For-profit disaster relief

Who thinks turning disaster relief over to the private sector is a good idea? Mitt Romney does. No word, however, on what happens when companies deem rescues, rebuilding and delivering supplies to be cost-prohibitive.

TED talk on taxes

Nick Hanauer, sharing some ideas that challenge this country's entrenched interests.

Nothing personal

This is a comment I posted on Facebook in response to a friend's announcement that his "snake in the grass" employer laid off a 47-year veteran of the company.

"Not a personal decision?" So the manager hopes she can remain friends with the victim? That their families can continue to get together for dinner parties? Well, not now that he can't afford dinner parties.

"Not a personal decision" is an empty, meaningless statement. Pure bullshit, about as sincere as, "it's not you. It's me." But, in this situation, at least that statement's true: He's not the one who failed to perform the duties of his job. It's not his failure that landed the company in its current financial situation. It's not his incompetence, it's hers. But it is he who suffers the consequences of her failure, while she gets to keep her job. With a tidy bonus for taking his job away, I might add.

"Not a personal decision" is simply what corporate scum say to avoid confronting the people they've become and how little money they sold their humanity for. It isn't as if the laid-off party feels better knowing that their new joblessness and financial struggles aren't because they are disliked personally. I am sure that, to the person who has just had his livelihood taken away, whether the manager in question liked him personally was irrelevant before the layoff and even more so after. The statement isn't designed to ease the suffering of the victim. If people who use this statement were to be honest about who is comforted by it, they would have to admit, "it's not you, it's me."

The salve that statement offers these people is so great that they either don't know or don't care that they sound like insufferable assholes when they say it.

And, as if all that isn't galling enough, oftentimes companies kick loyal, long-tenured employees to the curb not because they are actually losing money, but to enhance their profit margin. It's not that they couldn't afford to keep the employee, it's simply that they could make more money if they got rid of him. Companies that are losing money don't usually give bonuses to mid-level management.

p.s. I think you owe snakes an apology.

We don’t need no stinkin’ principles

I think pieces like this, which analyze the incoherent, inconsistent public positions of candidates, in this case Newt Gingrich (with an honorable mention to Mitt Romney's "ever-changing stripes"), while valuable in calling bullshit in very specific terms on bullshit artists masquerading as public servants, miss the larger point.

If politicians' words and deeds seem to be connected more to the prevailing political winds than to the deeply held beliefs of the speaker, maybe there's a reason for that. Maybe it's time to abandon the notion that these politicians apply their deeply held principles and values to their public utterances and policy positions, or that such deeply held principles and values even exist. Rather than respond with shock and outrage every time a politician does or says something that contradicts what they have done and said in the past, we should look for a metric that more consistently explains (and could predict) what we see. Maybe the only underlying political philosophy at work here is winning, and the only relevant deeply held values are those of the wealthy individuals and institutions that can make or break the political ambitions of these aspiring lapdogs.

If the trainwreck George W. Bush administration was good for anything, it was for the development of a powerful sense of political cynicism. That administration's polices were widely criticized as being dumb because they did nothing to help the vast majority of Americans (99 percent, according to some estimates), let alone mankind. But those policies appear dumb only if one assumes they are actually designed to help the vast majority of Americans and/or mankind. If one assumes that those same policies were designed to move vast amounts of money into the hands of the wealthiest humans on earth, then one can't possibly argue with the ruthless effectiveness of those policies.

Here's a handy rule of thumb: If politicians have to stop to think before discussing one of their "deeply held values," it ain't all that deeply held. Peoples' principles don't have to be written on note cards (or their palms) to be remembered. And unless you are very rich, stop assuming that politicians care about you. Their individual utterances might change, but the class of people that benefits from their actions doesn't.

And those stories that call bullshit would be more valuable if they focused less on the bullshit and more on who benefits.

Cross-posted at Suburban Guerilla.

Take the Bastards Down

Dropkick Murphys, in support of the Wisconsin protesters.



To purchase a limited edition "Take em Down" T-shirt, click here. Proceeds benefit the Workers’ Rights Emergency Response Fund.

Heating aid for the poor

That's among the benefits to the most vulnerable Americans that the Obama budget reportedly will cut, in the spirit of "bipartisanship," a word that apparently has come to mean "selling out the poor to avoid forcing the wealthy to pay taxes they can easily afford."

So when you're freezing your ass off inside your home today, tonight, the rest of this winter in order to conserve whatever heating source you use; when your children complain to you that they are cold while huddled under blankets in your 59-degree home, remember that it's going to get worse, not better.

And remember why it's going to get worse: Because Republicans absolutely refuse to agree to a tax hike to the wealthiest, warmest, most comfortable Americans. (Regardless of what the swine in Washington would have you believe, cutting spending isn't the only way to address a budget shortfall). And because Democrats are too chickenshit to challenge them and help those who need help the most.

I think the revolution just got moved up another week.

Stop illegal foreclosures

Sign the online petition here.

Fees for thee, not for me

This is getting even more interesting.

The gigantic mortgage database owned by the nations largest banks may have run afoul of Massachusetts strict property recordation filing laws, according to the elected Recorder of Deeds for the South Essex district of the state.

In an exclusive interview with CNBC, John O’Brien explained why he sent a letter to Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley requesting an investigation into Mortgage Electronic Registrations Systems, Inc.

“It’s a basic issue of fairness. MERS says that if you are a member of their club, you can avoid fees on assignments of mortgages forever. Those are fees that everyone else pays,” O’Brien said. “I’ve never before heard of a private company that has attempted to unilaterally take over such a public function as property recordation. Imagine if someone tried to do this with drivers licenses.”

Well, they would do that with drivers licences. That is, they would if they needed a way to make it easier to slice and dice drivers licenses into securities and other "exotic financial instruments" and dump them on unsuspecting investors in pursuit of a quick buck with no regard for the consequences.

O’Brien, who was named “Public Official of the Year in 2000 by the National Association of County Recorders Election Officials and Clerks, is unimpressed by MERS’s official response to his request for an investigation.

“Massachusetts has very clear cut rules. Recordation is not optional. It’s mandatory. It cannot be avoided,” he said.

MERS argues that it is saving recordation offices and homebuyers money by reducing paperwork and fees. It says that homeowners would be “directly or indirectly” responsible for paying the assignment fees if not for MERS.

“Nonsense. There’s no way homebuyers would be responsible for the fees from assigning a mortgage 15 times,” O’Brien said.

He also indicated that his office would be glad to handle the work that MERS says it is doing on his behalf. One of the arguments that proponents like to use in favor of MERS is that local recordation offices are too primitive. But the Essex Country office in Salem has an online electronic property database available free of charge on its website.

So MERS thinks it should be exempt from property recordation fees because of the valuable service nobody asked it to provide.

But before you feel too bad for MERS, keep in mind that we have a GOP-controlled House in the next Congress and Democrats who are too afraid of their own shadows to stand up for the homeowners they pretend to represent.

(Say what you will about the GOP: Sure, they're money-grubbing whores who sell themselves to the highest corporate bidder. But they don't even pretend to give a shit about what is left of the middle class. None other than likely incoming House majority leader and celebrity tanner John Boehner called yesterday's vote for a permanent extension of tax cuts for couples making LESS THAN $250,000 per year (and individuals making less than $200,000 per year) "chicken crap." Yes, that's the same John Boehner who famously handed out checks from tobacco lobbyists to legislators on the House floor while the House was considering a bill to end tobacco subsidies. And yes, this is the same GOP that this week wrote a letter signaling its intent to shut down all activity in the current session of the Senate unless it gets the tax-cut extension for the wealthy that it wants.)

So there's a good chance that this problem that MERS has will simply be legislated away. Is isn't fair or just, but who gives a fuck about that? The bottom line is that there is no way Congress is going to let the rich suffer for the gain of the rest of us.

Speaking of who gives a fuck about fairness or justice as they relate to the housing industry, read this story about how judges in Florida are helping banks forclose on peoples' homes more efficiently (Spolier alert: It involves ignoring a massive amount of fraud perpetrated by the banks). And this postscript to that story.

The angry rich

Remember what I've said over and over in this space? That Republicans (and Blue Dogs) don't give a shit about you unless you're rich? Krugman:

The spectacle of high-income Americans, the world’s luckiest people, wallowing in self-pity and self-righteousness would be funny, except for one thing: they may well get their way. Never mind the $700 billion price tag for extending the high-end tax breaks: virtually all Republicans and some Democrats are rushing to the aid of the oppressed affluent.

You see, the rich are different from you and me: they have more influence. It’s partly a matter of campaign contributions, but it’s also a matter of social pressure, since politicians spend a lot of time hanging out with the wealthy. So when the rich face the prospect of paying an extra 3 or 4 percent of their income in taxes, politicians feel their pain — feel it much more acutely, it’s clear, than they feel the pain of families who are losing their jobs, their houses, and their hopes.

And when the tax fight is over, one way or another, you can be sure that the people currently defending the incomes of the elite will go back to demanding cuts in Social Security and aid to the unemployed. America must make hard choices, they’ll say; we all have to be willing to make sacrifices.

But when they say “we,” they mean “you.” Sacrifice is for the little people.

This column brings to mind a post by Athenae that's linked to at Susie's place:

In the second place, in the second paragraph, really. You're really going to tell starving children to go blow because you're mad about your taxes. That's a thing you're going to do. The starving children, natch, having all kinds of influence in Congress, given how everybody's falling all over themselves to help THEM. Those are the people who can do exactly dick about your tax sitch, so I'm sure your brave moral stand will SO TOTALLY get noticed by our decision makers. Shit, stop giving money to politicians if you don't like how they behave, but Toys for Tots did nothing to you to deserve your contempt, and you're doing plenty to earn mine.

Of course, the starving children have no influence on Congress because the only thing congresspeople care about is getting re-elected, that is to say, their own asses. Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa, for example, would rather shut down the federal government than alienate what he sees as a bumper crop of new potential supporters in the tea baggers.

“We must not blink,” he said, noting that money cannot be spent without the House voting to pass it. “If the House says no, it’s no.”

Their new tea party backers won’t tolerate anything less than a full repeal of the health care law, he said.

“They will leave us if we go wobbly,” he said. “I am worried about that, but that’s why I think it’s got to be a blood oath.”

No word from King about what might happen if the entire nation goes "wobbly" because the House forces a shutdown of the government. But apparently Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa is not "worried about that." Apparently Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa is more "worried about" getting Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa re-elected.

Country first, y'all.

How they voted

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
I Give Up - 9/11 Responders Bill
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

on HR 847 to provide health care to 9/11 rescue workers.

Because not everyone will click through to see the shameful list of assholes, here are the 159 no voters. Of these, 155 are Republicans and four are Democrats (the Democrats are in bold).

Aderholt, Alexander, Austria, Bachmann, Bachus, Barrett (SC), Bartlett, Barton (TX), Bean, Berry, Biggert, Bilbray, Bilirakis, Bishop (UT), Blackburn, Blunt, Boehner, Bonner, Bono Mack, Boozman, Boustany, Brady (TX), Bright, Broun (GA), Brown (SC), Brown-Waite Ginny, Buchanan, Burgess, Burton (IN), Buyer, Calvert, Camp, Campbell, Cantor, Capito, Carter, Cassidy, Castle, Chaffetz, Coble, Coffman (CO), Cole, Conaway, Cooper, Crenshaw, Culberson, Davis (KY), Diaz-Balart L., Diaz-Balart M., Djou, Dreier, Duncan, Ehlers, Emerson, Fallin, Flake, Fleming, Forbes, Fortenberry, Foxx, Franks (AZ), Gallegly, Garrett (NJ), Gerlach, Gingrey (GA), Gohmert, Goodlatte, Granger, Graves (GA), Graves (MO), Hall (TX), Harper, Hastings (WA), Heller, Hensarling, Herger, Hunter, Inglis, Issa, Jenkins, Johnson (IL), Johnson Sam, Jordan (OH), King (IA), Kingston, Kline (MN), Lamborn, Latham, LaTourette, Latta, Lee (NY), Lewis (CA),Linder, Lucas, Luetkemeyer, Lummis, Lungren Daniel E., Mack, Manzullo, Marchant, McCaul, McClintock, McCotter, McHenry, McKeon, McMorris Rodgers, Mica, Miller (FL), Miller Gary, Myrick, Neugebauer, Nunes, Olson, Paul, Paulsen, Pence, Petri, Pitts, Platts, Poe (TX), Posey, Price (GA), Putnam, Rehberg, Reichert, Roe (TN), Rogers (AL), Rogers (KY), Rogers (MI), Rohrabacher, Rooney, Ros-Lehtinen, Roskam, Royce, Ryan (WI), Scalise, Schmidt, Schock, Sensenbrenner, Sessions, Shimkus, Shuster, Simpson, Smith (NE), Smith (TX), Stearns, Sullivan, Terry, Thompson (PA), Thornberry, Tiberi, Turner, Upton, Walden, Westmoreland, Whitfield, Wilson (SC), Wittman, Wolf.

The Democrats used a procedural tactic that prevented Republicans from adding all kinds of bullshit, pro-wealthy amendments to the very popular bill, which would have made it all but impossible for Democrats to vote against said amendments. But that tactic also requires a 2/3 vote for the bill to pass. So even though the vote was 255-159 in favor, the bill required 285 votes to pass. Sure, the tactic made it harder to get the bill passed, but getting Republicans to do the right thing shouldn't be so hard. This bill was a slam-dunk, but without amendments giving away what's left of the national treasury to the already super-rich, this bill just didn't seem like a good idea to Republicans. It's just more evidence that, unless you have obscene amounts of money, Republicans don't give a shit about you.

The procedural tactic isn't the reason the bill didn't pass. The 159 assholes who voted against it are the reason it didn't pass.

Financial reform

Rolling Stone examines the legislative process that produced the financial reform that the Obama administration is so proud of.

“The bill Congress just passed doesn't go after the criminals where they live, or even make what they're doing a crime; all it does is put a baseball bat under the bed and add an extra lock or two on the doors. It's a hack job, a C-minus effort. See you at the next financial crisis.”

It’s not a C-minus effort. Congress didn’t pass meaningful reform because they weren’t trying to pass meaningful reform. They were trying to pass some bullshit that looked like reform to a public that doesn’t really understand what’s going on and is barely paying attention anyway. They accomplished what they set out to do.

The law does exactly what it is designed to do: It causes no serious threat to the profits of our representatives' biggest financial sponsors, and it gave Democrats something, anything, they can take back to the voters and say, "Look, we reined in Wall Street, we passed financial reform!" In that regard, it's no different than George Bush's Medicare "reform" -- it improves nothing, but allows for lots of self-congratulation.

Of course, it also gives Republicans something they can point to were they to argue that "Democrat" leadership is ineffective. And they'd be right. But, for Republicans, even this Band-Aid on a bullet wound is too much fettering of financial markets. Rather than argue -- correctly -- that this law will do nothing to prevent future financial meltdowns that taxpayers will have to clean up, the GOP will argue that this Marxist-style takeover of our uniquely American free-enterprise system must be repealed, along with healthcare reform, Social Security and, perhaps, the right to vote and own property.

I had a post label that I used for so many Bush-era efforts, "It Just Looks Like Results," that I used when describing the many, many photo-ops and half-assed efforts that replaced actual governing in this country from 2001-2008. Looks like it's time to dust off that label, because the change we were promised during the campaign just ain't coming. Sure, the Obama administration is light years better than the alternative that Republicans half-heartedly threw out there ("OK, the election is unwinnable but, hey, we gotta run somebody, and we're not about to waste a real candidate" [think Bob Dole in 1996 and Lynn Swann's running for the PA governor's seat in 2006]), but the real power in this country doesn't change every four years or even every eight years. It's an entrenched aristocracy whose only interest is maintaining its wealth and power. And it never faces re-election. If Obama were the threat to the status quo that he appeared to be during the campaign, he never would have gotten out of the primaries. Ask Hillary Clinton and John Edwards how the media covered their candidacy.

If you still think real change is possible working within the system, click the link above and see what the system did to the financial reform bill.

Another fake controversy debunked

Remember the e-mails that proved climate scientists exaggerated the threat of global warming for ... uh, in order to ... I have no idea why?

Well...

The controversy known as "climategate" erupted in November 2009 with the publication of more than 1,000 e-mails to and from scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in eastern England.

The e-mails, dating back to 1996, were published on Web sites run by climate change skeptics who claim efforts had been made to manipulate data to exaggerate the threat of global warming.

The head of the CRU, Professor Phil Jones, stepped down from his post while reviews were conducted. It was announced Wednesday that Jones would return to the role of Director of Research at the university after an independent review cleared the CRU of manipulating or falsifying data.

"We concluded that these behaviors did not damage our judgment of the integrity, the honesty, the rigor with which they had operated as scientists," said the review's chairman Muir Russell.

In early July, an investigation by Penn State University into one of the authors of the e-mails, Professor Michael Mann, found that he had not strayed from accepted practices for "proposing, reporting or conducting research."

I hope this is the last we hear of a group of people with a political and/or financial agenda falsifying facts to exaggerate a controversy.

The best healthcare in the world

This nauseating affront to basic human decency is brought to you by the free-market, for-profit healthcare system.

Kyler Van Nocker’s story shows that even 5-year-old kids are not exempt from this insurance company abuse. Van Nocker has neuroblastoma, which is a very rare form of childhood cancer that targets the nervous system and creates tumors throughout the body.

Due to successful treatment in 2007, Van Nocker’s cancer went into remission, giving him 12 months of pain-free life. Unfortunately, in Sept. 2008, the cancer returned, and Van Nocker was once again in need of treatment. Unfortunately, his health insurer, HealthAmerica, refused to pay for one form of treatment doctors believe could save his life (MIBG treatment) because they consider it “investigational/experimental” since it has yet to be approved by the FDA.

Yet in April 2008, the insurer approved cheaper treatment for Van Nocker that was also “experimental,” prompting Philadelphia Daily News columnist Ronnie Polaneczky to ask, “So why, pray tell, is HealthAmerica playing the ‘experimental therapy’ card in the case of the MIBG treatment Kyler now needs? Gee, money couldn’t have anything to do with the decision, could it?”

And remember: this child has health insurance. But in 21st century America, there is little difference between having and needing to use health insurance and having no coverage at all.

I have a feeling the revolution just got moved up a day, and that Kyler Van Nocker’s family and friends have just been "radicalized."

Press 1 for English

I came across a group on Facebook called something along the lines of "Why Should I have to Press 1 for English?" and it just pissed me off.

But because there's an entire group of people on Facebook who apparently need an answer to that question so badly that they've organized, I thought I would help them out and tell them the answer.

The reason you have to press 1 for English is because the company, organization or whatever that you are calling has clients, customers or whatever who either don't speak English or prefer to conduct their business in their native language. Now, before you start raging against people wanting to conduct their business in their native language, remember that you want the same thing, so badly that it apparently pisses you off that others don't see the advantages of conducting their business in your language, too.

But maybe that's not why they are pissed off. Maybe the anti-1-dialers simply don't like it when companies provide reasonable service to their customers. If that's the case, why are they even calling?

Or maybe they just plain don't like pressing phone buttons. Well, if that's the new white man's burden, I suppose they should be congratulated for displaying the intestinal fortitude needed to reach the company's automated answering system in the first place. I mean, that requires dialing, like, 10 digits. After that flurry of activity, I can see how pushing one more button must seem like carrying a piano up Mt. Everest. And yet they find the strength to soldier on. It's that kind of dedication and refusal to quit, even in the face of the most daunting of odds, that makes me proud of my fellow Americans.

Or maybe they just don't like automated answering systems. I'm right there with them. And for that unique inconvenience we can thank the executives who decided to buy computer systems to answer their customers' calls instead of paying humans to do it. But I doubt that's what their beef is about, because the Facebook group I saw wasn't called, "Why Should I have to Press 0 to speak with a human?"

Perhaps it's not all that service or all that dialing or all that time wasted listening to a computer pretend to interact with them that has these patriots so salty. Perhaps the real issue is that the "press 1 for English" message is an automated reminder that some God-loving, red-blooded American has lost a job to a God-loving, red-blooded foreigner. Well, to them I say, if you're angry about American jobs being shipped overseas, thank the CEO who decided that he could save a few bucks by laying off Americans and shipping their jobs off to (insert country name here). Don't blame the customer-service rep. for taking a job. She has to eat too, and it wasn't her idea to ship that job overseas.

Besides, when was the last time you declined a job because you felt someone in another country deserves it more?

Blaming foreigners for taking jobs that corporations have shipped to foreign countries makes about as much sense as blaming foreigners for speaking foreign languages in foreign countries.

And maybe that's the real issue here. But I hope not. I can understand anger about jobs being shipped overseas so that a corporation can avoid paying an American a decent, living wage and instead exploit the poor in other countries. (In this coutnry, we have these pesky laws about things like the minimum wage, working conditions and overtime. So companies avoid them by shipping jobs overseas, where they are free to pay their workers almost nothing and treat them essentially as slaves. But Republicans oppose those oppressive laws, so don't worry: One bright, shining day, you too may be able to work 100 hours a week in dangerous, deplorable conditions for poverty-level wages). What I can't understand is baseless, ignorant xenophobia. What I don't understand is buying into the lie that the working class in this country is being exploited and suppressed by those who are even poorer than they are.

Do the homeless have the power to eliminate jobs and slash wages? Are undocumented immigrants living like kings in gated communities, making more money in an hour than most people make in a year? Are families facing foreclosure having their mortgages paid off by the government, or is the government simply handing trillions of dollars to giant banks and getting nothing whatsoever in return? If the poor in this country are exploiting the working class, they are doing a really shitty job at it, because they have almost nothing to show for it.

Know your real oppressor, people.

The best healthcare in the world

 

Meet six-year-old Madison Leuchtmann. Madison was born with bilateral artesia, meaning she was born without ear canals. She needs a hearing implant in order to recognize sounds. Without it, she could lose her hearing.

Madison's family has health insurance, but their insurer, Cigna, refuses to cover the $20,000 cost of the implant. The company claims that the device is not medically necessary. Madison's pediatrician, Dr. Randall Clary, disagrees, saying, “This is obviously medically necessary. You have a child that has no ear canals!”

In addition, as reported by Think Progress, Cigna said in a written statement to the local news station Fox 2, “It is not unusual for commercial benefit plans to exclude hearing assisted devices.” Get it? There's nothing unusual about this situation. This is standard operating procedure.

But there is a silver lining in this horrible mess: At least it's an employee of a for-profit health insurance company -- and not a government bureaucrat -- coming between this six-year-old girl and her doctor.

It seems that if you need to use your health insurance, having health insurance is not much different than not having it. And remember, Cigna is doing this while the nation's attention is focused on the for-profit health insurance industry, and while legislation that could put them out of business is being crafted in Congress.

Imagine what Cigna and other for-profit insurance companies will do when no one is looking.

Why do we always have to shame these amoral scumfucks into doing the right thing? That this is a necessary and oft-repeated step in the process of getting healthcare is evidence that the for-profit health insurance system Just. Doesn't. Work.

Haven't gotten the lead out

Just in case you thought this wasn't happening anymore.

Children's toys carrying the Barbie and Disney logos have turned up with high levels of lead in them, according to a California-based advocacy group — a finding that may give consumers pause as they shop for the holiday season.

The Center for Environmental Health tested about 250 children's products bought at major retailers and found lead levels that exceeded federal limits in seven of them. Lead can cause irreversible brain damage.

Among those with high lead levels: a Barbie Bike Flair Accessory Kit and a Disney Tinkerbell Water Lily necklace. The group said it also found excessive lead in a Dora the Explorer Activity Tote, two pairs of children's shoes, a boys belt and a kids' poncho.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown has sent letters to Target, Wal-Mart and the other retailers who sold the seven products, warning that children's goods on their store shelves were found to contain illegal levels of lead and should be pulled immediately.

The findings released Tuesday come about a year after a product safety law that ushered in strict limits on the amounts of lead and chemicals allowed in products made for children 12 years and younger. Congress passed the law after a slew of recalls of lead-tainted toys in 2007, including several Mattel-related recalls that involved more than 2 million toys.

If you ever found yourself in a store wondering how they can make something so inexpensive, now you know.

When you get tired of reading reports about unsafe lead levels in toys and wondering about the toys your children are playing with, click here.

Where the money is

If you want to cause as little pain as possible when levying taxes, you don't tax people who have next to nothing. You go where the money is.

When it comes to paying for a health care overhaul, Americans see just one way to go: Tax the rich.

That finding from a new Associated Press poll will be welcome news for House Democrats, who proposed doing just that in their sweeping remake of the U.S. medical system, which passed earlier this month and would extend coverage to millions of uninsured Americans.

The poll found participants sour on other ways of paying for the health overhaul that is being considered in Congress, including taxing insurers on high-value coverage packages derided by President Barack Obama and Democrats as "Cadillac plans."

Hopefully this will give some political cover to senators who lack the balls and/or brains to ignore senseless political compromises and do what will actually work.

Their real goal

with programs like NCLB, "issues" like gay marriage, networks like Fox News and amendments like this is to try to keep us ignorant. The less informed and more distracted from the real issues we are, the more crimes they can get away with.

Game of chance

Eat ground beef and roll the dice.

Stephanie Smith, a children’s dance instructor, thought she had a stomach virus. The aches and cramping were tolerable that first day, and she finished her classes.

Then her diarrhea turned bloody. Her kidneys shut down. Seizures knocked her unconscious. The convulsions grew so relentless that doctors had to put her in a coma for nine weeks. When she emerged, she could no longer walk. The affliction had ravaged her nervous system and left her paralyzed.

Ms. Smith, 22, was found to have a severe form of food-borne illness caused by E. coli, which Minnesota officials traced to the hamburger that her mother had grilled for their Sunday dinner in early fall 2007.

“I ask myself every day, ‘Why me?’ and ‘Why from a hamburger?’ ” Ms. Smith said. In the simplest terms, she ran out of luck in a food-safety game of chance whose rules and risks are not widely known.

Meat companies and grocers have been barred from selling ground beef tainted by the virulent strain of E. coli known as O157:H7 since 1994, after an outbreak at Jack in the Box restaurants left four children dead. Yet tens of thousands of people are still sickened annually by this pathogen, federal health officials estimate, with hamburger being the biggest culprit. Ground beef has been blamed for 16 outbreaks in the last three years alone, including the one that left Ms. Smith paralyzed from the waist down. This summer, contamination led to the recall of beef from nearly 3,000 grocers in 41 states.

Ms. Smith’s reaction to the virulent strain of E. coli was extreme, but tracing the story of her burger, through interviews and government and corporate records obtained by The New York Times, shows why eating ground beef is still a gamble. Neither the system meant to make the meat safe, nor the meat itself, is what consumers have been led to believe.

See, the trouble is, testing the beef supply to make sure it's safe and won't kill people who eat it is just so darn expensive. And you know that we like our money more than life itself.

Don't kid yourself: The beef supply isn't monitored closely enough and isn't safe.

Benefits cut

You can't make this shit up.

WellPoint Inc., the largest U.S. insurer, dismissed a "small number" of workers last week and announced cuts to employee health benefits Friday, in its latest attempt to deal with the recession's toll on enrollment.

I wonder if that "small number of workers" included those who excelled at saving the company money through recissions, that is, retroactively canceling people's coverage after they filed expensive claims. As noted in a previous post, one criterion used by WellPoint to evaluate employees' job performance was how well they condemned people by canceling their insurance at the moment they get sick and really need it. In other words, for some WellPoint employees, condemning people by canceling their insurance at the moment they get sick and really need it was part of the job.

The investigation has also found that at least one insurance company, WellPoint, evaluated employee performance based in part on the amount of money its employees saved the company through retroactive rescissions of health insurance policies. According to documents obtained by the committee, one WellPoint official was awarded a perfect score of five for exceptional performance based on having saved the company nearly $10 million through rescissions.

These practices reveal that when an insurance company receives a claim for an expensive, life-saving treatment, some of them will look for a way, any way, to avoid having to pay for it.

And if the company is cutting benefits for its own employees, what do you think it's doing to other policyholders?