Saturday, November 21, 2009
The Sound of Your Own Voice
- Po Bronson
Friday, November 20, 2009
Our Greatest Glory
-- Confucious
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Health Care, not Health Insurance
We Need Health Care, Not Insurance
By CAROL MILLERhttp://www.counterpunch.org/
Avery complex, mandatory private insurance scheme recently passed the U.S. House. The public is being overwhelmed by sound bites on one hand about how great it is, on the other, how terrible. We are hearing few of the details that are actually in the bill. Having read the bill, it is clear now that what started as health reform has emerged from the political process as health "deform," building on the worst, not the best of the current system.
It is still a toss-up as to whether the Senate will pass any bill this year. However, due to intense political pressure, the Senate is likely to pass a bill that will make some House provisions better and others worse. What actually comes out in the final conference-committee bill is anyone's guess at this point — so little time, so many deals still to be made, so many political funders to be appeased.
A careful analysis of the bill shows that it is designed more for political goals than to eliminate financial barriers to health care. For example, the actual coverage doesn't even begin until 2013, opportunistically after the next presidential election, in 2012. Run on having accomplished "historic reform" but before anyone actually experiences how bad it is? How cynical is that?
Yes, there are some good provisions. The best relate to improving existing programs like the Indian Health Service, community health centers, and health professionals education and training; all are important for New Mexico.
But there bad provisions, which comprise most of the 1,990 pages of the bill. Five key reasons this legislation must be stopped:
• If passed, this law will move the U.S. farther from universal health care, making it harder than ever to accomplish health care justice in the future. If Congress does not have the courage to stand up to the private insurance industry now, it will be even more difficult in the future, especially after giving the industry trillions of new dollars through this terrible legislation. Let's call this what it is: another corporate bailout on the backs of working people.
Pay attention to your federal representatives as they carefully talk about "health insurance reform." They aren't talking about health reform any more. Congress could have defended and built up a system based on popular, high-quality government-run health programs like the military and veterans fully socialized health systems or Medicare, a single-payer program. Instead, the president and Congress let the corporations and government-haters take control of the agenda.
• The legislation institutionalizes permanent inequality in health care. Unlike Medicare where all beneficiaries have a single plan, this bill further divides the U.S. system into tiers based on ability to pay. It creates basic, enhanced, premium and premium-plus plans. A basic plan will provide only 70 percent of the coverage of a "reference benefit package," one that includes even fewer services than most insured people have today. The bill doesn't even mention coverage for essential services like vision and adult dental care except in the most costly premium-plus plan.• Out-of-pocket costs remain sky high. Everyone will be required to pay monthly insurance premiums. Some low-wage workers will receive taxpayer subsidies on a sliding scale. The lowest income people will have full subsidies. But remember, this is not money for care, it is support only to buy insurance.
Almost everyone will have to meet a deductible, capped in the bill at $1,500 a year, higher than most insurance-plan deductibles today. On top of this, insurance companies can charge even more under various "cost sharing" schemes for items like co-pays and co-insurance.
The bill puts a cap on cost sharing, but the total amount is obscene. The cap for an individual is $5,000 a year and for a family it is $10,000 before the plan must cover everything. Well, not exactly everything. Even after paying this huge amount of money, the legislation still allows the corporations to make us pay, billing for non-network providers and, since it is not a comprehensive benefit package, we are still on our own to pay for health care that the plans refuse to cover.
The legislation creates a law to let these corporations increase what they charge people as they get older. In fact, they can be charged up to twice as much as younger people for identical coverage.
• The legislation makes it illegal to not buy health insurance. The penalties are described in a section of the legislation called "Shared Responsibility." This will let the IRS impose a tax of up to 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income for not having health insurance. People on the financial edge, people fighting foreclosure to stay in their homes or people who are unemployed all or part of a year will not be able to afford the insurance premiums or the penalties for not having insurance.
• We will all be drowning in paperwork, which will continue to drive up administrative costs. Right now, insurance administrative waste is about 30 percent of every health care dollar— or about $1 billion a day. Adding more people to an insurance-based system will result in even more money going into this bottomless pit.
As if this isn't bad enough, the government will be setting up many new agencies to oversee the whole process including, at the top, the Orwellian Health Choices Administration, headed by the Health Choices Commissioner. This is not an agency to help us make health care choices, but to choose a health insurance company. The IRS will play a very large role in everything from certifying our income for subsidies to monitoring and taxing people who don't buy insurance.
Health Insurance Exchanges will be created across the country with at least one in every state offering both Web sites and telephone assistance. This is where we will go every year to pick our insurance plan in an open enrollment period of at least 30 days between September and November. We can add this unpleasant task to all of our other fall chores.
It is hard to imagine the chaos and wasted resources with the entire country picking insurance plans at the same time, attended by marketing, billboards, advertising and misinformation. We will gamble as we choose a plan, decide which corporation will be the best for us, hoping we pick one that is not dominated by corporate bureaucrats focused on rationing care to maximize their profits. It is not an easy task and if a wrong plan is selected, we are stuck for a year, until the next national open enrollment cycle.
The United States can do better. We can build on a strengthened and well-funded Medicare program. In Medicare, when a person reached the age of eligibility or is determined to qualify because they have a permanent disability, they are in, and there is no re-enrollment.
Imagine real reform, as simple as adding people ages 55 to 65 years old to Medicare in 2010, 35-55 in 2011, and so on until everyone is included by 2013. The bills that promote this kind of reform are under 200 pages, they are simple to implement, cost effective and equitable. Choose a doctor, choose a hospital when needed and let the government pay the bills. Everyone in one system.
That is what real health reform would look like.
Carol Miller is a long-time public health professional and health care advocate. She lives in Ojo Sarco.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Marriage Equality in New York
Who Do We Have to Blow to Get Gay Marriage in New York?
The frustrating circle-jerk in Albany.
By Steven Thrasher
Tuesday, November 17th 2009 at 3:37pm
In Europe, Gay Pride parades are held each year on the occasion known as "Christopher Street Day"—a nod to the New York street that gave birth to the worldwide gay rights movement with the Stonewall riots.
But if this city once signified the leading edge of that movement, what does it say that in those European countries celebrating our fair city, there's gay marriage equality, but here, where the struggle for rights began, New York still can't get it right?
That seemed about to change at the beginning of the year. Governor Paterson was fully supportive of gay marriage rights, his popularity hadn't fully tanked yet, and gay voters had helped tip the State Senate in the Democrats' favor for the first time in 40 years. By June, Republican minority leader Dean Skelos said he'd let his members vote as they saw fit, and wouldn't block a gay marriage vote on the Senate floor. Once a marriage bill passed in the Assembly, the future looked as gay as a revival of Meet Me in St. Louis.
Voters, it's true, rejected gay marriage in California and Maine, and gay marriage's Cassandra, Maggie Gallagher, resides right here in our state. But even Gallagher couldn't do anything about it if our legislature approved a marriage equality bill and Governor Paterson signed it into law.
"It would be difficult, if not impossible, for an opponent to repeal a new law," says Justin Phillips, assistant professor of political science at Columbia University. "The reason it was so easy in California and Maine is that those states have citizen initiatives, which allow voters to draft a new law or amend their constitution. New York does not." Once New York approves an equal marriage law, says Phillips, "it's pretty much here to stay."
So what, then, is the hang-up?
In a word, it's the Democrats.
To be more specific, it's the chickenshit Democrats in the Senate. Some are afraid of being exposed as bigots, some are afraid of being exposed as homo-lovers, and some are pro marriage equality but would rather block a vote than possibly see it defeated. In each case, it's that fear-of-fear thing that our most famous governor—who was perhaps married to a lesbian, it turns out—tried to warn us about.
Last week, Governor Paterson called lawmakers to a special session to deal with the state's hemorrhaging budget, but also to vote on gay marriage. Democratic senators punted.
"I'm still stinging from the disrespect we received," says Cathy Marino-Thomas, president of Marriage Equality New York. She had spent all of last Tuesday in the Senate Gallery and outside Democratic Conference Leader John Sampson's office, only to be ignored: "Our folks were out there all day, pouring their hearts out, begging for a vote, pleading for a vote—or, at least, an answer on whether or not there was even going to be a vote, and no one even addressed them!"
But Sampson and other senators don't want a gay marriage vote to happen until they can be assured of success. The Democrats hold only a 32-30 majority in the Senate, and that majority vanishes with members like the Bronx's Rubén Díaz, a Pentecostal minister who is a definite "No" vote.
NY1 captured Marino-Thomas screaming at him, "If he wants to be a reverend, then let him go back to the church. If you want to be a senator, then you stand up for the rights and laws of this country!"
But she admits to the Voice that Díaz frustrates her less than the senators who won't say how they plan to vote or who actively work to keep a vote from happening. "I hate to say it, and it may be the only thing I respect him for, but I respect Senator Díaz for at least taking a stand. You know where he stands on this issue. He doesn't try to hide it," she says.
Take Senator Shirley Huntley (D-Jamaica), for example. Her office says the senator is undecided—she is not opposed to bringing the bill to the floor and, although she's had years to think about it, she won't decide until a bill actually comes to the floor.
So, because of the indecision of senators like Huntley, Sampson is reluctant to bring the bill to the floor. But because Sampson hasn't brought it to the floor, Huntley can remain undecided. It's a frustrating legislative circle-jerk.
Sampson has promised a vote by the end of the year, to which Marino-Thomas snorts, "Why should I believe that? They've made and broken this promise too many times to count."
If it doesn't happen, gays are getting ready to cut Democrats off financially—in New York, and nationally. Gay support has long been a pillar of Democratic fundraising, and some movement leaders are promising hell if Sampson reneges. Blogs from DailyKos to Ameriblog are calling for a national boycott of the DNC and Organizing for America (both failed to help defend marriage equality in Maine) until they generate some action on repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
The national arena, of course, is where this will eventually and inevitably be resolved. As Molly McKay of Marriage Equality USA puts it, "islands of equality" cannot continue to exist from state to state. Just as the Supreme Court eventually forced backward states to accept interracial marriages in 1968, so, ultimately, the Supreme Court will find that denying gay marriage rights violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. When that happens, California's Proposition 8 and Maine's recent vote will be swept away and gay couples will be able to marry in every state. But how long before the Supreme Court is ready to make that obvious step is a question of aging justices and their replacements.
Ironically, it is George W. Bush's solicitor general who is most progressive about charging down this legal path: Ted Olson—yes, Bush's lawyer in Bush v. Gore, who has been joined by Gore's lawyer, David Boies—is representing California couples in a federal lawsuit charging that Proposition 8 is a violation of their right to equal protection. But with the same fear that has paralyzed Albany, the thought of possibly losing in the Supreme Court terrifies some marriage advocates so much that they don't think the risk is worth the gamble.
McKay doesn't see it that way, and is fully supportive of the California case. "Courage," she says, "is the act of facing action despite your fears." (Too bad the New York State Senate has never been much for profiles in courage.) Regardless, while the federal case incubates, she says, "You have to have a vote in the New York Senate. If you lose, then you know who you have to lobby, and you have a vote again next year." Plus, "you might win." To pass a marriage equality bill in the California State Assembly, McKay needed each of four undecided Democrats. She got all four, but not until they were forced to actually vote on the floor.
Governor Paterson also promises a vote by the end of the year. He may lack the political clout to make it happen, but he's taking the long view on this one, even if there are setbacks along the way. He mentioned that the Emancipation Proclamation was signed just five years after the Dred Scott decision, then added, "In my opinion, historically, I think we have lost touch with how movements for equality are reached. There are a lot of ups and downs."
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
A Lot Happier
-- author unknown
Saturday, November 14, 2009
And a Child Shall Lead Us
Withers: Arkansas lad makes a stand for gay rights
I know who gets my vote for man of 2009. Will Phillips.
Phillips is ten years old and hopes to be a lawyer in the future (Will, if I’m still around I’ll be your first client). He’s a smart boy, skipping grades and such, and is comfortable talking about Teddy Roosevelt. He recently decided not to stand up for the Pledge of Allegiance when it was recited in his Arkansas elementary school. Why? Because there is a chasm between the words and the rhetoric, especially when gays and lesbians are involved.
“I’ve always tried to analyze things because I want to be a lawyer,” Phillips said. “I really don’t feel that there’s currently liberty and justice for all.”
He didn’t come to the decision compulsively. Asked his parents, who have many gay friends, if it was against the law not to stand for the pledge. When he got the legal, and parental, okay, in early October he stayed seated as his class stood up. The teacher, a substitute, and Phillips didn’t see eye to eye on this type of civil disobedience and eventually the young Henry David Thoreau was sent to the principal’s office.
So a ten year old boy has decided it’s time to show little solidarity with gays and lesbians. Typically some of his peers are giving him grief, but Phillips notes many of his classmates have no problem with what he’s doing. And at least for now, he’s not standing up until gays and lesbians are treated as full, and equal, citizens.
Ten years old. What a wonder.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Don't Ask, Don't Give (Reposted from AMERICAblog)
Take the Pledge:
Don't Ask, Don't Give
"It is not enough to look back in wonder at how far we have come; those who came before us did not strike a blow against injustice only so that we would allow injustice to fester in our time. That means removing the barriers of prejudice and misunderstanding that still exist in America." - Democratic Party Platform, 2008
President Obama promised to be a "fierce advocate" for LGBT Americans. But while making modest progress on a scant few issues, on the major campaign promises made to our community, the President and the Democratic party have failed to keep their commitments.
There has been little, if any, pressure from the White House for votes on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). The administration continues to send mixed signals on the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT). And we've been told not to expect the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to even be considered until President Obama's second term. In the last two weeks alone, we were angered that the Obama administration continued to defend DOMA in the courts -- last June, the administration's lawyers even compared loving gay relationships to incest and pedophilia -- and we were saddened that the White House and the Democratic party refused to help us defeat anti-gay ballot initiatives in Maine and Washington state. LGBT Americans, our families, and our friends kept our promise at the ballot box, we now expect President Obama to keep his in the White House.
Until the Democratic Congress passes, and President Obama signs, legislation enacting ENDA, repealing DADT, and repealing DOMA, we ask you to join us in pledging to postpone contributions to the Democratic National Committee, Organizing for America, and the Obama campaign. This temporary (we hope) boycott is sponsored by AMERICAblog, and cosponsored by Daily Kos, Michelangelo Signorile, and Paul Sousa, among others.
This isn't forever, the Democrats have it in their power to end this today -- all it takes is choosing to keep their promise.
Please join us in taking the pledge, below. And find out more about why we believe this action to be important and necessary in the post below the pledge. Thank you so much for your support.
To sign the pledge, click here.
Repost from AMERICAblog
Reposted from AMERICAblog:
Monday, November 9, 2009
Don't Ask, Don't Give
Joe and I are launching today a donor boycott of the DNC. The boycott is cosponsored by Daily Kos, Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake, Dan Savage, Michelangelo Signorile, David Mixner, Andy Towle and Michael Goff of Towle Road, Paul Sousa (Founder of Equal Rep in Boston), Pam Spaulding, Robin Tyler (ED of the Equality Campaign, Inc.), Bil Browning for the Bilerico Project, and soon others.
It's really more of a "pause," than a boycott. Boycotts sounds so final, and angry. Whereas this campaign is temporary, and is only meant to help some friends - President Obama and the Democratic party - who have lost their way. We are hopeful that via this campaign, our friends will keep their promises.
So please sign the Petition and take a Pledge to no longer donate to the DNC, Organizing for America, or the Obama campaign until the President and the Democratic party keep their promises to the gay community, our families, and our friends.
You can find our Frequently Asked Questions, below, that explain the entire campaign. You can use our "Tell a Friend" page to tell all of your friends, family members, and coworkers about this effort (and we won't keep any of the email addresses you enter, they'll all be deleted after the emails are sent).
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
What is this?
We are asking voters to pledge to withhold contributions to the Democratic National Committee, Organizing for America, and the Obama campaign until the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is passed, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) is repealed, and the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is repealed -– all of which President Obama repeatedly promised to do if elected.
Why are you asking people to take this pledge?
Candidate Obama promised during the campaign to be the gay community’s “fierce advocate.” He and the Democratic party have not kept their promise.
Can you give examples of how the President and Democrats have not been fierce advocates for the civil rights of gay and lesbian Americans?
- Asking a religious right activist who claims to have been “cured” of his homosexuality to headline campaign events in South Carolina. Then letting the anti-gay bigot spend half an hour, on stage, haranguing gays at the Obama event.
- Refusing for months to interview with LGBT newspapers during the campaign, while his opponent did repeatedly.
- Flubbing question on whether gays are immoral.
- Inviting anti-gay activist Rick Warren, who helped pass Prop 8 in California, to give the invocation at the inaugural.
- Inviting a gay bishop to the inaugural festivities, then not beginning the TV broadcast until the gay bishop has finished and left.
- Refusing to appoint an openly gay Cabinet member.
- Abolishing the LGBT outreach position at the DNC and never reinstating it.
- Refusing to re-establish the White House Office of LGBT Outreach and the White House LGBT Liaison (which was a Special Assistant to the President at one point).
- Continuing to discharge two gay servicemembers a day, even though he could stop it immediately by issuing a stop-loss order immediately.
- Asking for a study on “whether” repealing DADT would hurt national security, rather than a study on how to repeal it, as promised.
- Deleting his gay civil rights promise from the White House Web site.
- Changing his commitment to “repeal” Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, to “changing DADT it in a sensible manner.”
- Repeatedly defending DOMA in court, including just a few weeks ago, even though he didn’t have to.
- Making jokes about marriage equality, which President Obama claims he doesn't support, even though he once did.
- Comparing gay relationships to incest and pedophilia in a Justice Department brief.
- Joking about gay protesters upset about the DOMA brief.
- Refusing to provide health care benefits to the partners of gay employees, and then claiming that DOMA precludes it, when it does not.
- Refusing to meet with gay legal groups to discuss how to provide such health benefits within the confines of DOMA.
- Claiming that health benefits for partners of federal employees were new, then being caught in a lie.
- Showing visible discomfort when asked about gay civil rights.
- Suggesting he won’t get to DADT, DOMA or ENDA until his second term, if ever.
- Refusing to suspend implementation of anti-gay laws, like DADT and DOMA, while suspending laws that hurt others.
- White House staffers worked against amendment proposed by Rep. Alcee Hasting (D-FL) to defund Don't Ask, Don't Tell investigations
- Saying won’t repeal DADT until wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have finished.
- Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid had to beg President Obama to help on DADT repeal.
- A White House official referring to gay civil rights advocates, marching on Washington, as part of “the Internet left fringe” whose opinions don’t matter.
- Saying he won’t touch DOMA in his first term.
- Refusing to release list of gay attendees at hate crimes reception.
- Refusing to mention Maine or Washington state, or anything of substance, in his speech to the Human Rights Campaign dinner.
- Saying gays are “naïve” for wanting the president to keep his promise.
- Refusing to issue a statement specifically opposing anti-gay ballot measures in Maine and Washington state.
- Attorney General Eric Holders flubs question on Maine, twice -- once while in Maine.
- DNC/OFA emailed supporters in Maine and Washington state, but didn't ask them to vote against anti-gay ballot measures, then lied about it.
- Senator Durbin (D-IL), a very close ally of Obama, says Senate probably won’t repeal DADT in 2010, as promised.
- Senior DNC official accuses gays and lesbians of “helping Republicans” by simply asking Democrats to keep their gay civil rights promise.
- Refusing to publicly endorse marriage equality for gays.
- Continuing to dawdle over DADT.
- Refusing to this day to interview with the gay press.
- Refusing to apologize for any of these slights.
But won’t your pledge hurt Democrats?
It never hurts Democrats to keep their promises to the voters. The American people respect strong leaders who have the courage to stick to their beliefs. And it will only help Democrats in the next election to stand by their commitments to a core constituency. If Democratic voters aren't motivated, they won't vote. We are concerned that the President's failure to fulfill his promises may suppress voter participation not only from gay Democrats, but from our families, friends and allies. In a very real way, this is an effort to ensure that we get-out-the-vote in 2010, 2012 and beyond.
But if you don’t give money to the DNC, won’t that help elect Republicans who are even worse on gay issues, and other issues Democrats care about?
We are not calling for a boycott of donations to the DNC. We are simply calling for a pause until the party follows through on its campaign promise to repeal DADT and DOMA, and pass ENDA. The party will get the same donations it would have gotten, when the promises are kept. The Democrats could choose to make good on their promise today. And by doing so, they will only further motivate the Democratic base to again turn out for the next election, a decidedly good thing.
You have to admit, gay rights is controversial – wouldn’t it be political suicide for Democrats to push gay rights?
Democrats should not have promised to support gay civil rights rights in exchange for our votes if they never intended to keep the promise. If we're not controversial during the campaign, when politicians are happy to accept our votes and our money, we cannot accept being labeled controversial after our candidates win. We kept our part of the bargain, we voted for Barack Obama and a Democratic Congress. It’s entirely reasonable for us to ask our elected officials to keep their part of the bargain too.
What's more, gay rights are not controversial. Americans favor allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve in the military by a margin of 69% - 26%. By a margin of 57% - 37%, "A clear majority of Americans (57%) favors allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into legal agreements with each other that would give them many of the same rights as married couples." That can't happen if DOMA is the law. And in fact, if these civil rights promises were controversial, they would have hurt candidate Obama at the polls. But, he proudly and loudly proclaimed his support for LGBT equality, and he won.
No matter how disappointed you are, aren’t Democrats still better than Republicans?
The Republican party is terrible on gay issues. That doesn’t excuse the Democratic party breaking specific promises to the gay community made in exchange for our votes. We didn’t break our promise at the ballot box, the Democrats shouldn’t break theirs after we helped put them into office.
President Obama has only been in office less than a year, why the rush?
In less than a year, serious damage has already been done to the President’s commitments to the gay community. The problem isn’t only that he hasn’t been quick enough to fulfill his promises, it’s that he has actually backtracked on his promises and hurt the cause of civil rights and our community, as detailed above.
But aren’t there bigger priorities than gay rights for the Democrats to deal with, like health care and the economy?
Would President Obama, the DNC and the Congress tell other minorities that their civil rights aren't important? The suggestion is that Democrats have more important things on the table. When won't Democrats have more important priorities than the civil rights of gays and lesbians? Will there ever be a day, a year, an administration, when the President and the Congress won't have serious crises to deal with? Suggesting that gay Americans and their friends and families wait until the President and Congress have nothing else to do is not only insulting, it's a recipe for never. And regardless, we trust that this President, unlike the previous, can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Who is behind this effort?
John Aravosis and Joe Sudbay, two longtime political operatives in Washington, DC, and the editors of AMERICAblog.com. AMERICAblog has raised over $300,000 for Democratic candidates and progressive causes, including nearly $50,000 for then-candidate Barack Obama, supported by AMERICAblog early in the primaries. The boycott is cosponsored by Daily Kos, Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake, Dan Savage, Michelangelo Signorile, David Mixner, Andy Towle and Michael Goff of Towle Road, Paul Sousa (Founder of Equal Rep in Boston), Pam Spaulding, Robin Tyler (ED of the Equality Campaign, Inc.), Bil Browning for the Bilerico Project, and soon others.
You can contact us at: dncboycott@gmail.com
How can I help?
Sign the pledge, tell your friends about this campaign, read the blog, and stay tuned for updates and action alerts on how you help make sure that the President, the Congress and the Democratic party keep their promises to the LGBT community, our families, our friends and our allies.
A Joke and a Farce
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Awakening
was the day I saw
and knew I saw
all things in God
and God in all things.
- Mechthild of Magdeburg
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
The Peace of God
Nothing unreal exists.
Herein lies the peace of God.
- A Course in Miracles


