"Constitutional rights barely upheld" written by Dcoffee on estrip.org

06/12/08 03:51 - 74ºF - ID#44629

Constitutional rights barely upheld

The Supreme Court ruled today that everyone deserves a right to know why they are in prison. And if you are imprisoned, you get an opportunity to see a judge, have a trial, and if you are innocent get out of prison.

Sounds basic right, but..... it was a 5-4 vote, meaning the Supreme Court just barely saved the Constitution, by one vote.

And those other 4 Justices are Nuts! Don't believe me? Here's Justice Scalia... "America is at war with radical Islamists.. this ruling will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." Stop, he's a judge, on the Supreme Court, judges are supposed to interpret the law, and preserve the Constitution right? Where does it say "Uphold the Constitution, unless America is at war with radical Islamists", Where is it? Where's the 'Islamic war exception clause' that allows you to throw out the constitution!?!?!

The main point of the Constitution and the Supreme Court, is to make sure that politicians don't overreact during a war or some other tragedy, and throw out the Bill of Rights in a panic.

Scalia also predicts more Americans will be killed. That's his job? Predicting the future? Those damned "activist judges".... oh, it's conservative activism, legislating from the bench.. that's different.

Some of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have been held for 6 years without a trial. They are all declared Enemy Combatants by the president, and that's supposed to make it ok. They don't need a trial to prove they are a threat, the president said so, that's good enough.

America is supposed to be a nation of laws, not ruled by the passions of men. You usually have a trial to prove someone violated a law, then sentence them to prison. There are countries in the world that do it backwards, they declare people an enemy, skip the trial, and throw them in jail forever, those countries are called Dictatorships, and the leaders are called Tyrants. That's why we have a Constitution in This country, to prevent tyrants from seizing power and changing the laws to suit their self interest.

The Supreme Court did its job today, this is good news, that we saved habeas corpus for now, but it worries me that it was such a close decision. The fanatic opposition also worries me. I'm holding my breath for the November elections.

Read some

dcoffee writes at 07:29:21 06/13/08 - Comment #36034: Just a historical note, the Supreme Court wasn't hasty about their decision. Congress was hasty when they passed this law just days before a campaign season break in 2006. Republicans thought it would be a pawn in their reelection, and they left out habeas corpus on purpose. Even though that's the main problem with the Supreme Court. We could have fixed it then, instead of using constitutional policy as a public stunt to grab a couple votes. Something has to change, you can't just disappear people and detain them indefinitely.

"we should have a framework through which we can ethically deal with these people that won't potentially endanger Americans." exactly.

As for Europe, we would be better off relying less on interrogation and more on our allies. You said it yourself Josh, terrorists and captured foreign soldiers will lie, better information comes from cooperation. And we would be safer with more respect, more appreciation, and hell, more affection from countries around the world. Part of the reason we want that moral high ground is pure self interest. It's not all touchy feely :)

metalpeter writes at 05:23:40 06/13/08 - Comment #36025: Just wanted to add that those 4 that voted are not crazy but are kinda foolish. They think that in times of war or maybe even not in times of war it is ok to give up our freedoms to try and catch "The Bad Guys". But see what they don't understand is that "The Bad Guys" is a point of perspective. They don't get that once that protection is gone someone can come after them. They view it as oh we are going to get them. But they don't get they can be thought of them also. The thing that makes this country so great is that we have our freedoms and rights, but once we start to give those away we might as well move to Nazi Gemeny or Even China or someplace like that.

joshua writes at 11:32:39 06/13/08 - Comment #36012: The reason why I would only talk about this stuff seriously with you and you alone (out of the anti-war crowd, anyway) is that you always have a knack for coaxing something thoughtful out of me after I rant. =P

We do agree on the central principle that we can't be holding these people forever without some sort of resolution on their status. My problem, as seems to be always the case with the left, is how it's actually come to be.

With respect to interrogation - these people are trained to lie, as we've found out conclusively via capture of their own training manuals. To a degree I see the anti-war left as being hoodwinked as a result of this deceit. It offends me that the anti-war left holds these sort of people at Gitmo, who by the way aren't there because they were smoking a cigarette at the wrong corner at the wrong time, in higher regard than the soldiers at Haditha, almost ALL whom have been found innocent of any wrongdoing. The anti-war left sold those boys down the river and have never apologized to them. I'll never respect the anti-war left as long as they behave that way, and thats the honest truth.

The Supreme Court made a catastrophic error in the spirit of idealism. Enforcement of the law and "saving the constitution" is in the eye of the beholder. The only sure result is that in our haste to do the right thing we'll have released extraordinarily dangerous people for silly garbage like procedural errors.

I agree that we are a nation of laws and that we have to follow them. That does mean, by the way, the ones we don't agree with as well. You are right in saying that Gitmo, for good or bad, has resulted in us losing the moral high ground. To be honest though, to a degree I really don't fucking care what Europe thinks of us. They don't have to like us, but they certainly should respect us. Prez Bush and his administration has lost that respect for our country, but hardly the way to earn it back is to grant constitutional rights to terrorists and treat them with more respect in the public mind than we do our own soldiers.

As far as I'm concerned, equality under the law does not apply to enemy combatants and/or those who provide material support to known terrorists; however, we should have a framework through which we can ethically deal with these people that won't potentially endanger Americans. I know its a rhetorical question you are asking, but the answer should be obvious.

jason writes at 09:24:57 06/12/08 - Comment #35992: As always, I appreciate that you're a stand up guy. Next time I'm unfair to Ginsberg you're free to give me shit for it, hahaha. Seriously though, check it out, and even if you disagree it at least gives an insight into how these people come to their conclusions. I'm a nerd, I think it's pretty cool.

The thing about FDR that I respect is that he was very up front about his intentions, as compared to Bush's shadiness and secrecy. He's one of your faves, and do you have a copy of his inaugural address where he talks about it? He is a pretty persuasive guy, although I do sympathize with people when they talk about the danger of too much concentration of power in one of the branches.

I think in his day, there would be no Gitmo, he would just have them executed. One result of this decision (my own opinion here) is that when military people have to make these split second decisions, they will favor killing them on the battlefield instead of running the risk of them being let go. They won't make it to Gitmo. A possible consequence is the mistaken killing of innocents. I don't think there are nil consequences of this decision no matter which way it goes.

It is a terribly difficult choice to make, taking the high road and making the sacrifices to prove your dedication. In the end I have to agree that we have to set a good example, we have to be a leader whether we want to be or not.

dcoffee writes at 08:20:14 06/12/08 - Comment #35989: Jason, to be honest, I haven't read Scalia's opinion. It's easy to pick on him, and that's not really fair. And you're right about FDR, and he is one of my favorite presidents. But I'm not sure why we need to create a new legal system just for this, we have military courts, and civilian courts. if we would have put them right into the military legal system we could have avoided some of this.

dcoffee writes at 07:57:58 06/12/08 - Comment #35987: Yea I guess the above entry was a bit sarcastic, can't really do stand-up with just text.

dcoffee writes at 07:31:57 06/12/08 - Comment #35981: Actually Josh i thought you'd agree with me on this one. Should the government have limits to it's power? Should they be able to put people in prison and not have a trial? Should we just interrogate them until we are satisfied, then what, leave them in jail, or send them home mentally disabled?

There are ways to get information on potential security threats, one is through interrogationof captives, but you often get bad information, they tell you whatever you want to hear. For Bush that's ok, "do they have WMD?" "Yea, tons of it.." That's fine if you don't care about the validity of the information, and you are just looking for excuses instead of facts.

The other option is cooperating with different nations and other inelegance agencies, and broadening your allies. The way you do that is by agreeing on laws and sticking to them. By setting a good example that people can respect. By being open, and forthright about out intentions. We have lost the moral high-ground partly because of our indefinite detentions at Guantanamo.

Maybe all that stuff about equality under the law, innocent until proven guilty, equal opportunity, upward mobility, maybe that was all lip service, but if so, what the fuck are we protecting? What the hell makes us so special that we are worth fighting and dieing for.

Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. Who's radical here? Me or Antonin Scalia?

PS. the supreme court didn't decide how long you can keep someone without charge because there was no limit in the law passed by congress. Is the supreme court supposed to make up a number, or should it come from congress? Also Foreign soldiers have rights under our legal system. Does that harm our security? I think it shows that we are fair, and our enemies are the ones at fault.

jason writes at 06:57:46 06/12/08 - Comment #35980: David, you should do yourself a favor and read the majority opinion, as well as Scalia's dissent. I have it in front of me here and it's fascinating reading. You may well find yourself trusting the blogosphere far less.

Why do I request this? Because I don't think you're at all being fair to Scalia or the dissenting justices. They're not dangerous, they're not fanatics, and they are not crazy. They are legal minds, no more, no less. The Constitution wasn't "saved" and neither was HC. No matter what Justice Ginsberg tells you, Justices aren't put in place to fight for the "right" result.

A cursory reading of the first few pages of Scalia's dissent reveals that he isn't fearmongering, or telling lies, or looking into a crystal ball. He cites real-world circumstances that have already played out, and only a world-class fool could believe that these real-world circumstances are going to go away.

It isn't what he said that bothers people, but that he was so devastatingly correct in what he was saying.

And it isn't even defensible that one group of people values the Constitution or detainees more than any other group. FDR - expanded the SC, interred Americans, and expanded presidential powers far more than Bush ever did, and what do liberals call him? The greatest President ever.

People wish to manipulate the Constitution in ways that serve their political needs. Nobody is exempt, and you can't be any more honest than that. Whatever the legal reasoning, I agree that we can't just hold onto these people forever with no trial, but the price will indeed be high for someone, probably not you or me who are here at home instead of the sandbox.

Thank God that the decision upholds the appropriate nature of Military Tribunals in these cases. I would have shit a solid brick had they decided otherwise. If it's good enough for us, it's good enough for them.

drew writes at 06:52:51 06/12/08 - Comment #35979: Anybody charged--and the slightest bit of evidence is enough in a terrorism case--can be held for trial, eliminating the possibility of "terrorists being released to the battlefield."

joshua writes at 06:20:52 06/12/08 - Comment #35978: (e:d) - you are a well-intentioned guy and are generally reasonable so I'll reserve most of the vitriol. With all due respect, a lot of this entry was naive and overemotional.

What has happened today is that the liberals on the Supreme Court have extended Constitutional rights to coughallegedcough terrorists. Liberals have never, nor will they ever, understand national security issues and how the Constitution should be applied in cases like this. You want more erosion of our ability to defend ourselves? Vote for Barack Obama. The rest of America (non-liberals) should be deeply concerned.

The Constitution has always been malleable - that is exactly how Roe vs. Wade got through. I find it interesting that you think selective interpretation of the Constitution is appropriate as long as you are doing the selecting and the interpretation. You mention conservative judges and activism, which any student of history knows is a ludicrous thought. Judicial activism implies that something was actually forced through against the grain, or intentionally overlooked despite the law. Judges are allowed to have opinions in dissent... don't you know that? I also find it interesting that you are suggesting hypocrisy on the issue when your brethren have NEVER been able to admit to it, even with Roe vs. Wade in place. In fact, its usually ignored. As usual - liberals are white as snow and everyone else is evil. Don't believe me? Feast on liberal talk radio.

This sort of well-intentioned naivety is dangerous to America, and if you enjoy it by all means support Barack Obama. This is an idea he'd love, and the thought of a liberal being the Commander in Chief of the United States in this context should alarm any American concerned with national security issues... PRECISELY because of this garbage. The court was wrong. What *should* have happened was the immediate establishment of limitations on how long we can hold these detainees without trial. Instead, we have liberal insanity that will undoubtedly allow terrorists to go back in the battlefield. Frightening.

I suspect when Barack Obama gives his opinion on this, during the first debate he will be eviscerated for it.

mrmike writes at 03:55:36 06/12/08 - Comment #35976: Skeery bidness

Permalink: Constitutional_rights_barely_upheld.html
Words: 404
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: politics

06/11/08 11:15 - 69ºF - ID#44616

58 bases in Iraq

What is the goal in Iraq? I thought we wanted to turn over management of Iraq to the Iraqis, so we can come home and stop spending 720 million dollars per day in Iraq and start using it here where it is desperately needed. You know we could fix crumbling bridges and levees and stuff.

Right now the US is negotiating a 'status of forces' agreement with Iraq that would allow the US to maintain 58 military bases in Iraq. I'm not sure if that includes the US embassy next to Baghdad that is the size of a college campus.

Top Iraqi officials are calling for a radical reduction of the U.S. military's role here after the U.N. mandate authorizing its presence expires at the end of this year. Encouraged by recent Iraqi military successes, government officials have said that the United States should agree to confine American troops to military bases unless the Iraqis ask for their assistance, with some saying Iraq might be better off without them.

"The Americans are making demands that would lead to the colonization of Iraq," said Sami al-Askari, a senior Shiite politician ... "If we can't reach a fair agreement, many people think we should say, 'Goodbye, U.S. troops. We don't need you here anymore.' "

Read Iraqi reactions and some more details about the negotiations.

Another interesting article Bush Has a few regrets,

In the UK times online "President Bush regrets his legacy as man who wanted war"

Update, One more thing

War is an opportunity to make money, for some companies. And politicians sometimes like excuses to give handfuls of taxpayer money to rich corporations, they hope the corporations will finance their campaign, or maybe give them a high paid job when they get caught screwing the taxpayer and get thrown out of Washington. AKA the Military Industrial Complex.

the $300 Billion Betrayal - Video
Weapons programs at the defense department are one of the biggest sources of wasteful spending in the federal budget. Just to give you an idea of how much $300 billion is, you could run the entire state of Tennessee for 11 years on just $295 billion. That $300 billion number comes from the Government Accountability Office's new report on Defense Acquisitions. Watch the video and see examples.

Permalink: 58_bases_in_Iraq.html
Words: 421
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: politics

06/06/08 04:42 - 85ºF - ID#44568

Generational Perspective

Just a thought.

I'm one of those 20 something people who grew up in the 90s and I was taught that I live in the future. We learned about World Wars, slavery, unequal rights, lynching, Hitler, fascism, communism, bombing London, and all the other horrible stuff.

But that was history, America had made it to the future. Americans are living in a fair and just democracy now, the rest of the world was coming along too, because we were setting a noble example, and sticking to our high minded ideals. We knew there were problems in the world, but international cooperation, community, and a fair justice system could solve these problems.

The pride and confidence of our generation has been eroded after September 11. Partly because we were attacked, and we realized that not everyone had made it to the future with us. But mostly for me, it was the barbaric response of our government. We said we would eliminate Saddam Hussein whether the rest of the world liked it or not. It didn't matter that we had no real evidence against him, and that he had no connection to 911 whatsoever. The America I expected, was supposed to rally the world behind a common goal. I expected the criminals to be exposed an humiliated, because what they did was clearly wrong. I expected justice, I expected our nation to have faith in a system of laws without self interest. A legal system that seeks to expose the truth, and expects rational people to see a path to justice.

We got none of it. We went backward, instead of forward. We got infinite detention and kangaroo trials, we abandoned international law and cooperation, we decided might makes right, shoot first ask questions later, the public was misinformed and deceived on purpose, color coded alert systems, we couldn't keep citizens in New Orleans from drowning, or bridges in Minnesota from collapsing, we even got rid of one of those ancient Latin laws that was the foundation of our country, called Habeas Corpus. And the people of my generation, once they woke up, said holly shit, it CAN happen here.

Maybe it's just me but it seems like this election fits into that history. The younger generation voted less than the older generation, partly because we took our country for granted, we thought peace and prosperity was a given. In 2004 we were demoralized and fearful, we still didn't vote enough. But in 2008, seems like there is potential, possibilities. We can take our country back. And one of the things I like most about Obama, he keeps saying WE can change Washington. Saying that the American people must be involved if we want to fix this country. Nobody is going to do it for us, we are looking for leadership, but we can't do it without a committed public, it's up to the American people to take their country back. Maybe politics can become a national pastime again.

I don't recognize the America of the last 7 years, the is not the America I was supposed to inherit. I think my generation is ready to reclaim America.

Permalink: Generational_Perspective.html
Words: 520
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: politics

05/28/08 12:04 - 52ºF - ID#44472

truths, twisting of the truth, and spin

This perked my interest. Now "outside the bubble" Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan coming to terms with the failure of Washington politics. The way he describes it really pinpoints some of the fundamental failures that have manifested in government.

Washington has become the home of the permanent campaign, a game of endless politicking based on the manipulation of shades of truth, partial truths, twisting of the truth, and spin. Governing has become an appendage of politics rather than the other way around, with electoral victory and the control of power as the sole measures of success. That means shaping the narrative before it shapes you. Candor and honesty are pushed to the side in the battle to win the latest news cycle...

That is key, that is the lens through which we can understand, and think critically about what the elected officials want us to believe. The manipulation of truth, to serve the permanent campaign, that is a fundamental problem in our system. We should be aware of this manipulation, and seek ways to overcome it. The press and the public need to be skeptical.

Read more about his new book

dcoffee writes at 11:10:26 06/03/08 - Comment #35681: Watching Scott on Meet the Press and Countdown, seems like he started with a very different proposal, but as he was writing the book, it turned into a soul searching mission. I'm not saying that there's no selfish intent, maybe to exonerate himself from his CIA leak problem a bit, or jump the sinking Republican ship. But he was press secretary during 911, Katrina, Cheney's Hunting accident, and the run-up to the Iraq War. If you were in his shoes, pressuring the country to go to war for reasons that you knew were secondary to the insane idea of spreading democracy at the barrel of a gun. 5 years later that war is a disaster, and people are dying by the thousands, you might feel a little guilty. Watching him on the TV, it looks like he's having trouble living with himself, and this is his effort to cleanse his conscience. I mean really, if you knew that the major public understanding of why we went to War was a false narrative created by the government you were a part of, and if you were one of the key people who shaped and defended that narrative, then 5 years later thousands, hundreds-of-thousands of people had died because of a lie you helped sell to an entire nation, you might feel like you were going to hell in a flaming basket of shit. I'm staying skeptical, but I wouldn't be surprised to find more people speaking out. Like General Sanchez, who also released a book in the past week. Yes Josh, I know that's your bigger problem here, loving people who say what you want to hear. but I think the fact that they were part of the problem is what gives them credibility. The perceptions of people who were there, alongside the president and everyone else as they were making decisions, that's a perspective that's tough to get from pure research, it's a first person perspective, it's not really objective, but it's a personal view point of someone who interacted frequently with the president.

james writes at 09:54:35 05/28/08 - Comment #35529: This book smells. Scotty stood up there and mouthed the words he was told to and all of the sudden he has had a change of heart and tells us of an inept administration? He is just trying to clear his name or at least distance himself from an administration that could very well be prosecuted in the future.

jason writes at 06:18:06 05/28/08 - Comment #35522: That is some vintage Joshy. Chief fork-tongued asshole. Lol.

joshua writes at 06:12:07 05/28/08 - Comment #35518: I mean really, its to be laughed at. People that looked at McClellan and called him the chief fork-tongued asshole yesterday, literally want to enter his words into political and historical canon today, as if he's Moses coming down the mountain.

I can't respect it - its that simple.

joshua writes at 06:07:43 05/28/08 - Comment #35516: Here we go - yesterday McClellan was Bush's chief liar, a virtual pariah, a person to literally be hated. Now he says something that they agree with, and their characterization of the man does a complete 180 - his word is to be trusted, his thoughts are worth pondering, his shit doesn't stink.

You can't have it both ways and expect to retain a veneer of credibility. Liberals treat military figures in the exact same way - these people are only useful to the extent that they advance an agenda. Otherwise, fuck 'em. Believe me - if he didn't "sound like a left-wing blogger," as a certain evil genius phrased it, these people wouldn't even be coming CLOSE to licking his balls like they are now. Liberals that wouldn't give the guy the steam off their piss yesterday want to kiss the man today - you cannot retain political credibility and expect people to trust you (or your candidates) when you behave this way. Trust me.

Amazon #1, BTW!

Permalink: truths_twisting_of_the_truth_and_spin.html
Words: 205
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: healthcare

05/09/08 12:03 - 48ºF - ID#44279

Rod Watson Kicks Healthcare Ass

In the Buffalo News today, Rod Watson lays the failure of the US healthcare system out there for everyone to see. The commentary is inspired by a local story about a mis-diagnosed 4 year old child on Medicaid who died. The doctor didn't even look at her.

Watson is blunt and to the point, the article is like a 5 minute version of Sicko.

Rod Watson: Don't expect health reform any time soon
By Rod Watson
Updated: 05/08/08

The richest and smartest nation in the world has the dumbest health care system, one that leaves out 47 million people while spending far more than any other nation.

It's a system in which those on Medicaid - like a father who lost his 4-month-old daughter - get shunned or wonder if they're getting substandard treatment.

Yet you won't hear Sens. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or John McCain talking about the obvious solution: a national, single-payer system that could preserve private doctors and hospitals, yet stop wasting money on health insurers who give no shots and perform no surgeries.

Full article, check it out, it's a quick read

Rod Watson is my new Buffalo Hero

jenks writes at 09:33:14 05/11/08 - Comment #34938: sorry lib, don't take me the wrong way. I'm not condemning cuba- their health care, from what I know, is quite good.

and- any tips on quitting NRT? My mom has been chewing the gum for, oh, 5 years now. I know it's better than smoking, but I wish she'd quit that, too.

libertad writes at 09:50:11 05/09/08 - Comment #34896: I used to work for the woman that Watson is quoting. "Single-payer is not a panacea. Monroe cautioned that it would have to be structured with the right incentives." I definitely agree with her on this one. Cuba shouldn't really be condemned when it comes to health care. They are doing tremendously well in comparison to other third world countries. If I were to have cancer I would rather be here, but if I didn't have health insurance I would rather be there. There infant mortality is less than ours. This is due to the emphasis on prevention. There prenatal care for everyone beats what the majority would receive here. You should see all the old people in Cuba exercising in big groups. I have never seen that here ever. These are state sponsored classes to keep them active and heatlhy. When it comes to our own socialized medicine, Medicare, they lack in prevention. My work in smoking cessation can be very frustrating. People that only have Medicare and no secondary insurances get no help in quitting smoking. Smoking is the biggest health crisis in the country and world and they won't provide nicotine replacement therapy to their clients. People on Medicare are worse off than those on Medicaid. Some of the quotes that Watson used are complaining about Medicaid and really they get a lot in comparison to those who have there own private insurance, at least when it comes to drug coverage and nicotine replacement. Nicotine replacement is proven to double peoples chances of quitting. You can't imagine how frustrating it is to speak to Medicare patients and tell them "sorry I know you have quit smoking for two weeks using the nicotine replacement we sent you but you are going to have to buy the rest on your own." People need NRT for sometimes up to 12 weeks. This stuff costs $50 for a two week supply. Many of these people just don't have enough to pay for them and return to smoking. You tell them to use the money that they save from not smoking and then they tell you that they bought their "Smokin Joe's" at the reservation for $10 a carton. What are you supposed to tell them? Usually I say "Sorry, if it were up to me I would give it to you." New York State is the only state that I know of that offers free nicotine replacement. Every other state people are having a hard time quitting because a proven, effective and relatively safe product is not within reach of those who need it. I also should say that in Cuba they do not put things in the cigarettes to make them more addictive. My Aunt Anne has Lyme Disease. Her doctor, the only one so far to be able to help her, has rejected insurance companies because they refuse to pay him for treating his patients. These insurance companies are not doctors yet they decide who is going to live and who is going to die. My Aunt is very sick and I wish she didn't have to pay for all of this herself. She has insurance!

james writes at 03:26:34 05/09/08 - Comment #34889: Joshua: you mention the relation between life expectancy and lifestyle. Preventative medicine is covered lots of other countries but unless you are on the most expensive insurance plans here you are not covered.

Additionally, health education in this country is a joke. For example, during the Atkins craze I was in a grocery store. They had roasted chickens for sale with with a big label "Low Carb!". The very fact that a collection of proteins and fat necessitates such a label makes me sick. Why do we pump money into programs telling kids that the drugs they will do in high school are bad when there is no nutrition education? Ultimately, Americans are going to die earlier, require more expensive treatments, and miss more days of work because they don't know that chicken is low in carbs.

Oh my god, I am about to run screaming into the wilderness pulling my hair out.

jenks writes at 03:03:33 05/09/08 - Comment #34888: I agree- for-profit private insurers who care about nothing more than their bottom line are not helping the situation. For example- there's a great machine called a wound vac. It really helps nasty wounds heal. The thing is, it's expensive, so insurance companies often refuse to pay for it once a patient goes home. What they don't seem to realize is that if they say the patient can't have it, it's not like we take it off and give the patient something cheaper. No, we make them stay in the hospital longer to keep getting it. Which is FAR more expensive than just paying for the damn thing. Or there are some oral antibiotics that are VERY expensive. But when you compare that the cost of a PICC line (special IV), plus the cost of having a nurse come to your house twice a day to give medicine, or to simply staying in the hospital a few extra weeks- the pill is way cheaper. But insurance never sees that. it makes me crazy.

My other brilliant solution- make tobacco disappear from the planet. Don't just make it illegal, b/c that opens a whole different can of worms. Make it gone. If I'm not mistaken, tobacco-related illness is the #1 preventable cause of death in the US. Health care expenditures would probably go down 50% if people didn't smoke. There are days where it's so frustrating, I almost think "you don't deserve medical care if you smoke." Obviously that's extreme. But at the same time- the 100K spent to treat a smoker's cardiac disease could treat a LOT of uninsured children, etc. I've heard that some nations are instituting age limits. Like if you're 95 and come in with some horrible condition that CAN be treated, but only with a $100K operation, they say "we're sorry. you're 95. It's not worth it."

sorry... I'm getting all fired up here. I'll stop.

and josh- thanks for the bday wishes. :)

joshua writes at 01:28:04 05/09/08 - Comment #34886: Oh, and it may warm the cockles of your heart to know that this was the same company that flooded the market with 1 billion solid doses of generic Plavex for $4 a pill - Pfizer sued them and tried to get an injunction but it failed because the drugs were already being distributed. =D

joshua writes at 01:25:32 05/09/08 - Comment #34885: Yes that is a good point - its true that a lot of the money that goes into drug production ends up part of the marketing ploy to get the drug on the market. Whether not that is wasteful I can't say one way or another - I'll leave that for people to decide on their own. If a drug works, shouldn't the doctor know about it? Personally I would never be that presumptuous. I don't know if our everyday doctors really pay that much attention so I wouldn't dare comment on that, but I'd guess that the marketing budgets for drugs pale in comparison to what they spent to research and create the drug.

I've actually audited Canadian drug manufacturers - the largest out there, as a matter of fact. You would be absolutely astounded at the amount of resources on hand to do what they do. Just one machine I saw was about the size of a PC tower and it costs $220k per unit... and there were rooms full of them.

joshua writes at 01:18:08 05/09/08 - Comment #34884: DC its interesting you've brought it up, since this is one of my gripes. People often cite birth rates/death rates or similar statistics as a criticism of not having enough health care. In my view thats not a health care problem, that is a lifestyle problem.

The reason why we are less healthy than other countries is fairly obvious to me - we are generally fatter and lazier than our foreign counterparts and live more stressful lifestyles. We largely eat like shit. We are less healthier because we are a fast food nation that thrives on having things quickly and easily at the expense of making choices that would be wiser in the long run.

The thing is, when people say we should be healthier given our status I think they are right. Given our lifestyle what concerns me is that if we create a nationalized system, how is any of it going to fix the problems that make people have to visit the doctor in the first place? As I said earlier the natural consequence of this is what we are seeing in England now, where reputable government and non-governmental people are batting around the idea of rationing the care. The least healthy would actually be exempt from coverage if they had their way. At that point the idea that the prime concern is the health of the country would be ludicrous - it would be about dollars and dollars only.

So why can't we fix the financial problem first? This is why I think some elements of free market capitalism will have to be present in an American system.

dcoffee writes at 01:11:37 05/09/08 - Comment #34883: PS How Much of the cost of Plavex goes to their TV commercials? And how much goes to the free crap they hand out in hospitals all day? is it half their budget? then how much goes to political contributions? I'm just saying... seems like we're paying for a lot of waste here too. if a drug works you use it, and drugs work differently on each person. Why should they tell me to I ask my doctor about __Rx____ if it works, the doctor should know, right?

dcoffee writes at 01:03:05 05/09/08 - Comment #34881: Well i think we can all agree that if we are spending almost double what any other country spends on healthcare per capita, we should be the healthiest. But we're not, by the WHO's ranking in 2000 we're number 37. Now that is an outrage.

Why is it fair for employers to foot the bill for healthcare? How can we compete against Japanese automakers when they are saving all that money that we spend on healthcare?

In America we can learn from other countries mistakes and create our own model. I don't know if our healthcare facilities are the 'best' or not, but the issue is not the facilities it's how we pay for Americans to have access to it.

I don't think we should nationalize hospitals, doctors, or research in general. But having an insurance company serve as a middleman for every procedure is wasteful. We set up HMOs to help keep costs down, didn't happen. How about we minimize waste, minimize the amount of hours people spend on the phone or filling out paperwork to get approval from someone who has never seen the patient, or the hospital.

Medicare works, and older people tend to be more costly to take care of. Why not triple the size of Medicare and cover everyone. I'm not saying I know what the perfect system is, but I see a lot of problems, and a lot of waste. The layer of insurance providers is unnecessary, and I see that as a problem that makes sense to solve through single payer coverage.

joshua writes at 12:57:57 05/09/08 - Comment #34879: (e:jenks) - wasabi girl? I'm sorry I missed your birthday so I'll say it now - happy birthday!

I'm not necessarily against the idea of health care for all - David and I have talked about this for a few months now. Based on the evidence I'm skeptical, and to be fair I think its justified skepticism. We have to find a way to make it work for us. Any politician that wants to mimic Europe will never get my support.

One of my tangentially related concern is medical costs. Insurance is one thing but controlling medical costs is a knot that I don't think can be unraveled. $16 for a dose of Plavex is ludicrous, but isn't the medical industry entitled to recoup the billions they spend on the R&D it took to produce the drug in the first place? What if the drug companies simply tell the government, as they've done with flu vaccines, that they will not produce life saving drugs anymore? Its cynical but that is a very real possibility.

Having the government pay for the Plavex instead of my dad (not that dad takes Plavex) ultimately isn't solving anything. Oh, by the way, in Canada unless you are elderly or on social assistance (also "first nations" folks are included I think), or ironically, if you are an inmate in a federal prison, drug coverage is not part of the package. Prisoners get drug coverage but you would not. When you see any references to "group coverage" in foreign countries that provide socialized medicines they are talking about supplemental health insurance that their company provides. Despite the vast bureaucracy and heavy taxation, individuals and companies are still forced to provide for themselves.

Not enough people read the fine print.

jenks writes at 12:38:09 05/09/08 - Comment #34878: good point josh. Sure I'm biased, but I think the health CARE in this country is pretty excellent. It's the health INSURANCE and ACCESS issues that are the problems.

I mean if you have cancer, do you want to be treated here, or in cuba? Even if cuba does have lower infant mortality rates, etc...

joshua writes at 12:00:41 05/09/08 - Comment #34877: As I've said before, the application of nationalized health care has never worked as advertised. In Britain they are actually talking about rationing it off and denying access to fat people.

By the way, in Canada companies *still* subsidize a large amount of health care that the government does not cover. Having visited dozens of Canadian manufacturers at this point I can tell you from first hand experience how cynical most of the people I've talked to are about their system.

McCain's solution is crap, but we are no closer to national health care then we are with dissolving the military. Really the ONLY opinions I'm interested in at this point are those of the doctors, because they know first hand the merits of such an idea. Some crunchy granola hippie NGO employee sitting at a computer is going to know jack fucking squat in comparison.

The problem is not the health care here, but the access to it. We have the best and most comprehensive medical facilities in the world. The question is, do we want to keep it that way or are we going to dilute our resources, nationalize our system and give everybody health care that was actually worse than it was the year before? The answer is somewhere in the middle.

james writes at 11:15:51 05/09/08 - Comment #34875: ya know, I hear this stuff about long lines for equipment in other countries. But, despite lower infant mortality rates and a longer life expectancy than in the US, that seems to be a problem with healthcare and not health insurance.

What I find fascinating about the national dialogue on health care is that in 2004 if John Kerry mentioned universal health care in the vein of Obama and Clinton, he would have been booed off the stage of his own party's convention. Four years later those concepts are not only apart of the campaigns vocabulary, but the Republican's solutions seem quaint and ridiculously old fashioned. On this issue John McCain seems like the grandfather who's crazy ideas we tolerate because he is old.

carolinian writes at 09:35:18 05/09/08 - Comment #34873: One has to wonder whether unaffordable health care and people having to choose between gettng medical treatment and paying their mortgage has substantially contributed to the current financial crisis. If that's the case, then nationalized heath care probably would have cost less than this crisis is going to cost us.

jenks writes at 03:38:36 05/09/08 - Comment #34871: I will read the article, but a "national single-payer system" is not always all it's cracked up to be. (insert here the usual comments about the 6mo wait for a CT scan in Canada, etc. And my personal experience with Canadian patients coming to Buffalo fairly often if they want anything done in a timely fasion.)

Yes, our healthcare is expensive and wasteful and a mess. I'm not arguing that, and I certainly don't know the answer. I figure if there were a nice simple answer, it would have been implemented years ago. It's not like no one has proposed nationalized health care before...

Permalink: Rod_Watson_Kicks_Healthcare_Ass.html
Words: 202
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: politics

05/01/08 11:20 - 51ºF - ID#44207

Political BS

This is in response to (e:jason,44190)

Even I am tired of it. Still reading and up to date, but the showmanship and trivial issues have completely turned me off.

Why does the media spend so much time talking about BS? Does anybody actually give a damn about Rev Wright?! "Is this going to help or hurt the campaign" well seriously, who gives a shit. I want to know "will this help America" you worthless 'pundit' do you have a Twinkie in your head?!?!?

America needs solutions, and the corporate media can't even facilitate the discussion.

My favorite infamous quote from the last ABC debate a few weeks ago, "Does Rev. Wright love America as much as you do?" Oh boy, thank you George, that is definitely the question I was burning to ask Obama. What a great service you are doing for the country.

Somehow I don't think this is what freedom of the press is all about. Let's have 25 people talk about Rev Wright, or Miley Cyrus' bare back, or Clinton visiting a gas pump, wall to wall 2 hour coverage.

They spend more time predicting how the public will react than they do talking about the issue itself. As if any of the TV blowhards mingles with 'the American public' in order to form their 'expert' opinion.

This is a disgrace.

Here's a media rant for you

and for a little more sarcasm and video in your politics go here

New: Kerry tells MSNBC STFU!

Permalink: Political_BS.html
Words: 268
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: political

04/17/08 08:40 - 60ºF - ID#44041

Confused or Furious, Last nights debate

This video sums it up. Although the clip is a few years old, ok it's from 1976.

Seriously, 50 minutes before we could talk about anything besides gossip? War, Inflation, outsourcing jobs, the environment, corruption, waste, fraud, fear, gas prices, recession, healthcare, people losing their houses, bridges falling down, and cities destroyed by floods, the things that actually matter in people's lives! Not a Priority.

After the debate I was thinking about the news media, not the candidates. Why the hell would they dwell on gossip for so long? do they think the American people really give a shit? They think Pennsylvania voters would rather talk about gossip than inflation?

The media is so interested in gotcha politics, and I don't think the American people really give a crap right now. Maybe if they weren't so worried about affording food, and healthcare, and gas, and mortgage payments next week. Or preoccupied thinking about what kind of world is going to be left for their children because of this war, the environment, and the national debt. Maybe, just maybe, we'd really want to get to the bottom of what he said and she said, but right now, we have better things to talk about.

The debate was another great reason for why people become cynical, and tune out politics. They aren't talking about anything that matters. This kind of politics is an insult to the nation. We really deserve better, especially now.

Similar Opinions

Washington Post

Obama's Response

Permalink: Confused_or_Furious_Last_nights_debate.html
Words: 276
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: web

04/10/08 11:05 - 41ºF - ID#43970

Online Payment Suggestions?

Hey, I need help on a web development / geek question.

What service would you recommend for online credit card transactions?

Anybody set up online payment accounts? Were you satisfied with the service, reasonable fees? Also doesn't take hours of coding to implement?

I'm working with a non-profit group that wanted to switch to Authorize.net, but their subscription is expiring this month. I'm just finishing up their new website, and I don't like the looks of Authorize.net. The instillation guides and sample codes are mostly from 2004, and they require a bunch of coding and configuring to start up. And all of the sample code says "use at your own risk" which doesn't make me feel good.

Considering "Network for Good", and "Paypal", but my knowledge of this area is slim.

Suggestions are very much appreciated,

Permalink: Online_Payment_Suggestions_.html
Words: 136
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: life

04/07/08 10:43 - 53ºF - ID#43946

one of those days

Spring, you know what I'm talking about.

I worked outside with the laptop today. Looking forward to many more days of that.

yea, she's soft and fuzzy... I think I just heard Paul sneeze. Sorry Paul.

Permalink: one_of_those_days.html
Words: 38
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: war

03/28/08 09:52 - 31ºF - ID#43812

Iraq Going Badly

This has not turned into huge news yet for some reason. So in case you hadn't heard.

The Green Zone in Baghdad has been under rocket attack for the past 4 days. That's where the government and the US offices and Embassies are. It's a fortified city. US personnel have been advised to avoid traveling outside and sleep in reinforced structures.

The southern port city of Basra is basically occupied by Shi'ite militias. The government ordered them to hand over their weapons by today, I'm guessing that's not going to happen.

Bush thinks everything is swell, Sounds more like 1984 doublethink propaganda to me.

Chuck Hagel (R) Talks about Bush being Alice in Wonderland.

This doesn't sound good,
"Military: Troop Strains Putting US at Risk"

The Point, we can't solve other people's problems. If they can't work it out, we can't fix it for them. The Iraq war is now a completely political problem. We can't fix it, but we don't want embarrass ourselves. The Republicans in particular, have a lot riding on this flaming turd, especially with the election coming up.

The Surge brought a temporary lull in violence, but in the meantime we didn't get any progress in the government. All this time, and we haven't built anything that will last. 4,000 deaths, 40,000 wounded us soldiers and 5 years, and 500,000 billion so far.