I have a lot to do today getting the most recent car load of stuff from VT into storage or off to Goodwill after we found what we could keep in the limited remaining apartment space. I fear that storage will run out of room today also. So I will be concise from here on.
The "Anybody But Mitt" news analysis today was most revealing in what it told me about conservative pundit reviews of Newt's Freddie Mac employment. Imagine what Fox, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh would have said if this were payments to any Democrat. Fox, ignored the news focusing on Newt's polling numbers. B O'R called it "reasonable and normal". Rush blamed the media for releasing the news. My take away is that these guys have no principles as it relates to traditional financial relationships between the government and conservatives. They just object when it is someone non-conservative who gets the money. No wonder the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street people are angry. If only there were more transparency on who exactly gets all this money. I assure you it is not most of the people who work in finance.
Ezekiel Emanuel has produced a fine series on that it will take to truly control health care costs. Unfortunately, it is a little hard to find on the NY Times website. But briefly, the last two articles focused on the two big areas of savings: (i) centralized billing to the insurance industry so there is not duplicative efforts for either the provider or the payor; (ii) paying for chronic care by "bundling" (that is a fixed price for service). This week he discusses how the latter will reduce the cost significantly (up to $80 billion per year; more than the $10 billion from malpractice reform which would help also). AND YES, BOTH OF THESE ARE INCENTIVIZED IN THE AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE ACT THAT IS SO CRITICIZED BY REPUBLICANS AS FAILING TO ADDRESS COST CONTROLS.
Why do the Republicans focus on malpractice reform rather than changing fee for service to bundle payments? May I suggest following the money that fee for service provides to where it goes for political campaign contributions! It is always about the money.
So now for my cynical comment of the day. The absolute hatred for Obama is based upon his understanding that corporate america dominates the donation stream and corrupts policies to keep the flow government funds heading toward corporate america. This has pervaded the Supreme Court with Citizens United which codified Corporations as Individuals and now you almost have complete control of the system by Corporate money except for the President. If Obama is reelected he may be able to appoint a sufficient number of justices to overturn Citizens United. If Obama is defeated, it is almost certain that the Republican would appoint a sufficient number of justices to keep Citizens United in place for decades, if not forever. Any I still expect Governor Romney who has already stated unequivocally that Corporations are Individuals to be the Republican nominee. And we know Governor Romney respects Big Money since it made him wealthy.
And lastly, Thomas Friedman's column is "How About Better Parents". Well dah!!! RSL has been talking about the difference parental involvement makes in the class room for 35 years. For my younger readers, remember this "15 year old students who parents often read books with them during their early years show markedly higher test scores than students whose parents did not read to them". I have nothing more fondly remembered than reading to my son because I enjoyed it and he seemed to also, but it is nice to know there was another benefit.
No comments:
Post a Comment