Health Care…FINALLY?

News and Analysis…

On Tuesday, President Obama announced his support for a health care reform  (HCR) bill before Congress.  The announcement, as well as an invitation for Republicans to join in a forum, is being taken as the Obama administration’s inability to let health care reform die after failing to pass for the better part of the year.  Both conservatives and progressives are critical of the President’s bill, for opposing reasons.  Conservatives claim the bill contains too much spending.  Progressives insist the bill is not enough change to be substantive.  It seems that no one supports Obama’s efforts.

Washington Post | Democrats have already paid a political price for tackling health reform at a time when voters are hurting from the recession, anxious about the economy and wary of new government initiatives. There is no way they can avoid facing this line of attack in the fall. The question, at this point, is whether Republicans will be able to toss in allegations of gutlessness and incompetence: The Democrats controlled the White House and all of Congress, and still couldn’t get it done.

Daily Kos | An new Kaiser Tracking poll shows the country evenly split on the current HCR plan–43/43, but it also finds that “majorities of Americans of all political leanings support several provisions in the health reform proposals in Congress and most attribute delays in passing the legislation to political gamesmanship rather than policy disagreements.”

American Spectator | President Obama on Monday removed speculation about whether he would scale back his health care ambitions in the current political environment, releasing a plan that increases taxes, spending, and regulation even more than the Senate health care bill that has been overwhelmingly rejected by the public.

The brazen move, coming just days before a scheduled health care summit, was accompanied by a renewed willingness to use the reconciliation procedure to ram a health care bill through the Senate with just 51 votes. Taken together, some commentators see a growing momentum for finishing the health care legislation that was put on life support after Sen. Scott Brown’s surprise victory in Massachusetts.

Slate | If you are afraid of President Obama and congressional Democrats, then you will see this final push for health care reform as a scheme to bankrupt the country and ruin your current health care and as proof of a government-knows-best approach that will slowly erode personal freedoms. If you are afraid of the insurance industry, you’ll see the Republican obstructionism in the face of rising premiums and inflation as an unconscionable abandonment of those who can’t afford coverage now and those middle-class families who soon won’t be able to.

The Hill | Now Harry Reid is promising to pass a health care bill through the Senate in sixty days. President Obama is continuing to arrogantly push this radical legislation in the hope of creating a new entitlement program that will continue to nurture America’s dependency on Big Government. When America’s leadership has become so disconnected from Americans’ interests, the American people must stand up boldly in defense of their livelihoods and their liberties.

On the Web…

Why “African American” IS the Most Accurate Term | Racialicious

Yet McWhorter’s argument does not rest on personal predilection, but rather it is an attempt to reason and eventually settle on the most exact designation for black people native-born to the U.S.  As such, the first concern is one of history.  (And McWhorter recognizes this, as his title suggests: “Did ‘African American’ History Really Happen in Atlanta, Cleveland, Philly, and Detroit?  Listening to the Census.”)  That most black Americans have not been to Africa, do not speak an indigenous African language, and/or cannot trace their ancestral line to a particular tribe or region is beside the point.  The “African” in African American is not that grounded; it is does not signify the particularities of Africa.  Instead, the “African” in African America refers to a very distinct historical process of acculturation, trauma, and community building.

The Environmental Effect of Pet Food | Slate

You’re right that the carnivorous diets of cats and dogs are likely to be worse for the environment than those of, say, birds and guinea pigs. But the meat we feed to our pets isn’t quite the same as the stuff we eat ourselves. Most commercial dog and cat food is made from the parts we humans don’t eat, like organs, scraps, and rendered bones and tissues.

Looked at one way, then, pet food is a kind of recycling operation: It takes waste products and finds a use for them. From an economic perspective, these less-than-palatable parts aren’t that big of a deal. Clark Williams-Derry, blogging for the Seattle-based think tank Sightline Institute, notes that byproducts account for at most 15 percent of a livestock animal’s value. Thus, he argues, the pet food industry contributes relatively little to the total environmental impact of a meat-producing cow, chicken, or pig. We grow and slaughter those animals to feed our yen for meat—not to make the scraps that go into pet food. So 100 calories of byproduct meat should be credited with a lower impact than 100 calories of human-grade meat.

Is Genetically Engineering Animals Not to Feel Pain Really the Solution to Factory Farming? | TreeHugger

Last week the New York Times ran an op-ed piece by PhD-to-be philosopher-neuroscientist-psychologist Adam Shriver, from Washington University in St Louis, that really cuts to the heart of one of the deepest issues in the green movement: How does humanity best relate to the other animals on the planet? Shriver starts the assumption that, like it or not factory farming is here to stay in the United States. Therefore, we ought to minimize the pain animals feel in the slaughterhouse… by genetically engineering them to not feel it:

No one is actually doing this yet, but Shriver points to research done into how mammals sense pain and speculates, because of the similarities between all mammals neural systems that one day that this could be applied to pigs and cows.

Proposed Florida Bill Would Charge Abortion Providers with First-Degree Felonies | Change.org

What I find particularly interesting about this anti-choice bill is that it punishes the abortion providers, not the patients. If this bill becomes law, then a person performing abortions would be charged with a first-degree felony, punishable by up to life in prison. As Jessica over at Feministing suggests, this “punish the provider, not the patient” philosophy seems to stem from the popular anti-choice sentiment that women are victims of abortions, not well-informed, active participants in the process. In that scenario, abortion providers are like the Big Bad Wolf preying on innocent Little Red Riding Hood, which is insulting to women on many levels.

Rock the Vote, With Sex?

Rock the Vote is an organization that encourages young people’s civic engagement.  Their stated mission is “to engage and build the political power of young people in order to achieve progressive change in our country.”  I applaud their efforts to get out the vote of the 18-25 demographic. They have absolutely made a difference in elections, most notably the 2008 presidential election when the vote of young people was a huge factor in President Obama’s success.  RTV keeps themselves busy during non-election years encouraging participation in acts of civic participation other than voting.  On the whole, they’re an inspirational organization that’s been paying attention to a demographic largely forgotten by others.

But, Rock the Vote’s recent video encouraging young people to stop having sex with people who do not support health care reform is demeaning of the group of people whom they seek to empower.  Ironically, I feel insulted by this video, not empowered.

In an age where there are so many ways to get involved (letter writing, host/attend a discussion, protest, petition, educate others, etc.), the fact that the advocate with holding sex and being a tease is despicable.  Are sex and politics not too intertwined already?  I understand that the add is targeted toward personal relationships between non-politicians but it’s the, “Rock the Vote any way you can” message that really has me disturbed.  It is flat out wrong.  In the arena of politics, there are boundaries and although they are sometimes crossed, they should still be treated with respect, not flouted in ads.

One of those boundaries is monetary.  We do not allow people to Rock the Vote any way they can with money.  You cannot pay your supporters for their support.  Now, of course in professional politics lots of money does exchange hands.  But, what I am talking about is the support of citizens, not corporations or political interest groups.  Not since Tammany Hall have politicians been able to buy off the support of voters.  It is why in some places liquor stores are closed on election day.  They can’t get you drunk and then ask for your vote or vice versa rewards you with alcohol after having voted in their favor.

Another boundary is sex.  In most of our country, prostitution is illegal so you cannot buy sex anyway.  But, this video advocates using sex as a means of advancing the political discussion.  I do not understand how that is even potentially a helpful tool of creating dialogue.  Sexual desire does not catalyze conversation, it distracts from it!

I think whoever created this ad thought it would appeal to young people with its use of buzz words like cougar, tweeting, and texting.  But, they were wrong.  Youth and young adult culture is more than buzz words that you can string together while trying to insert your message, add two girls touching each other sexually, and think we will be convinced.  I am ashamed of Rock the Vote for so underestimating the very people in whom they usually put so much faith.

The potential political impact of young adults is huge, as demonstrated by the aforementioned 2008 election, and also in the civil rights and anti-Vietnam protest movements.  How dare they reduce us to whoring for our political capital.

Righting a Wrong: HIV Travel Ban Lifts

Analysis…

For 22 years, the United Stated has restricted travel/immigration to the United States for those who were HIV+.  On Monday, that ban ended. For countries where large portions of their population are infected with HIV, this ban has limited access to opportunities and education in the US.  The US had been one of only 12 countries that had such a ban.  Others include Libya and Saudi Arabia.  Originally intended to contain the infection of HIV,  the restriction has outlived its wisdom.  We now know that HIV is not transmitted from casual contact.  The repeal of the  ban has been lauded by HIV advocates and any opponents have largely remained silent.

The Independent | In fact, it was already well established when Reagan made his speech in 1987 that HIV was spread by intimate sexual contact or the transfusion of blood products. There was no evidence of HIV being transmissible through casual contact and there was no reason in 1987 for the travel ban, and certainly no excuse for it not being lifted in the intervening 22 years. The lifting of the travel ban is long overdue given that it has done nothing to protect the American public.

Box Turtle Bulletin | The HIV travel ban was officially lifted yesterday. One report has it that the first HIV-positive gay man arrived yesterday from the Netherlands. It turns out that couple won’t arrive until Thursday, so given thethousands of arrivals each day, it’s safe to say that the first arrival went unnoticed. As it should.

Advocate.com | Paul Zantkuijl of AIDS Fonds said his organization has been working alongside others to change the policy for years and wanted to celebrate their success by sending an HIV-positive person to the states.   “We all had to be patient, but finally this discriminatory and stigmatizing ruling has ended!” he said.

Change.org | “At long last, people living with HIV will no longer be pointlessly barred from this country,” said Rachel Tiven, Executive Director of Immigration Equality. “Every day, Immigration Equality hears from individuals and families who have been separated because of the ban, with no benefit to the public health. Now, those families can be reunited, and the United States can put its mouth where its money is: ending the stigma that perpetuates HIV transmission, supporting science, and welcoming those who seek to build a life in this country.”

On the Web…

Census 2010 Can Count on Controversy | Brookings

“Home” may have changed recently for those whose hardship leaves them little choice but to live with relatives or friends, however temporary that may be. “Home” for displaced residents of the Gulf Coast may be miles away from where they lived before the devastation that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita wrought in their communities.

“Home” for some immigrants is in U.S. communities even though they are not legally residing in the United States. And “home” may be in a prison or detention center in a state far away from the inmate’s hometown residence.

The War of the Presidents: Reagan Battles Obama in 2010 | The American Spectator

Yet in a high-speed culture in which politics is conducted in the short-hand of sound-bites, the 2010 election can be easily summarized by the last names of the two presidents immutably identified with their respective governing philosophies, making the first national election of the 21st century’s second decade a virtual War of the Presidents. It will beget one simple question. Are you Reagan or Obama?

Bathroom Mirror Shows Water Consumption in LEDs As You Wash Your Face | TreeHugger

This intriguing – and somewhat complex – concept design for a bathroom mirror brings the water crisis right in front of your face. The mirror is lit with LEDs powered by the flow of water in the pipes. As you use the mirror throughout the year, the patterns of water use and supply create a frame, and you can see how your habits affect the planet.

Designer Jin Kim’s idea is that the mirror breaks down daily, monthly and annual use of water. As you use too much water, there’s a control in the mirror so your supply can be limited. And if the lights are meaningless to the user, there are also icons for those who are affected by water misuse – kids, ecosystems, polar bears – so you’re guilted into shutting off the faucet.

The Cadillac Tax

Analysis…

The health care bill continues to be carved and sculpted in the White House; the Washington Post noted Monday, As we prepare for the final round of debate over health reform, perhaps the most contentious issue will be financing. And so it is, and the “Cadillac Tax” has come to be an topic of debate due to its ability to affect the majority of middle class Americans.  Below, several bloggers discuss the tax, including what it really means but most importantly, how it will affect you and I.

Shakesville |  The tax is being introduced as a tax on high-end, or “Cadillac,” plans, as defined by how many dollars of healthcare are covered by the plan. But, as the cost of healthcare rises, basic plans that cover a percentage of care will necessarily qualify as “Cadillac” plans. More people will be forced to pay a 40% excise tax, or lower the quality of their healthcare plans. Most people (and/or their employers) will opt for the latter, and the first thing to go will be preventable care, which is the exact thing that’s gotten us into this situation in the first place, because our insurance companies currently pay out enormous amounts to pay for treatments of advanced disease for which people with bad or no healthcare didn’t get treated earlier (and thus more cheaply).

The Mahablog |  In yesterday’s Washington Post, an MIT economics professor named Jonathan Gruber presented an enthusiastic endorsement of the excise tax on “Cadillac’ health insurance policies. Gruber calls it “an innovative way of financing the health reform we so desperately need.” On the other hand, in today’s New York Times, Bob Herbert says the tax “will hammer millions of middle-class policyholders, forcing them to scale back their access to medical care.”
So who’s right? Hell if I know. Maybe they both are — the excise tax is a means of financing health reform that will impact many middle-class policyholders. Or not. Hard to say.
Ultimately, the success or failure of the entire health reform process depends on getting costs under control. Various provisions in the bills — such as the dreaded mandates — are there to reduce cost, and if they work the “Cadillac” plan provision possibly won’t be that big a deal to that many people. If they don’t, then yeah, I can see how the excise tax could result in a bite.
For that reason, it seems to me to be a bit deceptive to take one part of the reform plan and examine it outside the context of the rest of the plan.

Daily Kos |  What’s the logic for the Cadillac tax?  The idea is to pay for health care within the health care system itself, rather than going outside the system (the House does this by taxing wealthy individuals.) Some Dem Senators (Landreau, Lincoln and Nelson come to mind) have threatened passage over this if it’s removed. In return, the Senate taxes health care industry components much higher than the House version.
Play with the Health Reform Subsidy Calculator and see where you are at. And look to the House version as a better model for the middle class. It sounds like it’ll take WH intervention to convince the Senate to lower or eliminate the high-premium plan tax. And whatever the final bill looks like, it has to be affordable to those making 90K or less (400% of Federal poverty levels  – all individuals and families with incomes at or below 133% of the federal poverty level will be eligible for Medicaid and between 133 and 400%, there are subsidies.)
In the final analysis, remember we are comparing this to not having insurance at all – unless your current plan gets hit with a hidden tax, in which case you’re going to be looking to retire a few Senators.

Bob Herbert @NYTimes |  There is a middle-class tax time bomb ticking in the Senate’s version of President Obama’s effort to reform health care.
The bill that passed the Senate with such fanfare on Christmas Eve would impose a confiscatory 40 percent excise tax on so-called Cadillac health plans, which are popularly viewed as over-the-top plans held only by the very wealthy. In fact, it’s a tax that in a few years will hammer millions of middle-class policyholders, forcing them to scale back their access to medical care.
We all remember learning in school about the suspension of disbelief. This part of the Senate’s health benefits taxation scheme requires a monumental suspension of disbelief. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, less than 18 percent of the revenue will come from the tax itself. The rest of the $150 billion, more than 82 percent of it, will come from the income taxes paid by workers who have been given pay raises by employers who will have voluntarily handed over the money they saved by offering their employees less valuable health insurance plans.
Can you believe it?

News…

What Was Really Decided in Copenhagen?  |  Truthout

# First, the 2-1/2 pages of diplomatic blather that the participating countries ultimately consented to “take note” of are completely self-contradictory and commit no one to any specific actions to address the global climate crisis. There isn’t even a plan for moving UN-level negotiations forward. Friends of the Earth correctly described it as a “sham agreement,” British columnist George Monbiot called it an exercise in “saving face,” and former neoliberal shock doctor-turned-environmentalist Jeffrey Sachs termed it a farce. Long-time UN observer Martin Khor has pointed out that for a UN body to “take note” of a document means that not only was it not formally adopted, but it was not even “welcomed,” a common UN practice.
# Second, the global divide between rich and poor has never been clearer, and those countries where people are already experiencing droughts, floods and the melting of glaciers that provide a vital source of freshwater expect to find themselves in increasingly desperate straits as the full effects of climate disruptions begin to emerge. Not to mention the small island nations that face near-certain annihilation as melting ice sheets bring rising seas, along with infiltrations of seawater into their scarce fresh water supplies. Especially despicable was the changing role of the governments of the rapidly developing “BASIC” countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China), who claim to speak for the poor – in their own countries and around the world – when it is convenient, but mainly seek to protect the expanding riches of their own well-entrenched elites.

Who is Farouk Abdulmutallab  |  The New Yorker

Even by the standards of the blogosophere, there is not much clarity available about the Nigerian man who allegedly attempted to blow up the Northwest Airlines flight as it landed in Detroit on Christmas Day. The Nigerian newspaper This Day offers this biographical sketch, apparently drawn in part from interviews with at least one family member:

THISDAY checks reveal that the suspect, Abdulfarouk Umar Mutallab [sic] who studied engineering at the University College, London between September 2005 and 2008 had been noted for his extreme views on religion since his secondary school days at the British International School, Lome, Togo.
At the secondary school, he was known for preaching about Islam to his school mates and he was popularly called “Alfa”, a local coinage for Islamic scholar. After his secondary school, the suspect went to University College London to study mechanical engineering and later relocated to Egypt, and then Dubai. While in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, he declared to his family members that he did not want to have anything to do with any of them again.
He attempted to return to Britain for a six months course in May this year but was refused by officials from the UK border agency because his reason for coming to the country was not genuine.

Iran Steps Up Crackdown On Opposition  |  Talking Points Memo

Iran’s conservative parliament called for maximum punishment of opposition demonstrators Tuesday as the regime stepped up its crackdown on dissent.
Iran arrested the sister of Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi as well as journalists and activists, reports said, after eight people were killed in protests on Sunday during Shiite rituals for Ashura.

A Year in AIDS Part 2 — The Bad News

The changes outlined in Part One of this series are significant developments in the fight against HIV. Scientists are making huge strides and nations are rising to the challenge of combating the virus. With such progress being made, the eradication of HIV may be in our near future.  Now, let’s turn to the challenges faced by those who fight for HIV prevention.

The Pope

In March 2009, while in Africa, Pope Benedict XVI misled thousands of followers concerning the effectiveness of using condoms to prevent sexually transmitted diseases.  His statements on the topic set off a media firestorm and backlash.

Benedict also said the Roman Catholic Church was at the forefront of the battle against AIDS.  “You can’t resolve it with the distribution of condoms,” the pope told reporters aboard the plane heading to Yaoundé. “On the contrary, it increases the problem.”  The pope said a responsible and moral attitude toward sex would help fight the disease.

The Roman Catholic Church rejects the use of condoms as part of its overall teaching against artificial contraception. Senior Vatican officials have advocated fidelity in marriage and abstinence from premarital sex as crucial weapons in the fight against AIDS.

Many understood the pope’s comments as offering a scientific rather than moralistic reading of the situation. The pope has clarified that his comments were meant to provide a moralistic perspective.  But, many followers do not perceive a difference between the two.  Advocates of prevention worried that the pope’s comments would have an adverse effect, for instance if a man infected with HIV heard the pope’s comments and decided to stop using condoms because the pope had said they only make AIDS worse.

Domestic Statistics

Most Americans have no real sense of the population of HIV+ individuals in the USA.  HIV infections are present in approximately 1 of every 300 people.  In the US, we have a changing face of AIDS, which increasingly affects people of color disproportionately.

In the United States, approximately 1.1 million people are living with HIV/AIDS, including 280,000 women. Women now account for more than one in four new HIV/AIDS diagnoses in America — up from only 8 percent in 1985. HIV/AIDS also disproportionately affects women of color. African Americans and Hispanics represent only a quarter of the U.S. population, but they account for 82 percent of AIDS cases among women. Additionally, African-American women are diagnosed with AIDS at a rate 23 times that of Caucasian females and four times that of Hispanic women. Moreover, adolescent women represent 40 percent of AIDS cases reported among people aged 13 to 19 in the United States.

The prevalence of HIV infection among people of color is yet another barrier faced by a population for which discrimination is already a problem.  Increased stigma and discrimination is also a barrier for the LGBTQ community.

New Battlegrounds

Despite trending down overall, new geographic areas have arisen that have a high prevalence of seroconversion.   One of these is Indonesia.

The number of HIV-Aids cases in Indonesia is rising, according to the government in Jakarta. And U.N. officials say it is spreading far more quickly through sexual intercourse rather than drug use, which they say is a cause for alarm. The latest figures show there are at least 290,000 people in Indonesia infected with HIV.

Global management of HIV is like the hydra of Greek mythology, cut off a head and two grow back in its place.  Controlling the virus will mean managing all of its potential and actual manifestations.

Conclusion

Great strides have been taken in the last year to combat the spread of HIV.   However, this disease is still a significant foe, one about whom we cannot afford to forget.  We must recommit ourselves and our resources to banishing HIV from the human experience.

Lieberman’s Debacle

Analysis…

On Monday, the White House told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to compromise the Medicare expansion portion in the health reform bill and make a deal with Sen. Joe Lieberman.  Lieberman, who requested the elimination, has lit a fire within the hearts of Democrats who believe the Medicare expansion portion is a key element of health reform.  Many critics are accusing Lieberman of being flaky and changing his position within the health care debate.  Blog headlines claim, “No Health Care Reform for Old Men” and “Lieberman’s Principles, or Lack Thereof.” While the issue lies within the health care debate, the focus has now rested on Lieberman.

Ezra Klein |  At some point, of course, journalists have to do their best with the evidence before them. I cannot peer deep into Lieberman’s heart. In fairness to him, I’ve attempted the next best thing: Over the past year, I’ve called Lieberman’s office repeatedly searching for clarification, explanation, or interviews, both on and off the record. No dice. I’m still willing to hear them out, and to offer space on this blog if they feel misrepresented. But for now, I can only go off of Lieberman’s public statements and past positions, and they do not tell the story of principled opposition.
If you had attempted to forecast Lieberman’s behavior based on his past positions, you would have failed. His support for Medicare buy-in, and for various other health-care bills, would quickly have misled you. If you had attempted to forecast his behavior based on the attitudes of his constituents, you would also have failed. They support the public option and oppose health-care reform, while Lieberman professes to believe the opposite. But if you had attempted to forecast Lieberman’s positions based on his ongoing grudge match with the liberals who defeated him in the 2006 primary, you’d have nailed it perfectly. He has, at every point, taken aim at the policies that liberals support, even when they are policies that Lieberman himself has supported.

Daily Kos |  …it would be insane for anyone, including the big brains in the White House, to trust Lieberman now to agree to just cutting out Medicare buy-in (and the public option, because Joe wouldn’t strike a deal with that). He’s only going to ratchet up his demands. Yesterday he expanded it to include the CLASS Act. Tomorrow it’s going to be Medicaid expansion. Lieberman’s demands can’t reasonably be met because he’ll just keep moving the goalposts.

The Daily Beast |  “Senator Lieberman has long been concerned about making health care more affordable, especially for those over the age of 55 and not yet eligible for Medicare. One idea that has been discussed for years is expanding Medicare to people younger than 65,” Masonhall explained to The Daily Beast via e-mail. “Senator Lieberman’s comment reported by the Connecticut Post in September was made before the Finance Committee reported out the Baucus bill, which contained extensive health insurance reforms, including a more narrow age rating for pricing health insurance premiums and extensive affordability credits that would benefit this specific group of individuals. These health insurance reforms and affordability credits have been strengthened in Senator Reid’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and will provide even greater relief for those 55-65 years old. Any inclusion of a Medicare buy-in for that same age group would be duplicative of what is already in the bill, would put the government on the hook for billions of additional dollars, and would potentially threaten the solvency of Medicare, which is already in a perilous state. The senator also has concerns that this provision would result in cost-shifting that would drive up premiums for others, including those with employer-based coverage.”

The Huffington Post |  What I can’t respect—and find increasingly intransigent—is the posturing we’ve had to endure from Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.). He has once again forced his way into headlines with his loud-mouthed blanket opposition to anything resembling a public option. No triggers, no opt-outs, no opt-ins. If anything Lieberman knows how to stand athwart the news cycle yelling “Stop! Look at me! I have important objections!” What you haven’t seen, or read or heard is anything related to Lieberman’s actual position on health care. We see only process piece after process piece, and in this one you can see that Lieberman concedes that a public option saves money. No matter.
It’s been postulated that Lieberman is still upset over the embarrassment of 2000 and the need to run as Independent after his Democratic primary defeat in his 2006 reelection campaign, that he is a consummate opportunist (at least, more so than the rest of the Senate). Regardless of his motives, he has disparaged the back and forth such massive reform requires, drawn a line in the sand over a public option that a vast majority of Americans support—evidence of his bald manipulation of the political system to further his narrow, self-fulfilling motives.

Wonkette |  Here is an actual newspaper excerpt from September 8, 2009, based on an interview with Lieberman. (Ace catch, TPM!):

As to how 47 million uninsured will afford coverage, Lieberman said only 12 million don’t have insurance because they cannot afford it.

By allowing citizens who are not eligible for Medicare or Medicaid to buy in for a rate below the private market, the government can extend coverage to more of those who are currently uninsured, he said.

To arrive at his position, Lieberman said he reached out to “every conceivable group” in the state, including residents, providers, doctors and hospitals.

Boom. Just… boom. This is a “Joe Lieberman Boom Sandwich of Lies.” It tastes like blood and lava.
So, how will a FURIOUS Harry Reid and the White House respond to this fellow? Will they maybe try to exert some leverage, by threatening to take away his chairmanships or kidnap his pet gargoyle, Booger-eyes?

News…

Obama tells US banks to lend more and not oppose reform  |  BBC

US President Barack Obama has told bankers to increase loans to small and medium-size businesses.
President Obama said US banks had received extraordinary assistance and demanded they show extraordinary commitment to rebuild the US economy.
He also warned their lobbyists not to block moves for regulatory reform.

Viruses That Leave Victims Red in the Facebook  |  NYTimes

It used to be that computer viruses attacked only your hard drive. Now they attack your dignity.
Malicious programs are rampaging through Web sites like Facebook and Twitter, spreading themselves by taking over people’s accounts and sending out messages to all of their friends and followers. The result is that people are inadvertently telling their co-workers and loved ones how to raise their I.Q.’s or make money instantly, or urging them to watch an awesome new video in which they star.

Law and Disorder in New Orleans  |  ProPublica

During the turbulent days after Hurricane Katrina made landfall, New Orleans police shot 10 civilians, at least four of whom died, according to interviews and internal police documents.
Some incidents involving police were widely publicized and have prompted a U.S. Justice Department inquiry into the conduct of the New Orleans Police Department that has brought dozens of officers before federal grand juries to testify.
But a fresh examination of the post-storm period — a joint effort by ProPublica, The New Orleans Times-Picayune, and PBS “Frontline” — raises additional questions about the actions of police who shot civilians. It also reveals deep flaws in the department’s efforts to investigate its officers’ use of deadly force in the chaos after the storm.

A Year in AIDS Part 1- The Good News

December 1st was World AIDS Day.  Events were held in Oklahoma, across the nation and the world to commemorate those lost to HIV/AIDS and those who suffer discrimination because of their HIV status. In addition, World AIDS Day events function to provide education and prevention tools in order to prevent future seroconversions (fancy word for the when someone goes from being HIV- to HIV+). World AIDS Day provides a reminder of the continued threat of HIV in a world where red ribbons are now rarely seen and AIDS is no longer a hot topic.  I will take this opportunity to review the year of developments in the field of HIV/AIDS research and study.

There is good news.  But the danger of beginning with good news is that you may not read the bad news in the next article, and glean from this only the good news, thus completely defeating the purpose of raising awareness about the threat of HIV/AIDS.  So I begin with the good news only after that word of caution that bad news will follow, and I proceed with the cautious optimism that you will take both good and bad together.

The vaccination trial

September 2009 saw a huge breakthrough in AIDS research with the announcement of the first successful vaccine trial, which reduced infections by approximately 25%-30% among participants.  The study was performed in Thailand with over 16,000 subjects.

The vaccine — a combination of two earlier experimental vaccines — was given to 16,000 people in Thailand, in the largest ever such vaccine trial.  Researchers found that it reduced by nearly a third the risk of contracting HIV, the virus that leads to AIDS.  It has been hailed as a significant, scientific breakthrough, but a global vaccine is still some way off.

The study was carried out by the U.S. army and the Thai government over seven years on volunteers — all HIV-negative men and women aged between 18 and 30 — in parts of Thailand.   The vaccine was a combination of two older vaccines that on their own had not cut infection rates.  Half of the volunteers were given the vaccine, while the other half were given a placebo — and all were given counseling on HIV/AIDS prevention.  Participants were tested for HIV infection every six months for three years.

The results found that the chances of catching HIV were 31.2% less for those who had taken the vaccine — with 74 people who did not get the vaccine infected and 51 of the vaccinated group infected.  The vaccine is based on B and E strains of HIV that most commonly circulate in Thailand not the C strain which predominates in Africa.

This is by far the most exciting news of the year which is why it earns the primary position.

Reduction in New Infections

In November, UNAIDS announced a reduction in new infections worldwide in the last eight years.  This shows the beginnings of controlling the spread of the virus.

According to new data in the 2009 AIDS epidemic update, new HIV infections have been reduced by 17% over the past eight years. Since 2001, when the United Nations Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS was signed, the number of new infections in sub-Saharan Africa is approximately 15% lower, which is about 400,000 fewer infections in 2008. In East Asia new HIV infections declined by nearly 25% and in South and South East Asia by 10% in the same time period. In Eastern Europe, after a dramatic increase in new infections among injecting drug users, the epidemic has leveled off considerably. However, in some countries there are signs that new HIV infections are rising again.

Microbicides

In February 2009, the story broke that microbicides had been preliminarily found to be effective at preventing HIV in women.  Microbicides function by blocking the initial infection of HIV.  This news is especially important for women because the microbicides are applied through a vaginal gel that a woman can use as a prevention tool if her male partner refuses to use a condom, a potentially huge advancement for women.

About 3,100 women participated in the study, which was designed mainly to test whether it was safe. The women were divided into four groups. One-quarter of them used the Indevus gel, which is supposed to block the AIDS virus from attaching to certain white blood cells.Another quarter were put on a gel made by Baltimore-based ReProtect Inc. The rest were given a placebo gel, or no gel at all.

All the women were counseled to have their partners use condoms. The study was done in South Africa, Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe and the United States, and was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health.Researchers found that women who used the Indevus-made gel had a 30% lower rate of HIV infection than the other women in the study. But the difference was not statistically significant, meaning the results could have occurred by chance.

The most important section of the above quotation is the last sentence, stating that these are preliminary results that may not be statistically significant.  Let’s cross our fingers that they are when the research is completed.

South Africa

On World AIDS Day, South African President Jacob Zuma announced that his country will be putting many more resources behind the fight against HIV, particularly with regards to preventing prenatal and perinatal infections.

The new policy on pregnant women, aimed at ensuring that babies are born healthy, is in line with the new treatment guidelines issued by the World Health Organization just a day before. Treating infected babies earlier is expected to help South Africa, one of only four countries where child mortality has worsened since 1990, improve the survival odds of its youngest citizens.

More people are H.I.V. positive here than in any other nation, and Mr. Zuma called on South Africans to struggle against AIDS as they had against apartheid. “We have no choice but to deploy every effort, mobilize every resource and utilize every skill our nation possesses,” he said.

The policy changes he announced will expand access to treatment. Mr. Zuma said that by April the government would start treating H.I.V.-positive people with tuberculosis earlier, when their immune systems are stronger — a step the World Health Organization said would reduce death rates. Tuberculosis is the leading killer of South Africans with H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS, and deaths from tuberculosis have more than tripled here since 1997.

The reduction of new infections, scientific breakthroughs and response of affected nations is the trinity of progress made in the field of HIV this year.  No one could have predicted what significant gains we have made in only twelve months.  In a couple more years, could we have completely eliminated the threat of HIV?  Read part two of this series to see what challenges we face.

Learning to Compromise

Analysis…

The word is that there’s been an agreement on health care in the Senate! 

NY Times | The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, said Tuesday night that he and a group of 10 Democratic senators had reached “a broad agreement” to resolve a dispute over a proposed government-run health insurance plan, which has posed the biggest obstacle to passage of sweeping health care legislation.

Excited that the health care debate may finally be coming to a close?  Not so fast, there are contradictory reports…

The Hill| Two centrist Democrats at the center of the Senate’s tense healthcare reform negotiations insisted that there has been no compromise deal on the legislation despite Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) pronouncements.

“There’s no specific compromise. There were discussions,” Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) said at a press conference Wednesday.

With that being said, here’s some thoughts on the compromise that may or may not have been reached.  (Those looking for more comprehensive information will find this interactive guide on Slate.com helpful.)  First, what it may contain:

The Huffington Post | Reid reiterated the importance of confidentiality during the meeting. Fortunately, HuffPost spoke to Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) before the gathering began.

He confirmed that at least four items had been sent to the CBO for an estimate known as a score: an expansion of Medicaid; broadening Sen. Maria Cantwell’s (D-Wash.) Basic Health program to people within 300 percent of the federal poverty limit; the much-discussed national plans that would be run by the Office of Personnel Management and first reported here, and allowing people 55-64 to buy into Medicare — first reported here. It’s still unclear how the “trigger” for the public option, which is still on the table, will be designed.

Opinions:

Daily Kos | People from 27-55 are still out of luck in terms of high quality, affordable insurance. In the base bill, the basic, lowest level qualified program in the exchange has a very low actuarial level, 60%, which is worse than 99% of employer-based plans. What that basically means is that patients will have to pay, between premiums and out of pocket costs, 40% on average of their supposedly covered costs. Lots of people, mandated to buy insurance, are going to be choosing this lowest level program because it will be the least expensive. There will be some basic preventive care included in the package, but in the event of a serious illness or injury, the people in this plan will still face huge bills. The House bill sets that lowest level at 70%.

The Plumline | In a boost for the Senate health care deal reached yesterday, Howard Dean said in an interview with me moments ago that the current compromise contains “real reform,” and said that as it stands now, progressives could support it.

The Hill | Liberal Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) on Wednesday expressed apprehension about the public option compromise stuck late Tuesday.  Feingold told reporters he was concerned that stripping healthcare reform legislation of the government-run public health insurance option could result in a giveaway of federal dollars to private insurers.

Crooks and Liars |  And it’s certainly a win for our side if it turns out that people aged 55 to 64 can buy into Medicare. Of course, none of us know what those actual premiums look like because Medicare is so heavily subsidized for its current population. Here’s the estimated premium. My guess is, once people get into the plan, they’ll start lobbying their reps for more subsidies – and to open the plan up even more.

Uprising Radio| Proponents of a medicare-like system, and those hoping for a publicly-run health insurance option will be disappointed as private health insurance companies are now expected to deliver what is still be called a public option. The plans will be approved by the Office of Personnel Management – the same government entity that manages healthcare for government employees and members of Congress. Another huge disappointment for progressives is an amendment similar to the so-called Stupak amendment in the House version of the health care bill, that would place tight restrictions on reproductive health services like abortion that are covered by federally subsidized plans.

News…

Europe’s Roe v. Wade? | FP Passport

Ireland is cautious when it comes to defending its stance against abortion. Voters approved the Lisbon treaty on EU integration earlier this year only after stringent guarantees from other EU countries that EU law would not force Ireland to relinquish its ban on the procedure, which was backed by a 1983 referendum.

“Undocumented Immigrant” Is Now a Legal Lexicon | Change.org

Newly-appointed Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, is already starting to make a difference in the courtroom. While handing down a decision in a civil litigation case, MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC. v. CARPENTER, Judge Sotomayor wrote her traditional debut presiding opinion that marks the first time the United States Supreme Court has used the lexicon “undocumented immigrants” to classify immigrants without legal status.

College Profs More Ethical Than Clergy

Or so the American people believe, according to Gallup. Okay, so we are not quite up to the level of cops or dentists, but we’re way above journalists (sorry, guys), bankers, lawyers, and such riffraff as car salesmen, HMO managers, and members of Congress. But back to that clergy comparison: College teachers get a “very high” or “high” ethical ranking from 54 percent of respondents; clergy, just 50 percent.

Health Care Catch Up

Analysis…

 As the health care debate continues for what seems like over a year, many of us have become exhausted by the story.  Most know that the House passed a bill in mid-November.  But how many know the state of the Senate bill?  This Analysis is a catch up for those of us who have tuned out.  Good luck keeping up for the rest of this story. 

BBC | In a rare weekend session, the Senate has gathered to debate and vote in a bid to get the bill completed by the end of the month.  Mr Obama urged his Democratic Party senators to “get the job done”.  Democrats are divided over abortion and whether to allow the government to compete with private companies to sell insurance.

Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus, a key author of the healthcare overhaul, said Mr Obama had told the senators that the public would reward Democrats for decades if the reform got through.  ”You could tell it had an effect,” Mr Baucus said.  Obama aide Bill Burton said the president had urged legislators to “continue forward on this historic opportunity to provide stability and security for those who have insurance, affordable coverage for those who don’t”.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who had invited Mr Obama to the meeting, said that Republicans wanted this to be “President Obama’s Waterloo” adding: “It’s not going to be.”

Talking Points Memo | With the blessing of leadership, and the help of Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), liberal and conservative Democrats are continuing to meet to find a solution. “I called and personally asked five moderates and five progressives to work things out and the issues that they care a lot about: Public option, small business,” Reid said at a press conference after a rare Sunday caucus meeting. “And they’ve had, I don’t know how many meetings, but many.”

“Progress is being made and that’s not just talk. They’ve made a lot of progress.”  On the table are a number of ideas, including affixing a public option to a trigger, and potentially allowing states to opt in to a public option.

The Hill | Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) will introduce an abortion amendment on Monday, Reid announced this afternoon. Meanwhile, a team of five moderates and five progressives continue to forge ahead with negotiations on the “issues they care about” in the healthcare bill, the majority leader added.

But while Reid praised the president’s visit, reiterating the party’s committment to passing a reform bill, Senate Republicans continued debating that proposal on the Senate floor.

Huffington Post | In the pending health care bill, Senate Democrats have finally addressed the taxpayer subsidy of excessive executive compensation. Unfortunately, their limited proposal is little more than political grandstanding.

The current bill denies corporate income tax deductions for excessive executive salaries paid in the health care industry, but continues to permit such deductions for egregious salaries paid elsewhere in the economy.

News…

LA Diocese Elects Openly Gay Bishop Suffragan | Episcopal Life Online

The 114th annual convention of the Diocese of Los Angeles made history for the second time in as many days on Dec. 5, electing an openly gay candidate, the Rev. Mary Douglas Glasspool, as bishop suffragan, pending the required consents from the majority of the church’s other dioceses.

56 International Newspapers Print Same Editiorial Demanding Action in Copenhagen | Change.org

One blog post isn’t enough to influence the outcome of the Copenhagen summit. And one news story on the front page of a national newspaper isn’t enough either. But one single editorial printed on the front page of 56 newspapers in 45 countries from India, to Lebanon, to Poland, to America (Miami) might create a splash big enough to wake world leaders napping on the beach, failing to act, as sea-levels rise. British newspaper the Guardian led the effort to run the same front-page lead article calling for action in Copenhagen.

Good News and Bad News About the Ozone Hole | TreeHugger

Good news: The hole is getting smaller. Bad news: It was keeping temps lower.  Alarming new research has come to light that further illustrates the severity of global warming. According a recently published report from the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, the ozone hole, which is linked to causing skin-cancer, cataracts, damage to plant-life, and a reduction of the plankton population–has also been reducing the effects of global warming in Antarctica by keeping the temperature at the pole artificially low.

Palin Pokes Fun at Herself at Gridiron | The Hill

Still, snippets of Palin’s remarks in particular creeped into news reports late Saturday night. Among the highlights from the former governor’s speech, as reported by the AP:

 – Palin took a shot at Vice President Joe Biden’s hair: “I could be the one overseeing the signing of bailout checks and Vice President Biden could be on the road selling his book, ‘Going Rogaine,” she said.

– Reflecting on her remark during the campaign that she could “see Russia” from her house, Palin quipped she “came down from my hotel room and I could see the Russian embassy.”

Fire It Up: Abortion Laws v. Health Care

Analysis…

The Stupak-Pitts amendment on abortion is causing a stir among pro-choice advocates.  By its definition, abortion coverage would become null through the passage of the health reform bill.  It has been noted that the underprivileged would be most affected by this clause; thus, activists believe women’s human rights are being attacked.  For some, this concept is outrageous, yet others believe our energy should be spent elsewhere.

Economix |  If a Stupak-Pitts type restriction is put in place, a significant number of low-income women would be required to pay for abortions out-of-pocket or to continue an unwanted pregnancy. The cumulative effects — compounded by the spillovers on private insurance practices — would be large. The Guttmacher Institute estimates that at current rates, about a third of women will have had an abortion by age 45.
With sex (as with food and exercise) Americans don’t seem, on average, to be very good at planning. Almost one-half of all pregnancies — and about one-third of births — are described as “unintended.”
We need insurance for a reason.

Megan McArdle @TheAtlantic |  You could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that women’s health care is important, that this has a hugely disparate impact on women, that it will result in more women carrying unplanned pregnancies to term, etc . . . and that still wouldn’t make a majority of the country want to pay for other peoples’ abortions out of their tax dollars.
The women who genuinely can’t afford $500 bucks for an abortion are the women closest to the poverty line.  Those women will be covered by Medicare, and they won’t get abortion coverage anyway in most states.  The women who will be buying insurance on the exchanges presumably mostly do not have health insurance now, and thus are losing nothing if their new insurance doesn’t cover abortions.

Taylor Marsh |   You hear a lot about freedom from the right, people like Rush, Sean, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. But they need to explain to me if a woman doesn’t have 100% control over her body what freedom actually exists for her.
We’ve got a serious problem that has wormed it’s way into the debate, because Democrats have abandoned the fight for women’s civil rights, which includes access and means to exercise our rights as provided by the law.
As the health care debate heats up, this is the bottom line question: Is freedom only for men?

News…

An open letter to President Obama from Michael Moore  |  MichaelMoore.com

Dear President Obama,

Do you really want to be the new “war president”? If you go to West Point tomorrow night (Tuesday, 8pm) and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president. Pure and simple. And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do — destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you. With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they’ve always heard is true — that all politicians are alike. I simply can’t believe you’re about to do what they say you are going to do. Please say it isn’t so.

Obama Lost, Obama Found  |  New York Magazine

The Thursday before last, President Barack Obama came home from his eight-day trip to Asia and received a welcome even frostier than the subfreezing temperatures that had greeted him in Beijing. In the House of Representatives, the populist Democrat Peter DeFazio of Oregon was calling for the heads of Tim Geithner and Larry Summers on a pair of pikes. The Congressional Black Caucus was thwarting the progress of Obama’s financial-reform agenda, on the grounds that the economic policies of the first African-American president were callous toward African-Americans. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus, furious about provisions regarding illegal immigrants in the Senate health-care bill, was casting blame on the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. The next morning, the front page of the Washington Post featured a story with the blaring headline “Angry Congress Lashes Out at Obama,” but which might as well have been titled “What a Difference a Year Makes.”
It hasn’t actually been quite that long, of course, but the memory of Obama’s joyous inauguration seems distant indeed—as the lofty image of a candidate with such potential that he seemed to walk on air has given way to the reality of a president neck-deep in a pile of epochal problems. “Think about what we were handed,” says White House senior adviser and First Friend Valerie Jarrett. “Two wars. A global economic meltdown. The largest deficit in the nation’s history. A health-care crisis. A public-education crisis. An energy crisis. And a crisis in how we’ve been perceived around the world.” Jarrett sighs. “It is what it is.”

Animal Prosthetics  |  WebEcoist

Whether getting attacked by a larger predator, being harmed by man, suffering from disease or simply being injured on accident, there are many different ways in which animals can get hurt in the wild. While many animals are resilient following injury, the odds of survival certainly improve when researchers are able to help out. Take animal prosthetics and artificial limbs as an example. From artificial turtle flippers to new beaks for bald eagles to replacement dolphin tails, the development of animal prosthetics has come a long way in recent years, with the noble goals of determining the best ways to save injured animals and allowing them to regain as much functionality as possible.

Recently in Japan, a 20-year-old loggerhead turtle named Yu Chan was discovered entangled in fishing nets, with several of her limbs apparently bitten off by a shark. Rather than releasing the turtle into the wild, researchers have been working to attach artificial flippers made of soft plastic (polypropylene) and stainless steel supports to replace the missing limbs. At this point, figuring out how to construct durable turtle flippers has been the biggest obstacle, with one of the replacements falling off the turtle several times. Still, the ultimate goal is to move from these trials in the next couple of years with a proven, artificial flipper design that can be attached via surgery on Yu Chan and other injured turtles in the future.

Next Page »