U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye, normally not a politician who seeks a lot of attention outside of election years, is proclaiming himself Capitol Hill's king of earmarks.
"It may please you or it may not please you," he told a gathering of business leaders on the Big Island, West Hawaii Today reported. "I'm the No. 1 earmarks guy in the U.S. Congress."
Inouye and his colleagues in the Hawaii congressional delegation have long defended targeted spending provisions as a prerogative of Congress, to which the Constitution gives the power of the purse. They also contend they can better ascertain what their districts need than executive branch officials.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
Liliha proposed as National Heritage Area
We all know -- or think we know -- what a national park is. It's an area designated by the federal government as special in some way, and thus should be preserved. The same goes for city parks and historic districts.
But what's a National Heritage Area? And can one be created in, say, historic Liliha?
According to the National Park Service, stewards of the National Heritage Areas, such sites "expand on traditional approaches to resource stewardship by supporting large-scale, community-centered initiatives that connect local citizens to the preservation and planning process."
It turns out that for the last decade or so, some Liliha citizens have quietly been revitalizing the Liliha-Nuuanu area through promotion and preservation. They've gone public in a big way with Senate Bill 359, making the Honolulu neighborhood the first proposed National Heritage Area in Hawaii.
But what's a National Heritage Area? And can one be created in, say, historic Liliha?
According to the National Park Service, stewards of the National Heritage Areas, such sites "expand on traditional approaches to resource stewardship by supporting large-scale, community-centered initiatives that connect local citizens to the preservation and planning process."
It turns out that for the last decade or so, some Liliha citizens have quietly been revitalizing the Liliha-Nuuanu area through promotion and preservation. They've gone public in a big way with Senate Bill 359, making the Honolulu neighborhood the first proposed National Heritage Area in Hawaii.
health care reform poll vs. "the facts"
A new NBC News poll suggests some of the myths and partial truths about the plans under consideration are taking hold.
Most respondents said the effort is likely to lead to a "government takeover of the health care system" and to public insurance for illegal immigrants. Half said it will probably result in taxpayers paying for abortions and nearly that many expected the government will end up with the power to decide when treatment should stop for old people.
A look at each of those points:
THE POLL: 45 percent said it's likely the government will decide when to stop care for the elderly; 50 percent said it's not likely.
THE FACTS: Nothing being debated in Washington would give the government such authority. Critics have twisted a provision in a House bill that would direct Medicare to pay for counseling sessions about end-of-life care, living wills, hospices and the like if a patient wants such consultations with a doctor. They have said, incorrectly, that the elderly would be required to have these sessions.
THE POLL: 55 percent expect the overhaul will give coverage to illegal immigrants; 34 percent don't.
THE FACTS: The proposals being negotiated do not provide coverage for illegal immigrants.
THE POLL: 54 percent said the overhaul will lead to a government takeover of health care; 39 percent disagree.
THE FACTS: Obama is not proposing a single-payer system in which the government covers everyone, like in Canada or some European countries. He says that direction is not right for the U.S. The proposals being negotiated do not go there.
THE POLL: 50 percent expect taxpayer dollars will be used to pay for abortions; 37 percent don't.
THE FACTS: The House version of legislation would allow coverage for abortion in the public plan. But the procedure would be paid for with dollars from beneficiary premiums, not from federal funds. Likewise, private plans in the new insurance exchange could opt to cover abortion, but no federal subsidies would be used to pay for the procedure.
Most respondents said the effort is likely to lead to a "government takeover of the health care system" and to public insurance for illegal immigrants. Half said it will probably result in taxpayers paying for abortions and nearly that many expected the government will end up with the power to decide when treatment should stop for old people.
A look at each of those points:
THE POLL: 45 percent said it's likely the government will decide when to stop care for the elderly; 50 percent said it's not likely.
THE FACTS: Nothing being debated in Washington would give the government such authority. Critics have twisted a provision in a House bill that would direct Medicare to pay for counseling sessions about end-of-life care, living wills, hospices and the like if a patient wants such consultations with a doctor. They have said, incorrectly, that the elderly would be required to have these sessions.
THE POLL: 55 percent expect the overhaul will give coverage to illegal immigrants; 34 percent don't.
THE FACTS: The proposals being negotiated do not provide coverage for illegal immigrants.
THE POLL: 54 percent said the overhaul will lead to a government takeover of health care; 39 percent disagree.
THE FACTS: Obama is not proposing a single-payer system in which the government covers everyone, like in Canada or some European countries. He says that direction is not right for the U.S. The proposals being negotiated do not go there.
THE POLL: 50 percent expect taxpayer dollars will be used to pay for abortions; 37 percent don't.
THE FACTS: The House version of legislation would allow coverage for abortion in the public plan. But the procedure would be paid for with dollars from beneficiary premiums, not from federal funds. Likewise, private plans in the new insurance exchange could opt to cover abortion, but no federal subsidies would be used to pay for the procedure.
Iraqi bombings continue
BAGHDAD — Insurgents struck at the heart of the Iraqi government on Wednesday in two huge and deadly bombings that exposed a new vulnerability after Americans ceded control for security here on June 30. Nearby American soldiers stood by helplessly — despite the needs of hundreds of wounded lying among the dead — waiting for a request for assistance from Iraqi officials that apparently never came.
“As much as we want to come, we have to wait to be asked now,” said an American officer who arrived at one site almost three hours after the blast and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to brief reporters. At one blast site, American soldiers snapped pictures of the devastation before ducking out of the streets.
After weeks of escalating violence in Iraq, the powerful truck bombs on Wednesday killed at least 95 people and wounded nearly 600 at and around the Foreign and Finance Ministries in central Baghdad, assaults on symbols of government that lent an air of siege to the capital. The bombs crippled the downtown area, closed highways and two main bridges over the Tigris River, and clogged hospitals with the wounded.
The bombings, the worst since American forces handed over security responsibilities for cities to Iraq at the end of June, shook the Iraqi government’s confidence that it was ready and able to secure the nation.
“As much as we want to come, we have to wait to be asked now,” said an American officer who arrived at one site almost three hours after the blast and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to brief reporters. At one blast site, American soldiers snapped pictures of the devastation before ducking out of the streets.
After weeks of escalating violence in Iraq, the powerful truck bombs on Wednesday killed at least 95 people and wounded nearly 600 at and around the Foreign and Finance Ministries in central Baghdad, assaults on symbols of government that lent an air of siege to the capital. The bombs crippled the downtown area, closed highways and two main bridges over the Tigris River, and clogged hospitals with the wounded.
The bombings, the worst since American forces handed over security responsibilities for cities to Iraq at the end of June, shook the Iraqi government’s confidence that it was ready and able to secure the nation.
Paul Krugman on health care
Let’s talk about health care around the advanced world.
Every wealthy country other than the United States guarantees essential care to all its citizens. There are, however, wide variations in the specifics, with three main approaches taken.
In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We’ve all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false. Like every system, the National Health Service has problems, but over all it appears to provide quite good care while spending only about 40 percent as much per person as we do. By the way, our own Veterans Health Administration, which is run somewhat like the British health service, also manages to combine quality care with low costs.
The second route to universal coverage leaves the actual delivery of health care in private hands, but the government pays most of the bills. That’s how Canada and, in a more complex fashion, France do it. It’s also a system familiar to most Americans, since even those of us not yet on Medicare have parents and relatives who are.
Again, you hear a lot of horror stories about such systems, most of them false. French health care is excellent. Canadians with chronic conditions are more satisfied with their system than their U.S. counterparts. And Medicare is highly popular, as evidenced by the tendency of town-hall protesters to demand that the government keep its hands off the program.
Finally, the third route to universal coverage relies on private insurance companies, using a combination of regulation and subsidies to ensure that everyone is covered. Switzerland offers the clearest example: everyone is required to buy insurance, insurers can’t discriminate based on medical history or pre-existing conditions, and lower-income citizens get government help in paying for their policies.
In this country, the Massachusetts health reform more or less follows the Swiss model; costs are running higher than expected, but the reform has greatly reduced the number of uninsured. And the most common form of health insurance in America, employment-based coverage, actually has some “Swiss” aspects: to avoid making benefits taxable, employers have to follow rules that effectively rule out discrimination based on medical history and subsidize care for lower-wage workers.
So where does Obamacare fit into all this? Basically, it’s a plan to Swissify America, using regulation and subsidies to ensure universal coverage.
Every wealthy country other than the United States guarantees essential care to all its citizens. There are, however, wide variations in the specifics, with three main approaches taken.
In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We’ve all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false. Like every system, the National Health Service has problems, but over all it appears to provide quite good care while spending only about 40 percent as much per person as we do. By the way, our own Veterans Health Administration, which is run somewhat like the British health service, also manages to combine quality care with low costs.
The second route to universal coverage leaves the actual delivery of health care in private hands, but the government pays most of the bills. That’s how Canada and, in a more complex fashion, France do it. It’s also a system familiar to most Americans, since even those of us not yet on Medicare have parents and relatives who are.
Again, you hear a lot of horror stories about such systems, most of them false. French health care is excellent. Canadians with chronic conditions are more satisfied with their system than their U.S. counterparts. And Medicare is highly popular, as evidenced by the tendency of town-hall protesters to demand that the government keep its hands off the program.
Finally, the third route to universal coverage relies on private insurance companies, using a combination of regulation and subsidies to ensure that everyone is covered. Switzerland offers the clearest example: everyone is required to buy insurance, insurers can’t discriminate based on medical history or pre-existing conditions, and lower-income citizens get government help in paying for their policies.
In this country, the Massachusetts health reform more or less follows the Swiss model; costs are running higher than expected, but the reform has greatly reduced the number of uninsured. And the most common form of health insurance in America, employment-based coverage, actually has some “Swiss” aspects: to avoid making benefits taxable, employers have to follow rules that effectively rule out discrimination based on medical history and subsidize care for lower-wage workers.
So where does Obamacare fit into all this? Basically, it’s a plan to Swissify America, using regulation and subsidies to ensure universal coverage.
KGMB and KHNL/KFVE to share services
The shared-services agreement between KGMB-TV and KHNL/KFVE-TV to keep all three stations operating in the throes of the revenue-crippling recession was met with fear and loathing yesterday.
Advertising revenue for Honolulu's five major TV stations, which is projected to plummet to $48 million this year from $68 million in 2006, prompted the stations to find a creative solution to keep operating, officials said at a news conference.
KGMB is owned by Virginia-based MCG Capital Corp. and is its only TV station, while KHNL/KFVE is owned by Alabama-based Raycom Media Inc., which owns or operates stations in 36 markets in 18 states.
KGMB is a CBS affiliate, while KHNL is an NBC affiliate and KFVE is an independent station that airs University of Hawaii sports. The programming arrangements will remain in place, though the KGMB and KFVE call letters will be swapped by MCG and Raycom in a pending filing with the Federal Communications Commission. KGMB and KHNL will be led by Rick Blangiardi, and John Fink will head KFVE, each as vice president and general manager.
***
[8/26/09] KGMB joining with KHNL and K5 ... it sounded like a joke at first.
And not a very good one. But it’s no joke. The head honchos were very careful to explain that this is not a merger, per se, because the stations will retain their separate ownerships.
They have to, in order to abide by the rules. The Federal Communications Commission states that one company cannot own more than one television station in a single local market.
This new arrangement may stick (just barely) to the letter of the law, but in my very humble opinion it clearly violates its spirit and intent.
Each station will continue to broadcast its national network content - KGMB will air CBS programs and KHNL will still be NBC. But they will meld their newsrooms to create one huge news operation.
So much for competition and diversity of voices in the community.
And if you listen closely, you can hear it: the final gasping breaths of an icon. KGMB (thanks to the visionary guidance of Cec Heftel) was the station that first brought us television news way, way back in the dawn of the broadcast era.
KGMB News was always more than call letters on a screen to the people of Hawaii. It was a trusted part of our lives. One of the good things. Soon, for all intents and purposes, it will be gone.
***
[9/3] Dashefsky and Ako among TV layoffs
Advertising revenue for Honolulu's five major TV stations, which is projected to plummet to $48 million this year from $68 million in 2006, prompted the stations to find a creative solution to keep operating, officials said at a news conference.
KGMB is owned by Virginia-based MCG Capital Corp. and is its only TV station, while KHNL/KFVE is owned by Alabama-based Raycom Media Inc., which owns or operates stations in 36 markets in 18 states.
KGMB is a CBS affiliate, while KHNL is an NBC affiliate and KFVE is an independent station that airs University of Hawaii sports. The programming arrangements will remain in place, though the KGMB and KFVE call letters will be swapped by MCG and Raycom in a pending filing with the Federal Communications Commission. KGMB and KHNL will be led by Rick Blangiardi, and John Fink will head KFVE, each as vice president and general manager.
***
[8/26/09] KGMB joining with KHNL and K5 ... it sounded like a joke at first.
And not a very good one. But it’s no joke. The head honchos were very careful to explain that this is not a merger, per se, because the stations will retain their separate ownerships.
They have to, in order to abide by the rules. The Federal Communications Commission states that one company cannot own more than one television station in a single local market.
This new arrangement may stick (just barely) to the letter of the law, but in my very humble opinion it clearly violates its spirit and intent.
Each station will continue to broadcast its national network content - KGMB will air CBS programs and KHNL will still be NBC. But they will meld their newsrooms to create one huge news operation.
So much for competition and diversity of voices in the community.
And if you listen closely, you can hear it: the final gasping breaths of an icon. KGMB (thanks to the visionary guidance of Cec Heftel) was the station that first brought us television news way, way back in the dawn of the broadcast era.
KGMB News was always more than call letters on a screen to the people of Hawaii. It was a trusted part of our lives. One of the good things. Soon, for all intents and purposes, it will be gone.
***
[9/3] Dashefsky and Ako among TV layoffs
Thursday, August 27, 2009
new home sales rise
New home sales unexpectedly rose 9.6% in June month-over-month (m/m) to an annual rate of 433,000 units, much better than the 1.6% gain expected by economists, and May and April sales were revised higher, up 9.1% and 4.9% respectively. The median price of a new home fell 12.0% year-over-year (y/y), to $210,100. Inventory of new homes for sale continued to fall in June, to 271,000 units, the fewest since March 1993 according to Bloomberg, and combined with the jump in the pace of sales during the month, it represented 7.5 months of supply at the current sales rate, down from the peak of 12 months, but still elevated from the seven months of supply that is usually consistent with a stabilization in prices.
New home sales have struggled to compete with the discounts afforded by foreclosures of existing homes, and the market share of new homes has been running at 7% in 2009, off the high of 16% during the bubble. In response, homebuilders significantly cut back on new housing starts, allowing inventory levels of new homes to fall, and have been adjusting their models to fit changing consumer spending behaviors and credit conditions that have a bias toward smaller and more affordable homes. New single-family housing starts have been on the rise since February to meet demand driven by the $8,000 tax incentive, which ends November 30. Improving data on the housing market has been bullish for investor sentiment, but traders are uneasy about the sustainability of increases after the stimulus is removed.
[from Schwab Alerts]
New home sales have struggled to compete with the discounts afforded by foreclosures of existing homes, and the market share of new homes has been running at 7% in 2009, off the high of 16% during the bubble. In response, homebuilders significantly cut back on new housing starts, allowing inventory levels of new homes to fall, and have been adjusting their models to fit changing consumer spending behaviors and credit conditions that have a bias toward smaller and more affordable homes. New single-family housing starts have been on the rise since February to meet demand driven by the $8,000 tax incentive, which ends November 30. Improving data on the housing market has been bullish for investor sentiment, but traders are uneasy about the sustainability of increases after the stimulus is removed.
[from Schwab Alerts]
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Ted Kennedy
BOSTON - Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the liberal lion of the Senate and haunted bearer of the Camelot torch after two of his brothers fell to assassins' bullets, has died at his home in Hyannis Port after battling a brain tumor. He was 77.
For nearly a half-century in the Senate, Kennedy was a steadfast champion of the working class and the poor, a powerful voice on health care, civil rights, and war and peace. To the American public, though, he was best known as the last surviving son of America's most glamorous political family, the eulogist of a clan shattered again and again by tragedy.
***
In the days since Ted Kennedy’s death, the news programs have shown and re-shown the unforgettable ending of his 1980 Democratic convention speech — the passage from Tennyson and the beautiful final lines: “The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.”
But if you go back earlier into the heart of that speech, you see how bold Kennedy’s agenda really was. His central argument was for a policy of full employment. Government should provide a job for every able-bodied American.
His next big goal was what he called “reindustrialization.” The computer revolution was just getting under way, but Kennedy called on government to restore the industrial might of America’s cities.
The third big goal was national health insurance. “Let us insist on real control over what doctors and hospitals can charge,” Kennedy cried.
The speech was radical, and he could have gone back to the Senate, content to luxuriate in his own boldness. He could have excoriated his opponents for their villainy and given speeches about dreams that would never come true.
But Kennedy became something else. He became a compromiser. He became an incrementalist.
Those words have negative connotations. But they shouldn’t. Kennedy never abandoned his ambitious ideals, but his ability to forge compromises and champion gradual, incremental change created the legacy everybody is celebrating today: community health centers, the National Cancer Institute, the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Meals on Wheels program, the renewal of the Voting Rights Act and the No Child Left Behind Act.
For nearly a half-century in the Senate, Kennedy was a steadfast champion of the working class and the poor, a powerful voice on health care, civil rights, and war and peace. To the American public, though, he was best known as the last surviving son of America's most glamorous political family, the eulogist of a clan shattered again and again by tragedy.
***
In the days since Ted Kennedy’s death, the news programs have shown and re-shown the unforgettable ending of his 1980 Democratic convention speech — the passage from Tennyson and the beautiful final lines: “The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.”
But if you go back earlier into the heart of that speech, you see how bold Kennedy’s agenda really was. His central argument was for a policy of full employment. Government should provide a job for every able-bodied American.
His next big goal was what he called “reindustrialization.” The computer revolution was just getting under way, but Kennedy called on government to restore the industrial might of America’s cities.
The third big goal was national health insurance. “Let us insist on real control over what doctors and hospitals can charge,” Kennedy cried.
The speech was radical, and he could have gone back to the Senate, content to luxuriate in his own boldness. He could have excoriated his opponents for their villainy and given speeches about dreams that would never come true.
But Kennedy became something else. He became a compromiser. He became an incrementalist.
Those words have negative connotations. But they shouldn’t. Kennedy never abandoned his ambitious ideals, but his ability to forge compromises and champion gradual, incremental change created the legacy everybody is celebrating today: community health centers, the National Cancer Institute, the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Meals on Wheels program, the renewal of the Voting Rights Act and the No Child Left Behind Act.
HMSA on health care reform
We are approaching a crisis point. Unsustainable increases in health care costs threaten the financial security of families and hinder the economic recovery of our nation.
The sheer number and complexity of interacting parts of health care reform make it challenging to answer the question, "Where does the Hawaii Medical Service Association stand in all of this"?
We stand on the fundamentals.
HMSA supports access to quality, affordable health care. We support an active and innovative private sector role in health care. We support choice in physicians and health plans. We support government programs that provide access to health care for the most vulnerable in our society. We support accountability and transparency in all sectors of the health care industry. We support outcome-based medicine and best practices in health care. We support consumer empowerment and individual responsibility for health behaviors. And, we support an economically sustainable health care system.
As Hawaii's largest provider of health care coverage, HMSA supports effective and affordable reform. Controlling costs and providing access to quality care have always been our goals, so today's discussions about health care reform are in line with our philosophy and efforts throughout the 70-plus years we've served the people of Hawaii. True reform will happen only with the involvement of everyone in the health care system.
As individuals, we need to take responsibility for our health -- eating well, exercising and avoiding risky behaviors.
Health care providers need to make sure they're offering the right care at the right time. That doesn't mean more procedures or tests that simply drive up costs. It means influencing patients to take an active role in managing their health and the delivery of care with measurable results demonstrating that patients are healthier.
The government needs to ensure that it pays its fair share. On average, a family of four with a private health plan pays an additional $1,800 a year to subsidize what Medicare and Medicaid pay physicians and hospitals. These government programs need to pay for the true cost of care.
The sheer number and complexity of interacting parts of health care reform make it challenging to answer the question, "Where does the Hawaii Medical Service Association stand in all of this"?
We stand on the fundamentals.
HMSA supports access to quality, affordable health care. We support an active and innovative private sector role in health care. We support choice in physicians and health plans. We support government programs that provide access to health care for the most vulnerable in our society. We support accountability and transparency in all sectors of the health care industry. We support outcome-based medicine and best practices in health care. We support consumer empowerment and individual responsibility for health behaviors. And, we support an economically sustainable health care system.
As Hawaii's largest provider of health care coverage, HMSA supports effective and affordable reform. Controlling costs and providing access to quality care have always been our goals, so today's discussions about health care reform are in line with our philosophy and efforts throughout the 70-plus years we've served the people of Hawaii. True reform will happen only with the involvement of everyone in the health care system.
As individuals, we need to take responsibility for our health -- eating well, exercising and avoiding risky behaviors.
Health care providers need to make sure they're offering the right care at the right time. That doesn't mean more procedures or tests that simply drive up costs. It means influencing patients to take an active role in managing their health and the delivery of care with measurable results demonstrating that patients are healthier.
The government needs to ensure that it pays its fair share. On average, a family of four with a private health plan pays an additional $1,800 a year to subsidize what Medicare and Medicaid pay physicians and hospitals. These government programs need to pay for the true cost of care.
AARP on Health Care reform
As your recent editorial ("End Medicare Myths," Aug. 12) makes clear, fixing what's wrong with health care is far too important to be derailed by scare tactics perpetuated by special interest groups who will benefit from the status quo.
What is the status quo? Insurance companies denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions and charging people unaffordable premiums because of their age. Layoffs leaving people without health insurance. More and more seniors who can't afford the medications they need to stay healthy and can't find a doctor willing to take Medicare patients.
You may have heard the myth that health care reform means socialized medicine. Not true. Health care reform will preserve the employer-based health care system, meaning an estimated 175 million Americans will continue to get their coverage through their employers. Every proposal that Congress is considering would allow people to choose their own doctors and hospitals.
Or how about the scare tactic that health care reform will allow the government to make end-of-life decisions for you? Absolutely false. Reform will not give the government the power to make end-of-life decisions for anyone, regardless of age. Those decisions will be made by individuals with their families and their doctors. No one, including the government or your insurance company, will be given power to make end-of-life decisions for you.
People need to hear the good things that will happen when we pass real reform. AARP is calling on Congress to guarantee that all Americans have a choice of dependable, affordable health insurance plans and preserve your choice of doctors who can work with you to make the best possible health care decisions for you and your family.
We believe health care reform must fix what's wrong and preserve what's right. Reform must strengthen and improve Medicare, protect people's choice of doctor and insurance plans, and guarantee dependable, affordable coverage.
AARP believes health care is not a Democratic or Republican issue. It's not about political gamesmanship. It's about people's lives.
* * *
The AARP, a national association of people 50 and older, supports the health care overhaul. Here is its take on two key issues.
Myth: Health care reform means rationed care.
Myth: Health care reform means the government can make life-and-death decisions for you.
* * *
Health Care Reform Taking Shape
* * *
A. Barry Rand, AARP CEO on Where We Stand: Health Reform Now
What is the status quo? Insurance companies denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions and charging people unaffordable premiums because of their age. Layoffs leaving people without health insurance. More and more seniors who can't afford the medications they need to stay healthy and can't find a doctor willing to take Medicare patients.
You may have heard the myth that health care reform means socialized medicine. Not true. Health care reform will preserve the employer-based health care system, meaning an estimated 175 million Americans will continue to get their coverage through their employers. Every proposal that Congress is considering would allow people to choose their own doctors and hospitals.
Or how about the scare tactic that health care reform will allow the government to make end-of-life decisions for you? Absolutely false. Reform will not give the government the power to make end-of-life decisions for anyone, regardless of age. Those decisions will be made by individuals with their families and their doctors. No one, including the government or your insurance company, will be given power to make end-of-life decisions for you.
People need to hear the good things that will happen when we pass real reform. AARP is calling on Congress to guarantee that all Americans have a choice of dependable, affordable health insurance plans and preserve your choice of doctors who can work with you to make the best possible health care decisions for you and your family.
We believe health care reform must fix what's wrong and preserve what's right. Reform must strengthen and improve Medicare, protect people's choice of doctor and insurance plans, and guarantee dependable, affordable coverage.
AARP believes health care is not a Democratic or Republican issue. It's not about political gamesmanship. It's about people's lives.
* * *
The AARP, a national association of people 50 and older, supports the health care overhaul. Here is its take on two key issues.
Myth: Health care reform means rationed care.
Myth: Health care reform means the government can make life-and-death decisions for you.
* * *
Health Care Reform Taking Shape
* * *
A. Barry Rand, AARP CEO on Where We Stand: Health Reform Now
Monday, August 24, 2009
Morningstar on Health Care Reform
The U.S. pays significantly more for health-care products and services than comparable developed countries, yet the quality of service and patient outcomes hardly reflect the drastic difference in pricing. The U.S. trails the developed world in life span, infant mortality, and medical mishaps--a tough pill to swallow for a country that spends more than 16% of its gross domestic product on health care. The problem looks even worse when we consider that 46 million U.S. residents lack health insurance altogether, whether because of their uninsurable status or unaffordable premiums.
The million-dollar question is how do we repair a clearly cracked system? The seemingly best, albeit completely unattainable, solution would be to blow up the current health-delivery system in its entirety and start from scratch, as been done in other modern nations, notably Taiwan. A system with one main payer (the federal government) would have unquestionable bargaining power and would no doubt be capable of slowing health-care cost inflation, via rationing of services to curb unnecessary and often abusive use and price controls.
However, the complexity of the existing U.S. system, massive obligations associated with the present entitlement programs, and, most importantly, overwhelming political opposition would hinder any attempts to drastically overhaul our current payer-provider framework. That is why we're not seeing any attempts to introduce a single-payer system similar to the one in the U.K. or Canada in a form of a government mandate, despite the Democrats filibuster-proof majority in both chambers of the Congress. Instead, greater government involvement with health care is being introduced through a rollout of a public plan that would--in theory--rationally compete with existing insurance plans, while also extending insurance coverage universally.
Despite some potential benefits that a government plan would provide, its existence in itself is a major sticking point for a sizable group of Americans. The challenges of simply getting proposals that contain a public-plan option to the negotiating table underscore the reluctance of some Americans to fully embrace government involvement with health care. Right or wrong, the uproar over a public plan could doom broad health-care reform in its entirety, and leave us with the unsustainable status quo.
It is, however, possible that an amicable compromise could still be achieved. There are a number of areas where the support for reform is strong, such as the proliferation of information technology to reduce administrative waste, disease prevention, and universal coverage, among others. The desire to reduce medical cost inflation is also widespread, which may yield a greater willingness by some industry participants to proactively seek ways to reduce overall costs. A recent agreement between the pharmaceutical industry and government to save federal programs an estimated $80 billion in drug costs over the next 10 years could be a harbinger of future price concessions offered by various industry players.
The million-dollar question is how do we repair a clearly cracked system? The seemingly best, albeit completely unattainable, solution would be to blow up the current health-delivery system in its entirety and start from scratch, as been done in other modern nations, notably Taiwan. A system with one main payer (the federal government) would have unquestionable bargaining power and would no doubt be capable of slowing health-care cost inflation, via rationing of services to curb unnecessary and often abusive use and price controls.
However, the complexity of the existing U.S. system, massive obligations associated with the present entitlement programs, and, most importantly, overwhelming political opposition would hinder any attempts to drastically overhaul our current payer-provider framework. That is why we're not seeing any attempts to introduce a single-payer system similar to the one in the U.K. or Canada in a form of a government mandate, despite the Democrats filibuster-proof majority in both chambers of the Congress. Instead, greater government involvement with health care is being introduced through a rollout of a public plan that would--in theory--rationally compete with existing insurance plans, while also extending insurance coverage universally.
Despite some potential benefits that a government plan would provide, its existence in itself is a major sticking point for a sizable group of Americans. The challenges of simply getting proposals that contain a public-plan option to the negotiating table underscore the reluctance of some Americans to fully embrace government involvement with health care. Right or wrong, the uproar over a public plan could doom broad health-care reform in its entirety, and leave us with the unsustainable status quo.
It is, however, possible that an amicable compromise could still be achieved. There are a number of areas where the support for reform is strong, such as the proliferation of information technology to reduce administrative waste, disease prevention, and universal coverage, among others. The desire to reduce medical cost inflation is also widespread, which may yield a greater willingness by some industry participants to proactively seek ways to reduce overall costs. A recent agreement between the pharmaceutical industry and government to save federal programs an estimated $80 billion in drug costs over the next 10 years could be a harbinger of future price concessions offered by various industry players.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
50 | A Statehood Journey 1959-2009
A Star Bulletin special
Honolulu Advertiser: Hawai`i's 50th Anniversary of Statehood
[8/13/09] Ala Moana Center 50th anniversary
Honolulu Advertiser: Hawai`i's 50th Anniversary of Statehood
[8/13/09] Ala Moana Center 50th anniversary
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
New York Times Guide to Health Care Reform
With the debate over the future of health care now shifted from Capitol Hill to town halls, supporters and critics of the Democrats’ legislative proposals are polishing their sound bites and sharpening their attack lines.
Increasingly, the battle looks like a presidential contest, with expensive advertising campaigns and Internet-driven efforts to mobilize local support. It can be difficult to sort fact from fiction, as angry protesters denounce the legislation at raucous public forums.
Each side hopes to win ground by boiling down one of the most complex policy discussions in history into digestible nuggets. For beachside viewers who might be more interested in iced-tea service than fee-for-service, here is a guide to the main fight points.
KEEP IT OR LOSE IT?
Mr. Obama has said repeatedly, as he told the American Medical Association in June: “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”
These assurances reflect an aspiration, but may not be literally true or enforceable.
SOCIALIZED MEDICINE
Or Uniquely American?
Republicans harshly criticize Democratic proposals to create a government-run insurance plan, or public option, to compete with private insurers. Republicans say the public plan would drive insurers out of business and lead to “socialized medicine” or a government takeover of health care. Democrats say they want a “uniquely American” system with public and private elements.
For now, the Republican criticism seems overblown. Major versions of the legislation all rely heavily on a continuation of private health plans, offered by employers and by insurance companies, subject to sweeping new federal regulations.
BLAMING INSURERS
Or Ensuring Blame?
Democrats have unleashed a blistering attack on private health insurers as they try to convince the vast majority of Americans who already have coverage that the current system is tilted in favor of corporate profits, not patients, and that insurers are a main obstacle to passing legislation.
Insurers say they support some of the most important Democratic proposals, including a ban on denying coverage or charging higher premiums based on pre-existing medical conditions.
The insurance industry does oppose a government-run insurance plan and could eventually mobilize against the overhaul. But insurers appear to be less of an obstacle than public apprehension over such sweeping change and skittishness among lawmakers, including centrist Democrats from Republican-leaning districts.
DEFICIT-NEUTRAL
Or Budget-Buster?
Mr. Obama has avoided dictating specific provisions of health care legislation. But he has insisted that the bill not add to the federal debt, leading Democrats to say that the overhaul will be “deficit neutral,” with the roughly $1 trillion, 10-year cost to be offset by reduced spending or new taxes.
The Congressional Budget Office has yet to issue cost estimates for the latest versions of the bill approved by three House committees. But it has warned that the legislation “would probably generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits” beyond 2019, in part because health costs are rising faster than the rate of inflation and proposed new taxes would not keep up.
Republicans use those warnings to cast doubt on the claim by Mr. Obama that the legislation will “bend the cost curve” by slowing the growth of health spending in the long term. Democrats say the overhaul will lead to savings that cannot be calculated under budgeting rules. At this point, it is difficult to know who is right.
Over the next 10 years, the budget office said, the House bill would “result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion,” partly because of an increase in Medicare spending to avert sharp cuts in payments to doctors scheduled to occur under existing law.
CUTTING MEDICARE
Or Preserving It?
To help finance coverage for the uninsured, Congress would squeeze huge savings out of Medicare, the program for older Americans and the disabled. These savings would pay nearly 40 percent of the bills’ cost.
The legislation would trim Medicare payments for most services, as an incentive for hospitals and other health care providers to become more efficient. The providers make a plausible case that the cutbacks could inadvertently reduce beneficiaries’ access to some types of care.
Increasingly, the battle looks like a presidential contest, with expensive advertising campaigns and Internet-driven efforts to mobilize local support. It can be difficult to sort fact from fiction, as angry protesters denounce the legislation at raucous public forums.
Each side hopes to win ground by boiling down one of the most complex policy discussions in history into digestible nuggets. For beachside viewers who might be more interested in iced-tea service than fee-for-service, here is a guide to the main fight points.
KEEP IT OR LOSE IT?
Mr. Obama has said repeatedly, as he told the American Medical Association in June: “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”
These assurances reflect an aspiration, but may not be literally true or enforceable.
SOCIALIZED MEDICINE
Or Uniquely American?
Republicans harshly criticize Democratic proposals to create a government-run insurance plan, or public option, to compete with private insurers. Republicans say the public plan would drive insurers out of business and lead to “socialized medicine” or a government takeover of health care. Democrats say they want a “uniquely American” system with public and private elements.
For now, the Republican criticism seems overblown. Major versions of the legislation all rely heavily on a continuation of private health plans, offered by employers and by insurance companies, subject to sweeping new federal regulations.
BLAMING INSURERS
Or Ensuring Blame?
Democrats have unleashed a blistering attack on private health insurers as they try to convince the vast majority of Americans who already have coverage that the current system is tilted in favor of corporate profits, not patients, and that insurers are a main obstacle to passing legislation.
Insurers say they support some of the most important Democratic proposals, including a ban on denying coverage or charging higher premiums based on pre-existing medical conditions.
The insurance industry does oppose a government-run insurance plan and could eventually mobilize against the overhaul. But insurers appear to be less of an obstacle than public apprehension over such sweeping change and skittishness among lawmakers, including centrist Democrats from Republican-leaning districts.
DEFICIT-NEUTRAL
Or Budget-Buster?
Mr. Obama has avoided dictating specific provisions of health care legislation. But he has insisted that the bill not add to the federal debt, leading Democrats to say that the overhaul will be “deficit neutral,” with the roughly $1 trillion, 10-year cost to be offset by reduced spending or new taxes.
The Congressional Budget Office has yet to issue cost estimates for the latest versions of the bill approved by three House committees. But it has warned that the legislation “would probably generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits” beyond 2019, in part because health costs are rising faster than the rate of inflation and proposed new taxes would not keep up.
Republicans use those warnings to cast doubt on the claim by Mr. Obama that the legislation will “bend the cost curve” by slowing the growth of health spending in the long term. Democrats say the overhaul will lead to savings that cannot be calculated under budgeting rules. At this point, it is difficult to know who is right.
Over the next 10 years, the budget office said, the House bill would “result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion,” partly because of an increase in Medicare spending to avert sharp cuts in payments to doctors scheduled to occur under existing law.
CUTTING MEDICARE
Or Preserving It?
To help finance coverage for the uninsured, Congress would squeeze huge savings out of Medicare, the program for older Americans and the disabled. These savings would pay nearly 40 percent of the bills’ cost.
The legislation would trim Medicare payments for most services, as an incentive for hospitals and other health care providers to become more efficient. The providers make a plausible case that the cutbacks could inadvertently reduce beneficiaries’ access to some types of care.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Health Care unrest
The bitter divisions over an overhaul of the health care system have exploded at town-hall-style meetings over the last few days as members of Congress have been shouted down, hanged in effigy and taunted by crowds. In several cities, noisy demonstrations have led to fistfights, arrests and hospitalizations.
Democrats have said the protesters are being organized by conservative lobbying groups like FreedomWorks. Republicans respond that the protests are an organic response to the Obama administration’s health care restructuring proposals.
There is no dispute, however, that most of the shouting and mocking is from opponents of those plans. Many of those opponents have been encouraged to attend by conservative commentators and Web sites.
“Become a part of the mob!” said a banner posted Friday on the Web site of the talk show host Sean Hannity. “Attend an Obama Care Townhall near you!” The exhortations do not advocate violence, but some urge opponents to be disruptive.
“Pack the hall,” said a strategy memo circulated by the Web site Tea Party Patriots that instructed, “Yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early.”
In response, liberal groups and the White House have also started sending supporters instructions for countering what they say are the organized disruptions.
The tenor of some of the debates has become extreme. Ms. Pelosi has accused people at recent protests of carrying signs associating the Democratic plan with Nazi swastikas and SS symbols, and some photographs showing such signs have been posted on the Web.
On Thursday, the talk show host Rush Limbaugh said the administration’s health care logo was itself similar to a Nazi symbol.
One of the week’s most raucous encounters occurred Thursday in Tampa, Fla., where roughly 1,500 people attended a forum held by Democratic lawmakers, including Representative Kathy Castor. When the auditorium at the Children’s Board of Hillsborough County reached capacity and organizers had to close the doors, the scene descended into violence.
As Ms. Castor began to speak, scuffles broke out as people tried to push their way in. Parts of her remarks were drowned out by chants of “read the bill, read the bill” and “tyranny,” as a video recording of the meeting showed. Outside the meeting, there were competing chants of “Yes we can” and “Just say no.”
Some of the protesters told local reporters they had been urged to come by a local activist group promoted by the conservative radio and television host Glenn Beck. Others said they had received e-mail messages from the Hillsborough County Republican Party that urged people to speak out against the plan and offered talking points.
At an appearance at a grocery store in Austin, Tex., on Aug. 1, Representative Lloyd Doggett, a Democrat, was drowned out as he tried to speak on health care change. One opponent had a mock tombstone with Mr. Doggett’s name on it.
Last week, a protester hanged an effigy of Representative Frank Kratovil Jr., Democrat of Maryland, at a rally opposing health care change. This week, Representative Brad Miller, Democrat of North Carolina, said he had received a death threat about his support.
* * *
ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin called President Barack Obama's health plan "downright evil" Friday in her first online comments since leaving office, saying in a Facebook posting that he would create a "death panel" that would deny care to the neediest Americans.
"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care," the former Republican vice presidential candidate wrote.
"Such a system is downright evil," Palin wrote on her page, which has nearly 700,000 supporters. She encouraged her supporters to be engaged in the debate.
The claim that the Democratic health care bills would encourage euthanasia has been circulating on the Internet for weeks and has been echoed by some Republican leaders. Democrats from Obama on down have dismissed it as a distortion. The nonpartisan group FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania says the claim is false.
Democrats have said the protesters are being organized by conservative lobbying groups like FreedomWorks. Republicans respond that the protests are an organic response to the Obama administration’s health care restructuring proposals.
There is no dispute, however, that most of the shouting and mocking is from opponents of those plans. Many of those opponents have been encouraged to attend by conservative commentators and Web sites.
“Become a part of the mob!” said a banner posted Friday on the Web site of the talk show host Sean Hannity. “Attend an Obama Care Townhall near you!” The exhortations do not advocate violence, but some urge opponents to be disruptive.
“Pack the hall,” said a strategy memo circulated by the Web site Tea Party Patriots that instructed, “Yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early.”
In response, liberal groups and the White House have also started sending supporters instructions for countering what they say are the organized disruptions.
The tenor of some of the debates has become extreme. Ms. Pelosi has accused people at recent protests of carrying signs associating the Democratic plan with Nazi swastikas and SS symbols, and some photographs showing such signs have been posted on the Web.
On Thursday, the talk show host Rush Limbaugh said the administration’s health care logo was itself similar to a Nazi symbol.
One of the week’s most raucous encounters occurred Thursday in Tampa, Fla., where roughly 1,500 people attended a forum held by Democratic lawmakers, including Representative Kathy Castor. When the auditorium at the Children’s Board of Hillsborough County reached capacity and organizers had to close the doors, the scene descended into violence.
As Ms. Castor began to speak, scuffles broke out as people tried to push their way in. Parts of her remarks were drowned out by chants of “read the bill, read the bill” and “tyranny,” as a video recording of the meeting showed. Outside the meeting, there were competing chants of “Yes we can” and “Just say no.”
Some of the protesters told local reporters they had been urged to come by a local activist group promoted by the conservative radio and television host Glenn Beck. Others said they had received e-mail messages from the Hillsborough County Republican Party that urged people to speak out against the plan and offered talking points.
At an appearance at a grocery store in Austin, Tex., on Aug. 1, Representative Lloyd Doggett, a Democrat, was drowned out as he tried to speak on health care change. One opponent had a mock tombstone with Mr. Doggett’s name on it.
Last week, a protester hanged an effigy of Representative Frank Kratovil Jr., Democrat of Maryland, at a rally opposing health care change. This week, Representative Brad Miller, Democrat of North Carolina, said he had received a death threat about his support.
* * *
ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin called President Barack Obama's health plan "downright evil" Friday in her first online comments since leaving office, saying in a Facebook posting that he would create a "death panel" that would deny care to the neediest Americans.
"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care," the former Republican vice presidential candidate wrote.
"Such a system is downright evil," Palin wrote on her page, which has nearly 700,000 supporters. She encouraged her supporters to be engaged in the debate.
The claim that the Democratic health care bills would encourage euthanasia has been circulating on the Internet for weeks and has been echoed by some Republican leaders. Democrats from Obama on down have dismissed it as a distortion. The nonpartisan group FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania says the claim is false.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Outdoor Circle puts its foot down
“It’s something that would detract from Hawaii’s unique beauty and lower the quality of life for our residents,” the civic-minded citizens of the Outdoor Circle announced recently.
Oh my goodness, what could be so hideous? We should all heed such a dire warning, shouldn’t we?
What scourge is among us that places our home and lives in jeopardy?
What could be responsible for endangering all that we hold dear?
I’ll tell you what.
The Wienermobile. That lovable, fun, wholesome icon of childhood and good times, the Oscar Mayer Wienermobile, is the great threat to our community.
Bob Loy of the Outdoor Circle was quoted in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin to say that the presence of the Wienermobile in our town is, and I quote: “It’s something that would detract from Hawaii’s beauty and lower the quality of life of our residents.”
Wow, Bob. Thanks for sounding the alarm. Because, who knew?
Oh my goodness, what could be so hideous? We should all heed such a dire warning, shouldn’t we?
What scourge is among us that places our home and lives in jeopardy?
What could be responsible for endangering all that we hold dear?
I’ll tell you what.
The Wienermobile. That lovable, fun, wholesome icon of childhood and good times, the Oscar Mayer Wienermobile, is the great threat to our community.
Bob Loy of the Outdoor Circle was quoted in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin to say that the presence of the Wienermobile in our town is, and I quote: “It’s something that would detract from Hawaii’s beauty and lower the quality of life of our residents.”
Wow, Bob. Thanks for sounding the alarm. Because, who knew?
saved by his shorts
Gary Fernandez of Kailua was alone on his 17-foot Boston Whaler early Saturday afternoon when a rogue wave struck the boat, knocking him into the ocean miles out of Kaneohe Bay.
The boat continued on as he treaded water.
For the next six hours, the 49-year-old retired Navy chief petty officer used his military training and prayer to survive the long swim back to Kaneohe.
"I'm not going to die out here," he told himself.
Fernandez, who served as a Navy search and rescue instructor for three years, said because of his training he knew how to turn his board shorts into a flotation device. After he fell into the water, he took off the shorts, scooped air into them and scrunched the ends tightly with his hands to create an air bubble the size of an ipu, or gourd drum.
He described the board shorts as his lifesaver. "I knew if I lost this, I would die," he said yesterday as he held the the light-blue plaid Quiksilver board shorts in his hands.
The boat continued on as he treaded water.
For the next six hours, the 49-year-old retired Navy chief petty officer used his military training and prayer to survive the long swim back to Kaneohe.
"I'm not going to die out here," he told himself.
Fernandez, who served as a Navy search and rescue instructor for three years, said because of his training he knew how to turn his board shorts into a flotation device. After he fell into the water, he took off the shorts, scooped air into them and scrunched the ends tightly with his hands to create an air bubble the size of an ipu, or gourd drum.
He described the board shorts as his lifesaver. "I knew if I lost this, I would die," he said yesterday as he held the the light-blue plaid Quiksilver board shorts in his hands.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
the Whole Foods health care plan
No, it's not buy all your food from Whole Foods and you won't get sick. ... Or maybe it is..
* * *
While we clearly need health-care reform, the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system. Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction—toward less government control and more individual empowerment. Here are eight reforms that would greatly lower the cost of health care for everyone:
-- John Mackey co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods Market Inc
* * *
While we clearly need health-care reform, the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system. Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction—toward less government control and more individual empowerment. Here are eight reforms that would greatly lower the cost of health care for everyone:
-- John Mackey co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods Market Inc
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Clinton frees the Americans
Former President Bill Clinton left North Korea on Wednesday morning after a dramatic 20-hour visit, in which he won the freedom of two American journalists, opened a diplomatic channel to North Korea’s reclusive government and dined with the North’s ailing leader, Kim Jong-il.
Mr. Clinton departed from Pyongyang, the capital, around 8:30 a.m. local time, along with the journalists, Laura Ling, 32, and Euna Lee, 36, on a private jet bound for Los Angeles, according to a statement from the former president’s office.
The North Korean government, which in June sentenced the women to 12 years of hard labor for illegally entering North Korean territory, announced hours earlier that it had pardoned the women after Mr. Clinton apologized to Mr. Kim for their actions, according to the North Korean state media.
President Obama contacted the families of the women on Tuesday evening, according to administration officials, but the White House said it would withhold public comment until the former president landed on American soil.
Mr. Clinton’s mission to Pyongyang was the most visible by an American in nearly a decade. It came at a time when the United States’ relationship with North Korea had become especially chilled, after North Korea’s test of its second nuclear device in May and a series of missile launchings.
It ended a harrowing ordeal for the two women, who were stopped on March 17 by soldiers near North Korea’s border with China while researching a report about women and human trafficking. They faced years of imprisonment in the gulaglike confines of a North Korean prison camp.
Mr. Clinton departed from Pyongyang, the capital, around 8:30 a.m. local time, along with the journalists, Laura Ling, 32, and Euna Lee, 36, on a private jet bound for Los Angeles, according to a statement from the former president’s office.
The North Korean government, which in June sentenced the women to 12 years of hard labor for illegally entering North Korean territory, announced hours earlier that it had pardoned the women after Mr. Clinton apologized to Mr. Kim for their actions, according to the North Korean state media.
President Obama contacted the families of the women on Tuesday evening, according to administration officials, but the White House said it would withhold public comment until the former president landed on American soil.
Mr. Clinton’s mission to Pyongyang was the most visible by an American in nearly a decade. It came at a time when the United States’ relationship with North Korea had become especially chilled, after North Korea’s test of its second nuclear device in May and a series of missile launchings.
It ended a harrowing ordeal for the two women, who were stopped on March 17 by soldiers near North Korea’s border with China while researching a report about women and human trafficking. They faced years of imprisonment in the gulaglike confines of a North Korean prison camp.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)