Earth Picture

The Earth and Hurricane Isaac on the evening of 8-28-2012:

 

 

"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral." -Paolo Friere-

Medicare- Facts and Fiction!

Republican attacks on President Obama's plans for Medicare are growing more heated and inaccurate by the day. Both Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan made statements last week implying that the Affordable Care Act would eviscerate Medicare when in fact the law should shore up the program's finances.

Both men have also twisted themselves into knots to distance themselves from previous positions, so that voters can no longer believe anything they say. Last week, both insisted that they would save Medicare by pumping a huge amount of money into the program, a bizarre turnaround for supposed fiscal conservatives out to rein in federal spending. The likelihood that they would stand by that irresponsible pledge after the election is close to zero. And the likelihood that they would be better able than Democrats to preserve Medicare for the future (through a risky voucher system that may not work well for many beneficiaries) is not much better. THE ALLEGED "RAID ON MEDICARE" A Republican attack ad says that the reform law has "cut" $716 billion from Medicare, with the money used to expand coverage to low-income people who are currently uninsured. "So now the money you paid for your guaranteed health care is going to a massive new government program that's not for you," the ad warns.

What the Republicans fail to say is that the budget resolutions crafted by Paul Ryan and approved by the Republican-controlled House retained virtually the same cut in Medicare.

In reality, the $716 billion is not a "cut" in benefits but rather the savings in costs that the Congressional Budget Office projects over the next decade from wholly reasonable provisions in the reform law.

One big chunk of money will be saved by reducing unjustifiably high subsidies to private Medicare Advantage plans that enroll many beneficiaries at a higher average cost than traditional Medicare. Another will come from reducing the annual increases in federal reimbursements to health care providers — like hospitals, nursing homes and home health agencies — to force the notoriously inefficient system to find ways to improve productivity.

And a further chunk will come from fees or taxes imposed on drug makers, device makers and insurers — fees that they can surely afford since expanded coverage for the uninsured will increase their markets and their revenues.

NO HARM TO SENIORS The Republicans imply that the $716 billion in cuts will harm older Americans, but almost none of the savings come from reducing the benefits available for people already on Medicare. But if Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan were able to repeal the reform law, as they have pledged to do, that would drive up costs for many seniors — namely those with high prescription drug costs, who are already receiving subsidies under the reform law, and those who are receiving preventive services, like colonoscopies, mammograms and immunizations, with no cost sharing.

Mr. Romney argued on Friday that the $716 billion in cuts will harm beneficiaries because those who get discounts or extra benefits in the heavily subsidized Medicare Advantage plans will lose them and because reduced payments to hospitals and other providers could cause some providers to stop accepting Medicare patients.

If he thinks that will be a major problem, Mr. Romney should leave the reform law in place: it has many provisions designed to make the delivery of health care more efficient and cheaper, so that hospitals and others will be better able to survive on smaller payments.

NO BANKRUPTCY LOOMING The Republicans also argue that the reform law will weaken Medicare and that by preventing the cuts and ultimately turning to vouchers they will enhance the program's solvency. But Medicare is not in danger of going "bankrupt"; the issue is whether the trust fund that pays hospital bills will run out of money in 2024, as now projected, and require the program to live on the annual payroll tax revenues it receives.

The Affordable Care Act helped push back the insolvency date by eight years, so repealing the act would actually bring the trust fund closer to insolvency, perhaps in 2016.

DEFICIT REDUCTION Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan said last week that they would restore the entire $716 billion in cuts by repealing the law. The Congressional Budget Office concluded that repealing the law would raise the deficit by $109 billion over 10 years.

The Republicans gave no clue about how they would pay for restoring the Medicare cuts without increasing the deficit. It is hard to believe that, if faced with the necessity of fashioning a realistic budget, keeping Medicare spending high would be a top priority with a Romney-Ryan administration that also wants to spend very large sums on the military and on tax cuts for wealthy Americans.

Regardless of who wins the election, Medicare spending has to be reined in lest it squeeze out other priorities, like education. It is utterly irresponsible for the Republicans to promise not to trim Medicare spending in their desperate bid for votes.

THE DANGER IN MEDICARE VOUCHERS The reform law would help working-age people on modest incomes buy private policies with government subsidies on new insurance exchanges, starting in 2014. Federal oversight will ensure a reasonably comprehensive benefit package, and competition among the insurers could help keep costs down.

But it is one thing to provide these "premium support" subsidies for uninsured people who cannot get affordable coverage in the costly, dysfunctional markets that serve individuals and their families. It is quite another thing to use a similar strategy for older Americans who have generous coverage through Medicare and who might well end up worse off if their vouchers failed to keep pace with the cost of decent coverage.

Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan would allow beneficiaries to use vouchers to buy a version of traditional Medicare instead of a private plan, but it seems likely that the Medicare plan would attract the sickest patients, driving up Medicare premiums so that they would be unaffordable for many who wanted traditional coverage. Before disrupting the current Medicare program, it would be wise to see how well premium support worked in the new exchanges.

THE CHOICE This will be an election about big problems, and it will provide a clear choice between contrasting approaches to solve them. In the Medicare arena, the choice is between a Democratic approach that wants to retain Medicare as a guaranteed set of benefits with the government paying its share of the costs even if costs rise, and a Republican approach that wants to limit the government's spending to a defined level, relying on untested market forces to drive down insurance costs.

The reform law is starting pilot programs to test ways to reduce Medicare costs without cutting benefits. Many health care experts have identified additional ways to shave hundreds of billions of dollars from projected spending over the next decade without harming beneficiaries.

It is much less likely that the Republicans, who have long wanted to privatize Medicare, can achieve these goals.

A version of this editorial appeared in print on August 19, 2012, on page SR10 of the National edition with the headline: Truth and Lies About Medicare.

This is what we do know about what Republicans intend overall:

Romney/Ryan budget:
- would not balance federal budget for 28 or more years
- would revoke tax breaks such as mortgage-interest deductions, and others

Romney/Ryan Medicare:
- would require seniors accept fixed payments
- would require citizens at age 55 choose vouchers, private insurance, or Medicare
- vouchers would not necessarily cover Medicare
- would raise qualifying ate to 67 by 2034
- would cap spending at $7,400 per person
- would require average senior pay $1,200 to $2,400 a year

Romney/Ryan tax policy:
- would keep Bush tax cuts
- would ADD $4.5 trillion in cuts through 2022
- would replace six-tax-rates with two: 10% and 25%
- would eliminate alternative minimum tax
- would cut corporate taxes
- would repeal tax breaks for low-income families with children
- would increase taxes for bottom 1/5 of households
- would increase taxes average $1,000 for households earning $10,000 to $20,000
- would cut taxes $265,000 over 10 years for those making $1 million and more a year
- would lower or eliminate tax on capital gains, interest and dividends, etc.

Romney/Ryan Medicaid
- would cut aid for poor, disabled, and health care for children
- would transfer remaining funding to states as block grants
- would repeal expansion of aid in current law
- would repeal Affordable Care legislation

Romney even suggested vouchers to replace VA care.

Nothing isn't expendable with the Republicans!

 

Best wishes always,
Bill Harasym

"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral." -Paolo Friere-

Olympic swimmers pee in the pool!

 

TheYoungTurks just uploaded a video: Olympic Swimmers Pee In The Pool "Carly Geehr has answered one of life's eternal questions: Do Olympians pee in the pool? The answer, is, yes, but the extent to which this is true may disturb many. Geehr, a former USA Swimming National Team Member, decided to provide the icky details when faced with the question on Quora...".* Ana Kasparian, Cenk Uygur, and Dave Koller discuss on The Young Turks. *Read more here from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/do-olympic-swimmers-pee-in-the-pool_n_1729019.html More

"CenturyLink is a Bad Corporate Citizen!"

I am a veteran who is disabled with an inoperable brain tumor, and this is how CenturyLink treats me. In February of this year I decided to switch providers, even though I had used Qwest then CenturyLink for years. One thing that bugged me initially was they didn't give me the discount for folks living at the poverty level, which was a few bucks a month. This was when I moved to Sheridan, WY from Buffalo WY in September 2008. Over the next 3+ years I saw my monthly phone bill rise a little bit each month to over $100 a month, or 10% of my monthly income---now this was just for one landline phone and internet, and long distance which I used to call my parents twice a week, and some sibling regularly, like once every few months. On a many occasions I got these letters from them to "Review" my account, so I decided to call, and see if they can give me a better deal, and they said they couldn't, but I could buy this really neat cellphone and "Bundle" it to my account. It was about helping me, it was about another way to try and sell me something I don't need.

So, In February I switched to another local telecommunications company for my phone, local and long distance and my internet needs. I saved 30% off what I was paying with CenturyLink. On February 7, 2012 they officially switched me over. Prior to that when I was at their office, my new company that is, we discussed what I had to do to switch over, and they gave me some papers to sign, and I asked if I should call CenturyLink, and they said they will know when they get the official switching carriers paperwork. So, I thought nothing of it, the switch went well, and I figured CenturyLink would send me a final bill for my services used. Well, I waited a month and still hadn't gotten a final bill, so I called them, meaning you folks at CenturyLink, And told the representative the situation. And she said I was still a customer, and that I didn't call CenturyLink, so therefore I am still connected. I said know I wasn't, and that the local company switched me over on February 7th, 2012, and told here to check her records. She comes back and says, "Oh yeah, it looks like they switched you over back on Feb. 7th, but that doesn't matter, because you didn't call us and tell us". I said I was told that you would realize that I officially switched when you got the notice from my new company, and I didn't need to call you. She was like, "It still doesn't matter, you didn't call, so you still owe us. And, do you want me to disconnect your account today?" I said it's been a month, and since I disconnected, and I'm not paying for an additional month. I'll pay what I owe, but not for when I was disconnected from you all---that's insane.

So, I figured CenturyLink would send me a real and true reconciled bill, but that has yet to happen. Instead, what CenturyLink has done, something that a dirtbag would do and that is they sent my bill to collections. It's been 4 months since I last spoke with them, and they send my debt to a collection agency. All I can say is someone is a real scumbag there. I never said I wouldn't pay, but a wanted a legitimate bill, and not one where I pay for a month I wasn't even connected.

So America, This is how CenturyLink screws with Veterans who are disabled---they fuck with them and try to cheat them.

Thanks for being a great corporate citizen there CenturyLink!

 

Best wishes always,
Bill Harasym

"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless
means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral." -Paolo Friere-

"Official Lies, Misinformation and Bullshit from Congresscorporatist Cynthia Lummis!"

See if you can spot the Lies, Misinformation and all around Bullshit from Wyoming's corporate-owned Cynthia Marie Lummis, who like Barrasso and Enzi has decided that selling her soul to the Devil has become her Legacy in Congress. She's a sad excuse for a congressperson, and is the result of 1 of Wyoming's very few faults, that is the low-information voters who, like lemmings, walk blindly off the cliff, following people who are truly working against their best interest. Shame on them, as they have brought us Liars like: Lummis, Enzi and Barrasso, who just so happens to be the King of Liars in the Senate.

 

July 27, 2012     William Harasym 200 Smith Street Apt 410 Sheridan, WY 82801-3842   Dear William:   Thank you for contacting me regarding coal mining in Wyoming.   I am a strong, unapologetic supporter of coal mining in Wyoming, and use of coal for affordable electricity. The Powder River Basin (PRB) of Wyoming and Montana is the Saudi Arabia of coal. The total amount of recoverable resources in this tiny area of the country is staggering. In fact, the PRB supplies about 40% of the entire country's coal supply for electricity generation. Coal production in Wyoming is safe, environmentally sound, and a massive economic driver for our state and country.   Contrary to the claims of some, coal use will not diminish in this country or the world anytime soon. While the Obama Administration is doing everything in its power (and many things outside of its power) to advance its anti-coal agenda, it cannot hide from the verifiable fact of strong demand for coal. Domestically, coal remains the most abundant, affordable, and reliable source of low cost energy for middle class families and the manufacturing sector of our country. Internationally, coal usage grew by 60% over the last decade, and is expected to continue to grow exponentially in the next decade. While we in America wring our hands over first world problems like what emissions reductions work best, today, nearly 1.3 billion people do not have access to electricity in the world. There is no debate that coal will be the primary source of bringing power to these parts of the world.   Some have called President Obama's anti-coal agenda a "war on coal." In my estimation it is a war on affordable electricity. Take for example the Environmental Protection Agency's recently proposed rules on carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants. That rule set carbon emissions standards so low that it effectively bans any new coal-fired power plants from being built in the United States ever again. In fact, the emission level is set so unrealistically low that it might even ban natural gas plants at higher elevations. By the stroke of a pen, the EPA has single-handedly taken our most abundant and affordable natural resource off the table.   The costs of the carbon emissions regulations alone to the American economy will be staggering. Combine that with the other coal-related proposed or final rules at the EPA and Department of the Interior, and the total cost to the U.S. economy rises to the billions of dollars every year by the EPA's own estimate. In fact, in response to the EPA's onslaught of regulations, 59 power plants that produce 25.4 gigawatts of power are slated to close. That's enough electricity to power 19.1 million homes, and those plants employ 29,000 workers.   Perhaps most troubling is that even if the EPA is successful in shutting down our economy in their zeal to cut emissions, they will have succeeded at nothing. A complete and total end to U.S. carbon emissions would not put a measurable dent in global carbon output. I cannot stand by while the EPA single-handedly prevents our economic recovery over an issue they cannot control even if I were to ascribe to them the best possible intentions. I fully intend to continue my battle to halt the Obama Administrations war on affordable electricity, and to support Wyoming's hard working coal families by any legislative means available.   Thank you again for taking the time to write to me.  I value your input.  If you haven't done so already, I would like to encourage you to visit my website at www.lummis.house.gov.  There you can sign up to receive my newsletter, and have access to a wealth of other information.  I won't flood your email box, but I will provide you with updates once in a while about activities in Washington that affect our lives in Wyoming.  I hope you will sign up so that we can stay in close touch, and I look forward to seeing you in Wyoming.   Sincerely, Cynthia M. Lummis Member of Congress COMMITTEES Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture Subcommittee on the Interior and the Environment Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education E-Mail Via Website http://lummis.house.gov Follow Me on Twitter Like my Facebook Page DC Office Location: 113 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 202-225-2311 District Office Locations Cheyenne Casper Rock Springs Sheridan

Message from Yelp HQ Regarding comment about the homophobic Masterpiece Cakeshop!

From: mailto:no-reply@yelp.com

Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 12:58 PM

To: no-reply@yelp.com

Subject: Message from Yelp HQ [ 852023 ]

 

__________________________________

JUL 23, 2012  |  11:58AM PDT

Hi there,

We're writing to let you know that we've decided to remove your review of Masterpiece Cakeshop. We're sorry to hear about this situation and understand users will want to talk about it. We hope you'll understand that our Content Guidelines (http://www.yelp.com/guidelines) require reviews that focus on actual customer experiences, and we think this is important for maintaining Yelp as a useful site for consumer reviews. Reviews of businesses on Yelp are not the place for responding to a news story or matters not related to your own experience. Please be aware that we will not be accepting further postings from you for this listing and that doing so could result in account closure.

Thanks for your understanding, and for keeping in mind our guidelines as you continue to participate on Yelp.

Regards,
Holly
Yelp User Support
San Francisco, California

Yelp Official Blog | http://officialblog.yelp.com
Yelp Frequently Asked Questions | http://www.yelp.com/faq
Yelp for Business Owners | https://biz.yelp.com

For your reference this is Case #: 852023

[[51758c369c697e4859bfe9f01c6b2630d2097815-52650978]]

“The GOP & Cynthia Lummis faux-jobs package is far more political than practical.”

The GOP jobs package, which currently includes 32 bills, represents Republicans' and Cynthia Lummis's hallmark legislative accomplishment over the past two years. In the months ahead of the election, they will lean on it as proof of two things: that they are not the do-nothing obstructionists that Democrats paint them as, and that they are working hard to address the 8.2 percent unemployment rate.

But there's a problem with their jobs bills: They don't create JOBS! At least, they won't any time soon.

Five economists said the GOP jobs package would have no meaningful impact on job creation in the near term. Some said it was not likely to do much in the long term, either.

"A lot of these things are laughable in terms of a jobs plan that would produce noticeable improvements across the country in the availability of employment in the next four or five years," said Gary Burtless, a senior economist at Brookings. "Even in the long run, if they have any effect all, it would be extremely marginal, relative to the jobs deficit we currently have."

Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody's Analytics, agreed that the bills would have almost no effect on job creation in the short term, though he was slightly more optimistic about their long-term prospects.

"These kind of changes will matter over a period of three to five years," Zandi said. "It takes that long before businesses can digest changes and respond to them."

He noted, though, that legislation as narrowly targeted as the Republican package is unlikely to do much for real job creation.

"For it to show up in a meaningful way in the natural economy, you can make specific changes that could affect a specific industry or a few companies, but it's not going to make a big difference in terms of the monthly job numbers," Zandi said. "It takes some very significant changes across lots of different industries to really make a big difference."

Carl Riccadonna, a senior economist at Deutsche Bank, said some of the bills could create jobs, but that they would amount to more of an afterthought in terms of achieving broader policy goals.

"They are very narrowly targeted, and it gives the impression that maybe some of this is special interest really pursuing these, not really taking a macro view but a very, very micro focus in what the impact would be," Riccadonna said. For most of the bills in the package, "jobs are a second- or third-order effect, not the main priority."

At the heart of the GOP jobs package is a push for rolling back regulations -- and gutting environmental laws that regulate clean air and water -- to spur job growth. The House Republican Conference website makes the argument that deregulation will "remove onerous federal regulations that are redundant, harmful to small businesses, and impede private sector investment and job creation."

But the economists said that regulation has had a minimal impact on the unemployment rate. Their claim is backed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which shows that just under 16,000 jobs, or 0.4 percent, were lost because of "government regulations/intervention."

"It's just hard to believe that the paperwork requirements to starting a business represent a major impediment to starting businesses right now," Burtless said. "That's not why we had lots more business creation in the late '90s."

Joel Prakken, chairman of Macroeconomic Advisers, warned that any potential job creation from environmental deregulation could be offset by health concerns.

"If you increase employment but you have a lot more sick people, you have to ask yourself, 'What's the trade-off?'" he said. "The highest level of GDP is not necessarily the highest level of national satisfaction or national health."

Indeed, environmental advocates argue that many of the GOP proposals are more likely to kill people than create jobs.

"It won't save them jobs, it won't even save them that much money, but it is going to cause illnesses, deaths, more hospital stays or days lost because of illness," said Scott Slesinger, legislative director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "That's why we have all these environmental laws."

Not all of the GOP proposals are focused on environmental deregulation. A handful call for weakening the authority of the National Labor Relations Board as a way to boost businesses' savings, which could, in theory, then be reinvested in new jobs.

But Burtless said those proposals are more likely to impact those currently working than those seeking work.

"They may weaken the ability of current workers to negotiate for better working conditions or wages. They may lessen the ability of workers who want to join unions to do so in companies that are currently unorganized," he said. "But it's just hard to believe that they create jobs in the short run."

Even one of the more popular bills in the mix -- a small business tax cut -- won't do much for job creation, some of the economists said. They argued that it's not that businesses need more money for hiring, but that they need a sufficient demand for their products.

"They know that if they hire people to produce more widgets, they won't be able to sell the widgets," Prakken said. "Giving them a tax break just increases their profits," but doesn't encourage hiring.

Riccadonna disagreed. He acknowledged that weak demand is the biggest problem facing businesses, but said the small business tax cut is still the most likely of all the GOP bills to create jobs.

"We should be focusing on small businesses and what we can do to make business conditions more favorable for them, because that's where the real turn in labor market will lie," he said. "So anything that makes life or operating conditions a little bit easier for them, that I would certainly be in favor of. That will have a meaningful jobs impact."

Ultimately, each economist was clear on one point: "The GOP package is far more political than practical."

"It's game playing to try to pretend like they're doing something," said Jesse Rothstein, an economics professor at the University of California, Berkeley. "It's silly season, and so they know they have to put up something that has the label 'job creation' on it, whether or not it would work."

Boehner spokesman Michael Steel demurred when asked for a response. He reiterated that Senate Democrats are holding up their job-creation bills.

"The House has passed more than 30 jobs bills that are awaiting action in the Democrat-controlled United States Senate," said Steel. "We have passed a responsible budget that deals with our deficits and debt, a bill to replace the 'sequester,' which would be disastrous for our national security, and ... we will vote to stop the tax hike on every American taxpayer, which is scheduled for the end of this year. In short, we are acting on the American peoples' priorities: jobs and our economy."

A Cantor spokeswoman did not return a request for comment.

For all their complaints about Senate inaction, Boehner and Cantor regularly fail to point out that the Senate has, in fact, passed nearly a dozen of Republicans' so-called jobs bills in the last two years. Eleven have already become law, and another one has passed the Senate but hasn't been signed into law yet.

 

Best wishes always,
Bill Harasym

"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless
means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral." -Paolo Friere-