HEALTH PARADOX

It is kind of  funny that so much money and research is focussed on increasing the life expectancy and decent health in old age and then complain that old people cost too much.

CHANGE IN SENATE FILIBUSTER RULES

Nearly half of all filibusters have come during President Obama's 4 years and 10 months of office.   In the history of the U.S., 168 nominees have been filibustered - with 82 occurring during the Obama administration. In the history of the U.S., 23 district court nominees have been filibustered - with 20 being Obama nominees.*  So yesterday, Democrats changed the rules on filibusters to allow a simple majority for executive and judicial appointments (except for Supreme Court appointments).*  I'm surprised this was not done before now.

You may recall that Republicans threatened the nuclear option back in 2005 of the George W. Bush administration.  Democrats finally caved, however, and agreed not to filibuster judicial candidates except in extreme cases.**

Mother Jones has published some interesting graphs on filibusters by president, one of which is presented here(each bar is two years).  See the article for discussion and the other two figures.***

Though Republicans are objecting strongly to the action in public, I suspect they are cheering in private because now they can claim they didn't break the filibuster when they take over the Senate.  Of course they think they will do this in 2014, but they have been wrong about this before.  They expected to take over the Senate in 2012, but the Democrats actually gained two seats.  I wouldn't be surprised if Republicans actually expand the list of items now subject to filibusters.

Note added November 24, 2013: You also might want to look at an article on achievements of the new rule: http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=112427639902898514#editor/target=post;postID=2881200110682681265;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=1;src=link

*http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/11/21/rich-lowry-is-mad-that-democrats-took-his-filib/197010; http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senates-filibuster-rule-change-will-help-obama-achieve-key-second-term-priorities/2013/11/21/ccf43c4c-52dd-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html; http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/11/21/do-obama-nominees-face-stiffer-senate-opposition/
** http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/11/21/gop-gambles-big-on-harry-reids-nuclear-option-why-not-just-explode-the-filibuster-for-good/
*** http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/11/charts-explain-why-democrats-went-nuclear-filibuster

JOHN F. KENNEDY

I recall where I was on November 22, 1963, when President Kennedy was assassinated. Though I was a Republican at the time, I found him to be very charismatic and inspiring, but I recall thinking that he was in a way lucky because his Presidency was not working.  He was not getting his legislation through, and he had poor relations with congress even though he had been one of them.

Though he got the Apollo Program of missions to the moon started, he was getting cold feet on the cost and was thinking of inviting the Soviets to participate.  In one year, spending on the Apollo Program consumed 5% of our GDP.  It was Lyndon Johnson who took up the flame and completed the pledge to send a man to the moon and bring him back safely to Earth (plus 21 pounds of lunar rocks and soils).  I felt so strongly about this that I wrote a poem "Upon The Second Anniversary Of Apollo 11." (http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2010/01/upon-second-anniversary-of-apollo-11.html)  I had been opposed to the program, but I had an epiphany after Apollo 8 and, as they say, there is no sinner like a converted sinner which applied to me.  I bought all the trinkets.

He started the escalation of the war in Vietnam and there is no sign that that he wouldn't continue as much as fans of Kennedy would have you believe. Just weeks before his death,  "To CBS he said: "In the final analysis, it is [ the South Vietnamese ] who have to win or lose this struggle." Then he added: "But I don't agree with those who say we should withdraw. That would be a great mistake. . . ." To NBC he said he believed "the domino theory," whereby the fall of Saigon to Communism would lead to the collapse of America's position throughout Asia."*

Kennedy's actions on Civil Rights were at best conflicted.  As a Senator he voted against Eisenhower's 1957  Civil Rights Act.  In 1961: " Kennedy himself condemned the Riders for their lack of patriotism at a time of international tension over the Berlin Wall, Cuba and the Bay of Pigs fiasco.**  There was some indication that Kennedy was evolving on Civil Rights  Perhaps a combination of Kennedy's death and President Johnson's political abilities succeeded in getting the Civil Right Act of 1964 through congress with Republican help and the 1965 Voting rights act as well.  It may have been the Republican's finest hour..

The results on Cuban missile crisis may be Kennedy's greatest accomplishment, but it wasn't because that the other guy just blinked because we quietly agreed to remove our missiles from Turkey in exchange.  So we gave something to get something.  I don't quarrel with that, but the Kennedy fans just ignore it and would have you would believe we gave nothing.  In addition, the Soviets began their nuclear missile submarine fleet, some of which patrolled off the U.S. coast (and they still do***).  As the public didn't know about this, it turned out that what you don't know doesn't hurt you, but were nuclear missiles on submarines really less a worry than land-based missiles on Cuba?  At the time, I felt that Cuba was in our sphere of influence just as Hungary was in the Soviet's.  Eisenhower had encouraged the Hungarians to revolt, but, when they did, he just said, in effect, too bad boys.  It was tough on the Hungarians but perhaps saved a nuclear war.  But we came closer to nuclear war over  the Cuban Missile Crisis than I thought at the time.

Though I did not experience the charisma of Ronald Reagan, many did.  His administration started with two attacks on U,.S. Embassies  [in Lebanon (63 killed) and in Kuwait (5) killed],**** each with more loss of life than in Benghazi, Libya, that so much is being made of.  I also believe, that cutting and running after the Marine Barracks incident where more than 200 died, emboldened terrorists.  Though Reagan talked of cutting government, he actually left the Federal government larger than he found it, after small cuts in employees by Carter and Ford.  And of course he never came close to balancing the budget.  After a very large tax cut for the wealthy, he reinstalled half the value of the tax cuts when he realized what he had done to the Federal budget.  Those who deify President Reagan have been blinded by his charisma and words or have forgiven much or, more likely, just do not know his record.

But something went out of me with the assassination of President Kennedy that never came back.

Note added on November24, 2013:  A further more complete analysis of the Kennedy poor record as President is given in; http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/11/22/americans-think-john-f-kennedy-was-one-of-our-greatest-presidents-he-wasnt/?wpisrc=nl_wnkpm

* http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/06/opinion/foreign-affairs-kennedy-and-vietnam.html
**  http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/john_kennedy_and_civil_rights.htm
*** http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/11/second-russian-sub-detected-near-us-coast-in-3-months/;
**** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_United_States_embassy_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Kuwait_bombings; also see general report in http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/libya-consulate-embassy-attacks-obama-romney

IN GOD WE TRUST AND UNDER GOD

On November 17th, I received again an e-mail this time dealing with an NBC poll and ending with: "Therefore, I have a very hard time understanding why there is such a mess about having 'In God We Trust' on our money and having God in the Pledge of Allegiance."  The poll mentioned in the current e-mail apparently harks back to 2006.*

Amazing!  I've been seeing this sort of e-mail for years.  It doesn't bother me at all having "In God We Trust" on our money and having God in the Pledge, but it was only added to paper money beginning in 1956 and replaced E pluribus unum.  It has been on our coins longer, since the end of the Civil War  I do not get a warm fuzzy feeling, however, knowing God is on our money and in the pledge, and it wouldn't bother me to have God taken out.  So far as I know, there is no strong movement to remove it, but apparently there are people who love to worry about it.  I've sure got bigger worries than that.  The question should be, "Does God trust us?"

Incidentally, the pledge has had "under God" in it only since 1942 so it is pretty new also.  I don't recall saying the pledge for years, maybe decades, but any rate, it also doesn't bother me.

Muslims use a little different phrase.  In the Quran it is "Trust In Your Lord" which predates "In God We Trust" by several centuries so modern Muslims actually love the phrase "In God We Trust" which I suspect probably would bother those who fear God will be taken off our money if they only knew that Muslims like it.

President Teddy Roosevelt thought to put the word "God" on money was sacrilegious. For Christians, Roosevelt had a point and having God on our money is questionable at best.  Remember Jesus and the money changers and the phrases from Matthew (6:24 and 6:21 ) and Luke (16:13 and 12:34): "You cannot serve both God and Money." and "For where your treasure is, there also will your heart be." The Supreme Court has ruled a couple of times that to use the phrase on money does not constitute establishment of any religion so it is all right and it is a closed issue.

* http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/godpoll.asp

AFFORDABLE CARE ACT IS THE CONSERVATIVE LAW!

In a vain attempt to get votes from conservative politicians, the Democrats adopted a conservative medical plan that was a  private-public plan to be run by the states.  For example:
The reliance on Republican policy proposals did nothing to generate Republican support. Instead of showing the falseness of partisan divisions, Obamacare has proven how deeply entrenched they truly are.

Far from introducing innovation and efficiency into the system, the decision to build a complex, 50-state public-private hybrid has introduced towering complexity into the project, and seems, potentially, to be beyond the government's capacity to do well.*

Since the Republicans refuse to support what is, in effect, their health care bill, their fall back plan is the status quo.  After all isn't that what conservative means - to preserve the status quo or even regress to what they view was a better time?  Isn't this exactly what the recent bill passed by the House of Representatives does - allows anyone to subscribe to any health plan that may have existed? 

The chief difference between the plans is that Upton’s would allow insurers to sell the [discontinued] plans to anyone, even new customers.**

Surely a progressive plan would have been single payer.  Though conservative politicians hate single payer with a passion hard for me to fathom, there are many single-payer health systems around of considerable size such as Medicare and Federal Employees Health  Plan, to name just two.  Both allow you to go to any physician that will accept patients on these plans.  Medicare B, C and D and the FEHP are all voluntary, i.e. you do not have to subscribe to the plans (though Medicare A is mandatory).  You will read things like if you accept Medicare A, you cannot have a private plan*** which is rubbish.  I've had Medicare A, B and a private backup plan for 18 years and counting.   I have also gone to any physician I wished and hospital I chosen for me.

Before I was medicare eligible, my private plan was my primary plan which I had for decades.  Since the private plan has become my secondary plan, there are some differences in that as a secondary plan they will only cover things that Medicare does.  The secondary plan just pays the difference between what Medicare covers and the accepted cost by Medicare.  They also cover the Medicare deductible and any co-pay.

Medicare is a great convenience in that I don't have to write checks to providers all over the place.  I am surprised at some things not covered, however, like shots for shingles.  And there are limits on how often you can have certain tests or the number of days/year for which you can have treatment (i.e speech therapy).  But overall, I am very satisfied.  SINGLE PAYER  WORKS!  And even conservative columnists like Michael Gerson says the Single Payer is the best way to control medical prices, though he still doesn't like them.

* http://webmailb.juno.com/webmail/new/5?userinfo=8b254f2f4f26b1dc56d8fe41da329a7b&count=1384580506&randid=1536139483
** http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/democrats-obamacare-vote-99915_Page2.html
*** http://www.forhealthfreedom.org/Publications/MedicareMedicaid/MandatoryEnrollment.html

OUR BACKUP HEALTH PLAN INCREASE

We are on Medicare so we have a backup plan to cover costs that Medicare doesn't completely cover.  We are with a non-profit and have had to choose the standard family plan though there are only two of us as the only other choice was for singles.  We got a letter yesterday saying that our cost was going up a moderate 6%, which is less than many years.

In view of the news media emphasizing those who have had troubles with Obamacare, I thought that those of us with real life stories that aren't disasters need to say something.

Starting last Tuesday, I have tired using the healthcare.gov site just to see how it works.  I got into the site right away and had no trouble registering and getting into our states plan.  I stopped there because we really are happy with the plan we have.  Then for the next 4 days, I tried to get into the site again and wasn't able to do so.  So I checked forgot password (which may be true), and they said that an e-mail was sent to my e-mail address; however, when I looked at my e-mails, nothing was there.  So I called the Call Center and got through right away.  The lady said they were having problems with that and was quite willing to enroll me over the phone.  I didn't need this so I signed out.  I went back to healthcare.gov and checked "forgot my username."  Again I got a message that said I was sent an e-mail and sure enough they did, so my username and e-mail addresses are all right.  This time I checked Chat.  In about 3 min. I got a message to ask my question so I wrote that the password wasn't working.  After awhile, I got the message back that said that they were having trouble with this.  They would send me a paper copy to enroll if I wished.  Then today, 8 days after my initial application, I tried healthcare.com again with the same problem.  It would accept my new password request and would send me an e-mail to get a new one, but again I got no e-mail.  I wonder how many people are having this problem of trying to get back into the site?

So the the telephone application seems to work fine and the chat is acceptable, but there is still a serious problem with the www.healthcare.gov site in a fundamental way.  My suggestion is that if you are having repeated problems, try the telephone route.

BARBARA BUONO - SACRIFICIAL LAMB?

I've heard "high level" Democrats say that if the Democratic Party really wanted to unseat New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Barbara Buono would certainly not to be the person picked.  I have to wonder why because her bio sounds very impressive.

She has a long record of positions in the New Jersey legislature rising to being the Majority Leader of the State Senate of  New Jersey from 2010-2011.  Her political career started in 1992 with election to the Muenchen, NJ, Borough Council where she served in 1993 and 1994.  In 1994, she won a seat on the New Jersey Assembly (against an incumbent) where she served for seven years.  Then she served in the New Jersy State Senate being elected in 2001.  She received a JD from Rutgers University in Camden in 1979.  She has a number of firsts being the first woman to be chairman of the Budget and Appropriations Committee and the first woman to serve as Majority Leader.  She was removed from this position after an argument with the President of the State Senate which may be why the Democratic Party lost faith in her.  But since Christie's relationship with the President over Hurricane Sandy was so pleasant, it may have been felt that he deserved another term as governor.  Of course, it may be that Christie's aggressive pursual of Federal support after Hurricane Sandy made him bullet proof even though, on balance, his record has been quite conservative.

For more on Buono's impressive record see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Buono.