HMO's Spent $227 Million in Support of SCHIP

From the examiner.com article of Oct 5, 2007: "Timothy P. Carney: Does SCHIP insure kids or subsidize savvy HMOs?"

Supporters reject the argument that SCHIP is a Trojan horse for socialized medicine, pointing out that the program is usually administered by private insurers. In short, states put “poor” children on private HMOs and let the taxpayers pick up the tab.

For the HMOs, what could be better than a customer who is spending someone else’s money? If Congress spends more money on SCHIP and states are scrambling to enroll more families, then HMOs get even more of these customers.

And so while Democrats are dragging children to the White House for photo ops, as if the children are the primary constituency of this bill, federal lobbying records tell a different tale.

Lobbying records from the first half of 2007 show that the health care industry spent more than $227 million lobbying Washington. Congressional Quarterly Healthbeat News reported last month: “What’s behind health care lobbyists’ spending frenzy? Most signs point to ... SCHIP.”

Sure enough, the biggest lobbyists in the industry all support the Democratic bill. America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the trade association for HMOs, supports the bill, as do its biggest members, such as Blue Cross Blue Shield.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturing Association (PhRMA), one of Washington’s most powerful lobbyists, is also behind the bill. So is the American Medical Association.

So, here's one point that needs going back over:Supporters reject the argument that SCHIP is a Trojan horse for socialized medicine, pointing out that the program is usually administered by private insurers.

Technically this is true. Private companies being paid by the government is, in fact, a characteristic of Corporatism -- a term which is synonymous with "Fascism". Either way, however, the end result is the furthered corrosion of the purchaser/consumer bond -- already painfully tenuous in this nation -- between the person who buys the healthcare and the person who benefits from it.

It is almost tautological: when you separate the consumption from the cost, the cost skyrockets.

Video: North Korea's Weapons Pledge

With all the furor over Iran's roguishness over the last few years, it is worth noting that, when the current Administration's term began, there were two "major Rogue states": Iran and North Korea. North Korea was by far the most dangerous of the two. So with this thought in mind, we must now ask ourselves: which is more effective -- "Cowboy" Diplomacy, or "Regular" Diplomacy? By way of answering that question, I submit the following:

Without Critical Thinking; Breath Is Just A Clock, Ticking.

I'm going to talk about three things today, and they're going to seem somewhat unconnected. Rest assured, however, that they in fact are connected. Those three things are the FDA's rejection of another over-the-counter category of drugs; Mr. -- never "President"; I never voted for him -- Bush's vetoing the proposed renewal of SCHIP, a program he supports the existence of; and the current plans by the White House to invade Iran with 'surgical airstrikes'. Just how they're connected is something I'll attempt to explain below.

Some of this seems, to me anyhow, that it should be simple enough to understand -- but obviously I'm wrong there, as this connection doesn't appear to be spoken of anywhere else, really. So forgive me if it seems like I'm talking down to you, my reader. I assure you I wish it were otherwise.

We'll start off with what is likely the least controversial topic: the fact that the FDA has recently declared it recommends no level of dosage for the use of cough medicines for children under the age of two. From ABC News:

They are widely available in drugstores across the country -- over-the-counter cold and cough remedies, with fruity flavors specifically marketed for kids.

But, there's a growing consensus that these medicines may not always be safe — and for young children, aren't worth the risks.
Related Stories

In a report released last week, safety experts within the Food and Drug Administration said they would recommend NO level of dosage for children under the age of two, "due to the lack of evidence of efficacy and safety concerns."

[...]

Even more amazing, the industry itself — while insisting its medicines are safe — now agrees they should not be given to very young children.

"Parents should not use these products for children under 2," says Linda Suydam, president of the Consumers Healthcare Products Association.

Suydam says the real problem is "misuse" and "overdose." The labels on most boxes suggest that parents "consult with a doctor" about the appropriate dosage for children under the age of 2. The FDA review called that warning "confusing," and said it appeared to be contributing to "medication errors, which can result in fatal overdoses."

There are two elements here I find somewhat objectionable: 1) It takes the FDA warning people before it becomes 'newsworthy'. 2) The article clearly makes it seem that without the FDA, parents couldn't figure this out for themselves.

Since when was it acceptable to state that using a manufactured synthetic in a manner other than how it appears on the label, unless a government agency tells us not to? How, exactly, is "consult a physician before using this" confusing? Have we grown so wool-headed now that this is what consists of doing our own research responsibly?

It should come as no surprise, then, that the general public opinion -- and hence the political climate -- supports the massive expansion of the SCHIP program. According to Wikipedia, In 2006, the median annual household income according to the US Census Bureau was determined to be $48,201.^[3]. The SCHIP renewal would have the program extended to households of 4 or less earning up to $83,000.00. For larger families, the limit goes higher. If the median income household is now in need of government assistance, then the nation has more serious problems than anyone is willing to admit, and a simple "Children's Health Insurance Program" isn't the solution. But even so, we are faced with events such as this to drive the support for this massive irresponsibility:

USA TODAY's David Jackson reports that President Bush's critics fired more shots this morning at Bush's plans to veto an expansion of a health insurance program for children.

SEIU, the public employees union, sponsored a rally in which children dragged little red wagons to the White House filled with petitions urging Bush to sign the legislation. (Jackson says the event had more reporters than children.)

During a rally at McPherson Square, three blocks from the White House, about 15 children chanted: "care for kids, care for kids."

Really. Children are your political mouthpieces? I'm willing to hear out disagreement on this topic; I will disagree, but differences of opinion can and do exist, and I recognize that. But when the oldest person in your little showpiece is twelve, I'm sorry -- you've just started in on child abuse. It's reprehensible, irresponsible, and disgusting. Nobody would put up with this sort of behavior if it was in support of "The War", now would they? What makes this any different? That it involves the kids? Well, think again: "It's For The Children! ... And Other Lies My Government Told Me." And the media would further have us believe that Bush is against the program at all. While I despise the man, this sort of sloppy journalism does no one any favors. Consider:

President Bush says he will sign emergency legislation to keep the government running past the start of the new fiscal year on Monday, and has criticized Congress for failing to pass spending bills.

In his weekly radio address Saturday, Mr. Bush said it is "disappointing" the Democratic Party-led Congress has not passed any of the 12 annual spending bills funding his Cabinet departments.

The emergency legislation will fund the Iraq war and a popular government-run child health insurance program.

The U.S. Senate voted on Thursday to add $35 billion to the health insurance program, but President Bush says he will veto the measure.

In his radio address, Mr. Bush accused congressional leaders of putting forth an "irresponsible plan that would dramatically expand the program beyond its original intent."

The truth ought to stand up for itself, and not need manipulation to make itself what it is. Unless, of course, those supporting what he's vetoing are trying to conceal that they want this new extension of the program to extend to almost double the median income of the nation. Curious, that.

Overlooked in all of this, however, is what this furor over SCHIP is concealing: The United States of America is about to begin open military hostilities with Iran. That's called WAR, folks. I'll reiterate:

The United States Of America Is About To Enter Into War With Iran.

You'd think that was simply paranoia, or conspiracy trash talking. But it simply isn't anymore. Final item for you to consider today:

THE WHITE HOUSE is planning "surgical" strikes in Iran to cripple agents the United States says support Iraqi insurgents fighting American soldiers, a new report says.

The plan coincides with a change in the administration's rhetoric against Iran - redefining the source of tension from nuclear weapon development to Tehran's support of America's enemies, Seymour Hersh writes in this week's New Yorker magazine.

"Now the emphasis is on 'surgical' strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities and elsewhere, which, the administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq," he writes. "What had been presented primarily as a counterproliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism."

Now, if you're still reading this and not thoroughly irate over your pet topic, we might be able to go into why I believe these three topics are, in fact, directly connected. I said I would, right? And here's the truth of it: We have allowed all of this to slip underneath our radar, as it were, for no other reason than that we have come to allow other people to do our thinking and researching for us. Consider: at what level is the average person taught the process of critical thinking, in the public -- or most private -- education systems? What grade were you in when you were taught classical logic, classical rhetorical technique, and the like? If you're like most Americans -- you were never taught them at all. You probably still think, like most people, that 'rhetoric' is a 'dirty word'. It isn't. And that's what all of these things share in common, then: the average joe American doesn't realize that he's being manipulated into the opinions he has by the resources available to him, because he does not question them. That's why the average newsblog or newspaper (let alone televised news broadcast) is targeted to a less-than 9^th-grade audience (or so I've read...). By way of comparison, this article is written at between a tenth and eleventh grade reading level. Now, all elements of rational ignorance aside, we must scrutinize the information we are fed, for such obvious gaps as I have shown above.

Otherwise, none of this will ever change. And given the list of "mainstream" political candidates for the upcoming Presidential election, does anyone think that we're doing well on this front?

Wait -- is it still okay to mock him?

I've heard it said that it's not "nice" to make fun of the intellectually disabled. It's bad manners. So I have to ask, are we still allowed to put out things like the following video and laugh at them, or is this just another sign of what happens when you lie to your kids and tell them that they can do anything they put their minds to?

The infamous "Childrens Do Learn" comment. And think: this man is using a teleprompter!

Joke of the Day -- GOP Top Contenders: "We're Not Racist. Honest!"

Sometimes, it becomes painfully true that stereotypes are created for a reason. Despite a strong and republican sentiment, last night's Republican Presidential debate was missing four people: Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, and John McCain. What was different about this particular debate? It was held by a race/minority interest group.

Quoth CNN:

BALTIMORE, Maryland (AP) -- Republican presidential candidates discussed the importance of reaching out to people of color during a minority issues debate Thursday night and criticized the leading four GOP contenders for skipping it.

"I think this is a disgrace that they are not here," said Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback. "I think it's a disgrace to our country. I think it's bad for our party, and I don't think it's good for our future."

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said he was "embarrassed for our party, and I'm embarrassed for those who didn't come."

The four no-shows -- former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Sen. Fred Thompson, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney -- cited scheduling conflicts in saying they could not attend the debate at historically black Morgan State University.

[...]

Paul received loud applause when he told the audience that minorities are unfairly punished in the criminal justice system. He also called for ending the war on drugs. "It isn't working," Paul said.

I make no secret of the fact that I am an avid Ron Paul supporter, despite his many faults -- which I have listed elsewhere, and don't care to repeat. But it is worth saying something that the applause for the man was the loudest of those whom were present, especially when he insisted that "I don't care about race, I care about individuals."(Or words to that effect.) It is also worth noting that I live in the home city of one of the "major" Republican contenders ... and while I have seen no fewer than thirty Ron Paul signs on highways and highly-trafficked surface streets, I have yet to see a single poster, sign, or ad for another contender -- Republican or Democrat. Still think "Dr. No"'s support is only online?

In case you missed it, you can find video and audio of the debate here.

Videos: Differences of Perspective -- Blackwater In Iraq

What a difference two days and an accent make. Notice, as you watch the two videos below, that the AP piece mentions 'differences of opinion' as to who shot first, whereas the Reuters piece mentions that these acts have 'further isolated America'. And yet, it is the AP piece which reveals the more damning information on Blackwater. Watch for yourself and notice the subtle differences.

Proof Positive -- The Bush Administration Is Using Unlawful Combatants

Blackwater is a mercenary force. Yes, we use the more "politically correct" term of 'security consultant', but as they say, "A rose, by any other name..." In light of recent news, however, this takes on a somewhat more... disturbing cast.

As this blog has reported in the past, more than 100,000 'security consultants' are in active service in a combat or combat-supportive role in Iraq. For now, please keep that in mind as I go in what will seem like a 90° angle from that point. The LA Times today reported on the fact that, apparently, the Bush Administration is set on invoking military tribunals on its military prisoners -- you know, the 'unlawful enemy combatants' that we hear so much about? Consider:

The central issue in Khadr's case seemed to some to be ridiculously technical. In 2004, Khadr was ruled an "enemy combatant." The Military Commissions Act of 2006 set up the tribunals to try "alien unlawful enemy combatants."


In Monday's decision, Navy Capt. John W. Rolph, the deputy chief judge of the court, wrote that the trial judge was correct in determining that only unlawful combatants could come before the court. The appeals court also noted that the original Combatant Status Review Tribunal that ruled Khadr was an enemy combatant used a "less exacting standard" than was laid out in the Military Commissions Act.

So whether someone is an enemy combatant or an unlawful enemy combatant is a 'ridiculous technicality' is it? Well, what is the difference between the two, then? According to Wikipedia, To Qualify for prisoner of war status [by being a lawful combatant,] persons waging war must have the following characteristics [...]:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict


2. or members of militias not under the command of the armed forces
   
   
   
   • that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
   
   
   • that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
   
   
   • that of carrying arms openly;
   
   
   • that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
   
   
3. or are members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.


4. or inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

The same Wikipedia entry notes that mercenaries are unlawful civilian combatants. And then you have the US requirements to be an Unlawful Combatant:

In the United States, the Military Commissions Act codified the legal definition of this term, and invested the U.S. President with broad discretion to determine whether a person may be designated an unlawful enemy combatant. The assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists is not contradicted by the findings by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment.

Note that this only allows Mr. Bush to add to the 'rolls' of unlawful enemy combatants.

The conclusion is clear: The United States of America Is Actively Using Unlawful Combatants.

Not that this ought to surprise anybody, really: this country I love has been lead by hypocrites for far too long. And in case you still need evidence of this, consider this, brought to us by the NY Daily News:

President Bush announced news sanctions today against the military regime in Myanmar and called on UN members to support struggles against dictatorships around the world.

"The people of Lebanon and Afghanistan and Iraq have asked for our help, and every civilized nation has a responsibility to stand with them," Bush told the UN General Assembly.

"Every civilized nation also has a responsibility to stand up for the people suffering under dictatorship," he said. "In Belarus, North Korea, Syria and Iran, brutal regimes deny their people the fundamental rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration" of the United Nations.

[...]
[UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon] called peace in the Middle East is [sic] vital to the stability of the region and the world.

"We know what is required: an end to violence, an end to occupation, the creation of a Palestinian state at peace with itself and Israel, and a comprehensive regional peace between Israel and the Arab world," he said.

Notice the subtle digs by the UN Secretary-General against the two most significant US foreign policies; the ending of the Iraqi occupation (which is, operationally, exactly what we're doing in Iraq), and the creation of an independent Palestinian state -- which would, of course, fly directly in the face of traditional US support of Israel.

Now, as a libertarian I have nothing against private armies. That's not where this argument is being directed. What I have a problem with is the use of private armies in an unregulated, 'above-the-law' manner by my government. If we're going to raise a furor over the use of unlawful combatants by our enemy, what the devil are we doing, using them ourselves?

When Satire Fails You -- Or; Because Poking Fun of The Government Is a Patriotic Duty.

Not everything can be gloom-and-doom. Since satire has been a powerful tool since at the very least the days of the Modest Proposal, which was itself modeled after the style of the ancient greeks, it is always useful to remember to poke fun at our 'illustrious leaders'.

It is with this thought in mind that I bring you these three items, each drawn from the top online news items of today, September the 24th, 2007.

Forbes.com brings us, "The Biggest FDA Reform In A Decade":

You wouldn't know it from the lack of fanfare, but the Food and Drug Administration is getting its biggest overhaul in a decade in a dramatic coda to Merck's withdrawal of the blockbuster painkiller Vioxx three years ago.

A bill to give the FDA more power passed both houses of Congress with only a handful of no votes, and the president is expected to sign it into law. Because the bill is attached to the re-authorization of an important part of the FDA's funding, a veto is unlikely. If the law doesn't pass soon, FDA head Andrew Von Eschenbach is going to have to start informing staffers that their jobs are no longer funded.

The bill represents a victory for advocates of higher standards for making sure that drug side effects are known and promptly dealt with. Before Vioxx was yanked, some of the changes being made would be unimaginable. Until now the claims drug companies like Merck (nyse: MRK - news - people ) and Pfizer (nyse: PFE - news - people ) made about their medicines were, to a degree, negotiated. Labeling discussions between Merck and the FDA dragged on, and as a result, the agency will now be able to dictate what claims companies can make with much more force.

Now, hidden in this massive "reform" -- how a 'reform' can increase an agency's powers is news (pun intended?) to me -- also grants the FDA further ability to regulate the claims of unregulated herbals and nutritional supplements. But that's another story.

To shed a little more light on why this is ironic, consider the following, from boston.com:

Federal advisers who met last week to consider whether to restrict doses of popular antianemia drugs were themselves under scrutiny during the hearing. The Food and Drug Administration is considering a top-to-bottom reshaping of how it picks and uses the outside scientists who serve on the agency's advisory panels.

Yes, that's right, ladies and gentlemen. The FDA has now exceeded the absurdity of Monty Python (check the 'subtitles'): Those who are reforming the reformation of the reforming process, have been reformed.


Brought to us by thegate.nationaljournal.com is, "Bush & Congress Face Off Over Appropriations & SCHIP":

Bush admitted that the last Congress didn't get all its spending bills passed on time and that the CR helped keep the government running while it finished the bills. Bush has never vetoed a spending bill -- but all the previous spending bills were sent up from a GOP-controlled Congress.

The remainder of the article discussed the increase of expenditure -- and of course Bush has made news by his warning the Democratic congress to "not overspend" -- when Bush's expansion of domestic spending under a GOP controlled congress has outpaced any presidency since LBJ.

You know, I was going to attempt a satirical retort to these items... but upon reflection, it seems they've really rather taken care of it themselves, haven't they? Meanwhile, our government is literally spending the nation into bankruptcy to the point where the Comptroller General of the United States -- that is, the Federal Government's Accountant -- an appointed office is campaigning the country trying to create awareness -- and nobody's doing anything about it. And is that registering in the news? Apparently not. Yet Mr. Bush has the gall to utter "Democrats, Control Your Spending!"

You're doing a heckuva job, Bushie.

Newsflash: Overconsumption Has Health Risks!

It's always a bad sign for a news item to begin, "Doctors have known for some time [...]" -- but what does it say about the state of affairs when things which are safe for consumption are abused? Does this mean that everyone should lose their toys due to one small groups' abuse -- and sequential loss of health due to that abuse?

MSNBC.com has this to say on the recent news that butter-flavored popcorn can cause "popcorn lung":

Doctors have known for some time that people who work in factories that produce microwave popcorn can get a debilitating lung disease from exposure to the chemical used to give the product a buttery flavor.

But until Wayne Watson showed up in the office of Dr. Cecile Rose, no one suspected a popcorn junkie like Watson could get “popcorn lung” simply by heating and eating one of America’s favorite snacks.

[...]

“Right at the end of the interview she said, ‘I’ve gotta ask this question, it’s going to seem weird, but do you ever eat microwave, butter-flavored popcorn?’ “ Watson recalled. “It was like lights went off, marching bands started to play. I said, ‘How did you know to ask that? I am microwave popcorn. I eat two bags of it a day every day.’ "

He’d been eating that much, he told her, for at least a decade. Watson didn't know why, but he noticed a change while singing that he could not explain.

[...]

ConAgra, which makes Orville Redenbacher and Act II popcorn, responded to the story with this statement:

“We are fully confident that microwave popcorn is safe for consumers to prepare and eat. However, in order to eliminate even the perception of risk for consumers and to provide the safest possible work environment for employees who handle large quantities of diacetyl, we plan to eliminate the use of added diacetyl in our microwave popcorn products within a year."

Okay, a few things.

One: ConAgra is the producer of this -- does anyone think that a non-corporate farming entity would have let this one happen in the first place?

Two: Why does everyone else have to loose out on buttery goodness (Which, advisedly, this author does not care for in the first place) just because one idiot thought that it was a good idea to throw moderation out the window?

Three: should "We The People" be culpable for this man's medical expenses, as would happen under a universal healthcare system? At what point do we in that light say, "No, sorry -- your were dumb enough to do that. So no medical soup for you!"?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Bill Nye The Atheist Guy?

Sometimes the author of this blog is slow on the uptake for some items. However, even oldies can be goodies: take for example the instance of one Bill Nye "The Science Guy", having riled up a few good ol' fashioned Texan christofascists (If there's islamofascists, then there's christofascists too.).

The original article has been pulled from the online archives of the local newspaper -- this is in Waco, of course -- but there are some decent sources left for this. Of the better is Ocellated.com:

Last week, Bill Nye (The Science Guy) gave a talk at McLennan Community College in Waco, TX. Everything went well at first, until…

The Emmy-winning scientist angered a few audience members when he criticized literal interpretation of the biblical verse Genesis 1:16, which reads: “God made two great lights — the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.”

He pointed out that the sun, the “greater light,” is but one of countless stars and that the “lesser light” is the moon, which really is not a light at all, rather a reflector of light.

A number of audience members left the room at that point, visibly angered by what some perceived as irreverence.

“We believe in a God!” exclaimed one woman as she left the room with three young children.

This article was posted on April 11th. I do not know when, exactly, the Waco Tribune pulled its article, but there is, in the comments of Ocellated.com, a purported eye-witness to the event; said comment left on August 11th:

I am from Waco, Texas, and I was actually present at the talk given at McLennan Community College, and I just want to point at that while there were some uneducated extremists, on the whole the community embraced the visit by Bill Nye, and that it is still talked about by some today. Don’t judge a community because of a few bad apples, while it is true that there are many fundamentalists in Waco, not everyone shares their closed-minded view.
And it was a great talk, he is even funnier in real-life than he is on his show.

And there you have it. There are a few other sources still talking about this little fiasco, such as thecarpetbagreport.com, which asks poignant questions like why evolution is the only topic where the Bible's literal definition is taken these days -- as opposed to little things like the sun going 'round the earth, or the earth being flat.

One can only imagine; one battle at a time, eh? This gets all the more disturbing when you consider that, apparently, one in three people still believe that the sun goes around the earth.

Joke of the Day: Law on the Side of Hackers -- Over Multi-National Corporations?

Poor Apple & AT&T won't get the revenue they're after, or so it is starting to appear. Well, AT&T anyhow. It seems that after-market modifications to cell-phones is legal under the DMCA... because you can't copyright-protect a cellphone network. Who knew?

So will Apple and AT&T's legal action deter hackers? Hardly. Individual users are already allowed to unlock their own phones under an exemption to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that the U.S. Copyright Office issued last November. The exemption, in force for three years, applies to "computer programs…that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network."

[...]

Problem is, it could be argued that, in reality, the lock only protects access to a carrier's communications network—and communications services aren't copyrightable under the Act, explains Jane Ginsburg, professor of literary and artistic property law at Columbia Law School. "This law was written for DVDs and video games," she explains. "What's going on here is using the Copyright Act to achieve another objective."

Indeed, this time, hackers may have the law on their side. Remember, decades ago, automakers built their instrument panels so that only authorized radios of their own manufacture would fit in. Eventually, U.S. courts ended that practice.

Source.

Score one for the evil domestic info-terrorists. It's too bad there's no one like, say, Dateline NBC out there to protect us from these people, just like how Dateline's "To Catch A Predator" protects our children from those evil pedos -- you know, such as Wikipedia?.

It's For The Children! ... And Other Lies My Government Told Me

Children's issues -- or at least, what appear to be children's issues -- have been plastered all over the news (or at least at the edges), for the last few days. From more NCLB fears to SCHIP expansion and CBS's alleged ch