Colorado Care May Soon Rise On Its 2016 "Ashes"

Comparison of Colorado Care provisions with those of the failed plan in Vermont. This post deals with a number of reasons why the former "went down in flames".

My wife, Janice - with dozens of others - had worked ferociously to get the Colorado Care health plan passed in the state in the 2016 election cycle. Alas, there was simply too much opposition arrayed against, especially the sheer volume of "free speech"...errr,  the money.  The Colorado Care team and activists had amassed some  $800,000 to support their campaign but were confronting the Koch brothers' deep pockets which easily had ten times more to spend.  No surprise the Kochs' ads- seen much more frequently (and laden with propaganda) won out.

But according to T.R. Reid - one of he spokespersons and lead voices for the bill, there is no reason that it can't come back on the ballot in 2020, provided some tweaks are made.


T.R. Reid - a long time advocate for a universal health care bill believes Colorado Care can be resurrected with the right tweaks.

In a recent interview with The Colorado Springs Independent, Reid made it clear what went wrong and now the next iteration of the bill could be improved. This is essential also in a hostile environment to any kind of social safety nets and with the Republicans on the warpath to tear down Obamacare by detaching its mandate. This despite a remarkable 55 percent approval rating in an April Gallup poll, and currently with a historically impressive 50 percent approval rating according to Gallup.

What happened? Millions of people - including Trump voters- realized they could finally obtain the affordable care they need, even with preexisting conditions. 

This elicits the question of why Americans have been chronically leery of enabling or allowing the government to run a health care system?  In fact, the reasoning is inchoate and absurd. As Reid put it in his interview:

"If government doesn't get between you and your doctor, then United Health Care in Minnetonka, Minnesota, gets between you and your doctor and dictates which doctor you can see, Public health payment plans are just more efficient and work better."

Adding:

"Just about everybody on it will tell you Medicare is the best insurance they ever had,  You know, I worked for the Washington Post company, and it's a very generous company, very generous, and it took really good care of us in terms of health insurance and Medicare's better than the insurance I had with the Washington Post."

I can vouch for that, completely. As I already noted in a post last month,  the CMS Summary sheets for the procedures carried out this past year totaled more than $60,000. This was for the 3D staging biopsy and cryotherapy cancer treatment at UCHealth.  The ultrasound guidance part of the cryo treatment alone came in at $16,000 and the anesthesia just for that treatment, not including the 3D biopsy anesthesia, was $3,149..

If I'd  had to operate under a $20,000 per annum GOP voucher plan, I'd have ended up shelling out nearly $40,000 out of pocket for the uncovered procedures.  None of that even would even had included the cost for wife's hip replacement surgery, including 7 days in rehab.

So, as T.R. pointed out in his Indy interview it is "silly" for people to bitch about government health care when one of the most successful ever designed has prevented more seniors from impoverishment than in the nasty early days.  That was pre-1966 when oldsters had to either hope a son or daughter would take care of them, or they had to beg on the streets for help.

But, of course, viewed as (GASP!) "socialized medicine"  that's why the Repukes are determined to destroy it now - when their tax plan comes a cropper with exploding deficits, as it surely will.

So what went wrong with Colorado Care, apart from the fact supporters lost the money as speech game to the Kochs?  T.R. Reid provided several plausible reasons:

-  People were quite willing to help a sick kid or neighbor, so hypothetically backed the plan However, the rubber hit the road when they read the fine print and grasped they'd have to help pay for it

- Seniors especially were against it as even though they'd have to pay there was no benefit at all for them. So why support it when they already had Medicare?

Janice and I discussed this very issue last year when we both attended a meeting downtown and after a presentation, one older lady on Medicare Advantage insisted there was no reason at all for her to vote for such a bill Not one which dinged her while providing  no further benefit.

But as we noted, it was precisely this "what's in it for me" mindset that's preventing the country from moving forward on a universal health plan.  By contrast, Europeans  - like our Czech friends Martin and Gabby, e.g.

are quite happy to pay higher taxes because they understand "we are all in this together".  As Gabriella told us while we dined out in Prague in 2015,: "You can't take the money with you, so why not spend it on better health for you and your fellow citizens. It is win-win."  This sensible philosophy also carried over into their daily lives, in which they valued time much more than extra money to work more hours. 

As Gabby put it: "Here in Europe the companies cannot work us to death or to the point of insanity like they do people in your country. That's why we can travel our continent for weeks at a time. Your countrymen would probably feel they have to check their cell phones or emails every day or twice or more a day!"

Back to the reasons for Colorado Care's downfall, T.R. also pointed to the wording on the ballot. The resolution began as follows: "Shall we raise taxes $25 billion in order to ..."   In he words of Reid:

"A lot of people thought we lost the minute that became the language of the ballot. You know, people were just not going to spend $25 billion. And the answer to that was, well we're spending over $30 billion on health insurance now to out-of-state insurance companies. But we never had the money to make that point."

Which is why a much more extensive grassroots education effort is needed.

What about future strategies for  resurrection? Reid's ideas are as follows, in his own words:

"I think there are two possible routes. One is put in legislation to the [state] Legislature to try to advance the cause. And, in that regard, we have written what's called the Colorado Patient's Bill of Rights. I think it's nine proposed bills. And they are bills like the Choose Your Doctor Act, and that says any health care plan sold in Colorado has to let the patient choose the doctor. As you know, currently, insurance companies have these narrow networks where they dictate the hospital and the doctor you can go to. So we're going to put in legislation that says they all have to do what Medicare does, which is cover all doctors, any licensed practitioner. That's one bill. Another is the Why Pay More Act, and that says whenever a hospital or a doctor bills you for a procedure, the bill has to show you what Medicare would have paid for the same procedure. And presumably then people will respond and say, "Why am I paying $36,000 for a hip [replacement] when Medicare pays $1,900 for the same procedure?"

... Different legislators have offered to put in those bills, and here's the thing: They're all gonna lose. Because the hospitals or the doctors will fight them and they'll lose. But that kind of makes our point, that the Legislature is not the place to get this done because it's owned by insurance companies and for-profit hospital companies and drug companies.

... The second plan is to come back on the ballot in 2020. And if we did that there's two crucial points about that idea [usually called the 2020 plan]. One is that the plan would be vastly simpler. Our last plan was quite complicated, we had a 35-page booklet explaining it, you know just about everybody could find something in it they didn't like, so I think next time we will make it much, much simpler. Maybe, for example, one proposal is for a two-sentence ballot initiative. First sentence is: Anyone who needs medical care in Colorado shall have access to a doctor. And the second one is: The Legislature is mandated to effectuate this guarantee by Jan. 1 of, you know, whenever."

The Indy: Where would the funding come from in this scenario?

T.R. again:

'That would be up to the Legislature, but presumably, it would come from a tax just like ours.But if the people vote for this concept, then everybody should have health insurance. The Legislature has to enact it. I mean, it doesn't solve all the problems — then the Legislature has to go back to the voters and say, "Will you pay for this?" But at least then we have the opportunity to say um, a) the people want this, they voted for it, and b) it's cheaper ..."

Indy: What year?

"In 2020, and the plan is, 10 states put the same measure on the ballot in the same year, and they would be Oregon, Washington, Colorado, New York wants to do it, Ohio and Michigan have talked about it, maybe California. And the theory is then, if it's on in 10 states, this will dissipate the insurance companies' money. You know, they'll fight it in New York and California at great expense, and maybe that would let Colorado or Oregon or Washington slip past, because they wouldn't be able to fight it everywhere ... Almost every state has a group of people who are working for universal health care ... and they've decided the way we're going to get there is state by state. Washington, D.C., can't do it."

One point of Reid's needs to be underscored: Don't look to the gridlocked Beltway for any help on affordable health care. It may well be up to state versions of universal or single payer health care to win the day. Provided the respective citizens agree with Gabby's take that "we're all in this together" as opposed to the individualist path of "every one for him or herself".

Dems Are Accessories In Political Hit Job On Al Franken

Sen. Al Franken: His robust questioning of criminal Repukes was clearly too much, so Dem toadies had to be enlisted to take him down.



"Would Senator Gillibrand resign if several people came forward to allege she sexually harassed/abused them?

Why does Franken have to be forced out of office? What happened to due process? Shouldn't the residents of the state he represents have a say in this matter; not just a contingent of Democratic Senators."   - Comment on  NY Times website

It now appears Sen. Al Franken will resign tomorrow,  marking one of the most successful "dirty trick" jobs the Repukes have ever pulled using trained pawns. This time,  getting Dem Senators to act as accessories after the fact, piling on Franken after a 7th accuser has come forward about "forced kissing",  for god's sake. Thereby putting kisses, a mock grope and some butt pinches (MAYBE- we have no evidence only claims)  on the same level as the child molestations of  Roy Moore.   This followed a coordinated Senate gang up,  compliments of female Dem Senators led by Kirsten Gillibrand - who I used to respect. Not any more, not when she can so easily be manipulated and used as a tool to destroy a fellow Senator's career - merely out of unproven, unsubstantiated claims. And NO -I do not believe them just because a woman or women said them. As Bari Weiss wrote in a recent NY Times piece:

"We don’t owe anyone our unthinking belief. “Trust but verify” may not have the same ring as “believe all women.” But it’s a far better policy."-

Damned straight!

As I wrote in a previous blog post:

Some outspoken feminists and defenders of women's rights  have actually come out in public and insisted "Zero tolerance!"   Meaning that even the slightest perceived infraction must receive the full, maximal weight of penalty. In other words, analogous to putting a jaywalker in a gas chamber.

But this is bonkers and counterproductive. If all infractions major and minor receive the same condemnation and sanction - say expulsion from office and equal destruction of reputation -  then there is total loss of balance, of moral perspective. In that case, what we end up with is a misfiring moralism and an atmosphere of feeding frenzy, not morality.  We end up with absolutism as opposed to conscious interpolation of actions differing in intent and transgressive impact.

What is needed  instead of "zero tolerance" absolutism is to arrive at a weighing or interpolation of actions based on critical thinking combined with the exercise of ethical provisionalism. Just as provisional ethics provides a reasonable middle ground between absolute and  relative systems, it also provides a middle ground for sanctions imposed on a scale of actions or infractions.  Thus, while one may rightly demand a capital punishment (say lethal injection) for a mass murderer of infants in their cribs, one may not do so for a jaywalker.

The scale of infraction is vastly different, hence it is madness to apply the same sanction to both violations.  By the same token, provisional ethics bids us withhold the hand of punitive extremism, say for infractions like Al Franken's,  compared to those of  Roy Moore (sexually assaulting children).  Hence it is also madness to demand the expulsion of Al Franken for his alleged violations, which are nowhere in the same league as Moore's.  It is also nonsense to demand Franken's resignation if you don't also demand Donnie Dotard's for his much more malicious "grabbing pussies".


Former GOP Rep. (FL) Dave Jolly put it well in his appearance on Lawrence O''Donnell's show on Wednesday, that "we have to take care to distinguish fallibility from criminality".  This is especially as Mr. Jolly expects many more allegations to erupt in the coming weeks. As these further accusations pile up one must bear in mind that Roy Moore's advances on underage girls amount to the criminality (pedophilia), but Al Franken's mock grope of  Leeann Tweeden  does not.  Neither do his "inappropriate touches" - construed as such by assorted women who posed with him in takes at the MN state fair.

 -----

  And let us pause here to note again that not all allegations made by women are true, especially if there is no clear evidence of such. While we desire to give women's claims of sexual harassment validation, we cannot ignore the possibility that there may also be ulterior motives in play- and bad actors.  These motives (and strategies) didn't just originate recently but have been around for decades under the guise of "dirty tricks" -  e.g. since the Nixon campaign's tactics against Dems in 1968 and 1972..

Let us note the first to come out and level accusations at Franken was Leeann Tweeden  .  She was clever-  perhaps too clever by half - in also producing a photo. This she likely saved since the transgression occurred to use as a conservative payback, as she looked forward to a career as a conservative talk host. Franken wasn't a Senator yet but Tweeden perhaps had an instinct, or maybe intuition, he might have a future political career. If and when the time came she could then pull out her evidence and lower the boom, in the right circumstances.

Indeed, it also appears Nixon- era dirty trickster Roger Stone might have put Tweeden up to it, and yeah, you can call me conspiracy -minded if you want, see:

  Roy Stone knew well ahead of time that Al Franken was going to be accused of something. 


 We know also Tweeden's background has indeed been exposed as "a Conservative talk show host, conservative commentator on many shows,  Trump supporter, model.:"   Left blogger Amanda Marcotte, in a recent salon.com piece,  suspected a Reepo dirty trick or political stunt after Tweeden came out with her claims. However, Amanda perversely invoked that to insist Franken resign -which was total bollocks  - on the fear the Reeptards might employ it later.. According to Marcotte "if this is a political stunt then the people behind it surely want Franken to stay".

Of course! And Tweeden and her conservo allies can now point to a victory enabled by Dem weaklings acting as accomplices because they insist on a stupid, conflationary,  "zero tolerance" policy.   Thus Sen. Gillibrand's exclaiming "I think when we start having to talk about the differences between sexual assault and sexual harassment and unwanted groping you are having the wrong conversation."   Adding:

"You need to draw a line in the sand and say none of it is O.K. None of it is acceptable."

So the moral scolds like Gillibrand appear to have won.  In this new climate of moral absolutism and "zero tolerance"  I guess  we can expect child rapists and wanton kissers (like Franken)  to suffer the exact same sanctions. Wifey conjectures that the Dem Senate women were emboldened and triggered into action by TIME's earlier selection of the #MeToo movement as "Person of the Year". Who knows? . I hope they are all satisfied in their exultation after tomorrow,  but are also aware of the can of worms they've opened with their imperious hyper rectitude.

 That is, now anyone's past from years ago- including minor sexual indiscretions -  can be dredged up and re-litigated by the pseudo-moral scolds to destroy their current careers. How many of us really, seriously, would be able to withstand such scrutiny?  Let's please let all those pure as the driven snow, without any moral blemishes, cast the first 'stones'.

Lawrence O'Donnell ruminated on his 'Last Word' show that "perhaps the Democrats have now risen to a higher moral standard."  Maybe. But cynic that I am, I suspect it is more about political expediency - and believing that if they can just ditch their "Roy Moores" (never mind the violations weren't the same) they can expect a huge, unencumbered wave win in the mid terms next year. Let us hope they're right - though I won't be donating any more $$$ to their campaigns.

What was really choice yesterday is seeing and hearing guppy mouth  Sen. Mitch McConnell also calling  for Mr. Franken to leave the Senate. This barely days after he did a 180 and has now opted to temper his opposition to pederast Roy Moore. He will "let the people of Alabama decide" Moore's fate in that state's Dec. 12th election. What a gracious POS.

Way to go, Sens. Schumer, Gillebrand and company!   You stupid, effing dupes!

See also: 

https://www.liberalforum.org/topic/221984-a-coordinated-hit-job-against-democrats-is-underway-and-al-franken-wont-be-the-last/

Update: Dec. 7th - Sen. Franken to resign:

His statement:

“I of all people am aware that there is some irony in the fact that I am leaving while a man who has bragged on tape about his history of sexual assault sits in the Oval Office, and a man who has repeatedly preyed on young girls campaigns for the Senate with the full support of his party,”

Thanks for your stalwart service, Senator! And you did hit the nail on its proverbial head. It is a pity the Democrats took the easy road of adopting zero tolerance (for political expediency) , rather than exercising their presumed intellectual capacity to make the case that the acts of Moore and yourself amount to comparing chalk and cheese.  As Bill Maher put it in his last show - it should not have been that difficult to do.  See also:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/07/us/politics/al-franken-senate-sexual-harassment.html

Brace For A Wave Of Terror After Dotard Tosses Lit Match Into Middle East Tinderbox

"Damned straight I wanna bring some terrorism back into the world! So I'm movin' the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem".


For Middle East history buffs, the Balfour Declaration was issued in 1917 and was a formal statement of policy by the British government stating that:

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”

Thirty years later, in November 1947, the United Nations voted in favor of the partitioning of Palestine, proposing the creation of a Jewish state, an Arab state, and a UN-administered Jerusalem. Partition was accepted by Jewish leaders but rejected by Arab leaders, leading to civil war.  The strife and agonizing battles and terror strikes - many involving Jerusalem - were brilliantly covered in the book, O, Jerusalem by Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre.  The story recounts virtually moment by moment the founding of the modern Jewish state and also the intense acrimony it aroused in the Palestinians - who believed they were deprived (by the UN) of an ancestral home.

Through seven decades, the U.S. has tried to steer a policy to mitigate that simmering acrimony - with varying degrees of success. At other times the rage has erupted with numerous altercations, such as between the Palestinians and Israelis, as well as Hezbollah and the Israelis. To say the whole region remains a tinderbox is an understatement.

Heightening the stakes, evangelical Christians since the year dot have claimed special significance for Jerusalem and Israel in their Armageddon scenarios. They base these on "prophecies" made in Ezekiel 37, Matthew 24 and John's Book of Revelation, among others. The essence is that the restored national identity of the Jews (by 1948) reinforced the fulfillment of Bible prophecies. Nowhere was this elucidated more forcefully than by Hal Lindsey in his book. 'The Late, Great Planet Earth'.

Thus, for Lindsey, the fig tree parable in the Olivet Discourse of Matt. 24 was prophetic of a restored Israel .  Since that "birth" occurred in 1948, and Lindsey designated one generation = 40 years (biblically) - he reckoned that the Antichrist would make his first public appearance in 1988, and the Tribulation (the horrific 7-year period for his reign) would commence then.  Earthly events would finally terminate with the battle of Megiddo (Armageddon) and the Antichrist's defeat.  Several markers had to transpire before this, including the Jewish Temple rebuilt on the site of the Dome of Rock, and the total takeover of Jerusalem by the Jews.

Against this background of high-powered religious ideation and apocalyptic fantasies we now have Donnie Dotard tossing a kerosene -soaked rag which he's just lit.  That "rag" harkens back to an ill-advised congressional fiasco called the Jerusalem Embassy Act in 1995, which included a line recognizing the city as Israel’s capital. Despite that fitful act, no U.S. President - not Clinton, George Bush Jr. or Barack Obama,  felt reckless enough to actually  implement it - by decree or otherwise. Not until the arrival of Dotard that is.

Dotard campaigned on a promise to implement the act, and his campaign advisors had to know this would be a huge bone tossed to the Xtian evangelicals to gain their votes. They (Trump advisors) knew the significance of Jerusalem to the evangelicals in looking to having the Jews fulfill their Armageddon and "Second Coming" prophecies. Hell, who knows? The evangelicals who backed Dotard may even be waiting breathlessly for him to punch in the nuclear codes to trigger Armageddon himself - like the "Greg Stillson" character in 'The Dead Zone'. See e.g.:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj9M34DzAKo&t=21s


But in any case the eruptions to be set off today will likely result in terror attacks across the globe, especially in the Middle East. This is because  yesterday we learned  Trump will declare formal recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel at 1 p.m. today  EST.  This fell and reckless move breaks with years of precedent, potentially leading to unpredictable consequences for the Middle East.. To say this act is maniacal and tempting fate, by which I mean thousands of future acts of terror - would be to put it mildly. 

One member of the Israeli parliament, on learning of Trump's plan said:  "Trump is a pyromaniac who could set the region on fire with his madness. It proves that the US can't be the sponsor in negotiations.."    True, and even days before this Financial Times columnist Gideon Rachman highlighted the problems of world leaders in dealing with an erratic U.S. president with the temperament of a dyspeptic toddler. A "Greg Stillson" 2.0.

Let us note that modern Jerusalem (which my father-in -law visited in 1980)  has twice been enlarged in the 50 years since its annexation, a decision taken each time through acts of parliament.  Let us also emphasize that Israel’s "mutant" version of Jerusalem is far larger than any historical iteration of the city. It contains Palestinian towns, villages and refugee camps, as well as Israeli settlements. The Geneva Conventions exist in parallel with human rights legislation, making Israel responsible for the welfare of many hundreds of thousands of people. Within these city limits, Israel presides over deeply deprived and lawless communities, where substance abuse is endemic and health services are poor or non-existent. These zones have no proper sewage provisions, and neither do the adjoining Jewish zones. The effluent has turned the Kidron stream into an open sewer, polluting the desert and the Dead Sea.

To put things bluntly, Jerusalem was a veritable tinderbox just waiting to explode even before Donnie Dotard now prepares to light the match and hurl the kerosene -soaked rag into it   Never mind, this is what you get when a madman leads a nation, and the one bulwark against mischief of faction - the Electoral College- failed in its prime directive. As a result the U.S. since Jan. 20th  has lost all respect and credibility. Especially after Dotard retweeted fictitious anti-Muslim videos last week - confected by a British nationalist group. The act set off such an eruption that members of the House of Commons have declared Dotard persona non grata and don't want any invitation extended for a formal visit next year.

The word regarding this imminent announcement is that Dotard will base his decision "on ancient history and current political realities", i.e. that the Israeli legislature and many government offices are already in Jerusalem. In fact, this move is pure political opportunism, to try to make sure Dotard has his evangelical puppets as part of his base for a possible re-election campaign aiming at 2020. Let us hope that doesn't materialize!

To add fuel to the fire, Dotard also plans to order the State Department to start the process of planning and building a new US embassy in Jerusalem, but White House officials said that process would take at least three years.  One hopes we can rid ourselves of Dotard and his pathological administration by then.

More ominous, Dotard's declaration will mark the latest unilateral break from U.S. allies on a major issue, after decisions to walk out of the Paris Climate accord, to abandon multilateral trade negotiations with partners in Europe and Asia, and to threaten to abrogate an international nuclear deal with Iran.  Any one of these portends higher threat levels to our civilization, but again we must recognize Dotard is likely trying to distract from his Mueller investigation worries - and also stir up a shit storm for his pathetic base.

In the meantime, agencies and nations far and wide are readying plans to ramp up security  - from the capitals of Europe to the back alleys of the Middle East and virtually anyplace else on the planet. The other ironic aspect: Dotard has succeeded in uniting both Sunni and Shia Muslims with this brainiac move - with the Saudis coming out against it as aggressively as Iraqi Shias.

Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas' spokesman, Nabil Abu Rdeneh, said the Palestinian leader had warned Trump of the dangers of such a decision to Middle East peace efforts as well as security and stability in the region and the world.    Jordan's King Abdullah issued a statement telling Trump that such a decision would have “dangerous repercussions on the stability and security of the region” and would obstruct US efforts to resume Arab-Israeli peace talks.

And Saudi Arabia's King Salman was reported by the Saudi Press Agency to have told Trump: “Such a dangerous step is likely to inflame the passions of Muslims around the world due to the great status of Jerusalem and the al-Aqsa Mosque.”

Does Donnie the Dotard care? Of course not! Because he has no more comprehension of Middle East history and tensions than he does of the U.S. He's a  degenerate, toddler imbecile and madman trapped in the body of a 71-year old.

Best advice to U.S. citizens for now? Stay away from any European capitals, say visits to London or Paris, as well as visiting Middle East sites - especially in Israel, Egypt, or anywhere else. These are now officially potential terror site locations thanks to the mental age two- year old in the White House.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/p-m-carpenter/76602/trump-and-his-love-of-watching-the-world-burn

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/phyllis-bennis/76607/no-peace-process-exists-to-destroy-but-trumps-jerusalem-decision-dangerous-as-hell

The Mythical Social Security Cost Of Living Increase

In the press the past few months one read regular, breathless accounts of how seniors were due - for the first time in nearly five years - a 2 percent increase in the Social Security cost of living allowance.  We both looked forward with great eagerness to this increase since, of course, the cost of living is going through the roof. Our home insurance alone has increased more than 70 percent the past two years, and the car insurance nearly 40 percent. So any real increase in Social Security payments would be welcome.

Thus it was I tore open the letter from the Social Security Administration yesterday afternoon, announcing with the first sentence of the first paragraph:

Your Social Security benefits will increase by 2.0 percent in 2018 because of a rise in the cost of living.

A- Your monthly amount before deductions is    $ X    +  0.02 X

B- The amount we deduct for Medicare medical insurance is Y  +  0.02 X

Okay,  'X' is the monthly Social Security benefit received, currently, 'Y' is what we are paying in for Medicare already or $104.00.   So if this was a REAL cost of living increase we'd be ahead of the game by the amount shown in (A) minus Y ( $104.00.)

BUT as you can see, the increment for the monthly COLA increase (0.02 X) is exactly the amount by which our Medicare deduction has ALSO increased.  Result?  COLA increase =  0.02X  - 0.02X  = $0

In other words, after the Medicare deduction there is no COLA!

Now before anyone starts the ridiculous thought process that I'm getting really cheap medical care, think again.  In Medicare, we all have to get an additional supplement plan (usually called "Plan F") which covers the balance of costs that Medicare doesn't, such as for specialized cancer treatments like my focal cryotherapy, or having a precancerous lesion removed from my back in May.  That cost for me has currently increased from $220 a month to $228 (as per a recent advisory letter from the insurer).

We also have to cover the costs of the Part D drug plan premium plus the cost of med copays. In addition, Medicare covers nothing for eyeglasses or dental care, which in the past two months has cost me:  $460 (eye exam, newly corrected glasses) and  $1,450, respectively (a crown, a filling and two periodontal cleanings). So don't anyone hand me any BS that I am getting an "entitlement".

What could make the COLA landscape much worse for seniors? Implementing a chained CPI, such as buried in the Senate version of the Repuke tax bill.  The brainchild of billionaire Peter G. Peterson,  the chained CPI reckons inflation (and hence adjustments) at barely one third of the regular COLA - based on the standard CPI or Consumer Price Index. Thus, most seniors in the country will find themselves either malnourished  or in the poorhouse after five years.

The use of the "chained CPI" assumes that as prices increase, consumers will buy lower cost alternatives, reducing the amount of inflation they experience via less costly choices. For example, if the price of stew beef or hamburger rises by 50 cents a pound, they'll opt for pork.  If pork prices increase by 50 cents a pound (say owing to the Chinese buying tons of corn meal for their own hogs) then consumers will move to chicken. If chicken prices rise too much they will move to cheap fish or canned tuna. If those prices rise too much....well, I guess there's always dumpster diving (Repubs have already cut the food stamp budget to the bone.)

Basically then, the chained CPI introduces a race to the bottom.

Look, I hesitate to employ charged words like "evil" to describe the chained CPI so let's call it barbarous. It is barbarous (and cynical) because it invokes the discredited concept of "Pareto efficiency". In so doing it regards the dollars of the wealthy and affluent as having more "utility" than the dollars of fixed income seniors, or the poor. This is why former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan went on record in an appearance before the Senate Banking Committee (in 2003) to assert that "Social Security benefits need to be cut to pay for Bush’s tax cuts."

Was Greenspan mad or just your garden variety econ psycho? No, just  a victim of Pareto think, like too many ivory tower economists (e.g. Martin Feldstein). Social Security payments, especially with COLAs, did everything the Fed Chairman didn’t want. They poured more money into the economy, but not via productive labor or market indices, stock returns. S.S. beneficiaries  receive their monthly checks merely by existing and breathing day to day, and having paid into the system with FICA deductions. Even then, they receive far more in benefits than actually paid in, making a total mess of "utils" earned.

Thus, in considering any option of whether to give more relief to fixed income seniors or the wealthy- who may use it to buy yachts, $2 million 'Billy the Kid' tintypes, 50 Lamborghinis or blood diamonds, it's always better to give the money to the latter while letting the former suck salt, or pound sand.

 Let's also note that the S.S. COLAs increase the non-productive payments each year, one reason why – back in 1997 – Greenspan demanded an artificially much lower COLA increase than had originally been proposed. (And which certainly doesn’t reflect seniors’ increased costs for medical treatments and prescription drugs).

That was never accepted, but the latest twist - to raise the monthly amount of the Medicare premium by exactly the same amount as the putative COLA, accomplishes something even better: it de facto wipes out ANY COLA increase. This, while making the less-mathematically inclined actually believe they're getting a real COLA increase.

What sleight of hand!

The Great Supreme Court Wedding Cake Face Off - Should Be A No Brainer

It's safe to say that businesses across the wedding industry will be closely watching what happens today when the U.S. Supreme Court convenes to hear the case of a religious Colorado baker who refused to do work for a gay couple who were getting married.  At issue is whether Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, had the legal right to turn away fiancés Charlie Craig and David Mullins when they asked him to bake a wedding cake in 2012.

Phillips, a strict religionist,  contends his cakes were art and that doing a "gay cake"  would defile that art and so  violate his Christian values .  Also his right to free expression; Craig and Mullins counter that it’s discriminatory to refuse them a service offered to other customers for a business in the public domain..

Supporters of Phillips argue that if he loses his legal fight then like-minded entrepreneurs with a religious objection to same-sex marriage effectively would be "barred" from doing wedding work. (In fact it would be their choice not to do such work, i.e. opt out.)  The claim is that a loss would also “provide a road map for litigation against Christian photographers who are bound by religious conviction not to offer their artistic talents to photograph a same-sex wedding ceremony or celebration,” wrote the International Christian Photographers in a brief filed to the high court.

Of course, all of this is codswallop which mixes apples and oranges within a civil,  legal framework. At issue then, is whether the cake maker - and the assorted Xtian photographers for that matter- have entered into a business or not. If not, if they simply follow their art or self-expression - with NO public sales or commerce- then they are not obliged to do anyone's bidding. They are not in the commercial marketplace but operating in their own private domain.

If, however, they are businesses and operating in the public, commercial sphere, then no such rights apply. That's why this ought to be a no brainer for the Supreme Court. Consider the consequences if Phillips' argument and associated  memes were extended willy-nilly so that anyone could apply it. Pharmacies could refuse serving people they regarded as "violating God's  laws"   - say denying birth control pills to young, single women ..

Owners of football teams could well decide that they want no Jews, blacks, or gays entering their stadiums and they might put that into place. Private Catholic hospitals -operating as businesses - might decide that they want no Muslims, Jews or gays on their premises either. Restaurants would feel free to bar anyone they think is marginal, including those who look like 'thugs' - or  whoever doesn't fit flitty criteria like hair length, or quality of dress.

In other words, you'd invite a society bordering on chaos.  Thus,  attorneys aligned ideologically with Craig and Mullins argue that a ruling in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop would open the door for widespread discrimination — starting with weddings and spiraling outward- as I described above. In the words of one of the lawyers for the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce:

"It is not hard to imagine the claims that will follow this case: A jeweler may argue that his religion forbids him from selling wedding rings to an interfaith couple; a shop owner may refuse service to women customers to avoid contact prohibited by his religion,” 

What would there be to stop it? Well, nothing, if each little special "private business"  decides to whom it will sell and who will be rejected as miscreants. Here's the bottom line truth: The restaurateur, cake maker, photographer is afforded certain privileges (via a licensing) to trade or provide services (such as food) in the public domain. However, their so called "freedom" (to trade)  is limited. Hence,  that can't include refusal of service unless there are extenuating circumstances, i.e. the customers enter drunk and disorderly. The trader doesn't have the latitude to refuse service on basis of race, skin color, OR the customer perceived as violating the trader's religious predilections..

For his part, Phillips,  in one brief, argues the “market already provides existing means to address this (issue), such as private websites apprising consumers of professionals in a geographical area who will celebrate same-sex weddings,”.  But he totally misses the point. That is, the existence of these other special  or private "niche" services have nothing to do with his own setting up a business that is supposed to provide general services to the whole public. You can't say "I don't have to obey common trade practices because other businesses will".  That's not the way business works in this country,

The dueling arguments are what one wedding professional described as the “unfinished business” of an industry that’s had to rapidly adjust to shifting American attitudes toward same-sex marriage — support since 2001 has risen from 35 percent to 62 percent, according to the Pew Research Center — culminating with its 2015 legal blessing by the Supreme Court.

This is why the state Civil Rights Commission “declared Phillips’s religious beliefs about marriage to be discriminatory”.   

According to one expert  (and publisher) on the wedding cake business, Kathryn Hamm:

“The vast majority of the industry is on board with working with same-sex couples,” 

One big reason for this is to do with the clientele. Most weddings are for young people, and most young people accept same-sex marriage — an attitude that weddings vendors increasingly have adopted too, Hamm said.

But she added that acceptance is not universal and some same-sex couples still experience discrimination — which is why legal protections are necessary.

How will the Court ruling go? I don't know but it is safe to say if the justices truly adhere to the legal principles and aren't swayed by emotions (or "free speech" red herrings), they will side with Craig and Mullins.  Not because they are gay and gay people "deserve a break".  But because the operation of the law  in the commercial trade sphere cannot be a free for all where everyone does what he wants - selling services to some because they conform to one's notions of  "self expression", rejecting others out of a sense of violating their  religious faith or personal dignity. That is a prescription for economic anarchy.

Selection of people who benefit from your "art" works is only allowable if the cake makers, photographers etc. are merely pursuing hobbies with no entry in the commercial domain, and no profits. Hobbies are private matters and certainly each person can pursue them as modes of self expression, as he or she sees fit. No law obliges a hobbyist to cede his interest, art or craft to others for their benefit. But - if he's out to make money in a pubic trade, that is a no go. 

When the two sides appear today for oral arguments at the Supreme Court, much of the focus will be on Justice Anthony Kennedy — a frequent swing vote on the nine-member court. According to Alan Chen, a professor at the University of Denver’s Sturm College of Law, Kennedy’s longtime support of free speech could come into play.  According to Chen:

"That suggests that he might be open-minded to the baker’s claim that there is some expressive component to baking a wedding cake that distinguishes it from other businesses,”

Expressive component? Give me a break. That would be a dangerous path to take indeed and one sincerely hopes that Justice Kennedy has enough sense to see it.  If we willy nilly allow every business to run according to "expressive components" we can be sure bedlam will be the result- utter and total. This is a slippery slope no justice ought to be going on - especially Justice Kennedy.

Yes, Peer Review CAN Be Improved - Even For Climate Science Journals

The persistent complaint of the mainstream scientific community about climate deniers is the latter seek to tar the entire journal referee process. This is primarily done by way of suggesting (or asserting) that the peer review process is itself "biased" in the sense of giving preference to authors, papers backing up the reality of global warming.  As I've shown in previous posts this is total nonsense.

First, climate change denier papers are generally dismissed precisely because they lack the basics of scientific authority - including: proper data selection, bias-free  analysis, consistent interpretation of data, and appropriate mathematical techniques. Hence, their papers are tagged as the opposite of  authoritative science.

Second, given all climate scientists must compete for scarce funding resources, they are not about to help a competitor - say set to publish a competing model or theory - merely because their research is in line with global warming /climate change..  Thus, if anything,  peer review is likely to be even more rigorous than for deniers.

Having said that there are areas where the peer review process can definitely  be improved, and not just in climate science but across the scientific publication spectrum.. One way would be in the removal of gender bias for selection of peer reviewers, which is now weighted heavily toward males.  At the forefront is a recent study in Nature, showing that women were being used less as reviewers in nearly all age groups compared to expectations based on their higher success rates as authors and their distribution with age in the AGU membership.  The AGU is the American Geophysical Union and comprises the largest professional organization of both climate scientists and space physics researchers.

Along with those findings of gender bias in peer review, overall data clearly show that AGU needs to engage more younger scientists and also more scientists from outside the "First World"..  Thus, the  peer review process is adversely affected in terms of an age bias (favoring older researchers) and also favoritism toward reviewers in more developed nations.  The first is perhaps more understandable given people collectively tend to accept those who are older have more experience, so should be better at what they are tasked to do, including assessing the work of peers.  Older reviewers are also more likely to be fully tenured professors, as opposed to assistant professors.

The second is harder to grasp but  something I have run into,  having completed my postgraduate work at a foreign university (University of the West Indies) rather than an American or European one.  I suppose the applicable assumption involves the wrongheaded take which conflates the offshore medical school (say as found in a number of Caribbean nations) with all Third world foreign universities, i.e. being substandard. So, because some Caribbean  medical schools may be below par the reasoning is that all Caribbean, African or Asian universities (in whatever field)  must be as well.   This is an example of the fallacy of composition, or assuming that because one part of an aggregate (say a Caribbean medical school) has an undesirable attribute, then all foreign universities must as well.

For me, the kibosh landed on this fallacy after my appointment as a peer reviewer by the National Science  Foundation in the 80s  - for space and solar physics papers.  A major reason, of course, was on account of having a specialty in the area of statistical limitations related to solar flare and sunspot phenomena. (Including applications of the Poisson distribution to geo-effective flare frequency.)

If  the trope that foreign (e.g. 3rd world)  universities are inferior were true it would also follow that those who graduate from these universities would not get published as often as their peers in the 1st world. This is demonstrably false when one examines the total constellation of published papers in all scientific fields - and compares the authorship based on proportion of population by national origin.

But the biggest immediate impediment to better peer review is the one governed by gender bias. Most compelling here is the April issue of AGU's largest journal, Geophysical Research Letters (GRL), wherein one read the following statement:

Evaluation of our journals’ peer review practices suggests that women were less likely than men to be asked to review. Please help us improve the diversity of our reviewer pool by including women, young scientists, and members of other underrepresented groups in your suggested reviewers (e.g., age, ethnic, and international diversity).

Other data show a marked increase in the acceptance of the invitation  for women to review, especially by women scientists. This increase likely reflects a broader awareness of the gender bias issue prompted by the Nature paper,  It is important to point out that such awareness was not likely to be found in physics, geoscience, and astrophysics papers even 40 years ago.  This may be because too many women researchers - often in the assistant professor position - were rarely even considered as principal authors in a major paper.  Hardly any principal authors meant even fewer reviewers.

On another positive note,  AGU journals continue overall to expand the gender diversity of its reviewer pool, as shown in the graph below:

Although the gender diversity of reviewers has improved, the data so far for 2017 indicate that the GRL statement has not so far led to a significant change in recruiting reviewers for that journal who are younger or who hail from countries outside North America and western Europe. So why the persistence of reverse ageism as well as cultural -national preference for reviewers? We can't be sure but it's most likely because the referee position is still dominated by a certain type (e.g. older white males)  and these will only yield very grudgingly.

To their credit, AGU editors have been conducting workshops on reviewing, including recently at the International Geological Congress meeting in Cape Town, South Africa, and the Japan Geoscience Union–AGU meeting in Chiba, outside of Tokyo, and in visits to universities and research institutions in China. AGU Publications has also conducted several webinars on reviewing, including the most recent on “How to Write Effective Reviews (and Improve Your Own Manuscript),” and will expand these efforts further.

The AGU also plans to continue to collect and report data on reviewer diversity in its scientific publishing and provide regular updates.  The payoff will ultimately be greater peer reviewer diversity - not only by gender- but also by age and national origin.  This is bound to enable more diverse papers in all disciplines to see publication. 

This does not mean the number of  climate change "skeptic" or "iconoclast" (aka denier) papers will see more publication, unless and until they can adhere to the rigors of science.  It might actually be better, since the deniers are really about economics, they seek to get published in that domain.  They can then focus their mental energy on the economic reasons for resisting climate change and the need to reduce carbon emissions - which is what their specious science is really about.

Why Dems May Need To Go "Nuclear" To Stop The Repuke Tax Bill

"Hey, , the longer we can bamboozle the base, the better!"

"We got to get this thing passed. Otherwise, our base will fracture, people will stop writin' checks, and the party will crumble under its own weight." Lindsey Graham yesterday.

Let's not mince words: the GOP tax "reform" bill on offer is an unmitigated atrocity. For starters:

- The corporate tax cut is intended to be made permanent, and going from 35% to 20%

- The tax cut for average citizens has been designed to "sunset" in 10 years, so taxes will then increase.

- The tax cut benefit overall for those earning less than $75,000 a year, is $100. That benefit may well come at the cost of cutting Medicaid, Medicare benefits later.

- The overall tax benefit is allotted so that 62 percent of the takings go to the top 1 percent.

- Allows drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.(ANWR)

- As reported by the NY Times there is also a plan to change from the Consumer Price Index to the Chained CPI, which move would essentially negate any future Social Security cost of living increases - certainly in a low inflation environment such as we have.

Last night this perfidy was at least temporarily stopped in its tracks,  even after the GOOPs grew giddy after John McCain reverted to sock puppet to back it.  However, a nonpartisan analysis released hours ahead of a planned vote projected the Republican tax plan would add $1 trillion to the federal deficit over the next decade.  Process that! ONE Trillion bucks! That's more than $200 b beyond the cost of the entire Obama stimulus package in 2009, which at least spared this nation from another Great Depression.

The other hit to the Reeps last night came by way of the nonpartisan Senate Parliamentarian who ruled they could not use the "trigger" sunset mechanism to try to contain the deficit explosion. This sent them right back to 'square one' scrambling for other ways to raise revenue,  including reinstating the AMT or Alternative Minimum Tax, and (GASP!) reducing the corporate tax cuts.

Recall the Republicans had contended the vast tax cuts enclosed in their plan would in effect pay for themselves through economic growth. But the analysis, released by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, forecasted the tax bill would balloon the deficit even after factoring in the economic growth the bill is expected to generate.  Of course, through U.S. economic history no tax cuts have come close to paying for themselves.

The other aspect of why this wouldn't happen is that corporate CEOs are not even on board with any job creation, despite the yammering of the GOP con men.  Most illuminating was White House economic advisor Gary Cohn's meeting with dozens of CEOs, and most of them giving thumbs down when he asked about potential jobs, e.g.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-gop-tax-plan-gary-cohn-bill-2017-11


The moderator (WSJ's John Bussey)  asked those in attendance whether they were planning to increase their business investment if the tax bill became law. The CEOs in attendance didn't seem to be on the same wavelength as Cohn.  While there was a smattering of raised hands in the auditorium, it was clear there were not as many as Cohn would have liked.  You see Cohn asking, almost embarrassed to be caught in the same room with these misfits:

"Why aren't the other hands up?"

Then, realizing he'd get no rational or decent answer, moving on to another question. So there you have it. These CEOs would rather put their tax cut benefit money into stock buybacks and paying out dividends than creating new jobs.

An even more cogent reason not to allow this sham to add to the deficit and destroy lives is that there isn't a scintilla of rational justification for it. At least when other tax cuts were implemented unemployment was high. That isn't the case now as Bruce Bartlett (former economic advisor to G.W. Bush) pointed out last night. We have virtually full employment so the only reason to hang this schlock on citizens is to attempt to spur growth using a ruse that will only be of benefit to corporations and explode the deficit. (The non-partisan CBO forecasts a maximal increase in growth rate of only 0.6%). But as I've noted before, in an environment in which the quality of energy is degraded (lower energy return on energy invested), low economic growth will be the byproduct. Short of creating more efficient energy - say like nuclear fusion - there is no solution for this.


To their credit,  Democrats seized on the report by the Joint Committee on Taxation as proof that the Republican tax is all hot air and flim flam, since it would not do what the Reeps claimed. Hocus Pocus. Voodoo economics, to use George Bush Sr.'s term.  Holding a copy of the report, Senator Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, said the analysis proved the bill was nothing more than a “holiday bonanza to multinational corporations and special interests."

Fair enough, but if this piece of toxic crap somehow rises from potential ashes today, the Dems need to do more. They need to use their leverage in possibly stopping a government shutdown to extract concessions.  If no concessions are forthcoming, then the Dems refuse to cooperate to avoid a gov't shutdown.   The $64 question: What do the 'pukes want more, their sham tax cuts, OR preventing a government shutdown next week?

Let's first note that the Republicans hold all the power needed to stop a government shutdown on December 8th. They have the numbers, they have control of all branches of government. They do not need the Dems to help them - IF  all their members (mainly in the House) were on board. But, they're not on board. There are just enough rebellious Repukes - mainly Tea Party hard cores / holdouts,  that a shutdown can't be prevented without Democratic votes to stop it.

But should the Dems cooperate? I say NO, unless the 'pukes deliver the following:

-  No spending cuts to try to make up for any unrealized economic growth. That means NO cuts to Medicare, and no cuts to Medicaid.

- NO drilling in the ANWR.

- Revocation of any tax provision to withdraw the ACA mandate  - which would affect 13 million now covered.

- . No use of "Chained CPI" or other means to cut Social Security to lower the deficits because of the tax cuts.

- $100 b allocated for reconstruction in Puerto Rico.

- DACA remains intact and no deportations of the 60,000 Haitians who've arrived since the Haitian earthquake in 2010. Repatriating them would send Haiti into total chaos since there are neither the resources or job opportunities to provide for them.

- Change  all the "permanent" Corporate tax cuts to temporary ones only. And make them fully contingent on the corporations creating jobs.  No jobs, no tax cuts.

Make no mistake that this is a draconian move but the toxic tax plan on offer from the Reptiles  has the potential to hurl this nation into permanent  third world status  - while dramatically increasing economic inequality.

It is also true that people will suffer in a shutdown, but as Lawrence O Donnell put it on his show two nights ago, "Sometimes principles and governance must take precedence."  That is the case now, when we have to look beyond immediate problems incurred with a shutdown  to the need to prevent more radical, widespread destruction and worse suffering in the future.

A Message From Sen. Bernie Sanders concerning this refuse:

The current Republican “tax cut” bill, paid for by the Koch brothers and other billionaire campaign contributors, continues the push to make the rich richer at the expense of everyone else. It would raise taxes on middle class families making $75,000 a year or less and would throw 13 million Americans off of health insurance. And it would do all of these things to provide permanent tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and profitable corporations that ship American jobs to China while moving their American profits to the Cayman Islands.

But let's be clear. This legislation goes well beyond taxes. Its ultimate goal is to radically transform American society and the role that government plays in the lives of the working families of our country. This legislation will increase the deficit by at least $1.5 trillion over ten years. Mark my words. If passed, the Republicans will then rediscover the "deficit crisis," and push aggressively for massive cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education – higher education in particular – nutrition, affordable housing and more. They will seek to undo every major piece of legislation passed in the last 80 years designed to help working families, the elderly, the children, the sick and the poor.

This is the Republican plan. Huge tax breaks for the rich and powerful. Massive cuts to life and death programs for the middle class and working families of our country.

This is not moral. This is not what the American people want. This is not what our country and our pledge for "liberty and justice for all" is supposed to be about.

That is why I am going on the road this week to talk directly to working people in Kentucky, Ohio, and Pennsylvania about this disastrous piece of legislation. If we stand together – black, white, Latino, Asian American, Native American, male and female, young and old, gay and straight – we can defeat this horrific bill.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/greg-coleridge/76490/corporations-and-the-super-rich-tax-democracy


And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/p-m-carpenter/76492/the-gops-utterly-uninformed-hasty-tax-bills