Dr. Steven Safyer, CEO of Montefiore (The Largest Medical Care Complex in the Bronx) Has a Message on Health Care

And He Has the Credentials to Back It Up

The New York Times has a very adoring profile of Dr. Steven Safyer who is head of Montefiore in the New York City borough of the Bronx.  Who is Dr. Safyer and what is Montefiore?

Dr. Safyer - Gosh He Doesn't Look Like a Radical, The Kind That Thinks Everyone is
Entitled to Decent, Affordable Health Care

Dr. Safyer, 63, took the helm of Montefiore in 2008 after three decades at the hospital, starting as an intern and resident who later spent years caring for inmates at Rikers Island. Today, he oversees four hospitals and 125 health clinics across the Bronx and lower Westchester County with a staff of 18,332 — making it the borough’s largest employer — providing services from primary care to fertility treatments and outpatient cardiac procedures.

The philosophy that drives Dr. Safyer and the Montefiore Medical complex is not to make the most money of all (although Dr. Safyer does quite well, thank you) but to integrate health care and the community. 

But here is the concept that is completely opposite people like Mitt Romney, and  various Republicans who would deprive low income people of medical care by refusing to participate in the expansion of Medicaid.

In Montefiore’s version of a war-room session last fall, Dr. Safyer, in a gray pinstripe suit, told 100 employees, many in white coats and surgical scrubs, that the hospital provided comprehensive medical care to about one-third of Bronx residents, and emergency or non-routine care to another one-third — all in one of the poorest, and most health-challenged, urban communities in the nation.

“Health care is a human right, not a privilege,” Dr. Safyer said firmly.

Dr. Safyer exhorted the employees to work together to find innovations as the hospital sought to expand to serve more people while lowering its costs.

“There’s no private equity,” and there are no private investors there, he said. “We need to provide for the future and we need to have a positive bottom line.”

And in case anyone missed it in the section above, here is the critical concept again.

“Health care is a human right, not a privilege,” Dr. Safyer said firmly.

Well, that is true, but Conservatives who hold legislative office think it only applies to them, that only they have a right to top-of-the-line government provided health care, which they do.  Their message to everyone else, if you want health care you shouldn’t have chosen to be poor, old, sick, or disabled.

Difficulty of Getting a Price for Hip Replacement Illustrate Fallacy of Conservative Policy for Health Care Consumers Driving Health Care Costs

Need a Hip Replacement and Want to Know the Cost – Good Damn Luck

A fundamental concept in conservative proposals for health care reform is that the consumer should be empowered to use the marketplace to drive costs down and quality up.  This is, of course, preposterous.  Health care is so complex that even the most educated and knowledgeable consumer cannot make rational choices.

Don’t believe it?  Well a researcher at Washington University, Jaime Rosenthal set out to find out the cost of a hip replacement for her fictitious grandmother.  She failed miserably.  Here’s how she and her co-authors tried.

We randomly selected 2 hospitals from each state (plus Washington, DC) that perform THA, as well as the 20 top-ranked orthopedic hospitals according to US News and World Report rankings. We contacted each hospital by telephone between May 2011 and July 2012. Using a standardized script, we requested from each hospital the lowest complete “bundled price” (hospital plus physician fees) for an elective THA that was required by one of the author's 62-year-old grandmother. In our scenario, the grandmother did not have insurance but had the means to pay out of pocket. We explained that we were seeking the lowest complete price for the procedure. 

And here is the result of those efforts.

The results of this study provide insight into the availability of pricing information for a common elective medical procedure, THA. We found that only 16% of a randomly selected group of US hospitals were able to provide a complete bundled price, though an additional 47% of hospitals could provide a complete price when hospitals and health care providers were contacted separately. Obtaining pricing information was difficult and frequently required multiple conversations with numerous staff members at each hospital as well as affiliated physician offices. Finally, we found that price estimates varied nearly 10-fold across hospitals, which is surprising considering that all hospitals were provided with standardized information about the procedure being requested. In aggregate, our results highlight the difficulty that consumers may have in obtaining price estimates for common medical procedures, but also that comparison shopping might yield significant price savings for savvy consumers.

That’s right.  Finding out pricing info was very difficult, and the idea that prices could vary 10 fold suggests that some providers were not providing complete information.  But yes, it is possible for consumers to shop and save money, as long as they have a high degree of knowledge, a large amount of time (over a year for this study) and an advanced degree like the authors of this study. 

Well, that’s okay, doesn’t everyone fit that description.  Well, they do in the fantasy world that Conservatives live in.

On a Slow News Days, Here’s Stories of Things That Didn’t Happen

But They Could

Republicans in the House of Representatives suddenly reversed their position on cutting taxes when their program was embraced by President Obama.  The GOP had said they were unanimous in their support to allow greater charitable contributions deductions until the President stated he agreed with their position.  “We are not going to let the President get his way on a tax break even if it is one we support” said House Majority leader Cantor.  “That’s just not us.”

The major television networks announced that they had reached agreement that at least one Sunday each calendar quarter they would not allow Senators John McCain or Lindsey Graham on the Sunday talk shows.  Senator McCain reacted by calling for an armed assault on CBS and Senator Graham was reported to be sulking and unavailable for comment.

The NRA has taken a position on allowing Americans to own Sherman tanks.  The pro-gun organization said the 2^nd Amendment guaranteed that right, and that Washington had led troops to victory at Yorktown just to protect the right of all Americans to drive a combat ready tank to Wal-Mart.  “If this is not allowed” said a press release, “Americans will have lost every right they ever had. 

Suffering through a bad basketball season the University of Kentucky has applied for admission to the NBA.  School officials said they were operating a pro team in all but name only, and that the higher revenues generated by being an NBA franchise would enable the University to upgrade its facilities, particularly the dorm dedicated to the football team which has not had a major improvement since 2011.

At their most recent conference Conservatives blasted the policy of allowing the Federal government to take over health care.  This was followed by a unanimous declaration that states should decline to set up and operate the health care exchanges mandated by the new health care reform law, and to let the Federal government organize and operate those exchanges.  “How can we be against Federal takeover of health care if we don’t let them take over health care?” a prominent Conservative noted.

The Republican Party today announced victory in its War on Women, saying it had women’s rights on the run and were confident that in the near future they could enact government policy to completely control women’s health care.  The Party said the victory against women’s rights would now allow them to concentrate resources on the War on the Poor, and that ending Medicaid expansion, cutting unemployment benefits, ceasing job training and other actions would enable them at long last to produce the Mitt Romney vision of America they all cherished.  Mr. Romney was unable to comment, as he was attending one of the 57 Board of Directors meetings he signed up for, along with designing a new car elevator for one of his mansions.

New Texas Senator Ted Cruz (R) has received accolades for resurrecting the practices of Joe McCarthy.  Senator Cruz’s innuendo and unfounded accusations against Defense Secretary nominee Hagel have earned him the admiration and praise of old time Conservatives, who felt the Republican Party was going soft on Communism and slandering.  

Fundamentalist Religious leaders of all faiths will be gathering next week to deal with the continuing problems of abuse of women and children in their ranks.  The focus will be on how the various groups can keep their practices from becoming public knowledge and subject to the law.  A key part of the program will be the efforts to make abuse of women and children legal as part of the exercise of Freedom of Religion.

Following the news of leveraged buyouts of Dell and Heinz, Fox News announced that it would seek funding to take the Republican party private, and operate it as a wholly owned subsidiary of Fox News. 

The austerity programs that are wrecking the economies of Greece, Spain and Portugal were declared a resounding success by British Conservatives, who said they just hoped England would be able to do as well. 

and finally

Actress Ashely Judd is seriously considering a run for the United States Senate from Kentucky, and  has already been the subject of withering ads from Karl Rove’s billionaire conservative attack dog organization.  As a result, Ms. Judd’s name recognition has risen from about 10% to over 90%, and her approval rating has reached a new high.  “On behalf of Democrats everywhere I want to thank Mr. Rove and his group for all that they have done to elect Democrats” Ms. Judd said, and “I just hope he will continue to do what he has been doing.”

Fox News Gets a New Loser – Former Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown

A Step Up From Sarah Palin – But then Anyone Would Be a Step Up From Ms. Palin

Fox news, ever on the lookout to hire has been politicians who might have some future has decided to ditch Sarah Palin

Palin’s contract, reportedly worth $1 million a year, ran for three years but was not renewed in recent weeks. Morris faded from view on Fox after the election, when he maintained that Mitt Romney was going to win by a landslide.

and to hire former Republican Senator Scott Brown.  This handwriting is pretty clear, Fox News has decided Ms. Palin has no future, something other observers determined eons ago. And Fox has apparently decided that Mr. Brown does have a future.

As for Mr. Brown, it looks like he has decided to turn in his phony moderate credentials and go full force Conservative.

Mr. Brown - Welcome to Fox News - It's Where You Always Belonged Isn't It

Former US Senator Scott Brown is becoming a contributor on Fox News, making his debut tonight on “Hannity” at 9 p.m., Fox confirmed today in a press release.

Bill Shine, Executive Vice President of Programming for the network, said Brown will offer political commentary on various programs during the day and in primetime.

“Senator Brown’s dedication to out-of-the box thinking on key issues makes him an important voice in the country and we are looking forward to his contributions across all FOX News platforms,” Shine said in the statement.

Mr. Brown apparently has not learned much from the man he hopes to follow, Mitt Romney.  Mr. Romney also tried to re-invent himself, but it only served to remind swing voters that he stood for nothing.  Let’s see if Mr. Brown is more successful.

National Geographic Channel to Present Film on “Killing Lincoln”

Based on the Bill O’Reilly Book – So Don’t Look for Real History

With the National Geographic set to broadcast a motion picture based on the best selling supposedly non-fiction book by Bill O’Reilly on the Lincoln Assassination, it would seem appropriate to provide potential viewers with a description of what will be seen.  Given Mr. O’Reilly’s penchant for unsubstantiated Conservative dogma here is what everyone is likely to be presented with.

Lincoln Looking for Facts in the Bill O'Reilly Book

The highlights will be

1. Instead of being a bitter Confederate sympathizer, John Wilkes Booth will be shown to be motivated to kill Lincoln because Lincoln wanted to extend health care insurance to low income immigrants.

2. Jefferson Davis will be portrayed as a patriot who supported states rights, and fought the war because he believed the tenth Amendment was being violated by the Union and that Edward Stanton was the wrong choice to be Secretary of Defense.

3. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was an un-Constitutional exercise of Presidential power.  The 13^th Amendment that ended slavery was also un-Constitutional. 

4. General Grant will be shown to be a secret tax raiser.

5. Since many in the Union Army were Irish immigrants and in the country illegally, the South will be declared winner of the Civil War on a technicality.

6. Freed slaves will be given some rights, but they will have to sit in the back of the bus in Montgomery, Alabama.  The movie will depict how happy the new citizens were at having a seat on the bus.

7. As part of the peace agreement between the Union and the Confederacy, all Federal military installations in the South will have to be named after Southern Generals.  (Wait, that did happen).

8. The part where South Carolina slave owners declare that while the slaves are now free, no African American will ever be elected President will be excised from the presentation.

9.  It is revealed that Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and 2nd Inaugural speeches will have turned out to have been written by Christopher Marlowe.

Finally, it is not certain, but it is possible that the movie will show a heretofore unknown Civil War fact.  It was largely rumored, and now confirmed that in order for the North to re-admit Florida and North Carolina back in the Union, the South required the North to also take Mississippi, Alabama and Texas or no deal.  Like the decision of the government to allow sales of Turkey Bacon, it is a deal the Union rues to this day.

North Carolina Republicans About to Keep 500,000 People From Having Health Care Insurance Paid For by the Federal Government

Why?  - Because They Can

After a ruling by Chief Justice John Roberts that states can opt out of the Medicaid expansion provisions in the health care reform law, North Carolina is now poised to do just that.

A Republican measure to prevent major components of the federal health care law from taking effect in North Carolina will almost certainly be approved after Gov. Pat McCrory endorsed the effort Tuesday.

The new governor had been a wild card after he expressed caution about the fiscal implications of the legislation and declined for weeks to take a position on the broader bill, which would prevent the expansion of Medicaid in 2014 to roughly 500,000 people and prohibit the state from creating an online exchange for private health insurance.

Hours after McCrory’s announcement, the measure won easy approval in a House committee, where Republicans voiced concern about the cost of offering Medicaid coverage to more North Carolinians and outnumbered Democrats who called the bill an “attack on the poor.” The full House will consider the legislation Wednesday, and it could land on the governor’s desk next week.

Chandra Brown works two jobs but is still unable to afford health insurance. Brown is a diabetic and requires regular doctor visits.

JULI LEONARD — jleonard@newsobserver.com

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/02/12/2675166/mccrory-gop-plan-to-stop-nc-medicaid.html#storylink=cpy

And how many of the legislators that voted to deny health care insurance to low income people have access health care insurance provided by the government of the state of North Carolina?  100%.  And what about the Governor?  Well  he was Mayor of Charlotte for many years.  So how long has he had access to health care insurance provided by government?  Many years.

And what about Chief Justice John Roberts, who has long been a Federal judge, how does he get health care insurance?  That’s right class, full health care insurance provided  by the Federal government. 

But hey, if low income people want health insurance they should be a state legislator or Federal judge.  Yeah, that’s the solution.

Republicans Furious at Secretary of the Treasury Designate Jack Lew Had an Investment Domiciled in the Cayman Islands

Furious Because He Lost Money

During the recent Presidential campaign Republicans happily supported the position of Mitt Romney that Mitt Romney was entitled to invest money offshore and avoid U. S. taxes, and in fact not even have to disclose the investments.  But now they are all upset that the man selected to be Secretary of the Treasury had a small investment in the Caymans.

Here is the story from the newly crowned apologist for the Republicans, Dana Milbank in the Washington Post, (the paper of record of the old crowned apologist for the Republicans).

Lew, who was White House chief of staff while Obama’s campaign was pummeling Romney over his pay and taxes, received a $945,000 bonus in January 2009 after a brief tenure at Citigroup — just as the bank announced huge losses and took a taxpayer bailout. Lew also invested $56,000 in a Citigroup venture-capital fund registered in the Cayman Islands — registered in the very building, in fact, that Obama labeled “the largest tax scam in the world.”

See the problem here, the reason why Republicans are upset is this

This time, it was Baucus’s task to inoculate Lew against charges that he was associated with the very structure Baucus had identified with tax evasion. “Did you know at the time it was Cayman?” he asked. “When did you divest? . . . Did you pay taxes on that investment?”

Lew’s claims that he didn’t know where the fund was based and that he lost money on the investment didn’t quiet the Republican questioners.

which now reveals the real reason for Republican anger.  Mr. Lew lost money and even worse disclosed the investment.  All of which makes Mr. Romney look bad, and for Republicans, someone who lost money is surely not qualified to be in government.

Next time Mr. Lew, invest tens of millions offshore and hide the money and skip out on the taxes.  Republicans will love You.

Goodwill Industries in the Raleigh-Durham Area is Doing Good Work

And Providing Great Financial Rewards for Some of Its Management and Board

It’s hard to leave the so-called ‘entitlement’ issue that Mitt Romney raised in the last election, because Mr. Romney was right about the idea, just wrong it its application.  The real ‘entitlement’ class is those very wealthy and highly compensated people who feel they are entitled to huge compensation, tax breaks and special treatment. Don't believe that, read on.

It turns out that the head of Goodwill Industries in the Raleigh Durham area and his spouse take home over $800,000 a year in compensation.  And both Mr. McLain and his wife have had huge salary increases recently.  And there are other benefits also.

Dennis McLain earns $260,801 in base pay and $169,438 in extra compensation. A 2012 audit report shows Goodwill also approved a tax-free retirement housing allowance for the president, $2,500 a month from his retirement until his death, and a retirement medical plan paying up to $9,000 a year.

Linda McLain’s base pay totals $334,195, with $30,938 in other benefits. Four other employees earn six-figure salaries.

That’s pretty nice.  And it’s also nice to be a board member of the group.

For at least two years, Goodwill retained and paid a real-estate brokerage owned by developer Brantley Tillman, who sat on its board of directors. The board chairman until 2011, Tillman’s firm was paid $213,000 in 2010 and $108,000 in 2009 for commissions on land purchases.

But that’s okay, according to Goodwill since everybody does it.

Tillman did not respond to a call seeking comment. In response, Martin said Tillman would have recused himself from any vote on this money, eliminating a conflict of interest. She pointed out that the YMCA of the Triangle also reports board members doing contract work, including one for more than $600,000.

Now this is not the say the organization does not do a great deal of good.  It does.  But think how much more good it could do if it paid its senior management salary and benefits more in line with the charitable mission of the operation.  And if this senior management quits, well so be it, there are probably a large number of managers who will work just as effectively for far less, although those people would also recognize the non-monetary compensation they get from working in a great cause that benefits the communities they serve.

No, that’s not something Mr. Romney and his real entitlement class would understand.  See the money for Goodwill comes from sale of donated goods, with the idea that the proceeds are used for charitable purposes not to enrich senior management.  That idea just won’t fly with the Mitt Romney’s of the world.

So today's assignment class, is to find a national non-profit organization that has not been corrupted by greed and is not being used as a way to enrich those who manage and control it.

  Betcha can't.

Indiana Soybean Farmer Hugh Bowman Takes on Ag Giant Monsanto in the Supreme Court

David vs. Goliath – Goliath Winning – So Far

All of us get mad in some dispute and say, “we’ll fight this all the way to the Supreme Court”.  We don’t.  But Hugh Bowman does.  Mr. Bowman is an Indiana soybean farmer who went to the grain elevator and bought soybeans which he planted.  Monsanto says he committed a huge wrong against them and won an $850,000 judgment.  Mr. Bowman has taken his case to the Supreme Court, and incredibly, the Supreme Court will hear his case.

Mr. Bowman - He's Going to Disneyland the Supreme Court!

Of course things are slightly more complicated than the above summary.  Monsanto has developed soybean seed that can survive treatment with Roundup © which is the major weed control chemical sprayed on fields.  Farmers who buy the special seed can use it only once, they cannot save the progeny of the first crop to plant as a second crop.  Mr. Bowman had a way around that restriction.

What Bowman did was to take commodity grain from the local elevator, which is usually used for feed, and plant it. But that grain was mostly progeny of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready beans because that’s what most Indiana soybean farmers grow. Those soybeans are genetically modified to survive the weedkiller Roundup, and Monsanto claims that Bowman’s planting violated the company’s restrictions.

Monsanto says this is a violation of its rights, and so far has won in lower courts.  It’s logic is this.

An adverse ruling, Monsanto warned the court in its brief, “would devastate innovation in biotechnology,” which involves “notoriously high research and development costs.”

“Inventors are unlikely to make such investments if they cannot prevent purchasers of living organisms containing their invention from using them to produce unlimited copies,” Monsanto states.

And it has created a new term,

The farmer was in effect “soybean laundering,” according to some of the companies supporting Monsanto at the Supreme Court — selling Roundup Ready progeny beans to the grain elevator and hoping other farmers were too, then buying them back and planting them.

Mr. Bowman had been fighting the battle alone, but now has help in his upcoming Supreme Court hearing.

Bowman originally represented himself, with the help of a local attorney, in the legal proceedings. But now Seattle lawyer Mark P. Walters and his intellectual property law firm are working pro bono on Bowman’s behalf.

In a rare admission, this Forum admits it has no idea of who is right and who is wrong here.  There is no question that planting the seed and harvesting new seeds is “copying” similar to reproducing copyrighted material without authorization from the copyright holder.  But it is also clear that once a farmer has purchased soybeans from a grain elevator he or she should maybe have the right to do with them as he or she pleases, including planting them.

So we will wait to see who wins this case, hoping that Mr. Bowman does just to get a win for the little guy, but expecting Monsanto to win because, well because the Supreme Court in its current makeup doesn’t really support the little guy does it. 

This Just In – Republican Governors Can Be Bought

Holdouts Are Signing Up for Obamacare After All

The opposition of Republicans to health care reform was always astounding, because for the most part the President’s program incorporated Conservative ideas that were developed in opposition to the Clinton program.  But consistency is never a Conservative virtue, and because it was the President who proposed enacting Republican reforms, Republicans opposed them.

Now that the program is expected to go into effect, many Republican Governors have had a change of heart.

Arizona Republican Gov. Jan Brewer Telling the President He Has to Let Arizona
into the New Health Care Programs

Many Republicans balked at the expansion when the Supreme Court made the Medicaid expansion optional in its ruling last in the summer. Supporters of the law worried that the opposition could undermine the entire health-care overhaul by shrinking the pool of Americans who would gain coverage.

But six Republican governors have since come to back the program, including Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder on Wednesday and Ohio’s John Kasich on Monday. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer announced her support in mid-January.

Wow, what happened?  Oh, money.

Since the court’s decision, hospitals and other health care providers have lobbied governors aggressively to expand Medicaid. The providers had accepted billions in cuts to health care reimbursements because they thought they would gain millions of newly insured patients through Medicaid.

They have teamed up with local chambers of commerce and small businesses to argue that states could net a windfall of federal dollars with little investment of their own.

Governors have become increasingly worried about getting their fair share: If they do not extend Medicaid, their federal tax dollars will still foot the bill for expansions in other states. The Obama administration has also gone out of its way to reassure governors that upcoming budget reductions will not derail the program.

“Medicaid cuts for this president are not on the table,” White House senior economic adviser Gene Sperling told a conference of health advocates last week.

Medicaid expansion is key here.  The Feds will pay all of the costs for several years, than pay 90% of the costs.  Note that the money does not go to the poor, undeserving, lazy, worthless largely women, children and elderly who would qualify for more health care.  The money actually goes into the health care system, reducing costs for everyone else.

But don’t expect all of the Republicans to come on board.  After all, they stand for principle, even if it means suffering for the most vulnerable of their citizens.  And all these Republican Governors and state legislators have fantastic health insurance, all paid for by government of course, so what do they care anyway.

Penn State Says Sandusky Abuse Settlements Will be Paid By Insurance Company

Ever Wonder How They Purchased That Insurance? – Here’s a Look See

[Editor's note:  The following may be considered to be highly offensive.  You have been warned.]

Penn State University is in the process of settling massive claims against it, claims that appear to be entirely justified as a result of the University’s failure to prevent Assistant Football Coach Jerry Sandusky from sexually assaulting young men.  The University has issued a statement saying the costs will be borne by the University’s insurance policy. 

Penn State spokesman David LaTorre declined to comment on negotiations. He said six civil suits have been filed against the university by alleged victims of Mr. Sandusky. Penn State has said settlements would be paid by the university's insurer. 

We admit we didn’t know you could get insurance for this sort of thing.  Here’s how we think the negotiations to buy the policy might have gone.

Penn State Officials:  Hi Mr. Insurance Agent, we’d like to purchase a special insurance policy that will protect the University in case we are guilty of allowing sexual assault of young men on the campus.

Insurance Agent:  What! Why would you allow such a thing?

Penn State Officials:  Well we wouldn’t.  If such a thing happened in the dorms or in the classrooms we would take immediate steps to stop it.  But you know, it is always possible that such attacks could take place with a member of the athletic department, so we need to be protected?

Insurance Agent:  Why would a member of the athletic department be a different case?

Penn State Official:  We run an absolutely squeaky clean operation, no NCAA violations and we need to maintain that reputation.  If we found out, say, that an Assistant Football Coach was attacking boys in our athletic facilities we would have to make sure the public didn’t learn of that.  Think what would happen to our reputation.

Insurance Agent: But wouldn’t that be aiding and abetting a crime?

Penn State Official:  Well sure, but what is more important here, the continued operation of the football program or the safety and welfare of children.  We are not doing this for ourselves, we are doing it for the children, that is, the children who are fans of Penn State.  The children whose lives are destroyed, well we feel badly about that but that’s a small price for them to pay to preserve the integrity of Penn State’s athletic department.

Insurance Agent:  But if we had to pay out, it could be tens of millions.

Penn State Official:  Don’t worry, we will have all of the football staff working non-stop to cover up any incident and we will make sure nothing gets reported. And if it does, well, who are they going to believe, a bunch of kids who are highly disturbed from being assaulted, or us, the President and senior officers of the University and the revered coach of  our football team.

Insurance Agent:  Well, I still don’t know.

Penn State Official:  Don't worry, heck we have a guy now we think is doing some pretty awful things but nobody is going to say anything because they know our fans and supporters would attack them if they did.  Even the head guy in our program is not concerned.  He just reports to us and then says nothing.

 Insurance Agent:  Well, it still doesn't seem right.

Penn State Official:  How about two season tickets on the 20 yard line and a free beer?

Insurance Agent:  Okay!  Here's your policy.  Sign here.  

Georgia Republican Senate Candidate Paul Broun Thinks Evolution, the Big Bang Theory and Embryology Are Wrong

Well Not Just Wrong – “Lies From the Gates of Hell”

Republicans are trying to soften the brand, but that is not going well.  In Georgia there will be an open Senate seat, and the only declared Republican candidate is, well, a little extreme.

Scott J. Ferrell/CQ Roll Call File Photo

Broun is the only announced member
running in the race to succeed Chambliss.
But some GOP operatives worry he is too conservative
to win in the general.

Conservative Rep. Paul Broun once called evolution, embryology and the big-bang theory “lies straight from the pit of Hell.”

Well the good news for Republicans here is that there may be other candidates, ones who also don’t support evolution and science but don’t think such ideas come from the pit of Hell.  In their minds such ideas are just a liberal conspiracy to remove God from modern life.

Yeah, that should be a lot more appealing.

Why This Forum Has No Comment on the State of the Union Address or the Responses to It

Because We Only Comment on Items That Are Interesting or Have News Value or Illustrate Various Positions and Policies or Have Significant Impact on World and National Affairs

Washington Post Believes Satire – Reports Sarah Palin Will Appear on Al Jazeerra TV

Of Course, How Hard Is It to Fool the WaPo These Days?

How to describe the journalism, or lack thereof, that is printed and posted by the Washington Post.  The Post is to journalism as a Burger King Whopper is to Filet Mignon.  So it is not surprising that the Post picked up a piece of satire on Sarah Palin and reported it as news.

The Post’s Suzi Parker incorrectly reported earlier today on the "She The People" blog that the former vice presidential candidate, who recently left Fox News, had signed onto Al Jazeera America as a contributor. The report, however, was based on a satirical piece in The Daily Currant, a website which states on its "About" page that "our stories are purely fictional." 

Parker, however, cited the piece and used quotes the satirical website made up from Palin. The Post has since published a correction on Parker's story stating that "the blogger cited a report on the Daily Currant Web site as the basis for that information without realizing that the piece was satirical."

As for Ms. Palin, well she had a little bit of fun, as well she should have. Here is a Twitter post.

Hey @washingtonpost, I'm having coffee with Elvis this week. He works at the Mocha Moose in Wasilla.#suziparkerscoops #idiotmedia

6:31 PM - 12 Feb 13

But Sarah should stop and ask herself this.  What is it about her personality, her avarice for money and fame, and her lack of credibility that would cause a newspaper to think that she really would go to work for Al Jazeera? 

No, it’s not a pretty question or answer.

7th Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds Law – Says Tax Cheats Are Not Allowed to Sue the Bank That Enabled Them to be Tax Cheats

Just a Wonderful Judicial Opinion from Judge Richard Posner

[Thanks to Paul Caron’s TaxProfBlog for the referral.]

Mitt Romney famously railed against 47% of Americans whom he claimed were lazy bums living off the Federal government.  These of course were poor people. or the elderly or just plain retired folks.  But any examination of current events shows that it is rich people who really feel they are entitled.  Case in point, the wealthy men and women who attempted to avoid taxes by holding Swiss Bank accounts.

These people felt they were entitled to criminally avoid taxes. They held foreign bank accounts and did not report the income or the existence of the accounts, as required by law.  They are officially designated Tax Cheats by the courts.  And when they were caught they sued UBS who held their Swiss Bank Accounts.  This not because they were given bad advice, it is because they claim UBS didn’t prevent them from cheating on their taxes.  They were laughed out of District Court and now they have been laughed out of the Appellate Court.

The plaintiffs are tax cheats, and it is very odd, to say

the least, for tax cheats to seek to recover their penalties

(let alone interest, which might simply compensate the

IRS for the time value of money rightfully belonging to

it rather than to the taxpayers) from the source, in this

case UBS, of the income concealed from the IRS.

 One might have expected the plaintiffs to try to show that

they had forgotten they had accounts with UBS (though

that would be preposterous, for these were significant

investments for each of the plaintiffs). Or that UBS had

told them that income earned in those accounts was

somehow tax exempt and moreover that the accounts

themselves were somehow not foreign bank accounts

within the meaning of the tax code and so the plaintiffs

didn’t have to acknowledge having accounts with UBS.

They don’t make any of these feeble arguments. They do

argue, as we’ll see, that UBS was obligated to give

them accurate tax advice and failed to do so, but not

that it gave them inaccurate, as distinct from no, advice.

The conclusion of the court here,

This is like suing one’s parents to recover tax

penalties one has paid, on the ground that the parents

had failed to bring one up to be an honest person who

would not evade taxes and so would not subject himself

to penalties.

And there is this final note.

We needn’t discuss the plaintiffs’ remaining claims—of

negligence and malpractice—as they are frivolous

squared. This lawsuit, including the appeal, is a travesty.

We are surprised that UBS hasn’t asked for the imposition

of sanctions on the plaintiffs and class counsel.

So Mr. Romney, if you are looking for the real 47% here are some.  And we don’t think you have to look very far, as most if not all of the tax cheats here are probably contributors to your campaign.

The New Consumer Protection Bureau May Have Surprising Results

That Is,  It May Actually Provide Protection for Consumers

Who Would Have Thought!

The Finance Regulation law passed in the first Obama Administration has had one great effect, it created Senator Elizabeth Warren. Ms. Warren was slated to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau when her candidacy was blocked by Republicans.  As a result Ms. Warren ran for and was elected to the United States Senate, defeating a Republican incumbent,  where she will serve on the committee that regulates banks.  Yeah, we’re still smiling.

Photograph by Tom Williams/Getty Images

Richard Cordray, director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

A second benefit of the law is that the new consumer protection agency may actually start protecting consumers.

In the year and a half since opening its doors, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has hired more than 1,000 staffers, collected 90,000 consumer complaints, and begun supervising many of the 153 banks under its authority. The fledgling agency—a product of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial overhaul—released its most ambitious new policy on Jan. 10: a set of rules that will shape the future of mortgage lending. “They have had a monumental impact for an agency that has only really been operational for a year,” says Alan Kaplinsky, an attorney at Ballard Spahr who represents companies on matters before the bureau.

And no, despite Republican alarmist worries the agency does not appear to be turning into a regulatory monster.  Here’s what one opponent says

the CFPB hasn’t been the one-sided force the industry feared. “They are not reflexively doing everything they can to help consumers and screw the industry,” says Kaplinsky. After an industry outcry, the bureau amended disclosure requirements for international wire transfers and delayed the rule’s implementation.

But the best news of all, the Bureau’s next targets.

 Says Cordray: “We are really looking forward to getting through the mortgage rules so we can start to take on other issues.” Payday lenders, prepaid card providers, and banks that charge overdraft fees: You’re among the groups up next.

Effective regulation here will help the most vulnerable of the population and actually protect and promote those companies whose practices are ethical and honest.  No wonder Conservatives are so upset at the prospects.

Kansas Becomes First State with Negative Income Tax for Millionaires

“It’s the Right Thing to Do, These Multi-Millionaires Are Suffering” Says Ultra Conservative Gov. Sam Brownback

New That Didn’t Happen – But Might

Kansas is controlled by radical Republicans, and they are trying to implement their policies of low taxes and low government spending.  They want to be like Texas,

Mr. Brownback has boasted that his state is set to go head-to-head with Texas, which has neither a personal nor corporate income tax, in luring new businesses and residents. 

This policy is bound to fail, since Texas has so many things that Kansas does not, like oil, a vibrant and hard working Hispanic community, great weather and the like.  So Kansas will have to do more than just cut taxes to have a chance to achieve its goals.  Hence one might see a story like this in the coming years.

Kansas to Pay Millionaires to Live in the

State – Expects Over 20 New Jobs From

Program That Costs $1.2 Billion

Topeka – June 11, 2015.  Kansas today became the first state to enact a negative income tax for those making $1 million and over.  The state had tried to stimulate growth by cutting taxes on high income individuals, and when that didn’t work Kansas moved to the next step, handing out money to millionaires.

“It is clear we needed to think outside the box” said Gov. Sam Brownback, “and we determined that if we just diverted tax revenue from low and middle income taxpayers to millionaires we would have the magic to stimulate our economy.  And it’s also the right thing to do” the Governor added.

Several years ago Kansas enacted huge tax reduction for high income tax payers, but the resultant reduction in state services like education, transportation and law enforcement created negative incentives for businesses to relocate the Kansas.  As the supply of trained workers declined and the crime rate rose many businesses moved from Kansas, creating high unemployment.  Only the denial of subsidized food and health care to those newly unemployed allowed Kansas to keep taxes low.

Economists at the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute did research and concluded that Kansas had failed because it did not go far enough.  The studies said that Kansas need to provide a negative income tax of at least $100,000 per person for those making more than $1 million a year, and that if such a payment was funded by increasing taxes on food the state could easily afford the program.  The higher prices for food would result in “no more than 11% of the children in the state suffering from malnutrition” one study found.

While the announcement of the program has not resulted in a single millionaire moving to Kansas or investing in the state, Gov. Brownback and his supporters said that any lack of economic benefit paled by the huge benefit that the state would get from being known as the “Capital of Conservatism”. 

After Finally Going After a Big Merger, U. S. Anti-Trust Action Goes After the Wrong One

Who Cares if Two Giant World Wide Beer Companies Merge?

For decades now the concept of the government enforcing the anti-trust laws had been DOA.  Under pressure from the business community and under a total lack of understanding that government needs to vigorously promote competition for a free enterprise economy to work, the Federal government has been absent in preventing mergers which reduce competition.

But suddenly the government has decided to oppose a merger on anti-trust grounds. 

The U.S. government sued to block the world's biggest beer maker from spending $20 billion to get even bigger, the latest deal to fall prey to global antitrust regulators.

The surprise lawsuit seeks to block Bud Light maker Anheuser-Busch InBev NV's deal with the Mexican company that owns the Corona brand, and comes just a day after concession talks with the government broke down.

U.S. authorities said they want to prevent any overcharging by the global giants that dominate mass-market brews.

This is stupid.  First of all beer is not a critical commodity and if the price rises, too bad.  In fact, higher prices may even benefit society, ie, less beer consumption.

But the real point here is that the beer industry is now highly competitive.  Micro breweries are everywhere.  Incredibly, the Feds have now used their anti-trust powers to go after a merger that is not anti-competitive in an industry that is highly competitive and will remain highly competitive even if the Busch merger does take place.

What a Surprise – Opponents of Obama Health Care Law Reject Proposal to Exempt Religious Affiliated Organizations From Providing Family Planning Services

This is Political – Not Moral or Religious

President Obama and the majority of Americans believe that women’s health care needs requires that they have access to reproduction care.  But there is a small minority that objects, they think that they should be telling women what they can do and what they cannot do.  So when the new health care act was enacted these so-called religious leaders immediately cited freedom of religion for the reason that they should not obey the law and should be allowed to force their beliefs on others.

The President and his administration has tried to compromise.  But now some of his opponents will not be satisfied.

The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops on Thursday rejected the latest White House proposal on health insurance coverage of contraceptives, saying it did not provide sufficient safeguards for religious hospitals, colleges and charities that objected to such coverage.

No one should be surprised here.  There is no pleasing these religious groups without using government to impose their religious beliefs on others.  That is really what it is all about.

So the issue will be settled in court, probably the Supreme Court, where the conservatives Justices will attempt to violate the Freedom of Religion concept and rule that yes, government can enforce a religion on those who do not believe in that particular religion.  Just another reason why Conservative are not conservative.

Wall Street Journal Calls on a Johns Hopkins Neurosurgeon Ben Carson for Economic Policy Advice

Let’s Hope He is a Better Doctor Than an Economist

Apparently it is getting harder and harder to find real economists who support the crackpot ideas of the Conservatives that control the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal.  So the gentle minds that are in control there have called upon one of the finest minds at Johns Hopkins, Ben Carson, for advice on economic policy.  The only problem, Dr. Carson is  renown surgeon, and an ignoramus as an economic policy expert.

Here is Dr. Carson on tax policy.

 "What we need to do is come up with something simple. And when I pick up my Bible, you know what I see? I see the fairest individual in the universe, God, and he's given us a system. It's called a tithe.

"We don't necessarily have to do 10% but it's the principle. He didn't say if your crops fail, don't give me any tithe or if you have a bumper crop, give me triple tithe. So there must be something inherently fair about proportionality. You make $10 billion, you put in a billion. You make $10 you put in one. Of course you've got to get rid of the loopholes.

Wow, who knew it was that simple, and that the Bible (Old Testament or New Testament, your choice) could replace the IRS Code, Rules, Regulations, Tax Court and everything else.

And yes, health care can be solved just as easily.

When a person is born, give him a birth certificate, an electronic medical record, and a health savings account to which money can be contributed—pretax—from the time you're born 'til the time you die. If you die, you can pass it on to your family members, and there's nobody talking about death panels. We can make contributions for people who are indigent. Instead of sending all this money to some bureaucracy, let's put it in their HSAs. Now they have some control over their own health care. And very quickly they're gong to learn how to be responsible."

Gosh, the only problem here is that HAS’s are not mentioned in the Bible, so that can’t be right.  As for sending the money to 'some bureaucracy' well hey Dr. Carson, with his like high six figure salary, that the money coming to you so you can live in luxury and pontificate about something you know nothing about.

Here’s a deal Dr. Carson.  You stick to neurosurgery, let the non-ideologues like the rest of us do economic policy.  Really, if you do so we promise to limit our neurosurgery to weekends.