Typical

So, for the first time in the Bush administration, there’s a bill in play – the “Deficit Reduction Act” – that actually cuts Federal spending. Typically, it does so by screwing the poor. The CBO has weighed in on this bill, currently awating House approval. It’s not a pretty picture, according to the NY Times:

The budget office predicted that 13 million low-income people, about a fifth of Medicaid recipients, would face new or higher co-payments for medical services like doctor’s visits and hospital care.

It said that by 2010 about 13 million low-income people would have to pay more for prescription drugs, and that this number would rise to 20 million by 2015.

“About one-third of those affected would be children, and almost half would be individuals with income below the poverty level,” the report said in addressing co-payments for prescription drugs.

Under the bill, states could end Medicaid coverage for people who failed to pay premiums for 60 days or more. Doctors and hospitals could deny services to Medicaid beneficiaries who did not make the required co-payments.

The budget office said the new co-payments would save money by reducing the use of medical services.

“About 80 percent of the savings from higher cost-sharing would be due to decreased use of services,” the report said.

That last line is the money quote. This plan is pathetic.

Let’s say a company is losing money. One easy way to get the bottom line under control is to fire a bunch of employees. However, if you don’t look at why you’re not making enough money and take steps to change that, the layoffs won’t really solve anything. You’ll just be a smaller money-losing company. The same holds true for Medicaid. If you don’t fix the system, then forcing people off the rolls isn’t really going to solve anything.

Oh, and no, HSAs are not a good solution.

9/11 in American History

With more than 4 years’ distance between 9/11 and today, I suppose it’s time to start asking where 9/11 fits into the larger tapestry that is American history. In the NY Times this weekend, Joseph Ellis takes the question on. He is likely to get roundly smacked in some quarters for this comment:

Where does Sept. 11 rank in the grand sweep of American history as a threat to national security? By my calculations it does not make the top tier of the list, which requires the threat to pose a serious challenge to the survival of the American republic.

Here is my version of the top tier: the War for Independence, where defeat meant no United States of America; the War of 1812, when the national capital was burned to the ground; the Civil War, which threatened the survival of the Union; World War II, which represented a totalitarian threat to democracy and capitalism; the cold war, most specifically the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, which made nuclear annihilation a distinct possibility.

Sept. 11 does not rise to that level of threat because, while it places lives and lifestyles at risk, it does not threaten the survival of the American republic, even though the terrorists would like us to believe so.

And in fact, by his own definition, I’m not sure even World War II qualifies as “first tier”, because although it was a dire time for many of our allies, I am not convinced that either Germany or Japan would have been able to seriously threaten the survival of the American republic. Perhaps if the war had gone very differently, and then both countries united in an invasion attempt … but I digress.

At any rate, he’s right about 9/11. Now, saying that does not negate the fact that 9/11 was a horrible day for me personally, for the people in my life and my home town, or for the country in general. However, worse things have happened to us, and they may yet again. Demagogues use this to their advantage, though; inflating 9/11’s role in the grand scheme and trying to whip up people’s fears that ‘the terrorists’ are lurking outside their local strip malls and Wal-Marts, ready to strike at a moment’s notice with just a cell phone call from Osama.

The Heretik asks, “Where does it end?” 4+ years later, that’s a more than fair question.

Not So Comcastic

Friday night, I get home from a long week of work and classes, wanting nothing more than to catch up on the news and have some fun on my computer, but to my dismay, our ‘net access was down and remained so until just a few minutes ago.

“Comcastic” my butt. Sorry about the lack of blogging.

Filibuster?

John Kerry to lead a filibuster against Alito? Interesting. Markos’ assessment seems pretty reality-based.

This whole “be offline for 6 to 8 hours at a time” thing with school and/or work really messes up my ability to stay on top of the news. I need to slack more (just kidding!).

The Sky is Green in Gaza

I’d be lying if I said I were not deeply concerned by the results of the Palestinian elections. Hamas’ charter, after all, does not even recognize Israel’s right to exist.

However, I remind myself that Sharon was viewed as a similarly unlikely partner for peace when he became Prime Minister, and those dim expectations of him turned out to be not so dim after all. So perhaps there’s still hope.