07/28/09 09:18 - 74ºF - ID#49404

Healthcare Ramblings

I'm so frustrated. Usually my writing makes sense, and it's easy to understand, and gives some background and links.... but I just can't. I have no idea where to start. This freaking issue is huge and it's full of bullshit. I'm glad I don't have cable, because I would spend my days screaming at cable news and get nothing done.

I'm worried that the government is not going to change healthcare enough to make a differance. They may change some things, but it could make our lives worse, and make the insurence companies richer. Like making it mandatory that we get coverage, and mandatory that employers provide coverage, insurance companies would love that.

Insurance companies are just parasites, they add no value to healthcare whatsoever. It's not even insurance, there's a good chance that when you finally get sick or injured they won't even cover your ass. They'll claim you commited insurance fraud, then it's your lawyer versus theirs.

You know 60% of bankruptcys are due to healthcare bills? and 75% of those people had health insurance! Every 30 seconds in the United States someone files for bankruptcy in the aftermath of a serious health problem.

Socialized medicine.. Rationing care.. It's all scare tactics invented by pharmeceutical and insurance companies. You know we already ration care in this country, it's based on income. The working poor get nothing. Pay or Die.

They're trying to tell you that Obama's a socialist... he's not even a liberal! He's barely left of center, and all these conservatives are shaking in their boots that he'll turn us into Cuba. It makes me furious because all this fearmongering has nothing to do with policy, it's all politics. Some Republicans just want to see the president fail. and their happy to be on the side of insurance companies, because if they get tired of Washington they can always get more money working as a lobbyist anyway. They get rich, so fuck you, and your country.

Not sure, right.. nobody's that self centered.. here's just one case in point "one of the Blue Dog Coalition's founders: former Representative Billy Tauzin of Louisiana. Mr. Tauzin switched to the Republicans soon after the [Blue Dog] group's creation; eight years later he pushed through the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, a deeply irresponsible bill that included huge giveaways to drug and insurance companies. And then he left Congress to become, yes, the lavishly paid president of PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry lobby."

What's up with lobyists anyway? they're "so powerful", boo hoo, it's soo hard... even when 70% of the public is in favor of a Public option

Seriously, in this country? 70% in favor of anything is a freaking landslide. But it's still a battle to the finish because of the money being thrown around Washington. And the people who are stalling or compromising are the ones raking in the cash, like Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus, and the 'Blue Dog' coalition in the house.

Ysterday news broke that the Senate Finance Committee version of Healthcare reform will not include a public option (mission accomplished health insurance pricks). Instead we'll be allowed to form health insurance co-ops that nobody has ever bothered to explain. Their plan also eliminates the employer mandate, which I think is a good thing, but within the narrow confines of washington Healthcare reform it actually raises costs for the government, especially if the individual mandate still exists.

Alright... that brings me to a really important point.

Why are employers responsible for the health of the American people?

Companies are just a bunch of people trying to make a living, why should they care where you go to the doctor? I don't think the burden of healthcare should be on employers at all. I understand offering benefits, to help you retain good employees, like paid vacations, cellphones, or whatever. But Healthcare? It's not a luxury, everybody will need healthcare at some point in their lives. Something that important should be guaranteed by the government. Like Fire, Police, Schools, Water, some things should not be left to chance. I think it's irresponsable for the government to expect business to cary the burden.

You know.. if my house is on fire, I call the fire department. If I've been robbed, I call the police. If I have a medical emergency...... Pay or Die. Something is wrong here.

I run a small business too, if I start hiring employees are they going to ask "where's my healthcare?", Really? I have enough to worry about, go ask Uncle Sam what the problem is.

Right now they're proposing taxing businesses that don't provide healthcare in order to pay for a new system. If you have over 20-30 employees you pay a fine of around $700 per person per year. Sure it makes sense if you expect to get healthcare from your employer, and we all want to get revenge on Wal-Mart for screwing their employees all these years..... But I don't think the employer based healthcare system makes sense, and I don't think coercing companies to provide healthcare coverage is a good idea, especially when we're losing jobs. Instead I think every individual should contribute, whether they employ people or not. I don't think employers should bear the burdin anymore.

I support a national Single Payer system, call it "nationalized", "government run", "socialized" or whatever you want. It's the only thing that makes sense. Abolish Health Insurance Companies, give that money to the government because they can do it cheaper and better, and they can cover everybody.

I want to choose my doctor, my hospital, my surgeries, I don't want to waste my time reading fine print in insurance contracts. You know which insurance plan gives you the most choice? Medicare. You can go to any doctor. You don't have to choose from a list of acceptable providers and get stuck with somebody far from your house. Just go to anyone accepting new patients. It's true, medicare gives you the most choice. And the Republicans want to say that a government will take away your choices? Give me a break.

I support Medicare for All. There's actually a bill that does that HR 676

How to do it? Phaise it in, the first 5 years expand it to people over 55, next, people over 45. That gives the insurance companies time to shift their business to hurricane insurance or something else.

I'm supportive of a strong public option, but I'm worried that it won't work.

alright, that's all for now, I should write more often...

here's a humorous parting shot.

tinypliny writes at 09:06:11 07/30/09 - Comment #50390: That was a good article. Makes me want to move away from US as soon as I can. heh. I need to locate that book now.

Yuck. Don't you hate those pesky little drug pushers?! My advisor (back home) used to have them thrown out of the clinic by security.

jenks writes at 08:30:48 07/29/09 - Comment #50383: and dave, I am absolutely with you on knocking out big pharma. That direct-to-consumer advertising makes me crazy. "ask your doctor if they purple pill is right for you."

Um, no. How about "trust your doctor to know which medicines to use and when, and to give you the purple pill if you need it."

Or have the drug companies teach the doctors about their drugs and when to use them. Not over a $200 dinner- but a five minute chat in the hallway. But don't solicit patients to go pester their doctors and ask them for meds they probably don't need.

jenks writes at 08:27:26 07/29/09 - Comment #50382: Here is the New Yorker article, and a teaser quote to make you actually want to bother to click the link-

:::link:::

"McAllen has another distinction, too: it is one of the most expensive health-care markets in the country. Only Miamiâ€"which has much higher labor and living costsâ€"spends more per person on health care. In 2006, Medicare spent fifteen thousand dollars per enrollee here, almost twice the national average. The income per capita is twelve thousand dollars. In other words, Medicare spends three thousand dollars more per person here than the average person earns."

jenks writes at 08:23:13 07/29/09 - Comment #50381: Tiny, you might enjoy the book "Better" by Atul Gawande. It is amazingly insightful, and well-written. And he writes essays on things like 'how much should doctors be paid' and one on malpractice claims, and even one on trying to mop up a polio outbreak in india. Really great stuff. he also wrote a good article in the New Yorker a couple months ago analyzing health care costs.

As far as your visit to the ER- sadly I'd say $250 isn't bad. I honestly have no idea how much an xray costs, but I would guess a couple hundred dollars. But once the xray machine and all that is paid for- it really doesn't cost the hospital anything. But I will bet you, the resident didn't see one cent of that money, and the ER docs supervising him didn't get much of it.

However- while I think that charge is typical- I don't think you should have had to pay it. Usually student health centers are somehow subsidized by the university. I.e. even if you don't have formal insurance, you can usually be seen in the student health center for free/$20.

I had my tonsils out when I was 21, and saw the 'explanation of benefits' from the insurance company. My insurance covered it, so it just cost me a copay or deductible or whatever (and actually I was on my parents' at the time anyway)- but I just remember that the bill was thousands of dollars. A very large portion of that went to the anesthesiologists. Another very large portion went to the hospital for "fees" (operating room time, etc). And a modest portion went to the surgeon. But- the 'surgeon's fee' was listed as $1500 or something (I'm making that number up), and the "amount paid" was something like $600. So, the surgeon CHARGED 1500, and insurance paid him 600. And he no say in that- he just has to eat the difference.

My brother went to the ER a couple years ago with excruciating abdominal pain. They did some bloodwork and a CT to make sure it wasn't his appendix (which is unnecessary in my opinion, but this country is so litigious that ERs are notorious for overtesting, b/c they're afraid of missing something and being sued). In the end they said he had indigestion and sent him home with some pepcid. Which on the bill was $400. For the medication. $150 for phlebotomy. Etc.

That is the part I don't understand. Why does it cost $200 to give someone a liter of saline through an IV? $400 (or even 40, because I think there was a factor-of-ten math error on the bill) for something that would cost you $2 at walgreens? You know the nurse who started the IV and hung the saline isn't making that money. Where does it go?!

I still think that bad use of the ER is a LARGE part of health care waste. Some mom is either uninsured, or doesn't feel like waiting all day in the free clinic, or doesn't want to call her pediatrician to make an appt, so she takes her kid to the ER for sniffles. That is a waste of resources. It is called the EMERGENCY room. Not the "convenience department". People don't seem to get that.

And a tangent- listening to the radio today, heard all these ads for hospitals. Memorial Sloan Kettering, Columbia Presbyterian, etc.

And that makes me want to vomit.

HOSPITALS SHOULD NOT BE ADVERTISING TO TRY TO DRUM UP BUSINESS.

How much doctors should be paid I guess is debatable. But hospitals should ABSOLUTELY be non-profit as far as I'm concerned. But now they're like just another business, all competing with each other. PUKE.

Ok, enough ranting! Time to brave the rain and go find something to drink.

dcoffee writes at 08:22:26 07/29/09 - Comment #50380: Wow, that is a freaking loan. Loans are another issue, and I've posted my outrage on that before too. Maybe I'll hijack my own thread here and say that there are three big changes this country needs: Society should act collectively to provide 1)Higher Education, 2)Retirement, and 3)Healthcare.

The cost savings in a new Healthcare system SHOULD come mainly from Insurance Companies, and Pharmaceutical Companies. That's my target, and I think those industries know that their proffits could be threatened, and that's why they are lobbying so hard in Washington.

Doctors provide care. It's hands-on stuff. They're the ones preforming surgery, and directly helping the patients, they're the ones who deserve to be paid. But I wonder if Doctors might find their profession easier if they were just paid a good salary, and got periodic raises. Instead of needing to file some paperwork for everything they do in order to get paid by some middleman insurance company.

We need to save money primarily by cutting out the insurance middleman. Medicare is much more efficient than private insurance because it is not for profit, and because they don't have to advertise like insurance companies. That's where we'll save the most money.

The other part is Pharmeceutical companies. Oh boy do they like to advertise. I posted about that too, I think 40-50% of their income goes straight into advertising. And most of the R&D for drugs is done by the government and the patents are just bought by insurance companies. And when the patent expires they just change one molecule and start the advertising bonanza all over again.

it seems to me that the best way to save money is to go to a single payer insurance system, like Medicare for all, and to tightly regulate the pharmaceutical industries. And in order to eliminate medicare fraud I think we need to abandon the Fee for Service model that most hospitals and doctors use. You've heard of the MAYO clinic, they don't use fee for service, that's part of the reason they're so efficient.

Can we get there? Can we go far enough? I think we need to. Or else we'll be bankrupt. so, it's now or never. This healthcare debate has been going on for 80 years.

tinypliny writes at 07:09:22 07/29/09 - Comment #50377: Good point, ((e:jenks)) and I can't say I disagree at all. Your perspective on this issue might probably be more relevant to this debate than mine ever will be because I come from a completely different system altogether.

Healthcare doesn't just comprise the medical service in India and the other commonwealth nations. It also includes medical education. The government funds the complete healthcare system from the beginning to the end. My views are completely taken from that context. Even if some of the medical schools are expensive the best schools in India are government funded. Though you pay for the resources and the facilities, the salaries of the faculty are paid by the government.
I don't think I can even begin to imagine what medical education costs here.

Where I come from, doctor *are* almost like any other civil servants (with longer hours) because health is a basic need. If you get violently sick, you don't waste time looking for your health insurance card and wondering what doctor will see you, because you don't have to. It's your right to walk into a hospital and be treated. Obviously, this doesn't work as it should because we are abysmally ineffective when it comes to population control. Let me just say that I go to great lengths to NOT get sick here because I have learned that it is going to harm me in more ways than one. And that is really quite weird.

I never said that doctors don't deserve to get paid well but they certainly don't deserve to be overpaid at the expense of an ailing healthcare system. You make an excellent point when you point out the cost of pharmaceutical products and administrative fee of insurance companies. All these factors contribute blow by blow to the mess of healthcare in this country. (Yes, pharmacies and prescriptions at home are subsidized by the govt as well.)

Tell me something. How much does an X-Ray of a forearm really cost according to you? I fell off my bike in my first year here (I was learning how to ride, btw!). I severely sprained my wrist. I already had RSI and so the pain was unbearable to the point that I was close to fainting when they looked at my hand. It was swollen and ugly. Even then, I was fairly sure there were no broken bones but they decided to get an X-Ray anyway - and that was fine. The simple visit to the University health care system along with one x-ray of a single forearm and wrist cost me $250.

The resident saw me for 2 minutes. The nurse handed me an ace bandage and a strip of NSAID and it took 2 more minutes for the X-ray.

The break-up of the bill was:
$150 - X-Ray forearm
$100 - "UHS Medical Services"

Really? $100 for 2 minutes of the resident's and 30 seconds of the nurse's time? Does that sound logical as a serviee fee? At this rate, won't people earn several times of what they ever owed... and more in no time at all?

Again, this is just one isolated personal experience. I have no other first hand extensive personal dealings with healthcare here other than the patients and relative I occasionally talk to at Roswell. In the end, I can only be a spectator and comment on the scary dread of being a patient here and miss home where getting sick is never quite such a nightmare as it is here. :(

jenks writes at 06:09:36 07/29/09 - Comment #50375: Ack, I have too much, and too little, to say about this.

but first of all- thank you jason.
To answer your question- according to SallieMae.com, my current outstanding balance is $186,666.60.

And I am fortunate enough to NOT have any undergrad loans.

Is the point of being a doctor to make money? No. If all I cared about was money, I'd go work on wall street or something.

But, doctors put a LOT of time/money/blood/sweat/tears into their training, and sacrifice a LOT.

Some financial planner guy came and spoke to us once, showed an earnings graph of doctors vs "average" jobs. and yes, the doctors' line is a lot steeper, but it starts about 20 years later, and in fact "average joe" is better off than a doctor until they are about 55.

And with that said- can you name anyone that works harder than a doctor?
If I don't "deserve" to be paid well, who does? Athletes? Actors? CEOs of insurance companies? At least what I do is of some benefit to society.

I know that is not the point of the post, and I don't mean to hijack. And obviously I am biased here and take it to heart.

I realize there is a problem, and I don't have a solution.

Healthcare in this country is good. But it's way too expensive. So how do we cut costs? it seems like "pay doctors less" is always the first solution.
But, I dunno, how about "tell pfizer their antibiotic can't cost $500/day" or "don't pay the insurance CEO millions for sitting on his ass and DENYING people the care that they need"?

tiny your point is well taken, but to say that doctors should be paid like any other civil servant, because they CHOSE to go into medicine and knew what they were getting into, and they should be in it for the patients and not the money is not entirely fair.

Says me.

But, as always, your opinions may vary.

jason writes at 04:32:56 07/29/09 - Comment #50373: Nobody has put forth any myths concerning waiting lists. They're a fact of life for everyone. The number of specialists won't increase in America by adopting one system over another. I would suggest that once government gets a hold of something, there is no reversal, which is why it's so important to discuss pros and cons honestly. Government is the only enterprise we know where failure is rewarded.

You know, I'm with you guys, and I think everyone is, when it comes to day-to-day administration of health care. There certainly is waste and fraud. That has to be remedied no matter what direction we go.

The CBO has already shown us that under the current bill there will be no cost savings. I have to ask again, where are these savings coming from? It's vaporware. The options to bridge those gaps are not very palatable. Here is a link to an excerpt of Kent Conrad interviewing the Director of the CBO:

:::link:::

For us, there really is no such thing as having more people enrolled, equal or better care than they get now, on less money overall. Do you know what that sounds like to me? A pipe dream. Partisan Democrats say the Non-Partisan CBO is ignoring savings, yet decline to tell us what those savings are. I think I know why. You know, I think the savings side of the argument really should be dropped at this point until a plan comes forward that actually does save us money.

Regarding Doctors, I just don't approve of telling them how much they can earn. I have very, very dark words to describe that. How much PERSONAL debt has (e:Jenks) taken on to get to where she can actually get a paycheck? Nobody has a right to tell them, in essence, to do it out of the kindness of their own hearts. I don't care if doctors are wealthy - I expect them to be due to the length of education and training they receive, and the importance of their work. If the left starts to treat them like they treat the people who pay the country's bills?? Like YOU OWE ME THIS? Mmm. Not very flattering.

Lastly - about usage. Someone who goes to the doc every week and pays a copay is still costing every one of us for their own greed and thoughtlessness. They would never do so if they had to foot the entire $65 bill (what my doctor visit recently cost). I think we all can agree misuse of the system should be eradicated.

Bottom line - I want people to have health care, but I want a better plan. None of us should be afraid of questioning the proposals or the politicians. To think that politicians want to push this thing through without even reading the bill? And responding to the CBO by saying in essence they're lying? These people don't have our best interests at heart. Give me a better plan and I'll back it.

heidi writes at 01:50:01 07/29/09 - Comment #50372: There are already waiting lists - do you know how long it takes to get an appt with a specialist? Last year I scheduled something in January for JUNE!

I know too many people who are uninsured. They don't go to the doctor when they should because they can't afford it so they have complications from stuff that is so easily taken care of. Broken bones, months of digestive difficulties, diabetes & dialysis... <sigh>

dcoffee writes at 12:52:35 07/29/09 - Comment #50369: I just think it's a myth that in America we can get whatever medical treatment we need without a waiting list. And to say that it will be worse when managed by the government is pure speculation. This is a democracy, if we're not satisfied with the care we get we can use the phone and the voting booth to get it changed. I think we have more influence over the government than the Health Insurance Companies.

If you don't like the care you get from your insurance, what can you do? Most of us don't have a choice, you can't take your business elsewhere. Your employer provides one or two options, usually with the same insurance company. And insurance is exempt from anti-trust laws so they're already allowed to dominate the market.

And if somebody wants to go to the doctor every week they'll still have to pay, nobody said that the government would get rid of copays, it'll still cost you $10-$20, individuals will still have some 'skin in the game' there will be user fees.

If you know anyone who works in a hospital they will tell you how happy they are to deal with government health programs because there is so little 'red tape' compared to private insurance.

The potential for savings is huge too. Apparently we spend an average of $6000 more per person per year than the international average. The government alone already pays the same amount as other governments that cover everyone. And we citizens pay the other 40% of the total cost for.. what? to cover their administrative fees? If we kept the cost where it is, there would be no rationing whatsoever, there's plenty of cash to go around, but maybe it would be used to provide medical care instead.

The incentives in the healthcare system are totally backwards. Endless treatment is encouraged. "take two aspirin and call me in the morning" isn't profitable. The amount of paperwork and redundancy and inefficiency... there's so much bullshit that we need real structural changes.

Like I said, I don't think the current proposals go far enough.

Part of the waste comes from the fact that doctors bill for each service they preform. That's a lot of paperwork. Plus the more treatments they give, the more profit they make. Are we really encouraging doctors to look at patients and think, "how can I get most profit off of this person's problems" Why not put all doctors on a salary, so the only concern is making the patient comfortable and helping them stay well.

heidi writes at 12:03:45 07/29/09 - Comment #50367: Eliminating the bureaucracy of hospital and dr ofc insurance billing staff is where the real savings comes in - universal health care is the only way to really achieve this. Electronic medical record systems may reduce billing costs some, but those are incredibly complex systems to build and integrate. At the moment there are several EMR systems available and they don't talk to each other.

tinypliny writes at 09:12:43 07/29/09 - Comment #50366: "I think you have to dictate to doctors and hospitals exactly what they will be earning, which puts them in a tough position."

It doesn't. Medicine is not supposed to be a free-for-all "make-as-much-money-off-my-patients-as-I-can because I did some extra schooling and put in long hours I WANTED to put in" deal.

Doctors are not superhumans who are above the criticism of everyone else. They just got an extra degree. So what if they work 50 hour shifts? Its what they signed up to do. Its a profession and money is not the main motivation.

Doctors know exactly what they will be earning in a state funded healthcare system. They don't have a free passport to riches because they are doctors. I think its wrong and snotty for the medical profession to act as if they were doing some un-repayable favours to the rest of the population. That is not the spirit of medicine at all. Doctors and hospitals should ALWAYS be non-profit. Anyone who thinks they are going to be rich and untouchable in the profession earns my disgust. :/

"Government has to exert more control because we sure as hell can't, going to the emergency room for bullshit, misusing hospital resources, or going to the doc for every little sniffle."

Very right. The only way to police this is setting limits to what the state will fund and what you need to spend out of your pocket. For this to happen you need a corruption-free health ministry and that is, I am afraid, such an impossibly lofty ideal, I might easily believe I am in heaven when I see it as a reality.

jason writes at 08:41:51 07/29/09 - Comment #50365: Rationing under a government system is a guarantee, not a scare tactic, and the experience of other nations bears that out. There are only X number of health care dollars. We would be going from "rationing" under insurance companies to the same thing, only it's a government starched shirt that is going to tell you no. What happens then? Who are you going to sue? Good luck? I see it as a wash.

In terms of the levels of red tape and bureaucrats, again I see it as a wash. These things are hallmarks of government operations. Have no doubts, you are going to be still dealing with bureaucrats under a government system. There is no "me and my doctor are going to take care of me and nobody is going to get involved in my care decisions" when someone in DC makes decisions about what medicines and procedures are covered. It isn't a holy grail solution.

What is intriguing is the potential for savings. If you take away the profit motive, what does that get you? Where are the savings? What nobody has shown me is how in the USA adopting a single payer plan is going to turn a $32,000 hospital stay into a $20,000 hospital stay. What do you do? I think you have to dictate to doctors and hospitals exactly what they will be earning, which puts them in a tough position. Government has to exert more control because we sure as hell can't, going to the emergency room for bullshit, misusing hospital resources, or going to the doc for every little sniffle.

In any event, I do agree our current system is unsustainable. It breaks my heart for someone to go bankrupt because of catastrophic costs. But the CBO has been clear, the current bill on offer does not save money and in fact drives us deeper off the cliff financially. To Obama's credit, he went back to them and asked "How can we save more money?" but if we can't afford it, we can't afford it.

Speaking of Conyers, why is it that he can say more or less that it's unreasonable to read the god damned bill? They don't want to read it, they don't care what's in it, they just want to rush things through with little thought or debate. They have contempt for the rest of us. If that were Brian Higgins, I would be calling for his head, although you can be sure he's not going to be bothered to read the bill either.

dcoffee writes at 11:38:40 07/28/09 - Comment #50361: Tiny, you said it perfectly "How could you let some third party money making insurance company control whether you get treated for your illness?" so true. Doctors in other countries are free to practice medicine, and do what they think is best for the patient. Here we have a useless middleman trying to squeeze a profit out of someones misery.

I don't understand why employers, doctors or patients should have to worry about an insurance bureaucrat. Health Insurance companies are an artificial economy. A waste of money that we have accepted for years because we had money to waste. Now we just can't afford them.

If Obama was liberal he would at least talk about Single Payer. and he would have opposed that sham environmental legislation instead of trying to posture behind it like it was a victory.

tinypliny writes at 10:13:39 07/28/09 - Comment #50355: India has a universal state funded healthcare system but the government does not want to take any responsibility or even look at the population problem in a sensible way. Even with an efficient healthcare system, we are doomed by apathy.

joshua writes at 10:12:16 07/28/09 - Comment #50354: d:

You've suggested that Obama is barely a liberal - you've finally rendered me speechless.

tinypliny writes at 10:08:11 07/28/09 - Comment #50353: Health is a basic right. I couldn't agree more. The health insurance system here completely baffles me. How could you let some third party money making insurance company control whether you get treated for your illness? How could you do that?

I was shocked when I heard that my university would cover my "health insurance" - everything about that statement was and is still alien to me. Maintaining a healthy population should be a priority for a country of people. Health is the true wealth of any people.

Ever wonder why Japan is dead bottom of that list and still has the healthiest living centenarians?

Permalink: Healthcare_Ramblings.html
Words: 1148
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: healthcare

07/07/09 07:00 - 64ºF - ID#49219

Healthcare, Action Time

Protest this Thursday.

We won't get a better healthcare system unless we demand it. Some companies are getting filthy rich under the current system, and they don't want anything to change.

We pay more for healthcare than any other country, but all that cash is wasted on CEO bonuses, advertising, and in call-center employees whose job is to deny you care.

I've had enough. I have no healthcare, and no good options. Why? Because I decided to start my own business. But in this society, if you want health insurance you have to work for a big company that is kind enough to provide for you, or I can pay $500 per month (Just in case tragedy strikes, but there's really no guarantee they'll actually pay).

We're the only country that does it this way. And over 70 percent of the public thinks we should have a choice of a public option (#34a

)

But nothing is going to happen, unless we all pitch in a little bit.

Call congress.
Attend the protest this Thursday July 09th, 12 noon, outside Senator Gillibrand's office. 726 Exchange Street, Buffalo, NY 14210

Write down this number, this is toll free access to congress.
1 800-828-0498
Just call, ask for your congress person's office, and they connect you for free.

you might say something like...
"We need a public Healthcare option, I do not trust the Health Insurance Companies to do what's best for the country. We need a more efficient government system to compete with Insurance Companies who make a huge profit every year because they charge more and cover less. We have the most expensive system in the world, but 1 out of 6 Americans has no health insurance, and the burden of paying for it is killing the economy."

Senate: Schumer, and Gillibrand
Congress: Brian Higgins, Louise Slaughter, and Chris Lee

If we can't fix this system now, we've failed as a democracy.

Washington DC really is where good ideas go to die. We focus on elections, then the Rules of DC politics take over, and we get screwed until next election.

If you want to stay up to date on this, sign up at Healthcare for America Now

PS. finally posting, summers are so busy, I miss (e:strip).

Permalink: Healthcare_Action_Time.html
Words: 420
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: religion

06/16/09 09:25 - 74ºF - ID#48992

the Bible, gays, Jesus and the pope

I've always wondered why people use religion and the Bible as a basis for condemning homosexuality. I'm a spiritual person, a Quaker by choice, and I'm not OK with hatred in general, especially hatred based on religion.

I've read some of the bible, but I don't know enough about what it says yet.

anyway, straight to the point here. I read an article recently in Friends Journal that sheds some light on the biblical/theological basis for discrimination against homosexuality. and as it turns out, there is none.

Here's a link to the full article, unfortunately it's not on the Friends Journal site, and I haven't reread this whole page to know if it's exactly the same as what I read, but, here's the link

To summarize:

There's the New Testament and the Old Testament (Torah) in the Christian bible. The New Testiment is based on the life of Jesus and his teachings, it's the more Christian part, we're supposedly following Jesus Christ, hence the term 'Christ'ian. according to the article, homosexuality is only mentioned 3 times in the New Testiment, all of them by the same author, the apostle Paul.

I think I'd better quote the article here:

These homophobic remarks can be found in Paul's letters to the Romans (1:26-27), to Timothy (1:9-10), and to the Corinthians (6:9-10). That's it. I have found no other support for the Pope's homophobic position in the entire "new testament" other than these three short anti-gay comments made by a single Christian leader about 20 or 30 years after Jesus' death. It should also be noted that Paul's comments were made in angry response to some early Christian communities that did not support his homophobic views and, by his own report, actually included gays and lesbians as full and respected participants in their congregations.

The core theological question here, then, is what authority in our lives and religious communities are we to give to these three particular statements attributed to Paul? Are these three statements products of a historically-conditioned, culture-bound, patriarchal worldview not fully left behind by Paul or are they a deep revelation of the wisdom and way of God, the loving and liberating Spirit so fully embodied in human terms by Jesus of Nazareth? These three remarks by Paul were certainly never sanctioned by any recorded comment by Jesus, so this seems like a fair question. Even Paul says, "Do not despise the words of prophets, but test everything; hold fast to what is good, abstain from every form of evil."

And as much as I am deeply moved by so much of what is written in Paul's letters, and as much as I appreciate his efforts to organize and spread the radical Jesus movement in his day, I do see some of his remarks as violations of the best in Jewish and Christian wisdom and practice. For example, Paul also argues that women should not speak in church, that followers of Jesus should always obey governmental orders, that there is nothing wrong with slavery, that slaves should always obey their masters. He even once said that it was sinful for women to wear their hair in braids or to not cover their heads in church...

Furthermore, it must be remembered that Paul was not a close disciple of Jesus. He did not join the Jesus movement until after Jesus was crucified. He had never known Jesus intimately, or traveled with Jesus day in and day out, or discussed his own perspectives and confusions with Jesus at any length.

Kinda makes you go hmmmm

as for the old testiment, there are 5 refferances..

In total there are five additional passages that I have found in the entire Hebrew scriptures that might be legitimately considered anti-gay, or view gay and lesbian behavior as a sin, perhaps even a major sin. These passages are Genesis 19, Leviticus 19:22, Leviticus 20:13, Deuteronomy 23:17, and Judges 19-21. I say "might" here, however, because three of these passages are not even evaluating the moral worth of loving, committed gay and lesbian relationships at all, but actually speak out instead against male-on-male rape, or against men consorting with male or female ritual prostitutes, a practice that was common among some non-Jewish cultural traditions of the time.

The only significant theological support in the entire bible for the Pope's homophobia is found in Leviticus, which clearly says in one passage that gay male sexual behavior is a sin and an abomination before God and then goes on to another passage that says it is a moral imperative on the part of the faithful to kill all men who engage in homosexual behavior.

Regarding the 613 'laws' in the Torah...

Whether or not you agree with the murderous homophobia of these two laws attributed to God through Moses, one might be tempted to say that they do at least offer a firm theological support for the current Pope's homophobia. That would be true, however, only if the Pope actually supported all 613 of the religious laws listed in the Torah as legitimate commandments from God and as perpetual statutes to be followed by all generations of Jews and Christians. The Pope doesn't believe this, though--and neither did the Jewish prophet Micah, or Paul, or Jesus. If the Pope did believe everything that is said in all of the 613 laws attributed to the prophet Moses, he would order animal sacrifice as a core religious practice within the Catholic Mass and he would oppose Catholics eating shellfish or wearing cloth made from two types of fabrics. He would also demand that all Catholic men get circumcised. Indeed, he would demand that all faithful Catholics kill every child they know who has ever talked back to their parents, and demand that they also kill every woman who is guilty of adultery.

All of these actions and prohibitions are included among the 613 laws of Moses. Is it any wonder why Paul called the slavish following of all these religious laws "a curse" and warned people to stay faithful to the underlying spirit of the Law, but not the detailed letter of each one--as many of them are based on mere cultural convention and some are even rooted in deep human prejudices and cruelty.

Fascinating stuff right? I thought so. I'm interested to learn more about Jesus. Found a couple articles within Friends Journal that give context to his life like this one, I plan to read some gospels. Like Mark, and the newly discovered ones are very interesting to me. There were 12 disciples, but only 4 had their gospels included in Constantine's official bible, which is the basis of our current Bible.

Quakers are a Christian religion, and a diverse one, but I think we're more intent on following the path of Jesus, living up to his revolutionary ideals. Following and emulating the spirit of Jesus' life. Striving to create a 'beloved community' on Earth. Not worshiping, or idolizing him or the Church. And certainly not blindly following any Church's 'laws' without context.

This article was written in response to the pope's comments on homosexuality.. "saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behavior was as important as protecting the environment."

Full Article Again

just wanted to put that out there.

drew writes at 09:49:56 06/17/09 - Comment #49190: Just to play the other side for a second (even though these arguments no longer convince me).

The Bible never mentions homosexuality in a positive light. Pauls writings are earlier than the Gospels, and teach more directly to the subject.

Also, the Old Testament is no less authoritative than the new (according to many) when it comes to moral laws. Purity laws and civil laws of Israel are no longer, in effect, they argue, but moral laws still are (and yes, they argue that this is a moral law, somewhat arbitrarily).

One more point worth mentioning. Homophobia existed before both Christianity and Judaism, and many other religions. We bear a lot of responsibility for the wrongs we have done, but homophobia would still be there even if all of us came around.

dcoffee writes at 07:15:20 06/17/09 - Comment #49187: The article does quote different passages from the bible that refer to homosexuality being bad, sinful, whatever. And if you take those quotes out of context, put them on their own, there's about 5 passages that really target homosexuality, and you might claim those as justification. But if you put them in context, like with the other 613 'laws' in Leviticus and the Old Testament, some of those 'laws' are absurd, you start to wonder if these are god's commands, or if this stuff needs to be explored. Same thing with the New Testament, all the Quotes are from Paul, not Jesus, I think that's key (sorry to both Pauls) but if someone is a Christian, I think the words of Jesus are the most important, and if he never talks about it, I think it's open to interpenetration for all Christians.

metalpeter writes at 07:12:24 06/17/09 - Comment #49186: So Pretty Rusty on the bible and the few parts I know, but isn't there some part that says something like "one man shall not lay with another Man".

I have my own theory or crazy idea about the 10 commandments. Now when people follow them they need to remember that they aren't the first 10. Didn't the tablet break and god had to resend them? Is my memory correct. So isn't it possible that, that is a why of telling people that over time things change.

I think the anti anal sex that (e:james) is talking about is a good point. If you think about it that was common (from what I have heard) in Greece I have even heard it called "Greek Style" I think that back then people where trying to distance them selves from the Greeks. The sex was part of it. But look at You shall not worship other gods. Well there where many gods for greeks.

The thing you have to remember is that The bible is used as the tool to teach or tell people stuff. But you can tell people stuff that isn't in the book. You can tell one story (with out editing it) and get different meanings from it. So maybe it isn't the bible that teaches homophobia maybe it is the people. Or it could be the fact that sex outside of marriage is a sin, so any sex that is gay has to be sin since you can't be married. I think it is also important to note that everyone uses the term Homophobia wrong. It means being affraid of gays, but most people use it to mean hating them, there is a differance.

ajay writes at 03:29:09 06/17/09 - Comment #49184: Interesting. So, Pastor (e:drew) , since you're our local expert on the Bible and things theological, can you point us to the basis for homophobia? Just put on a fundamentalist hat for moment, and, like a prosecutor, lay out the exhaustive case, with quotes and references.
I'd like to understand where all of this comes from.

Thanks!

james writes at 12:53:00 06/17/09 - Comment #49179: This issue is a bizarre one.

First, there were no homosexuals in Jesus' lifetime. Oh sure, there was a lot of man on man and girl on girl hot sex, no doubt. But no one was there who declared "I am a homosexual" just as there was no one to declare "I am a heterosexual". Sexual identity is a very recent invention, less than 200 years old.

Second, the Catholic Church's doctrine did not develop out of scripture, but rather Augustine and Aquinas' reading of Aristotle. In the early church homosexual acts was punished just as masturbation would be punished as the crime was the same: spilling semen rather than impregnating a woman.

Treatment of these people became different from treatment of other sexual sinners who the Church had its first dirty priest scandal. Namely, monks were not living a quiet life of prayer, work, and contemplation but were fucking like rabbits (rabbits, not rabbis). Manuals that would serve as prototypes for interrogation methods in the inquisition began appearing in the 13th century. They would have a series of questions to ask, a series of responses, and a series of penances.

What really sparked our modern anti-sex, anti-masturbation, anti-woman, anti-queer crusade was the rise of the middle class and the industrial revolution. Fake Social Science was applied and thousands of men were castrated, thousands of women had their clitoris hacked off, thousands of people received lobotomies. All to curb their very natural, very harmless desires. Of course, the bible was often retrofitted into this crusade.

In short, the bible is not anti-homosexual. Rather, it is anti-sodomy. It is 3,000 years of culture that is anti-homosexual. And while the bible will always be around, that culture is slowly fading away.

drew writes at 11:39:33 06/16/09 - Comment #49176: You will enjoy reading the Gospels. Mark is a great place to start as it is almost universally recognized as the earliest. You will probably like Luke, too--as it has all of Mark, plus the sermon on the mount, parables, and a special emphasis on women and the poor.

A great book to put Jesus "in context" is "the Secret Message of Jesus" by Brian McLaren (I can lend it, if you would like).

As you probably already guessed, I really like talking about Jesus, so I will be happy to answer any questions you have or help in any way I can.

And one more quick note--the quotes are accurate, and I agree with them, but what you said, about there being no biblical basis for discrimination, is overstating it. I don't think there is a solid one, but I do think we have to grant that people can read the Bible and honestly come to different conclusions. A lot depends on how you read the Bible.

Permalink: the_Bible_gays_Jesus_and_the_pope.html
Words: 1214
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: healthcare

06/15/09 11:52 - 70ºF - ID#48981

US Chamber opposes Healthcare

Call Congress 1-800-828-0498

Most of you know that I run my own Web-Design and Photography business, I'm a sole proprietor. This means that I get screwed on Healthcare. I have to pay something like a minimum $500 per month for some crappy high deductible insurance for my wife and myself. that's even the subsidized NYS version.

I'm part of my local Greater South Buffalo Chamber of Commerce, and somehow I ended up receiving 'urgent action' alerts from the US Chamber of Commerce. They sent me one on Saturday... to Debra, I just noticed, boy that was a happy accident for me. Anyway, here's their message

"This week, the Senate HELP Committee released a plan that will radically restructure health care for all Americans. The proposal goes above and beyond covering the uninsured. It threatens the private market and ailing economy.

Unable to compete with a public plan, many private companies would be locked into an unsustainable system and forced out of business. In fact, a report cites 130 million people potentially moving from private insurance to this new public plan.

Now is the time to stand up to Senator Kennedy's plan, which could devastate private health care, and ultimately force you into an entirely government-run plan. Click here to send a letter to Congress now.

Further, this proposal would restrict the way employers provide coverage, hurting flexibility and innovation: the cornerstones of American health care. For more of my thoughts on the danger of this proposal, click here.

The bottom line: Sen. Kennedy's bill is dangerous to your health.

This plan is being forced through at a lightning pace, preventing those who will be impacted from carefully considering the 615-page proposal."

That email takes you to this page

So instead of signing their petition I decided to use their contact form to express my opposition. Here's my message to them.

"I support a public Healthcare option. Why should business have to pay the cost of health insurance for our employees? Why should employees have to demand extra benefits from their employers just to ensure that their families are protected from tragedy? The current Healthcare system is broken. It forces businesses like mine to cut employees, and increase our prices to cover the extra costs. This should not be the burden of private business. The economy would be better off with a simplified system where government takes responsibility for the well being of all citizens.

I oppose your position on this issue. I do not support protecting the Health Insurance companies at the expense of all other businesses and the economy as a whole. This is not a responsible position for the US Chamber of Commerce to take."

If you want to call congress on this issue here's the
Toll Free Number
1 800-828-0498

Senators are:
Kristen Gillibrand
Chuck Schumer

House Representatives are:
Brian Higgins
Louise Slaughter
Chris Lee

Permalink: US_Chamber_opposes_Healthcare.html
Words: 495
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: life

06/01/09 09:50 - 65ºF - ID#48818

Photos from Saturday's party

Party Photos!

It was a good time. Hope everyone had fun. I didn't take enough pictures. Enjoy these :)

Morning after

Fun times. we had a good crowd. Thanks everyone for coming.

Permalink: Photos_from_Saturday_s_party.html
Words: 60
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: house

05/25/09 08:42 - 64ºF - ID#48754

Come see the new house!

Sorry for the short notice everybody, but we'd like to invite you all to our house this Saturday May 30!!! We're having a big summer party at our new digs.

Come see what we got for $46,000!!

Starts around 2-3, and goes till late. Come for a few hours or hang out all night. 178 Altruria St. South Buffalo, off South Park near Tifft.

We're inviting family and friends. Hang out for a backyard picnic, and stay till whenever. We'll have some food and drinks for everyone, but you can always bring something to contribute. Tour the house, check out the vegetable garden, we'll have a fire outside later on... come hang out.

Permalink: Come_see_the_new_house_.html
Words: 117
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: life

04/28/09 09:19 - 49ºF - ID#48531

First Weekend of Summer

I love living in South Buffalo. We had a great weekend, actually a great week.

Wednesday and Thursday we hung out at our neighbor's house next door, had some food and drinks. We've met a lot of our neighbors already, it seems like summer is going to be full of activity. It was nice to spend some time, and get to know the 2 families in the house next door.

Friday 2 friends came over after work. We hung out in the yard, enjoying the excellent weather. We assembled our fire ring, but we got hungry and didn't end up lighting our first fire. But it was the first time we've actually hung out in the backyard with friends. We had a little dinner party, with some pasta and homemade sauce. I do make good pasta sauce, instant gourmet :)

Saturday, Mr Softie in the hood. Parked right outside my house. There are a ton of kids in this neighborhood.

Saturday

We went for bikeride. We had no perticular direction. First we dropped by a friends house to see their newborn baby, passed a hotdog stand on South Park Ave so we stopped for a bite to eat. Passed a street musician after we left, playing guitar at the bus stop by the library. Then mom's house, we found her outside gardening, of course :) Finally we rode around Cazenovia Park, and then around South Park Lake too. We saw a saxophone player outside the Botanical Gardens too. Such a nice day for a ride, it's like the whole neighborhood was in bloom.

I love Hot Dog stands, woodside and South Park :)

Outside Mom's

Dudes Fishin' at Caz Park

Baseball Game

Cazenovia Creek

South Park Lake

Outside the Botanical Gardens

Later we showed off our new house to one of mom's out of town friends. Then we all went out to dinner at the Blackthorn. Mom's friend in a Buffalo native who is actually moving back to B-lo from North Carolina because she misses the people, cheap living, and the friendliness.

At around 8 we went to a friend's birthday party in East Aurora. we stayed outside on the back deck and the porch, except to refill our wine glasses, and use the piano, she has a player piano, one that plays those song scrolls. Fun stuff.

Rockin' the Player Piano, that cabinet in the back is full of scrolls.

Sunday

I worked outside, starting my vegetable garden in the back yard. We had dinner at mom's house, backyard barbeque! Enjoyed my first corn on the cob of 2009, along with sausage, veggie-burgers and pasta salad. Cooking on the grill, lovin' the outdoors.

Molly says hi :) Actually she wrote some of this post!

Permalink: First_Weekend_of_Summer.html
Words: 487
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: politics

04/16/09 10:00 - ID#48410

Taxed to Death??

Yesterday was tax day. There were a bunch of symbolic protests across the country. "Tea Party" protests. here's the article about the one in Buffalo

Anyway, I'm not going into detail here. but one slogan I saw a few places.

"Born Free, Taxed to Death"

There are a lot of ways to die... That's one of the reasons we have firefighters, and police, and traffic signals, and Medicare, Social Security, and the Food and Drug Administration.... you get the idea.

In many ways, we actually pay taxes to protect ourselves from death. Because paying $25 per year to help fund a Police force is a lot simpler, cheaper, and easier than hiring a private security force, or detective, or getting a gun or a baseball bat and going all vigilante style.

Maybe that's going a little too far, according to the Buffalo News Tea party Protesters "said they favor spending on the military, police, roads and other critical infrastructure,"

But... "social welfare programs such as Social Security and Medicaid had few fans."

"...yea... fend for yourselves.. you over 65 socialists, we don't owe you shit!!! One for.. me, and ... all for .. none... or... All for me, and none for you!!! whatever, Hows'it go?...."

I guess it sounds good. "I work hard for my money, I deserve to keep it all. And if somebody's got more money, i guess they just work super hard, and they deserve it too."

my point is this; if we worked together, we wouldn't have to bust our ass all the time just to get by.

"Yea! screw Social Security... I should be able to put my kids through college, pay medical expenses, insurance costs for my car and house, oh.. pay off that student loan. and have plenty left over to retire!... Yea!! freedom!!!!!"..../ what the fuck is that shit.

If we didn't spend so much time worrying about the future, worrying about illness, college loans, retirement... I know I'd have a lot more freedom.

We have to work together. It's patriotic, and human to care about your neighbors, your family, the citizens your country. It's supposed to be "all for one, and one for all" We should look out for each other.

You know teachers work hard, so do farmers, so do computer programmers, and so do your parents... and we all couldn't get by without them. But they each make different amounts of money. And it's not because they don't work hard enough, most of the time it's just cruel luck.

You also don't need to be greedy to work hard. or to contribute to your society. I think that selfcentered individualistic bullshit is un-American. How about soldiers? They're some of the most selfless, hard working people you'll meet. totally not motivated by greed. they want to help people.... imagine that, motivated by an urge to help. Not so hard right? I think it's just human nature to want to help.

"E pluribus unum" it's on our money, a motto adopted at the founding of this country, it's Latin for "Out of Many, One," it means we're all in this together.

The essential point of government is to help us work together in an orderly way. Government is not the problem, selfcentered politicians have betrayed us.

PS. my Father in-law is in the paper, the last 4 paragraphs, about the counter protester with the Veterans for Peace Tee Shirt

uncutsaniflush writes at 09:51:13 04/17/09 - Comment #47690: (e:dcoffee) - just for the record, most of the soldiers that I've known have seen combat but I didn't mention them because they were drafted. My stepfather was a veteran of World War 2. Many of my neighbors when I was growing were veterans of the Korean War. And many of my friends older brothers were drafted to fight in Vietman. Some of them even returned alive but a litte worse for the wear and tear on their souls. The only people I know who served in the first Gulf War were Reservists who unfortunately died in Kuwait.

Over the years, I've known a lot of soldiers.
By the time they have seen combat, I agree, most soldiers are selfless.

dcoffee writes at 09:29:17 04/17/09 - Comment #47689: Whatever occupation you choose, money really shouldn't be your first concern. We have different talents, and we should do what we're good at, that's what makes us happy. And that's how we live up to our full potential.

But I'm kind of focusing on the idea that, taxes are always bad, and that keeping 'my money' will magically make life better. I can definitely understand the idea of cutting wasteful spending, and reducing the deficit and our national debt.. I really think Obama understands that too. But to cut Social Security and Medicare? Sure they need to be more efficient, but life without them would be terrible.

I could have talked about all the offensive signs about socialism, and fascism (these people obviously have no clue what fascism means) but I wanted to talk about the central argument, Taxes, and weather or not life would be better without them.

I think this anti-tax stuff is a symptom of our rabid individualism, and I think Americans need a little more "We're in this thing together, and we're going to have to cooperate to to make life better for all of us" And it matters how people are doing, not just myself.

Tax money should absolutely be spent wisely, but we NEED to pool our resources, we need to work collectively. I think this anti-tax thing is also an impulse because people don't trust government. Fix the government, don't starve it to death.

Alright, here's the solution, I should write a post on this. Ready..

Democratic Taxation, Instead of handing over a lump sum to the government, you prioritize your values. Say there's 20 different funds, education, war, environment, healthcare, retirement, assistance to the poor, etc. You chose your own priorities, 20% here, 30% there, 50% for that. I spend my money like I'm voting. I do this every day when I go to the local restaurant, not applebees or burger king. Why not do taxes the same way?

about Soldiers. Most of the ones I've met are at weddings, and they've been in combat. They get married and ship off again in a few weeks. Why they joined may have been motivated by many things (cash, education, direction), but what they do, is selfless, and you see care and dignity on their faces. Don't get me wrong, I think those in power like to keep us poor and desperate so we might end up in their war machine. But my point is that we all value selflessness, the hardest right winger will say "thanks for your service" and they honor the idea that this person has sacrificed something for all of us. Being selfless is human. This individualistic stuff sounds good, but it's not as valuable as selflessness.

dcoffee writes at 12:45:43 04/17/09 - Comment #47669: I'm focusing on the idea that taxes are always bad, and that keeping 'my money' will magically make life better. I can definitely understand the idea of cutting wasteful spending, and reducing the deficit and our national debt.. I really think Obama understands that too. But to cut Social Security and Medicare? Sure they need to be more efficient, but life without them would be terrible.

I could have talked about all the offensive signs about socialism, and fascism (these people obviously have no clue what fascism means) but I wanted to talk about the central argument, Taxes, and weather or not life would be better without them.

I think this anti-tax stuff is a symptom of our rabid individualism, and I think Americans need a little more "We're in this thing together, and we're going to have to cooperate to to make life better for all of us" And it matters how people are doing, not just myself.

Tax money should absolutely be spent wisely, but we NEED to pool our resources, we need to work collectively. I think this anti-tax thing is also an impulse because people don't trust government. Fix the government, don't starve it to death.

Alright, here's the solution, I should write a post on this. Ready..

Democratic Taxation, Instead of handing over a lump sum to the government, you prioritize your values. Say there's 20 different funds, education, war, environment, healthcare, retirement, assistance to the poor, etc. You chose your own priorities, 20% here, 30% there, 50% for that. I spend my money like I'm voting. I do this every day when I go to the local restaurant, not applebees or burger king. Why not do taxes the same way?

about Soldiers. Most of the ones I've met are at weddings, and they've been in combat. They get married and ship off again in a few weeks. Why they joined may have been motivated by many things (cash, education, direction), but what they do, is selfless, and you see care and dignity on their faces. Don't get me wrong, I think those in power like to keep us poor and desperate so we might end up in their war machine. But my point is that we all value selflessness, the hardest right winger will say "thanks for your service" and they honor the idea that this person has sacrificed something for all of us. Being selfless is human. This individualistic stuff sounds good, but it's not as valuable as selflessness.

jason writes at 11:45:23 04/17/09 - Comment #47659: When people start bringing straw man arguments to the table, and ridiculously lazy thinking such as calling it sour grapes, or using bumper sticker slogans, it isn't about desiring an intellectual discussion. People who shit on these protesters don't want to understand the other side or their concerns - they just want to ridicule and play make believe about the nature of their own counter argument.

Now, I'm not going to criticize it any further than that, because I used to shit on the burnouts at Bidwell all the time, and the same thing applies to how I treated them. If you want to simply make fun of them, have at it. Nothing wrong with it. I didn't attend a tea party because, like the war protesters, if you're not in power you don't get to make the rules. Tough luck. Obama won't listen to the Tea Party protesters any more than Bush listened to the war protesters. I just think in most cases it's pointless other than to blow off some steam.

I think there is a difference between what America IS, and what America COULD or SHOULD be. I think there is some confusion about America being a fan of collectivism to the extent that the European Socialists are. We're not, and that's not who we are today. E Pluribus Unum has nothing to do with this.

If you decide to be an elementary teacher, instead of a developer, you know in general the amount of money you make will likely be less. I don't understand how that's cruel, or unlucky for the teacher who weighs this when choosing what to do with his life.

If you're the taker instead of the giver overall, it's easy to think of yourself as having more freedom. Of course you do, in the example of a society where education costs nil to students, you are free to not have to pay for your own education. That's someone else's burden. I'm sure it would be liberating. I'd love if I could saddle some other asshole with my student loans.

It sounds like all I'm doing is criticizing, but the bottom line is this - I agree with you to an extent that it is our obligation to look after each other. We are in this together. I do agree that the current model of health care needs to be modified. I do believe in taking care of your brother man. What we have in America is a love of mocking and shitting on your brother man instead of listening to them. Who is immune? Nobody! =(

What I don't agree with is the idea of government taking the money you would normally donate, and deciding for themselves what's appropriate. That's not freedom. I do not agree with creating an even bigger bureaucracy than already exists, and giving the government more control of my life cheaply or freely. I do not agree with the baby boomers saddling us with ongoing expenses that we can't afford, and not talking about how we're supposed to sustain this level of government long-term without saddling the common man with a bigger tax burden. Howard Zinn has an idea - get rid of the DoD, and get rid of capitalism. It always comes down to getting rid of capitalism for that guy.

Now, I already know one of the questions I'm going to get because it's always the first one when I debate this stuff - "So Jason, what about Boooosh?" Yeah, I hated the bank giveaways too. I know the *real* Libs are upset by Obama's continuation of this stuff. Which by the way, we are going to have to all pay for eventually. We're all going to be eating freaking health pellets by the end of all of this.

uncutsaniflush writes at 11:37:03 04/17/09 - Comment #47658: I'm with (e:jenks) on soldiers. I, personally, known people who joined the military so that they could get:
1. technical training while in the service
2. college educations with the G.I. bill afer they leave the service
3. avoid jail (joining the military was part of a plea bargain)
4. be a musician in an Army band
5. get away from an abusive home situation
6. a job after being laid off
7. a job after high school with no prospects of a job in their hometown.

Of course, this was inbetween wars, so they probably didn't expect to see combat.

Perhaps it is different now, but I don't think so. Alternet.org has good (imho) discussion of why young people join the military: :::link:::

jenks writes at 10:55:06 04/17/09 - Comment #47655: just to play devil's advocate- I'm not sure that everyone that joins the military does so out of a simple pure desire to help people. I know plenty who have joined b/c either they 1- couldn't do anything else, or 2- just wanted the perks, and were betting that they'd never actually have to serve. Felt like it was an 'easy' way to a 'free ride'.

libertad writes at 09:17:03 04/17/09 - Comment #47652: OH those teabaggers! I like what your father and law said.

Permalink: Taxed_to_Death_.html
Words: 585
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: buffalo

04/15/09 10:39 - 50ºF - ID#48396

Urban Farm

Hey, you probably heard about this already. It's been going on since last week.

This couple, Mr and Mrs Stevens, they've got 7 kids, they moved to Buffalo's East side from the country. They own a home on the Fillmore ave on the between Broadway and Sycamore. They have 2 acres of open lots behind their house, all of which are owned by the city. They requested to buy the lots and turn it into a farm. The city said no. Here it is in the Buffalo News

Here's the land

Behind Fillmore, between Broadway and Sycamore.

What do you guys think?

Should farming come back to the city? Without a huge increase in population, what will happen to abandoned neighborhoods? People keep sprawling homes over farmland, and the city is left with abandoned homes to demolish, how can the city rejuvenate itself? The East Side, how does it get better, where can it go. I don't think you can ignore the East Side and expect the rest of Buffalo to Recover. So where is the east side headed, and how can it be positive?

The area around the proposed farm was a dense, popular Buffalo street at one time, a central Business District for the East Side. Broadway Market is still there. But now it's one of those places you drive around and get depressed. The once magnificent buildings on Fillmore and Broadway just look like death. and most of the people who live in the area would rather move. It's a shame. I get furious when I think of how we let our cities rot. First they went to Cheektowaga and let Broadway rot, now they move further out and toss Cheektowaga out like a half eaten happymeal. Back in the 60s it would have been easy to help the East side, and all of the city, now look what we've got.

I'm pretty familliar with the East side, went on the Tour de Neglect twice, that's about 7-8 hours riding my bike around, and used to drive out to MLK park every other weekend.

The way I see it, the City is absolutely foolish not to allow people to turn acres into farmland. The one thing the East side has going for it is the open space, nature has reclaimed areas, and it's a beautiful thing. You can look as some buildings and businesses as assets, but as a whole, the peaceful open spaces are the strength of the East side.

The Mayor would rather see new houses constructed there. Like there's a shortage of homes. Yea, I know, new homes, people like those. Well, I've seen plenty of them abandoned and boarded up too, on the East side and in South Buffalo. I don't think the houses that were there were the problem, it's the neighborhood that nobody wants. new homes can be wasted just like the old ones if the neighborhood has no heart.

I got tons of links on this, the city seems to be getting a lot of bad press, even that Buffalo News article, on the front page, big picture, titled "City Says E-I-E-I No" There's stuff in Artvoice

Buffalo Rising

WNY Media is doing video, oh, and there's a Facebook group I joined, it's getting close to 400 members

the non-profit Broadway Fillmore Alive has links to a bunch of different stories

oh, by the way, there is a farm in the City FYI Mayor Brown, it's about 4 blocks East of Main St. Queen City Farm

Saturdays at 9 you can volunteer.

metalpeter writes at 05:41:16 04/16/09 - Comment #47642: Well I'm kinda mixed on this issue my self.
-I live in the city If I wanted to live near a farm I would live in the country
-The people who wanted to do this should have looked into it before they bought the house instead of the other way around
-I do like the idea of having an urban farm and it is a good idea to use the area, but if you all ready have a plan with Habitat you can't really go back on that (plus that sends the message that agreements made mean nothing if you change things when some else comes along).
-Yes that part of town is kinda rough. There is this Idea that the reason houses get run down is because the people who own them don't live there, and that is true sometimes.
-People assume that poor people destroy places and sometimes that is true. But often what happens is that renters don't feel like it is their neighboorhood. So when they see bad shit go down they don't say anything. But when these people own a house it causes them to care about the area and what they own. I do agree with that.

---- Here is what should Happen. The people should be allowed to buy all the land. However there should be a set of time maybe 5-7 years that they must run a farm there. If it fails or they stop or they decide to open some thing else up or move or something along those lines they are held to strict stipulated penalties of some kind. What if they start this farm have it for 2 years and go broke and then move during the night and leave the house behind and now you have to start the plan all over. In terms of building new homes. I'm sure there is some place else in that area where the city can use federal money to knock them down and build new ones. On a side note I think Jannelle makes a lot of good points that there needs to be an entire system used for urban farms. Will this farm have animals and food will be grown or is is just like a huge Garden. What happens if someone from the hood goes into it at night and plants pot who makes sure that doesn't happen? Also what about zoning? What is allowed? -----

dcoffee writes at 11:49:09 04/16/09 - Comment #47626: Hmm, from what I've read so far I think Habitat is flexible, they realize there is a lot of open space and are willing to look elsewhere. I also heard Habitat was surprised that the mayor even knew about their Wilson st. idea and didn't like his using it as an excuse to deny the farm permit.

Personally I'm not so keen on livestock, chickens, pigs whatever, cause you'll have to build shelters and deal with their waste. but I think farming plants is quite positive.

and as paul said, "we all know how easy it is to make farmland into subdevelopments."

there are community gardens all over the city in empty lots, and they're always regarded as positive things, politicians go and make speeches in them for photo ops. They're more popular now, and some of them have veggies too.

As for the masterplan excuse, there is a plan from about 4 years ago, building on the Queen City Hub plan, it was created by 'East Side Good Neighbors Planning Alliance' each neighborhood had a 'GNPA' it's community folks, they create the plan for their own neighborhood. the Wilson St. lots were down for parkland/greenspace. So housing might actually go against that. :::link:::

I think beautifying the open spaces will lead directly to a more desirable neighborhood, and better home values. I think it would actually help more than new-build homes. The East side will attract bargain shoppers, do it yourself people, who'd buy a house cheap and put some sweat into it. Maybe a house with an empty lot next door they could farm. Realy, who wants to buy a house there, thrifty self sufficient people.

Also, there really is a farm East of Main near Utica, and it's 3 acres, bigger than this one.

And PS. zobar, I'm totally changing my user sound to the Talking Heads.

james writes at 11:42:54 04/16/09 - Comment #47625: Ya, the lease offered had a clause where they would have to be off the premises in 30 days. No Farmer in their right mind would take that.

janelle writes at 10:11:41 04/16/09 - Comment #47624: I think that Habitat for Humanity offered to allow them to use the land temporarily but they declined. It's probably not worth their efforts.

That's why I say the individuals should have done a little more planning ahead of time.

paul writes at 09:58:25 04/16/09 - Comment #47622: I say why not let them build a farm with a short term permit - say 5 years - and see how it goes. There is definately not an urgent need for housing on the eastside or anywhere in Buffalo. I mean so many of the houses are completely destroyed - which means no one wanted them.

If it doesn't work - we all know how easy it is to make farmland into subdevelopments. However, if they build one of those newstyle plastic sided subdivisions, it is a little more difficult to turn it back into farmland and required demolition, etc - although I am sure the eastide would be capable of that oer ten years.

james writes at 09:05:11 04/16/09 - Comment #47621: I agree to an extent Janelle. However, I do not think there is any long-term vision for this particular neighborhood. The mayor's plan for new housing is a great way to build some new homes that devalue to nothing over the course of ten years. You cannot simply install a sustainable neighborhood. Having Habitat for Humanity build low-cost homes is fine, but this particular neighborhood is in the middle of no where. There is a two acre lot because the homes rotted into the ground.

The farm is a great way to incrementally stabilize the neighborhood. First, it puts the land back on the city's bankroll. Ka-Ching! It puts a business in there that is not necessarily dependent on local consumption. Ka-Ching! It ties in to other local businesses like the Broadway Market. Ka-Ching. If it does take off and stabilize neighborhood housing prices, it would become feasible to rehab or construct new housing, eventually making the farm's land value to great they would be fools not to sell it and homestead some other rotten part of the city. At worst, the farm doesn't make it but the city collects tax on that land for a few years. At least there wont be any new construction on that land to demolish.

janelle writes at 08:35:29 04/16/09 - Comment #47620: While I think urban farming is an interesting idea, the city has a responsibility to consider how the idea fits into a broader plan of development. They shouldn't hand over land to every person who comes by with an idea and it would be irresponsible city planning to do so.

Obviously the city isn't entirely opposed to urban farming because of the farm on the west side. And David Rivera's office is diligently working on the backyard poultry issue.

I wonder if these people did any research on the issue when they moved here. If they wanted to do urban farming, it might have been more beneficial for them to spend some time checking out different neighborhoods, seeing where it might be viable, and having discussions with the local councilperson to garner support for the idea.

I would like the city to explore urban farming because it would be an interesting way to use vacant land. But there needs to be a system in place to consider where the farm will go and the impact on the area. Farms seem so nice and idyllic but the byproducts of farming could further add to the pollution in the area. So I rather not have people just putting up farms wherever they can claim a piece of vacant land without any thought or oversight.

zobar writes at 07:55:29 04/16/09 - Comment #47619: This used to be real estate, now it's only fields and trees. Where have they gone? Now it's nothing but flowers. The highways and cars were sacrificed for agriculture. I thought that we'd start over, but I guess I was wrong...

If the neighbors are down [if there are any neighbors] and they can get the money, I don't see why it's any of the mayor's business what they do. The upside of the whole thing is that if the city turns down enough money for enough projects they don't like, it's going to put more pressure on the city to articulate and follow through on this master plan of theirs.

...and as things fell apart, nobody paid much attention.

- Z

heidi writes at 11:55:57 04/15/09 - Comment #47618: ARGH! I have lazarus installed on the other ocmputer! I had a beautiful long comment and now it's gone! :-(

(e:dcoffee), thank you so much for posting this!! I definitely agree with you about the potential of urban farming as a path for reclaimation and encouragement of community & economic development.

Permalink: Urban_Farm.html
Words: 652
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: healthcare

03/30/09 11:10 - 32ºF - ID#48237

Drug Companies, money for Ads, not R&D

Doing some healthcare research.

Check this one out

Drug Companies spend Twice as much on marketing and advertising than they do on Research and Development, about one third of their revenue.

Source PDF

from Families USA

Just one example of how we are getting ripped off despite the huge summs we are paying for our healthcare.

Drug Companies are the third most profitable industry in America.

Why so much Profit? Instead of creating new drugs, they spend a lot of time tinkering with old drugs just so they can get a new patent and have a monopoly for 20 years on the production of something, then they spend their money marketing some new form of Prozac with a new patent and a different name.

Anyone else get annoyed by the TV commercials out there telling me to "ask my doctor" about such and such wonderpill? I don't feel like I'm qualified to guess what kind of perscription I need, that's why I'm going to the doctor in the first place right? If I know how to handle it, I wouldn't be going to the Doctor. And didn't they spend about 13 years in school learning this stuff?

I always hated those drug commercials, I always felt like they were just increasing my cost and providing nothing of value. Now that I know the actual numbers... This is so much worse than I thought.

jenks writes at 10:07:21 03/30/09 - Comment #47163: i'm totally with you here. I mean yes, the drug companies are businesses and need to earn money. But I think the 'direct to patient' advertising is absolutely wrong.
I mean i'm not against making people aware of new meds.
but that line 'ask your doctor is x pill is right for you" just absolutely rubs me the wrong way.
How about you trust your doctor to know which meds are right??
If anything the drug companies should spend more of their energies educating the doctors who will prescribe the drugs, not the patients. There are a lot of great new drugs out there. But so many docs are set in their ways and scared to try something new- usually b/c they don't know about it. Once in a while I will see someone learn about some new product, and then try it out to see if it lives up to the hype. I think that's how it should go.
I mean the patients need to know- but I think they should hear it from their doc, not from someone with a background in advertising.

While they're at it... the drug companies can stop buying me lunch and giving me free pens. If they do that, maybe they can drop their prices .0000001% or something.

libertad writes at 08:43:43 03/30/09 - Comment #47161: That is interesting data. I'm surprised how much more they spend on advertising than on research. They have banned cigarette advertising so clearly they can ban any kind of advertising they want. I don't see why it is in the public interest this type of advertising.

dcoffee writes at 08:01:23 03/30/09 - Comment #47159: I just don't feel like the Drug Companies should play the role of the 'slick salesmen'. We'd all be better off if the could spend money creating new cures, instead of spending twice as much on marketing. If this drug really is as amazing as they say, wouldn't my doctor know about it? if it could help me personally wouldn't they mention it?

We have the FDA to approve new drugs right? Don't they notify people when something new comes out? There must be a comprehensive list of osteoporosis drugs somewhere, the doctor should be able to look at the list, think about the side-effects and other factors in relation to my body, and pick one. Why should I think the TV commercial knows more than my doctor? If that's the case than my doctor sucks.

Don't get me wrong, I can take care of a lot of things myself (I have to) I don't think you should be helpless without your doctor. But really, that's their job, and they went through over a decade of Med school to get there.

metalpeter writes at 07:44:01 03/30/09 - Comment #47157: The part that is weird about some of ok a lot of the ads is that they Tell you the drug name but don't really say what it is for. Or now the new wave of them is people talking and then they list the side effects in the conversation (legaly they have to list them). I do get why they do the Ads if you are trying to sell a Hard on pill and no one knows about more choices then Viagara you won't get any sales. There is one that I find really strange it is a drug for people who have depression and are taking meds but it doesn't cure everything so this pill is supposed to take care of things in addition to the meds you are allready taking.

joshua writes at 03:52:02 03/30/09 - Comment #47153: Yeah, the ads have always been shady. Then again, if you spend $800M-$1B developing a drug, I have no idea how you recuperate that much money without actually advertising for it. The advertising itself never really has bothered me, but the scale of it has definity been a stone in my shoe for a long time.

Permalink: Drug_Companies_money_for_Ads_not_R_amp_D.html
Words: 259
Location: Buffalo, NY

<-- Earlier Entries