• Archives

  • Categories

  • Meta

  • Try the SUBSCRIPTION feature! Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. If it gets to be too much you can opt out later.

    Join 3 other followers

A Glimpse of the Future with Obamacare?

Randy Shepherd is a 36-year-old father of three who needs a transplant to replace a failing heart weakened by childhood bouts of rheumatic fever. When he was placed on a transplant waiting list last year, the prospect of resuming a normal life with a healthy donor heart helped him tolerate the fatigue, lost appetite and the inability to play sports he loved and work at the small plumbing business he founded.

But nothing prepared him for the shock of learning that Arizona’s Medicaidprogram was eliminating transplant coverage for people with his condition.

“They said I would be placed on the inactive list until I could arrange some kind of alternative financing because it is considered elective surgery,” said Shepherd, of Mesa, Ariz., who has been disabled for almost two years. The family hangs on financially with his wife Tiffany’s salary as a dental hygienist.

As the United States continues debating expanded health care access, the state of Arizona has begun rationing some care it says it cannot afford to give its poorest residents. Beginning on Oct. 1, Arizona’s Medicaid program, the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, stopped covering seven types of organ transplants, including heart transplants for non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, lung transplants, pancreatic transplants, some bone marrow transplants and liver transplants for patients with hepatitis C.

Here’s the whole story.

God help us all if Obamacare is allowed to proceed.

 

Terrorist Trials in Civilian Courts

Because I’m lazy right now, and because Of Buckley and Beatles did a good job, I’m simply referring you to this post at that blog.  You may comment there, if you wish.

Economics 101!

Quantitative Easing Explained!

 

 

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?

I’m linking this whole story (it’s an Associated Press story, they don’t much like folks copying their stuff).

If you read it, you will discover:

1.  A federal judge declared the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy to be unconstitutional, and ordered the military to stop enforcing it.

2.  The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is looking at that ruling.

3.  The Obama Administration today urged the Supreme Court to KEEP the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy until a federal appeals court can consider this issue.

4.  At the same time the Obama administration is asking its lawyers to defend Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell until the federal appeals court can look at the issue, President Obama has pledged to push the Senate to repeal the policy before a new Congress is sworn in.

I am very confused.  Can anybody shed any light on this situation?

As for the actual policy itself – I’ve read recently that enlisted military don’t particularly want this thing, so I think it should be gone. What do you think?

 

 

 

Olby’s Suspension, Part 3

As noted by reader Gripweed in a comment in the previous thread, it’s over.

From Phil Griffin, President of MSNBC:

After several days of deliberation and discussion, I have determined that suspending Keith through and including Monday night’s program is an appropriate punishment for his violation of our policy. We look forward to having him back on the air Tuesday night.

All 2 of Olby’s fans will be happy, I’m sure.

I still have a suspicion this was about something else entirely.   Political donations were made by other NBC and MSNBC employees, with no suspension   So . . . why the suspension of Olby?  For a few days, amounting to a financial effect he won’t even notice?   All this did was cause him some embarrassment (maybe!).   Something isn’t smelling exactly right to me.

Olby’s Suspension, Part 2

The story that won’t go away.  I’m still convinced there’s more to this than what has been made public.   Opinion on this suspension seems to be all over the place:

ABC News reports:

In a statement, MSNBC said its ethics policy bans journalists from making political contributions. Olbermann, perhaps the cable network’s most famous face, is known as an outspoken liberal commenter. As one of the network’s highest-paid personalities, he is central to the network’s “Lean Forward” campaign, a rebranding effort promoting progressive points of view. Thomas Roberts anchored “Countdown” on Friday night.

CNN is talking about the dangers of a “partisan media”:

In the fallout, other MSNBC personalities were also found to have given to Democratic candidates, while Media Matters uncovered the fact that more than 30 Fox News hosts and contributors had donated to conservative candidates.

Whole news networks are being transformed into little more than on-air advocates for political parties. The idea of objectivity is now increasingly dismissed as a myth rather than honored as an ideal toward which the news industry should strive.

Americans are self-segregating themselves into separate political realities — responding to the proliferation of information by consuming news that confirms their political prejudices. Loyal viewers see opinion-anchors like Olbermann or Glenn Beck as the only “truth-tellers” in town, while dismissing the rest of the media as cowardly or biased. We are devolving back to the era when newspapers were owned and operated by political parties.

The result: Partisan warfare is on the rise, and trust in media is on the decline. The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press has documented the trend and concluded that “virtually every news organization or program has seen its credibility marks decline” over the past decade.

National Review writer Jay Nordlinger thinks the suspension is a crock:

I am another “Worst Person” alumnus — or whatever we should call ourselves — who thinks that the firing, or suspension, of Olbermann is a crock. Of course he supports Democratic candidates. He supports them every time he opens his mouth (unless his words backfire, which I trust they do).

And so does National Review writer Cliff May:

Is it possible that MSNBC does not realize that Keith Olbermann’s show is itself a political contribution? They don’t actually think it’s a news show, do they?

A Huffington Post writer says the suspension is justified:

The fact that MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann is a progressive liberal Democrat should come as no surprise to American news viewers. Nonetheless, NBC News policy, which also applies to MSNBC, clearly says that donating money to any candidate is a violation, as, “these activities jeopardize his or her standing as an impartial journalist because they may create the appearance of a conflict of interest.”

Olbermann’s political contributions reflect badly on all of NBC News. Therefore, his suspension without pay is necessary.

 

Olby’s Suspension

Is there anyone who hasn’t heard this news yet?

MSNBC host Keith Olbermann was put on indefinite suspension Friday after bosses at the cable news network learned that he had donated to three Democratic candidates, including one who had appeared on his show on the same day, in violation of the network’s rules.

Is there anyone, anyone at all, who could listen to Olbermann and believe he was non-partisan?

I would be ROFL if I found anyone who thought that.

The NBC policy on this looks like a “may” rule, not a “shall” rule.  In uses the term “should report”, instead of “must report”

I wonder, truly, what’s going on behind-the-scenes, what the real reason is for this suspension.  I’m not convinced (yet) that this is the real reason.