Derrick's Progressive News
All four Oregon Democrates voted AGAINST continued off-budget funding of the Afghan-Pakistan war.
Pres. Obama relied on 160 Republicans to fund his pathetic war.
102 Democrates and 12 Republicans voted against the war.
Roll call vote at http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll474.xml
US military occupation forces under Commander-in Chief Obama suffered 156 combat casualties
in the AfPak theater and 10 in Iraq during the week ending July 27 for a total of 166.
Combat deaths (KIAs) rose by seven in AfPak to 900 (plus 296 non-combat deaths)
and by one to 3,489 (plus 928) in Iraq.
There were 139 wounded in action ( WIA) in AfPak for
a total of 7,150 and nine in Iraq for a total of 31,897.
Michael Munk provided this link/article.
Contents
· Going Dutch?
· Top 5 Social Security Myths
· Republican Effort to Block Healthcare For 9/11 Emergency Responders
· We Need More Alan Greysons in Congress
· The Budget Deficit Chicken Hawks
· Just For Fun: Husband Down
· Thank You
· Comments and Kudos
Philip Kauffman provided this link/article.
The following is a response to recent questions about the new health care legislation’s potential benefits. Mad As Hell Doctor Sam Metz provides a brilliant comparison when presented with this query: ”Because the Netherlands and the U.S. have an individual mandate and use for-profit insurance companies to finance health care, can Americans expect to enjoy the same cost-effective results as do the Dutch?”
Almost every industrialized country providing universal cost-effective health care follows three rules:
1. All citizens are in a single risk pool with a single schedule of benefits.
2. Cost sharing to patients is minimal.
3. Financing is provided by regulated, not-for-profit agencies.
There are three exceptions among industrialized nations. The US violates all rules. Consequently, we rank last on almost every measure of public health while spending twice as much as our average industrialized colleague.
The Netherlands (and Switzerland) comply with 2 ¾ of these rules. All citizens are in a single risk pool with a single schedule of benefits. Cost sharing is minimal. Financing is provided by regulated agencies. However, for-profit companies are allowed to compete with not-for-profit companies.
But the other two rules still apply in the Netherlands, making this brand of competition repellant to American insurance companies.
- Insurers must sell at the same price to all applicants, regardless of age, sex, or health.
- Just to be sure there is no cherry picking, the Dutch government taxes companies with healthier patients and subsidizes those with sicker patients.
- All policies must include a comprehensive schedule of benefits at a regulated price. Companies compete on service only.
- All policies have low deductibles and minimal out of pocket costs.
- Administrative costs are low, 5%, compared to the US costs of 15% to 20%
It is not only the Dutch insurance companies that operate differently, consumers do as well.
- All residents must buy insurance. No excuses.
- Failure to pay the required premium may precipitate a tax on the offender’s salary, disability benefits, or retirement income.
- Specialty care can be obtained only through primary care referrals.
What does this ostensibly competitive market look like? The top five plans in the Netherlands have 82% of the market. Most insurers still operate at a loss in hopes of gaining market share later. And 75% of health care is funded via the government. In the US, the figure is 45% and there is outcry about “socialized medicine” and “government rationing.”
It is quite the imaginative stretch to say our new health care bill puts us on par with the Dutch system.
Remember the three rules. The US has a long way to go before we can claim to be “going Dutch.”
References:
Philip Kauffman
MAHD Grassroots Coordinator
503.250.0327
From MoveOn EMail
Myth #1: Social Security is going broke.
Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.6 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a 'T'). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever.1 After 2037, it'll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits—and again, that's without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers' retirement decades ago.2 Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.
Myth #2: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer.
Reality: This is a red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts. Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than they did 70 years ago.3 What's more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly—since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half.4 But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.
Myth #3: Benefit cuts are the only way to fix Social Security.
Reality: Social Security doesn't need to be fixed. But if we want to strengthen it, here's a better way: Make the rich pay their fair share. If the very rich paid taxes on all of their income, Social Security would be sustainable for decades to come.5 Right now, high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income.6 But conservatives insist benefit cuts are the only way because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share.
Myth #4: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs
Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn't full of IOUs, it's full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.7 The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market—which would have been disastrous—but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be.
Myth #5: Social Security adds to the deficit
Reality: It's not just wrong—it's impossible! By law, Social Security's funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can't add one penny to the deficit.8
Defeating these myths is the first step to stopping Social Security cuts. Can you share this list now?
Thanks for all you do.
–Nita, Duncan, Daniel, Kat, and the rest of the team
Sources:
1."To Deficit Hawks: We the People Know Best on Social Security," New Deal 2.0, June 14, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89703&id=22141-8265398-g9LQSKx&t=4
2. "The Straight Facts on Social Security," Economic Opportunity Institute, September 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89704&id=22141-8265398-g9LQSKx&t=5
3. "Social Security and the Age of Retirement," Center for Economic and Policy Research, June 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89705&id=22141-8265398-g9LQSKx&t=6
4. "More on raising the retirement age," Washington Post, July 8, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89706&id=22141-8265398-g9LQSKx&t=7
5. "Social Security is sustainable," Economic and Policy Institute, May 27, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89707&id=22141-8265398-g9LQSKx&t=8
6. "Maximum wage contribution and the amount for a credit in 2010," Social Security Administration, April 23, 2010
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/240
7. "Trust Fund FAQs," Social Security Administration, February 18, 2010
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html
8."To Deficit Hawks: We the People Know Best on Social Security," New Deal 2.0, June 14, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89703&id=22141-8265398-g9LQSKx&t=9
Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 5 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.
PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
Republican Effort to Block Healthcare For 9/11 Emergency Responders
Begin by watching this video of Congressman Anthony Weiner on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives after a group of Republicans voted down a long-delayed bill to finally provide adequate health care to emergency workers sickened by 9/11:
http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=tmvMghp18eZpHPd2v0v0KMyl%2Fyl9Jk3g
In the House, they will be able to work around the obstructionism and pass the legislation needed to provide the firefighters and police officers and paramedics who responded on 9/11 the help they deserve.
But the odds are that it will die in the Senate.
Over and over again we've watched as the House has done the work of the people of the United States, and the Senate has used its procedure as an excuse to sit on its hands. It's time to tell the Senate to get back to work.
We need your help. We're going to work on a campaign to reform the rules of the Senate so that they can't be abused to block all activity. To do this, we will need to raise $20,000 to pay a stipend to David Waldman (otherwise known as KagroX for those of you who read DailyKos or Congress Matters) so that he can focus his procedural expertise on this problem, and we will need $20,000 to pay a small salary to Ari Neumann to act as a project manager to keep track of all of the pieces of the program between now and January, which will be the only moment such procedural reforms will be possible.
Many thanks,
Darcy Burner
Executive Director, Progressive Congress Action Fund
P.S. Any amount will make a great deal of difference in this campaign. If we want to address climate change, or unemployment benefits, or the Employee Free Choice Act, or any of the other literally hundreds of things that the House has passed and that have died in the Senate, we need your help to fix the Senate.
We Need More Alan Greysons in Congress
Unemployment and the real depth of our current recession.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIkAHO5zkoI&feature=player_embedded
The Budget Deficit Chicken Hawks
Monday 26 July 2010
by: Dean Baker, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed | Link
Steve Weiss provided this article/link.
Most people are familiar with the concept of "chicken hawks." Chicken hawks are the politicians who are anxious to send other people to risk their lives in war, but somehow managed to avoid service when they had the opportunity to fight themselves. Former Vice-President Dick Cheney and former President George W. Bush are the leading members of the chicken hawk society.
It turns out that we have a similar story with budget policy, where there appears to be a large contingent of budget deficit chicken hawks. The deficit hawks have been filling the news lately. These are the folks who are yelling that something terrible will happen if we don't reduce the deficit. Most of them seem to have missed the fact that something terrible is now happening. We have almost 15 million people unemployed and 9 million underemployed, with several million facing the loss of their home in the next few years.
People of all ages are seeing their lives wrecked by a economic disaster that was entirely preventable, if the folks running economic policy were not too incompetent to notice an $8 trillion housing bubble. In fact, one of the reasons that this bubble did not get noticed was that, even before the bubble burst - creating large deficits - the deficit hawks were running around yelling about the deficits. These deficit hawks were able to get far more attention for their whining than the people who were warning about the dangers posed by the housing bubble.
Now that we have seen the collapse, rather than supporting action to get the economy back on its feet, the deficit hawks are again yelling about the long-term deficit. But what is really striking is that many of the people who whine loudest about the deficit are the most reluctant to take steps to reduce the deficit - at least when it involves powerful interest groups.
So, in the last week, we were treated to the sight of two senators who are leading Democratic deficit hawks, Kent Conrad from North Dakota and Ben Nelson from Nebraska, both came out for the extension of the portion of President Bush's tax cuts that went to upper-income people. These two senators, who have been in a near panic about the debt that we are handing on to our children, came out firmly for more debt for our children if the alternative was slightly higher tax payments by the wealthy.
Unfortunately, this chicken hawk approach to deficit reduction is more the rule than the exception. The surge in the deficit in the last three years was overwhelmingly due to the economic collapse. It might be reasonable, therefore, to look to Wall Street to pick up much of the tab for future shortfalls. My calculations indicate that a tax on financial speculation could raise in the neighborhood of 1.0 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or $150 billion a year.
Yet, almost none of the deficit hawks will go near a financial speculation tax. In fact, when America Speaks, a group funded by Wall Street investment banker and leading deficit hawk Peter Peterson, put on a series of town halls on the deficit, their booklet told participants that a speculation tax could only raise 0.1 percent of GDP, one third of what the United Kingdom gets from taxing stock trades alone.
It is not only Wall Street that is protected by the deficit chicken hawks. The insurance and pharmaceutical industries can also count on the deficit chicken hawks. As all budget analysts know, the country's long-term budget problem is due to our broken health care system. We pay more than twice as much per person as the average in other wealthy countries.
But the deficit hawks are scared to talk about fixing the health care system. This would hurt the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and other powerful interest groups. When America Speaks came to health care, they said reform was off limits. They only wanted participants to talk about cutting Medicare and Medicaid. The elderly and the poor don't have powerful lobbies like the industry groups.
Basically, the deficit chicken hawks want deficit reduction, but they only want it to be at the expense of the elderly and the poor, hence, their attacks on Social Security and Medicare. Of course, the public is not anxious to go along with gutting the programs on which they and their parents depend, which is why the deficit chicken hawks prefer to do their work through commissions that hold secret meetings.
The deficit chicken hawks also don't have much commitment to honesty. When America Speaks reported its results to the public and President Obama's deficit commission, it noted that one cut to Social Security, raising the retirement age, got majority support from participants. However, it turns out that this result was based on a software error. When the error was corrected, support fell to 39 percent.
Remarkably, America Speaks did not have the integrity to publicly acknowledge and correct this mistake. It just quietly changed the number on its web site. This is the sort of behavior we should expect from deficit chicken hawks, who want to attack the programs on which so many ordinary working people depend, while protecting the interests of the rich and powerful.
Dean Baker is a macroeconomist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC. He previously worked as a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute and an assistant professor at Bucknell University. He is a regular Truthout columnist and a member of Truthout's Board of Advisers.
Pat Eck provided this link/article.
Husband Down
A husband and wife are shopping in their local Wal-Mart.
The husband picks up a case of Budweiser and puts it in their cart.
'What do you think you're doing?' asks the wife.
'They're on sale, only $10 for 24 cans he replies.
'Put them back, we can't afford them demands the wife,
and so they carry on shopping.
A few aisles further the woman picks up a $20 jar of face cream
and puts it in the basket.
What do you think you're doing?' asks the husband.
'It’s my face cream. It makes me look beautiful,' replies the wife.
Her husband retorts: 'So does 24 cans of Budweiser and it's half the price.'
On the PA system:
'Cleanup on aisle 25,
we have a husband down.'
Thank You for Subscribing to Derrick's Progressive News
Feel free to forward this email…
Contact Derrick at Derrick@Duehren.com to subscribe for free or to unsubscribe. Please put “Newsletter” in the subject line.
|
Publisher/Editor |
||
|
|
Derrick Duehren www.Duehren.com By day, I’m a technical writer/human factors Specialist for a local telecommunications company; by night, I’m a fire-breathing defender of liberal social policies. I’m a news hound and share with you stories and videos that I feel are worth sharing with you all (590 as of July 2010). I do not share my mailing list and all newsletters go out as blind copies, so everyone gets their own individual copy. |
~ YES WE ARE ~
Making single payer happen
one person one phone call/Fax
~ at a time ~ Regina Dobson |
Get information, resources, and more at our web site: SinglePayUSA.com.
Contact Congress Daily: Send a Free E-Fax at www.1payer.net/faxapp/.
Other Good Sites for Single Payer Information:
www.healthcareforalloregon..org
www.medicareforall.org/Answers
Thanks, Derrick!
I'm glad that you're back on the Progressive News and I need to get caught up on your articles.
Peace
Nora
Nora. M. Nash, OSF
Director, Corporate Social Responsibility
Sisters of St Francis of Philadelphia
609 S. Convent Road
Aston, PA 19014
Thanks Derrick for being the watchdog for us and revealing the real "truth" in your newsletter. It will help all of us as we head into the fall elections during our campaign efforts.
Also great news on your Proposed Deficit Remedy: The Healthcare 'Public Option' piece. I like that 128 House Dems are on board to reconsider this concept and hold down federal spending. Isn't that common sense fiscal responsibility that Republicans and Tea Baggers scream bloody murder about? So it's only good when they do it but NO, not when Democrats "steal their ideas" and make it happen. Ok, that's my rant for today.
Michael Crabbe
Recent comments
4 weeks 5 days ago
14 weeks 2 days ago
14 weeks 4 days ago
14 weeks 5 days ago
14 weeks 5 days ago
14 weeks 6 days ago
19 weeks 3 days ago
26 weeks 2 days ago
36 weeks 4 days ago
36 weeks 5 days ago