty, but at least it’s not sexist. Although, the criticism is rather hypocritical considering Obama can’t make a speech without the TOTUS (Teleprompter of the United States). He stutters, which isn’t a transgression, but I believe he’s ignorant on policy which is a sin. Nevertheless, Palin's “cribbing” is fair game. Some may even argue that Palin's a hypocrite since she's criticized Obama for his frequent use of the teleprompter. However, it doesn’t end there. It never does with progressives and Sarah Palin.

The sexism returned as well as the attacks on Sarah Palin’s children. There are some new insults such as references to hand-jobs and “Sharpie Barbie” although “whore” and “trailer trash” made a comeback. With far more pressing concerns such as the economy, healthcare, wars and the environment, it is incomprehensible why progressives would spend so much time and ink sniffing for "scandals" against a woman who holds no political office and therefore can effect no change in policy and law. Even ratings anemic MSNBC brought this insipid non-story to consciousness. Is it not clear that these attacks work for Palin? Is not clear yet that the attention, even negative attention, increases Palin’s book sales, her speaking fees and her base?

The Democratic primary and the presidential general election were surreal. Liberals, adherents to an inclusive ideology, turned to sexism and misogyny to beat out female candidates who stood against Barack Obama. That he stabbed them in the back provides some measure of vindictive satisfaction although I can’t be too pleased since I’m screwed, too. Sarah Palin’s success eases that pain a bit, though. A success she can credit in part to progressives. Yes, she got the last laugh and she’s still laughing - all the way to the bank. It’s rather nice to see the progressives so vexed and consumed.

A cheap and petty thrill, I confess.

EDITORIAL

Lobbyists and Students

NEw York Times

Published: February 7, 2010

The private lending companies that earn billions of dollars in undeserved profits from the federal student loan program are working overtime to kill a bill that would stop their gravy train once and for all — and should have been enacted long ago. The House stood up to the powerful lending lobby last fall and passed a student loan reform bill. The White House has been pushing the Senate, but it is having trouble finding its spine and has yet to introduce a bill.

The House version phases out the wasteful part of the federal college lending program that pays private lenders a rich subsidy to make risk-free loans that are guaranteed by the government. The bill also expands another, more reliable and less expensive federal loan program that permits students to borrow directly from the government through their colleges.

The arguments for moving in this direction are irrefutable. The subsidized program, for example, was supposed to keep loans flowing during recessions. But the loans dried up in the last credit crunch, forcing the government to rescue the program. The direct program, by contrast, suffered no such disruption. In addition to being more reliable, the direct program costs less. The Congressional Budget Office estimated last year that the country could save about $80 billion over the next decade by ending the private system and moving to the direct one.

Outmaneuvered on the merits, the lending industry has resorted to scare tactics and distortions. The claim that the direct system would amount to a government takeover of the system is absurd. The direct loans would not be handled by the government, but through colleges and universities, just as Pell grants are now. The loans would be collected and administered by private companies, which are actively competing for the business.

Some lenders say the new system would lead to more student defaults, but contracts between the government and loan-servicing companies clearly state that the companies will be evaluated partly on how successful they are at preventing defaults.

The claim by lenders that the direct system would bring huge job losses is also implausible. The work force that would be required to service, say, $500 billion in outstanding loans would be nearly as large as the work force required to lend that amount.

The new system would, of course, cut into lenders’ profits. But by redirecting the savings into a variety of federal programs aimed at needy students — including the Pell grant scholarship program — Congress would be putting the money to good use.

Street Smart

Just the other day I was informed that the city of Memphis is finally making a bike path that will enable cyclists to get from downtown to out east. It seems as if this has taken a lifetime to do. See, I have been riding a bicycle for the past 8 years as my lone source of transportation. I ride from my home in Cooper-Young, to downtown, to school, to work, and out to my dentist in Germantown. I ride everywhere. I love the ride. I love to ride. There is nothing more humbling to me than being out in the fresh air, taking in the beauty of this place I have learned to call home. What saddens me is when almost everyday someone is driving dangerously close to me. (In case anyone was wondering, I have every right to ride on the road. Hints the term, "roadbike." In fact, it is illegal to ride on the sidewalks.) Most of the streets in this city of ours have two lanes. Since I have the right to ride in the street, I ride directly in the middle of my lane. I ride at a respectable average of 23 miles per hour, which means that I am not just taking my time coasting down the street. I don't understand why some people have the nerve to pass so close to me, or even get right up on me and start honking their horn or yelling. It is uncalled for. It is so easy to just go around, and then after passing me, get back into the lane. There are many bikers who ride as their transportation, and not just for leisure or exercise. People need to learn the laws and accept the fact that my bike is my ride, and these streets are mine too. Do me a favor and welcome bikers to the streets, keep an eye out for us, and please drive safely. Oh yeah, did I mention that this bike path is extremely long overdue?

Oh No...Not again

I can remember being a student a Shannon Elementary here in Memphis and having a National Honor Society induction ceremony of which I was beaming to be an inductee. We had a very special guest speaker that day who our teachers tried to convey to us his importance and how glad we should be to have him attend our program. I had no idea who this man was. All I knew was that he was the Memphis City School's superintendant, Dr. W.W. Herenton. I can't say that I remember anything he said that day. All I do recall is his presence. He was tall and statuesque and he seemed just as proud to be speaking in front of a crowd of adoring fans as they were to have him there. Then jump to my sophmore year of high school, when I guess I was just an uninvolved, could-care-less type of youngster who began to hear rumblings of that name again. A black man just might be mayor. The Blacks in this city could definitely relate to the plight and struggle he constantly reminded them of. This did it. Willie Herenton defeated Mayor Hackett! People all over the city were shocked. The black population had gotten out to cast their ballots and Herenton won by a mere 146 votes! Blacks, for the most part were in sheer bliss and stormed the streets and their workplaces with catchy phrases like, "We can't Hackett, no mo!" There was such hope for the city, such hope for Blacks in Memphis. After eight years in office, the pride we had once felt just to be in his presence was fading for some of us in the community. I can recollect grumblings of "nothing has really changed all that much" from some, while others tried to smooth things over by saying, "it takes time to change all the stuff that has been going on in this city for years." That seemed to quiet the masses for a while, but after another four year term, many were starting up again with prior sentiments of disapproval. But was it too late? Had we created this character known as Willie Herenton and were now turning against him unfairly? The fact of the matter was that we were growing tired of the antics and showiness that for so long had masked the fact that real and lasting change had not and would not be taking place under his leadership. But who could run for Mayor and beat the incumbent? No one could. Herenton even won a fourth consecutive term. I had to ask myself if we were getting more sophistocated as a race. Could we vote on the issues and not on color alone? Could we not see through the meaningless jargon of "shake the haters off" and "don't bring me no stuff, won't be no stuff" that he was spewing in order to somehow relate to the younger, black voter? Was anybody else embarrassed and frustrated? The adoration Blacks had a few short years earlier had turned sour. It was as if Herenton was a magician, distracting us with a fancy wave of one hand while we had no idea how he was actually doing the trick of getting elected again and again with the other hand. Let's face the facts, this city had money problems, rising property taxes, one of the highest crime rates in the nation and a mayor who seemed to be employing his own version of the "good-ole boy" system by assigning his unqualified friends to many of the city's top jobs. Despite an FBI investigation, an illegitimate child scandal and no reasonable explanation for the state of our city, Herenton cannot be dissuaded from seeking public office repeatedly. He's up to it again, this time not for the Mayor's seat, but for congress. Herenton officially declared yesterday that he intends to run for the 9th District seat against Steve Cohen. His declaration proved my point all too clearly. Nothing about his arrogance has changed over the last sixteen years. He stands just as proud to be speaking in front of a crowd as he did when I was a child. His only platform is that he is black and the incumbent is white. There is no substance to speak of and he seems to fully believe that just because the 9th District is mostly Black that he is going to automatically be the victor in this fight. But this time his fan base is few and we are not as impressed by his mere presence alone as we once were. Wake up! This community wants results, not just expressive slang and empty banter. And I fear that that is exactly what we will get if we fall for the "slide of hand" yet again.