Kermit The Bear

I have been SOOOOOO busy at work and with some other projects I haven’t spent any time here in a while. I am going to change that …in about 5 days. My wife and I are going to a family reunion out of town. In any case in the time that has passed since my last post I have written a piece of browser based schedulingsoftware for work worked LOTS of overtime. And recently added a BeOS partition to my machine. I have to say I like BeOS quite a bit. I am going to have to dust off my C++ skills and maybe do some coding. The only thing I am really lacking is a decent word processor. I have a few decent games and a spreadsheet as well as Mozilla Web Browser so I am fairly happy. Oh and I need a SQL DB engine of one sort or another (possibly PostGRE). The Best thing about BeOS for me is that my computer (PIII weith 128MB Ram) CRAWLS with WinXP but FLIES with BeOS. I use both. But I must say I am happy with Be. It shows there is still hope to hjave a decent operating system for older computers.

OK…I have all of my posts from My Political Blog A Little Left of Nowhere moved over here next will be my Personal Blog, Then some Poetry, Art, and Photos from some other websites and then some cartoons. Actually, The cartoons were hand drawn and will be scanned and then digitally enhanced as part of my bloggin after I finish the aforementioned tasks.

[This story was originally published on Campus Progress]

Myth #1: It would be too expensive

Rather than cost more money, UHC would actually reduce the cost of health care. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that UHC could save up to $14 billion annually by spreading the risk evenly over the entire population, eliminating deductibles and co-pays and making preventive medicine available to the poor and uninsured. The federal government already subsidizes private health insurance in the form of tax deductions.

Private insurance companies also spend billions on administration and overhead, advertising, and determining and inspecting patient eligibility, all while trying to make a profit. UHC would not be burdened with some of those costs, like advertising, and unlike private business, it could run at a loss and still be viable. The pressures of profitability would no longer close the door for millions of Americans and drive up costs. As a result, Americans would effectively pay less for health insurance than they do now, according to the Government Accountability Office.

Myth #2: It would require a HUGE, inefficient bureaucracy

The current system is already a HUGE, inefficient bureaucracy! As previously mentioned, much of the unnecessary overhead and micromanaging in the system now could be eliminated if UHC were implemented. For example, the bureaucracy and paperwork involved in determining patient eligibility would be completely unnecessary if everyone were eligible and covered. Insurance companies spend an estimated 25 cents of every dollar on administration. Canada, which already has a comprehensive UHC in place and still manages to pay 70 percent less per citizen on health care, spends about the equivalent of about 12 cents of every dollar on administration.

Myth #3: It would restrict patient choice

How can we even begin to talk about choice when 40 million Americans don’t have any health insurance at all? “Choice” really isn’t an appropriate topic for those who can’t afford health care. Many of the chronically sick are simply denied coverage by private insurance companies because they aren’t good financial investments. The concept of choice probably doesn’t resonate much for people in this situation, either. But even for those who are insured under the current system, HMOs and insurance companies alike restrict patients to a strict list of complying physicians. UHC wouldn’t directly dictate what doctor you have to see in order to get treatment and would thus enable more choice in selecting a physician than the current system would for many, if not most, Americans.

Myth #4: It would be a socialist seizure of the medical industry

It would be nothing of the sort. Socialized medicine would entail hospitals and doctors becoming employees of the state. UHC only provides funding for people’s health care, but doesn’t provide the health care itself. The only difference is that health care insurance plans would be funded by the state. Hospitals, physicians, and other health care employees would all remain part of the private sector. Competition between doctors and hospitals would not be eliminated. Although using the “s” word in attacking UHC has proven effective in frightening the populace, UHC would be no more socialist than Medicare and arguably less so than public education. Granted the far-right would gladly see both of those programs destroyed, but the overwhelming majority of Americans would not.

Myth #5: UHC would impede economic growth

An added benefit of UHC would be that private business would no longer have to worry about health-care benefits, and employees wouldn’t have to remain in unpleasant jobs just to keep their benefits. Benefits wouldn’t interfere with wage increases, and employers would have more financial mobility. The recent problems General Motors has been having with maintaining health benefits for its workers while trying to remain financially afloat have been well-documented. GM estimates that health-care benefits account for nearly $1,500 of the price of every car they build and sell. Many other companies are switching to “temporary” or outsourced jobs in order to avoid paying benefits. Not only would UHC relieve businesses of having the burden of providing health insurance for their workers, but the workers would also be unconditionally covered regardless of where they work.

The rest is here

I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way. Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!” — George W. Bush, in a closed meeting with Republican Congressional leaders in late 2005, as reported by Doug Thompson, who says he confirmed this quote with 3 people who were present at the meeting

Maybe I am mistaken, but didn’t GWB swear to God to defend that ‘goddamned piece of paper’. I believe that violation of a sworn duty of that magnitude would be treason. You could dismiss it as a moment of anger or frustration if GWB hadn’t worked so hard so often to subvert the constitution and rule of law in this country.

Welcome to Kermit The Bear.
I would be Kermit. I am in the process of moving posts over from A Little South of Nowhere and A Little Left of Nowhere. I chose this space mostly for the additional options it affords. Bear with me while i Get it all together.

Carlton “Kermit” Noles

UNDERNEWS: FCC SAYS INTERNET USE MUST MEET NEEDS OF FBI, NOT FIRST AMENDMENT

DECLAN MCCULLAGH, CNET - The Federal Communications Commission thinks you have the right to use software on your computer only if the FBI approves. In an obscure ‘policy’ document released around 9 p.m. ET last Friday, the FCC announced this remarkable decision. According to the three-page document, to preserve the openness that characterizes today’s Internet, ‘consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.’ Read the last seven words again.

The FCC didn’t offer much in the way of clarification. But the clearest reading of the pronouncement is that some unelected bureaucrats at the commission have decreed that Americans don’t have the right to use software such as Skype or PGPfone if it doesn’t support mandatory backdoors for wiretapping. (That interpretation was confirmed by an FCC spokesman on Monday, who asked not to be identified by name. Also, the announcement came at the same time as the FCC posted its wiretapping rules for Internet telephony.)

Nowhere does the commission say how it jibes this official pronouncement with, say, the First Amendment’s right to speak freely, not to mention the limited powers granted the federal government by the U.S. Constitution.”

Jim Maule Villanova University School of Law

1. Create quality products and services.

2. Sell what you advertise.

3. Make certain your products and services do what they claim to do.

4. Fully test and study your products and services before offering them
for sale.

5. Disclose all risks posed to purchasers of your products and services.

6. Tell the truth.

7. Fulfill your warranty promises.

8. Don’t cut corners.

9. Comply with all applicable laws and regulations.

10. Don’t try to buy influence.

Follow those principles and the bloggers won’t have any reason to bash
nor will they have anything or anyone to bash.

And the folks at WalMart wonder why some of us are getting wary of them…

STEVEN GREENHOUSE AND MICHAEL BARBARO, NY TIMES - An internal memo sent to Wal-Mart’s board of directors proposes numerous ways to hold down spending on health care and other benefits while seeking to minimize damage to the retailer’s reputation. Among the recommendations are hiring more part-time workers and discouraging unhealthy people from working at Wal-Mart.

In the memorandum, M. Susan Chambers, Wal-Mart’s executive vice president for benefits, also recommends reducing 401(k) contributions and wooing younger, and presumably healthier, workers by offering education benefits. The memo voices concern that workers with seven years’ seniority earn more than workers with one year’s seniority, but are no more productive. To discourage unhealthy job applicants, Ms. Chambers suggests that Wal-Mart arrange for “all jobs to include some physical activity (e.g., all cashiers do some cart-gathering).”

The memo acknowledged that Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer, had to walk a fine line in restraining benefit costs because critics had attacked it for being stingy on wages and health coverage. Ms. Chambers acknowledged that 46 percent of the children of Wal-Mart’s 1.33 million United States employees were uninsured or on Medicaid. . .

They draw criticism because they keep telling us how wonderful they are then circulate memos like that one. Asses! (Pardon my French.)(Yes, I know it’s not really French.)

The Problem, Fewer people can afford to feed themselves and their families since Bush took office.

HUNGER IN AMERICA UP 43% IN PAST FIVE YEARS SCIENCE DAILY - Hunger in American households has risen by 43 percent over the last five years, according to an analysis of US Department of Agriculture) data. The analysis, completed by the Center on Hunger and Poverty at Brandeis University, shows that more than 7 million people have joined the ranks of the hungry since 1999. The USDA report, Household Food Security in the United States, 2004, says that 38.2 million Americans live in households that suffer directly from hunger and food insecurity, including nearly 14 million children. That figure is up from 31 million Americans in 1999. California, Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma and South Carolina all have food insecurity and hunger rates that are significantly higher than the national average. The lone bright spot in the nation is Oregon. Once considered to have the worst hunger in the country, Oregon has shown significant decreases in food insecurity and hunger since 1999-2001. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051029093925.htm

So, what does the GOP do? Show some of that ‘Compassionate Conservatism’ we heard so much about (but have not seen)? No apparently a 43% increase in hunger isn’t big enough. Apparently they want more hunger. (I suppose it builds character or something).

GOP MOVES TO SLASH FOOD STAMPS, SCHOOL LUNCHES LIBBY QUAID, ASSOCIATED PRESS - The House Agriculture Committee approved budget cuts Friday that would take food stamps away from an estimated 300,000 people and could cut off school lunches and breakfasts for 40,000 children. The action came as the government reported that the number of people who are hungry because they can’t afford to buy enough food rose to 38.2 million in 2004, an increase of 7 million in five years. The number represents nearly 12 percent of U.S. households. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/food_farm_programs

And just in case cutting school lunches and food stamps does not do the trick…

SENATE VOTES DOWN FIRST MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE IN EIGHT YEARS HELEN THOMAS, HEARST NEWS - U.S. senators — who draw salaries of $162,100 a year and enjoy a raft of perks — have rejected a minimum wage hike from $5.15 an hour to $6.25 for blue-collar workers. The proposed increase was sponsored by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and turned down in the Senate by a vote of 51 against the boost and 49 in favor. . . All the Democrats voted for the wage boost. All the negative votes were cast by Republicans. Four Republicans voted for it. Three of the four are running for reelection and were probably worried about how voters would react if they knew that their well-heeled senators had turned down a pittance of an increase in the salaries of the lowest paid workers in the country. The minimum wage was last increased in 1997. http://www.wesh.com/helenthomas/5183628/detail.html

But some of our politicians do know right from wrong an feel obligated to do something about it…

LABOR — ADMINISTRATION REVERSES DAVIS-BACON SUSPENSION: In the immediate wake of Hurricane Katrina, President Bush issued an executive order to suspend the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act, which requires federal contractors to pay at least the prevailing wages in the area where the work is being conducted. Yesterday, the administration reversed course, announcing it will reinstate the Davis Bacon rules on November 8. The shift comes days after Rep. George Miller (D-CA) announced that he would use an obscure law to force a congressional vote on the act’s suspension early next month. Miller had strong bipartisan support, and was likely to win the vote. He cheered the White House reversal yesterday: “This wage cut was a mistake from the beginning and never should have been ordered. But today’s news is a victory for workers in the Gulf Coast and all over America.”

Even though the president tries to screw us over via executive order (which doesn’t require a vote) a Representative finds the loophole that restores democracy. Thank you Rep. George Miller.

Regardless of your position on the death penalty, we have a jury system in this country for a reason. Now the neo-cons want to circumvent that when the jury doesn’t give the result they want.This is the proverbial slippery slope folks, say goodbye to another constitutional right. Thanks again to the UNDERNEWS for being there when it counts.

UNDERNEWS: GOP WANTS TO FORCE DEATH PENALTY EVEN WHEN JURY CAN’T AGREE: “NY TIMES - If all 12 members of a jury in a capital case in federal court cannot agree on whether to impose the death penalty, a convicted defendant is automatically sentenced to life in prison. But that may be about to change. A little-noticed provision in the House bill that reauthorized the antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act would allow federal prosecutors further attempts at a death sentence if a capital jury deadlocks on the punishment. So long as at least one juror voted for death, prosecutors could empanel a new sentencing jury and argue again that execution was warranted. The Senate bill does not contain the provision, and representatives of both chambers will soon meet to discuss the differences between the two measures and potential compromises.”

Well much like the rest of the Patriot act this serves to fulfill the fantasies neo-con despot wannabes while doing nothing good for America. Is it 2006 yet?