Obamacare is good for Americans…Here’s why – Part 2

Mitt Romney on Obamacare

In Part 1 of this report, we covered some statistics, a few of the basic issues under contention in Obamacare, and touched on Medicare.  Also included in that post are some excellent links with comprehensive understanding of the facts in this massive reform of health care.  It only seems appropriate that, after the pros and cons of the legislation, there is a need to know what’s in the bill.  It is clear this is a problem when 78% indicated knowing only a little about the law.

First, how much will it cost?  Answer: $940 billion over 10 years.  What about the deficit?  According to the Congressional Budget Office, it will be reduced over a 10-year period by $143 billion, which is more than their first estimate, and there is another $1.2 trillion reduction in the second 10 years.  Individual mandate: Starting in 2014, all Americans must buy health insurance or face a $695 annual fine.  As reported yesterday, this would only be between 1 and 2%.

Coverage would be extended to 32 million individuals in the U.S. who do not have health insurance.  There will be state health insurance exchanges for consumers and business making it more affordable.  There are subsidies for those making between 100 and 400% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), which is $22,050.  There will be a new 3.8% Medicare Payroll tax on investment income; families with income of $250,000, $200,000 for individuals.

Starting in 2018, an excise tax on insurance companies of 40% on high cost income plans ($27,500 for families, $10,200 individuals).  Dental and vision plans are exempt.  And there is a 10% excise tax on indoor tanning salons.  Interesting.  Medicare expands to include 133% of the federal poverty level which is $29,327 for a family of four.  Illegal immigrants are not eligible for Medicaid.  It isn’t clear yet how the Latino community views the latter in term of immigration reform.

By 2014, insurance companies will not be allowed to deny coverage to adults for preexisting conditions.  Children are already covered.  No federal funds can be used to pay for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or health of the mother.  Illegal immigrants will not be allowed to purchase health insurance in exchanges, even if they used their own money.  There are more points in the plan and you can see them by going to a CBS News report, here.

So what’s the baaaad in Obamacare?  I looked at several sites with this kind of information and settled on Spectator.org because it was adamant that “If not struck down, it must be repealed.”  I figured this should provide some interesting insight into the opposition.  They leap into the battle with the question of whether they can force us to buy “broccoli” if they can make us purchase health insurance.  I kind of like broccoli so don’t have a problem with that.  Stupid!

On a more sane level, Spector proclaims: it is legislation-in-haste-repent-at-leisure mentality.  Dem. Nancy Pelosi did say, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it."  There is no impartiality in the bill simply because it is 2,700 pages long and riddled with empirical language.  It takes the decision-making process out of buying health insurance and leaves it to bureaucrats.  Quoting a study, half of employers plan to drop health insurance in 2014.



Medicaid at work



The law will increase Medicaid enrollment by an estimated 24 million new beneficiaries by 2015.  Now I find it hard to believe that a country that is built on individual rights not doing everything it can to help the needy.  And that can be done with a combination of new taxes on the wealthy and eliminating unnecessary federal spending designed simply to get the politicians reelected. 

Anyway, some of these folks are in their position due to economic conditions for which they are not responsible.  Like a financial melt-down that resulted in a wave of home foreclosures that is still going on.

NEXT: Seniors against Obamacare, what went wrong and a wrap up.

Obamacare is good for Americans…Here’s why

But first some statistics that should energize both sides of the issue leading up to the forthcoming Supreme Court decision.  24% want to keep the entire law, 27% want to get rid of the mandate and keep the rest of the law, and 41% want to dump the entire law.  This would indicate that the mandate to buy insurance is the problem and without it a majority, or 51%, like what they see. 

The question arises, why should those with insurance pay for those who elect not to have it?

And then there is another figure that might change the mind of that 27% that want to get rid of the mandate.  The President’s health Care Law is patterned somewhat after the one Mitt Romney passed when he was governor of Massachusetts.  Only about 1% of the state’s residents had to pay a penalty for not taking insurance. 

The nonprofit policy think tank Urban Institute predicts that only around 2% will have to pay under the federal health reform law.

Of those uninsured, millions will jump at the right to get insurance now with pre-existing conditions.  For those who still don’t have health insurance, many will avoid the mandate’s penalty due to financial hardship or religious exemptions, and those earning too little to pay income tax can’t be penalized.  Most of the rest, except for that one or two percent, already have health insurance.  These are the facts that the GOP ignores and doesn’t want the public to know.

Some think Justices’ decisions will be based on personal beliefs, others strictly on the law.  Another interesting figure, 37% think the law went too far while 27% feel it didn’t go far enough, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll released on June 7.  A majority of those polled claim to know a little about the law with only 28% who know a lot.  Obviously it is that 78% who haven’t taken the time to understand what many criticize that is the problem.



Obama signing health care bill



I decided to do some fact checking and found The Fact Checker from the Washington Post that led me to three other sites: Factcheck.org; PolitiFact.com; and an examination by Kaiser Health News.  I recommend a look at all four sites.  Fact Checker cites some of the major points, starting with whether or not Obamacare is a government takeover of the health care system.  Absolutely not and PolitiFact labeled this the “lie of the year.”

There are many provisions that will (must be) controlled by the feds but the core of the health system will remain in the hands of the existing private insurance market. 

Next, will Medicare benefits be cut as well as payments to doctors?  The answer is that Medicare spending will continue to increase but at a slower rate.  With Medicare one of the fastest growing parts of the budget, “the health bill will reduce projected Medicare spending by $575 billion over ten years, primarily by reducing projected fees to hospitals and other providers and by reducing payments to private Medicare Advantage insurance plans.”

Repealing the bill will increase the deficit is technically true.  But Democrats should not be laboring over this aspect of the law since its original intention was not to reduce the deficit; rather to reduce the number of uninsured Americans.  And this has happened with 6.6 million young adults signing up for coverage under their parents’ plan.  This will be a welcome addition to the futures of recent college graduates who are already starting out in a tough work environment.

NEXT: What’s in the bill, what’s bad, what went wrong, etc.

Firearms deadly to women in domestic violence

Arizona is famous for its loose gun laws and old-west cowboy culture and it still harbors some of the worst gun violence in the country.  Unfortunately this also includes domestic violence cases, the most recent of which starred former racist and neo-Nazi J.T. Ready, who gunned down 4 members of his family including an infant in Chandler, AZ, a suburb of Phoenix.  He then took his own life. 

Already in Arizona in 2012, 48 have died, 31 or 64.4% of those by guns. 

These numbers are compiled by the Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence who proclaims that there are obvious signs that precede these cases, as reported by USA Today below:

• your partner controls everything.
• your partner calls you names or yells at you.
• your partner shoves, pinches, hits, punches, kicks or otherwise hurts you.
• your partner destroys your belongings.
• your partner threatens to hurt you, the children, or pets."

“Domestic-violence deaths are counted when a partner or other person in the home kills or is killed. An abuser committing a murder-suicide would be considered two deaths; a death is also counted if an abuser is shot during a confrontation with law enforcement,” says AZCADV.  Further, “Battered women who have been threatened or assaulted with a gun — even once — are 20 times as likely than other battered women to be murdered.”  The signs tell the tale.

Nationally, a recent study shows that access to firearms increases the risk of intimate partner homicide more than 5 times compared to those instances where there are no weapons in the house.  Also, those abusers who own guns are more likely to inflict the most severe injuries on their partners.  And nearly two-thirds of all women killed by firearms were killed by an intimate partner. 

Firearms are the most frequently used weapon in intimate partner homicide, more than all other weapons combined.

These are heavy figures, especially when you stop to consider that in 1994 the Gun Control Act was amended to prohibit anyone subject to a domestic violence protective order from possessing a firearm.  In 1996, the Lautenberg Amendment was added prohibiting anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence from possessing a firearm.  Fatal incidents do have a pattern, says Carl Mangold, a licensed social worker commenting in the following:

A man becomes violent, and blames the victim. She tries to resist, and his abuse escalates. She attempts to end the relationship, and he punishes her for her defiance.

Neil Websdale, a Northern Arizona U. criminology and criminal-justice professor refers to the above warning signs while adding others such as being over-possessive of the partner and drinking heavily.  Websdale says, "It's about manhood and failing to live up to prescriptions of modern-day masculinity."  This mirrors my contention that gun bubbas have the hots for the concealed carry law because it requires having a weapon at their side to make them feel like a man.

Connie Phillips, director of the Phoenix Sojourner Center, a domestic-violence shelter for women, says a gun is a powerful weapon as much for its ability to intimidate as to kill.  “You don't even have to point it at her.”  He only has to clean it in front of her, put it on the bedside nightstand as she sleeps, or carry it on his hip to make a point. 

In other words, firearms are a threat to women in case of domestic violence, so why is it so easy for these people to regain their gun rights after an episode?

More on this later.

Are the wackos against womens’ rights the same as those against gun control?

Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, the do-nothing guy we will soon be rid of, told reporters recently that the equal-pay bill, sponsored by the Democrats to prevent pay discrimination against females, will be blocked by Republicans.  Kyl, who was probably chosen to make the announcement because he has decided not to run again, says the bill is “…politically inspired and would reward trial lawyers at the expense of employers.”  Always…business over the consumer.

This kind of thinking would employ the same warped mind that would rather see more guns on the streets in the hands of anyone who wants them.  Since Kyl is speaking for Republicans in general, I guess I’ve answered my own question.  It is definitely the same breed, and they are as dangerous in this matter as they are on weapons. 

It is a fact that in the 2008 presidential election, women voted 56 percent to 42 percent for Barack Obama over John McCain?  This division was almost even in the 2010 election but at that time there was no president to vote for.  And Congress was and still is a completely incompetent gang of self-centered losers that would make it tough for anyone to decide who to vote for. 

But this is a presidential election coming up in November and GOP apparent nominee Mitt Romney has certainly not endeared himself to the ladies.  Republicans may even think at this point that they have lost the female vote.

In the latest USA Today/Gallup poll, the President leads Romney by 18 points in the womens’ vote.  Obama leads by 20 points in the most recent Pew Research poll.  I doubt seriously if this support is all due to Barack Obama’s support of womens’ rights, but the Democratic Party, although it has strayed from its liberal roots, is still far more in the corner of equality than the GOP and still favors the individual’s rights over business. 

It was a shocker, at least for me, when Maine Republican senator Olympia Snowe called the Democrats bill, "regrettable" and an "overreach." 

The legislation was designed to “…close loopholes in the 1963 Equal Pay Act, would require employers to prove that differences in pay were related to job performance, not gender; would prevent employers from forbidding employees from sharing salary information with each other; and would allow women who believe they were discriminated against to sue for damages.  Regardless of the outcome, the Dems will definitely make gains with its proposal.

For years I have wondered why any self respecting male could justify making more money than a female in the exact same position.  Same goes for any promotions that are given based on gender.  Since 1917, when Representative Jeannette Rankin of Montana became the first woman to serve in Congress, many more have served but currently in the 112th Congress, in the House, there are currently 362 men 76 women. In the Senate, 17 women and 83 men.

The first woman was actually appointed to the Senate by Georgia's Democratic Governor Thomas Hardwick in 1922.  After that, women weren’t elected in number to the Senate until 1992; that’s 70 years.  This supposedly august body has always been identified as a haven for the good old boys.  It is terminology like this that harkens over to the bubbas of the gun rights movement whose masculinity is challenged if they can’t walk around with a gun in their pocket.

Studies have found that men are much more fickle than women when it comes to voting, and have a decision making process that is more in keeping with pragmatism and what’s best for the country.  On the other hand, men tend to side with “bubba” issues, certainly favoring big business over the ladies.  And many vote with their guns, probably using the muzzle to actually push the voting machine lever.  It is an NRA mandate to defeat Obama in November.

Currently on the electoral map, President Obama has cinched 247 votes to Romney’s 206, on the way to 270 to win.  Leaning Obama are another 51 which along with the 247 is a win.  Leaning Romney is another 47 votes which brings his total to 253, 17 short.  The obvious key to the election are the remaining 85 toss up votes which include the states of Ohio and Florida, both of which are in the 12 swing states. 

The female vote is critical in November, as are the Independents and Latinos.  Barack Obama carried independents by an eight-point margin in the 2008 exit poll, but the GOP carried them by a 19-point margin in the 2010 midterms.  Well, at least two out of three in President Obama’s corner isn’t bad odds.

All you gun worshippers out there…take note

Yes, I now the FBI has just released the preliminary report from 2011 re. annual crime.  Yes I know there is a 4 percent decrease in the number of violent crimes that year compared to 2010.  Included in the violent crime category are murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.  I also note that murder is down only 1.9 percent compared to the other three major groups in that category of forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault, all three down 4 percent.

You gunzels can interpret that any way you want to but I see it as an indication that there just might still be a problem with murders by guns.  The National Rifle Assn. (NRA) hangs its hat, and its reputation, on what might be considered less than significant percent decreases when in the United states in 2009 (latest year) there were 3.98 gun homicides per 100,000 population.  Now that’s significant.

Compared to Canada with stricter gun laws which is only 0.5.  The United Kingdom, also more stringent gun laws, at only 0.1.  How about Spain where residents are not allowed to own automatic weapons, must register firearms, at 0.18.  OK, you say Sweden has less restrictive gun laws and it is only 0.19.  But when you take a closer look at Sweden’s laws, assault weapons aren’t allowed, background checks and training are required and concealed carry is restricted.

According to GunPolicy.org and the FBI, there were 12,996 total murders in 2010, 8,775 or 67.5 percent that were committed by total firearms, and 6009 or 46.2 percent using handguns.  Something else that we know is the fact that firearm ownership in the U.S. is 88.8 per 100,000 population.  That’s compelling numbers when just two other countries come up to only half that and most are from the tens to thirties, many even less.  We are a gun-loving nation.

I have even seen some figures that indicate that murders will total 14,000 in 2011 which puts that 1.9 decrease above in question.  I started writing about gun violence in the Nasty Jack Blog in October of 2011, and since then the gun culture has gotten more freaky by the month.  In March I started documenting monthly shootings and deaths, adding number of wounded in May.  Some figures concentrate on those killed by guns but equally important are those injured.

There were 49 shootings in March producing 48 gun deaths.  That increased to 69 shootings in April (40.8%) with 66 deaths (37.5%).  Then May exploded with 90 shootings increasing another 30.4% over April, and 69 dead just 3 over the prior month, 131 wounded.  So far in calculations from March to April there is an 83.7% increase in shootings and a 43.8% increase in those dead from gunshots.  Already the file on June is growing to proportions equal or higher than May.

You have to understand that of the 131 wounded in May, some had severe, even life threatening injuries so some may have died.  The question, of course, is whether this is a trend that will continue and if so, will the gun nuts come around to agree on some kind of gun control, and will those others completely oblivious of the gun violence taking place finally wake up?  Nothing is going to happen in Washington until November, and I’m doubtful even after that.

Arizona lunatics and other politicians

The time has come to examine the latest lunacies coming from the politics of the state of Arizona.  Especially if you live right in the middle of it and experience the madness on a daily, sometime hourly, basis.  We’ve had our share of scandals lately—actually they were in full force when I moved to the state over 20 years ago—but GOP state politicians and many others in the conservative culture continue on their merry way, completely oblivious.



Jan Brewer finger-pointing Pres. Obama

 Some of the most infamous in the last few decades were the Keating Five, AzScam and the alt-fuels fiasco.  I’ll let you look these up individually because it will provide some excellent local color into the state that is known for its wondrous Grand Canyon and beautiful deserts, along with neo-Nazi J.T. Ready who killed 4 in his family plus himself recently, another racist and illegal immigrant hater Russell Pearce, and a completely incompetent Gov. Jan Brewer.

That’s just for starters.  USA Today did documentation recently of the “streak of scandals,” as they put it, that continue in Arizona.  The key word here is “continue” because it is a sure-fire thing that it will only escalate in the future if we don’t get rid of the Republican radicals in this state, starting at the top with the governor.  And here’s the understatement of the year by the newspaper: “Arizona has never been known for squeaky-clean politics.”  WOW! 

The Arizona Tea Party favorite is the Obama birther issue, which now has support again from the wacko Donald Trump.  At the same time the state legislature is pushing a bill to require BC certification, not for Mitt Romney, but just for Barack Obama, as orchestrated by Sec. of State Ken Bennett.  Of course Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, demanding some of the limelight, even sent volunteers and one of his deputies to Hawaii for verification just for TPers.



AZ Sen. Lori Klein waving gun in reporter's face in Senate

Some guy in the Arizona Republic “letters” section recently said that if we progressives don’t like it here, go to California.  I moved to Arizona from that state, primarily due to L.A.’s gang war problems.  Little did I know that the gun culture here was designed to put more weapons on the street in the hands of anybody who wanted them.  I happen to love the state of Arizona and some time ago decided to be a part of the change that will rid the state of these fanatics.

Back to the scandals, Arpaio accused by the feds of discrimination against immigrants, as well as financial irregularities in his department.  Arizona Sheriff Paul Babeu from Pinal County, accused of violations of the Hatch Act, and after outing as a gay, accused of threatening deportation of his Mexican boyfriend if he didn’t keep quiet.  Former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas and his deputy Lisa Aubuchon, were disbarred in April for ethical misconduct.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio rags on Obama birther issue:

Still just getting started.  Democratic State Rep.s Ben Arredondo and Richard Miranda took their turn in the barrel with the former indicted on federal charges of bribery, mail fraud, extortion and lying, while the latter quit the Legislature this year before pleading guilty to federal felony wire fraud and attempted tax evasion charges.  Historian Jack August says, "The decibel level of what's happened recently is unprecedented in the history of Arizona."

In 1988, the impeachment and removal from the governor’s office of Ed Mecham who violated campaign finance laws and was caught lending $80,000 of public money to a car dealership he owned and ran before becoming governor.  And there was the 1997 criminal trial conviction of Fife Symington who resigned as governor just before being impeached.  Former Sen. Dennis DeConcini, current Sen. John McCain were involved in the Charles Keating financial scandal.

Currently, Arizona Atty. General Tom Horne is under investigation by the Justice Dept. “for alleged illegal coordination with an independent third-party group during his 2010 election campaign.”  You would think the man running for the state’s highest legal post would know the law.  Bruce Merrill, a veteran pollster and professor emeritus at Arizona State U. said: "Outside of Arizona, we certainly do have this image of instability and a kind of weirdness." 

And although the scandal-mongering has been going on for decades, has the recent gang of incompetent conservative fanatics raised the bar?  Yes, says former Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley, a Republican, who says that, “concerns about public corruption are greater today than at any time during his career.”  That’s another conservative speaking, although you wouldn’t put him in the same category as the wingnuts running the state today.

On top of everything else comes the Fiesta Bowl scandal that was directly related to Arizona state politicians.  In 2010 it was discovered that bowl CEO John Junker spent $4 million since 2000 to curry favor from BCS bigwigs and elected officials, guys like former State Senator Russell Pearce who was recalled from office for his fanatical views and other shenanigans.  Junker was fired and there now seems to be a return to normalcy in Arizona’s biggest sporting event.

There’s more which you can see in the USA Today article.  A Southern California psychologist and assistant professor of management and organization at the University of Southern California's Marshall School of Business, Jen Overbeck, commented:

“People appear to be more willing to commit ethical transgressions if they feel that it is in service of some higher purpose.  I'm not saying that they have good intentions. It's just how people justify to themselves what the rest of us see as some pretty heinous unethical actions."

The question here is how do the people of Arizona justify returning these people to office year after year, as well as electing new clones just like them?  If ever a progressive sweep was necessary it is in the Arizona November elections.

NRA ramps up fear mongering machine at Chicago convention

Wayne LaPierre at CPAC

The National Rifle Assn. (NRA) took its, “Let’s scare hell out of our somewhat daft members so we can squeeze more money from them” act to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) that was held in Chicago last Friday.  It is interesting that the NRA’s head lunatic, CEO Wayne LaPierre, should choose this location to rant and rave over how President Obama and other progressives want to take away his precious guns.  They don’t.

But current Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel thinks Chicago should have a gun registry, an idea that is as old as the senior Richard J. Daley’s administration in the 1960s.  A gun registration law was considered by the state in 1965 and Daley called for the state legislature to pass it again in 1966, saying, "There can be no question that the great increase in juvenile crime has been accompanied by a similar increase in the possession of guns."  It was voted down.

Richard J. Daley

Senior Daley’s son, Richard M. Daley, in spite of the Supreme Court’s ruling in McDonald v. Chicago, which struck down the city’s ban on handguns, remained solidly in favor of somehow controlling gun ownership in the city.  The younger Daley was a part of New York Mayor Richard Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns and hosted their convention in October of 2006 in Chicago.  I bring this all up because I wonder what Richard J. would have thought of LaPierre?

My gut tells me that the senior Daley would have had some choice words for the head gun nut, while organizing his precinct captains, possibly even the Chicago police force, to insure “minimum” interruptions at the conference site.  I can say this because I lived in Chicago during the Mayor’s regime. 

Josh Horwitz, Exec. Dir., Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), writes in the Huff Post, “The NRA is not only a sponsor of the conference, but also hosting a panel entitled, ‘Defending Self-Defense: The Liberal's Shadow War on Second Amendment.’”  George Zimmerman’s killing of Trayvon Martin in Florida, and the subsequent uproar over the stupid Stand Your Ground Law, has provided the NRA with all the ingredients necessary to perpetuate its fear mongering machine.   

Horwitz points out how ridiculous the NRA tirade is over maintaining its gun rights by pointing out that, even though the Democrats—they’re supposed to be for some kind of gun control—control the White House and the Senate, the gun worshippers have gotten just about anything they wanted in the last several years.  But you can’t blame it all on the progressives with a GOP that has been anti-Obama on every issue the President has presented in the last three years.

CSGV video of LaPierre bellowing at CPAC:

Wayne LaPierre, the head parasite at the NRA who makes $970,300 annually by acting like a maniac over gun rights, and his overpaid minions work laboriously to protect their gold mine and generate more power from the group’s 4.3 million members, most of which don’t have a clue what is really going on at the organization.  LaPierre found a potential cash cow when he took over in 1991 and has milked it ever since to the delight of an often addled membership. 

As former NRA lobbyist, Richard Feldman remarked, "They [aren't] interested in actually solving problems, only in fueling perpetual crisis and controversy. That [is] how they [make] their money."



LaPierre ready
to go into action



LaPierre’s Chicago cry in “The NRA’s Circus of Fear” is, "We have nothing to fear but the absence of fear," designed to muddle the minds of a pathetic bunch of members who cheer at anything this screwball says.  I can see LaPierre now as the circus ringmaster under the big top with his whip commanding all 4.3 million members to jump through the hoop.  They do, and the NRA’s master of ceremonies walks away with that normal smug, arrogant look on his face.

Horwitz closes with, “The NRA's ‘Circus of Fear’ depends on misinformation and myths to generate attacks on politicians who have the gall to address the gun violence that continues to destroy families and communities every day in America.”  That’s right.  The NRA doesn’t have the balls to negotiate, because this would obviously lead to facts that would completely undermine what this gang of zealots has been spewing out for years.  Propaganda and lies.

Josh Horwitz’s CSGV also provides the following site for anyone wishing to take a closer look at the motivations and records on a host of issues with guns being only one: MeetTheNRA.org.

48 million people without health insurance in the U.S. spells disaster

The Supreme Court will decide this month just what to do with President Obama’s health care reform law.  Predictions range from a complete repeal to dropping certain parts, to simply a modification.  I have talked to several people, including doctors and other health care professionals, and the general consensus is that the medical community doesn’t like the bill.  But when pressing these folks further on specifics, I question if some of them really understand the law.

At the end of May, a CBS/New York Times poll asked some pointed questions about Obama’s health care reform.  First, do you approve?  34% do, 48% don’t.  Another, how should the Supreme Court rule?  24% keep entire law, 27% overturn mandate (must buy insurance) but keep rest of law, 41% overturn entire law.  55% of respondents feel that political positions will play a part in justices’ decisions compared to 32% who think decisions will be decided on a legal basis.

37% think the health care bill went too far; 27% not far enough; 25% about right.  So in this category we have a total of 52% that either wanted more law or thought it was just right.  That sort of flies in the face of the above figure indicating an approval rate of only 34%.  It would seem that the undetermined figure of 18% who don’t approve or disapprove, might lean toward approval.  28% claim knowing a lot about the law and 62% of them disapprove, 58% strongly.

Meanwhile, back at the emergency room, 26% of the U.S. population had a health insurance gap in 2011.  That’s 48 million warm bodies that probably went without preventive care, and ended up in the ER when there was an emergency or less in some cases.  This study, the Commonwealth Fund Health Insurance Tracking Survey of U.S. Adults, also found that factors impacting this problem were losses or changes in jobs by either the individual or his or her spouse.

Out of this 48 million, 69% reported being out of a job for a year or longer, 57% two or more years without coverage.  Although I don’t have the figures to back this up, it is clear to me that some of the reasons for so many bankruptcies and home foreclosures could be attributed to medical costs in lieu of insurance.  The savings were drained which resulted in giving up health care coverage, then the other two undesirable options.

Obama explaining his health care law:

The Commonwealth Fund discovered that between 2008 and 2010, 9 million people became uninsured after losing a job, meaning that without employment, health care may become a luxury.  By 2014, and due to the Affordable Care Act, insurance plans can’t charge higher premiums, or drop you for pre-existing conditions.  State insurance exchanges would be available for those who lose their coverage to go.  There would be tax credits and expanded Medicaid.

There are 123.8 emergency room visits each year; 42.4 million are injury related.  That’s 41.4 visits per 100 persons with 13% of the 123.8 million resulting in hospital admission.  The Amaranth Group says that approximately 80% of the 123.8 million ER visits annually are “non-emergent.”  Emergency rooms are already overloaded in some cities, and once the 48 million without health care coverage are without it long enough, things are bound to start going wrong.

Yes, I am proposing a scenario where if even a small percentage of the 48 million start to experience serious medical problems, some probably life-threatening, the system will be unable to handle it.  And many of these people can blame their lost jobs, bankruptcies, foreclosures or a short sale on the insane corporate anti-consumer practices of big business.  Like the financial industry that almost brought this country to the brink of disaster.

But some of these people don’t want to buy health care insurance as the law mandates so what do you do?  Deny them medical services in an emergency?  Why not, it was their prerogative to proceed without insurance?  But we know we wouldn’t, so we’re right back with the same dilemma, meaning there must be some regulation to insure that everyone pays his or her fair share.  Maybe health care reform isn’t at its very best yet with this law, but it’s better than nothing.

China takes on U.S. gun violence as human rights violation

Tiananmen Square standoff

Here we have a country that is known for its severe human rights violations in the past, but all of a sudden China has finally decided to fight back against the United States, which has been one of its staunchest critics.  Most notable was probably the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, which ended in military suppression and a lone man challenging the tanks by standing firm in front of them.  There’s much more and Amnesty International documents it below:

“An estimated 500,000 people are currently enduring punitive detention without charge or trial, and millions are unable to access the legal system to seek redress for their grievances. Harassment, surveillance, house arrest, and imprisonment of human rights defenders are on the rise, and censorship of the Internet and other media has grown. Repression of minority groups, including Tibetans, Uighurs and Mongolians, and of Falun Gong practitioners and Christians who practice their religion outside state-sanctioned churches continues.”

So with a lineup like that, you’re going to come in with your best guns blasting away.  And what does the Chinese government decide to use as the first issue to confront the U.S. with?  Gun violence.  They could have chosen a multitude of arguments like past slavery, treatment of the poor, the anti-immigrant movement.  They picked none of these.  They chose gun violence.  This problem was already obvious to most of the world.  Now it’s official from a world power.

U.S. on China human rights video:

OK.  I can hear the gun bubbas right now question gun violence in China.  To start, China’s population is 1.3 billion; the U.S. 300.8 million.  The latest figures from 2008 show 14,811 gun homicides in China; the U.S. 9,484.  Now that’s 56 percent over the U.S. but then China’s population is 331 percent larger than the U.S.  However, the important number is that the U.S. has 2.98 gun homicides per year, per 100,000 population.  China has 1.1.

China human rights

I don’t care what you think about China; what I care about is the fact that one of the biggest human rights offenders in the world has exposed the stupid American gun culture.  The charges are in response to the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2011 issued by the US State Department on May 24.  You can see a summary and link to the full report here.  China report is here.  You’ve heard all of this said before but here it is again…from a foreign nation.

This is verbatim from the China Daily site which is their answer to the report:

“The United States prioritizes the right to keep and bear arms over the protection of citizens' lives and personal security and exercises lax firearm possession control, causing rampant gun ownership, the {State Council Information Office of the People's Republic of China} report said.

“The Human Rights Record of the United States in 2011 was released by the State Council Information Office of the People's Republic of China in response to the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2011 issued by the US State Department on May 24.

“According to the online edition of the Foreign Policy on January 9, 2011, the US people hold between 35 percent and 50 percent of the world's civilian-owned guns, with every 100 people having 90 guns, the report said.

“According to a Gallup poll in October 2011, 47 percent of American adults reported that they had a gun. That was an increase of 6 percentage points from a year ago and the highest Gallup had recorded since 1993, the report indicated.

“According to the Foreign Policy report, over 30,000 Americans die every year from gun violence and another 200,000 Americans are estimated to be injured each year due to guns.

“Besides, according to statistics released by the US Department of Justice, among the 480,760 robbery cases and 188,380 rape and sexual assault cases in 2010, the rates of victimization involving firearms were 29 percent and 7 percent, respectively, the report said.

“The report pointed out that the United States has mighty strength in human, financial and material resources to exert effective control over violent crimes. However, its society is chronically suffering from violent crimes, and its citizens' lives, properties and personal security are in lack of proper protection.”



Your average NRA member

 It seems that the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) has now met one of its primary goals.  Shoving guns down the throats of so many Americans that the United States is now infamous for its gun nuts all over the world.  Nations now know us as a bunch of firearm freaks that care only about arrogantly waving our weapons around just to prove that we can; who cares about public safety.  And another disturbing fact, no U.S. answer yet to this report released by China in May.

You will vote in November how your TV tells you to

Well, that’s not all of us.  There are still some thinking individuals out there that will examine the issues and closely evaluate the candidates, then cast their votes in an intelligent way.  Sure, they also watch the television ads but most of them just laugh off the sheer stupidity of two sides trying to make each other look like idiots, socialists, lovers of money, suckers for the needy, the list goes on and on.  That’s the reason most of us have to go to the trenches for our information. 

The GOP is best at the attack and hate ads, created and nurtured to this day by GWB’s top henchman, Karl Rove.  In his latest, “President Barack Obama wears shades, sings Al Green, dances with Ellen DeGeneres, quaffs a Guinness, calls hip-hop megastar Kanye West a ‘jackass,’ and "slow jams the news with Jimmy Fallon.” He is being portrayed as a “rock star,” according to Oliver Knox of Yahoo News.  A dangerous point being made is that popularity is bad.

My headline is based on an article on CNN by Julian Zelizer, “How political ads can elect a president,” that illustrates the issue by documenting some current and past political advertising.  He starts with Rove’s American Crossroads group in an ad claiming that President Obama has “failed to help American families.”  Although the fact that the President hasn’t been able to help these folks is true, the blame lies entirely with Republicans that block everything he does.

You might remember Roger Ailes, Richard Nixon’s 1968 campaign consultant who said, “Television is no gimmick, and nobody will ever be elected to major office again without presenting themselves well on it."  Nixon didn’t and he lost the election to John F. Kennedy by 84 electoral votes.  It was Dwight Eisenhower, who Nixon served with as VP, who took the advice of Rosser Reeves who thought it the best way to reach the voters.  He was right.



President Obama



On the other hand, Democrat Adlai Stevenson, a statesman, not a politician, said, "The idea that you can merchandise candidates for high office like breakfast cereal is the ultimate indignity to the democratic process." Eisenhower won that election and the process of “merchandising” a candidate was here to stay.  What is so pathetic is the fact that treating candidates like a commodity has taken away the public’s ability to know just what they stand for…only against.

If you want to see what the old political ads on television looked like, Zelizer suggests a site called Living Room Candidate, which lists them from 1952 to 2008.  The latter an election of both parties offering change instead of more of the same.  An African-American President was elected for the first time over an old warhorse that should have quit long ago, Arizona Senator John McCain.  Well what we did get was change but in the form of a divisive GOP against Obama.

Media doesn't believe in transparency of political ads video:

Zelizer illustrates what types of spots will dictate how your decision will be made in voting for President in November.  First there is the “character assassination spot,” designed to show “perceived weakness of their opponent.”  Lyndon Johnson used this in his “Daisy ad” which was supposed to portray Barry Goldwater with his finger on the nuclear button.  It did and Johnson won.  Eisenhower utilized ads like “High Prices” affecting voters at the time.

GOP, the party of NO

In 1972, Richard Nixon used how Democrats would cut the defense budget, thus, weakening the security of the U.S. to beat George McGovern.  Then in 1988 there was George H. W. Bush’s “Willie Horton” ad to show Michael Dukakis was weak on law and order.  Bush won.  As an example of the ludicrousness of these ads, the prison furlough program, involving Willie Horton, wasn’t even signed into law by Dukakis.  But the oblivious bunch didn’t bother to find that out.

Zelizer leaves us with the “I am good and you should elect me” spot.  {My terminology}  He says the candidates boast of either what they have accomplished or what they will accomplish.  Jimmy Carter used this in 1976, Ronald Reagan in 1984, and Barack Obama with his “Change” slogan in 2008.  All three were elected, although some negativity crept in on both sides.  But it was clearly refreshing while it lasted.

The author warns that Obama and Romney must be careful of the spots they run, as well as those run by Super Pacs that seem to have created a life of their own.  The Pacs are almost completely uncontrolled in the money they can raise and the people they get it from, particularly when it comes to identifying amounts and the donors.  And this is where most of the dirt and hate originates from.  It’ll be interesting to see just how many “positive” messages we get leading up to Nov.