bemusedoutsider's lj

Signal boost for Cat Valente's page:
http://yuki-onna.livejournal.com/546905.html

Fairyland is eligible for the Andre Norton Award.

[W]ouldn't it be cool for something this independent, this unique and tribal and viral, to be nominated for one of the big awards in the field? Wouldn't it be cool to shake things up, to show that this kind of thing, if the quality is good enough, can be considered alongside shiny hardback bestsellers?

The book is complete and can be read in its entirety [at
http://www.catherynnemvalente.com/fairyland/ ] for free.

( Read more... )

Personally I'm a Whole Foods Nation tree-hugging leftist, but I admire Sarah Palin. What she offers is not liberal policy (more center-right) but she has DONE very worthwhile things:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704431804574537882681089404.html#articleTabs%3Dcomments

For her center-right policies, see USA Today, "Palin governed from the center"
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-11-palin-cover_N.htm

Another version same story
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5786203&page=1

OECD data (UK and USA):

- The UK has 2.5 physicians per 1000 people, 10 nurses per 1000, 2.6 acute care beds per 1000, a life of expectancy of 79.1 years, and an infant mortality rate of 4.8 per 1000.
- The US has 2.4 physicians per 1000, 10.6 nurses per 1000, 2.7 acute beds per 1000,life expectancy was 78.1 years, and an infant mortality rate of 6.7 per 1000.

[ US spends twice as much: 16% of GDP. UK spends 8.4% of GDP. ]

Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI) is trying to radically change abortion law in this country today.
A central promise of health care reform is that if you like the health care coverage you have, you can keep it. Today in America, millions of women who buy health care on their own or who get it through the small business employer have abortion care coverage. Congressman Stupak’s amendment would strip them of that coverage, breaking that central promise.

Stupak wants to outlaw abortion coverage in the new health insurance Exchange, where individuals and small businesses will purchase their coverage. Instead, women would only be able to purchase abortion coverage in a “abortion rider” plan – a single-service plan that covers abortion only. Such an “abortion rider” is discriminatory and illogical. Women do not plan to have unintended pregnancies (or pregnancies in which a complication will arise that will require ending the pregnancy). In fact, about half of all pregnancies are unintended. Abortion is simply not something that women plan to insure against.

Put simply, the Stupak amendment is a dramatic departure from current law which would restrict a women’s right to choose. What’s more, it would put an unprecedented restriction on people who pay for their own health insurance.

http://www.openleft.com/diary/15915/dems-who-voted-for-the-stupak-amendment-to-restrict-womens-rights

From Robert Reich's blog.

Reich is a Democrat, a Cabinet Member under Bill Clinton, and an early supporter of Obama against Hillary in the 2008 primary.


While health care reform, if done right, can help American families stay afloat in the economy, the current bills won't offer most Americans any appreciable decline in the cost of their health insurance nor clear improvement in the efficiency or quality of the health care they receive, and those who will benefit won't see the benefits until 2014 at the earliest. All this is partly a result of Obama's sharpest break from Clinton -- whose ambitious health care plan drew immediate fire from Big Pharma, the American Medical Association, and health insurers: The Obama White House bought off the medical-industrial complex by promising it fatter profits, bolstered by tens of millions of new paying customers.

That and other deals cut with industry -- including promises to Big Pharma that Medicare wouldn't use its bargaining clout to reduce drug prices, to the AMA that doctors wouldn't have to face larger cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates, and to private insurers that the White House wouldn't fight hard for a public insurance option -- are likely to make the resulting reform far more costly than it would be otherwise. These extra costs will be borne by those Americans who will be required to buy insurance but won't qualify for federal assistance, along with Medicare beneficiaries who will be paying more and receiving less.

via ysabet:

We just learned that there is a strong possibility that Speaker Pelosi
WILL allow a vote on single-payer. The vote may happen as early as
tomorrow (Friday) morning. Whether it is offered as a stand-alone bill or
as an amendment to the health care reform package, this will be the FIRST
vote ever held on single-payer health care in the full House of
Representatives.

Urge your representative NOW to stand with you and the American people on
this historic vote. Tell your representative to vote "YES!" to Rep.
Anthony Weiner's (D-N.Y.) single-payer bill! Go to
http://action.citizen.org/t/6693/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27576

In the past, many members of Congress have said they would support
single-payer "if it came to a vote" but that a vote just wasn't
politically feasible. Now, a vote is here, and it is our job to urge
lawmakers to do the right thing. They cannot miss this historic
opportunity to cast their votes for real health care for all - a
single-payer system.

Time is short, so please click here to send a quick email to your
representative now at
http://action.citizen.org/t/6693/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27576

Among all the reform proposals, a single-payer, Medicare-for-All system is
the only "option" for health care reform that will end the domination of
the insurance industry and ensure that every one of the more than 45
million uninsured will receive quality health care.

Let's not back down now. Continue to stand up for health care for all!

Thank you for all you do!

Rick, Angela and Glenn
Your advocates at Public Citizen
action@citizen.org

P.S. - Learn more about single-payer health care at
http://action.citizen.org/t/6693/content.jsp?content_KEY=5220

As Gandhi reportedly said about Western Civilization, "It would be a good idea to have some."

Some real reform of health care would be good -- but is THIS it? Or is this a placebo, or an inoculation against ever getting the REAL thing?

What's shaping up under the LABEL 'health care reform' looks like including:

Either no public option or something labeled public option with premiums higher than the private options.
Mandates to buy private insurance or be fined.
Cuts to Medicare.
No longer able to buy drugs from Canada or other countries.
Medicare unable to negotiate drug prices.

The big insurers and the big drug companies are advertising FOR this so-called 'reform' -- so watch out.

Is this true?!?!?!!?

I've just seen this at a casual blog:
"Per CNN, the Republicans added an amendment to the Democrat’s plan that’ll require all of Congress to take and use the “Public Option” as their only health insurance."

http://citizenvox.org/2009/10/22/medical-malpractice-victims-to-congress-w
e-are-not-frivolous.

Medical malpractice is at epidemic levels in this country. The Institute
of Medicine estimated in 1999 that up to 98,000 people die every year in
America's hospitals from medical errors. There's nothing "frivolous" about
that.

I'd like to change my username to BemusedLeftist but I'm not sure if I'd still appear on flists.

Anyway here are some interesting figures:

Cable News Ratings for Monday, October 19, 2009

P2+ Total Day
FNC – 1,302,000 viewers
CNN – 462,000 viewers
MSNBC –386,000 viewers
CNBC – 222,000 viewers
HLN –306,000 viewers

P2+ Prime Time
FNC – 2,511,000viewers
CNN— 620,000 viewers
MSNBC –810,000 viewers
CNBC – a scratch w/ 117,000 viewers
HLN – 523,000 viewers

5PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Glenn Beck – 2,614,000 viewers (765,000) (1,268,000)
Situation Room—696,000 viewers (167,000) (280,000)
Hardball w/ Chris Matthews—459,000 viewers (135,000) (223,000)
Fast Money—324,000 viewers (115,000) (183,000)
Prime News–228,000 viewers (92,000) (127,000)

Any reviewer who expresses rage and loathing for a novel is preposterous. He or she is like a person who has put on full armor and attacked a hot fudge sundae.
– Kurt Vonnegut

Currently, just 42% support the health care plan proposed by the President and Congressional Democrats. Fifty-four percent (54%) are opposed.

www dot rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

New England Journal of Medicine survey

Only 27.3% supported offering private options only. Respondents — across all demographic subgroups, specialties, practice locations, and practice types — showed majority support (>57.4%) for the inclusion of a public option. Primary care providers were the most likely to support a public option (65.2%); among the other specialty groups, the “other” physicians — those in fields that generally have less regular direct contact with patients, such as radiology, anesthesiology, and nuclear medicine — were the least likely to support a public option, though 57.4% did so. Physicians in every census region showed majority support for a public option, with percentages in favor ranging from 58.9% in the South to 69.7% in the Northeast. Practice owners were less likely than nonowners to support a public option (59.7% vs. 67.1%, P<0.001)

In the background are concerns among seniors about using Medicare cuts to finance Obama’s health care overhaul plan. Specifically at issue are benefits for more than 11 million seniors enrolled in private insurance plans through a popular program called Medicare Advantage. Because of a funding formula dating from when Republicans controlled Congress, the plans are paid more than it costs to care for seniors in traditional Medicare. Insurers use the money to provide more comprehensive benefits than regular Medicare.

Obama has called for trimming the extra payments to help pay for providing coverage to uninsured workers and their families. But the insurance industry is determined to block the cuts, which would lead to lower profits for industry, and higher costs and fewer benefits for seniors in private plans. About one-fourth of all Medicare beneficiaries are signed up in private plans [....]

google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gm9ljtJtDJrrAPQPk8tsggrt7L9wD9BCFK001

The Secretary of State is sitting at an enviable 62% favorable rating, compared to the President’s not-too-shabby 56%.
nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/10/15/2009-10-15_hillary_clinton_is_finally_more_popular_than_barack_obama_new_gallup_poll_shows.html

---------------------------

The president’s current favorable rating of 56% is down 22 percentage points since January. Over the same time span, Clinton’s favorable rating has changed little, and now, at 62%, it exceeds Obama’s.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123665/Hillary-Clinton-More-Popular-Barack-Obama.aspx?CSTS=alert

Oct. 14 (Bloomberg) — Twenty-seven U.S. labor unions [...] announced their opposition to the $829 billion health-care measure passed yesterday by the Senate Finance Committee. [....] The unions want Congress to create a so-called public option, a government health plan that would compete with private insurers

[GOP Senator] Collins said she worries the coverage won’t be affordable for many families and small businesses, and said proposed Medicare cuts are too deep

google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jlMpJGn28kqCcgU-aGcYE_ZHW-ywD9BATJ8O0

"House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy, Representative Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), and Energy and Commerce Committee Vice-Chair Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) today introduced the Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act, legislation to end the broad antitrust exemption enjoyed by health insurance companies."
http://judiciary.house.gov/news/090917_1.html

From an interview of David Axelrod by Wolf Blitzer, in which the CNN correspondent presses Axelrod on why not allow health insurance to be sold across state lines.
photobucket.com/albums/z100/generalissimodp/?action=view¤t=09-09axelrod-wolf.flv