Bring It On! National News

You may already think the DEA is a gang of sleazy shitbags who couldn’t possibly sink any lower. Unfortunately, they just did.

The DEA has come up with a new tactic in their neverending war on those dangerous cancer patients who smoke marijuana to reduce the nausea from chemotherapy. They’re targeting the landlords who own the properties where medical marijuana is dispensed.

A guilty landlord could have his/her property seized and/or face up to twenty years in prison. WTF??? Whatever happened to those “Property Rights” that conservatives are always blubbering about? For that matter, “States’ Rights” is another popular rightwing slogan. Here we have the federal government marching in and steamrolling over the states whose citizens have voted in favor of medical marijuana. And all we hear from the Far Right is thundering silence.

What do these DEA thugs see when they look in the mirror? And what do they tell their kids? “Daddy is a sadistic douchebag who persecutes sick people for a living. Aren’t you proud, son? Maybe you can be just like me when you grow up.”

I’m guessing that most people, whatever their religious views, believe in some sort of Karma — “you reap what you sow,” “what goes around comes around,” whatever you want to call it.

Perhaps the legislators, prosecutors and DEA agents who keep persecuting medical marijuana patients are secretly scared shitless of reaping what they’ve sown. I know I would be.

It’s gotta be somewhere in the back of their minds when they go in for their medical checkups. Maybe they’re shitting themselves with the crippling fear that the doctor will say “there’s a spot on this X-ray. We’ll need to run some more tests.”

After all, what goes around comes around.

As Congress struggles to pass legislation that will keep SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program) funded, they once again turn to tobacco taxation as the key. Depending on which bill you look at (House or Senate) the proposed federal tax increase on tobacco would be 45 or 61 cents (per pack of cigarettes).

Tobacco taxation, in its msot current incarnation, is touted as a way to reduce the smoking of tobacco by increasing the price of the product. The theory (and it has been proven to a small extent among some smoking populations) is that if the price of tobacco increases fewer people will smoke, or at least those who smoke will smoke less. In this case, tobacco taxation is being used as a tool to change behavior. But you should ask yourself if the government really wants to have fewer smokers around. I submit that they do not, and the constant attempts to increase tobacco taxes to pay for any myriad of government projects should bear out my stance.

For instance, in the case of SCHIP, the federal government decides that in order to fund the program they need to increase tobacco taxes. Yet, under the behavioral modification theory, the fact that they plan to increase taxes on tobacco should lead to fewer packs of cigarettes being sold, meaning that there would be less tax money to fund SCHIP. In that case, where does the remainder come from? In fact, the government hopes that raising tobacco taxes will not affect most smokers, who are in fact addicted to the substance, and they will just keep smoking and paying the taxes. They know this is what will happen, and they count on smokers keeping right on smoking. They WANT smokers to keep smoking.

But SCHIP isn’t the only thing dependent on tobacco taxation. Aside from health related programs (that are dependent primarily, if not solely, on tobacco taxes) governments use tobacco taxes to swell their general funds accounts, thereby using tobacco money for projects unrelated to health care. When the states sued the tobacco companies and settled for multiple billions of dolalrs, they said that those funds were to be dedicated to health care costs for smoking related diseases. But state governments have repeatedly raided those “windfall funds” and used them for anything from roads to environmental impact studies to school building projects and so on. And they rely on smokers to keep those dollars rolling in.

It’s bad enough that tobacco taxation is a regressive tax policy, that is, one that targets those with less overall income disproportionately. But what makes tobacco taxation policies worse, to me, is the fact that it is a hypocritical policy based on saying one thing while depending on the other. Governments claim to want less smoking, but then they turn around and base programs and policies on a dependence to tobacco taxes.

How does this even make sense? It doesn’t, and everyone knows it doesn’t.

And when you consider the fact that government rules and regulations are constantly limiting the places where people can smoke, you have to wonder where all these smokers are going to go to continue to light up so that the governments can continue to collect the taxes that they rely on.

Smoking is a bad health choice. That much has been proven pretty conclusively. But instead of trying to ban smoking (as the government does with much less harmful drugs like marijuana) the government takes a two-faced approach- don’t smoke, but if you do, smoke over there in the street; and please smoke because we want your money to pay for these programs.

One wonders if the government really even cares about the programs they seek to fund with tobacco taxes. If they were indeed intent on taxing tobacco out of existence, they’d surely not tie that revenue to programs that enjoy wide support, like children’s health insurance. Unless they want the program to die a slow, smoker-like death.

How can anyone support the current dichotomy of tobacco taxation? It is a policy riddled with contradiction and hypocrisy. I think legislators simply have too much smoke in their eyes to see the absurdity of their actions. Maybe we should apply a tax to bad governance instead.

tobacco taxes, smoking, government hypocrisy, SCHIP

The President continues to threaten a veto of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) should Congress, as expected, pass the measure which expands the program by $35 billion dollars over the next five years. The bottom line for the President centers on his displeasure with the prior rejection of his efforts to expand health care by offering tax cuts to those who will purchase private insurance.

Unfortunately, the President’s plan has already been rejected…primarily because tax deductions do little for those who live in poverty. Giving a tax deduction to those who do not pay taxes is akin to offering fifty percent off on fine jewelry…it sounds like a deal to those who can afford the reduced price but it is meaningless to the customer who can’t even afford to purchase the costume jewelry.

While the GOP frequently attempts to portray liberals as ideological elitists, the truth of the matter is that Republican’s of George Bush’s ilk are often guilty of functional elitism…a mind set that frequently finds its origin in a life of affluence…a mind set which is accompanied by a misguided belief that all that ails Americans can be addressed through tax cuts. Try as he might, the President cannot separate his ideology from the silver spoon that fed him.

With a five-year, $35 billion expansion of the children’s health insurance program due for a final vote in the House today, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and White House aides agreed that Bush’s opposition to the legislation stems not from its price tag but from far larger health policy issues. The White House wants to use the issue of uninsured children to resurrect the president’s long-dormant proposals to change the federal tax code to help the uninsured, adults and children alike, Grassley said, calling that a laudable goal but unrealistic politically.

In talks this spring with Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, White House National Economic Council Director Al Hubbard and Hubbard’s deputy, Keith Hennessey, Grassley discussed linking an extension of the 10-year-old SCHIP program to a more ambitious effort to address the adult uninsured. Grassley encouraged the White House to try to round up Democratic support for that approach, but when White House officials made no such effort, Grassley told them in April that the children’s health program would have to stand alone.

That is why he said he was surprised when Bush brought it back up in a phone call Thursday, just minutes before the president went before microphones at the White House to blast the SCHIP deal.

Asked if Bush was holding the children’s health bill hostage, Grassley said, “Yes.”

Reading between the lines, perhaps the President retains unrealistic visions of passing his preferred health insurance legislation. Notwithstanding, he would be better served to listen to Senator Grassley.

Sadly, the President has shown little interest in consulting his opponents and seeking to forge bipartisan solutions…a hesitance likely born of a philosophy held by George Bush and his surly strategist, Karl Rove…one that places partisan success ahead of pragmatic policy. Frankly, George Bush has rarely met a reasonable bipartisan measure he hasn’t attempted to politicize…and his recent comments on the SCHIP program are in keeping with the well established pattern.

With a veto almost inevitable, both sides are gearing up for the next step. Congress is likely to pass a short-term extension of the existing SCHIP program before it expires Sept. 30, then begin a second legislative effort. Grassley said if he were the Democrats, he would send the SCHIP expansion to a vote every three months, along with campaign advertisements accusing Republicans of abandoning children. That way, pressure would mount either on Bush to sign the bill or on House Republicans to override the veto.

Americans United for Change, a group closely allied with the Democratic leadership, will begin airing television ads this week in Kentucky, accusing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) of abandoning his state’s children.

The White House is looking increasingly isolated on the issue. America’s Health Insurance Plans, the largest insurance lobbying group, endorsed the measure yesterday, undercutting Bush’s contention that the bill is a step away from private insurance and toward government-run health care.

“It repairs the safety net and is a major movement toward addressing the problems that states and governors have been trying to address, which is how to get access for children,” said Karen Ignagni, the group’s president.

The issue appears to be a winner for the Democrats and I personally find it encouraging to see Americans United For Change adopting the same strategy being used by the GOP to support the President’s failed war in Iraq. Doing so has the added advantage of supporting a policy that actually has the potential to benefit Americans…an outcome not likely to result from the GOP campaign.

As noted by Grassley, a Republican, the President’s stubbornness may well provide the Democrats another club with which to beat the already battered GOP in the run up to the 2008 election. I would expect many Republicans to abandon the President…realizing that George Bush is more concerned with his rigid ideology and his legacy than avoiding a repeat of the 2006 elections.

In the end, historians and a fair share of Republican’s will likely note that George Bush was far more petulant than compassionate. This anticipated veto may simply be the icing on George Bush’s less than edible legacy cake.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

I’m of the strongest opinion that our nations immigration policy is not only broken but the damn thing has been in the trash bin for twenty years and nobody will tie up the damn bag and take it to the curb for pick up. George Bush’s style of governing (State side) is to push back the broken policy systems in the federal government for almost everything back onto the states. From education to immigration he has pushed back and stuffed down the throats of the states every federally mandated law but his check is never in the mail to back it up.

It will take years for our nation’s FEDERAL Government to develop an immigration policy that actually works and until they do the states will be forced fed and pay for that broken policy and that is not right. From guarding the borders to the expensive emergency room medical care of illegal immigrants, Bush isn’t paying for it so the States or private business will have too! I’m just guessing that this is the conservative in Bush trying to (wink, wink) save the peoples hard earned tax dollars.

Over at the New York Times they have the latest on Bush pretending to be a conservative by knuckling down on Chemo Medicaid payments to the hospitals that treat illegal immigrants in the emergency room with cancer. His check isn’t going to clear on this one due to a stop payment order by the President…

Rule Limits Emergency Care for Immigrants

By SARAH KERSHAW
Published: September 22, 2007

The federal government has told New York State health officials that chemotherapy, which had been covered for illegal immigrants under a government-financed program for emergency medical care, does not qualify for coverage. The decision sets the stage for a battle between the state and federal governments over how medical emergencies are defined.

The change comes amid a fierce national debate on providing medical care to immigrants, with New York State officials and critics saying this latest move is one more indication of the Bush administration’s efforts to exclude the uninsured from public health services.

Snip Si Casa

In the wake of stricter federal rules, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and 20 other states have extended full Medicaid coverage, using only state money, to some immigrants who do not qualify for federal aid. Under federal law, proof of citizenship is required for full Medicaid coverage, but not for emergency coverage.

But some states with growing immigrant populations, like Georgia and Arizona, have themselves moved to limit coverage under emergency Medicaid, leading to intense opposition from immigrant health advocates. - New York Times

I have to back up on this story for a bit but I’ll get back into it. I promise. If President Bush and the Congress had taken care of the border problem and passed legislation that made sense, then the “Trickle down” effect of illegal immigrants would not have to be pushed back on the states. Instead, we have every single state trying to stop the flow of the Rio Grande with paper towels. If President Bush and the Congress paid a little bit more attention about what is going on at home rather than trying to save the Middle East then their popularity might be higher than a rats ass.

Back to the post… I just get a thought and the fingers type.

Every single person that goes to medical school to become a doctor takes an oath. It isn’t like the one President Bush took where he can define the Constitution and twist it to see how it fits him today. Nope, doctors take an oath to always care for the patient as best they can and to save lives. It isn’t the Hypolitcal oath. I’m thinking the oath that doctors take somehow is above any oath Prescident (misspelled on purpose) Bush took as President.

Our nation has an immigration policy problem. Our Congress and our President think that the states can pay the sins of our lost federal government. They can not and should not have to.

Illegal immigration is a serious issue and as much as I am a Democrat, I want my nation and its borders secured. Stop the problem where it begins and fix the policies that will effect the people already here. There is no magic wand or enough busses to send all of the illegal immigrants back. We more or less own them as a people because our federal government refused to legislate on the issue of immigration. This failure is owned by both sides of the political aisle.

What I see as a result of this President and the Congress failure to act on immigration is the prosecution of some doctor or nurse somewhere in America for failing to perform their duties to save a human life because a green card or legal citizen document was not presented at the emergency room. For all I know it has already happened.

Papamoka

Cross Posted at Papamoka Straight Talk

During the President’s press conference this morning, he accused Democrats of “putting poor children at risk” in order to score political points. Unfortunately, the accusation is absurd since the Democrats intend to submit legislation to expand health care to more children through the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) program.

In reality, the Democratic proposal is to expand SCHIP by $35 billion dollars and the President is threatening to veto the legislation…arguing that the expansion of the program “is a step toward federalization of health care”. The President believes the proposal would allow states to offer health benefits to families which already have private insurance. Lacking in his analysis is any recognition that the added funds will provide needed health care to many children who lack coverage.

Apparently the President believes some children who lack health insurance aren’t poor enough to warrant coverage. I guess trying to provide health insurance to more Americans makes the actions of the Democrats a political stunt. Conversely, wouldn’t a presidential veto suggest the same of George Bush?

Further, if SCHIP’s goal is to help those in need, then the actions of the Democrats is in keeping with the intent of the legislation…and the President’s actions are in keeping with his propensity for drawing arbitrary distinctions out of thin air. In this particular case, the President ought to admit that his own political ideology trumps his assertions of compassion.

The State Children’s Health Insurance Program is set to expire Sept. 30. Democrats are pushing for a $35 billion spending increase for SCHIP, and Bush has threatened to veto it. He has proposed a $5 billion increase.

SCHIP is a state-federal partnership designed to provide health coverage to families with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford private coverage. More than 6 million people, primarily children, participate.

“The president hides behind the word ‘federalization’ because his political base opposes doing what is decent and humane,” said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. “The Senate and the House both approved legislation that would extend health care coverage for poor kids, not cut it back.”

“Instead of expanding SCHIP beyond its original purpose, we should return it to its original focus, and that is helping poor children, those who are most in need,” Bush said. “And instead of encouraging people to drop private coverage in favor of government plans, we should work to make basic private health insurance affordable and accessible for all Americans.”

The problem with the above statement by the President is that insurance isn’t becoming more affordable and he would be hard pressed to identify any tangible measures in place to do so. As such, more families are unable to purchase health insurance and the trend will continue as long as health care costs outpace increases in income. Further, those on the lower end of the income scale typically see their income levels rise far slower than all others…leaving them all the more vulnerable.

Lastly, I find it rather disingenuous for this President to lecture us on compassion when he enacted one of the largest tax cuts in recent history…tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefited those at the top of the income scale. If he’s actually committed to helping those in need, why not reduce the tax cuts in order to expand the SCHIP funding. I guess compassion for this president comes to a sudden halt when it requires those who have to give to those who have not.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

My tale begins with the death of a child. In Minnesota, a four year old boy swallowed part of a charm bracelet. The bracelet was a promotional giveaway that came with the purchase of Reeboks shoes. The promotion had been ongoing since 2004. The charm contained more that 90% lead.

Lead binds to other metals molecules found naturally in our bodies, like calcium, iron and zinc. Once bonded, lead makes the molecule change or function differently, such as not producing the proper enzymes and messing up the formation of hemoglobin.

The symptoms of chronic lead poisoning include neurological problems, such as reduced cognitive abilities, or nausea, abdominal pain, irritability, insomnia, metal taste in oral cavity, excess lethargy or hyperactivity, headache and, in extreme cases, seizure and coma. – Wiki

No parent wants to watch their child suffer like that.

Naturally the basic reaction to this sad story is to get the lead out, so to speak. Go after the manufacturer, and recall the product. In America, we expect accountability. Reebok stepped up and recalled the charm bracelets. The bracelets were manufactured in China.

Now let’s fast forward a year, and take a look at our Antagonist in Chief. President Bush has allied himself with China on this one. Despite the fact that lead based paint, and products with lead in any levels above 6 parts per million are outlawed in our country in order to protect our kids (and have been for decades) , Bush thinks it’s just too onerous to hold our importers to the same standards.

The Bush administration has hindered regulation on two fronts, consumer advocates say. It stalled efforts to press for greater inspections of imported children’s products, and it altered the focus of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), moving it from aggressive protection of consumers to a more manufacturer-friendly approach. — McClatchy

Gee, if we had regulations, we might piss off China and they’d have to sell their lead filled useless crap to … Who? Who is going to want it if we don’t? Who has a market size sufficient to make us tremble with the thought that we can’t HAVE lead filled useless crap?

That’s bullshit, and we all know it. We’ve been dealing with a market based economy for 230-odd years now, and the better mousetrap wins. If we tell China to make it safe or take it elsewhere, they are going to look at the size of our pie and MAKE IT SAFE.

Duh.

What kind of an American puts the market interests of a foreign power over the health of American children? Maybe it’s somebody who has already bought up a huge chunk of Paraguay, isn’t all that smitten with America, finds her constitution to be an inconvenient doctrine, and her laws inapplicable to him. Maybe it’s someone who thinks kids are easy to mess with because they’re powerless?

Why, it’s the guy who orchestrates this:

Administration officials outlined the new standards in a letter sent to state health officials on Friday evening, in the middle of a month-long Congressional recess. In interviews, they said the changes were aimed at returning the Children’s Health Insurance Program to its original focus on low-income children and to make sure the program did not become a substitute for private health coverage.After learning of the new policy, some state officials said today that it could cripple their efforts to cover more children by imposing standards that could not be met. – NYT

George W. Bush thinks foreign powers should be able to sell poisonous stuff to your children and that it’s up to you to be diligent. His position is that despite the fact healthcare is out of reach for more middle class Americans everyday, your individual state governments shouldn’t be allowed to craft programs for their citizens to cover their kids because it might set a precedent that “he” was weak on the healthcare issue. Sorry, but I think any attempt to look at this at any level beyond self perception is futile. Our president doesn’t do a damn thing for the good of the country, IF he thinks it looks like he had to reconsider his original position.

He’s willing to gamble the lives of our kids for his ego. Maybe you didn’t want to stand up when he lied to you about his reasons to invade Iraq; maybe you didn’t want to kick a fuss when he spied on you illegally. Perhaps you didn’t think protesting the hijacking of the Department of Justice was worthwhile. Hopefully, this kind of thinking doesn’t extend to your irreplaceable children.

The moral test of a government is how it treats those who are at the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadow of life, the sick and the needy, and the handicapped. — Hubert Humphrey

This government can convene on behalf of a brain dead woman, but thinks you should not only be happy that 60% of the toys in this country come from China but that Chinese lead is okey dokey. They think kid’s healthcare is unimportant because they might look like wing nut backsliders, and appearances outweigh need. Basically, your kid eats lead, you can’t afford the care and they die a horrible death, but China makes money and Bush didn’t lose face. That’s a win-win in Bushworld. The fact kids can’t vote is just icing on top.

Both ends against the middle? Time to push right the fuck back.

Crossposted at Siren’s Chronicles

George W. Bush, hugely unpopular, widely known to have issues speaking basic english, and the lamest of ducks, has finally found an emeny his size.

Little kids.

The guy who is for states rights when it suits him, is against it here, since helping poor kids is no better than helping poor black people. What a fucking loser. Can we get a real candidate with a spine please? I’m tired of the wimp luggage and the slimy bastards who carry it.

God forbid he should deny us taxpayers the right to pay for exhorbitantly priced emergency care when cheap preventative care is an option. Ass.

Administration officials outlined the new standards in a letter sent to state health officials on Friday evening, in the middle of a month-long Congressional recess. In interviews, they said the changes were aimed at returning the Children’s Health Insurance Program to its original focus on low-income children and to make sure the program did not become a substitute for private health coverage.

After learning of the new policy, some state officials said today that it could cripple their efforts to cover more children by imposing standards that could not be met. — NYT

I can’t think of a single thing that will drive more people to vote for a Democrat in 2008. These programs are hugely popular (this means lots of voters like them, Georgie. Try to keep up). By all means, fuck with those states now. Then, by the time the elections come round, people who got the shaft will get out the vote. Speaking of which, can we remember to THINK during the primaries, and not vote based on manipulation? Please, google stuff. Find out where the money is coming from and what the agenda is. It’s only our democracy if we work to keep it.

Americans are heading to Mexico. Our seniors, faced with exorbitant care costs, fixed incomes, and escalating prices in food, drugs and gasoline, are crossing the border and leaving the states behind. Why?

As millions of baby boomers reach retirement age and U.S. health care costs soar, Mexican nursing home managers expect more American seniors to head south in coming years. Mexico’s proximity to the USA, low labor costs and warm climate make it attractive, although residents caution that quality of care varies greatly in an industry that is just getting off the ground here.

An estimated 40,000 to 80,000 American retirees already live in Mexico, many of them in enclaves such as San Miguel de Allende or the Chapala area, says David Warner, a University of Texas public affairs professor who has studied the phenomenon. There are no reliable data on how many are living in nursing homes, but at least five such facilities are on Lake Chapala. — USA Today

Plus, it’s a real bargain, certainly appealing to anyone who thinks self sufficiency kicks ass over a slow sink into poverty and welfare. Fixed incomes are frightening in this day and age, where a person 10 years into their retirement might have confidently predicted that $2500 a month would be plenty, but now finds the next 10 years of their lives worrisome. Illness will swallow them.

Residents such as Richard Slater say they are happy in Mexico. Slater came to Lake Chapala four years ago and now lives in his own cottage at the Casa de Ancianos, surrounded by purple bougainvillea and pomegranate trees.

He has plenty of room for his two dogs and has a little patio that he shares with three other American residents. He gets 24-hour nursing care and three meals a day, cooked in a homey kitchen and served in a sun-washed dining room. His cottage has a living room, bedroom, kitchenette, bathroom and a walk-in closet.

For this Slater pays $550 a month, less than one-tenth of the going rate back home in Las Vegas. For another $140 a year, he gets full medical coverage from the Mexican government, including all his medicine and insulin for diabetes.

“This would all cost me a fortune in the United States,” said Slater, a 65-year-old retired headwaiter. — USA Today

Is this the measure of America, that our elderly, in order to receive simple, humane care must flee us? Defenders of health care must think so, since they are afraid to set a “precedent” by insuring children, and wave goodbye to our elderly, since they cut into profits. Health care has to stop being about denying care in order to increase profit, and become care oriented. As a society, we are failing the fundamental measure of the strength of our way of life. We do it so some people can make money. I don’t really see what defenders of the present health care system stand to gain; they aren’t directly profiting and their tacit acceptance of assurances that this anti-care state of affairs somehow serves them well is a ticking time bomb.

Boggles the mind.

Lots o’ news today! From TVNewser we get that Fox Noise is shitcanning the “Half Hour News Hour” Show after the original episodes run: “In a memo to senior producers this afternoon, FNC’s SVP of programming, Bill Shine announced the network “will not continue the Half Hour News Hour beyond its current 15 episode run.” Shine did leave the door open, however: “we are considering ways to retool the show for future scheduling needs.”

Next, Rover calls into Rushie’s show to bitch about Hillary and Democrats in general..from MSNBC: In addition to hammering Hillary, Rove took shots at Democrats, who also have been critical of President Bush. He said that many of the president’s most avid critics are “elite effete snobs,” and later implied that their rhetorical pummeling of Bush signals weakness and disorganization within the Democratic Party. “The fallback position in politics is that if you don’t know what you want to be about, if you don’t know what your position is, go with somebody else,” said Rove.

Tags: Limbaugh, Coulter, FNC, Karl Rove

to view this great video from Campaign for America’s Future click here, otherwise watch it below:
[youtube]LT9kUslHfBY[/youtube]