NY 23

[verytwistedmind.livejournal.com]

I think the NY - 23rd race was the most interesting of the races that occured last night,. The results were:
* Owens 49%
* Hoffman 46 %
* Scozzafava 6%

Scozzafava endorsied Owens, the GOP picked another RINO (I like to think of her as a pretty McCain.), The GOP ran ads against Howffman, and Howffman lost because of the 6% Scozzafava received.

I think this election shows that the GOP has not suffered enough losses to learn its lesson. They continue to put politics over principle and their lack of leadership gave the election to Owens.

 

[EDIT]

"From our perspective, we won last night. We had one race that we were engaged in, it was in northern New York, it was a race where a Republican has held the seat since the Civil War. And we won that seat. So, from our standpoint, no, a candidate was victorious who supports health care reform, and his remarks last night said this was a victory for health care reform and other initiatives for the American people."

-Pelosi

Republican Healthcare Reform Bill Coming!

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

No, not the 'Die Quickly' one, but something new. And only years after they could have implemented reforms of their own but didn't.

Boehner said the Republican version would cover millions of presently uninsured Americans but didn't get into specifics how that would work. There was one big funny in the article:

Even some diehard liberals are looking for a better alternative to Democrats' proposals. Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) on November 1 reiterated his opposition to creating a new government-run public health-insurance plan. He said he wouldn’t try to block debate on the Democratic bill, but he would join the Republicans if they move to block a vote on the bill.

Joe Lieberman a diehard liberal? He's their example?

Then there is RON PAUL! (warning: youtube) on CNN with his message that HEALTH CARE IS NOT A RIGHT. To which I want to respond: Who cares? No, it isn't laid out in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, like any number of other things we've done since the fricking 1700's.

What I don't get is why there an issue with the U.S. taking a similar approach to health care as virtually every other first world country? Because all of those other countries have recognized that the benefits outweigh the costs and strangely, the same premonitions of doom & gloom predicted should America cover its citizens hasn't visited any of those countries. Or as I like to say to my conservative friends 'Why do you hate Israeli-style healthcare?'

Now, dear Ron also believes that the "doctor-patient" relationship needs to be preserved and then he goes on to blame nefarious government agencies for interfering with that. And ignoring the fact that in reality, insurance companies are far more involved in dictating that relationship for most Americans. The ones that have coverage, that is.

So I'll agree that universal health care is not a right. And I'll also say that it's stupid and backwards of America not to provide it. And expensive, as constant bailing out of hospitals and government spending already on healthcare to plug those extensive holes is out of control.

But since the Republicans started this trend of coming up with ideas late to the table, what are some reforms to health care you see as essential? And do you have any ideas how we could have near-universal coverage without it turning Kafkaesque?

Lies, Damn Lies, and Spendulous Reporting

[jlc20thmaine.livejournal.com]

President Barack Obama's economic recovery program saved 935 jobs at the Southwest Georgia Community Action Council, an impressive success story for the stimulus plan. Trouble is, only 508 people work there.

The Georgia nonprofit's inflated job count is among persisting errors in the government's latest effort to measure the effect of the $787 billion stimulus plan despite White House promises last week that the new data would undergo an "extensive review" to root out errors discovered in an earlier report.

About two-thirds of the 14,506 jobs claimed to be saved under one federal office, the Administration for Children and Families at Health and Human Services, actually weren't saved at all, according to a review of the latest data by The Associated Press. Instead, that figure includes more than 9,300 existing employees in hundreds of local agencies who received pay raises and benefits and whose jobs weren't saved.

That type of accounting was found in an earlier AP review of stimulus jobs, which the Obama administration said was misleading because most of the government's job-counting errors were being fixed in the new data.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jMNoef6xDenBbHWO0Im6rIjDmAgAD9BOJH300

It's getting too easy to prove the wasteful nature of the spendulous package.  Obama has done nothing since taking office but break promises and raise taxes on the middle and lower classes.

Lack of UHC A Factor In Infant Mortality?

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

U.S. Infant Mortality Rate Far Behind That of Europe, Canada

"In countries with universal health care, prenatal care is a given. There is no worry about who pays for the prenatal care; it's all paid for. So while the numbers point to the premature births, the premature births themselves point to a lack of universal health care, as those with preexisting conditions are more likely to experience premature birth."

A caveat:

"Of course, that's still just one possible cause. Older mothers and young teen mothers also face higher risks. The U.S. has greater numbers of those than other countries.

At any rate, the CDC indicates that the issues need more study. The only clear thing is that the U.S. position in this list is falling. In 1960, the nation ranked 12th. Whether the drop is due to worsening U.S. statistics, or better worldwide statistics, or a combination, is unclear."

Yet another article to stir the puddin' in the UHC debate. I do agree with the CDC that the issues need more study but feel free to discuss, of course.

Also: Is it possible that we could draft legislation that allows us to try out some form of UHC for a select period of time(3-5 years, for example) as an experiment and then drop it if it isn't working?

We're doomed:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Or at least our presence in Afghanistan is. Not much of a coalition if the Europeans can't take a little potshot or two from tribal militias, our main ally it seems is Canada, which is great for us because Canada has one of the few decent armies left in the First World these days.

The reason?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8341727.stm

We're repeating the mistake we made in Vietnam and in Korea. A corrupt regime in a place with a proven record of beating European armies (which is more Vietnam than Korea) which is intensely unpopular that we back in what is a civil war where we're rapidly becoming identified with a hostile occupying force when at first we were relatively popular and the Taliban regrouping. One of our advantages, which we could potentially use to change Iran's attitude to nuclear weapons if we had a sufficiently pragmatic President (which Obama, sadly, is not) is that Iran has no love of the Taliban and in fact would likely join with us to prevent a second round of Taliban rule. Another is that in terms of Afghan culture, the Taliban are not a homogeneous group and include some Pashtun nationalists and a cadre that would be relatively easy to take out of people with grander ambition. So we could presumably play divide and conquer with the factions there. As well as exploit that the Taliban brand of Islam is really not the kind of Islam practiced in Afghanistan, which is a softer part of Hanafism instead of a Salafist export from India.

Unfortunately, I see the progression of things in Afghanistan as sending troops that will be poorly utilized in an ever-worsening situation as our mistakes and clumsiness alienation more Afghans of all ethnicities and lead to a Mogadishu-like phenomenon where the ethnicities will unite to kick us out and resume infighting amongst themselves. Attempts to missionize the Afghans will only serve to further alienate them, and unlike Native Americans, these tribes are plenty capable militarily of giving us the boot for this kind of thing.

Of course this is my cynicism, which I sometimes errantly from my vantage point of 20 years presume is realism when it need not necessarily be talking. How do other people see this?