Doctors @ Organizing for America

FDA asks to hear from docs :pain med shortages /patient needs

darlene matthews — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:00:03 EDT

Home | About Us | Contact Us | Support Us

FDA Overturns Decision Regarding Unapproved Opioids

Dear All APF members,

FDA Briefing on Unapproved Opioids was held on April 9, 2009.

An emergency stakeholder briefing was convened via conference call by the FDA to address concerns that have been raised by the pain and palliative care communities regarding warnings to nine companies to stop manufacturing and distributing 14 opioid analgesics within 60 days. APF participated in this briefing. A replay of the briefing will be available until April 15, 2009 at 11:59 PM EDT. To hear the replay, callers can dial 1-866-419-2678.

Douglas Throckmorton, M.D., Deputy Director, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research stated that the FDA understands that patients dealing with terminal illness have unique needs that should have been taken into consideration. The FDA reported that they are taking immediate corrective action regarding the availability of the 20mg/ml morphine sulfate solution. They regretted that they failed to include representatives from hospice and palliative care organizations in deliberations over this particular issue and will improve their consultation process with key stakeholders in the future.

The FDA commented that they were not aware of the extent of disruption in patient care because of their ruling or that a critical shortage of some of these medications already exists. We would like to acknowledge them for their swift action in this case as they became aware of the impact this disruption was having on the community. In order to help remedy this; they would like to hear from providers if there are critical shortages in medications to help manage patients optimally.

Action:
The FDA has asked to be notified of drug shortages in your area as they arise. Contact FDA by emailing this information to drugshortages@fda.hhs.gov. All correspondence should include your professional information, name of the drug, your location, name of wholesaler (if available) and identify yourself as an APF member.

To stay informed of drug shortages, visit the FDA website at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/shortages/

Our voices can make a difference.

If you are receiving this e-mail for the first time as a forward from a friend, please register here to continue to receive news and action items regarding pain management.

Sincerely,
American Pain Foundation

SUBSCRIBE|UNSUBSCRIBE

Privacy Policies & Disclaimers

Increase misery, suicide &homelessness! Vote yes on 1E!! OR NOT!

darlene matthews — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:48:17 EDT

ALREADY many OBAMA FEDERAL STIMULUS funds for adultS disabled are being diverted to other programs - huge cuts including to psychologists are planned !

PLEASE VOTE NO ON 1E BECAUSE THAT BILL IS THE DEFINITION OF INSANITY !

DON'T ALLOW MH SPECIFIC $ TO "DISAPPEAR" IN THE CA GENERAL FUND.!!!!!!!!!!

WARning: CA CUTTING CARE TO DISABLED ADULTS on ssi/ssp THROUGHOUT all PROGRAMS increasing disability and inability among Adults with mh and multiple disability!

Act Now To Defeat Proposition 1E

California's Special Election is less than two months away. We must act quickly and take the necessary steps to defeat Proposition 1E.

From NAMI California by Grace McAndrews, Executive Director, March 26, 2009

It's up to us to act now to defeat this harmful act.

HERE'S WHAT YOU CAN DO:

FINANCIALLY SUPPORT THE CAMPAIGN

Attached for your convenience is a Fact Sheet & Contribution Form and Endorsement Forms for Individuals and Organizations. Please be as generous as you can. We ask that you share this information with all of your contacts, including members of your affiliate, neighbors, co-workers and friends listed in your address book. Post information on your web site and in your newsletter. Write letters to your local newspaper. Hold parties to support the campaign. Do whatever else is necessary to get the word out.

GET OUT THE VOTE

Voters who are registered to vote must vote at their polling place or vote-by-mail. This is critical. People who are not registered to vote must register by the deadline and vote either at their polling place or use the vote-by-mail ballot. This is critical as well. Historically, voting is light in special elections. We believe there is a good chance that t hose who opt for the vote-by-mail ballot may very well dictate the results of the May 19th election.

Those who wish to vote-by-mail can use the application printed on their Sample Ballot which will be sent prior to the elections, or one can apply in writing to their county elections official. If choosing the latter, you will need to submit a completed application or letter to your county elections official between 29 days and 7 days before the election. You can find the telephone number and address of your county elections official by looking in the front of your telephone directory in the White Pages Government Listing section under County Offices. Look for “Elections”, Registrar of Voters”, “County Clerks”, or “Voting.” For complete “how to” information of Registering to Vote and vote-by-mail, visit the following web site: www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections Go to Voter Reigstration, click on Vote by Mail.

Critical Downloads:

Click Here to download the Fact Sheet and Contribution Form

Click Here to download the Endorsement Forms for Individuals and Organizations

NOTE: 501©3 affiliates can participate in this process as well as donate money to the campaign. Your affiliate's non-profit status will not be affected.

Thanks for helping to defeat Proposition 1E!!

Source: NAMI California

Link: http://namialifornia.org

Increase misery, suicide &homelessness! Vote yes on 1E!! OR NOT!

GOP alternate PLAN ATTEMPTS2TURN BACK THE HANDS OF TIME

darlene matthews — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 06:48:47 EDT

ubject: Digg Story: GOP alternate PLAN ATTEMPTS TO TURN BACK THE HANDS OF TIMEReply-To: go2thesun@mac.com

http://digg.com/politics/GOP_alternate_PLAN_ATTEMPTS_TO_TURN_BACK_THE_HANDS_OF_TIME

Thought you might want to check this out.
digg user macdoodle would like to share this story with you: http://digg.comd1nqmN?OTC-em-st1 ---""GOP alternate PLAN ATTEMPTS TO TURN BACK THE HANDS OF TIMEThe GOP 10-year plan would trim the deficit by repealing much of the economic stimulus package, making the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy permanent, reducing Medicare/ health care and freezing domestic spending to benefit regular Americans.PAT ROBERTSON and others continue to preach to support the elite.

disABLED in CA? PLAN ON STAYING THAT WAY...

darlene matthews — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:41:24 EDT

TRY TO BE MORE ABLE WHEN YOUR LEFT BLIND AND IN PAIN...

FROM CDCAN REPORT #0103-2009:

“FEDERAL FUNDS TRIGGER” WON’T BE PULLED - TREASURER & FINANCE DIRECTOR SAY GOAL OF $10 BILLION OF FEDERAL FUNDS WON’T BE REACHED – SEVERAL MAJOR CUTS TO HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES WILL NOW HAPPEN

Pulling “Trigger” Would Have Stopped Permanent Cuts To IHSS Worker Wages, Elimination of Several Medi-Cal Optional Benefits, Cuts to SSI/SSP & CalWORKS Grant Levels From Taking Place – Those Cuts Will Now Happen Barring A Change of Mind By Governor and Legislature To Restore Funding

MEDI-CAL “OPTIONAL” BENEFIT ELIMINATIONThese Medi-Cal “optional” benefits are called “optional” because the federal government does not require the states to provide them – though these benefits are provided in Medi-Cal covered health facilities. Another cut to the Medi-Cal program impacted by the federal trigger cut decision is a reduction of $54.1 million in State funding for South Los Angeles Medical Services

The Treasurer and Finance Director’s report released today (March 27) means that the “federal funds trigger” will not be pulled – which means this cut – barring a change in mind in the coming months by the Legislature and Governor to reverse their action in February and restore this funding in the budget – WILL happen.
When This Cut Takes Effect: July 1, 2009
Description of This Cut: The following Medi-Cal optional benefits will be permanently eliminated as of the effective date:
1. adult dental
2. acupuncture services
3. audiology and speech therapy services
4. chiropractic services
5. optometric and optician services including services provided by a fabricating optical laboratory
6. podiatric services
7. psychology services, and
8. incontinence creams and washes.
This reduction was originally proposed by the Governor and will mean a cut to the Medi-Cal program of over $258.8 million ($129.4 million of that in State general funds) during the 2009-2010 State Budget year that begins July 1, 2009.

SOME OF THE OTHER PROGRAMS IMPACTED BY FEDERAL TRIGGER IHHS WORKER WAGESCAL WORKS

Cuts to Courts (new judges, trial court operations) of $171.3 million in State general funds.
University of California cut of $50 million in State general funds.
California State University cut of $50 in State general funds.
The increase in personal income tax drops from 0.25% to 0.125%

MARTY OMOTO at martyomoto@rcip.com Website: www.cdcan.us

please support this ,PLEASE

darlene matthews — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:32:12 EDT

please take a minute or two and sign on.

individuals and organizations WE need YOU!

http://www.painfoundation.org/
Your Organizational Endorsement Is Still Needed To Gain Passage Of The National Pain Care Policy Act of 2009 (H.R. 756 and S.660)! ................................ .................................. TAKE ACTION NOW to add your organization to the list of those endorsing the National Pain Care Policy Act.................................... .............................................. http://action.painfoundation.org/site/Survey?SURVEY_ID=2940&ACTION_REQUIRED=URI_ACTION_USER_REQUESTS

Show up for Obama! Tickets tues Event wed

darlene matthews — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:01:37 EDT

Marion Schmitz sent a message to the members of Organizing for America Orange County.

--------------------

Subject: Town Hall Meeting with President Obama this Wednesday in OC!

Latest info on our wall posts on OFA facebook group:

TOWN HALL MEETING WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA

Wednesday, March 18th

Doors Open at 1:30 PM OC Fair and Event Center

88 Fair Drive

Costa Mesa, CA 92626

TICKET DISTRIBUTION INFORMATION

The event is free and open to the public. Tickets are required and will be available at the following ticket distribution location beginning at 10:00 AM Tuesday, March 17. Tickets will be limited and will be distributed on a first-come, first-served basis:

OC Fair and Event Center

(Enter at Gate 1 or Gate 10; Park in Lot A.)

88 Fair Drive

Costa Mesa, CA

For security reasons, do not bring bags and limit personal items. No signs or banners permitted. The OC Fairgrounds will be charging $5/car for on-site parking.

See you there!!

--------------------

To reply to this message, follow the link below:

http://www.facebook.com/n/?inbox/readmessage.php&t=1105202424124&mid=28966eG33820b8eG40e5883G0

ASK CA governor to take the Fed Stimulus money -Stop cuts.

darlene matthews — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 01:52:35 EDT

Stop the Trigger Cuts!

Don’t Leave Federal $$ on the Table, Take it!

The Governor’s Department of Finance has stated that California will not receive

enough money from the federal government to avoid more cuts to vital social

services. But California is not opting to take advantage of all the money available,

including money for higher education. The cuts that are proposed include:

• Medi-Cal: Eliminate many

services for adults, including

dental care,podiatry, audiology

and speech therapy and

psychological services.

• CalWORKs: Reduce grants by

4%, or about $30 per family per

month.

• SSI/SSP: Reduce grants by 2.3%

or about $30 a month.

•In Home Supportive Services

(IHSS): Cap the state share of

wages at $9.50 per hour (it is

currently $11.50 per hour).

• Higher Education : $100 million in cuts

Call the Governor Today!

Tell him to stop the Trigger Cuts and not Leave Federal money on the Table, take it. This is money that will benefit our state, take it.

Sacramento: Phone: 916-445-2841 Fax: 916-558-3160

Los Angeles: Phone: 213-897-0322 Fax: 213-897-031

Inland Empir Phone: 951-680-6860 Fax: 951-680-6863

San Diego: Phone: 619-525-4641 Fax: 619-525-4640

Central Valley: Phone: 559-445-5295 Fax: 559-445-5328

What does Governor Schwarzenegger say about

the federal stimulus package money:

"Well, Governor Sanford says that he does not

want to take the federal stimulus package money.

And I'll say to him, I'll take it," Schwarzenegger said. "I'm

more than happy to take his money or any other governor

in this country that doesn't want to take this money. I'll

take it, because we in California need it. I think it's a

terrific package. I think if you ask a thousand people for

their opinion, what is their ideal stimulus package, you

will have a thousand different answers. So everyone's is a

little different. I think he's done a great job and I think

California benefits tremendously from that $80 billion of

tax benefits there, for around $35 billion. There are other

advantages: $45 billion of money that go to

transportation, to education, to health care, all those

different areas. There's even some money that could

benefit our revenues or, I should say, our budget itself...."

THE CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP

2533 West 3rd Street, Suite 101, Los Angeles, CA 90057Phone: (213) 385‐8010 Fax: (213) 353‐1344

First line children's care- accessible and inexpensive.

darlene matthews — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 13:16:49 EST

http://digg.com/health/FACTBOX_Groups_agree_and_disagree_on_U_S_health_overhaul

In the old days in my s.plainfield and middlesex, nj schools Children's health was often first addressed at the schools. It was most of my neighborhoods front line medical care and it was preventative and effective.

WHY NOT add in every EVERY PUBLIC SCHOOL HAVE ( adjusted by student size) A NURSE PRACTICiONER AND An AIDE. MOST BASiC KIDS HEALTH CAN BE HANDLED HERE AND FAR CHEAPER THAN WAITING FOR ER CARE.

MANY CHILDREN with disabilities CARE CAN BE DEALT WITH ON THE FRONT LINES BY THE SCHOOL COUNSELOR AND NP, When they have been properly trained.

KEEPING THESE CHILDREN IN MAIN STREAM SCHOOLS whenever possible EVEN IF some of THE CLASSES ARE SEPaRATE to address special needs GIVES THEM BETTER SOCIaL EXPERIENCE and future successes too.

...And there are many more ways to keep America it's healthiest without breaking the bank.

FIRST STAGE HEALTH CARE FOR PUBLIC PRESCHOOL -HS in response to:

Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 11:35:07 -0500

From: Spoon <bspoons@consolidated.net>

Subject: [SiCKOUniversalHealthCare-HR676] Groups agree and disagree on U.S. health overhaul Politics First 100

Message-ID: <000901c99c1e$c50152c0$8f01a8c0@spoon01>

Reuters apparently does not know (or refuses to recognize) that we exist.

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-BarackObama/idUSTRE52169Y20090302

looking for DISABLED Katrina Evacuees

darlene matthews — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:32:16 EST

Attention Hurricane Katrina Survivors!

We want to hear from people who have a disability or who have diabetes who had an experience with Hurricane Katrina.

Are you someone or know someone who:

Has a disability or has diabetes?

Is 23 years of age or older and evacuated from southern Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina?
Would be willing to participate in our research study and share their story about their lives before, during, and after the storm?

We are doing research to study the impact of Hurricane Katrina on people with disabilities or diabetes. We are collecting information on the barriers and disruptions they experienced in their lives, the strategies they used to reestablish their lives and their disaster-related needs as they recovered from Hurricane Katrina. Participants will be asked to spend approximately 30 minutes on the telephone answering survey questionsand will receive financial compensation for their time.

To sign up for this study or for more information call 1.866.578.4366. This project is in collaboration with the Center on Disability and Development at Texas A&M University and the ILRU Program at TIRR Memorial Hermann Hospital.

found this on disaboom.com

HEALHT CARE: Fed judge blocks medi-cal cuts

darlene matthews — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 17:55:13 EST

SEE RELATED LA protest EVENT SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 2 MONDAYCOME ONE COME ALL!

CDCAN NEWS REPORT

CALIFORNIA DISABILITY COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK

ADVOCACY WITHOUT BORDERS: ONE COMMUNITY

REPORT #078-2009 FEBRUARY 27, 2009 – FRIDAY

California Disability Community Action Network Disability Rights News goes out to over 45,000 people with disabilities, mental health needs, seniors, veterans with disabilities and mental health needs, their families, workers, community organizations, including those in Asian/Pacific Islander, Latino, African American communities, policy makers and others across California.

To reply to this report write: MARTY OMOTO at martyomoto@rcip.com Website: www.cdcan.us

BREAKING NEWS

FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS NEW MEDI-CAL PROVIDER CUTS

CUTS WOULD HAVE TAKEN EFFECT MARCH 1, 2009

SACRAMENTO, CALIF (CDCAN) [Updated 02/27/09 2:40 PM (Pacific Time) ] - A federal district court judge in Los Angeles today issued an order that will block the new Medi-Cal rate reductions that was scheduled to take effect March 1, 2009.

The cuts were passed last September as part of the three month delayed 2008-2009 State Budget. It cut Medi-Cal provider rates for doctors and others by 1% and for pharmacies, adult day health and other providers by 5%. Those reductions rolled back previously approved cuts to provider rates that went into effect July 1, 2008. Those cuts however were stopped by the same federal district court judge in August 2008 for most Medi-Cal providers, and in November for other Medi-Cal providers. The State has appealed that decision but the injunction that blocked those cuts, remains in effect.

See later CDCAN Report today for more details on this case.

URGENT!!!!

PLEASE HELP CDCAN CONTINUE ITS WORK!!!

CDCAN Townhall Telemeetings, reports and alerts and other activities cannot continue without your help!

CDCAN Disability Rights News Reports, Telemeetings & other Events

Advocacy Without Borders - ONE Community:

To respond to this report reply to: Marty Omoto at martyomoto@rcip.com CDCAN website: www.cdcan.us

To continue the CDCAN website, the CDCAN News Reports. sent out and read by over 45,000 people and organizations, policy makers and media across California and to continue the CDCAN Townhall Telemeetings which since December 2003 have connected thousands of people with disabilities, seniors, mental health needs, people with MS and other disorders, people with traumatic brain and other injuries to public policy makers, legislators, and issues.

Please send your contribution/donation (make payable to "CDCAN" or "California Disability Community Action Network):

CDCAN

1225 8th Street Suite 480

Sacramento, CA 95814

You can also donate via credit card – paypal on the CDCAN site working again!

The CDCAN Townhall Telemeetings are partially funded by a small grant from the USC UCEDD, Grant #90DD0540 from the Administration on Developmental Disabilities. (note: the opinions expressed or content in these reports do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the USC UCEDD.

MANY, MANY THANKS to FEAT of Sacramento (Families for Early Autism Treatment), RESCoalition, Easter Seals of Southern California, Tri-Counties Regional Center, Westside Regional Center, Regional Center of the East Bay, Friends of Children with Special Needs, UCP of Orange County, UCP of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, Alta California Regional Center, Life Steps, Parents Helping Parents, Work Training, Foothill Autism Alliance, Arc Contra Costa, Pause4Kids, Manteca CAPS, Training Toward Self Reliance, UCP, California NAELA, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc (CDR) including CDR chapters, CHANCE Inc, , Strategies To Empower People (STEP), Harbor Regional Center, Asian American parents groups, Resources for Independent Living and many other Independent Living Centers, several regional centers, People First chapters, IHSS workers, other self advocacy and family support groups, developmental center families, adoption assistance program families and children, and others across California

Obama Believes That Americans DON'T Support SinglePayer

Clark Newhall MD JD — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 15:31:19 EST

Unbelievable. Obama is reading and believing JUNK SCIENCE. He actually said that Americans do not support single payer despite 20 years of polling data that says otherwise. See here and sign up for www.1payer.net

http://www.1payer.net/my-1payernet/community-blog/Obama-Believes-That-Americans-DONT-Support-SinglePayer.html
Clark Newhall MD JD

Be The First To Know...13 Days Until Inauguration

EsquireUK — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:47:04 EST

Wednesday, 7th January 2009

Washington, D.C.

What Happens on Inauguration Day?

Step through a typical day for the president-elect, from the morning worship service to the official Inaugural balls
Learn >

www.change.gov

The Sperry Plan "Rewards"

Lem Bray — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:25:08 EST

Please vote up "The Sperry Plan" (an evolvable "single payer plan) question at: http://change.gov/page/content/openforquestions_20081217_private_url

THE SPERRY PLAN

PART OF THE ANSWER TO THE HEALTH CARE PROBLEM

(The below plan was presented to David Cutler as an evolutionary plan not a revolutionary plan. It should cover MEDICAID and should be open to anyone who doesn’t have insurance on a means basis the way the “single payer” plan is in Japan. It should also be an option for MEDICARE and anyone else. It is believed the bonuses for better care and service will provide a service that will be the most attractive to all as they see it work and as it brings its costs down.)

To obtain optimum health care for less we must change the way we buy health care. It is easy to do. All that is necessary is to stop letting the special interests control the market through fear mongering. We are the source of the money and we can decide how we want to give it over to the health care providers and insurance companies. As we decide we wish to change the way we buy health care, the health care providers will have to adapt the way they sell or get out of the health care business.

The Meat:
The Sperry Plan has contract bonuses based on morbidity report line items and service satisfaction reports such that the bidder for a contract would see the bonus as the expected profit if a projected performance is met.

Endemic health problems for a bid area could be approached by providing increased bonuses on that morbidity report line item. An example of a morbidity line item and its related bonus might be .01% for meeting a minimum acceptable rate of live births.02% for achieving a national average rate of live births .02% for achieving a locally set goal of live births .02% for exceeding the locally set goal by 20%Etc.The above is picked out of the air. It would be expected that contract administrators would be able to set the bonus items somewhat scientifically on a goal achieving target basis which should be somewhat based on community input. Such items should bring more focus on the less costly preventive medicine methods of health maintenance and benefit us all with a longer life expectancy and lower cost health maintenance.

Others have been thinking along the lines of some of The Sperry Plan details.

Peter Diamond: Institute Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology wrote an op-ed for the New York Times in 1992 entitled “Fanny Medic”. His basic premise, we should buy health care based on where we live, is on the right track but the Sperry Plan had it first. Lemuel was promoting the better and more complete Sperry Plan in the Los Angeles area in 1991 as a potential ballot initiative but was unable to have or raise finances sufficient to get it off the ground.

THE SPERRY PLAN

The Sperry Plan buys health instead of sickness. Contracts for health maintenance would be issued by location with the consumer choosing his home zip code, his work zip code, his school zip code, or a neighboring zip code for the location of his health care.

The consumer would be able to choose his physician and hospital with in his selected area. Emergency care would be at the nearest available site with fixed day rate transfers between the provider of the care and the patients health maintenance contractor. (This charge would be similar to the fixed charges by military medical facilities for emergency care to those who would not otherwise be qualified for care at military facilities.) A patient who becomes dissatisfied with his contract area’s care should be able to change his area at will.

There would be no co-payments.

A physician’s assistant corps would be developed by methods similar to the training of Navy corpsman. The physician’s assistant corps could be reserve military and would be assigned to health maintenance contractors on request with the contractor picking up the costs of pay and benefits for the members of the physician’s assistant corps assigned to them.

The physician’s assistant corps is the backbone of the preventive medicine item of no co-pay. Physician’s assistant corps volunteers should be able to receive full scholarships to medical, nursing or medical technical school if they are mentally and physically qualified, including the pay and benefits of military academy cadets and if a slot is available. They would be required to continue to serve the corps as assigned for a minimum of say 2 years for each year of training as a means of payback.

The Sperry Plan has a contract bonus based on morbidity report line items and service satisfaction reports such that the bidder for a contract would see the bonus as the expected profit if a projected performance is met.

A percentage of the bonuses would be required to be shared with all employees on a pro-rata basis to help improve “bed side manner”.

No type of current medical provider would be blocked out of being a contractor or subcontractor. If an insurance company using fee based medicine could achieve profitable results and meet the morbidity and consumer satisfaction standards they could bid on a contract. The patient however, must be exempt from filling out claim forms other than signing a certification that the care was received. It is unlikely that an insurance company could obtain a competive basis bid contract because of their added costs of claim administration and a requirement that they pay all claims.

Anyone who is satisfied with their present medical plan would be able to continue it. Employers who provide health insurance presently would be required to maintain what they have as long as the employer cost isn’t raised and be required to add The Sperry National plan as an option.

Everyone would be required to pay Sperry Plan premiums according to their means, and other available coverage; a minimum premium for National Catastrophic incident coverage and would be transferred to The Sperry Plan on exhaustion of all other insurance benefits. In this manner The Sperry Plan would replace much of MEDICAID. Everyone would be required to be insured or post an adequate bond to assure their ability to pay for their health care out of pocket. In the event they choose to “roll the dice” and not pay for health insurance other than the means tested catastrophic fee collected with the Income Tax (MEDICAID now hidden in your tax bill), they would have to catch up all unpaid premiums from the point of their last coverage until they need insurance covered care. (Similar to what MEDICARE does now for those who elect not to have other than hospital coverage except not as onerous.)

The Sperry Plan would take all pre-existing conditions without an additional charge. Any state desiring to add their welfare recipients or other destitute residents to The Sperry Plan could do so by doing the means testing and could elect to pay the premium for such individuals.
Premium collection and issuance of insured cards would be administered by the IRS while the contract auditing and oversight would be by the National Public Health Department. Local area contracts would be administered by contract administrators selected by state publically elected officials and approved by the Surgeon General of the U.S.

Prescription Drugs need to be free. We don’t want anyone to die because they can’t afford or think they have more important choices than their medication. To keep the cost down, military style pharmacies should be at all clinics. How the commercial pharmacies will be compensated for loss of business is a question? Perhaps they could bid as a subcontract for providing pharmaceutical services.

THE SPERRY PLAN is not written in stone. Let's discuss it and revise it to the point that most voters will accept it. It can be revised or repealed even after it is enacted. But let's get off the fence and do it. Just do it.

For editable copies of this blog email me at: lembray@hotmail.com

Plenty of space has been left to insert flags in the pdf file, or if you choose you can recommend changes in the word document and send which ever you use back to me. We’ll discuss the changes and up dates on the various forums for this purpose. Ultimately, I may send 2 or 3 versions to David Cutler and the institute writing the details. (I’m still hoping to be selected to be on the institute.)

Death in America

Mirali Zarrabi, MD — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 01:44:11 EST

Death in America

For each Medicare patient the most dollars are spent in their last six month of their lives.

I will be describing my observations about this last few month of these individual lives.

I have been doing critical care consultations in Intensive Care Units in the last 10 years.

I have seen lots of patients getting admitted to ICU’s. Most improve after a few days and are transferred to regular floors and later get discharged. I am focusing on those who don’t get better. Patients after massive strokes or survivors of cardiac arrest have different outcomes.

I have seen very frequently elderly patients being admitted to ICU on life support. Depending on their underlying conditions, in cases of stroke and cardiac arrest more than five minutes, the likelihood of full recovery is null.

I will be focusing on this group of patients. Very few patients have advance directive, rejecting long term life support when there is no chance of recovery.

Some patients don’t have a family to make a decision for them and some who do are so shocked by the events that they are paralyzed to make any decisions. After around one or two weeks of ICU stay, most of these patients get a tracheotomy, and feeding tube and are transferred to specialized nursing homes. Because of the lack of movement, poor immune system and too many tubes connected to their bodies, sooner or later, they develop some sort of infection and are transferred to the hospital.

I am talking about thousands of patients who don’t have any mental function, who are on life support, being shipped back and forth between hospitals and nursing homes. Most of the time these patients need to be admitted to ICUs, because of the severity of their illnesses, usually there are more than five physician consultants on each case. Based on new payment system from Medicare, these patients tend to stay in the hospital around two weeks, mostly in the ICU. After a few such episodes, most of the patients develop resistant nosocomial infections, requiring more and more Antibiotics. In some cases they develop Renal failure requiring Hemodialysis. If that happens no nursing home will ever take the patient. Usually these patients stay in the hospital until they die. Which could take a few month.

The question is, why is this happening. I don’t know of any other country that tortures elderly in this manner. The concept of a natural death is lost in this country. Everybody wants to live as long as possible at any cost and under any circumstances, even if they are almost brain dead with zero chance of recovery.

There are many ways of approaching this problem.

One is better education for the patients and their family members. Making it mandatory for every patient to have a Power of Attorney, Advance directives and Stronger social services at hospitals to provide support for the family members.

I believe even with all these procedures, there are going to be individuals who will demand every possible treatment for themselves or their relatives even if it is absolutely futile. I believe the cost of futile care is currently unbearable and will explode in coming years, when the baby boomers enter their last years or months of their lives.

Because of the immense cost of “futile care” on the system, immediate action is necessary.

I am suggesting that the cost of the “futile care” to be divided only among those who want it, if the situation arises.

It will be easy to calculate the cost of “futile care” for all Medicare patients. Currently Medicare provides Part A, covering hospital stay, Part B, covering doctors. I am suggesting to create a Part C, covering “futile care” (we have to find a better name for it).

The people who desire it should pay a higher premium on their Medicare or Insurance carrier.

The price should be in an affordable range. But just creating such a category will encourage the patient to think about futile terminal care before they needed it.

With Part A and B only , patients get all their medical needs covered. Only after a disastrous illness without no chance of recovery, which has to be confirmed with multiple physicians and ethic specialist and even the heath departments, medical care can be terminated.

We could ask our friends in Broadcasting to make documentaries and reports about what happens once patients loose their mental capacity after serious illnesses, so much that they don’t even know if they are alive or dead. Nobody wants to spend the last weeks or months of his/her life being confined to a bed with at least a tube in each orifice of his/her body, without any awareness of the surrounding. With a massive campaigning, we could make the public aware: that it is possible to have a peaceful death without being tortured for a few months.

Mirali Zarrabi, MD

THE Brown list VOTED AGAINST HEALTH OF AMERICA

darlene matthews — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:06:49 EST

THESE ARE THE VOTES WE HAVE TO CONTINUE TO SHOW TO THE PEOPLE-

Subject: HR6331  The BrownList  HELP TO WIN GEORGIA
THE BROWN (SH*T) LIST TO REMEMBER CONGRESS SENATE VOTING AGaINST THE HEALTH OF AMERICAS SENIORS AND DISABLED. HR 6331IN GA AND WASHINGTON speakup ! speak out against   these people who are against WE THE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!
---- NAYS 59 --- Akin - R -MOBachmann R-MN Barrett R- SC Bartlett R- MD Barton R -TX Blackburn R-TN Blunt R- MO Boehner R- OH Boustany R -LA Brady R- TX Broun R- GA Buyer R-IN Camp R- MI Campbell R-CA Cantor R- VA Carter R -TX Cole R- OK Conaway R- TX Crenshaw R -FL Culberson R - TX Doolittle R-CADuncan R TN Flake R-AZ Frelinghuysen R NJFranks R -AZ  Garrett R-NJ Granger R-TX Hensarling R- TX Herger R -CA Hulshof R- MO Johnson, Sam R- TX Jordan R-OH King R- IA Lamborn R-CO Lewis R-KYLinder R- GA Lungren, D. R-CA Marchant R TX McCrery R-LA McHenry R-NC Mica R- NC Neugebauer R- TX Paul R-TX Pitts R-PA Radanovich R-CA Renzi R- AZ Rogers R- MI Roskam R-IL Royce R-CA Ryan R-WI Sali R- ID Scalise R-LA Sensenbrenner R-WI Sessions R- TX Shadegg R- AZ Shimkus R- IL Smith R-NE Thornberry R-TX Westmoreland R-GA ----

Vote Number:Senate Vote #160 in 2008 [primary source]Date:Jun 26, 2008 8:20PMResult:Cloture Motion RejectedRelated Bill:H.R. 6331: Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008
Vote[Sort]State[Sort]Representative[Sort by Name] [Sort by Party]NayTNAlexander, Lamar [R]NayCOAllard, Wayne [R]NayWYBarrasso, John [R]NayUTBennett, Robert [R]NayMOBond, Christopher [R]NayKSBrownback, Samuel [R]NayKYBunning, Jim [R]NayNCBurr, Richard [R]NayGAChambliss, C. [R]NayOKCoburn, Thomas [R]NayMSCochran, Thad [R]NayTNCorker, Bob [R]NayTXCornyn, John [R]NayIDCraig, Larry [R]NayIDCrapo, Michael [R]NaySCDeMint, Jim [R]NayNMDomenici, Pete [R]NayNVEnsign, John [R]NayWYEnzi, Michael [R]NaySCGraham, Lindsey [R]NayIAGrassley, Charles [R]NayNHGregg, Judd [R]NayNEHagel, Charles [R]NayUTHatch, Orrin [R]NayTXHutchison, Kay [R]NayOKInhofe, James [R]NayGAIsakson, John [R]NayAZKyl, Jon [R]NayINLugar, Richard [R]NayFLMartinez, Mel [R]NayKYMcConnell, Mitch [R]NayNVReid, Harry [D]NayALSessions, Jefferson [R]NayALShelby, Richard [R]NayPASpecter, Arlen [R]NayNHSununu, John [R]NaySDThune, John [R]NayLAVitter, David [R]NayVAWarner, John [R]NayMSWicker, Roger [R]
Jul 9, 2008: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each representative's position was not kept.
Jul 15, 2008: The President issued a veto on this bill.Jul 15, 2008: The House of Representatives attempted to override the President's veto of this bill, and the vote passed, by roll call vote. The totals were 383 Ayes, 41 Nays, 11 Present/Not Voting.

View Votes (House of Representatives roll no. 491)

You are not watching the votes of any senators or representatives. To monitor votes, look up a Member of Congress.
Jul 15, 2008: The Senate attempted to override the President's veto of this bill, and the vote passed, by roll call vote. The totals were 70 Ayes, 26 Nays, 4 Present/Not Voting.

View Votes (Senate roll no. 177)

THE FLIP FLOP 4 FUTURE VOTES only once INEVITABLE!!!!!!!?

GeorgiaAyeGAChambliss, C. [R]AyeGAIsakson, John [R]

Vote[Sort]State[Sort]Representative[Sort by Name] [Sort by Party]NayCOAllard, Wayne [R]NayWYBarrasso, John [R]NayUTBennett, Robert [R]NayKSBrownback, Samuel [R]NayKYBunning, Jim [R]NayNCBurr, Richard [R]NayOKCoburn, Thomas [R]NayIDCraig, Larry [R]NayIDCrapo, Michael [R]NaySCDeMint, Jim [R]NayNMDomenici, Pete [R]NayNVEnsign, John [R]NayWYEnzi, Michael [R]NaySCGraham, Lindsey [R]NayIAGrassley, Charles [R]NayNHGregg, Judd [R]NayNEHagel, Charles [R]NayUTHatch, Orrin [R]NayOKInhofe, James [R]NayAZKyl, Jon [R]NayKYMcConnell, Mitch [R]NayALSessions, Jefferson [R]NayALShelby, Richard [R]NayNHSununu, John [R]NaySDThune, John [R]NayLAVitter, David [R]

WHY REPUBLICANS LOST THE ELECTION

Leonard Krivitsky, MD, DD — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:08:41 EST

I am reading a lot of opinions by the Republican bloggers as to why their Party's ticket has lost the election by a landslide. After all, the States like Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia voting for Obama was nothing short of humiliating. So, the opinions differ from this being somehow not a victory for Obama, but a defeat for G.W. Bush to an outward denial that the outcome was "God's will" to a totally ridiculous suggestion that Obama had somehow "bought" the election. I will try to shed some light as to what I believe were the real reasons for the Republicans' devastating defeat.

Of course, no one is denying the fact that the total disaster of Bush/Cheney Administration that has left our economy in a state of collapse and our reputation abroad ripped to shreds did not help the Republicans one bit. I am not going to dwell here on the multiple failures of the Bush Administration, but you get the meaning. The fact that the country's sitting President could not even publicly campaign for the candidate of his Party is, in itself, disgaceful. But what could he do if his own approval rating is the worst in recorded history, worse even than Nixon's during Watergate... Now, you couple this with the Bush's and Cheney's endorsements of McCain and then compare it with, say, Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama, and then you well imagine what's happening in the public's minds. And not only Colin Powell, but many of the "high and mighty" like Warren Buffet and even former Reagan's Chief of Staff endorsing Obama.
All this said, it is clear that Bush's failed Administration was of no help to Join McCain. But to say that it was the only reason for McCain/Palin defeat is rather absurd.

Let's look at the top of the ticket. Let's remember the three Presidential debates, all of which McCain lost by wide margins, let's look at how unsteady he was at the beginning of the economic crisis, and when he said that the "fundamentals of the economy are strong" it was the mother of all gaffes. And then, when the meltdown happened, McCain decided to gamble and "suspended" his campaign to "help solve the crisis." Dumb, plain, simple dumb. McCain quickly retraced his steps, but the whole thing looked like a cheap stunt and the political damage was done. McCain's stand on Iraq war was not what the American people want. The public showed it clearly during the last mid-term election. The American people want this war to end. And then, there is more: the Iraqi government wants us out. And more still: we must address our urgent needs in Afghanistan and now, lo and behold! Everybody seems to be "on the same page - Obama, Secretary Gates and Gen. Petraeus. They are all now on "the same page" as well with regards to the regional solution approach that our President-elect has always supported. McCain is very "weak" on the economy and not nearly as strong on National Defense and foreign policy as some people had thought. The Western Europeans prefer Obama 4:1! . The more educated a person was, the more likely that person was going to vote for Obama. At the end of his campaign Sen. McCain seemed to be saying something like this all the time: My friends, maverick, Joe the Plumber, My friends, maverick, Joe the Plumber... And this is only the top of the ticket.

I personally believe that Sen. McCain is a compulsive gambler, and that after his first gamble (suspension of his campaign to solve the economic crisis) misfired, he started "chasing his losses" and selected Sarah Palin to be his V.P. choice. People, the President of the Alaska Senate thought that was a joke! They kept this lady away from the reporters for weeks because they realized that she didn't know anything and would make a fool of herself (which she did, anyway). In my Godson's words, Palin's selection was "a stone-cold roll of the dice, and he struck right the ... out." And McCain is still in denial news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081112/ap_on_el_ge/mccain_leno It turns out now that, according to some former McCain staffers, Sarah Palin did not know that Africa was a continent and not a country and could not name one single member of the North American Free Trade Agreement. In addition, Palin now admits that the Republican ticket "represented the status quo" after all... This is the "package of goods" the Republicans were trying to sell to the American people, affirming that Gov. Palin was "ready to be President on day one." And here is one prediction if I may: Sarah Palin will never again be nominated for a National ticket. I could go on and on and on about Sarah Palin, but I'll leave it alone at this point, adding only one more thing. When the Independents and even some liberal Republicans looked at Sarah Palin, they must have said to themselves, Oh, no, we do not want this to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency! And that of a 72-year-old man, no less!

In the end the Republicans ended up with the votes of their "base", a Fundamentalist fringe that, thanks to our changing consciousness, has less and less influence on the average people's minds. There were also those, I am sorry to say, who would not vote for Barack Obama because of the color of his skin. And then, there were conservative Republicans with their "social agenda" and voters who were simply intimidated by the relentless personal attacks against Barack Obama that McCain's campaign had waged.

And running against all this was Barack Obama with his message of Change and Hope.... And the battle cry:

YES, WE CAN!

(For more on Barack Obama's victory please read my previous article "The spiritual meaning of a historic election")

Celebration!!!

DocForBarack — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 17:53:46 EST

The mood in Chicago was ecstatic on Tuesday night, morphing into a sort of sublime sense of relaxed excitement over the rest of the week. Today, strangers on the street still catch your eye and smile, especially if you're wearing an Obama button or T-shirt.

As we left Grant Park Tuesday around midnight, waves of elation swept through the crowd, with spontaneous cheers coursing down Columbus Avenue. This was a mob teeming, literally overflowing, with joy, but perhaps not in the way you'd think if you weren't there.

It wasn't at all like the mood during a really good concert, for example. I've been to quite a few great concerts, but I've never been in such a large crowd of people who were so happy about something they so clearly thought really mattered.

I suspect this is something like what if felt like to live through VE Day. This was Victory for America day!

There was relief, and disbelief, and gratitude, and awe ... but the sense of pure joy was not tempered by these other emotions - it was heightened by them.

I know these feelings don't last forever, but I can't help but believe that something very profound changed in our nation this week.

There is more work to be done - much more. But for these few days, I hope that you, too, have appreciated the chance to celebrate for our nation.

THE SPIRITUAL MEANING OF A HISTORIC ELECTION

Leonard Krivitsky, MD, DD — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 10:04:22 EST

Before I comment any further, I would like to congratulate our new President-elect, Barack Obama, with this truly historic win on that truly historic day of November 4, 2008. For as long as the history exists, for as long as this country stands among the world's nations, that day will be remembered as one of the most memorable of all times. Books will be written, movies will be made, and historians will weigh every single word by the candidates and their supporters, pondering at how could it be that a junior Senator from Illinois, with the strange name of Barack Hussein Obama and a Black man at that, would inspire millions and overcome seemingly insurmountable odds on his determined climb to the summit of leadership of the free world. And, as I said to my Godson, there will be many of those in the future who will envy us, who will look back and say, Wow, there were people who actually voted for Barack Obama on November 4, 2008!

As far as I am concerned, there is only one key word in all of the commentaries, current or future, as to the reasons for Barack's spectacular win a few days ago; this word is "inspiration." Inspiration, or "being in Spirit." And that is exactly what President-elect Obama was chosen to do, to inspire millions, to bring (and unite) them "in Spirit." Even much earlier in this Presidential election cycle, during the primaries, one Hispanic voter remarked that he had seen his children's future in Barack Obama's eyes, and CNN also pointed out that Sen. Obama seemed to connect with that which is the "best in people." In other words, putting the same thing into a spiritual perspective, we can say that the Spirit of God, manifesting through and as Barack Obama, could break down all the false and artificial barriers that our earthly egos had built for centuries, and establish a direct connection with the Spiritual Essence of our own Selves, with that divine "spark" that is alive in each and every one of us, although in some it is too obscured by thick layers of ignorance to be seen or reached at this time. Barack's Light, however, a Light of Love, Truth, Unity and Hope is so strong and so unobstructed by even a thinnest layer of ignorance that it practically illuminated the Planet and warmed the people's souls, drawing huge crowds wherever he went. The Light in Barack did not have to fight the Darkness with negativity and bitterness, it simply, as A COURSE IN MIRACLES puts it, made it disappear. And so, by connecting the strong Spirit manifesting through and as the person of Barack Obama (and doing so from the very early age, I might add) with the spiritual essences of millions of other people all over the world, all those people could be inspired, or brought "in Spirit." There was also another word frequently mentioned, the word "enthusiasm." This word has its roots in two Greek words, en Theos or "God within."
So, as we can see, this is not all that difficult to understand: Barack has produced a lot of enthusiasm by inspiring the great multitudes of people. Oprah Winfrey remarked that all this was possible due to a "shift in consciousness." Well, such a profound shift in (collective) consciousness that we have witnessed could only be caused by a strong spiritual force that had found a way to "manifest", a person through whom to make an impact or, again in the earlier words of Oprah Winfrey, "The One."

If I were to make my own assessment of Barack's consciousness that has made it possible for him to manifest such an overwhelming spiritual force, I would say that I see it as something very rarely entering into manifestation in a human being, as some totally improbable and unbelievable mix between the consciousness of Jesus of Nazareth and that of Caesar Augustus, as a Spirit that leads, unites, heals, and empowers all at the same time. Because of this, Barack Obama wields tremendous authority as he ascends to the summit of leadership of this country and of the free world. The President-elect must never forget that his authority depends on remaining "in Spirit", so that he could enact that which he seems to understand as being one of his first priorities, and that is "the equilibrium" or "balance" in everything from economy to our relationships with rest of the world.

With the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency of the United States we can confidently say that neither this country nor, indeed, the whole world will ever be the same as before. The new era has come into being to the delight of millions in the United States and hundreds of millions all around the world. I believe that this election was an event of tremendous significance in our evolutionary development as human species, and that, furthermore, it should be clear to everyone that such an evolutionary milestone could be reached only through a shift in (collective) consciousness which, in turn, has only been possible as a result of "inspiration" and "enthusiasm" not seen for thousands of years of our recorded human history.

Submissions Needed for Obama Book

Adele Nicols — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 20:31:40 EST

I am writing a book on Obama volunteers’ experiences. This text will focus on meaningful and inspiring stories from your phonebanking, canvassing or other campaign journeys. If you have pictures or stories of volunteering that were significant to you and you think would have meaning for others, please send submissions to:

AdeleNicols@yahoo.com or
P.O.Box 494, Waitsfield, VT 05673

I have a particular interest in the "phonebankers". Making cold calls throughtout the United States was a unique opportunity to get to know the diverse pockets of individuals and communities that exist within our nation. I personally had some amazing discussions that I know must have been echoed by other volunteers. I am better off from the experience...and am eager to showcase your personal experiences.
Chosen submissions will be notified by January 10, 2008 and full acknowledgement will be given in the publication.

I am looking for stories that will exemplify the broad scope of voters that were either for or against Obama. My primary interest is to showcase the heart of the Obama campaign by revealing personal and transformational stories and images that were at the core of this successful campaign.

Thank you in advance for your participation. Feel free to contact me with any additional questions you may have.

Sincerely,
We did it!
Adele

Racial Vote

Ivan — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 08:02:35 EST

I listened to C-SPAN yesterday with lots of people still talking with a very bitter racial tone about the election. As an African American (AA) I feel very insulted that this election has been reduced to RACE.

Well to you all out there who say we all for POTUS Barack Obama simple because we are AA. I want you to know that decades since AA won the right to vote in this country we have all voted for a Caucasian POTUS. So far I think I have voted for Caucasians than any of you will ever vote for an AA and I do challenge you all to prove me wrong. Should I call you that refused to vote an AA solely on racial gronds racist? Maybe but at this defining moment I refuse to do that. If you do not want to vote for an AA solely on racial grounds that to some extend that is unfortunate, but when you look at his policies you have to rethink and look at what your children and grandchildren will be left with.

Now lets us look at the facts.

The economy went south and we had then Sen. Obama show us how to handle difficult times with confidence. Yes he is an AA and I agreed and voted for him with pride.

We have always had a progressive tax system in the USA and his tax policies do reflect that and not wealth distribution or socialist system as some want us to believe. Yes he is AA and I agree with his tax policy and voted for him with pride.

Our education system is in shambles (China and India are doing better than we are doing with training engineers and MDs)and tuition is going up everyday, I love his US$4000/year credit to students who serve the nation. Yes he is AA and I voted for him with pride.

We are fighting two wars with astronomical deficits, bin Laden is free, the Taliban is strong in Pakistan and the Sen. McCain wants to keep us in Iraq for maybe one century if the Iraqis do not kill our soldiers. POTUS elect Obama has a different policy to bring our men and women home. Yes he is AA and voted for him with pride.

Our foreign policy sucks and anyone who has traveled our the USA since Bush/Cheney came into power will see what a they have done to our nation. POTUS elect Obama has a different approach to foreign policy and the go alone mentality of you are with us or against us. Yes he is AA and I voted for him with pride.

We are loosing jobs here at home, the foundation of our auto industry is crashing, people are loosing their homes at an alarming rate. He had plans to protect jobs and these companies. Yes he is AA and I voted for him with pride.

He was a community organizer, he created a movement, inspired the world and called us to service and we responded by canvassing the neigborhood, calling across the nation, donating what ever we could to built a political movement (young and old, professional, educated and non, men/women). Yes he is AA and we were proudly behind him.

If none of the above cited reasons were convincing enough to move you then that is fine but as he said he heard your voices and will work to be your president.

Morning in America--Redefined

Jeff Smith — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:14:39 EST

Yes we did.

Yes we will.

Obama gets it: Health care reform must remain a front-burner issue

DocForBarack — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 22:41:39 EST

A video posted to the Obama web site it well worth watching, even for those who understand his health reform plan very well.

For those in health care who've been following these issues carefully, you won't be surprised at any of the specific proposals he raises. But he hits the big question of the day head on ...

With the economic crisis, there has been a rising chorus of nay-sayers suggesting that health care reform will have to take a back seat in the incoming president's first term. How can we afford to fix the health care system, they say, when we're already spending so much shoring up our broken economy?

But Obama says that such thinking is wrong-headed - because we'll never be able to fix the economy without fixing our broken health care system.

He's right. For years, the rising costs of health care have prevented middle class Americans from seeing any rise in real wages - that's why many Americans think we've been in a recession since 2001. Some economists - mainly Republicans - say we've had a pretty good economy under Bush, but most of us live in the real world and know better. The tepid economic growth in the last 8 years has never been enough to offset the rise in health care costs.

Health care problems lock people into bad jobs, prevent entrepreneurs from starting new businesses, create tragedies of bankruptcy on top of tragedies of ill health, and reduce American productivity.

Maybe it will be expensive to fix these problems - though I expect it won't be as costly as some claim. But in either event, it will be a lot more expensive NOT to fix our health care system. If we don't fix these problems, we can't create a vigorous American economy for the 21st century.

Obama gets it: Health care reform must remain a front-burner issue

DocForBarack — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 22:40:14 EST

A video posted to the Obama web site it well worth watching, even for those who understand his health reform plan very well.

For those in health care who've been following these issues carefully, you won't be surprised at any of the specific proposals he raises. But he hits the big question of the day head on ...

But Obama says that such thinking is wrong-headed - because we'll never be able to fix the economy without fixing our broken health care system.

Post-gazette Op Ed response

Christopher from Canonsburg, PA — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 21:53:56 EST

Hi,A local plastic surgeon (!) wrote a pro-McCain piece for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette today:http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08307/924473-109.stmI sent my response, but it'll be too late for the election, but I wanted to get it off my chest!-------------------I am very impressed by Dr. Pautler's inspiring personal story of tremendous academic and personal achievement against great odds. It reminds me of a certain candidate for President's story and should be applauded whenever it occurs.However studies show that this upward mobility is now more difficult in America than it is in Europe, if you can imagine! So I was disappointed in Dr. Pautler's arguments against voting against Sen. Obama for a variety of reasons, but one particular aspect stuck in my craw. Dr. Pautler wrote of her concern for "a corrupt force that takes from the hard-working people and redistributes their wealth to those who choose not to put forth the effort..."I have friends, relatives, and many, many patients who work very hard, play by the rules and yet still can't afford health care, college, and struggle to pay their bills. Meanwhile, our government routinely provides massive tax breaks for Wal-marts and Cabella's and other big box retailers, neuters agencies that protect workers safety and the right to organize, allows credit card companies to gouge consumers as a matter of course, allow mortgage companies to engage in predatory lending and on and on. So, we already have a corrupt force redistributing wealth, however it is far and away in the opposite direction that worries Dr. Pautler.There's much more to argue about in her column, but I will simply say that Dr. Pautler repeats an oft-heard (and disingenuous) concern of "conservatives" about our government turning towards totalitarianism under the Democrats after 8 years of unprecedented consolidation of power by the Republican Party in its attempts to ignore large parts of the Bill of Rights, shamefully corrupt the Justice Department, the EPA, the Department of Labor, OSHA, NASA, and essentially every government agency it could, torture prisoners, suspend habeas corpus, promulgate "Signing Statements" as preempting the Constitution and, again, on and on. The cognitive dissonance should make one's head explode. But only if you're paying attention.-----------------------------My original response was a bit more, shall we say, strenuous. So you can thank or blame my wife for the temperance of the letter.Cheers,ChrisChristopher M. Hughes, MD

Georgia Gives Green Light to Racial Targeting at Polls

SC — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:16:09 EDT

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/31/115413/09/917/647931

"In a bold move this week, Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel (R) announced she was sending letters to 4,770 registered voters that they may have to cast "challenge" ballots that won't be counted on election day."

Anger in Philadelphia: CIGNA + McCain = Murder by Spreadsheet

Midwest Common Sense — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 10:38:42 EDT

Yesterday, the CIGNA headquarters in Philadelphia was invaded by protestors led by the California Nurses Association. This sort of militant action against the most vicious industry in the United States is still rare in America, but it would become the norm, if John McCain was berthed at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

If God forbid, John McCain were able to steal this election (no way on earth he could be elected fair and square), Americans would be forced to take extraordinary actions against the predatory and criminal health insurance industry. Americans would be forced to routinely invade the predatory corporate offices because:

John McCain + THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY = MURDER BY SPREADSHEET

McCain's "reform" of the American health care system would provide big tax incentives for the crippled system to transition from being employer-based to one built on an even worse system of individual responsibility. This is Republican-speak for shift the costs onto your shoulders and mine.
He would do this by eliminating the longtime personal tax exemption on employer-provided health insurance and replacing it with a $2,500 individual, and $5,000 family, tax credit for those who have health insurance.

Six days before the most important election in my lifetime, it was an auspicious moment to be standing in the lobby of this Murder by Spreadsheet factory..........

Read the bone-chilling tale at

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/30/866/11503/227/643528

by nyceve Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 05:06:06 AM PDT @ dailykos.com

MORE ON MARXISM/SOCIALISM MUD-SLINGING

Leonard Krivitsky, MD, DD — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 22:11:10 EDT

I believe that the historians will agree that, as opposed to what our opponent had promised, Sen. McCain is running one of the sleaziest campaigns in my memory. Sen. McCain and his advisers know all too well that they cannot win this campaign on relevant issues; consequently, as Sen. Obama pointed out "all seven kitchen sinks are being thrown at me." Even though all these character-assassination plots make me angry, one in particular leaves me practically seething inside. For me, a person who, unlike many, had an unforgettable experience of living under a Marxist tyranny, this current Republican "wave" of linking our candidate with the Marxist poison is just too much.

First, let's see what Obama really wants to do. He wants to simply return to the tax structure under Clinton (when economy was good, mind you), and roll back Bush's reckless tax breaks to the 5% of the wealthiest Americans which has proven budget-breaking and totally unnecessary from the point of view of these people's needs. Was Clinton a Socialist? A Marxist, maybe? John McCain himself (until he sold his soul to the Republican "base") had opposed these tax breaks. Was McCain a Socialist? A Marxist, maybe? And what about the support of prominent financier Warren Buffet for Barack Obama? Surely, very few people will go so far as to suspect Mr. Buffet of Marxist/Socialist sympathies. So, you see how these accusations are baseless even if we don't fully realize what Marxism actually stands for. As far as "redistribution of wealth" is concerned, what do we think our taxes are for? And when we were practically robbed at the gas pumps this summer because of the oil prices caused in part by Bush-McCain foreign policy and its favoritism to oil companies, was it not redistribution of wealth?? But no accusations of Socialism/Marxism, of course.

Now, let's see what the Marxists really stand for, so we at least know what our candidate is being accused of. Well, the Marxists believe not so much in "redistribution" of wealth, especially not by any lawful means, as in direct expropriation (or confiscation) of wealth and then rewarding the "proletariat", or the poorest, least educated parts of the population for putting them in power. Marxists never, and I repeat, never appeal to the truly educated and enlightened people because of Marxism's true intellectual and philosophical bankruptcy. Neither do the Marxists appeal to the middle class, especially upper, educated middle class whose members are also designated as "bourgeoisie", not really sympathetic to the ultimate goals of the "proletariat."
How is then that the more educated the voters are, the more Sen. Obama appeals to them? So, you see how, even under the most superficial investigation, all this sleaze just starts to unravel. Another thing that the Marxists firmly believe in is that everyone, regardless of how intelligent or hardworking a person is, should have approximately the same income (Marxist leaders excluded, of course). I do not remember Sen. Obama suggesting anything even remotely resembling that. An important thing to keep in mind is that Marxists hold no love for the middle class. They would be quite interested in the erosion of middle class, which was exactly what happened in the early 20-century Russia, and which swept Bolsheviks into power in 1917. What Barack Obama proposes is to give a tax break to 95 % of Americans, mostly middle class, thereby strengthening it in these times of trouble. Does this sound Marxist to you?

Finally, Marxists are avowed atheists. In fact, there is hardly any one of other Marxist doctrines that is so unshakable as Marxist atheism. I mean, if you are not an atheist, you are not a Marxist. As simple as that. We know from history that Marxists occasionally "step back" from their economic dogmas, such as denial of a person's basic right to own private property. This happens when a Marxist regime attempts to scramble out of a financial "gutter" as was the case with the "New Economic Policy" in Lenin's Russia or limited free-market economic reforms in China. However, Marxists have remained extremely rigid when it comes to religious or spiritual beliefs that they consider totally incompatible with the Marxist doctrine. Yet, from what I've been hearing from Barack Obama, I can assure the doubtful that he is not an atheist. I perceive a deep spirituality in Barack, this sense of balance, of justice, of unity, of love. I perceive that Barack knows that we all are part of this Universe and must live according to its laws. I think I even heard him saying something of that nature. In other words, Marxism would be highly repulsive to Barack as it is repulsive to any truly enlightened person. You see, Marxists deny the Spiritual Realm altogether, because in order to enforce their anti-human nature agenda, they need all the power, and they are in no mood to share it with any "Higher Power." Besides, having religious or spiritual beliefs and the conscience that comes with them would "distract" the masses from the "class struggle." Wasn't it Karl Marx himself who called religion "opium for the masses"? On the other hand, I believe that Barack Obama is very mindful of the existence of Higher Power and Its basic premise that we should be united rather than divided. Much, much more mindful of this than our opponents. Marxists are not "big" on allowing any alternative views, either. Have we ever heard from Barack that he intends to limit intellectual freedom?

Now you see why I am seething inside when I hear accusations of Socialism, and especially Marxism thrown against Sen. Obama. People who throw these accusations are either end-of-the-line "desperadoes" or are speaking out of ignorance. I would also like to assure anyone who reads these lines that I would never support a candidate who even remotely "smacked" of Marxism, one such experience in a lifetime is enough, thank you! And I would know a Marxist rhetoric right away, have no doubt of that. I would like for anyone who lived under Marxist regime to come out and challenge me on anything I've just written in this post. I also hope that most people will see right through this outrage and know it for what it really is - desperation, negativity, distraction and divisiveness!

11,000 ballots lost in Colorado

SC — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 02:14:25 EDT

As predicted...little election oversight...at least the US Postal Service is doing its job....11,000 ballots seem to have vaporized. I did some calling to Douglas County, CO today and found a few people who requested their ballots 3 wks ago....still hadn't received them. So....if you can get to your registrar's office and vote early, in person, do so...asap.

S

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/25/173155/58/550/642196

A DREAM THAT WILL COME TRUE

Leonard Krivitsky, MD, DD — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 14:06:47 EDT

Spirituality teaches us that the "end" is just a new "beginning", that a dream is the necessary prelude to reality, that our individual and collective consciousness is that "womb" that gives birth to our destiny. In these last days before the election we can clearly see yet another time that these Eternal Truths, articulated by the Teachers of Wisdom throughout history time and time again, cannot be altered or derailed. The end of this long, difficult and fascinating journey that was this election campaign will be but the beginning of a new era, the beginning that will no longer be denied or postponed, the beginning whose time has come, just like that dawn that inevitably comes even after the darkest of nights. We have seen that the enemies of progress spare no efforts in their desperate attempts to cling to the past, to preserve their hold on power, to turn back the River of History, to keep us prisoners of their outdated and fearful beliefs. These fearful beliefs that appeal to the lowest of our imperfect human nature are well represented by John McCain, Sarah Palin, George Bush, Rush Limbaugh and all those who would have us fear rather than love, despair rather than hope, divide rather than unite, be asleep rather than awake. We have witnessed the worst of sleaze and deception, beginning with erratic political gambles of John McCain combined with stunning incompetence and hypocrisy of Sarah Palin (this is just in, by the way, as if everything we already know about this woman were not enough: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081025/ap_on_el_pr/palin_pipeline), and ending with the slanderous ranting of Rush Limbaugh directed even against one of our greatest modern heroes, General Colin Powell. None of this is new, however. The more profound and promising is the Light of Change and Hope, the greater is the resistance that the Forces of Darkness are prepared to mount, as all our human history so clearly and decisively demonstrates.

On November 4-th, however, the Forces of Darkness will be defeated. I believe that nothing in this world will prevent the final awakening of our consciousness, the awakening that is best accomplished by the trials and tribulations that the Forces of Darkness have imposed upon it, be it the war in Iraq, racial hatred, common ignorance, abuse of authority or economic collapse. We are witnessing nothing less than the self-destruction of evil, even if it takes the calamity of financial meltdown to open our collective eyes, to jolt us into the acute awareness that division and intolerance are not the ways to go in order to step into our common destiny. We are witnessing the power of the Almighty Spirit that has INSPIRED millions to the common cause of breaking down the very foundation of ignorance and hate. We are now finding ourselves at that pivotal moment of the evolution of consciousness, that dimensionless point of existence out of which the new era will arise as it has done throughout the human history again and again, that renewal that shines like a bright Light, washing away the stagnation and misery of the past.

I firmly believe that our candidate, Senator Barack Obama is that vehicle, that conduit, that instrument that the Spirit has chosen to move us forward and out of darkness of the past eight years, the years that historians are sure to designate one of America's darkest moments, the years that have even made it impossible for the sitting President to campaign for the candidate of his own Party. The people like Barack Obama have appeared periodically on the stage of human history in order to fulfill their destiny of restoring that balance upon which our whole Universe depends for its very existence. However, it is incumbent upon us to materialize this destiny, this inspiration, this renewal, this transformational force that General Powell and many others are seeing in the person of Barack Obama. We must not forget even for a moment that Light cannot come unless we pull open the shade and let it in. And the best way to "let the light in" right now is to vote, and to vote early if it is possible in your State. Anything can happen on the Election Day as we all live in an uncertain, unpredictable world, and we should not take any chances with something as important as this if we don't have to. Not only do we have to vote, but we also must take a stand in these times of moral crisis. The moral crisis of the war in Iraq, of the extreme polarization of wealth, of the divisive policies of Bush and McCain. This is what Dante said in this respect: The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis.

I have been privileged to publish my articles in the Indianapolis Star on line in addition to my own website, www.spiritualcounseling.com under the "weblog." I am delighted to observe that you have done well, Indiana. You are now only two points away from making history and breaking with the past by voting for Barack Obama, for the Spirit and for the future. I know that you will come through, Indiana, together with countless others trying to pull open that shade and let the Light in. We all believe in much better future than what we've had over the past eight years. All we have to do now is manifest this belief, just as Jesus of Nazareth said a long time ago:

"IT WILL BE DONE UNTO YOU AS YOU BELIEVE."

Ailing Kennedy Seeks Health Care Overhaul

Midwest Common Sense — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 19:36:15 EDT

(AP) An ailing Sen. Edward Kennedy is trying to lay the groundwork for a breakthrough on health care reform next year, though many believe the enormous undertaking has been made even more difficult by the troubled economy.

Kennedy, aides say, has held several video conferences with lawmakers and staff in recent months as he fights from home to overcome brain cancer. His staff has held more than a dozen meetings in recent weeks with various advocacy and interest groups that will help influence the debate.

"We're carrying it out in his absence, but this is his doing," said an aide who was not identified because he was not authorized to speak publicly. "He's in constant touch with leaders in this effort. This is Senator Kennedy at the helm." The story was first reported by The Washington Times.

Kennedy doesn't want to repeat the steps that some say doomed health care reform under former President Clinton. That means acting quickly when Congress returns to Washington after the election and the holidays.

"There were at least two major factors in the failure of the '93 effort," the aide said. "One was jurisdictional fracturing within the Congress and the other was the time after the inauguration to get a proposal together. Senator Kennedy's analysis is that we need to avoid both of those features."

Kennedy is chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. Sen. Barack Obama's health care plan will be the starting point in Kennedy's efforts. That's a big assumption given that the presidential race is far from over. The Obama plan features many changes that Massachusetts enacted in 2006, such as greater use of government subsidies to help people afford coverage. However, Obama would not require adults to buy health insurance, as Massachusetts did. Obama does have a requirement that children be insured.

Aides would not say where there has been agreement and disagreement among the various interest groups participating in the meetings.

Health care changes under both presidential candidates would be expensive, and the federal government is expected to generate an enormous deficit next year even without incorporating those changes. However, Obama is not letting economic woes deter him.

"It's not a question of arithmetic or accounting, it's a question of priorities," an aide said. "When AIG needs the money, somehow the money is found. When Freddie and Fannie need it, somehow the money is found. The theory is they're too big to fail. It can certainly be argued that the health care system is too big to fail, but it's failing for millions of people every day."

Kennedy, 76, underwent a risky, 3½-hour surgery in June to remove as much of a tumor as possible. He has been steadily increasing his public activity since undergoing six weeks of chemotherapy and radiation treatment.

From www.cbsnews.com

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/24/health/main4543666.shtml?tag=lowerContent;homeSectionBlock204

Mccain-Palin Economic Plan

Ivan — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 08:12:36 EDT

With the recent turmoil in the economy we have seen the McCain-Palin team roll out one economic package after another.

1. The Fundamentals of the American Economy are sound. "We are a Nation of whinners and Mental Depression"

2. Drill baby drill. If we listen to the Obama-Biden campaign they want to inject billions of your dollars into Detroit's auto industry to develop clean cars with alternative engines. This will cause Exxon, Shell billions of dollars and this is not good for free trade because those jobs can not be outsourced. America has three percent of the world's oil reserve uses 25% and Alaska supplies 20% of US oil (in theory if you believe Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin). It will be great to drill as Gov. Palin knows alot about energy and she will do a better job than Dick Cheney. She will increase the dividens to each Alaskan citizen, and she can see what ever Putin is doing with Russian oil and gas from her front pouch.

3. Conutry First. I will suspend my campaign indefinitely, cancel the presidential debates and Sen. Obama and the rest of nation should stop what ever they are doing and follow me to Washington.

4. The SEC was asleep on the wheel. I will fire Christ Fox and replace him with Phil Gram or Charles Keating.

5. The federal government should buy all the bad mortgages owned by banks at the market value of last year. Example if a house waas worth US$600K last yeasr and now is worth US$300K the Feds should give the banks US$600K and the tax payer will foot the rest and the home owner you are on your own or go see the Obama-Biden team to spread the wealth to you.

6. Joe the Plumber, Susan the......, Paul the ...... You people do not understand anything just vote for me. If you make less than US250K Obama will spread the wealth to you and you do not like that. I will do a better job by spreading the wealth to people that make more than US$5M because they are hard working and you do not want their money. The same applies to small business owners, if you vote Obama he will cut your taxes and you will be able to employ more people in your neighborhood but that is not good for the world economy because you will not be able to out source the jobs which if you do I will give you a bigger tax break.

7. Obama the SOCIALIST...again he will spread the wealth around to lazy people who work 16hours/day six days/week. I will revamp the economy like Prez Bush. I will nationalize all banks, increase CEO pays, cut taxes for big companies that ship jobs overseas to Columbia (CAFTA) to Mexico (NAFTA). Obama will continue his saving socialist ways of life reuse his old shoes and suits instead of use campaign money to himself some new stuff like I did with Gov. Palin updating her clothing for US$150K then we will give it to charity after the campaign. When we are in the White House I will make her catch up with me by buying houses in all the time zones that she can not recall the exact number then at the end of my presidency we will donate it to charity.

8. Sen. Obama, I am not Prez. Bush if you want to run against him rewind the clock to 2004. Well men this Obama is a tough guy nothing works againts him. I guess I should campaign against that one instead or may Prez Bush with his low ratings as Obama is doing and gainning support everyday. Well since modern times Bush's presidency is the worst he led us into two wars, managed them very poorly, the biggest govt ever, trillions of debts, lack of regulations, healthcare/medicare a big mess...only this time the Bush team is not happy and they are the ones firing back with the Obama-Biden team on the sidelines watching how McCain-Palin have decided to the rewind the clock and run against Bush-Cheney.

This is our moment to take back our country and lead it into the 21st century.

God bless America.

Ivan

Woodbury Medical Society Health Care Forum

Mark Johnston — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:05:36 EDT

The Woodbury Medical Society hosted presentations from both the Republican and Democratic parties on their proposals for health care changes at Luciano’s on Thursday, Oct 18th, 2008

The guest speaker was Dr James Rowsey, a well known retired corneal and refractive surgeon from Florida. He has been working with Senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma on a health care bill similar to the McCain Plan. He asked that we as physicians contact our representatives in order to support his legislation, the "Universal Care Choice and Access Act (S-1019)". To review the details go to wttp://coburn.senate.gov.

Dr Rowsey reviewed the declines in effective Medicare payments and increasing overhead costs. He stressed the importance of physician involvement with their local state and federal government representatives. Physicians should avail themselves of all opportunities to know their representatives on a personal level, as personal input is the most powerful form of lobbying available to physicians.

Dr Mark Johnston, speaking on behalf of Rob Hubler, the democratic candidate for Congress, presented an overview of the AMA, McCain and Obama health care plans.

The priority issue for the AMA is that all patients have access to health care insurance.

Senator McCain is proposing a $2500 individual / $5,000 family health care tax credit. Expenses up to this limit would be fully refundable –the same as cash to those with very low incomes. The credit would apply to any medical expense, insurance payments or deposits into Health Savings accounts. However, any health care benefits or insurance paid by the employer would be a taxable benefit to the employee, offset by the new tax credit. While this plan would be cost neutral it removes incentives for the employer to be involved in providing any health care benefits. Most experts do not expect this plan to lead to a significant increase in the percentage of the population with health insurance.

The McCain plan would deregulate health care insurance companies and set up a new malpractice tribunal/arbitration mechanism to resolve disputes before they go to the regular legal system.

The Obama plan is designed to maintain the present employer based system. Small businesses would receive additional support with a 50% tax credit. The Obama plan would also provide a personal tax credit similar to the McCain plan, but only on a needs basis. The combined business and personal tax credit would bring new dollars into the system and would be paid for with new taxes from those with incomes over $250,000.00.

A lively discussion followed with a variety of observations made. Given the poor performance of insurance companies, any further deregulation was thought to lead to even more abuse of patients and physicians by these companies. Health insurance was compared to automobile insurance-most people pick low deductibles because their budgets cannot adsorb more than a few hundred dollars of unexpected expense at any time. Given the tight budgetary constraints many people struggle with, it is easy for them to forego insurance coverage or miss payments. For those with low incomes, deductibles and non-covered services often keep them from seeking or receiving proper care. There was a discussion of health savings accounts which may only be used with high deductible insurance. Having less coverage for services and providers, they may have a higher out of pocket expense for those with significant illness.

Although differing opinions were expressed as to the best means of achieving affordable, accessible insurance for most people, it was agreed that access to health care is in the best interests of physicians, patients and the nation.

Be Strong

Ivan — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:02:38 EDT

Dear Sen. Obama I know this is a very difficult moment for you with grandma Toot not in good health. Haven been thru this I fully understand what you must be going thru at this very difficult moment of her life. I hope and pray that God will keep her until the election for her to see the fruits of the good job that she, your mother and grandfather did in raising you.

We will keep her, you and the rest of your family in our prayers in this very difficult time.

May God Bless her.

Ivan

McCain's audience vs. his real audience

Christopher from Canonsburg, PA — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:02:36 EDT

Isn't it interesting that McCain keeps saying at his rallies that Obama "Will raise your taxes!"

He thinks he's in front of this audience:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn4daYJzyls

And his audience thinks America is upwardly mobile and they'll have a chance to get to $250K a year:

By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents' income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a lower rate of mobility than the United States.

It is also worth saying this, "the better we all do, the better we all do." The myth of conservative Republicanism is that when the wealthy do better, America as a whole does better. This is not true. When the whole of America does better, which is generally the case under Democratic Presidents, the entire economy does better, everyone's income goes up. The ONLY downside is that the top 1% don't do quite as well (though they do spectacularly well by almost any other standard.)

Socialism, (Teddy) Roosevelt-style!

Christopher from Canonsburg, PA — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:35:54 EDT

I was just going to go online and find the quotes from TR about his views of wealth and taxation, but my first Google hit brought me to a great post, beating me to the punch.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/10/teddy-roosevelt-socialist-advo.html

Cheers,

BREAKING NEWS!

Leonard Krivitsky, MD, DD — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 10:17:49 EDT

This post, as opposed to my other articles that some people find "too long" will be short and oh, so very sweet!

THE AMERICAN HERO, A FOUR-STAR GENERAL, A FORMER REPUBLICAN SECRETARY OF STATE and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff COLIN POWELL

ENDORSES OBAMA ON NBC "MEET THE PRESS"

as a "transformational figure"

Am I delighted? YES! Surprised? NO! As I wrote long time ago, the Spirit is for Obama but no, not only that!

THE SPIRIT IS (manifesting as) OBAMA!

I'm an American... and I'm voting Democratic!

Christopher from Canonsburg, PA — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 09:50:29 EDT

I've been listening, with growing irritation, to Republicans making the case that liberals and progressives and Democrats are not "pro-America" enough.

I think Obama-Biden needs to make a great commercial along the lines of those new Microsoft commercials (they are here if you haven't seen them: http://imapc.lifewithoutwalls.com/watch/ ).

Show all different people, especially young people saying,

I'm from [somewhere], and I'm voting Democratic/ for Obama

I'm a [something], and I'm voting Democratic/ for Obama

I love America, but I want a better America, and I'm voting Democratic/ for Obama

I love America, and I know you love America, too, and I'm voting for Obama.

I love America, and I know we can make America better. Together.

Cheers,

What caused the financial mess? Not the poor.

Christopher from Canonsburg, PA — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 09:30:13 EDT

"The world economy has tanked, Wall Street has crashed, trillions of dollars in imagined wealth has vanished, and do you know why?

"The government forced neighborhood banks to loan money to poor people.

"That, at least, is the explanation making the rounds on right-wing radio and from some conservative pundits."

Read on... http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08293/921100-155.stm

DESPERATE REPUBLICANS, ACCUSATIONS OF MARXISM AND "JOE THE PLUMBER"

Leonard Krivitsky, MD, DD — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 11:26:05 EDT

In the past several days, as it is becoming more and more clear that Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Joe Biden are the choice of most Americans for the two top jobs in this country, we have also seen a desperate step-up of the Republican attacks that have resorted to slanderous "robo-calls", accusations of Marxism thrown at the Obama campaign, and even the rise to prominence of an Ohio man now known everywhere as Joe the Plumber.

Let's start with the false and totally outrageous accusations of Marxist leanings thrown against the Obama campaign and repeated, although in somewhat muted form, by Sen. John McCain and the arch-conservative Glenn Beck.
First, allow me to point out that I have been, and always will be, an implacable enemy of Marxism, Bolshevism, Communism, National Socialism and all other similar "garbage can" ideologies that are totally incompatible with the human nature. I have fought against Soviet Bolshevism since very early age, was exiled by the Soviets for my desire to emigrate, was almost drafted in the Red Army, was viciously attacked by the so-called "Young Communist League", and eventually smuggled a letter to the West that was given by my relatives in the United States to then Ohio Senator Howard Metzenbaum and then presented to the Soviet delegation at the Belgrade Conference on the Security and Cooperation in Europe in 1977. Very risky move as you can imagine, and I fully knew that when I was summoned to the headquarters of the KGB in early February of 1978 not knowing if I would even come out of there alive. There were two people in the room where I was led. One of them was a man - a KGB colonel, and another one a woman in the major's uniform.
Neither one of them ever raised the issue of me smuggling the letter to the West to my great surprise and relief. The meeting was brief and only consisted of the senior officer informing me that my exit visa had been granted and that I should pick up my foreign passport in the local office of the OVIR (Office for Visas and Registration) in about two weeks. The Evil Empire stepped back! I was out of the country and in Rome, Italy very soon thereafter. It took many more letters, including one to the World Health Organization (WHO) to win the permission for my parents to leave the "workers' paradise" as well.

I believe that, just like the survivors of Nazism who are the best when it comes to educating the public of its horrors, the survivors of Soviet Bolshevism, including myself, should probably be believed when they offer their opinion as to who is leaning towards the Marxist ideological poison and who is not. For one thing, McCain people are lying when they claim that Barack Obama wants to "spread someone's wealth around." If a candidate stated that he wanted to seize the people's wealth and "re-distribute" it among the "proletariat" to which McCain euphemistically referred to as the "people who do not pay taxes", that indeed would be advocating Marxism. But this is not what Barack Obama is saying. He is saying that we need to "spread the country's wealth around", meaning that we should never allow the extreme polarization of the country between very rich and very poor. Do you know what the Communists fear the most? Middle class! Middle class which, by the way, is also classified by the Marxists as "bourgeoisie" is any society's "Great Wall of China" against the Marxist takeover. Strong middle class is that social "buffer" against all sorts of extremism that any political visionary will want to protect and strengthen, and enlarge. It is when the middle class is eroded all kinds of tyrannies, including Marxism and National Socialism, rear their ugly heads. It is then that the Marxists start screaming, Look at how miserable you are! All you have to do is put us in power and we will "expropriate" the wealth from the "bourgeoisie" and re-distribute it among you! Is this what Barack Obama is proposing? Is this anywhere near what Barack Obama is suggesting? It would be ludicrous to suggest that it is. All Barack wants to do is roll back the Bush tax cut for the top 5% of wealthiest Americans, so that we can afford the tax cut for the middle class. This is all there is to it. And it is the right thing to do, as the Bush tax cut for the very rich was the wrong thing to do to begin with, and let us never forget that McCain himself had opposed it in the past!

Yesterday I was watching the reports about Sarah Palin's rallies. Let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen that even if there were nothing else on which to base my strong opposition to the McCain-Palin "alliance", the fact that the most extremist, racist, intolerant and hateful individuals seem to congregate around this woman, speaks volumes in and of itself. She said yesterday that she "likes to visit the pro-American parts of the country". Isn't this an open insult to anyone who "dares" to condemn her preposterous utterances? Isn't this more reminiscent of Marxism or National Socialism than anything Obama or Biden are saying? But the journalistic serpents like Lou Dobbs, who is none other than Rush Limbaugh (minus the opiates), refuse to see it. Why does Lou Dobbs relentlessly spew his venomous rhetoric against Barack Obama and does not even mention that Sarah Palin has just been found guilty of "abuse of authority" which, in my view, is the deadliest of all the political "deadly sins"? Yesterday at one of her rallies, Sarah Palin proclaimed that she "would not stand for anyone encroaching on her right to shoot wolves from a helicopter." Trust me, I simply went numb hearing this. Just imagine a mother-wolf not returning to her cubs in the middle of the Alaskan wilderness after having gone in search of food simply because Sarah Palin had decided to entertain herself and shot her from a helicopter. The woman is a sadistic, gun-touting wacko!
She would actually take an animal's God-given life for sport! How can we even think about electing someone like her to the second most important office in the Land?

And now let's direct our attention to the new McCain's political "icon", "Joe the Plumber." First of all, if I were "Joe the Plumber", I would worry more about getting my license and paying my taxes news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081018/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_s_search_analysis than about what would happen if I were making more than 250,000 dollars a year. I am not "Joe the Plumber", I am "Leonard the Doctor", and I am nowhere near the threshold of 250,000 dollars a year where I might have to pay slightly higher taxes. Let me tell you something, "Joe the Plumber": If I were making that kind of money, I wouldn't mind to pay a slightly higher tax to strengthen the society that gave me an opportunity to achieve this kind of success. But right now, being denied even the cost-of-living increases in my salary for years, and with malpractice insurance rates soaring, I will take the middle class tax cut any time, and so should you!

It is obvious that we have the clearest of choices to make on November 4. We either go with McCain-Palin-Lou Dobbs-Rush Limbaugh nonsense, or we go with what many consider to be a visionary in the person of Barack Obama, a visionary that will move our country forward by re-building the economy, by helping the middle class, by re-establishing our vital alliances around the world, by changing direction from the one that has clearly failed. Barack Obama is considered by many, according to CNN, a "figure larger than life." And what is "larger than life" other than this dazzling Spirit that we can all see in Barack Obama if we only open our spiritual "eyes" wide enough! Since this article will also be published separately in "Indianapolis Star" on line, I especially appeal to Indiana voters, as your State is also the one that can make history this year by voting for Barack Obama.

Take it from me, Indiana, as I have fought against the Marxist poison all my adult life, I can "smell" a Marxist a hundred miles away and, unfortunately, sometimes even much closer, take it from me rather than from someone who just throws around words like "Marxism" without clearly knowing what they mean, take it from me who survived Marxism to be actually able to talk about it, because I promise you one thing: Barack Obama is no Marxist, not even close. Let's come out on November 4 and make history, all of us, young, old, men, women, gay, straight, Democrat, Republican, Independent, Jew or Gentile. Let's vote for Barack Obama and the middle class, and by doing so, against Marxism, Neo-Con extremism and any other ideology that threatens our way of life!

What a difference a year makes....the rise and rise of Obama

Dele — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 15:15:55 EDT

In October last year, whilst in Minneapolis, I was curious about how the Obama presidential candidacy was playing among African Americans. Obama is after all, not a descendant of slaves but a product of an African father and a white American mother. Given the historical tensions between Africans and African Americans, Obama’s candidacy offers a study in the dynamics of the relationships within black peoples and between black and white peoples. It seemed then that black people’s votes were split between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. This was not a surprise to me. African Americans traditionally voted democrats and it will seem perfectly logical that some would retain their loyalty to the party and the wife of Bill Clinton, the man popularly regarded as the first “black president” based on his sympathy for the cause of black people.But something else was happening with the black electorates! They were ambivalent about the audacity of Obama as a first term senator running for president. Such naked ambition by a black man was not permissible or tolerated in white America. The unspoken fear was that white America and their Anglo-Saxon cousins in Europe were not ready for a black president. The fear of premature ending of Obama’s candidacy by an assassin’s bullet was all too real. My encounter with an elderly black woman encapsulated this fear: “I won’t vote for Obama for fear that he will be killed”. The fear of assassination which paralysed many black voters with long memories of the fate of uppity black men subsequently found its way into national debate and I think America and the world is better for confronting this possibility.In May, while in Washington DC, I took it upon myself to undertake a one man poll of all the taxi drivers who had the task of conveying me from one venue to another. I discovered two things. Unlike London taxi drivers who will strike up a conversation with their fares uninvited, my DC taxi drivers left me with the option of initiating the conversation and that they are as politically savvy as their London counterparts. I also discovered that no taxi driver was indifferent to the raging political debates especially the increasingly acrimonious Clinton-Obama battle for the democratic nomination. Despite Obama’s narrow lead, there were those who believed that Obama would lose because the Democratic Party leaders preferred Hillary Clinton who is the establishment candidate. Some claim that Bill Clinton owns the Democratic Party. There were those who believe that Obama was too young and inexperienced and should defer to the older and more experienced Hillary Clinton. Those who believed that Obama was smart and deserved to win the nomination nevertheless felt that it would be a wasted opportunity for the Democrats as he was not likely to win the general election. He would be no match for the Republican Party election juggernaut. I also met my first black republican taxi driver who was convinced that Obama was the least qualified candidate to be president but declined to engage me in any further debate. But why was he so angry with me? Perhaps he felt that I as a black man must be critical of another black man who did not show loyalty towards a black candidate (not true, but plausible). I thought he was angry with himself but projected his anger into me. I wonder if he will be voting for the McCain-Palin ticket in November.And so, a week ago, I found myself in Chicago. This time, Obama has become the front runner! My taxi drivers no longer have any doubt about an Obama victory. It seemed the only subject of interest.And then, I was in a scientific meeting where one of the organizers spotted an Obama for President Cap when he presented an award to a distinguished scientist and no delegate seemed to give this any thought. I scrutinised the faces of the distinguished executives to see if I could detect disapproval. None. Speakers after speakers talked about the change that President Obama would bring about in the American health care system! Was I in a political gathering or a scientific meeting? Or was this a Chicago bias although delegates came from all over the states and Europe?For me, the most enduring and memorable sign of change in American politics and the black consciousness in the past twelve months was another chance encounter with a middle aged black woman cashier who recognising that I was a foreign black man asked, “what do you think of our elections?” Quite exciting I replied and enquired who she thought would be the next president? Without any hesitation, “Obama”! But like my chance encounter with the Minneapolis black woman, she too has some concerns for Obama.She is worried that Obama will have to spend a lot of his time as President in clearing up the mess that Bush has made in the past eight years! This is truly historical.

Will the economic crisis force health care to the front of the agenda?

DocForBarack — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:43:20 EDT

Lately, the conventional wisdom has become that the economic crisis - and the massive spending it will entail to dig out - has made it less likely that comprehensive reform of the health care system will be possible in the first term of an Obama administration.

Henry Aaron of the Brookings Institute has been arguing that comprehensive reform isn't really politically feasible for at least a year, but he reconfirmed his opinion this week in The New Republic, saying that "swinging for the fences" on health care is too risky, failure would be catastrophic, other problems are more pressing, and that comprehensive reform is the wrong strategy anyway. Instead of comprehensive reform, he says a set of 4 discrete, incremental changes would make a positive difference, and would pose much less political risk, and up-front financial cost, than an attempt at total reform. Interestingly, he says the economic crisis doesn't really matter to the prospects for comprehensive reform, since we're liable to get most of the bailout money back eventually - which, in an odd way given the otherwise pessimistic context, seems pretty optimistic.

But then, over the weekend, in the Chicago Tribune (and re-posted in the Huffington Post), Ezekiel Emanuel of the NIH's Department of Bioethics weighed in with a strong counter-argument that, in fact, the financial crisis makes comprehensive reform increasingly necessary, since it is making it clear that we can't continue our current spending trends. I have to say that, even without pulling out all the stops for his argument (no mention of the fact that rising health care spending has robbed middle Americans of a pay raise for more than a decade?), he still makes a compelling case. I'll paste his argument below.

My one additional comment is this: I hope this back and forth between Aaron and Emanuel is just the opening volley in a critical argument that will really heat up once Senator Obama is elected President of the United States.

The financial crisis and health care
By Ezekiel J. Emanuel
October 12, 2008
The financial markets are gyrating. The world economy is teetering. The U.S. government is making a $700 billion or more bailout to avert a worldwide disaster. No surprise, health care has become a side show. Or has it? Not only does this upheaval actually make health-care reform more pressing, it makes comprehensive reform—change in the way health care is paid for and how care is organized and delivered— more realistic and feasible.

"Socialism" has come to Wall Street. For more than 60 years, Republicans have criticized as "socialized medicine" any reform proposal that gave government a central role in funding health services or in regulating providers.

The charge has always been false. True socialism requires governmental ownership of the means of production. No health-care reform proposal, even the most ardent single-payer plans, ever suggested the government should employ doctors, or own hospitals, pharmacies, home health-care agencies or drug companies. Moreover, in the current system, the government already pays for more than 40 percent of the health-care bill. With a Republican administration leading the takeover of Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, American International Group Inc., and the purchase of housing securities, it hardly seems credible to criticize health-reform plans as socialized anything.

The phenomenal failure of Wall Street dramatically changes the appetite of the country for regulation and for shoring up the safety net. With trillions of dollars evaporating in this crisis, millions of middle-class Americans face the prospect of losing their homes and jobs, and witnessing a dramatic contraction of their retirement savings. In response, the public will desperately want financial security, and health care is a critical element of that.

This financial crisis also means Americans may be more willing to forgo gold-plated comprehensive insurance that covers everything with few restrictions. Under the threat of losing everything, Americans may feel content with the guarantee of a decent plan that covers cost-effective treatments with some restrictions on choice and services to save money. This should enhance the chances for a bipartisan deal on health care.

With politicians and regulators committing $700 billion in a single week, spending a few hundred billion to make the health-care system cover everyone more efficiently and at higher quality begins to look like chump change. This upfront spending can create the infrastructure—such as systematic measurement of quality and patient outcomes—for serious health-care cost savings. After the last several weeks, health-care investment appears more reliable—and politically palatable—than bailing out bankers and other gamblers.

The huge increase in the federal debt that these bailouts will entail intensifies the pressure to rein in health-care costs. This favors comprehensive rather than incremental reform.

Before the financial crisis, the most likely options for controlling government health-care costs involved tinkering around the edges—striking a new deal between Medicare and physicians on their pay, initiating more demonstration projects in paying for performance and efficiency, and assessing comparative effectiveness of new tests and treatments.

While absolutely valuable, these policies are far from certain to control health-care costs—and it will be five or 10 years before they are likely to generate savings. Paradoxically, only more radical changes in the health-care system are likely to actually save money and improve care—and more quickly. For instance, the Wyden-Bennett health-care bill—which proposes more extensive changes than either Barack Obama's or John McCain's proposals—is the only health-care legislation scored as budget neutral by the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO said that in the first year of full implementation, the expenditures would equal revenues, and in subsequent years the Wyden-Bennett bill would generate a surplus because it would save the health-care system money. The Lewin Group, a health-care policy research and management consulting firm, estimated that within a decade this plan could save as much as $1.4 trillion. No other health-care legislation comes close.

Some will find this comprehensive reform unpalatable because it removes employers from health care altogether. As the economy stagnates, this may be absolutely necessary to keep employers afloat. Facing a rising deficit, more comprehensive reform that can really control costs begins to look more realistic than a few untested adjustments here or there.

The dean of health-care economists, Victor Fuchs of Stanford, has long maintained that we will get health-care reform only when there is a war, a depression or some other major civil unrest. It's beginning to look like we might just have all three.

While the financial crisis has appeared to knock health care off the national agenda, in the strange chemistry that is American politics, it may in fact make comprehensive health-care reform more politically feasible, indeed maybe even absolutely necessary for fiscal stability.

Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel is chair of the department of bioethics at The Clinical Center of the National Institutes of Health

Healthcare rationing

Christopher from Canonsburg, PA — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:31:40 EDT

http://cmhmd.blogspot.com/2008/10/thomson-reuters-survey-finds-cancer.html

Thought you'd all find this interesting, though it is not directly election related.

Though I can't resist saying this: I've confided to my wife and a few others that the best thing that could happen to advance universal health care would be the election of John McCain. His plan would result in such a catastrophic blow up of our system, such as it is, that we would have, by the end of his first term or at the beginning of Hillary's first term, ;-) a commission to figure out how to enable a Bismarckian or single payer system...

Cheers,

I'm Voting For Barack Obama Because...

DoctorTodd — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:27:24 EDT

(Cross-posted at www.YesWeCanOregon.com)

I'm voting for Barack Obama because on the day Barack Obama is inaugurated, America will think differently of itself, and this is no small thing. Imagine the symbolism of it. Do not short shrift symbols, for they are very powerful. To be able to point to a President Barack Obama and tell a child of any color anywhere in America that they, too, through education and hard work, could someday be anything they want to be...that’s a powerful thing, especially in our melting-pot nation.

I'm voting for Barack Obama because Obama’s narrative is quintessentially American. His is an All-American success story. A biracial kid with an absentee father raised by a single mother on food stamps. A kid with a funny name whose improbable path carried him from Hawaii to Indonesia to Chicago to Washington; a Columbia grad who spent three years after receiving his undergraduate degree working as a community organizer back in Chicago; a Harvard law grad who turned away from a coveted Supreme Court clerkship to return to his home town as a law professor at the University of Chicago; an Illinois State Senator for eight years, with a reputation for getting things done; a United States Senator who, until his presidential campaign, still shopped for groceries with his young children, and who only recently got out from underneath his student loans; a family man with a solid marriage to a bright and dynamic, articulate and self-made woman; a man of faith who walks the walk of his religion. Nothing was handed to this man - everything he has accomplished has come from the sweat of his own grit and determination.

I'm voting for Barack Obama because Senator Obama inspires people of all ages to action. And while inspiration alone isn’t enough to get the job done, it’s a necessary ingredient to begin the hard work. After sixteen years of Clinton and Bush hyper-partisanship, Obama’s appeal to Americans to have the audacity to hope falls on fertile ground. He is a hope-mongerer facing down a legion of entrenched, Washingtonian hope-mockers. His unwillingness to cross the line into the dark side of politics has touched a fundamental place in the hearts of many who are eager to believe that the political process is not entirely a cynical joke.

I'm voting for Barack Obama because Senator Obama understands that you win elections not by pandering to your base, but by drawing support from independents and from the opposite side, by articulating what unifies people rather than exploiting what divides them. Change comes not just from knowing how to work the levers of power – it takes more than that. It takes creating the popular movements necessary to support and sustain change. No other candidate spurs that kind of enthusiasm.

I'm voting for Barack Obama because most politicians talk about "I", the crafter of the policy, whereas Obama talks about "we" and "us", the people who demand it and who jointly carry it out. He talks about this nation as if all of us are in it together. He speaks to the nation rather than preaching to the partisan choir. If he inspires fervor, it speaks only to the deep need of Americans to put behind us decades of the politics of selfishness, pettiness, divisiveness, cynicism, and greed. Americans are sick of it. Most of us are well aware that our nation, indeed the world, faces issues that are intractable, overwhelming, and terrifying, and we know deep inside ourselves that we have to do something different than what we've been doing in order to address them.

I'm voting for Barack Obama because Obama’s appeal also rests on an attractive optimism, a chance for America to move beyond the poisonous legacy of the divisions wrought between liberals and conservatives by the 1960s, Vietnam, and the 1990s. He meets a hunger that exists nationwide to turn the page on the tired ideological battles of the past. He captures the electorate's hunger for meaningful change. With septuagenarian Senator John McCain as the Republican nominee, a man with broad popular appeal but also a man who, if elected, would be the oldest president at inauguration in American history, what better choice between past and future could Americans be offered than between he and Obama?

I'm voting for Barack Obama because Obama has built a powerful political network unlike seen before, based on cross-cultural and multi-generational grassroots movements and community building. He possesses an exceptional and enduring talent for organization and for connecting with voters, and has attracted voters on a level unseen in decades: over two million Americans have contributed to his campaign! He is about participation, and participation wins elections. His appeal is also much broader ideologically and racially than perhaps any politician in American history, and his demographic diversity contrasts sharply and is more representative of America than Senator McCain’s demographic monotony: mostly white, and mostly male.

I'm voting for Barack Obama because his relatively short time in Washington is more asset than handicap. Not long removed from the pool of the people, in Obama ordinary, everyday hard-working Americans of every political stripe will have a friend in the White House.

I'm voting for Barack Obama because he has the judgment and character necessary to lead this nation in these perilous times. He is serious, thoughtful, and decent. He exhibits charisma, coolness under fire, and an impresive understanding of the issues that face us. He gives rational explanations of his positions and brings people into his thought process, rather than talking down to them. He thinks about the questions, the daunting questions we face, and he answers those questions. He articulates and embodies the idea of a nobler America. He is pragmatic, and has exhibited throughout his political career a genuine commitment to the idea of finding pragmatic solutions by reaching across the partisan divide, and forging relationships with those of differing viewpoints.

I'm voting for Barack Obama because his is the face of the future. America in the coming decades will be predominantly a nation of color, and with the election of Barack Obama America will send a message to its own future that it is unafraid of it, that it welcomes it, and embraces it. That a black man in a country that denied black people the vote as recently as 1964, in a country whose past is disfigured by slavery, segregation, and unequal voting rights, is now the nominee of a major political party is itself an extraordinary comment on how far America has come over the past half-century. His election to the presidency would signal that the next half-century will likely bring continued progress toward genuine equality for every race, color, creed and orientation.

I'm voting for Barack Obama because on the day Barack Obama is inaugurated, the world will think differently of America. The election of Obama, a man with a multicultural name and heritage, would overnight begin to improve the image of the United States abroad, and send the global message that a post-Bush and post-Clinton 21st-century American era has arrived. With his election, the value of America’s moral currency abroad would begin to be restored.

I'm voting for Barack Obama because of Obama’s stalwart opposition to the Iraq War since before its beginning, and his stalwart dedication to see the Iraq War to its end. Obama said, in 2002: "I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world and strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.” In 2008, Obama speaks once again for millions: “I don’t want to just end the war, I want to end the mind-set that got us into war in the first place.”

I'm voting for Barack Obama because Obama is a Harvard-educated constitutional law scholar, and civil libertarian. In his campaign speeches, he has frequently referred to his desire to close Guantanamo, stop torture, restore habeas corpus rights to detainees, bring back our lost civil liberties, and return to a presidency that sticks to its vow to follow the U.S. Constitution.

I'm voting for Barack Obama because Obama pushes progressive values into the mainstream. He constantly talks about his core liberal philosophy in a way that’s appealing to non-liberals. He has an ability to use his eloquence not just to persuade, but to mobilize, and to unite. Unlike the method of triangulating, moving Democrats to the middle, Obama moves the middle to our values. He stands for progressive values while appealing to common sense and pragmatism over ideology and demagoguery. And the end effect might be an ascendant, mainstream progressive party that enacts its values into laws.

I'm voting for Barack Obama because Obama has the potential to be a transformative American leader. The best leaders are like magnets beneath a piece of paper, invisibly aligning iron filings into new patterns of their design. Obama could be such a leader. Most of the presidents in American history who have been transformative have been charismatic figures with exceptional oratorical skills who persuaded Americans to share in their larger vision. I am not able to imagine a President John McCain being similarly transformative, or being such a magnet.

I'm voting for Barack Obama because I know that most voters do not vote primarily on the basis of policies, but rather on values, connection, authenticity, trust, and identity. Obama has solid values. He connects with voters as no politician has done since Reagan, or Kennedy. His authenticity is unquestioned. Polls have consistently revealed great differences between Obama and McCain on matters of trust and identity.

I'm voting for Barack Obama because after the bitterness of the Bush years, America badly needs a dose of unity. We face huge issues in the years to come, and to work through them we need not only optimism, creativity, and courage, but also trust in one another, and an end to bitter partisanship. None of that arises out of cynicism and despair. Does anyone foresee an end to – or even an easing of – our bitter divisions with a President McCain?

I'm voting for Barack Obama because this era demands a president who will include all of us in the debate over our future, whether or not we agree on every issue. And while I do not agree with Senator Obama on every issue, it does not matter so much to me, because this election campaign is about so much more than individuals and their pet issues. It is about the reacquisition of an ideal that has been stolen away from us.

I'm voting for Barack Obama because for now, at this time in history, I believe Barack Obama to be the best antidote we’ve got to the darkness and division we’ve endured for too many years. He’s our best hope to re-dignify the office of President of the United States with a stature that symbolizes the awesomeness of America. He’s our best hope not to make change, but to remind us of our ability to make change.

I'm voting for Barack Obama because there is no question Obama is an icon of hope. And despite ridicule to the contrary, hope does matter. When people join movements to realize raised hopes, our nation has a chance of changing for the better. When they damp their hopes, as his opponents throughout this campaign have suggested, the status quo is preserved.

Hope and fear, future and past are the determining factors in this election. Not gender, not race. Will grouchy and divided Americans be driven primarily by their fears, or by their hopes? By their nostalgia for some “better” past, or by the courage to face a new future? The possibility of a new president named Barack Hussein Obama hangs on the answer.

Obama's is a message of faith, belief, and empowerment. It speaks well of him, and of us, that that message is resonating so strongly across America. Should America take a chance on a President Obama? If elected, will he and we confront the enormous peril of high expectations? Yes, to both. But NOW IS THE TIME to go for broke, to challenge and to overthrow the governing ideas and style of the last sixteen years.

Excited about Obama's 30 min commercial

Ruth — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:16:14 EDT

Wow, a sit com length commercial from Obama, to be aired almost right before election. I have to say I am pretty excited about this one, almost like waiting for the fist epiosde of a new show (hopefully this metaphor is a sign of things to come, keep your fingers crossed guys)

Check for more details here: http://kronomy.com/event/2bLnWX5swt/

Ruth

www.Fight4Obama.com

McCain's planned massive cuts to Medicare

DocForBarack — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:35:42 EDT

There is a worthwhile petition getting started to protest McCain's planned cuts to Medicare. The Medicare cuts are described in today's Wall Street Journal in an article that could prove to be a disaster for the McCain campaign.

McCain's senior advisor, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, seems to have stepped right onto the third rail when he admitted that the McCain plan would need to get $1.3 trillion in savings over the next ten years - and would do so through unspecified cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.

Click here to sign the open letter protesting this aspect of the McCain plan.

The letter is reproduced below:

An Open Letter on Medicare and Medicaid Cuts
Senator John McCain has announced that he intends to pay for the financing hole in his health care plan by cutting Medicare and Medicaid.
Specifically, he intends to save $1.3 trillion over 10 years with cuts in those programs - or about $130 billion per year. At current levels of spending, the needed cuts are over 15 percent of the size of those programs.
These cuts cannot be realized without substantially compromising the fundamental mission of those programs, and adversely affecting seniors and low-income Americans who rely on them for their health care needs.
Cuts of this magnitude would have several impacts:
Shifting those costs to individuals. thereby raising costs for seniors, would make medical care unaffordable for many seniors;
Reducing hospital payments by that amount would cause a number of hospitals - particularly those caring for the most vulnerable people in society - to become insolvent
Reducing physician payments by that amount would lead to severe access problems for seniors.
We recognize that there are sensible policy changes that can eliminate duplicative care and current overpayments, and eliminate care of little value in these programs. Over time, the amount of such savings could be significant. Rooting out fraud in Medicare is also important. But the cuts that Senator McCain has proposed go well beyond what can be done prudently and would result in massive access problems for seniors and low-income Americans, as well as everyone else.
It makes little sense to make such dramatic cuts to fund a health care plan that provides negligent decreases in the uninsured and undermines basic consumer protections.
[End of the letter]

Lewin group estimate seems wildly optimistic, but still can't make McCain's plan look good.

DocForBarack — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:12:59 EDT

The Lewin group - a well-regarded and politically-independent analysis group that nevertheless uses a statistical model (HBSM) that seems frequently to give the benefit of the doubt to "free-market" reform proposals - has estimated that McCain's reform plans would reduce the number of uninsured Americans by about 21 million people by 2010 if it were to be fully implemented.

That's a far, far more optimistic projection than other independent analysts, many of whom believe McCain's plans would be a wash, at best, in terms of coverage.

Now, before we go any further, let's just acknowledge the obvious: there is no chance whatsoever that McCain's planned health reforms will be enacted, even if he were to be elected. His proposed reforms are entirely an election year prop, since everyone knows he'd be dealing with a Democratic Congress.

Still, other details of the Lewin projections are worth noting.

First, it is telling that McCain's proposed reforms, even according to the Lewin model, would result in 5 million fewer people covered than Obama's plan, and at almost double the cost! Lewin estimates McCain's proposal would cost more than 2 trillion dollars over 10 years. Obama's plan costs out to be pretty expensive, at 1.17 trillion, but nothing like the wasteful over-spending for worse results that McCain has planned.

Second, the Lewin report is remarkable for what it doesn't say, which is that McCain accomplishes any increases in coverage by getting people to buy very skimpy insurance plans. While Obama promises that everyone will get access to a basic benefit package and they won't be turned away if they're sick, McCain wants to let insurers offer the worst insurance you can imagine and sell it to anyone, in any state, without regulation. Bad insurance will be cheaper, of course, so some people will be able to buy it and say, "I have insurance." It won't cover much, but hey, at least the numbers will be up.

I don't know why this isn't a bigger plot line for Sen. Obama. There aren't a lot of Americans who think they have gold-plated coverage - most of us feel increasingly under-insured, in fact. Our co-pays and deductibles are going through the roof, while our premiums are merely rising much faster than our paychecks. (See AMNews this week for more details, if you want to get depressed.) Yet McCain's entire plan is built around the notion that Americans are over-insured and that's why health care costs too much. He believes that if we just had worse insurance, that covered less, we'd spend less on medical care.

He's probably right, though perhaps only in the short run. Skimpy health insurance is not good for you, since people tend to avoid both necessary and superfluous care equally when they have to pay more for it (see the RAND health insurance experiment for proof). Recent evidence suggests plenty of problems with high-deductible plans for exactly this reason.

Those points are important for policy and the nation's health. But from a political standpoint, the key is this: McCain is basically telling people his plan is to get them to buy really cheap-o insurance that doesn't cover much of anything and has really high copays and deductibles ... and that isn't exactly a winning campaign theme.

Cross-posting from DocsforBarack.blogspot.com

DocForBarack — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 16:42:29 EDT

Dear readers - In February of 2007 I started a blog at DocsforBarack.blogspot.com.

As an early supporter of Senator Obama, I have been pleased with the response - especially on the fundraising side! But the blog has not been part of the official Obama campaign and initially I chose not to host it at barackobama.com, partly because I thought that might encourage freer discussion, including possible criticisms of Senator Obama on health care issues.

Starting today, I'm making a partial change to that decision.

I will still encourage free discussion and criticism, of course, and the original DocsforBarack.blogspot.com site will remain active, but I will be cross-posting DocsforBarack blog postings to this new docsforbarack blog on the campaign web site, and to other related blogs on the campaign site. I'm starting by posting a set of prior blog posts from the original DocsforBarack pages. If you'd like to read more, please visit DocsforBarack.blogspot.com.

Or just keep checking here! Together, health professionals can help bring Barack across the finish line!

THREE QUESTIONS TO ASK AND ANSWER BEFORE WE VOTE

Leonard Krivitsky, MD, DD — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 13:20:26 EDT

As the election day draws nearer and nearer and the global economic meltdown gets deeper and deeper, many of us, no doubt, are struggling to find answers to many troubling questions in these turbulent times. I strongly suggest that anyone who has not read my three - part article "The Problem of Evil from the Theistic Perspective" do just that to better understand the profound meaning of the decision we are about to make. In fact, I will say without exaggeration that this decision is probably more important than the ones ourselves, or our parents, or maybe even our grandparents have ever made. We will have to elect the new leader of our country in the time of trials and tribulations not seen since the Great Depression.

So, before we cast our votes on that historic day of November 4, 2008, we must go deep inside (and this is the only place where any true answers can really be found) and ask ourselves just these three questions to which we will have to, in the absolute privacy of the deepest recesses of our consciousness, give the true and honest answers, at least to our very selves. Because the truthfulness with which we will dare to answer these three critical questions will determine not only our own well-being, but the well-being of the whole world. And so, here are the questions.

1. Is McCain fit to lead?

Not based on everything we have heard so far. If we think about judgment, McCain has not demonstrated that he has any. He badly misjudged the reasons and prudence of starting the war in Iraq that has cost dearly in lives and treasure, and which has greatly contributed to the economic meltdown we all are witnessing right now. He advocates for not negotiating with our enemies which will only contribute to even greater instability in the world that will prevent any meaningful economic recovery. He has no credibility with our European allies without whom we will not be able to either attain the stability in the world, or to contain Iran. He dared criticize Barack Obama for stating the obvious that if we had an "actionable" intelligence on whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden, we would act if Pakistani government was unable or unwilling to do so. He appointed Sarah Palin, a practically unknown person without any domestic or foreign policy experience at the time of crisis such as this in the desperate attempt to woo former Hillary supporters. He stated that the "fundamentals of our economy are strong" just a couple of weeks ago that clearly shows that he not only does not understand the economy, but does not even know what the "fundamentals of the economy" are. The "fundamentals" such as unemployment rate, consumer confidence, national debt, trade deficit, GNP growth and yes, how can we forget, the performance of the stock market. Talk about blunders!
And so now, in a sheer desperation and knowing that he will never win the election on the issues, he sharpened his personal attacks on our candidate, as if Americans would rather know who Barack associated with forty years ago than the correct answers to this very current financial mess. It is, then, that the answer to the first question is "no", Sen. McCain is not fit to lead us during these dangerous and unusual times. Having answered the first question based on clear and implacable logic, it is now time to ask the second one.

2. Is Sarah Palin qualified to be President of the United States?

Let's forget for a moment all the overwhelming evidence that Sen. McCain is not fit to lead the country in these times of trouble, but let's remember instead that he is a 72-year old man who has had 3 or 4 bouts with melanoma - the most malignant type of skin cancer. You see, melanoma spreads early and widely in most cases, and if it has spread, there is "no telling" when those silent "metastases" will be activated into an active growth. It may, of course, happen at any time. Even if Sen. McCain's melanoma had not spread, I believe it is undeniable that he has a great propensity for future bouts or even to other types of malignant disease. This is not to mention that the Senator is an old man who can succumb to any number of serious health conditions, such as heart attack or stroke that may incapacitate him even if he survives; this will put Sarah Palin straight in the Oval Office. This consideration begs the second question I believe we all need to ask and answer before we cast our ballots in about three weeks. Can we even remotely contemplate Mrs. Palin as our President, a person who avoids interviews for fear of being embarrassed, a person who had never met a foreign leader before, a person who just got her passport last year, a person who opposes abortions even in cases of rape and incest?? Even as this article is being written, there is an active investigation into Gov. Palin's possible abuse of authority and, believe me, I have met people who are prone to abuse their authority, and they should not be anywhere near the positions of power. As CNN commentator remarked recently, Sarah Palin is more "Chaney" than Chaney himself!! Gov. Palin was "crushed" at the debate with Joe Biden, and as citizens we must remember that our Constitution states clearly that the Vice President should have the same qualifications as the President. We must ask ourselves this direct question, and answer it just as directly, Is Sarah Palin qualified to be President of the United States as the Constitution requires? I believe the answer to this question will be forthcoming very shortly as those "skeletons" start falling out of that closet, "troopergate" and all. I predict that if Sarah Palin were to make it to the Oval Office, our current troubles would seem like a "child's play", and that would be a steep challenge for all of us indeed. In short, based on logic and evidence before us, we must answer in the negative our second question and conclude that choosing Sarah Palin was none other than another evidence of John McCain's lack of sound judgment that should be obvious to voters.

3. Could we even imagine NOT voting for Barack Obama if he were not part African - American?

Ladies and gentlemen, I strongly believe that the answer to this question is a resounding NO!! If Barack were not African - American on his father's side, he would be 20 points ahead in the polls right now! I believe we are very fortunate to have a candidate like Sen. Obama during these times of crisis. Barack's enemies charge that he "does not have enough experience." People, what good is the experience if it is a bad experience? It seems that Sen. McCain has plenty of that. However, if we look at history we will see that there have been 15- and 16-year olds who ruled empires and commanded armies, for they had been gifted with a sound judgment, with the political wisdom that is a talent, just like the musical ability or the writing ability or the artistic ability or the... Well, I am sure you see what I mean. A good political judgment is a talent, to which "experience" is certainly secondary, not that Barack does not have it as well. When I look at Barack Obama, I see the positive Spirit shining in his eyes, the Spirit of Unity, and cooperation, and good will towards all people. We will not prevail in this crisis divided as Sen. McCain and Sarah Palin would have us be, but united as Sen. Obama will have us become! When I listen to Barack's views on foreign policy, I hear a political visionary the likes of which have not been seen or heard for quite some time. Look at how people greet Barack all over the world, and we need those people, we need our allies in order to solve the urgent international problems that challenge us. And this is when McCain went so far as to refuse to commit to a meeting with the Prime Minister of Spain, for God's sake! In the meantime, Barack Obama is doing his absolute best in proposing measures that will benefit the middle class, the hard-working people of this country, people like you and me. His economic proposals, his health care proposals, his proposals to increase regulations on Wall Street and so on are aimed directly at helping the middle class. And so, based on all this, who can have even a slightest doubt that were Barack a white American, there would be no question as to who would win this election. And then, after we truthfully answer this last question, we might as well ask ourselves another one. How can we do this to ourselves?! How can we even consider rejecting a clearly superior candidate only because his father was African? What's wrong with us? Are we our own enemies?

As we look into the future, and not only our future, but that of our children and the whole world, we must be brutally honest with ourselves if we are to have a hope of a better future. Why do you think CNN has reported several times that the more educated a person is, the more likely it is that he or she will vote for Barack Obama?? Let me tell you why, ladies and gentlemen. Most educated or enlightened people do not even see Barack's skin color. It is totally irrelevant. It does not matter! Educated/enlightened folks look totally beyond Barack's skin color or origins, and once they (or anyone else) do that, they see that dazzling Spirit shine right through, and they want the pleasure, the opportunity and the honor to welcome this Spirit to move us forward, forward to our destiny that is so much in our hands to be decided and shaped right now!! In the final analysis this election will be about unity versus division, old, failed ideology versus new hope, ignorance versus knowledge, prosperity versus stagnation and, at least in this limited context, good versus evil.

P.S. After I had already finished this article, I heard the news that Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska and Republican nominee for the Office of the Vice President, was found guilty of the ethics violation by the Legislature's investigators looking into Governor's improper firing of a State official for refusal to get himself involved in Palin family's messy affairs; the "troopergate" is now in full swing. I am wondering how Gov. Palin is going to "wink her way" out of this one. On a very serious note, however, I must appeal to the common sense of every voter reading these lines; how can we possibly even consider Sarah Palin for the second most important office in the Land, when she just committed an act of abuse of authority in her own State of Alaska? Especially in this day and age, and with McCain not getting any younger as the time goes on? If you ask me, this is a disgrace. One certain thing to remember is this: ignorance, ambition and abuse of authority make for a very dangerous mix; and whoever thought Obama was dangerous, think again!

2nd Debate

Ruth — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:09:20 EDT

Just looking at the debate, I really can't say who I feel performed better. It's all pretty standard from both sides, no earth shattering new policies revealed and no major bloopers besides both sides stretching the facts a little, but that's to be expected in all political debates. What do you guys think?

http://kronomy.com/event/7GKhrYmWFt/

usbattle.com

Fight4Obama.com

Debate FactCheck

Ivan — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 07:57:36 EDT

McCain and Obama debated for the second time, in Nashville. We noted some misleading statements and mangled facts:

McCain proposed to write down the amount owed by over-mortgaged homeowners and claimed the idea as his own: “It’s my proposal, it's not Sen. Obama's proposal, it's not President Bush's proposal.” But the idea isn’t new. Obama had endorsed something similar two weeks earlier, and authority for the treasury secretary to grant such relief was included in the recently passed $700 billion financial rescue package.

Both candidates oversimplified the causes of the financial crisis. McCain blamed it on Democrats who resisted tighter regulation of federal mortgage agencies. Obama blamed it on financial deregulation backed by Republicans. We find both are right, with plenty of blame left over for others, from home buyers to the chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Obama said his health care plan would lower insurance premiums by up to $2,500 a year. Experts we’ve consulted see little evidence such savings would materialize.

McCain misstated his own health care plan, saying he’d give a $5,000 tax credit to “every American” His plan actually would provide only $2,500 per individual, or $5,000 for couples and families. He also misstated Obama’s health care plan, claiming it would levy fines on “small businesses” that fail to provide health insurance. Actually, Obama’s plan exempts “small businesses.”

McCain lamented that the U.S. was forced to “withdraw in humiliation” from Somalia in 1994, but he failed to note that he once proposed to cut off funding for troops to force a faster withdrawal.

Obama said, “I favor nuclear power.” That’s a stronger statement than we've heard him make before. As recently as last December, he said, “I am not a nuclear energy proponent.”

McCain claimed “1.3 million people in America make their living off eBay.” Actually, only 724,000 persons in the U.S. have income from eBay, and only some of them rely on it as their primary source.

For full details, and additional quibbles, please read our Analysis section.
AnalysisSens. Barack Obama and John McCain met Oct. 7 for the second of three scheduled presidential debates. It was a town-hall-style debate before an audience of 80 uncommitted voters. Questions were submitted by the audience members, and others who sent them by e-mail, and were screened beforehand by moderator Tom Brokaw of NBC News. The event was held at Belmont University in Nashville, Tenn., and was broadcast nationally. We caught several misleading statements and falsehoods, many of which the candidates have said before.

"My" Mortgage Plan?

McCain made what he claimed was a new proposal to rescue over-mortgaged homeowners:

McCain: As president of the United States. ... I would order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes – at the diminished value of those homes and let people be able to make those – be able to make those payments and stay in their homes.

McCain added: "It's my proposal, it's not Sen. Obama's proposal, it's not President Bush's proposal. But I know how to get America working again..."

But in fact, the recently passed $700 billion rescue package already grants the treasury secretary authority to undertake just such a program. It requires the secretary to buy up troubled mortgages while taking into consideration “the need to help families keep their homes and to stabilize communities.” It also says “the Secretary shall consent, where appropriate (to) loss mitigation measures, including term extensions, rate reductions (or) principal write downs."

Obama himself had urged this as the package was being considered. He said on Sept. 23 that "we should consider giving the government the authority to purchase mortgages directly instead of simply purchasing mortgage-backed securities."

McCain said "his" proposal would be expensive, and his campaign quickly issued a news release giving numbers:

McCain press release: The direct cost of this plan would be roughly $300 billion because the purchase of mortgages would relieve homeowners of “negative equity” in some homes. ... It may be necessary for Congress to raise the overall borrowing limit.

Minutes later, McCain was attacking Obama for proposing what he said was $860 billion in new spending.

Oversimplifying the Financial Crisis. Again.

The finger-pointing was fast and furious during the discussion of the fiscal crisis. McCain blamed lax regulation of the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation:

McCain: But you know, one of the real catalysts, really the match that lit this fire was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [T]hey're the ones that, with the encouragement of Sen. Obama and his cronies and his friends in Washington, that went out and made all these risky loans, gave them to people that could never afford to pay back.

Obama blamed deregulation of the banking industry:

Obama: Now, I've got to correct a little bit of Sen. McCain's history, not surprisingly. Let's, first of all, understand that the biggest problem in this whole process was the deregulation of the financial system.

We’ve been here before. McCain has in fact been in favor of financial deregulation, but President Bill Clinton signed, and a lot of other Democrats supported, much of that same deregulation. And while Democrats really did fight McCain-cosponsored regulations of the FMs, McCain himself signed on to the bill just two months before the housing bubble popped.

In fact, there’s plenty of blame to go around. Experts have blamed everyone from home buyers to mortgage lenders to Alan Greenspan to both the Bush and Clinton administrations.

Furthermore, McCain misspoke when he said Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "made all these risky loans, gave them to people that could never afford to pay back." Actually those organizations did not make "home loans directly with consumers." Rather, they "work[ed] with mortgage bankers, brokers, and other primary mortgage market partners" and supplied them with the funds to lend to home buyers at affordable rates, as described on their Web sites.

Dubious Health Care Savings

Obama said that his health care plan would cut premium costs substantially:

Obama: We're going to work with your employer to lower the cost of your premiums by up to $2,500 a year.

We contacted health experts about this claim before – when Obama was saying the $2,500 would be the savings per family "on average." Some were quite skeptical. M.I.T.’s Jonathan Gruber told us, “I know zero credible evidence to support that conclusion.” Obama has also said on the campaign trail that more than half of the savings would come from the use of electronic health records, a major part of his plan to cut health costs. When we looked into that claim, experts told us it was wishful thinking.

Adoption of electronic medical records has been slow among doctors and hospitals. Obama could do much to speed it up, but it's not clear that he could bring about widespread adoption or reap such large savings from it. One of his advisers previously told us that the $2,500 figure included savings that would go to government and employers and that could, theoretically, result in lower taxes or higher wages for Americans. It remains to be seen whether savings could trickle down like that, even if Obama could gain the optimistic overall health care savings he touts.

More Health Care Misleads

McCain misstated his own health care plan and Obama’s in one sentence:

McCain: I am in favor of . . . giving every American a $5,000 refundable tax credit and go out and get the health insurance you want rather than mandates and fines for small businesses, as Sen. Obama's plan calls for.

McCain's plan does not call for giving a $5,000 tax credit for "every American." It calls for a tax credit of $2,500. The $5,000 figure would apply to couples or families. And Obama’s plan requires large businesses to provide coverage for their employees or pay into a national plan, not "small businesses," as McCain said. Obama's health care proposal, posted on his Web site, says: “Small businesses will be exempt from this requirement.” McCain previously used this charge in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, and he repeated the claim in the debate, saying, "If you're a small business person and you don't insure your employees, Sen. Obama will fine you. Will fine you." As we said, that's false. Obama countered that he had proposed a refundable tax credit for small businesses of up to 50 percent of the cost of premiums, which is indeed part of his plan. We've noted before that neither man defines what he means by "small business."

Black Hawk Down

McCain lamented having to “withdraw in humiliation” from Somalia in 1993, but failed to mention his own role:

McCain: We went in to Somalia as a peacemaking organization, we ended up trying to be – excuse me, as a peacekeeping organization, we ended up trying to be peacemakers and we ended up having to withdraw in humiliation.

What McCain isn’t saying is that he led an attempt to force the Clinton administration to withdraw more quickly. After the First Battle of Mogadishu (immortalized in the book and film “Black Hawk Down”), Clinton proposed a six-month plan for withdrawing combat troops. Then-Sen. Phil Gramm complained that the plan was an attempt to “save face,” and McCain introduced an amendment to cut off funding for combat in Somalia and force an immediate withdrawal. The amendment was tabled and the Senate backed Clinton’s plan. In his 2002 memoir, “Worth the Fighting For,” McCain called his amendment “hasty” and wrote that he “regretted” what he came to see as “a retreat in the face of aggression from an inferior foe.”

Nuclear Warming

Obama flatly said he favored nuclear energy – embracing it more warmly than in the past:

Obama: Contrary to what Sen. McCain keeps on saying, I favor nuclear power as one component of our overall energy mix.

Previously Obama has been more hesitant. He said at a town hall meeting in Newton, Iowa, on Dec. 30, 2007, when asked if he was "truly comfortable" with the safety of nuclear power:

Obama (Dec. 30, 2007:) I start off with the premise that nuclear energy is not optimal. ... I am not a nuclear energy proponent.

He then went on to say later in the same response that he has "not ruled out nuclear ... but only so far as it is clean and safe." The energy plan Obama released in October 2007 only grudgingly conceded that more nuclear power is probably needed to reduce carbon emissions: "It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power from the table."

eBay Error

McCain said that "1.3 million people in America make their living off eBay." He's way off. That's the number of people worldwide who have eBay earnings as their primary or secondary income. The online auction site says that of these, 724,000 people are in the U.S. – but it still doesn't say how many of the 724,000 use eBay as their primary source of income.

McCain was touting the founder of the popular Internet auction site, Meg Whitman, as a possible secretary of the treasury in a McCain administration.

Counting Errors

McCain exaggerated Obama's votes to increase taxes.

McCain: Sen. Obama has voted 94 times to either increase your taxes or against tax cuts. That's his record.

He’s getting warmer — the first time we dinged him for this one, he said Obama voted 94 times to increase taxes, which is way off. He's now saying it's 94 votes either for increased taxes or against tax cuts. But that's still misleading. Seven of the votes were for lowering taxes for most people while increasing them on a few, and 11 votes were for increasing taxes only on those making more than $1 million a year (not "your taxes" except for a very few.)

Obama had his own misleading claim about vote counts:

Obama: And during that time, he voted 23 times against alternative fuels, 23 times.

We found that only 11 of those votes would have reduced or eliminated subsidies or tax incentives for alternative energy. The rest were votes McCain cast against the mandatory use of alternative energy, or votes in favor of allowing exemptions from such mandates.

More on that $860 Billion

McCain said that Obama has proposed more than $800 billion in new spending.

McCain: Do you know that Sen. Obama has voted for – is proposing $860
billion of new spending now? New spending.

That’s based on a McCain campaign estimate of how much Obama’s new proposals will cost, without figuring in any savings or reductions in spending. Any increase in funding and any created program counts as "new spending" in this estimate, whether or not it is offset by decreases in spending elsewhere.

The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has found that both Obama and McCain are proposing combinations of tax and spending policies that would increase the federal deficit. It found that in 2013, Obama’s proposals would produce a net deficit increase of $286 billion, while McCain's major policies would produce a net deficit increase of between $167 billion and $259 billion. In talking to CNN, CRFB President Maya MacGuineas estimated that McCain's deficit increase would fall midway between the extremes of that range, at $211 billion.

Iraqi Surplus

Obama repeated a stale talking point when he said, "We're spending $10 billion a month in Iraq at a time when the Iraqis have a $79 billion surplus, $79 billion."

As we’ve pointed out when Obama said it on the campaign trail, when he repeated it at the last debate, and even when Biden mentioned the figure in the vice presidential debate, that number is wrong. The Iraqis actually “have” $29.4 billion in the bank. The Government Accountability Office projected in August that Iraq’s 2008 budget surplus could range anywhere from $38.2 billion to $50.3 billion, depending on oil revenue, price and volume. Then, in early August, the Iraqi legislature passed a $21 billion supplemental spending bill. The supplemental will be completely funded by this year’s surplus, and that means that the Iraqi’s will not have $79 billion in the bank. They could have about $59 billion.

$6.8 Million Boast

McCain repeated a questionable boast when he said, “I've taken on some of the defense contractors. I saved the taxpayers $6.8 billion in a deal for an Air Force tanker that was done in a corrupt fashion."

As we mentioned in our analysis of the first debate, there is more to the story. McCain certainly did lead a fight to kill the contract, and the effort ended in prison sentences for defense contractors. The contract is still up in the air, however, and questions have been raised about the role McCain played in helping a Boeing rival secure the new contract.

After the original Boeing contract to supply refueling airliners was nixed in 2003, the bidding process was reopened. And in early 2007, Boeing rival EADS/Airbus won the bid the second time around. But Boeing filed a protest about the way the bids were processed, and the Government Accountability Office released a report that found “significant errors” with the bid process.

Further, the New York Times reported that “McCain’s top advisers, including a cochairman of his presidential campaign, were lobbyists for EADS. And Mr. McCain had written to the Defense Department, urging it to ignore a trade dispute between the United States and Europe over whether Airbus received improper subsidies.”

68 Million Acres

Obama was off the mark when he said that oil companies “currently have 68 million acres that they're not using.”

As we’ve pointed out previously, those 68 million leased acres are not producing oil, but they are not necessarily untouched. In fact, in 2006, the last year for which figures are available, there were a total of more than 15,000 holes that were being proposed, started or finished, according to the Bureau of Land Management. These acres of land that these holes sit on are not counted as being “producing,” but they are certainly far from untouched.

The Return of the Oil Slick

McCain recycled a misleading claim from Sen. Hillary Clinton’s primary campaign,
charging Obama with voting to give “billions” to oil companies:

McCain: By the way, my friends, I know you grow a little weary with this back-and-forth. It was an energy bill on the floor of the Senate loaded down with goodies, billions for the oil companies, and it was sponsored by Bush and Cheney. You know who voted for it? You might never know. That one. You know who voted against it? Me.

McCain is referring to the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which Obama did in fact vote for. Clinton raised this same charge against Obama during the Democratic primaries. It was misleading then and it’s equally misleading now.

In fact, according to a Congressional Research Service report, more tax breaks were taken away from oil companies than were given. Overall, the act resulted in a small net tax increase on the oil industry:

Congressional Research Service: The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT05, P.L. 109-58) included several oil and gas tax incentives, providing about $2.6 billion of tax cuts for the oil and gas industry. In addition, EPACT05 provided for $2.9 billion of tax increases on the oil and gas industry, for a net tax increase on the industry of nearly $300 million over 11 years.

As we said last year, the bill did contain $14.3 billion in tax breaks, but most of those went to electric utilities, and nuclear, and also to alternative fuels research
and subsidies for energy-efficient cars, homes and buildings – not to the oil industry.

Computer Error

Obama moved the invention of the computer up by more than a century:

Obama: The same way the computer was originally invented by a bunch of government scientists who were trying to figure out, for defense purposes, how to communicate, we've got to understand that this is a national security issue, as well.

It’s true that the first electronic computer, ENIAC, or the Electronic Numerical Integrator And Computer, was developed at the University of Pennsylvania with funding from the War Department.

But ENIAC was not actually the first computer. That distinction belongs to the difference engine, a mechanical computer invented in 1822 by the British mathematician Charles Babbage. And even Babbage was drawing on earlier work, such as the calculating machine built in 1671 by the German philosopher Gottfried Liebniz.

Other quibbles

Obama said: "When George Bush came into office, our debt – national debt
was around $5 trillion. It's now over $10 trillion." Actually, it was closer to $6 trillion when Bush took office. On Jan. 22, 2001 (two days after Bush was sworn in) the debt stood at $5.728 trillion. On Sept. 30, 2008, it was $10.025 trillion.
McCain said it again: "We've got to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't want us very – like us very much" (He actually used the figure three times in the debate.) He's talking about what we spend importing oil, and he's said the same thing at the last debate and numerous other times. At current oil prices, the correct figure is about $493 billion. About a third of that goes to Canada, Mexico and the United Kingdom, which were still on the friendly side of the ledger last time we looked.
Obama was right about the amount of earmarks, when he said they "account for about $18 billion of our budget." According to the budget watchdog group, Taxpayers for Common Sense, earmarks totaled just $18.3 billion in 2008. Citizens Against Government Waste came in with a slightly smaller number of $17.2 billion, and the Office of Management and Budget smaller still at $16.9 billion.
McCain repeated an error he made in the last debate when he said, "In Lebanon, I stood up to President Reagan, my hero, and said, if we send Marines in there, how can we possibly beneficially affect this situation? And said we shouldn't. Unfortunately, almost 300 brave young Marines were killed." In fact, as we noted previously, McCain wasn't elected until three months after the Marines had been deployed. He did vote against the post-hoc War Powers Act authorization of the deployment; Reagan signed it into law in October 1983, 11 days before a suicide bomber set off a blast that killed 241 servicemembers in their barracks.

–by Brooks Jackson, Viveca Novak, Lori Robertson, Joe Miller, Jessica Henig and Justin Bank

Reverend issues - Sun Myung Moon

Christopher from Canonsburg, PA — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 11:46:20 EDT

Apparently, the McCain campaign is really concerned about who Obama has had any contact with, ever.

Let's look at the Republican Party's wonderful pastoral sponsor and Publisher of the wonderful Washington times, the Reverend Sun Myung Moon!

http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2008/05/09/top-mccain-aide-sponsors-ritual-to-attack-christianity/

And don't forget about Hagee and Parsley and Robertson and Dobson and the late Dr. Falwell!

Cheers,

Debate hopes and predictions

Ravi — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 03:35:55 EDT

Barack will keep it on the issues - the economy, war, energy and education/building our country's material and personal infrastructure.

McCain will snidely imply that Barack is naive and unfit, and use every favorable opportunity to dismiss Barack. He will talk in general terms about the economy and believing in the country. He will toss a laundry list of accusations about Obama's plans hoping that something sticks.

Barack will emphasize he believes in the country too - but not in the policies that have put the country in peril. John McCain has been supporting the failed policies of Bush - and he's no maverick.

Barack should also find an opportunity to emphasize: "I am a patriot, and I put my country and its people first; I am a Christian and I am guided by my faith which emphasizes compassion and social justice for everyone, not just the superrich."

Brokaw will probably ask each of them to respond directly to the recent attacks launched by the other campaign. Barack hopefully will dismiss the concern just the way he did in the Democratic debates, and also add something like: "Let's see, McCain wants to make me guilty by a minor association with a former domestic terrorist, whose actions then I despise, but who is now a respected professor. I'm questioning John's past association with a convicted felon - an association which the Congress of the United States called questionable. That's John McCain's actual behavior and judgment on an issue central to the economy. Listen folks, the McCain campaign is just trying to scare you and divert attention away from the economy."

I wonder if Brokaw will ask something like "Do you respect or even like your opponent?"

I'm predicting it will be a good night for us.

Palin: Obama a terrorist at 8! We reply: How stupid do you think we are?

Ruth — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 20:20:14 EDT

Come on, seriously, she expects people to believe Obama is related to terrorism at the age of EIGHT? Guess Palin got no other options besides spreading obvious lies about Obama as a last desperate attempt to drag him down.

See full report here: http://kronomy.com/event/iTmUDKoPnk/

This is a story of who wants to be our next Commander In Chief

Ivan — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:12:19 EDT

Mishaps mark John McCain's record as naval aviator Email PictureLibrary of CongressThis photo provided by the Library of Congress shows John McCain, front right, with his squadron in 1965.Three crashes early in his career led Navy officials to question or fault his judgment.By Ralph Vartabedian and Richard A. Serrano, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
October 6, 2008 John McCain was training in his AD-6 Skyraider on an overcast Texas morning in 1960 when he slammed into Corpus Christi Bay and sheared the skin off his plane's wings.

McCain recounted the accident decades later in his autobiography. "The engine quit while I was practicing landings," he wrote. But an investigation board at the Naval Aviation Safety Center found no evidence of engine failure.

Related Content

The 23-year-old junior lieutenant wasn't paying attention and erred in using "a power setting too low to maintain level flight in a turn," investigators concluded.

The crash was one of three early in McCain's aviation career in which his flying skills and judgment were faulted or questioned by Navy officials.

In his most serious lapse, McCain was "clowning" around in a Skyraider over southern Spain about December 1961 and flew into electrical wires, causing a blackout, according to McCain's own account as well as those of naval officers and enlistees aboard the carrier Intrepid. In another incident, in 1965, McCain crashed a T-2 trainer jet in Virginia.

After McCain was sent to Vietnam, his plane was destroyed in an explosion on the deck of an aircraft carrier in 1967. Three months later, he was shot down during a bombing mission over Hanoi and taken prisoner. He was not faulted in either of those cases and was later lauded for his heroism as a prisoner of war.

As a presidential candidate, McCain has cited his military service -- particularly his 5 1/2 years as a POW. But he has been less forthcoming about his mistakes in the cockpit.

The Times interviewed men who served with McCain and located once-confidential 1960s-era accident reports and formerly classified evaluations of his squadrons during the Vietnam War. This examination of his record revealed a pilot who early in his career was cocky, occasionally cavalier and prone to testing limits.

In today's military, a lapse in judgment that causes a crash can end a pilot's career. Though standards were looser and crashes more frequent in the 1960s, McCain's record stands out.

"Three mishaps are unusual," said Michael L. Barr, a former Air Force pilot with 137 combat missions in Vietnam and an internationally known aviation safety expert who teaches in USC's Aviation Safety and Security Program. "After the third accident, you would say: Is there a trend here in terms of his flying skills and his judgment?"

Jeremiah Pearson, a Navy officer who flew 400 missions over Vietnam without a mishap and later became the head of human spaceflight at NASA, said: "That's a lot. You don't want any. Maybe he was just unlucky."

Naval aviation experts say the three accidents before McCain's deployment to Vietnam probably triggered a review to determine whether he should be allowed to continue flying. The results of the review would have been confidential.

The Times asked McCain's campaign to release any military personnel records in the candidate's possession showing how the Navy handled the three incidents. The campaign said it would have no comment.

Navy veterans who flew with McCain called him a good pilot.

"John was what you called a push-the-envelope guy," said Sam H. Hawkins, who flew with McCain's VA-44 squadron in the 1960s and now teaches political science at Florida Atlantic University. "There are some naval aviators who are on the cautious side. They don't get out on the edges, but the edges are where you get the maximum out of yourself and out of your plane. That's where John operated. And when you are out there, you take risks."

The young McCain has often been described as undisciplined and fearless -- a characterization McCain himself fostered in his autobiography.

"In his military career, he was a risk-taker and a daredevil," said John Karaagac, a lecturer at Johns Hopkins' School of Advanced International Studies and the author of a book on McCain. "What was interesting was that he got into accidents, and it didn't rattle his nerves. He takes hits and still stands."

McCain, the son and grandson of admirals, had a privileged status in the Navy. He was invited to the captain's cabin for dinner on the maiden voyage of the Enterprise in 1962, a perk other aviators and sailors attributed to his famous name, recalled Gene Furr, an enlisted man who shared an office and went on carrier deployments with McCain over three years.

On another occasion, McCain was selected to make a commemorative landing on the Enterprise and had his picture taken in front of a cake in the officers' galley, Furr said.

McCain's commanders sarcastically dubbed him "Ace McCain" because of his string of pre-Vietnam accidents, recalled Maurice Rishel, who commanded McCain's VA-65 squadron in early 1961, when it was deployed in the Mediterranean. Still, Rishel said, "he did his job."

Here is a closer look at those three incidents:

Corpus Christi, Texas, March 12, 1960

McCain was practicing landings in his AD-6 Skyraider over Corpus Christi Bay when he lost several hundred feet of altitude "without realizing it" and struck the water, according to the Naval Aviation Safety Center accident report on file at the Naval Historical Center in Washington.

The plane, a single-engine propeller plane designed for ground attack, sank 10 feet to the bottom of the bay. McCain swam to the surface and was plucked from the water by a rescue helicopter.

While he has contended that the engine quit, investigators collected extensive evidence indicating otherwise. Cockpit instruments that froze on impact showed the engine was still producing power. When water quenched the exhaust stack, it preserved a bright blue color, showing that the engine was still hot. And an aviator behind McCain reported that the engine was producing the black smoke characteristic of Skyraiders.

Investigators determined that McCain was watching instruments in his cockpit that indicated the position of his landing gear and had lost track of his altitude and speed.

The report concluded: "In the opinion of the board, the pilot's preoccupation in the cockpit . . . coupled with the use of a power setting too low to maintain level flight in a turn were the primary causes of this accident."

Southern Spain, around December 1961

McCain was on a training mission when he flew low and ran into electrical wires. He brought his crippled Skyraider back to the Intrepid, dragging 10 feet of wire, sailors and aviators recalled.

In his 1999 autobiography, "Faith of My Fathers," McCain briefly recounts the incident, calling it the result of "daredevil clowning" and "flying too low." McCain did not elaborate on what happened, and The Times could find no military records of the accident.

When he struck the wires, McCain severed an oil line in his plane, said Carl Russ, a pilot in McCain's squadron. McCain's flight suit and the cockpit were soaked in oil, added Russ, who nonetheless said McCain was a good pilot.

The next day, McCain went to the flight deck with his superior officers and some of the crew to inspect the damage. A gaggle of sailors surrounded the plane.

Clark Sherwood, an enlistee responsible for hanging ordnance on the squadron's planes, recalled standing on the deck with McCain. "I said, 'You're lucky to be alive.' McCain said, 'You bet your ass I am,' " Sherwood said. "He almost bought the farm." Sherwood, now a real estate agent in New Jersey, said he considered McCain a hero.

Calvin Shoemaker, a retired test pilot for the Skyraider's manufacturer, Douglas Aircraft, said extended low-level flights are difficult in any aircraft and for that reason Skyraiders were seldom flown at altitudes below 500 feet.

After hearing a description of McCain's record, Shoemaker said the aviator appeared to be a "flat-hatter," an old aviation term for a showoff.

Cape Charles, Va., Nov. 28, 1965

Over the Eastern Shore of Virginia, McCain descended below 7,000 feet on a landing approach in a T-2 trainer jet, according to accident records. He said he heard an explosion in his engine and lost power. He said he tried unsuccessfully to restart the engine.

He spotted a local drag strip and considered trying to glide to a landing there but finally had to eject at 1,000 feet. The plane crashed in the woods. McCain escaped injury and was picked up by a farmer.

In his autobiography, McCain said he had flown on a Saturday to Philadelphia to watch the annual Army-Navy football game with his parents. The accident report does not mention Philadelphia but rather indicates that McCain departed from a now-closed Navy field in New York City on Sunday afternoon and was headed to Norfolk, Va.

In a report dated Jan. 18, 1966, the Naval Aviation Safety Center said it could not determine the cause of the accident or corroborate McCain's account of an explosion in the engine. A close examination of the engine found "no discrepancies which would have caused or contributed to engine failure or malfunction."

The report found that McCain, then assigned to squadron VT-7 in Meridian, Miss., had made several errors: He failed to switch the plane's power system to battery backup, which "seriously jeopardized his survival chances." His idea of landing on the drag strip was "viewed with concern and is indicative of questionable emergency procedure."

The report added, "It may be indeed fortunate that the pilot was not in a position to attempt such a landing."

McCain also ejected too late and too low, was not wearing proper flight equipment and positioned his body improperly before ejecting, the report said.

The official record includes comments from pilots in his own squadron who defended McCain's actions as "proper and timely."

About two weeks after issuing its report, the safety center revised its findings and said the accident resulted from the failure or malfunction of an "undetermined component of the engine."

Edward M. Morrison, a mechanic for VT-7 who is now retired and living in Washington state, said that the plane McCain checked out that day had just been refurbished and that he knew of no engine problems.

"McCain came to the flight line that day, carrying his dress whites, and said, 'Give me a pretty plane,' " Morrison said. "Nobody had ever asked me for a pretty plane before. I gave him this one because it was freshly painted. The next time I saw him, I said, 'Don't ever ask me for a pretty plane again.' I think he laughed."

In Vietnam

McCain was a pilot on the carrier Forrestal, off the coast of Vietnam, when one of the worst accidents in Navy history killed 134 crew members and damaged or destroyed various aircraft, including McCain's.

On July 29, 1967, he and other pilots were preparing for a bombing raid when a Zuni rocket from one of the planes misfired.

The rocket hit the plane next to McCain's, killing the pilot, igniting jet fuel and touching off a chain of explosions, according to the Navy investigation. McCain, who jumped from the nose of his jet and ran through the flames, suffered minor shrapnel wounds.

Three months later, McCain was on his 23rd bombing mission over North Vietnam when a surface-to-air missile struck his A-4 attack jet. He was flying 3,000 feet above Hanoi.

A then-secret report issued in 1967 by McCain's squadron said the aviators had learned to stay at an altitude of 4,000 to 10,000 feet in heavy surface-to-air missile environments and look for approaching missiles.

"Once the SAM was visually acquired, it was relatively easy to outmaneuver it by a diving maneuver followed by a high-G pull-up. The critical problem comes during multiple SA-II attacks (6-12 missiles), when it is not possible to see or maneuver with each missile."

The American aircraft had instruments that warned pilots with a certain tone when North Vietnamese radar tracked them and another tone when a missile locked on them.

In his autobiography, McCain said 22 missiles were fired at his squadron that day. "I knew I should roll out and fly evasive maneuvers, 'jinking,' in fliers' parlance, when I heard the tone," he wrote. But, he said, he continued on and released his bombs. Then a missile blew off his right wing.

Vietnam veterans said McCain did exactly what they did on almost every mission.

Frank Tullo, an Air Force pilot who flew 100 missions over North Vietnam, said his missile warning receiverconstantly sounded in his cockpit.

"Nobody broke off on a bombing run," said Tullo, later a commercial pilot and now an accident investigation instructor at USC. "It was a matter of manhood."

ralph.vartabedian@ latimes.com

richard.serrano@latimes.com

Sen. McCain's ties to "Terrorist"

Ivan — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 11:53:26 EDT

This is an article from the Chicago Tribune. Please send out the message and let the media show the true face of Sen. McCain.

Steve Chapman

May 4, 2008

Can a presidential candidate justify a long and friendly relationship with someone who, back in the 1970s, extolled violence and committed crimes in the name of a radical ideology -- and who has never shown remorse or admitted error? When the candidate in question is Barack Obama, John McCain says no. But when the candidate in question is John McCain, he's not so sure.

Obama has been justly criticized for his ties to former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers, who in 1995 hosted a campaign event for Obama and in 2001 gave him a $200 contribution. The two have also served together on the board of a foundation. When their connection became known, McCain minced no words: "I think not only a repudiation but an apology for ever having anything to do with an unrepentant terrorist is due the American people."What McCain didn't mention is that he has his own Bill Ayers -- in the form of G. Gordon Liddy. Now a conservative radio talk-show host, Liddy spent more than 4 years in prison for his role in the 1972 Watergate burglary. That was just one element of what Liddy did, and proposed to do, in a secret White House effort to subvert the Constitution. Far from repudiating him, McCain has embraced him.

How close are McCain and Liddy? At least as close as Obama and Ayers appear to be. In 1998, Liddy's home was the site of a McCain fundraiser. Over the years, he has made at least four contributions totaling $5,000 to the senator's campaigns -- including $1,000 this year.

Last November, McCain went on his radio show. Liddy greeted him as "an old friend," and McCain sounded like one. "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family," he gushed. "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."

Which principles would those be? The ones that told Liddy it was fine to break into the office of the Democratic National Committee to plant bugs and photograph documents? The ones that made him propose to kidnap anti-war activists so they couldn't disrupt the 1972 Republican National Convention? The ones that inspired him to plan the murder (never carried out) of an unfriendly newspaper columnist?

Liddy was in the thick of the biggest political scandal in American history -- and one of the greatest threats to the rule of law. He has said he has no regrets about what he did, insisting that he went to jail as "a prisoner of war."

All this may sound like ancient history. But it's from the same era as the bombings Ayers helped carry out as a member of the Weather Underground. And Liddy's penchant for extreme solutions has not abated.

In 1994, after the disastrous federal raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, he gave some advice to his listeners: "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. ... Kill the sons of bitches."

He later backed off, saying he meant merely that people should defend themselves if federal agents came with guns blazing. But his amended guidance was not exactly conciliatory: Liddy also said he should have recommended shots to the groin instead of the head. If that wasn't enough to inflame any nut cases, he mentioned labeling targets "Bill" and "Hillary" when he practiced shooting.

Given Liddy's record, it's hard to see why McCain would touch him with a 10-foot pole. On the contrary, he should be returning his donations and shunning his show. Yet the senator shows no qualms about associating with Liddy -- or celebrating his service to their common cause.

How does McCain explain his howling hypocrisy on the subject? He doesn't. I made repeated inquiries to his campaign aides, which they refused to acknowledge, much less answer. On this topic, the pilot of the Straight Talk Express would rather stay parked in the garage.

That's an odd policy for someone who is so forthright about his rival's responsibility. McCain thinks Obama should apologize for associating with a criminal extremist. To which Obama might reply: After you.

Breast Cancer Awareness Month by Jeffrey Dach MD

Jeffrey Dach MD — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 08:52:43 EDT

Limitations of Screening Mammography

An eminent radiologist, Leonard Berlin MD says we have failed to disclose the limitations of screening mammography, namely that mammography will miss 30-70% of breast cancers, and leads to over diagnosis and over treatment.

Dr. Berlin says disclosures of these limitations should be mandated, just like the cigarette and drug warnings that appear on their ads.

Dr. Berlin also points out that 57% of the American women believe that mammograms prevent breast cancer, a misleading message from Breast Awareness Month.

Mammograms are designed to detect cancer, not prevent it. Thinking that a mammogram can prevent breast cancer is like thinking that checking your house annually for broken windows prevents robberies.

The Untold Message of Breast Cancer Awareness Month by Jeffrey Dach MD

Jeffrey Dach MD
4700 Sheridan Suite T
Hollywood Fl 33021
954 983 1443
http://www.drdach.com
http://www.jeffreydach.com
http://www.naturalmedicine101.com

Biden a clear winner while Palin slanders and panders

Ravi — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 02:15:31 EDT

If you were paying close attention to the debate tonight, Joe Biden emerged as a clear winner. Yes, Palin was cutesy and folksy, and she didn't sound as stupid as she seemed the last two weeks. What do you expect - she's been preparing for days with the "best minds" of the McCain campaign.

She looked like a slogan slinger to me. Her mantras were "Obama will raise your taxes" "we will go after greed and corruption on Wall Street" and "I will promote Energy Independence." Her statements about Barack Obama were outright slanders. Her support for energy independence relies mainly on "drill baby drill" which panders on this popular sentiment, but ignores reality. Meanwhile, McCain has been against a whole slew of alternative energy proposals, and for deregulation, which fueled "greed and corruption".

Most shockingly, she said Obama was 'waving a white flag of surrender' on Iraq. A complete distortion and lie.

Bill Clinton said once, "If one guy is trying to scare you, and the other is trying to get you to think, vote for the guy who's getting you to think." The clear choice is Obama-Biden.

Palin: slogan slinger who distracts, misleads, slanders and panders. Also, I was struck by her facial expressions. She seemed hostile to me - her micro-expressions ran against the "agreeable" approach she was taking, making me believe she's quite mean underneath all that folksy talk. Also, Palin just plain didn't answer a bunch of questions, she just spouted talking points on whatever she'd been told by pollsters plays well in Peoria. (Examples: she didn't answer q's about deregulation, or "talk straight" about same sex benefits.)

Biden was comprehensive, connected, and real all throughout. Big lines:

"Facts matter" (pointing out truths about what General McClellan said about Afghanistan);

"Past is prologue" (McCain no different than Bush, voted with him most of the time, despite Palin's obfuscating attempts to distance their ticket from Bush - they're gonna be governing with the same folks, people!)

"John McCain is no maverick" (this was a high point, as Biden gave an impassioned attack on McCain's supposed strength);

McCain will build "The ultimate bridge to Nowhere" talking about how McCain's health care plan will be unfair and effectively dump 5-20 million people off health insurance.

"John McCain - God love him - but he's been dead wrong" on war policy.

Finally, Biden really connected with me as he spoke of his personal tribulations, and his conversations with Main Streeters. He sounds so much more credible on his connections to the working class than Palin does.

----

A side note: what to say about McCain....

He is out of touch. Can we trust a man who sings songs about "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"? A man who clearly seems petty - he was unwilling to even be cordial to Obama in the Senate yesterday.

We need bigger leaders. Leaders who are not rash, reckless or impulsive. Leaders who have the best interests of common Americans and the nation at heart. Leaders who have the courage of their convictions, and the clear headedness to stay cool under pressure. We need Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

Things are looking good for Obama!

Ruth — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:47:14 EDT

See full coverage on Obama’s bipartisan message at http://kronomy.com/event/XCeB4NcMrq/, including pictures, videos and text. “A new survey conducted by Quinnipiac University over the weekend shows Obama leading McCain in Florida 51 percent to 43 percent, in Ohio 50 percent to 42 percent and in Pennsylvania 54 percent to 39 percent. Since 1960, no president has been elected without winning two of those three states.” Things are looking good for Obama!

Again, good message, nice gesture at this turbulent time from both sides. Just wish it didn’t take a financial meltdown to bring this spirit of cooperation around. Drop me a line at my blog, thanks.

Go to Fight4Obama.com, grab his 3D timeline and embed it everywhere. Spread the word of this educational online bumper sticker to your friends! Help Obama win the fight for US presidency!

Healthcare people contribute more to Dems

Christopher from Canonsburg, PA — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 21:06:49 EDT

NEJM -- Campaign Contributions, Lobbying, and the U.S. Health Sector -- An Update:

"As of July, people affiliated with the health sector and political action committees (PACs) associated with the sector had contributed about $29 million to presidential candidates, including $8.8 million to Obama, $6.6 million to Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, the former Democratic contender, and $4.7 million to McCain, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (www.opensecrets.org), a nonpartisan organization that researches money in politics. Although these contributions represent less than 3% of the funds raised by presidential candidates, it is remarkable that the health sector has reversed a long-standing pattern of favoring Republican candidates, by contributing substantially more money to Democrats ($17.7 million) than to Republicans ($11.2 million). This trend also holds when the presidential and congressional elections are considered together (see Figure 1): as of July, the health sector had contributed $54.5 million to Democrats and $46.1 million to Republicans. Democrats lead Republicans in contributions from health professionals and from individuals associated with hospitals, nursing homes, or health services or health maintenance organizations. Contributions linked to manufacturers of pharmaceutical and health care products are split about evenly between the parties. The last time Democrats raised more money from health care interests than Republicans was 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected president."

Yaaaayyy! I am certainly getting this vibe from my colleagues more and more lately. You can only have insurers rub your nose in poo for so long before you understand that some (any!) sytem of universal coverage has to be better than this.

Thanks to Sar Rosenquist for the link!

cross posted at http://cmhmd.blogspot.com

Obama responding to Rejected Bailout

Ruth — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 20:24:19 EDT

See full event here: http://kronomy.com/event/s2aE0odrK9/ .

So Obama responded to the rejection of the bailout plan. I like that he is encouraging people to stay hopeful, and I like that he is encouraging the Congress to actually do their job. But, I am curious about how active a role he is taking in coming up with the next bill. Beyond calling for more regulations, I would like to see him offer some more concrete details of what he thinks THE bill should include.

Go to Fight4Obama.com, grab his 3D timeline and embed it everywhere. Spread the word of this educational online bumper sticker to your friends! Help Obama win the fight for US presidency!

The World for Barack

Sean — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:14:12 EDT

The last 8 years have demonstrated that the entire world can be affected by who America chooses as their president.
Barack Obama is the only candidate who knows that international peace, co-operation, and justice are important for the prosperity and progress of the United States and the world.
In the flat world we live in, what's good for America is good for the world.
We invite you - people from all over the world - to contribute your comments. Tell America where you are from and why you support Barack Obama.

http://worldforbarack.blogspot.com/

Online Bumper Sticker for Obama

Ruth — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 21:57:36 EDT

Hey everyone, go to fight4obama.com. This site's got a 3D timeline of Obama's life that we can embed/put on any site, blog or social profile, as long as html coding is enabled. This is a new way of spreading the word about Obama, an online bumber sticker if you will; a cool, educational, 3D bumper sticker. I grabbed the codes already and put it on myspace, you guys should do the same and tell everyone about it! Spread the word, spread the support, help Obama win!

I'm glad the bailout failed!

Christopher from Canonsburg, PA — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:26:04 EDT

I'm not convinced that this bill failing is a bad thing.

I would like some scrutiny and, frankly, I'd like to see a lot more finger pointing before we settle this. I want the Dems to beat the Nasties over the head for trying to blame this on minorites and the disadvantaged. I'd like to see McCain and Phil Gramm raked over the coals. I'd like to see Alan Greenspan and Snow and Paulson ridiculed and mocked for their roles. I'd like to see Paul O'Neil and others praised for trying to get a bill with real teeth passed after Enron instead of the toothless Sarbanes Oxley. I'd like members of the Congressional and legislative branches ties to AIG and Freddie and Fannie and Lehman and the others up on the Times Square banners. I'd like to see a lot more finger pointing and a lot more digging up of skeletons and bodies before we "move on!"

Let's play the "Blame Game" thing that Republicans hate so much, because 80% of the blame will fall on Republicans.

Cheers,

URGENT - THE HOUSE REJECTS $700 BAILOUT

Leonard Krivitsky, MD, DD — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:00:07 EDT

Just a few minutes ago the US House of Representatives has rejected the proposed bipartisan plan, strongly supported by the President and cautiously endorsed by both presidential candidates to "rescue" the collapsing US economy with the emergency 700 billion dollars federal "bailout." I will try to explain why this happened even in the face of a dire emergency, the likes of which has not happened since the Great Depression. A few days ago CNN reported that the "far Right" and the "far Left" were both in opposition to the bill, albeit for completely different reasons. This is yet another example of the conservative, "far Right" Republicans being "in bed" with Socialist and neo-Marxist elements within the Democratic Party, the "strange bed-fellows", so to speak against the hard-working Americans whose life savings and pension plans, including 401-Ks and IRAs are now in serious peril. What are the "reasons" for these extremes of the political spectrum to have prevailed against what was considered by many, including the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission as a vital measure in the face of an unprecedented crisis?

Let's start with the far-Right because it was mostly Republicans who "killed" this bill (no kidding?). The conservative Republicans and their Fundamentalist fringe "base" simply do not want any government "interference" in the inner workings of the economy based upon the "free market." They reason that the markets should be given an opportunity to "self-correct", which they eventually will, and that if the government steps in and "saves" the financial institutions, this will reek of Socialism and severely undermine the main principles of capitalist free enterprise system, which gives people an opportunity for success, but by no means guarantees it. It will also be beneficial for their wealthy constituents who will, in the meantime, have an ample opportunity to pour more of their assets into the down markets, and make very sizable returns when the situation improves. The fact that the hard-working middle class Americans will lose their pension funds in the process worries them very little. Surprisingly, many ordinary people have fallen victim to the far-Right (and far-Left) propaganda, and came out in droves to protest the "bailout." But as Jack Cafferty just said, "It is not about Wall Street now, it is about your street." As the credit "dries up", the people will have a hard time of either buying or selling their homes (as if the housing crisis were not severe enough as it is). Even the arch-conservative Glen Beck supports the bailout because the alternatives are to painful to contemplate.
What these people do not realize is that if we were talking only about the "fat cats" of Wall Street, no one would have even proposed this bailout. I can see the point, and as far as I am concerned they all can, figuratively speaking, "burn in hell for all eternity." Why should I, for example, worry about these parasites who have run their companies into the ground and now will walk away with millions, when I can't even get a "cost of living" salary increases while the clinic where I work has passed every State Inspection with "flying colors"? I would be totally frantic by now, the truth be told, if a few years before all this calamity, I had not had a revelation that came to me in a meditative state, to move what little money I had into the annuity with guaranteed principle. But now even I and people like me have a cause to worry, for what if the companies that hold our annuities will themselves go under? Then what will we do?
I am sure that millions of people who just have their money in a free market will have many sleepless nights from now on, unless something is done, and very soon because, as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve has indicated, "the time is running out."

Now let's see what is on the minds of the far-Left, and why those people allowed the bill to sink. Well, those people also worry very little about profound losses the hard-working Americans will suffer. This is because their constituency are mostly those who do not have any savings, investments or pension plans to speak of. Their constituents belong to what is now, according to the "politically correct" language, called "lower socioeconomic classes." What the far-Left is worried about is that had the bailout been approved, there would not be much money left to frivolously spend on new "social programs" such as, for example, making people with drug and alcohol problems eligible for life-long disability payments, even if they are non-compliant with treatment and have no intention to recover. "Oh, yea", CNN's Jack Cafferty, a recovering alcoholic himself, would probably say to this proposition, "this is sure to really increase someone's motivation for change." It is much better, nevertheless, according to the far-Left, to use 700 billion dollars for those ends, rather than to help the struggling middle class.

All these recent events are highly disconcerting, to say the least. I am not an economist, but I do understand that there is such a thing as the "domino effect", where the negative chain reaction spreads to engulf more and more medium and small size financial institutions, and eventually becomes a world-wide economic and financial meltdown. At the church service of the United Church of Religious Science that I attended this past Sunday, our Spiritual leader, Rev. Sheila Pierce, spoke of the "uneasiness of human consciousness, both individual and collective" being the basis of all these upheavals "out-picturing as a result", but she also indicated that we should be grateful to the Universe that at least we have 700 billion dollars to prop up the economy in the time of crisis. I thought to myself that we really don't have this kind of money just lying around, but we can certainly borrow it from the Chinese. As always, I appeal for balance to everyone who will listen, because it is the balance that is keeping this Universe together. I believe that the proposed bailout is vitally necessary to uphold this balance, followed by the new regulations advocated by our candidate, Sen. Barack Obama "so that the Main Street receives the same help the Wall Street is getting." When I first came to this country many years ago and worked as an operating room technician in Youngstown, Ohio an older nurse said to me something that I have never forgotten. She said that in this country middle class is supporting everyone - the rich who do not pay their fair share in taxes and the poor who survive on various entitlements financed by the taxpayers. The healthy economy cannot function in this manner indefinitely. The pillars of this economy are the hard-working people of the middle class who wake up early in the morning to go and work and to provide for themselves, as well as for the rich and for the poor. It is the middle class that would have benefited the most from the bailout, but it is also the middle class that is always left out in the end.

Shady ads- from our side?!?!?!?

Christopher from Canonsburg, PA — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:50:03 EDT

Re NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/us/politics/26ads.html?th&emc=th

WTF? We don't have enough totally and brutally honest material that we have to be tarred with this stuff? I don't need to hear people tell me "They're all the same!" I don't need the Democrats quoted in this article making excuses for the ad and campaign people who don't know how to use Google and the blogosphere to get actual, imprtant, substantive and brutally effective material.

I am extremely disappointed in this. I acknowledge the ads are not too egregious, but those of us watching on the sidelines have hundreds of true, brutal facts that need publicized with campaign money before we start resorting to shading the truth.

The old days and the old ways need to be rejected. We need to be honest but hard as nails.

Cheers,

Say No to Wall Street Bail Out by Jeffrey Dach MD

Jeffrey Dach MD — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:18:22 EDT

Say No to the Scandalous Wall Street Bail Out by Jeffrey Dach MD

Stop the Historic Swindle of the American Public

William Greider wrote in his article, "If Wall Street gets away with this, it will represent an historic swindle of the American public -- all sugar for the villains, lasting pain and damage for the victims. My advice to Washington politicians: Stop, take a deep breath and examine what you are being told to do by so-called "responsible opinion." If this deal succeeds, I predict it will become a transforming event in American politics -- exposing the deep deformities in our democracy and launching a tidal wave of righteous anger and popular rebellion. "

Luigi Zingales wrote in this article, "The Paulson RTC will buy toxic assets at inflated prices thereby creating a charitable institution that provides welfare to the rich—at the taxpayers’ expense."

by Robert Kiyosaki says in his article, "The very, very rich use the system to legally steal from the rest of us by appealing to our sense of patriotism. When our leaders say, "We're bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because we want to protect the American people," they really mean "We're saving our rich friends."

voter fraud - action now

caroline — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:22:06 EDT

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/jacquelineashtondefloris/gGgYh3/commentary#comment-gGZ8Dj

(Follow this link to read the article as well as a personal stroy of how one voter was affected)

(look up Michigan voters who are living in foreclosed homes or who have lost their homes who are being blocked from voting)

In a recent article by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in opednews.com, the issue of Republican scams to defraud the civil liberties of huge percentages of American voters is illustrated.

I have researched this site for what the campaing is doing about this. While there is a link to verify your registration (very important - thank you) I couldn't find any information about what they are actively doing right now. I did find Obama's plan to fight for voter's civil liberties after he is elected, but he may not get that chance if our votes are blocked.

I have contacted Robert kennedy, Jr. directly. I have also written to my senator, Senator Fienstein. I have even written to Oprah! Here's what I want to know:

What can I do as a public citizen to ensure my rights and those of my fellow Americans, both locally and nationally?

What is the Obama campaign doing to actively ensure these rights?

What are my elected officials doing to ensure these rights?

What are non-elected public officials (judicial, law enforcement) doing to ensure these rights?

Why is this not front page news?

Are the Democrats suing these perpetrators?

Caroline

volunteer fight breast cancer in tHe OC

darlene matthews — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:23:18 EDT

WEAR OBAMA GEAR AND SHOW UP !

RAAD HAS DONATED MUCH FREE DESIGN WORK ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.

DONATE OR VOLUNTEER OR JUST SHOW UP , PLEASE

https://www.kintera.org/faf/donorReg/donorPledge.asp?ievent=271499&supid=233614533

HIS FAMILY ARE SURVIVORS

IM A SURVIVOR OF 2 OTHER KINDS OF CANCER. -

DUE TO POVERTY WHAT A BATTLE FOR CARE I HAD!

darlene

THE FINANCIAL MELTDOWN AND ADDICTION TREATMENT

Leonard Krivitsky, MD, DD — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:48:56 EDT

In the past several weeks we have witnessed a significant change in terminology used to describe our country's economic condition. We don't hear any longer anyone saying that we are in the midst of "economic slowdown." What we do hear, and with a good cause, is that we are in an "economic meltdown", "financial crisis", "the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression" and (what has quickly become my favorite), "a financial Pearl Harbor" according to prominent financier Warren Buffet. To be quire honest, I am not surprised. One trillion dollars on the war in Iraq which, according to our candidate, Sen. Barack Obama, should have never been fought to begin with, tax brakes to the richest citizens of the country, destabilization of the world's security balance, huge federal debt and budget deficits - and the list can go on - make me wonder what in the world has taken so long for this economy to collapse. And in the midst of all this mess John McCain, in a fit of ignorance, proclaims that the "fundamentals of the economy are strong." As some of my Spanish-speaking friends would say, !ay, carajo!
I do agree that the government must step in and spend hundreds of billions of dollars to stabilize the economy and restore the market confidence. Otherwise this meltdown will have a "domino effect" on all the sectors of our lives, with 401-K's and other savings melting like a proverbial snowball in hell. It should also be clear to any reasonable person that the Democratic proposals of abolishing "golden parachutes" and other huge compensations should be adopted for the disgraced executives who had run their companies into the ground and then ran to you and me for a bailout and, if this were not enough, would receive millions as a "severance pay." I also believe that another Democratic proposal stands to good reason and that is that we should not only be somehow repaid our money, but also receive "dividends" if, by any chance, the government is ever able to turn this whole mess into a profit (which I doubt very seriously indeed). I very much belong to the middle class, and I can feel clearly how my standard of living is continuously going down, despite being a Program physician in one of the largest Philadelphia methadone maintenance clinics. So, I can understand easily when people are hesitant to write a 700 billion dollars check to rescue the fat cats of Wall Street without some tangible guarantees in return.

From what I understand (and it really cannot be any other way), the individual States and their programs will also feel the pain of this "financial Pearl Harbor", whether the "bail-out" is approved or not. This will increase the need for prudence in spending and elimination of waste wherever possible, including that in drug addiction treatment. First of all, I want to stress that I am strongly in favor of whatever necessary spending that is required to treat addictions and address their devastating toll on an individual and society. However, and I am speaking strictly from experience, some methadone programs are turning into places of addiction maintenance, rather than its treatment. This approach can easily become a "bottomless pit" into which the taxpayers will be asked to put more and more money. This is where the harm reduction extremists who will be squarely responsible for this change in paradigm and its consequences are hopelessly wrong: they believe that it is possible for the addicts to actually use drugs and be in recovery at the same time. Well, maybe in some other dimensions, but not in our own. The simple reason for this is that if an addict were able to "moderate" his drug use, he would not be an addict. This is not to say that I necessarily agree with the extreme views in other direction, such as those advocated by Sabato A. (Tony) Stile, MD from Pittsburgh PA. At the State conference in Harrisburg, Dr. Stile, a conference presenter, spoke against admitting to methadone programs of anyone who uses benzodiazepines, such as Valium, Xanax and Klonopin, among others. The thing is that when benzodiazepines are combined with Methadone, they produce a heroin-like "high", and addition of cocaine to this mixture acts almost like a "speedball." This is the main reason why benzodiazepine (and cocaine) abuse is of absolutely epidemic proportions in the methadone clinics. This is also why Dr. Charles Morgan, a former Medical Director of another major methadone clinic in Philadelphia, once said to me, and I quote: "The patients will need to decide whether they want to be treated for their opiate addiction or take benzodiazepines." Dr. Fred Bauer, the Medical Director of Kirkbride Center in Philadelphia, called raising methadone doses to the patients who abuse benzodiazepines "a failed strategy." I can afford to be less "politically correct" than Dr. Bauer and simply call it "madness."

This brings us to the point I am trying to make. Unfortunately, some physicians still do raise the methadone doses to the patients abusing drugs other than heroin to unjustifiably high levels. They obviously forget the simple fact that methadone is not even approved for the treatment of non-opiate dependencies. It has been my overwhelming experience that giving high methadone doses to benzodiazepine abusers significantly worsens the addiction, making any meaningful recovery practically impossible. It can be quite dangerous as well since the patients taking benzodiazepines with high methadone doses tend to "nod" under a wide variety of circumstances, or can even have a serious overdose. I have witnessed again and again that when the patients checking into "benzodiazepine rehab" have their methadone doses significantly increased (that is in excess of the therapeutic range of 80 to 120 mg/day), they turn right back to abusing benzodiazepines. And so it goes, with the new "subculture" of methadone-benzodiazepine addicts being created right in front of our eyes, with the taxpayers footing the bill. Sometimes these "revolving door" rehab admissions happen again and again when the only thing that is needed is to listen to the growing consensus of the "pundits" and stop increasing the "reward value" of benzodiazepines with high methadone doses. (For more detailed information on the methadone doses under different circumstances please refer to my earlier article "Experiential Approach to Methadone Maintenance Doses"). The scientific literature on opiate addiction and methadone maintenance tells us that only about 20% of nearly 2 million opiate (primarily heroin, but also synthetic painkillers) addicts in the United States are presently enrolled in methadone maintenance - currently the most effective way to treat this addiction.
Surely, there will be voices speaking out against the indefinite addiction maintenance of those who may not be ready for recovery at this particular time, but instead advocating for seeking out and retaining the contingent of patients who will strive to make progress and successfully reintegrate into society. What I am trying to say is that just as with the proposed 700 billion dollar "bailout" of Wall Street, the people who are asked to finance the addiction treatment have the right to know what it is they are paying for and what is the return on their "investment" going to be.

So, all these considerations make me even more adamant about the "middle of the road" approach to "harm reduction" when it comes to methadone maintenance therapy. I want to warn against indefinite addiction maintenance at the taxpayers' expense, as it will not be possible to fill the bottomless pit that will materialize if such an approach is adopted. Currently in Pennsylvania the public assistance programs will pay for 9 months of addiction treatment after which a separate diagnosis is needed to continue on public assistance. It is as if the people of Pennsylvania speak through their elected representatives saying in effect, "we have done our part in your recovery, now it is time you do yours." I am not going to express any opinion at this time as to how long the public assistance should continue for the treatment of drug addiction, but I am willing to express an opinion that it should not be indefinite, especially in the absence of a co-occurring disorder and/or in the face of persistent non-compliance with treatment. A certain element of coercion is absolutely essential in addiction management, and that is why the patients who are on parole or probation, and whose urine drug screens are monitored by their probation officers, tend to do much better in treatment. In this regard it is quite conceivable that those patients who persistently refuse to comply with the "treatment plan" may be asked to vacate their clinic "slots" in order to allow for the admission of those who are willing to follow it, especially when the public funds are involved. Therefore, I believe that the proverbial "middle of the road" in harm reduction clearly calls for a "middle of the road" in public expenditures for addiction treatment.

Obama raises taxes? Give Tax cuts another name!

Koen — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:40:52 EDT

What do the conservative economists do so that John Mc Cain can pretend that Barck Obama raises taxes? They say that the prepositions Barack makes by cutting the taxes for the lower and the middle-class-tax-payers, are no tax-cuts. They call it "WELFARE". How clever!(?). Why don't we give John Mc.Cains tax cuts for the wealthiest another name?

urgent email your hr today action fro vets and other disabled

darlene matthews — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 16:02:30 EDT

http://www.painfoundation.org/page.asp?file=action/action.htm

vote is tomorrow

Action Requests

IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED!

URGENT REQUEST: National Pain Care Policy Act is going for vote in the House of Representatives

PLEASE TAKE ACTION TODAY!

We are near the finish line. The amended National Pain Care Policy Act of 2008 (HR 2994) has been passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. It will now go to general vote by the full House of Representatives. It is critical that you contact your Representative to ask for their support for this legislation that will affect so many people living with pain.

For more information please see the following links:

This is the time to TAKE ACTION!

National Pain Care Policy Act of 2008: Tackling Barriers to Pain Management

Just introduced in the Senate on July 31, 2008! Please support passage of the National Pain Care Policy Act of 2008 (S. 3387). TAKE ACTION NOW!

National Pain Care Policy Act of 2007, HR 2994, House of Representatives Version

Click here to send a letter to your representative requesting they co-sponsor this important legislation.

Consensus Statement for the the Military Pain Care Act of 2008 and the Veterans Pain Care Act of 2007

Please respond so that your organization can be included as an endorser. View the Consensus Statement and the full list of organizations who endorse the Military and Veterans Pain Care Acts. To read our request for organizational endorsement,click here.

Consensus Statement for the National Pain Care Policy Act of 2007

Please respond so that your organization can be included as an endorser. To view the Consensus Statement and the full list of over 100 organizations who endorse the National Pain Care Policy Act, click here. To read our request for organizational endorsement, click here. Please stay tuned for more information and recommended action that can help move this act forward.

McCain's Radical Health Care Agenda

Midwest Common Sense — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 16:38:35 EDT

Op-Ed Columnist McCain’s Radical Agenda - Health Care

By BOB HERBERT Published: September 15, 2008

Talk about a shock to the system. Has anyone bothered to notice the radical changes that John McCain and Sarah Palin are planning for the nation’s health insurance system?

McCain Plan to Aid States on Health Could Be Costly (July 9, 2008) if (acm.rc) acm.rc.write();

These are changes that will set in motion nothing less than the dismantling of the employer-based coverage that protects most American families.

A study coming out Tuesday from scholars at Columbia, Harvard, Purdue and Michigan projects that 20 million Americans who have employment-based health insurance would lose it under the McCain plan.

There is nothing secret about Senator McCain’s far-reaching proposals, but they haven’t gotten much attention because the chatter in this campaign has mostly been about nonsense — lipstick, celebrities and “Drill, baby, drill!”

For starters, the McCain health plan would treat employer-paid health benefits as income that employees would have to pay taxes on.

“It means your employer is going to have to make an estimate on how much the employer is paying for health insurance on your behalf, and you are going to have to pay taxes on that money,” said Sherry Glied, an economist who chairs the Department of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health.

Ms. Glied is one of the four scholars who have just completed an independent joint study of the plan. Their findings are being published on the Web site of the policy journal, Health Affairs.

According to the study: “The McCain plan will force millions of Americans into the weakest segment of the private insurance system — the nongroup market — where cost-sharing is high, covered services are limited and people will lose access to benefits they have now.”

The net effect of the plan, the study said, “almost certainly will be to increase family costs for medical care.”

Under the McCain plan (now the McCain-Palin plan) employees who continue to receive employer-paid health benefits would look at their pay stubs each week or each month and find that additional money had been withheld to cover the taxes on the value of their benefits.

While there might be less money in the paycheck, that would not be anything to worry about, according to Senator McCain. That’s because the government would be offering all taxpayers a refundable tax credit — $2,500 for a single worker and $5,000 per family — to be used “to help pay for your health care.”

You may think this is a good move or a bad one — but it’s a monumental change in the way health coverage would be provided to scores of millions of Americans. Why not more attention?

The whole idea of the McCain plan is to get families out of employer-paid health coverage and into the health insurance marketplace, where naked competition is supposed to take care of all ills. (We’re seeing in the Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch fiascos just how well the unfettered marketplace has been working.)

Taxing employer-paid health benefits is the first step in this transition, the equivalent of injecting poison into the system. It’s the beginning of the end.

When younger, healthier workers start seeing additional taxes taken out of their paychecks, some (perhaps many) will opt out of the employer-based plans — either to buy cheaper insurance on their own or to go without coverage.

That will leave employers with a pool of older, less healthy workers to cover. That coverage will necessarily be more expensive, which will encourage more and more employers to give up on the idea of providing coverage at all.

The upshot is that many more Americans — millions more — will find themselves on their own in the bewildering and often treacherous health insurance marketplace. As Senator McCain has said: “I believe the key to real reform is to restore control over our health care system to the patients themselves.”

Yet another radical element of McCain’s plan is his proposal to undermine state health insurance regulations by allowing consumers to buy insurance from sellers anywhere in the country. So a requirement in one state that insurers cover, for example, vaccinations, or annual physicals, or breast examinations, would essentially be meaningless.

In a refrain we’ve heard many times in recent years, Mr. McCain said he is committed to ridding the market of these “needless and costly” insurance regulations.

This entire McCain health insurance transformation is right out of the right-wing Republicans’ ideological playbook: fewer regulations; let the market decide; and send unsophisticated consumers into the crucible alone.

You would think that with some of the most venerable houses on Wall Street crumbling like sand castles right before our eyes, we’d be a little wary about spreading this toxic formula even further into the health care system.

But we’re not even paying much attention.

Full story at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16herbert.html?em

@ 2008 The New York Times Company

(A version of this article appeared in print on September 16, 2008, on page A29 of the New York edition.)

$700 Billion Bailout

Brian — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 19:19:53 EDT

Imagine that you receive one of those annoying credit card offers in the mail. Today, instead of throwing it directly in the trash, you open it to see just what is being offered. Only you find that it is not an offer, but a notice that an account has been opened in your name and already has a balance of $2303.96. Not only are you told that you can't turn this offer down, but advised that everyone in your household has been saddled with the same account. Every man, woman and child. The more people in the house, the more money you owe, and it's an offer that you can't refuse.

Sounds absurd, doesn't it. Yet, that is just what the Republicans have handed us today. The current Republican administration has pushed though a bailout plan for Wall Street to the tune of $700 Billion. Given the July US Population estimate of 303,824,640, that adds up to $2303.96 for every single person in the country. That's not money coming from the Treasury. It needs to be borrowed, and the only ones who have that kind of money to lend are China and the folks controlling the oil. So, we're not only dependent upon them for energy resources now, were also deeper in debt to the tune of $2303.96 each.

The reason that we need this kind of bailout? I think that everyone is aware that mismanagement by the current Republicans in power are at the root. We have been hearing about deregulation and the contribution that has made all week. What isn't being talked about, though, is that our reliance on foreign oil and our misguided war supporting terror are equal parts of the Hydra we face. The polls keep telling us that the focus of the country shifts between the economy, energy independence and the war, which is a gross misrepresentation. These issues are so intertwined that there is no way to separate them, and we all know who we have to thank for all three.

Anyone questioning whether we still need a change?

Brian

Palin dropped as speaker due to our actions

caroline — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:03:59 EDT

Dear caroline,

Congratulations! Your voice was heard.

I just received word that the Iran Unity Rally organizers have asked Sarah Palin not to speak on Monday.

This is the right decision. A unity rally to express communal solidarity is no place for partisan politics. And to give such prominence to Sarah Palin alone would have spoken neither to, nor for, the American Jewish community.

This is a victory not just for you and for the 20,188 others who signed J Street's petition. It's a victory for the broader community. And we're pleased the rally's organizers came to their senses so quickly.

Victories like these don't come easily - or often. But when they do, we should savor them, at least briefly.

We'll be back at it tomorrow, because our next task is making sure that the messages at the rally reflect the view of a majority of Americans - Jewish and otherwise - that the best way to deal with Iran is through tough, smart diplomacy - not saber rattling and threats of force.

Stay tuned.

- Isaac

------------------
Isaac Luria
Online Director
J Street
September 18, 2008 5:11

Another Distortion

Ivan — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 09:01:23 EDT

Sen. McCain can not win this election on facts/issues so he has turn to distortions and right out lies hoping that the American people will fall for him. Not so this time. We will dig the facts and than GOD FactCheck is around to help us debunk some of the lies.

There He Goes AgainSeptember 18, 2008McCain ad misrepresents Obama's tax plan. Again.SummaryThe McCain-Palin campaign has released a new ad that once again distorts Obama's tax plans.

The ad claims Obama will raise taxes on electricity. He hasn't proposed any such tax. Obama does support a cap-and-trade policy that would raise the costs of electricity, but so does McCain.

It falsely claims he would tax home heating oil. Actually, Obama proposed a rebate of up to $1,000 per family to defray increased heating oil costs, funded by what he calls a windfall profits tax on oil companies.

The ad claims that Obama will tax "life savings." In fact, he would increase capital gains and dividends taxes only for couples earning more than $250,000 per year, or singles making $200,000. For the rest, taxes on investments would remain unchanged.

The McCain campaign argues in its documentation for this ad that, whatever Obama says he would do, he will eventually be forced to break his promise and raise taxes more broadly to pay for his promised spending programs. That's an opinion they are certainly entitled to express, and to argue for. But their ad doesn't do that. Instead, it simply presents the McCain camp's opinion as a fact, and it fails to alert viewers that its claims are based on what the campaign thinks might happen in the future.
AnalysisIn what has become an ongoing theme, the McCain-Palin campaign has released yet another ad that makes false claims about Barack Obama's tax plan. The ad, which was released on Sept. 18 and which the campaign says will air nationally, claims that Obama will raise income taxes and will tax "life savings, electricity and home heating oil." As we keep saying, Obama says he'll raise income taxes and capital gains taxes only for couples earning more than $250,000 per year or singles making over $200,000. He has proposed no plans to raise taxes on either home heating oil or electricity.

Electric Charges

McCain-Palin 2008 Ad:
"Dome"

Narrator: When our economy's in crisis, a big government casts a big shadow on us all.

Obama and his liberal Congressional allies want a massive government, billions in spending increases, wasteful pork.

And, we would pay -- painful income taxes, skyrocketing taxes on life savings, electricity and home heating oil.

Can your family afford that?

McCain: I'm John McCain and I approve this message.The ad opens with standard-issue Republican warnings of the economic dangers of big government before proclaiming that Obama and his liberal allies want to bring back "a massive government" complete with billions in spending increases and waste. We are then told that Obama would raise income taxes and would increase taxes on "life savings, electricity and home heating oil."

This isn't the first time the McCain-Palin campaign has claimed that Obama would raise taxes on electricity. The claim is just as false now as it was when it first came up. The campaign bases its charge on a single comment Obama made in an interview with a San Antonio columnist. Obama did in fact say, "What we ought to tax is dirty energy, like coal and, to a lesser extent, natural gas." But, as we said then, the comment is grossly out of context. Obama's remark comes after he was asked whether we ought to tax renewable energy sources. This was not a general call for increasing taxes on coal or natural gas, and Obama certainly does not have any such proposal as part of his public platform.

One could argue that Obama's proposed cap-and-trade program constitutes an indirect tax on electricity. But McCain proposes cap-and-trade, too, and we haven't heard McCain say that he wants to tax your electric bill. These programs are designed to reduce carbon emissions by requiring companies to pay for pollution credits. Since most electricity in the U.S. is generated via coal and natural-gas plants, both carbon-emitting fossil fuels, a cap-and-trade program will result in higher electricity costs.

Overheated Claims

Contrary to the ad's claim, Obama has not proposed raising taxes on home heating oil. In fact, just the opposite. Obama is proposing rebate checks of up to $500 per individual or $1,000 per family for what he calls an "emergency energy rebate." Obama says the rebate would be large enough that a typical family in a northern state could offset the full increase in home heating costs that have resulted from rising oil prices. Obama plans to fund the rebate through a five-year windfall profits tax on oil companies.

The McCain-Palin campaign counters that a windfall profits tax on oil companies will raise the cost of heating oil. The campaign points to a Washington Post editorial which charges that the cost of the five-year tax:

Washington Post (Aug. 6): would be passed along in forgone investment in new production, lower dividends for pension funds and other shareholders, and higher prices at the pump – thus socking it to the consumers whom the plan is supposed to help.

This is a fairly standard view in economics. Corporations don't really pay taxes. Any taxes levied on a corporation are passed along to one of three places: shareholders, in the form of smaller dividends on their investments; employees, in the form of lower wages; and consumers, in the form of higher prices. The McCain-Palin campaign's argument is that increasing taxes on oil companies amounts to increasing the price of heating oil and that that increase really is just a tax being levied on home heating oil. But the tax could also fall mainly on the stockholders of the oil companies, in the form of reduced after-tax profits, dividends and stock prices. That is actually how both the Congressional Budget Office and the independent, nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center allocate the benefits of tax changes on corporations.

We'll leave it to you to decide whether or not a windfall profits tax on oil companies makes economic sense. But it is misleading to describe Obama's view as a tax on home heating oil when Obama is actually proposing a rebate for home heating costs and a tax increase for oil companies.

Life Savings

The ad's claim that Obama will raise taxes on your "life savings" is only true if you're an individual making more than $200,000 (or a couple earning more than $250,000) and paying capital gains and dividend taxes. (We've said this many times now.) The "ad facts" that the McCain campaign released to reporters state very prominently that "Barack Obama would raise capital gains and dividend taxes" and that 26.7 million Americans received capital gains income while 31.5 million received dividend income. That's all true. But the very article that the campaign cites to support its claim also says quite clearly that Obama will raise capital gains and dividend taxes only on couples making more than $250,000 per year. We'd also note that more than 80 percent of all capital gains income in 2006 went to those earning more than $200,000 a year. See our Ask FactCheck on the subject for more.

McCain's Magic 8 Ball

The ad says sweepingly that "we would pay" the increased taxes, even though what Obama has proposed would produce tax cuts, not tax increases, for about 80 percent of all workers and families and about 95 percent of those with children, according to independent analysis by the Tax Policy Center. To justify its claim that "we" would pay, the McCain campaign is making a new argument. In an "ad facts" document, it cites two opinion columns which argue that Obama's new spending proposals would require him to break his pledge, and to raise taxes on couples making less than $250,000 per year. That's a prediction, which the McCain campaign states as fact in its ad. Viewers are given no indication that the ad is based on opinion about what could happen in the future.

It's certainly true that Obama's proposed spending is higher than his projected revenues, and Obama has made no secret of the fact that his plan will not result in balanced budgets for the next four years. According to the Tax Policy Center, without spending cuts elsewhere, Obama's proposals could lead to between $3.6 trillion and $5.9 trillion in new debt over 10 years. The McCain-Palin campaign is certainly entitled to argue that that level of debt is unsustainable and that Obama would therefore have to raise taxes.

That, however, is a dangerous argument. The same Tax Policy Center analysis shows that McCain's proposals would raise the debt by between $5.1 trillion and $7.4 trillion over 10 years. And while McCain has promised to balance the budget by 2013, the Tax Policy Center notes that doing so would require a 25 percent reduction in federal spending. Few economists outside the McCain-Palin campaign think that is a feasible goal. So, by the ad's logic, Obama could just as easily claim that McCain supports a massive tax increase. But if he did he would have no more justification than McCain does for this ad.

In fact, it's impossible to know for certain what either candidate will actually do if elected. Both sides are free to speculate. But unless they possess really good Magic 8 Balls, they are not free to present those speculations as settled facts.

Correction, Sept. 18: As originally posted we said Obama's proposed spending is lower than projected revenues, when we meant to say higher.

– by Joe Miller

Sen. Biden: Yes Paying Taxes is PATRIOTIC

Ivan — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 08:08:32 EDT

I am very surprised at the assault that Sen. Biden has received in recent days from Sen. McCain's campaign and the far right when he said paying taxes is patriotic. As a disaffected Republican I whole heartedly agree with Sen. Biden for several reasons as outlined below and do believe it is patriotic to pay taxes than to put on a lapel pin.

I will be happy to pay more taxes in this moment of hardship to our nation: 1) I will be glad to contribute to strengthen our military with my tax dollars 2) I will be happy for my tax dollars to be used to buy protective gear for the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq rather than let them be killed or they and their families having to bear the burden again and again buying the protective gear they need. 3) I will be happy if my tax dollars go to fund a GI bill that these brave soldiers on their return can attend any college (private or public) and do any career of their choosing after all what they have given the nation 4) I will be glad to have my tax dollars be used to fund a better VA and VA healthcare system with the utmost state of the art facilities and physicians for these great men and women. 5) I will be happy to have my tax dollars used to built bridges and roads in America and create jobs for Americans and not Iraqis 6) I will love my tax dollars to go to rebuild New Orleans and not Iraqi cities. ALL THESE TO ME IS VERY VERY PATRIOTIC.

The hike in taxes that we are talking today is not even up to what we had in the 1980s under president Reagan. What Sen. Obama is asking is go from 35% to 39.6% as was in 2000 compared to 70% highest margin that we had in the 1980s.

Sen. McCain's campaign says Sen. Obama is using the down turn of the economy for political gains. Well Sen. McCain your campaign used the war between Georgia and Russian to play politics, it is not someone's fault that on the same day Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch went down you said "The fundamentals of our economy are strong" even a blind person could see and a death person could hear it.

The McCain campaign tells us they will change Washington. The question is which Washington? If he has not done anything to change it in 26 years how will he do that in four? They should first come clean with the Troopergate in Alaska, Keating Five (guess what the guy was convicted and served five years in prison), The agents of Intolerance, No tax cut when the country is at war, I can see Russian from my front pouch, Alaska produces 20% of US oil, We have to regulate the market (or ya we have to continue to deregulate it as a matter of fact "We are whinners or just mentally depressed"), We have drill drill drill drill now everywhere, We have to Bomb bomb bomb Iran or send them cigarettes so they can smoke and die the list goes on.

Sunday Forum: Which party best manages the economy?

Christopher from Canonsburg, PA — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:16:29 EDT

http://www.postgazette.com/pg/08258/911790-109.stm

"I call the first fact the Great Partisan Growth Divide. Simply put, the United States economy has grown faster, on average, under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.

"The stark contrast between the whiz-bang Clinton years and the dreary Bush years is familiar because it is so recent. But while it is extreme, it is not atypical. Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.

"That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut."

I don't think this surprises Democrats, but Republicans will just snort in disregard, because, reality has a well known liberal bias...

thoughts from across the pond- obama please give a speech on the economy!

Dele — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 04:37:46 EDT

by the time you are reading this,the venerable lehman brothers(established in 1850) would have gone into bankruptcy!the once proud and mighty investment bank, merrill lynch would have been sold for a song..50billion dollars!and of course freddie mac and fannie may whose combined values, 6.5 trillion dollars, is larger than the british economy have been nationalised!(republicans nationalising a company!) this means the american tax payers are now keeping this financial octopus afloat. the current economic meltdown is affecting most americans and the architects of the economic mismanagement, bush and the republicans are not being held properly accountable for the deregulation of the market which has allowed the financial markets to let rip their greed and avarice on the wall street. remember the quip by bush about how his friend in wall street have got drunk...?where is the popular outrage against the republican party? how has the democrats allowed mccain to claim he is not associated with the bush economic policies? why is mccain being allowed to distract the good people of america with stunts like the pig in lipstick, the obama waffles, the good governor of alaska who is just a hockey mum given preferment beyond her competence?obama should leave aside the matter of sarah palin and hammer home to americans the role of bush and the republicans in their current economic plight...homes with negative equity, jobs shipped to china and the emerging economies. america has a net deficit in its trade with china and therefore, vulnerable to chinese political stability... a potential adversary in global dominance in the 21st century. america's european allies depend on russia for 23% of their gas. russia has been thumping its nose at america in georgia and blaming bush-mccain for an emboldened georgia. russia has recently sent a few nuclear capable war planes to venezuela in retaliation for american deployment of its missiles in the former eastern european states. obama and the democrats have enough to holler about without being scaremongers... every american is paying for the nearly 8 yrs of bush mismanagement of both foreign and economic policies.and the credit crunch is affecting not just americans but its allies. the dollar in your pocket today is worth less than yesterday! surely, every one knows that?and is it not the case that most people will make decisions based on their best interests provided they are given the relevant information in a language that they can understand? any one involved in community engagement activites which is predicated upon a bottom up mobilisation of groups for a common goal knows that effective communication is based on adapting your language to suit your audience. let people know that you understand their daily preocupations such as the price of gas, electicity, farm equipments, healthcare or whatever the local cause of existential procupations are... be a man of the people. mccain, with his seven houses or whatever, can not understand working people with two admirals as father and grand father who like john mccain , married rich women.yes, let obama give a powerful speech on the economy highlighting the plight of the average american and what he would do to alleviate their economic pain... just as he did with his speech on race.and yes, let his vp biden handle the condescending and provocative governor palin because what i see is that mccain is allowing palin to define obama. yes, let obama act presidential... giving americans hope and restoring their self belief in their ability survive terrible times and come up nenewed afresh and that they are safe with him at the helm!

Palin = W : NY Times

Christopher from Canonsburg, PA — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 20:52:02 EDT

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1221343324-tGxa66AkDRYq1tsNYpjoIw&pagewanted=all&oref=sloginBut more personal pettiness, more clueless, more inappropriately confident, and even nastier than W - if you can believe it!Cheers

FactCheck Constant Fabrications by the McCain/Palin Team

Ivan — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 23:40:34 EDT

Energetically WrongSeptember 12, 2008Palin says Alaska supplies 20 percent of U.S. energy. Not true. Not even close.SummaryPalin claims Alaska "produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy." That's not true.

Alaska did produce 14 percent of all the oil from U.S. wells last year, but that's a far cry from all the "energy" produced in the U.S.

Alaska's share of domestic energy production was 3.5 percent, according to the official figures kept by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

And if by "supply" Palin meant all the energy consumed in the U.S., and not just produced here, then Alaska's production accounted for only 2.4 percent.AnalysisRepublican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin sat down with ABC News' Charlie Gibson for an interview, part of which aired Sept. 11. In the exchange, the Alaska governor misstated a basic fact about her state's energy production:

Palin: Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States.

It's simply untrue that Alaska produces anything close to 20 percent of the U.S. "energy supply," a term that is generally defined as energy consumed. That category includes power produced in the U.S. by nuclear, coal, hydroelectric dams and other means – as well as all the oil imported into the country.

Palin would have been correct to say that Alaska produces just over 14 percent of all the oil produced in the U.S., leaving out imports and leaving out other forms of power. According to the federal government's Energy Information Administration, Alaskan wells produced 263.6 million barrels of oil in 2007, or 14.3 percent of the total U.S. production of 1.8 billion barrels.

But Alaskan production accounts for only 4.8 percent of all the crude oil and petroleum products supplied to the U.S. in 2007, counting both domestic production and imports from other nations. According to EIA, the total supply was just over 5.5 billion barrels in 2007.

Furthermore, Palin said "energy," not "oil," so she was actually much further off the mark. According to EIA, Alaska actually produced 2,417.1 trillion BTUs [British Thermal Units] of energy in 2005, the last year for which full state numbers are available. That's equal to just 3.5 percent of the country's domestic energy production.

And according to EIA analyst Paul Hess, that would calculate to only "2.4 percent of the 100,368.6 trillion BTUs the U.S. consumes."

Palin didn't make clear whether she was talking about Alaska's share of all the energy produced in the U.S. or all the energy consumed here. Either way, she was wrong.

McCain Gets It Wrong, Too

Sen. John McCain has also has used this inflated, incorrect figure. On Sept. 3, McCain told ABC News' Gibson:

McCain: Well, I think Americans are going to be very, very, very pleased. This is a very dynamic person. [Palin's] been governor of our largest state, in charge of 20 percent of America's energy supply.

McCain repeated the false figure more recently, in a September 11 interview with Portland, Maine, news station WCSH6.

Footnote: When we asked the McCain campaign where the 20 percent figure came from, we were referred to the Web site of the Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc, a group that says it promotes development of Alaska's natural resources. It states:

Alaska Resource Development Council: Alaska's oil and gas industry has produced more than 16 billion barrels of oil and 6 billion cubic feet of natural gas, accounting for an average of 20 percent of the entire nation's domestic production.

This falls far short of supporting Palin's sweeping claim, however. It refers only to "oil and gas" production, not total energy. It refers only to production, not total consumption or supply. And the 20 percent figure is an "average" over many years, though the site does not say exactly how many. That makes it very much out of date, because Alaskan oil production has declined sharply in recent years. According to EIA figures Alaskan oil production has dropped 22 per cent in the most recent five years alone.

And in case you are wondering, Alaska produces even less of the nation's natural gas that it does of its oil. EIA figures show Alaska accounted for just 1.9 percent of total U.S. natural gas production during the six months ended in June 2008. And even that is dropping rapidly. The figure was 2.3 percent just two years earlier.

–by Justin Bank
SourcesMilkowski, Stefan. "One Year Later, Palin Making Progress in Role of Governor," The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. 4 December 2007.

Gibson, Charlie. "Gibson Interviews John McCain," ABC News. 3 Sept 2008.

Gibson, Charlie. "Gibson Interviews Sarah Palin," ABC News. 11 Sept 2008.

Caldwell, Rob. "News Center Interviews John McCain," WCSH6 NBC Portland. Related ArticlesBelittling Palin?A McCain-Palin TV ad accuses Obama of being "disrespectful" of Palin, but it distorts quotes to make the case.School Funding MisleadsAn Obama ad plays fast and loose with McCain's voting record on education and proposals as a presidential candidate.McCain-Palin Distorts Our FindingThose attacks on Palin that we debunked didn't come from Obama.

Gov Palin and her Troopergate

Ivan — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:21:17 EDT

A former ethics adviser to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin warned in July that firing her public safety commissioner would become a "grave concern" for her administration.

Gov. Sarah Palin is fighting allegations she improperly tried to force the firing of her then brother-in-law.

Wevley Shea, a former U.S. attorney and fellow Republican, urged Palin to apologize to former Commissioner Walt Monegan and fire anyone on her staff who discussed her former brother-in-law, state Trooper Mike Wooten, with the commissioner.

"Your 'political advisers' have given you poor counsel; the situation is now grave," Shea wrote in a July 24 letter to the governor. "I recommend the following action 'now' to restore your credibility and Alaska's bright future with you."

Palin, now the Republican nominee for vice president, is battling allegations that she and her advisers pressured Monegan to fire Wooten. Palin has said she fired Monegan over budget issues and denies any wrongdoing, calling Wooten a "rogue trooper" who threatened her family during his divorce from the governor's sister.

Shea, who says he's an admirer of Palin's, said Thursday that the governor's aides are trying to stall an investigation into Monegan's dismissal by the state Legislature.

"The problem, in my opinion, is that there has been out-and-out cover-up and misleading statements by staffers in the governor's office," he said. "And the parallel that I tried to draw is, you know, the problem with the firing or terminating of the U.S. attorneys."

The governor has not publicly answered questions since Republican presidential nominee John McCain picked her as his running mate August 29, and her representatives did not immediately return phone calls seeking comment Thursday.

Shea had acted as an informal ethics adviser to Palin, but he told CNN that his advice on the Monegan firing was unsolicited.

"If they would have done what I said, I think it would have been over," he said.

Don't Miss

He also recommended that Palin and her husband apologize "for any overreaching or perceived overreaching" regarding Wooten, who was involved in a child custody dispute with the governor's sister.

"Trooper Wooten was/is a grave public safety threat to your family. It was/is a very personal, emotional matter, which was either mishandled or covered up by certain individuals," Shea wrote. But, he added, "I am extremely concerned about certain 'wolves' if my recommended action is not taken immediately."

The state Legislature launched an investigation into Monegan's dismissal in July. In August, Palin disclosed that members of her staff had called state police officials nearly two dozen times to discuss Wooten and pledged to cooperate with the inquiry.

But since she became McCain's running mate, her representatives have attacked the investigation as a "political circus" and argued that it should be conducted by the state Personnel Board.

Lawmakers have scheduled a Friday meeting on whether to subpoena a list of top advisers in their investigation, and the state Personnel Board was to meet Thursday afternoon to discuss Palin's request for a separate probe.

The Legislature's inquiry is scheduled to be completed by October 10. But the state attorney general's office is now warning that the administration is likely to challenge any subpoenas in court.

Shea said he did not believe that Palin was pushing for the Personnel Board inquiry, but "there may be tactical reasons to do that from a legal standpoint." However, he said, the board would be unlikely to take an "independent look" at the conduct of Palin's aides.

"The Personnel Board, number one, is appointed by the governor," he said. "Number two, it's a delaying tactic, because what the Personnel Board then has to do is appoint another investigator, which the attorney general would appoint this time. And who does the attorney general work for? The attorney general is appointed by Gov. Palin."

"Bluntly and to the point, we think there is a legitimate concern that this investigation is no longer being conducted in a fair manner -- and therefore is potentially violative of Alaska's constitutional due process safeguards," Senior Assistant Attorney General Mike Barnhill wrote in a letter Tuesday to the bipartisan committee that launched the investigation.

State Sen. Hollis French, the Anchorage Democrat managing the investigation, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

French has drawn fire from Palin's supporters for suggesting that the investigation could yield an "October surprise" for the Republican ticket and that officials in her administration may have violated state law by obtaining confidential information from Wooten's personnel files.

Complaints about Wooten from Palin and her family have been under scrutiny since the governor's July firing of Monegan. Monegan has said that no one directly demanded Wooten's firing but that his refusal to sack the trooper led to his dismissal.

Palin placed one aide, Frank Bailey, on leave after disclosing a tape-recorded call in which Bailey discussed Wooten's case with a state trooper lieutenant.

Shea blamed the controversy on "yes people" in Palin's administration who he said were "doing what they think makes them look better in the governor's eyes."

Wooten and Palin's sister, Molly McCann, began divorce proceedings in 2005 after four years of marriage. Palin, then a private citizen, and other members of her family filed several complaints about Wooten with the state police, accusing him of threatening his in-laws and other improper conduct.

Wooten was suspended for five days in March 2006 after state police commanders determined that he had used a Taser on his 10-year-old stepson "in a training capacity;" drove his patrol car while drinking beer and illegally shot a moose using his wife's hunting permit.

As early as October 2005, more than a year before Palin became governor, a judge hearing the divorce case warned her relatives against trying to get Wooten fired, according to court records.

Superior Court Judge John Suddock said the family appeared to be putting Wooten's job at risk at a time when he would be required to pay child support and warned them "not to slay the goose that lays the golden egg."

And in his final divorce decree the following January, Suddock warned against the "disparagement" of Wooten by his ex-wife's family and said it could lead him to transfer custody of their children if it continued

Let's give 'em the 411 on 11/4

Ravi — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 01:48:32 EDT

Let's put on our game faces, let's fill the country with the strength of our positive spirit, and let's give em the 411 on 11/4!

The only way they will win is if we let them!

thoughts from across the pond - Bush steals Obama's foreign policies.

Dele — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:53:06 EDT

When the campaigns were about issues and not solely about the demolition of one’s opponent’s personality, Obama’s foreign policy credentials were questioned. As I will prove in this piece, Obama is now setting the foreign policy agenda which Bush has been implementing without any acknowledgment. It is time for team Obama to rectify this anomaly.

McCain’s strong suit was said to be his experience in security and foreign policy. McCain it was claimed would be ready to be Commander-in Chief on day one of his presidency. Obama, it was alleged, lacked both foreign policy and security experience. To compound Obama’s lack of experience in the two critical areas he was also accused of lacking any executive experience. All in all, the case against Obama as put before the electorate first by Hillary Clinton and subsequently, by McCain, was that Obama is not electable. With America running two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Iran threatening Israel with annihilation and Pakistan under renewed threat from the Taliban and Muslim fundamentalists, who but the war hero and former POW could solve all these problems besetting America in this increasingly dangerous world? After all, McCain asserts that he has won wars and knows how to win wars. McCain makes every problem beguiling simple by his assertion that he has experience in finding solutions. Obama, on the other hand, provides nuanced answers to complex questions and his campaign team refer people to his website for detailed answers to all the problems.

But the point of this piece is that Obama has changed Bush’s foreign policy and Obama has been slow to highlight how he and not Bush or McCain that is dictating the foreign policy agenda.

On Iran, one of GW Bush’s axis of evil, Obama said at the outset that he would talk to the leaders of that country (not the president as subsequently construed by his opponents). He was ridiculed and derided as naive and at worst, an appeaser. George W Bush’s initial drum rolls of war over Iran’s nuclear ambitions have now given way to quiet but active diplomacy in partnership with America’s European allies.

On Iraq, Obama opposed the war because it was waged on false premise. He also opposed the surge because like many others who opposed the war, he was stuck on the false premise principle and when the surge was attributed as solely responsible for the reduction in violence and curtailment of al Qaeda activities, his reasoned explanation which included the roles of other factors other than the surge. Most importantly, Obama was the first politician to propose a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq. McCain was dismissive of Obama’s reasoned argument for a timetable for troop withdrawal and was still deriding Obama’s position even as Bush quietly agreed a timetable with the Iraq government. McCain, instead of acknowledging that Obama may have been right to insist on a timetable has instead challenged Obama to accept that he was wrong for not accepting that the surge has worked!

On Afghanistan, Obama rightly argued that since the terrorist who were responsible for the 9/11 atrocities operated from bases in Afghanistan and since the leaders of al Qaeda who plotted the attack and other attacks round the world were hiding in Afghanistan, America should refocus the war on terror at ridding Afghanistan of these fundamentalists jihadists. Obama even went so far as to accuse Pakistan of not doing enough in supporting America and threatened to undertake cross border raids to capture/kill the terrorists if necessary. He was described as naive and his threats were seen as an affront to Pakistan who has been American staunch (never mind if duplicitous) ally in the war on terror. On the eve of the 7th anniversary of the 9/11 atrocities, Bush announces the need for cross border activities in Pakistan to take the battle to the Taliban and al Qaeda. And what is more, Bush has authorised the redeployment of 8000 soldiers from Iraq to Afghanistan as advocated by Obama.

On other fronts, another pariah state, Libya became the host to none other than Condoleezza Rice after years of the Bush administration‘s ostracization of Libya. Israel has quietly began its own negotiations with Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah and its avowed enemies in the Middle East once it was clear to Israel the Bush road map was leading nowhere.

So, Obama who started this campaign as the politician without foreign policy experience and who was goaded into embarking on foreign trips to earn his credentials (an unexpectedly successful trip as it turned out), has been shaping American and George W Bush’s foreign policy unsung and unheralded by the media even while McCain continues to claim to be and is perceived as, the candidate of experience.

It is time for Obama and his team to remind Americans how he and not Bush or McCain is the one now shaping American foreign policy and how he as President, will pursue these policies aggressively.

He could start by praising Bush for having the courage to refocus the war away from Iraq to Afghanistan by redeploying troops from Iraq and he should declare his support for the cross border raids into Pakistan thus reminding the electorate that he was the architect of this plan so that Bush or McCain do not take credit for ideas which they had opposed but forced to adopt because Bush is now desperate to refashion a favourable legacy after eight years of squandered opportunities.

FactChek: McCain cherry picks and lies about Education

Ivan — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 07:35:57 EDT

Off Base on Sex EdSeptember 10, 2008A McCain campaign ad claims Obama's "one accomplishment" was a bill to teach sex ed to kindergarten kids. Don't believe it.SummaryA McCain-Palin campaign ad claims Obama's "one accomplishment" in the area of education was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners." But the claim is simply false, and it dates back to Alan Keyes' failed race against Obama for an open Senate seat in 2004.

Obama, contrary to the ad's insinuation, does not support explicit sex education for kindergarteners. And the bill, which would have allowed only "age appropriate" material and a no-questions-asked opt-out policy for parents, was not his accomplishment to claim in any case, since he was not even a cosponsor – and the bill never left the state Senate.

In addition, the ad quotes unflattering assessments of the Illinois senator's record on education but leaves out sometimes equally harsh criticism directed at McCain in the same forums.
AnalysisThe ad is called "Education" and has received a good bit of free airtime, having been run repeatedly on cable news networks. It pairs pictures of kindergarten children with Obama looking confused.

A Factual Failure

McCain-Palin 2008 Ad: "Education"

Announcer: Education Week says Obama “hasn’t made a significant mark on education.” That he’s “elusive” on accountability. “A staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly.” Obama’s one accomplishment? Legislation to teach “comprehensive sex education” to kindergarteners. Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family.

John McCain: I’m John McCain and I approved this message.The ad claims "Obama's one accomplishment" in the realm of education was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners."

It's true that the phrase "comprehensive sex education" appeared in the bill, but little else in McCain's claim is accurate. The ad refers to a bill Obama supported in the Illinois state Senate to update the sex education curriculum and make it "medically accurate." It would have lowered the age at which students would begin what the bill termed "comprehensive sex education" to include kindergarten. But it mandated the instruction be "age-appropriate" for kindergarteners when addressing topics such as sexually transmitted diseases. The bill also would have granted parents the opportunity to remove their children from the class without question:

SB 99: However, no pupil shall be required to take or participate in any family life class or course on HIV ~~AIDS~~ or family life instruction if his parent or guardian submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of such pupil.

The bill also called for all sex education course materials to include information that would help students recognize, among other activities, inappropriate touching, sexual assault and rape:

SB99: Course material and instruction shall discuss and provide
for the development of positive communication skills to maintain healthy relationships and avoid unwanted sexual activity. ... Course material and instruction shall teach pupils ... how to say no to unwanted sexual advances ... and shall include information about verbal, physical, and visual sexual harassment, including without limitation nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual physical sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The course material and instruction shall contain methods of preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that impairs one's judgment.

The bill passed in the Health and Human Services Committee with Democrats, including Obama, voting along party lines in support of it. But the measure promptly stalled and died in the full Senate, and no action has been taken on it since late 2005.

Obama is often quoted as saying that when it comes to sex education in public schools, “it’s the right thing to do ... to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools,” placing an emphasis on the word "appropriate." But Obama has also said he does not support, "explicit sex education to children in kindergarten."

In a debate with Republican Alan Keyes, against whom Obama was running for an open seat in the U.S. Senate in 2004, Obama made it clear that at least one reason he supported the bill was that it would help teach young kids to recognize inappropriate behavior and pedophiles:

Keyes, Oct. 21, 2004: Well, I had noticed that, in your voting, you had voted, at one point, that sex education should begin in kindergarten, and you justified it by saying that it would be "age-appropriate" sex education. [It] made me wonder just exactly what you think is "age-appropriate."

Obama: We have a existing law that mandates sex education in the schools. We want to make sure that it's medically accurate and age-appropriate. Now, I'll give you an example, because I have a six-year-old daughter and a three-year-old daughter, and one of the things my wife and I talked to our daughter about is the possibility of somebody touching them inappropriately, and what that might mean. And that was included specifically in the law, so that kindergarteners are able to exercise some possible protection against abuse, because I have family members as well as friends who suffered abuse at that age. So, that's the kind of stuff that I was talking about in that piece of legislation.

Besides the Obama-Keyes race, this allegation also surfaced during this year's party primaries when Mitt Romney claimed Obama supported sex education for five-year-olds. (Obama misleadingly fired back that Romney supported the same policy.)

His Only Accomplishment?

The ad claims the bill was Obama's "one accomplishment." This is doubly false. Obama was neither a cosponsor nor a sponsor of the sex education bill, which never got past "go" in the Senate. So it was not an "accomplishment" at all. Furthermore, Obama can properly claim a number of real accomplishments.

He was a cosponsor of what became the Chicago Education Reform Act of 2003, which allowed for an increase in the number of Chicago charter schools and required the Chicago Board of Education to enter into a formal partnership with the Chicago Teachers Union to "advance the Chicago Public Schools to the next level of education reform." He was also a cosponsor of a bipartisan bill to help Illinois high school graduates be eligible for in-state college tuition rates even if they weren't U.S. citizens.

On the federal level, Obama sponsored three amendments to The America COMPETES Act, which became law in 2007. All three amendments were passed in the Senate by unanimous consent and became law. One amendment proposed language that would create a mentoring program for women and minority groups during their studies in Department of Energy programs. He also proposed language to support summer learning programs and boost their math curricula. And he put forward a requirement that women and minorities be represented in the President's Science and Technology Summit. Whether or not one considers any of these measures earth-shaking, they're accomplishments nonetheless

Cherry-Picking Quotes

The ad also features three cherry-picked quotes from the media, highlighting negative comments about Obama's record and ignoring those directed at McCain. The announcer quotes Education Week contributing blogger David Hoff, saying, "Education Week says Obama 'hasn't made a significant mark on education.' " The quote is accurate. But the ad leaves out a quote Hoff gathered from Arizona's Casa Grande Elementary School Superintendent Frank Davidson:

Davidson (via Education Week): I don’t think [McCain] has a strong track record of putting education at the top of his priorities.

McCain had used the information about Obama before, and in response, blogger Hoff encouraged readers of the magazine's election blog to "Read the Obama story and the McCain story and you can decide who has a better track record on K-12 issues." We agree, you should.

The ad then quotes a July 7 editorial from The Washington Post, which said "that he's 'elusive' on accountability." Those words did appear in The Post's July 7 editorial. At the time, McCain had no education plan to critique, but later, in August, The Post revisited both candidates' proposals and said McCain's was "both late in coming and still a work in progress." It also said "of the two, Mr. Obama has given the issue more attention."

The last quote used in McCain's ad is attributed to the Chicago Tribune and says that Obama is "a 'staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly.' " This is actually from a piece by Steve Chapman, former associate editor of The New Republic and contributing writer to Slate and the conservative publications The Weekly Standard and The National Review. The piece isn't a Chicago Tribune editorial at all, though it's made to appear that way in the ad. And Chapman, none to pleased about how his opinion piece was featured in the ad, responded in a Sept. 10 Tribune blog entry with this:

Chapman: ... the ad itself doesn't bother explaining how the candidates differ on school vouchers, the subject of my column. Instead, it insults our intelligence by expecting us to believe that Obama thinks kindergarteners should be taught how to use condoms before they're taught to read. Right. And Joe Biden eats puppies for breakfast.

We couldn't have said it better, Mr. Chapman.

–by Emi Kolawole

Is this country going to the pigs?

Ravi — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:29:11 EDT

Lies, smears, distortions, phony outrage, hypocrisy.

That's what the McCain-Palin campaign is all about. Reformed Maverick (not Maverick Reformer) John McCain has taken the Rove playbook to new depths of disgust.

Examples are rife: the phony outrage over Barack's comment on McCain's economic policy - "like putting lipstick on a pig" - which was perversely construed to be a slander on Palin, who, as it turns out, uses lipstick. Who knew?

And McCain's blatant lies in his Education commercial. Every statement in that ad is a blatant lie, as parsed by the NYT today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/us/politics/11checkpoint.html

We cannot allow these people to win. We have to call a spade a spade. That dog won't hunt. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. A stitch in time saves nine.

How about an ad: "John McCain - dishonor at the gate: McCain and Palin lie about their records and distort Obama's. Do you want a leader who lies, one who wants to pull the wool over your eyes to sell you a real life Bridge to Nowhere? That's not change. That's politics as usual. Vote for the candidate who tells you the truth, who doesn't stoop to smears - the candidate who has a vision for the future and the integrity to help America achieve it. Vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Proud Americans."

or "My mother says that at the end of the day, what you have left is your honor, and your good name. What will John McCain have left at the end of this campaign? He has lied repeatedly and his campaign is trying to swindle America out of our future. He comes from the party that took a record surplus and squandered it in record debt. The party that has wrecked our economy. Vote for Obama and Biden. Real Americans for change." etc.

Write your own ad in the comments section.

For Joe Biden

Christopher from Canonsburg, PA — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:19:32 EDT

Experience. Yeah, she’s got executive experience.

She fires anyone who disagrees with her, demands those working for her swear loyalty and brooks no dissent. She tries to ban books and hires a Washington DC lobbyist for her town of 7000. She gets 27 million in earmarks for that same small town and leaves it 22 million in debt.

She moves up to Governor and fights for every earmark she can and blames Washington for wasteful spending. She tries to get money for the biggest project made of the finest pork in recent memory, the bridge to nowhere. Then when it becomes a big joke, she takes the money and has the unbelievable chutzpah to tell you she said “No, thanks!” Now she's trying to prevent the release of official governement emails.

She’s never traveled, knows next to nothing about international affairs, foreign policy, etc. She thinks the solution to the hole her party has dug us into is to keep digging! She is away form the capitol so much, Alaska's legislators were wearing yellow "Where's Sarah?" buttons! And she thinks she’s ready to lead the nation. Maybe even worse, John McCain and George Bush and Rush Limbaugh think she's ready to run the nation.

Some of this ring a bell? Sound familiar? This was the leap of faith we took with the Governor of Texas, and it hasn’t worked out so well. has it? Secrecy, arrogance, irresponsibility! Breathtaking irresponsibility!

And she wants to run on executive experience? I’ll take common sense, thoughtful and rigorous debate and exchange of ideas over THAT kind of experience every time!

Cheers,

Wow. A MUST READ!

Christopher from Canonsburg, PA — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 13:55:45 EDT

From the Huffington Post, a spectacular, insightful column on how to conduct the campaign:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/what-obama-needs-to-do-in_b_125051.html

Every bit as good as George Lakoff, and more forceful.

Cheers,

Campaign reporting

Christopher from Canonsburg, PA — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:50:58 EDT

I wrote the following letter to NBC Nightly News. They treated the story of Sarah Palin's lying - yes, I'm using the l-word - about the Bridge to Nowhere as if it was a disputable, he said-she said story and not a verifiable set of facts.

---------------I just listened to Lee Cowan's report on the campaign, specifically the section on the new McCain commercial about Sarah Palin opposing the Bridge to Nowhere. Cowan then said, "The Obama Campaign says," and then very briefly quotes an Alaska Newspaper.Wait a minute! What did NBC News find? I am tired of the stenographic coverage offered in campaigns. There are not always objective answers to every campaign assertion, of course, but most assertions are objectively verifiable. Did she support the Bridge to Nowhere? Of course she did. Did she hire a lobbyist for a town of 7000? Did she leave a town of 7000 with a $22,000,000? I'd like to get reliable info from trusted sources like NBC and let the chips fall.He said - she said should be the LAST RESORT of a reporter. Cheers,

Bringing physicians and allied healthcare professionals together to get the message out.

Dr. Miller Logan — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:26:06 EDT

I have been impressed in recent weeks by the volume of, and passion in, the rising number of posts to the "Doctors for Obama" email list. Maybe we should "organize" in a way that echoes the Community Organizing that is such a fundamental part of this campaign in order to get the word out to medical colleagues and interested citizens about what a fundamental change the Obama/Biden Team offer in providing healthcare coverage to all citizens. THis would especially include outreach to physician colleagues who see "Universal Coverage" as a threat to their incomes and relationships with patients.

Anecdotal stories by the Republicans are no substitute for factual data on who and what gets better coverage under a plan like Sen. Obama's vs. more of the status quo "consumer choice", managed by for profit insurance co.s that the Republicans offer.

THINKING "OUTSIDE THE BOX" IN THE TREATMENT OF OPIATE ADDICTION

Leonard Krivitsky, MD, DD — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 12:11:58 EDT

Opiate addiction continues to present very serious health and social problems both in terms of an individual addict and society as a whole, considering many associated risks of opiate addiction such as criminality and disease (primarily HIV and Hepatitis C) transmission through the contaminated needles that are frequently shared by heroin addicts acting compulsively as a result of powerful urges far beyond their ability to control. Until relatively recently, the heroin and other opiate (both legal and illegal) addiction was considered to be the law enforcement rather than the medical problem, and this attitude has persisted ever since the morphine and heroin maintenance clinics, existing between 1919 and 1923, were shut down in the United States, and the rigid prohibitionist policies recognizing only the total abstinence from all drugs were put in place. However, the punitive prohibitionist approach had failed to deliver the results it had hoped for, and the medical model of dealing with opiate addiction was born, culminating in introduction of a long-acting opiate Methadone invented in Germany right before the Second World War as a pain killer and reintroduced in the United States by Dr. Vincent Dole and his wife, Dr. Marie Nyswander in the mid-sixties of the last century as the "opiate replacement therapy" also known as Methadone Maintenance Therapy, or MMT. Since that time, and despite widespread opposition and stigmatization, the MMT has helped many thousands of formerly intractable opiate addicts to break their addictions and return to healthy and productive lives. For more details on Methadone Maintenance Therapy the reader is referred to other articles on this website as well as to many other sources available on the Internet and elsewhere.

Unfortunately, it turned out that MMT is not without its own serious problems, such as multi-drug use in methadone clinics as well as unwillingness or inability of many patients to comply with rules, regulations and treatment plans offered by the standard methadone clinic in the United States. The goal of "total abstinence" remains as elusive now as it had been before methadone maintenance introduction, despite every possible enforcement measures invented by the State and Federal methadone authorities as well as clinics themselves. It is clear now that methadone maintenance alone, the way it was envisioned in the mid 1960s, is not the prevailing reality in opiate addiction treatment. The reasons for this are many, including associated mental illnesses, stigmatization, low socioeconomic status of many patients and, of course, the nature of addiction itself. Many opiate addicts are simply not ready for a drug-free lifestyle! Given these implacable facts, the proponents of the so-called harm reduction approach are pushing hard for "thinking outside the box" when it comes to treating the opiate addiction and its devastating complications both on an individual addict and on society as a whole. The main slogan of a harm reductionist is that abstinence should not be an absolute requirement or the only end result of the addiction treatment. Let's look at some harm reduction initiatives as this approach is becoming more and more prevalent outside of the United States, and its proponents are gaining strength inside this country as well.

Low threshold methadone clinics

As mentioned earlier, the standard methadone clinics in the United States impose many rules and regulations on their patients, requiring random drug tests, daily attendance, regular counselor contacts, group therapy and, most importantly, the abstinence from all "unauthorized" substances frequently as a condition for continuing care. As a result, many opiate addicts leave the clinics, are discharged for "non-compliance", or simply do not seek treatment under these circumstances, preferring to continue with uncontrolled, active addiction rather than be subjected to the rigorous routine of a methadone clinic. On the contrary, in a low threshold clinics, pioneered by the Dutch, the patients have fewer "ancillary services", do not have to submit to drug tests on the regular basis, are not required to attend regularly, be abstinent, or to have counselor contacts unless they so desire. The Dutch also pioneered the "methadone buses" that actually deliver methadone to predetermined destinations and then dispense it to addicts in the previously prescribed doses. These "methadone buses" are also functioning in Barcelona, Spain and in Boston and Baltimore in the United States. It is easy to understand that the low threshold approach has the potential to appeal to many more heroin and other opiate addicts than the traditional American methadone clinic.

Replacement therapy with opiates other than methadone

As I mentioned earlier, the morphine maintenance clinics existed in the United States until they were all shut down by 1925, and the whole issue of opiate addiction was relegated to the law enforcement rather than to the medical profession. With the advent of the AIDS epidemic in the early 1980s the interest in other opiates, including heroin itself, has resurfaced in many parts of the world. In Austria, for example, physicians have always been free to prescribe any legally available drug for maintenance of their addicted patients; dihydrocodeine has been used in Germany, ethylmorphine in the Czech Republic and buprenorphine in India. Finally, heroin itself and various methadone-heroin combinations have been tried in several countries, including Switzerland, The Netherlands, Great Britain, Italy and Canada. One Dutch study reported 56% improvement rate with methadone-heroin combinations versus 31% improvement with the use of methadone alone. Germany and Spain also started the heroin-assisted treatment trials, and Canada even funded such a trial. It is obvious that the opiate addicts who do not desire abstinence will find these methods of treatment far more attractive than those offered in the traditional methadone maintenance clinics. Treatment facilities such as those also teach the "responsible" drug use, provide instructions on safe sex as well as clean needles and syringes as prevention against the spread of HIV, Hepatitis and other "blood-borne" infections. The approval of buprenorphine for treatment of opiate addiction in the United States was a huge step forward in making such treatment more acceptable for a wide variety of people in terms of "mainstreaming" the pharmacological therapy of opiate dependence. Buprenorphine, a weak opiate agonist/antagonist is way less stigmatizing than methadone (in fact, most people don't even know what buprenorpnine is), and it can be given by specially trained and certified physicians in their offices, making buprenorphine therapy indistinguishable from any other medical treatment.

Syringe-exchange programs

These programs have received strong support in many parts of the world, especially with the advent of the AIDS epidemic in the early 1980s. In Edinburgh more than 50% of the regular "injectors" were HIV positive in 1988. These statistics, and the similar ones in other European countries, Canada and Australia have made syringe exchange programs acceptable to the general public as well as to the law enforcement authorities. Australia now provides more than 30 million (!) clean needles and syringes a year, and in many European cities there are vending machines that simply exchange the "dirty" syringe for a clean one. There are so-called "fixer rooms" in some European cities, such as Amsterdam and Hanover where addicts can use clean injection equipment "on site" along with receiving the basic amenities such as meals, laundry and showers. Despite serious opposition to needle and syringe exchange initiatives in the United States from many quarters, these initiatives are gaining in popularity in this country as well, and at least one methadone clinic in New York City is directly involved in this program. I believe that the harm reductionists are quite correct when they assert that the anti-drug enforcement efforts should not have worse consequences for an individual addict or society than the drug use itself. This would definitely be the case if the needle exchange programs were not allowed. It would be actually quite similar to disapproval of condoms in favor of strict "abstinence" while combating the sexually transmitted diseases, something that the religious fundamentalists and their Republican puppets advocate in their "model" of sex education.

Methadone in the correctional settings

Unfortunately, we in the United States are still very far from the Netherlands where methadone is available in the police stations for arrested opiate addicts. Nonetheless, MMT is becoming more and more available in the correctional settings, the development quite deserving of our full approval and support. In New York City, the Key Extended Entry Program or "KEEP" is functioning in the Rikers Island Correctional Facility, providing more than 3000 inmates with this health-sustaining treatment. In Philadelphia, the NetSteps methadone maintenance program serves some of this city's correctional institutions, providing maintenance to the inmates coming to the prison system from different Philadelphia methadone clinics. Again, this should be considered a very positive development, for why would methadone be any different from other health-sustaining medications to which the inmates are entitled during incarceration? In fact, if methadone were not allowed in prisons, the "difference" between methadone and, let's say Insulin, would be officially affirmed, the "difference" that in reality does not exist. After the release from incarceration the patients should return to their "home programs", assuring the continuity of care.

Medical methadone maintenance, or MMM

Methadone remains the most tightly regulated drug in the United States. It is regulated on the Federal, State, local and individual clinic levels. Only the most stable, long-term maintenance patients are occasionally allowed to be maintained in the specially designated physician offices, while absolute majority have to contend with the overcrowded clinics, the only places licensed to dispense methadone. This is not the case in many other parts of the world. In Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Austria and other countries, methadone maintenance is well integrated in the general medical practice, thereby reducing the stigma and greatly increasing access to treatment by the diverse patient population. I believe that the appropriate studies must continue "full speed" to assess the appropriateness of treating even wider contingent of methadone maintenance patients in the private physician offices. Dr. Banis, the medical director of one of California drug and alcohol addiction programs, once remarked during the ASAM (The American Society of Addiction Medicine) conference that many people would rather be seen "at the Gay pride parade than in a methadone clinic." Yes, many of our patients do struggle with shame, one of the most alienating and paralyzing emotions of the human experience. This leads to low self-esteem with all the negative emotional, mental and spiritual consequences that follow. Allowing more patients to be maintained on methadone by their private physicians will alleviate a great deal of this problem. Of course, the issues associated with non-compliance and diversion will have to be addressed as well, but the methadone diversion should not be any more problematic than that of other "controlled substances" currently in use.

Treatment of opiate addiction with Ibogaine

Although illegal in the United States, Ibogaine therapy is reported to be quite effective in opiate detoxification and relapse prevention. Ibogaine is a hallucinogen extracted from the West African plant Tabernathe Iboga, and it has been used for centuries by African Bwiti culture as a catalyst for spiritual exploration. Apparently, the Ibogaine administration leads to some kind of "panoramic life review", not unlike that which is reported in near death experiences, which leads to "personality restructuring" translating into the transformative experience and leading to opiate abstinence. It is as if all the previous mental, emotional and spiritual traumas are exposed at the very deep level of individual consciousness and resolved there. To me, as a Religious Scientist, the success of Ibogane and its possible future approval in the United States will be especially tantalizing as it will show yet another time how science and spirituality can not only coexist, but merge. It will show the predominant role of individual consciousness in the development and maintenance of addiction, and that the true cure of any addiction is possible only through spiritual means. To the best of my knowledge, the clinical trials with this very promising method of treatment for opiate addiction are being also conducted in the United States. At present, there are Ibogaine treatment clinics on St. Kitts Island in the Carribean, in Mexico and in Canada. Here is the link to one such program in Canada:

http://www.ibogatherapyhouse.net/cms/content/view/22/37/

Those interested in Ibogaine therapy can research it further by getting in contact with the treatment providers. I have only one additional comment about this treatment: Isn't it amazing that this particular therapy practically confirms the strong spiritual component in the "dis-ease" of addiction and its paramount importance in its treatment???

Spiritual component in addiction treatment

The spiritual growth and development are, in my view, absolutely critical for the successful addiction treatment not just in opiate addiction, but in all drug and alcohol dependence spectrum, as well as in behavioral addictions. This is a quotation from what the Director of Spiritual Counseling of Passages, a Malibu, California drug and alcohol holistic rehabilitation Program Audrey Hope said, among other things:

" Spirituality is the path to self-love, self-esteem, and self-rule, which is at the heart of any healing program. Like giving air to someone who needs to breathe, spiritual counseling is the power, foundation, and root from which all healing stems. Trying to help someone without a spiritual context is like trying to bring up a child without live. I am astounded by the number of treatment programs that leave out spiritual counseling... Spiritual counseling is a powerful healing paradigm that goes beyond the five senses into the deeper soul, where true healing takes place. It is a dynamic process that inspires you to follow your own heart and your own path. Spiritual counseling commands "to thy own self be true...and be loving... Spiritual counseling is a deep healing modality that is about the freedom of the soul. It is different than psychology because it invites you to go beyond the rational mind, to enter the divine energy vibration of love and peace. This is the basis of the ancient spiritual teachings and the wisdom of past ages."

Since I have no expectation of saying anything that is more precise or more eloquent, I will let this quote speak for itself. This whole website owes its existence to my strong and unshakable belief in the same thing.

On May 16, 2008 the conference dedicated to patient safety in MMT took place in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. At the conference, Dr. Laura McNicolas MD, PhD, the Medical Director of Philadelphia Veterans' Hospital MMT program spoke of the necessity of the "middle of the road" approach to the "harm reduction" in methadone maintenance therapy. Dr. McNicolas, whom Dr. Trusandra Taylor, the Medical Director of two large Philadelphia methadone programs and a presenter at the same conference called "a true expert in the field", specifically rejected the extremist "harm reduction" advocates' claim that "anything is better than nothing" in a sense that we cannot tolerate the gross non-compliance with treatment in methadone programs, no matter what it is, for the sake of harm reduction. I must say that I agree with Dr. McNicolas on this point more than I agree with most of the people about anything. Indeed, we must embrace the principles of harm reduction in methadone maintenance therapy only to the extent to which they do not conflict with this particular treatment modality. Let's say we have a patient who is doing her best to comply with the treatment plan, but because of some underlying physical, mental, emotional or spiritual issues is simply unable to maintain abstinence. Discharging such a patient for "continuing use" would be highly unethical as it would mean that we are getting rid of a person for having the very disease we are supposed to treat. On the other hand, if a patient refuses to accept the treatment plan, misses 50% of the clinic days, refuses to participate in individual or group counseling, and continues to use heroin and other illegal or unauthorized substances despite many months of our efforts to bring him into compliance, such a patient must be administratively discharged or transferred to another program. Failure to do so would mean that the program is a de facto "low threshold" and not a regular methadone maintenence with its specific set of approved rules and regulations. If such behavior is tolerated, it sends a very negative message to other patients who may really be trying to recover and undermines the stability of the whole clinic and the authority of its treatment team. The same attitude should be in effect for serious acts of violence. I have witnessed many times how even the transfer to another facility may be highly effective, as it "jolts" the patient from complacency into reality, gives an opportunity for a new beginning and serves as a serious warning that certain behaviors are simply not tolerated. This is my understanding of the "middle of the road in harm reduction" that Dr. McNicolas was referring to, and I strongly urge the Pennsylvania Methadone Authority to embrace and endorse it as the official policy. After all, even if, as the "harm reduction" enthusiasts assert, the recovery in most cases is not an event but a process, such "process" also needs to take place within certain boundaries, or we may end up with the situation where "anything goes." I also hope that in the near future at least some of the other opiate addiction treatment approaches described in this article, and not currently available in this country, will be adopted in the United States. It will then give us the freedom to "triage" the patients into the program most suitable to their individual needs. However, before this happens, we must respect and uphold the principles and rules articulated for the programs that we currently do have under the Federal law, as well as that of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the programs of clinic-based methadone maintenance therapy, and it is our duty and obligation to make these programs safe and effective for absolute majority of our patients.

raising our taxes

Christopher from Canonsburg, PA — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 17:47:50 EDT

I was doing a non-partisan voter registration today outside our local library.

A man came to register, accompanied by his 12 year old (or so) son. while Dad was filling out the form, the son volunteered that he'd vote for McCain, because Obama just wants to raise everybody's taxes. Dad, said, "Good, son, you've been paying attention."

We all bit our tongues, as it was a non-partisan voter registration.

We must relentlessly battle this BS, from the top of the ticket all the way down to us at the grass roots level every single day.

PLEASE print this out and have it ready to give to people:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html

Cheers,

820-427-152

DoctorTodd — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 23:47:34 EDT

What the heck? What are these numbers? They are the numbers of laws and bills Barack Obama has sponsored or authored in his twelve years as a legislator - eight in the Illinois Senate, and now in his fourth in the U.S. Senate.

In eight years in Illinois, State Senator Obama sponsored 820 bills that became law. The Illinois Times, in a cover story, labeled Obama as "Head Of The Class" for his legislative abundance.

And in just four years as a U.S. Senator, Obama has sponsored 427 bills, and authored 152 bills. For a detailed list, follow the link: http://www.statesurge.com/members/923-barack-obama-federal

So when you hear or read someone, such as former mayor of Walissa, Alaska Sarah Palin stating that Obama has not authored "a single major law or even a reform", send them this list:

1. Co-sponsored with Richard Lugar (R-IN) legislation funding the destruction or securing of "loose" nuclear weapons in other countries. This was a major piece of nonproliferation legislation.

2. Co-sponsored, again with Lugar, the first federal bill dedicated to pandemic flu preparedness, including vaccine research and antiviral stockpiling, in addition to state and local planning and preparedness measures.

3. Sponsored a bill regulating genetic testing, which directed the government to develop special proficiency tests for labs that do genetics work.

4. Co-sponsored, with Hillary Clinton(!), legislation to help hospitals to develop programs for disclosure of medical errors They even co-wrote an article for the New England Journal of Medicine on the subject.

5. Introduced his "health care for hybrids" bill, an energy security bill, various bills on relief for Hurricane Katrina (including aid for kids and a ban on no-bid contracts by FEMA)

6. Introduced legislation, which passed, to create a public database of all federal spending and contracts

7. Introduced legislation trying to raise CAFE standards, i.e. mileage standards for US-produced vehicles

8. Introduced veteran's health care legislation

9. Introduced legislation making certain kinds of voter intimidation illegal

10. Introduced a lobbying reform bill

11. Introduced legislation to revamps ethics oversight, replacing the present Congressional ethics committee with a bipartisan commission of retired judges and members of Congress, and allowing any citizen to report ethics violations.

12. Introduced legislation to suspend and repeal certain tax incentives for the oil and gas industry

13. Introduced a joint resolution clarifying that the use of force against Iran is not authorized by the AUMF Against Iraq, or any other resolution previously adopted

14. Introduced a bill to provide housing assistance for very low-income veterans

15. Introduced a bill to amend the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuel sold in the US

16. Introduced a bill to authorize the National Science Foundation to establish a Climate Change Education Program

17. Introduced a bill to required accountability for contractors and contract personnel (e.g. Blackwater) under federal contracts

18. Introduced a bill to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the U.S. foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, and the elimination of extreme global poverty.

Yes, a lot of these are wonky, and perhaps unexciting to the average voter, but look at them closely: they are all meaningful. And keep in mind that Senator Obama has only been in Washington for three and a half years.

Here's another way of looking at Senator Obama's record:

Of the 15 bills he sponsored or co-sponsored in 2005-7 that became law,

*2 addressed foregin policy (promote relief, security, and democracy in the Congo; and develop democratic institutions in areas under Palestinian control)

*3 addressed public health (improve mine safety; increased breast cancer research funding; reduce preterm delivery and complications, reduce infant mortality)

*2 addressed openness and accountability in government (strengthening the Freedom Of Information Act; full disclosure of all entities receiving federal funds)

*2 addressed national security (extend terrorist risk insurance; amend the Patriot Act)

*1 addressed the needs of the Armed Forces (wave passport fees to visit graves, attend memorials/funerals of veterans abroad)

And of the hundreds of bills Senator Obama introduced during the 109th and 110th Congress:

*25 addressed energy efficiency and climate change

*21 addressed health care

*20 addressed public health

*14 addressed consumer protection/labor

*13 addressed the needs of veterans and of active duty personnel and their families

*12 addressed congressional ethics and accountability

*10 addressed foreign policy

*9 addressed voting/election rights

*7 addressed education

*6 addressed relief for victims of Hurricane Katrina

*5 addressed the environment

*4 addressed discrimination

*4 addressed homeland security

Truth is, Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored a number of pieces of really good legislation, many on topics not wildly sexy, but meaningful nonetheless. His bills tend to be good and thoughtful bills that try to solve real problems. They tend to focus on achieving solutions acceptable to all concerned, not by compromising on principle, but by genuinely crafting solutions everyone can get behind.

His legislation is often proposed with Republican co-sponsorship. Obama tries to find people, both Democrats and Republicans, who actually care enough about a particular issue to try and get policy right, and then he works with them. This does not involve compromising on principle, but rather on getting things done.

So while Obama has not proposed his Cosmic Plan for World Peace, he has proposed a lot of good legislation on important though under-covered topics. He takes a patient, craftsman-like attitude towards legislation, caring just as much about the getting the parts right that no one will notice unless they go wrong as about the flashy parts.

Isn't it time all of Washington worked in this manner?

--
Todd Huffman, M.D.
www.YesWeCanOregon.com
--

Republicans Drill for Crude; are they looking for the Republican Base, or Base Republicans?

Ravi — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:33:31 EDT

Ugh. The convention I just witnessed was a travesty. While the Democrats were upbeat, unified and focused, the Repubs showed off their personal attack skills. For me, it showed clearly that the independent, insurgent John McCain is no more. He was completely unable to control his convention to put forth the post-partisan image he wants to project to swing voters. Instead, we got full-on partisan rancor for the entire convention, including Palin's speech, and then McCain tries to say he's different.

Let us be clear - he will not be different. He will be unable to control his conservative wing. He will do what it takes to stay in power with his base, which means no change at all in the economy, immigration, health care, the war, FISA, and on and on.

He is running a campaign to smear Barack Obama and deceive people about his intentions to promote "change". He is not ready to lead. He was not even ready to lead his own convention.

If you take racism out of the picture, Barack will win this election by 2 to 1, a Johnson landslide. It's that clear. Instead, we have to motivate to fight for every vote. I hope everybody will put in the time every week for the next 60 days to make sure we put Barack and Joe over the top, to get the country we deserve - Republicans, Democrats, and Decline-to-states.

Salon's Glenn Greenwald

Christopher from Canonsburg, PA — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 21:34:23 EDT

Please read Glenn's terrific post about how we need to fight back hard:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/05/palin/index.html

A Salon reader posted the most important point, I think:

"I think Glenn is NOT arguing that Dems copy the way Republicans attack. He is probably simply suggesting they attack the same way he does. By directly confronting their lies and with passion.

Nothing Glenn has said in the last two polls suggests to me that he wants Dems to engage in 7th grade personality bashing. Glenn may not want to toot his own horn, but we can: the dems should use Glenn as a model for attack.-- Carol Richards"

I think Glenn and George Lakoff need to be hired STAT to tha campaign inner circle!