I have been known to be, how shall I put this, less that fawningly complimentary to Paul Krugman at times. If you read me carefully, I’ve never actually said that he is wrong, merely that his “proof of theory” is sometimes inadequate. In the past week or so he has been dismantling Paul Ryan with great skill and wit, and he has been a delight to read.
He did slightly step in it in a post today when he says of Paul Ryan’s plan that, “I think it’s disingenuous and fraudulent. And the reason I think that is that I have actually done the math.”
Well, that cannot possibly be true. He cannot have “done the math” in Ryan’s plan, because there isn’t any math in Ryan’s plan. I will give Krugman credit for using “artistic license” though, and not call him an idiot. I’m sure he’ll be relieved to hear that.
As an example of what I mean about there being “no math” in the plan, Ryan wants to lower the top tax rate for individuals and corporations to 25% and claims that will be revenue neutral because he will gain revenue by “closing loopholes” and eliminating deductions. He provides absolutely no specifics on what will be eliminated. Not one loophole or deduction which will be eliminated, or the amount that such elimination will generate in revenue, is named in his proposal. How do you “do the math” on that?
You don’t need math to label the plan “disingenuous and fraudulent.”
I’m surprised Ryan didn’t claim that he would balance the entire federal budget by “eliminating waste and fraud” in various departments.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Title X: One Last Time
I have been fulminating about gender discrimination in Title X because I have been listening to all of the discussion about “making sure that women have access to health.” I even went to the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services web site and read up on it.
Do you see any reference to “women” in that? I feel like an idiot.
We do have services to provide testing for men, and we have them on an equal basis with women, and they are provided by Title X, and Planned Parenthood does offer those services to men on the same basis that it offers them to women.
I have been listening to the word “women” from so many newspersons, pundits and politicians that when I went to this site and read the description, when I read the word “person” I saw the word “woman.” I allowed the idiots screaming at me on the television and in print to brainwash me completely. I am utterly appalled that I allowed that to happen to me. The words are right there in black and white and I missed them.
So why, in defense of Title X and Planned Parenthood, are these people defending it by using the rhetoric of defending “women’s health” in such specific language? Are they so stupid that they do not know that Title X is not gender specific? I can, perhaps, be excused for that; I had never even heard of it until I was told that “women’s health was being threatened,” but these are legislators and the like. Are they deliberately being dishonest to serve some agenda? Why have they been using “women’s health” instead of “a program that serves people in need of health services they cannot afford” in defense of Title X?
Of course if we were a civilized country, like France or Canada for instance, we wouldn’t need Title X because we would have universal health care.
The Title X Family Planning program ["Population Research and Voluntary Family Planning Programs" (Public Law 91-572)], was enacted in 1970 as Title X of the Public Health Service Act. Title X is the only federal grant program dedicated solely to providing individuals with comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services. The Title X program is designed to provide access to contraceptive services, supplies and information to all who want and need them. By law, priority is given to persons from low-income families.
Do you see any reference to “women” in that? I feel like an idiot.
We do have services to provide testing for men, and we have them on an equal basis with women, and they are provided by Title X, and Planned Parenthood does offer those services to men on the same basis that it offers them to women.
I have been listening to the word “women” from so many newspersons, pundits and politicians that when I went to this site and read the description, when I read the word “person” I saw the word “woman.” I allowed the idiots screaming at me on the television and in print to brainwash me completely. I am utterly appalled that I allowed that to happen to me. The words are right there in black and white and I missed them.
So why, in defense of Title X and Planned Parenthood, are these people defending it by using the rhetoric of defending “women’s health” in such specific language? Are they so stupid that they do not know that Title X is not gender specific? I can, perhaps, be excused for that; I had never even heard of it until I was told that “women’s health was being threatened,” but these are legislators and the like. Are they deliberately being dishonest to serve some agenda? Why have they been using “women’s health” instead of “a program that serves people in need of health services they cannot afford” in defense of Title X?
Of course if we were a civilized country, like France or Canada for instance, we wouldn’t need Title X because we would have universal health care.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
That First Sip Of The Day
My wife and I have an agreement that if a movie was directed by Clint Eastwood we will go see it. We had not yet met when Sidney Lumet was making movies, but we would undoubtedly have had a similar agreement regarding his movies. Rest in peace, Mr. Lumet, you gave us great art.
He made The Verdict the same year that I took my last drink; I didn’t see it until about six months later. He could set a scene that would curl your hair.
It was morning. How did Lumet do that? But you knew it was morning, and Paul Newman sits with a brimming shot glass in front of him. He goes to pick it up but his hand is trembling, so he sits it back down quickly to avoid spilling. He bends down and sips from the glass as it sits on the bar top. A moment later he lifts the glass for the next sip and his hand is no longer trembling. He gazes, deadpan, at his hand in recognition of that and then tosses off the shot of whiskey and leaves.
The first sip in the morning stops the wobblies. It gets worse than that, because eventually it reaches the point where the quality of the upcoming day is measured by how many drinks you have to take before one stays down. But the first sure sign of impending doom is when we notice that the first sip stops the wobblies, and that scene was just perfectly rendered.
He made The Verdict the same year that I took my last drink; I didn’t see it until about six months later. He could set a scene that would curl your hair.
It was morning. How did Lumet do that? But you knew it was morning, and Paul Newman sits with a brimming shot glass in front of him. He goes to pick it up but his hand is trembling, so he sits it back down quickly to avoid spilling. He bends down and sips from the glass as it sits on the bar top. A moment later he lifts the glass for the next sip and his hand is no longer trembling. He gazes, deadpan, at his hand in recognition of that and then tosses off the shot of whiskey and leaves.
The first sip in the morning stops the wobblies. It gets worse than that, because eventually it reaches the point where the quality of the upcoming day is measured by how many drinks you have to take before one stays down. But the first sure sign of impending doom is when we notice that the first sip stops the wobblies, and that scene was just perfectly rendered.
Celebrating Defeat
I’m not a big fan of Ezra Klein. I think he tends of over-analyze and over- think, and he is one of those people who is in love with his own intellect. He is not, however, stupid, which so many pundits are. And I do think that he has it right in his piece yesterday when he says that Obama and the Democrats are mistaken in their cheerful celebration of defeat. This budget deal was defeat for Obama and Company, and they are pretending otherwise and celebrating.
I literally could not believe my ears when Obama proclaimed with distinct pride that we had just achieved the “biggest spending cuts in history.” Everything with this guy has to be “historic” it seems.
Klein talks about Clinton recovering from the defeat of 1995 due to a “roaring economy” and that whatever this economy becomes between now and the elections of 2012, “roaring” is not going to be the operative word. I would agree with that, but Obama will be unopposed on his own side, and the opposition on the Republican side may be weak to the point of being comedic. It may take no more than an economy that has not gotten even worse. It may take merely not being in a Great Depression.
On the other hand, a big part of Clinton’s recovery was due to his ability as a charismatic leader and his ability to “connect” with the middle class voting public. Obama certainly seemed to have that as a candidate, but he has shown an almost total lack of it once in office. The cynic in me says that also will not matter, because he is already beginning to campaign, and his campaigning skills are undiminished. He is deadly dull, professorial and disconnected when discussing governance, but when he goes out and does those town halls he lights up.
Obama is going to get a second term. I’m just trying to figure out whether or not that depresses me.
I literally could not believe my ears when Obama proclaimed with distinct pride that we had just achieved the “biggest spending cuts in history.” Everything with this guy has to be “historic” it seems.
Klein talks about Clinton recovering from the defeat of 1995 due to a “roaring economy” and that whatever this economy becomes between now and the elections of 2012, “roaring” is not going to be the operative word. I would agree with that, but Obama will be unopposed on his own side, and the opposition on the Republican side may be weak to the point of being comedic. It may take no more than an economy that has not gotten even worse. It may take merely not being in a Great Depression.
On the other hand, a big part of Clinton’s recovery was due to his ability as a charismatic leader and his ability to “connect” with the middle class voting public. Obama certainly seemed to have that as a candidate, but he has shown an almost total lack of it once in office. The cynic in me says that also will not matter, because he is already beginning to campaign, and his campaigning skills are undiminished. He is deadly dull, professorial and disconnected when discussing governance, but when he goes out and does those town halls he lights up.
Obama is going to get a second term. I’m just trying to figure out whether or not that depresses me.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Clouding Title X
I think I’m back to having a little trouble with Title X again. Chris Matthews had Barbara Boxer and Chris Coons, two Democratic Senators, on to talk about the issue yesterday. Boxer is certainly a blathering jackass, but she is by no means stupid, and she was talking about Planned Parenthood delivering “blood pressure checks and diabetes testing.” She even repeated the claim a second time. What does that have to do with “reproductive health” services? Chris Coons was doing fine until he finished, “…more than anything make sure that women have access to health.”
Harry Reid, who is even more of a blathering jackass than Boxer, said on the floor of the Senate that, “They are asking me to sacrifice my wife’s health, my daughter’s health, and my granddaughters’ health.” What the hell is this wealthy jerk’s family doing enrolled in a program for poor people?
Debbie Stabenow, Senator from Michigan, was on Last Word and was talking about Planned Parenthood providing “blood pressure checks and breast cancer screenings.” Lawrence O’Donnell read an email from a friend who described the mammograms she had received at no cost to herself.
I’m all in favor of every person in this country receiving health care, preferably at no cost. I also understand that women need things that men do not, specifically birth control and abortion, and I’m certainly in favor of those things being provided on a gender specific basis.
But both men and women get cancer; why do women get free screening for breast cancer and men have no place to get screened for testicular or prostate cancer? Both men and women are subject to catching STD’s; why do women have a place to get free testing for them and men do not?
Yeah, I know the concept than men are the villains who give the STD’s to women, not ever the victims who catch them from women. I know, it is the man’s responsibility to wear a condom, and if he does not then he deserves whatever fate accrues to him for not doing so.
What about the poor young lad whose parents or church, or even whose school’s “abstinence only” sex education program, told him that the very act of carrying a condom with him is evil, and who got caught in a moment where things got out of control?
And I do not believe that even if it was pure carelessness, the STD should remain uncaught and lead to a man being crippled or dead because society did not care enough to provide testing except on a gender specific basis.
Testicular cancer is not as frequent as breast cancer, but it still kills in a particularly dreadful way, and we don’t have any color that NFL football teams wear for that disease, we don’t hold a 6-mile walk even once a year for it, let alone a 60-mile walk three times per year, and we don’t have a Title X to find it before it’s to late to treat it.
Title X is a good thing and we should fund it, I would never say that women should not receive a benefit just because men don’t. That doesn’t mean that I don’t have a bit of a problem with it.
“…more than anything make sure that women have access to health.”
Sure, but why not men?
Harry Reid, who is even more of a blathering jackass than Boxer, said on the floor of the Senate that, “They are asking me to sacrifice my wife’s health, my daughter’s health, and my granddaughters’ health.” What the hell is this wealthy jerk’s family doing enrolled in a program for poor people?
Debbie Stabenow, Senator from Michigan, was on Last Word and was talking about Planned Parenthood providing “blood pressure checks and breast cancer screenings.” Lawrence O’Donnell read an email from a friend who described the mammograms she had received at no cost to herself.
I’m all in favor of every person in this country receiving health care, preferably at no cost. I also understand that women need things that men do not, specifically birth control and abortion, and I’m certainly in favor of those things being provided on a gender specific basis.
But both men and women get cancer; why do women get free screening for breast cancer and men have no place to get screened for testicular or prostate cancer? Both men and women are subject to catching STD’s; why do women have a place to get free testing for them and men do not?
Yeah, I know the concept than men are the villains who give the STD’s to women, not ever the victims who catch them from women. I know, it is the man’s responsibility to wear a condom, and if he does not then he deserves whatever fate accrues to him for not doing so.
What about the poor young lad whose parents or church, or even whose school’s “abstinence only” sex education program, told him that the very act of carrying a condom with him is evil, and who got caught in a moment where things got out of control?
And I do not believe that even if it was pure carelessness, the STD should remain uncaught and lead to a man being crippled or dead because society did not care enough to provide testing except on a gender specific basis.
Testicular cancer is not as frequent as breast cancer, but it still kills in a particularly dreadful way, and we don’t have any color that NFL football teams wear for that disease, we don’t hold a 6-mile walk even once a year for it, let alone a 60-mile walk three times per year, and we don’t have a Title X to find it before it’s to late to treat it.
Title X is a good thing and we should fund it, I would never say that women should not receive a benefit just because men don’t. That doesn’t mean that I don’t have a bit of a problem with it.
“…more than anything make sure that women have access to health.”
Sure, but why not men?
Friday, April 8, 2011
Oh, This Is Good
I won't even give you an excerpt, the title is enough, "David Brooks Brings You Analysis from Another Planet: Praises Representative Ryan." Brooks is always good for a chuckle, go read it for yourself. As usual, some of Dean Baker's arguments are a bit shaky, but...
Fixing Medicare
Paul Ryan’s insane dishonest plan to “fix” (actually destroy) Medicare is wrong on more than one level, because Medicare itself does not need to be fixed. What needs to be fixed are the things that Medicare is paying for. Solve that problem, and you have fixed not only Medicare, but also Medicaid, the health insurance cost issue and a significant portion of the federal deficit as well.
No one ever suggested that the “affordable housing crisis” could be solved by a simple act of the government paying less for housing, so why do we think that the “affordable health care crisis” can be solved by having the government pay less for health care? You own rental property that costs you $3000 per month, are you going to rent it for $2000 per month because the government tells you to? Is a hospital going to charge less for medical procedures because the government tells it to?
When we fought for a full year over “health care reform” the only thing we talked about was health insurance, which pays health care costs, and the generators of health care costs were specifically excluded from the discussion. Now we are talking about “fixing Medicare” and the generators of what Medicare pays for are still excluded from the discussion. Why?
Because hospitals, doctors, clinics, medical laboratories, pharmaceuticals and medical equipment makers are a bottomless money pit which we dare not touch. Health insurance companies make $billions of profit every year, but those companies make more profit than that in about an hour and a half. The “health care reform” debaters were willing to sacrifice the health insurance companies, if need be, in order to preserve the far more vast money pit that is the health care industry.
It turned out, of course, that the only thing sacrificed in the “health care reform” debate was the health care consumer.
Update: Notice that Paul Ryan still does not suggest that Medicare be authorized to negotiate pricing with drug companies on Medicare Part D.
No one ever suggested that the “affordable housing crisis” could be solved by a simple act of the government paying less for housing, so why do we think that the “affordable health care crisis” can be solved by having the government pay less for health care? You own rental property that costs you $3000 per month, are you going to rent it for $2000 per month because the government tells you to? Is a hospital going to charge less for medical procedures because the government tells it to?
When we fought for a full year over “health care reform” the only thing we talked about was health insurance, which pays health care costs, and the generators of health care costs were specifically excluded from the discussion. Now we are talking about “fixing Medicare” and the generators of what Medicare pays for are still excluded from the discussion. Why?
Because hospitals, doctors, clinics, medical laboratories, pharmaceuticals and medical equipment makers are a bottomless money pit which we dare not touch. Health insurance companies make $billions of profit every year, but those companies make more profit than that in about an hour and a half. The “health care reform” debaters were willing to sacrifice the health insurance companies, if need be, in order to preserve the far more vast money pit that is the health care industry.
It turned out, of course, that the only thing sacrificed in the “health care reform” debate was the health care consumer.
Update: Notice that Paul Ryan still does not suggest that Medicare be authorized to negotiate pricing with drug companies on Medicare Part D.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)