08 May 2009

Please Veto! (A.K.A. Huelskamp is a Tool!)

 veto.jpg The healthcare of Kansas women is once again imperiled by men with an agenda.  I wish I could say I’m surprised, but I’m really not.  Well – I’m not surprised by the action, so much as the lack of rationality displayed by the supporters. 

State Senator Tim Huelskamp again brought an amendment to the budget that defunds Planned Parenthood.  This time instead of being removed in committee, it is in the final bill that our new (and somewhat questionable) Governor will be signing.  The only hope now is that Governor Parkinson realizes the damage this will do Kansas women.

Huelskamp’s reasoning for offering this amendment was clear, Planned Parenthood provides abortion services (at limited clinics and as far as I know only one in the state) and being the good little zealot he is – he doesn’t want a dime of state money going to the big, evil Planned Parenthood.  What seems to be lost on Sen. Huelskamp is that funding from the state is used for education services only.  I’m sure Sen. Huelskamp is a member of the abstinence-only crowd, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. 

If Governor Parkinson doesn’t veto this bill – Kansas will become the 7th state to defund Planned Parenthood.  Wow, we should be so proud (yes that was sarcasm). 

At times of economic hardship family planning services become even more vital.  Studies have shown a strong uptick in abortion rates at times of economic struggle – how is this so hard to understand?  We are having a severe downturn in our state and they pick now to defund family planning education?  If they are as anti-abortion as they claim, they should be increasing funds for family planning.

“I am excited that both chambers of the Kansas Legislature have approved my amendment to remove taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood. With Kansas facing a budget crunch, this would be a big victory for the taxpayers," he told LifeNews.com.

Senator Huelskamp obviously doesn’t understand (or is willfully ignoring) is that unwanted pregnancies cost the taxpayers of Kansas way more than funding education services at Planned Parenthood.

I strongly urge my Kansas readers to reach out to Governor Parkinson and urge him to veto.

It is disgraceful that one man’s vendetta against women’s reproductive freedom has gotten this far.


Share/Save/Bookmark

07 May 2009

Beating a Dead Horse?

I realize that I tend to talk a lot about healthcare on this blog – I really feel like it’s one of the most important issues facing our nation.  I also realize I’m preaching to the choir for most of you – so thanks for humoring me.  LOL

Senators Baucus and Grassley held committee hearings on Tuesday.  On the agenda was “Expanding Health Care Coverage”.

From Senator Baucus’s prepared statement: (Emphasis Added)

First, the U.S. is the only developed country without health coverage for all of its citizens.  Approximately 87 million people – one in three Americans – went without health insurance for some period during 2007 and 2008.  And the situation is only getting worse.

Second, the economic climate has caused even more people to become uninsured.  According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, for every one percent increase in the unemployment rate, Medicaid and CHIP enrollment increases by one million.  And the number of uninsured Americans increases by one point one million.

In today’s economy, that means a lot of folks are affected.  In March 2009, the unemployment rate rose to eight point one percent.  According to the Center of American Progress, 14,000 more people lose their health insurance coverage every day.

Third, why is covering all Americans so critical?  It is because people without health coverage generally experience poorer health and worse health outcomes than those who are insured.  The Urban Institute reports that 22,000 uninsured adults die prematurely every year because they lack access to care.

In addition to the uninsured, another 25 million Americans are “underinsured”.  They don’t have enough coverage to keep their medical bills manageable.  Despite their insurance coverage, medical debt keeps these Americans from feeding their families, paying their rent, or heating their homes.”

From that statement – it would seem that Senator Baucus “gets it”.  Unfortunately, the Senator chose to ignore the possibility of a single payer system.  He and Senator Grassley refused to allow a representative of a single payer system a seat on their panel. Several organizations decided to protest this “oversight”, resulting in a minor disruption of the events.

The most popular argument against government sponsored single payer healthcare is “I don’t want the government choosing my doctor!”  How exactly is this different that the current insurance system?  Doctors credential themselves with insurances in order to be “in network” – if the doctor you “choose” is not in network your benefit is severely reduced.  The best example would be an employer provided health care plan that locks you into a Catholic hospital system.  Your access to reproductive healthcare (hysterectomy, vasectomy, tubal ligation, etc.) is reduced because of this “choice”.  

Of course single payer detractors never mention that.


Share/Save/Bookmark

05 May 2009

Sick and Tired

I really don't even know where to start this post.  I'm a big ball of frustration and that doesn't lend itself well to eloquent writing, but well here goes.

When will our elected officials get it?  While we all expect our Government to accomplish things, if it requires completely abandoning the principles that got you elected - it probably shouldn't be done.

For example: Healthcare.  Tomorrow (well actually later today) there will be hearings on the hill regarding our healthcare crisis.  Unless the line up has changed - single payer healthcare will not be represented.  Why?  Because it isn't popular with politicians that line their pockets with insurance money.  (Ben Nelson - you are a tool!)

For those that don't get it:

1) A lot of people cannot afford the astronomical premiums charged by the insurance companies.

2) Not everyone's employer assists them with healthcare costs. (In fact more and more companies are not offering group coverage)

3) Most insured people do not understand their policies and will be in for a rude surprise, should they actually have to use it.

4) If you have a pre-existing condition - you are probably S.O.L. in finding your own coverage.

The people of this country NEED help!  It is the responsibility of our elected officials to work for US - not for their re-election or for their next campaign donation.

Our Congresspeople do not understand the issue as it effects average Americans.  

How many of them are worried about paying for food because they need to get a prescription filled?  
How many of them have missed a check up because they just didn't have the money/coverage? How many of them are one illness away from losing everything?  

Not a single one.


Share/Save/Bookmark

30 April 2009

H1N1...A Wake Up Call


Picture courtesy of Whack'd.com

While I will not pretend to be an H1N1 (Swine Flu) alarmist, I must admit the possibility of a virus of unknown (at least officially) origin bothers me a bit.  Otherwise healthy people dropping dead from a flu virus is odd - so while not panicked I am concerned.

However, I am more troubled by the fact that cases in the U.S. are probably greatly under-reported.  Not because of a lack of testing equipment, but because of an inadequate healthcare system.  

How many people are suffering but will never see a doctor and be counted?  
How many people could be saved if we had universal health care?  
How many infected will forgo Tamiflu because they need to buy food? 
How many people will go unvaccinated because they have no healthcare coverage?  

Obviously, this is an exercise in "what if", but we are kind of in that type of situation.  While the number of infected is relatively low, we are being warned that a pandemic is imminent.  

Why don't we the people have access to all the weapons we need to fight?

President Obama has been quoted as saying that universal health care would be his preference if we were building a system from scratch.  I would humbly submit to my President that sometimes you have to cut your losses and raze the house.  Our system is inherently corrupt (see Donald Rumsfeld's profits off of the SARS scare if you don't believe me), it rewards greed and that is not healthy for those of us subjected to it.

I have mentioned in previous posts my wish that our Congresspeople relinquish their tax-payer funded healthcare, if they feel that we do not deserve the same.  I stand by that demand.  If they feel that their constituents should face a pandemic on their own - well then they should be down in the trenches with us.  

Share/Save/Bookmark

26 April 2009

An Answer...


I have been trying to figure out a way to write this, so that I don't alienate or offend anyone, well anymore than I usually do...

In regards to the torture argument, I have heard two things repeatedly.  1) It worked, 2) There are bad people and we have to protect ourselves.

For the first argument,  there is little evidence to say that "torture" worked in any substantive way.  Maybe we got a couple names, but I really haven't seen evidence of anything more than that.  Now there was a lot of bogus information extracted - which is the real problem with these illegal tactics.  Our own military warned the powers that be against torture, they were also concerned that it would increase the chance of our soldiers experiencing poor treatment if captured.
"The unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel," says the document, an unsigned two-page attachment to a memo by the military's Joint Personnel Recovery Agency."
For the second argument, it's a bit more difficult.  Yes, there are people that would love to see the American way of life damaged - there always have been.  That's one of the prices we pay for being a superpower.  
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin
It's important not to forget that a number of the people that were subjected to these "enhanced interrogation techniques" or to the degradation of Abu Ghraib were nobodies, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or were sold out by some greedy warlord.  

Consider this:
Someone you know does something bad - lets say they are a drug smuggler.  Would you support the Federal government knocking down your door, throwing a hood over your head and sending you half a world a way so that they can "extract" information from you?  Now imagine that you repeatedly tell them that you don't know where the person is or what they do - you haven't seen them in years.  They tell you they have witnesses that you have been seen with this person.  They decide that the only way to get the information they need will be to use harsher techniques - they keep you awake for days, they strip you of your clothes and your dignity, they keep you in a small, cramped box, then they strap you to a board and pretend to drown you.

Is this right?  Is this what you would want done to you or your family?  Is that American?  I honestly think that very few Americans would wish this on any of their neighbors - so why do we have so little regard for those around the world?

When I was little, my mom always used to tell me "Two wrongs, don't make a right".  I think the Government and the American people could use a refresher on that lesson.

Share/Save/Bookmark

23 April 2009

No Excuses

Today in defense of both her father and the techniques outlined in the "torture memos", Liz Cheney said something rather interesting:
CHENEY: Everything that was done in this program, as has been laid out and described before, are tactics that our own people go through in SERE training.


Thanks to Thinkprogess.org for the video!

SERE is an acronym for Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape.  The program was developed as a way to prepare our soldiers for the possibility of capture.  Soldiers are subjected to simulated interrogations to prepare them for what could happen.  This includes the use of questionable and torturous techniques - so that our soldiers are prepared for what the "bad guys" do.  

So let me spell this out for Ms. Cheney - if you are going to say that we are not "bad guys" then we can not be seen doing in anger what the "bad guys do".  Got it?  

How hard is that concept for the Hannitys, O'Reillys, Limbaughs, Becks, Scarboroughs to understand?  Do they have such a low opinion of our nation that they feel this isn't something to be ashamed of?  Or are they so scared that something might happen to them or their gated communities that they are blind with fear, rage and hatred?  Or is it that they are just perverse fratboys that get off on the idea of humiliating, breaking down and hurting another human?  

These memos illustrate a battle for the soul of our nation.  

Either you believe that we must rise above the tactics of madmen and be what we say we are.  
Or you feel that the ends justify the means, no matter how barbaric.

Which side are you on?







Share/Save/Bookmark

22 April 2009

Shep Smith...a voice of reason

Shep Smith gave a rather passionate response to the possibility of our nation torturing people, while he straddled the fence a bit - his reasoning is correct.  You can not claim the moral high ground, while wallowing in the gutter.



Here's a link to an uncensored Shep Smith:  NSFW, but EXCELLENT! (it's the 2nd video)

Share/Save/Bookmark