Today's Special

It bothers me that America spends all this money on Healthcare, but a lot of it doesn't go to medicine, or treatment, or doctors or anything that actually makes us healthy. It goes to profit.

Today I'm picking on this poor millionaire Stephen Hemsley at United Healthcare



Including those stock option he makes this much money.



Let's just take his salary and bonuses for last year, 3.2 million, that's $3,200,000

That means that per day he made $8,767.12...... every day of the year, even weekends and holidays. almost $9 thousand per day? really? I guess it's because he does such important work right... making people wealthy by denying medical treatment to millions of Americans.

I guess he's getting richer by the day, I looked it up on Forbes.com and they say he's worth $5 billion now.

See for Yourself that goes to a list of healthcare CEOs

And he's not at the top of the list either.

Americans are going bankrupt all the time because of Healthcare bills. Over half of all personal bankruptcies are due to healthcare bills, the average cost of those bills is around $12,000. Funny thing is, 75% of those people, had Health Insurance when they got sick. Either it was canceled, part of it wasn't covered, or whatever
... But this guy makes $16,000 on the weekend.

Public vs Private Health Insurance Options

Critics of Obama's Healthcare plan are most upset about the "Public Option" they don't want to see a "government takeover" of the healthcare system, This is one of the main sticking points in the Senate Finance Committee, people like Chuck Grassley ask "Why do we need a public Option?"

I think the question really should be, why do we need a private option at all? We have publicly funded options like Medicare, and it's very successful.

Then why do we even need the insurance companies? What constructive role do they play? What benefit do they bring to the table? The whole point of the market is to increase efficiency and innovation and productivity, do Health Insurance Companies do any of these things?

I think they're parasites who make money by denying care. We've enabled this economy to exist, but all they do is waste our money.

I think the market and the entire economy would function better without Health Insurance companies and without the burden of worrying about how you're going to afford to protect your family from illness. All that worry and cost creates friction in our economic engine.

Think about it,
Guy works for large company, thinks he could do a better job than his boss, has a great idea, BUT if he leaves and tries to start a new business he loses healthcare for his family..... American companies are sacrificing quality to save money, they have to compete with Japanese companies that don't pay for healthcare, our companies aren't competitive overseas, and our balance of trade is awful which leads to a declining standard of living in the US..... Labor in the US is expensive, partly because of the cost of Healthcare, so companies move jobs out of the country..... Businesses pay more for healthcare every year, this eats up money that should go to expanding the business, buying equipment, marketing, moving the economy...... Individuals pay more every year too, that money should be going into home improvement, neighborhood businesses, vacations....... That's the story of the economy slowing down.

Here's the big question:
"Why are we wasting our money on an industry that brings us no value?"

Yea, Free Market at all costs... but if you look at it objectively, you start to realize that the economy would function better without the burden of healthcare.
.......


More on how Insurance Companies make money




think about it

Medicare for All
HR 676

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).

I could go on and on about how our current Healthcare system hurts businesses, especially small businesses which make up 90% of the business community. I don't think it should be the Employer's responsability to provide healthcare for workers and their families. I think that it hurts businesses and makes them less competitive around the world. It's too expensive, workers and businesses would have more money to go around the economy if they didn't have to worry about healthcare.

I just wanted to share a personal tidbit. My mom works for a Catholic charity, OLV Father Bakers, the basilica... they have schools, homes for troubled teens, people with disabilities, seniors, etc, all good charity work. And they treat their employees well.

This year their healthcare costs went up 35%.

Just this year. And they go up every year. Her part of the charity has about 70 employees. She didn't get a raise this year because of the crazy healthcare increase. She said that is the biggest jump they've ever seen. I told her they need the money to lobby congress to crush Healthcare reform and protect their profits :) I know, it's not funny. 35% is a lot.


On another note, I decided to listen to Rush Limbaugh today.

I've been amazed by the lies floating around about the Healthcare Bills, I even got that email about "encouraging seniors to commit suicide" or "mandatory end of life counseling sessions", there's no such thing, by the way, I read the bill. I'm also astounded by the frightened protesters who've been attacking Democrats. They're scared of the government telling them who should live or die.. These fears seem irrational to me, this is America you know, it's a democracy, and 99% of Americans would never let such a thing happen.

Anyway I wanted to try and understand the rationale, so I tuned in to Rush Limbaugh. I found it fascinating. He paints a very frightening picture of America. He's afraid of authoritarianism, totalitarianism, the government controlling every aspect of your lives. He believes that our liberties and freedoms are being taken away. He doesn't blame the right wing protesters for being irate or un-civil, their liberties are about to be snatched away. The government will decide who lives and who dies.

He also says that his listeners are more informed than our congresspeople about what's in the bill. He says that our congresspeople haven't read the bill, they don't know what's in it. This may be partly true, but they do have a lot of staff to read the bill and it was drafted in a committee, most of the people in that committee know exactly what is in the bill. I was a bit disappointed that Democratic House members didn't take full advantage of the info-session provided to go over the bill and educate members about what exactly is in it.

But Rush, and the other conservative talkers I'm sure, believe that they have uncovered the awful secrets in this bill, and that their listeners have the inside scoop. They are telling their listeners that they are more informed than anyone else in America and it is their patriotic duty to alert the nation to the dangerous tyranny in this bill, and stop it by any means necessary. They're immersed in the conservative bubble of Fox news, Limbaugh, and the Drudge report, but they actually know what's in the bill, better than congress, and the people who wrote it?

There are so many lies and exaggeration coming from the right about this healthcare bill, I've seen some of this stuff, emails, scarry 'summary' of the bill etc. I've double checked the bill itself, and they're not mandating anything, you're just getting more options and more coverage, and more security from the abuses of insurers.

I think it's fascinating, bad for democracy, but really interesting anyway.

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.

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.