There's some news in the Las Vegas (NV) business section that ought to raise some concern: "Restrepo suggests it will take six years to absorb the 8.9 million square feet of vacant space in the office market; five years to absorb 15.1 million square feet of industrial space; and three years to absorb 3.9 million square feet in anchored retail space." [LVSun] And, such is the debris left in the wake of a bubble. Money, of course, chases the highest return, and there was a time not so long ago that commercial real estate was "the" place to invest. What's going on now?
"There is currently $3.5 trillion in outstanding commercial real estate debt, with much of it related to properties purchased at exorbitant prices during the real estate boom that ended in 2007. Many private equity players and hedge funds used heavy leverage — borrowing up to 80% of the purchase price — to acquire the properties and are now struggling to generate the cash flow needed to service the debt and meet debt calls. Bach estimates that about $500 billion in commercial real estate debt will come due each year for the next few years." [Time] (emphasis added) So what?
First, the next time someone jumps up on the campaign stump and attempts to blame unsophisticated, irresponsible, and un-creditworthy, individuals for the debacle in the real estate market, the orator in question should be reminded none too gently that $3.5 TRILLION of the hole we're in is the product of "equity players and hedge funds" who borrowed like crazy to buy up commercial real estate paper during the 'boom.'
Secondly, those wonderful people who scrambled in and generated this $3.5 TRILLION deficit are often the same ones propping up banks having a difficult time paying down their debts. Hedge funds may account for some 40% of the capital raised to offset bank losses and promote bank recapitalization this past year. [Blmbrg] Who's pouring money into the hedge funds? "Sovereign wealth funds, foundations and pension funds have overtaken endowments and firms that invest on behalf of individuals as the biggest providers of capital to hedge funds, Morgan Stanley said." "Hedge funds are mostly private pools of capital whose managers take a share in the profits from speculation on whether the price of assets will rise or fall." (emphasis added) Note that the hedge funds don't necessarily profit if the little strip mall is successful or not - but on whether the value of the assets increases or decreases in the financial markets.
Theoretically speaking, if the little strip mall is a winner then the value of the paper supporting it will increase and the hedge fund will profit. However, this doesn't have to be the case. The hedge fund profits if the price for the paper underpinning the strip mall increases in value. Should money move out of the commercial real estate market - for whatever reason - then the "price of assets" drops regardless of the efficiency of any individual component, such as our hypothetical little strip mall or office building.
Third, the hedge funds are for the most part "The Wild West" of the investing world. They are the land of the credit default swap and other exotic derivatives from whence the credit debacle emerged. Unregulated, unrestrained, their reviews haven't been positive: "billionaire investor Warren Buffet once likened the derivatives to “financial weapons of mass destruction.” [Blmbrg] The hedge funds, for their part, have been trying to stave off what they decree to be "Draconian Regulations" by governments. Thus far their attempts at self-regulations haven't proved very successful. [Blmbrg]
And so we have the cheerless prospect that the "equity players and hedge funds" who brought us the Summer of 2008 Credit Debacle, are the self same players and hedge funds who are supplying a significant portion of the recapitalization of our banks, and who are diligently attempting to rebuff any attempts to regulate their adventures. All of this serves to emphasize the necessity of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency with sufficient authority to control the "financial weapons of mass destruction," and prevent further over-leveraged, under-capitalized, and hyper-inflated financial transactions from those wonderful folks who brought us September 15, 2008.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Tryptophan Wearing Off?
Now that the Turkey Day feast-ivities have run their course, DB will return tomorrow morning. Thanks for stopping by, and here's hoping your Thanksgiving Day was a pleasant one!
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
RNC: Health Care In The Emergency Room, A Former NV Governor Speaks
Sometimes when Nevada former governors speak and no one is listening, there's a reason: "I think it’s incorrect to say these people don’t have health care," List said during a conference call arranged by the Republican National Committee. "The public hospital treats anybody who walks in the door, in the emergency room, or claims an emergency or they need health care. So it’s a misnomer to say these people are without health care. They may be without insurance, many of them are." Robert List [LVSun] OK, so there we have it. Former Governor List on a conference call repeating the nostrum that we have health care access for everyone, in the most expensive, least proactive system possible.
Let's say for the sake of argument that the former Governor is correct and everyone does have "access" to health care via the emergency room door. Then is the Republican National Committee contending that the U.S. should continue to fall back on that most expensive least efficacious system rather than attempting to take action to improve the situation? Certainly sounds like it. Is the RNC arguing that rather than improve the productivity of American workers by providing access to preventative health care services, it is better to maintain the status quo and not "do anything" until health issues become emergencies or become chronic? If this is an argument for fiscal responsibility, it's certainly a strange one.
How is it better in economic terms to delay health care access until a disease has progressed to the 'emergency room' phase? Wouldn't it have been far less expensive to treat an illness in its early stages rather than wait until the situation required massive medical intervention? Wouldn't "an ounce of prevention have been worth a pound of cure?" How is it better for working Americans with private or employer sponsored health insurance to pay over $1,000 per year in higher premiums merely to cover the expenses of the uninsured?
This perspective is wrong on several levels. First, there's a smattering of "Let Them Eat Cake" incorporated into the thinking. For former Governor List and his cohorts, "most" people have insurance (and all the people with whom he consorts at the Country Club) therefore the only ones without must be the undeserving poor. Except they aren't.
At the moment most Nevada workers, that much benighted and more often ignored Middle Class, have employer sponsored insurance. However, as has been pointed out time and again on this blog, employers are facing significant hurdles as they attempt to provide health insurance for their employees. The premiums are going up and the coverage is going down. The insurance corporations have made a practice of shifting smaller businesses toward limited benefit plans. Some smaller employers have been told their workers don't fit the corporation's underwriting standards, and others have been encouraged to offer only "flexible" plans with limited coverage. Again, these aren't the working poor -- the beneficiaries were supposed to be the working stiffs and their employers. [Potter Testimony, Sen Com Committee 2009]
Secondly, if the Republicans wish to cast themselves as the champions of small business and worker productivity, then why would they not seek to improve a situation in which the United States loses some $63 billion annually due to illness and injuries as of 2007. "On average, U.S. industrial workers had 8.39 lost work days per year. This included an average of 5.62 "bed days"--days of restricted activity or disability, including hospital days. Lower-income workers had more lost work days, as did workers reporting declines in health over the past year." [Entrepreneur] Systemically restricting access to health care services only serves to exacerbate these losses not mitigate them.
Finally, the comments from the former Governor further serve to illustrate why the Republican Party has become extraneous to the health care debate. There are no rational reasons to support the status quo, no rationale for continuing to allow insurance giants to abuse their rescission clauses, withhold insurance because of pre-existing conditions, and milk small business owners until the employers have to cave in to insurance industry demands.
As the media is beginning to notice, the debate is now essentially between the conservative and liberal wings of the Democratic Party. The elements, such as the insertion of a public option in an insurance exchange system, the inclusion of triggers, hammers, and opt-in or opt-out clauses, and mandated coverage will be debated within the Democratic caucus. The result will probably not be the single payer system (Medicare E) some progressives want, nor will it likely be the corporation friendly version some conservative members of the caucus wish for. However, in the end, there will probably be a bill passed out of the Senate in one form or another with more oversight of the insurance industry. And, the GOP having offered little but platitudes, "hyperbole, and hyperventilation," will have positioned itself in Marie Antoinette's salon: Let Them Go To The Emergency Room.
Let's say for the sake of argument that the former Governor is correct and everyone does have "access" to health care via the emergency room door. Then is the Republican National Committee contending that the U.S. should continue to fall back on that most expensive least efficacious system rather than attempting to take action to improve the situation? Certainly sounds like it. Is the RNC arguing that rather than improve the productivity of American workers by providing access to preventative health care services, it is better to maintain the status quo and not "do anything" until health issues become emergencies or become chronic? If this is an argument for fiscal responsibility, it's certainly a strange one.
How is it better in economic terms to delay health care access until a disease has progressed to the 'emergency room' phase? Wouldn't it have been far less expensive to treat an illness in its early stages rather than wait until the situation required massive medical intervention? Wouldn't "an ounce of prevention have been worth a pound of cure?" How is it better for working Americans with private or employer sponsored health insurance to pay over $1,000 per year in higher premiums merely to cover the expenses of the uninsured?
This perspective is wrong on several levels. First, there's a smattering of "Let Them Eat Cake" incorporated into the thinking. For former Governor List and his cohorts, "most" people have insurance (and all the people with whom he consorts at the Country Club) therefore the only ones without must be the undeserving poor. Except they aren't.
At the moment most Nevada workers, that much benighted and more often ignored Middle Class, have employer sponsored insurance. However, as has been pointed out time and again on this blog, employers are facing significant hurdles as they attempt to provide health insurance for their employees. The premiums are going up and the coverage is going down. The insurance corporations have made a practice of shifting smaller businesses toward limited benefit plans. Some smaller employers have been told their workers don't fit the corporation's underwriting standards, and others have been encouraged to offer only "flexible" plans with limited coverage. Again, these aren't the working poor -- the beneficiaries were supposed to be the working stiffs and their employers. [Potter Testimony, Sen Com Committee 2009]
Secondly, if the Republicans wish to cast themselves as the champions of small business and worker productivity, then why would they not seek to improve a situation in which the United States loses some $63 billion annually due to illness and injuries as of 2007. "On average, U.S. industrial workers had 8.39 lost work days per year. This included an average of 5.62 "bed days"--days of restricted activity or disability, including hospital days. Lower-income workers had more lost work days, as did workers reporting declines in health over the past year." [Entrepreneur] Systemically restricting access to health care services only serves to exacerbate these losses not mitigate them.
Finally, the comments from the former Governor further serve to illustrate why the Republican Party has become extraneous to the health care debate. There are no rational reasons to support the status quo, no rationale for continuing to allow insurance giants to abuse their rescission clauses, withhold insurance because of pre-existing conditions, and milk small business owners until the employers have to cave in to insurance industry demands.
As the media is beginning to notice, the debate is now essentially between the conservative and liberal wings of the Democratic Party. The elements, such as the insertion of a public option in an insurance exchange system, the inclusion of triggers, hammers, and opt-in or opt-out clauses, and mandated coverage will be debated within the Democratic caucus. The result will probably not be the single payer system (Medicare E) some progressives want, nor will it likely be the corporation friendly version some conservative members of the caucus wish for. However, in the end, there will probably be a bill passed out of the Senate in one form or another with more oversight of the insurance industry. And, the GOP having offered little but platitudes, "hyperbole, and hyperventilation," will have positioned itself in Marie Antoinette's salon: Let Them Go To The Emergency Room.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Health Care Reform In The Sausage Factory
The debate over whether or not to debate health care reform legislation in the United States Senate highlights one simple question: Are the Senators supporting the health insurance industry or small businesses and individual citizens? Senator John Ensign (R-NV) cast his vote in favor of the insurance industry. We could have figured that.
Health care reform as currently designed is better for: self-employed individuals, small businesses (including small partnerships and single proprietorships), and young families. It improves the viability of the Medicare system for those over 65 years of age.
The status quo is better for the insurance giants (Aetna, UnitedHealth, The Blues etc.) and the major multinational corporations which can leverage the size of their employee pool to get better rates from the insurance companies.
The question, at bottom, is really that simple. It's the level of dis-information, misinformation, and outright lying that's complicated.
There are no "death panels," there are provisions to allow a medical professional to get paid for services rendered while assisting the elderly with "advance directives," the complexity of which vary from state to state. Interesting, isn't it, that when this payment was a Republican idea it was great. However, when incorporated into the health care reform legislation 'it' became the infamous "death panels."
There are no provisions to take your guns away. That's a fund raising ploy designed to grab attention by attaching a 2nd amendment argument to health care reform. Medical professionals will continue to keep anonymous fire arm injury and death statistics as they always have. There's nothing new here - just an old ploy inserted into a new issue.
There are no provisions for rationed care. Believing this requires a leap beyond logic into the realm of fiction. The argument goes that if health care reform is a "government takeover" (Luntz GOP talking point) and all government health care is rationed; therefore, health care will be rationed in the new system. Whoa. First, there is no government takeover. At best there are (1) government subsidies to help people buy private insurance; and (2) a public option in the insurance exchange for those unable to qualify for or obtain private insurance. Secondly, if there is rationing in the current system, then it's now being done by insurance corporations which intend to get as much profit from selling policies as possible while allowing the lowest claims payout they can manage. If everyone is covered, a person could just as easily argue that there will actually be less rationing in a broader system.
No one is losing any liberty. Opponents of health care reform are employing hyperbole and hyperventilation. You will be just as free to buy private health care insurance after the passage of the bill as you were the day before. You will be just as free to choose your own doctor as you were the day before, and you will be just as free to determine (with your doctor's advice) your treatment plan. You will not, however, be free to decide you don't want to buy any insurance thereby sticking the rest of us with your medical bill when you end up in the emergency room and can't pay for your own treatment. At present the rest of us are paying about $1,017 per year in higher premiums to cover your irresponsibility. [USAT] If this is tyranny, then so is automobile insurance. The idea behind mandatory coverage for health insurance is the same as that for auto coverage: My so-called "right" to be uninsured ends at your front bumper. My so-called "right" to be uninsured for medical expenses ends at your checkbook when you pay inflated premiums to cover my emergency room bills.
The "market" isn't going to fix this. If the good old Free Market worked the way ideological idealists believed we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. To those who argue that we can't restructure the insurance system because it represents a major portion of our economy and therefore we can't "disturb" its prosperity, the obvious rejoinder is that any segment of the economy that has the capacity to bankrupt other sectors isn't working in the overall best interests of the nation. The present market set up is on track to replace comprehensive policies with limited benefit plans which actually pay for fewer medical needs, have life time limits, and aren't nearly as "affordable" as their proponents claim. These plans, do however, maximize the profitability of the insurance giants.
We can afford this. In fact, we can't afford not to reform the health care system. It's been really interesting to listen to Senators who voted in favor of Medicare Part D in 2003 which was NOT paid for, offset, or otherwise financed, now claiming that the Deficit Is Coming, the Deficit Is Coming! Aside from the utter hypocrisy of those who voted for Medicare Part D, and who were fine with letting the Bush Administration keep the costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan off the books, there's another facet to the discussion. There are few greater drags on the overall American economy than the cost of health care benefit premiums. Tell a small business owner that he or she can expect 28% to 33% higher premiums in the next year? Tell the same business owner that he or she employs too many older workers, too many women, or has too low a turnover rate to qualify for the benefit plans of the past - and that now the firm must offer fewer benefits for the same price as the old plan? Or at an increased price?
Most people appear satisfied with the health care benefits from their employers NOW. However, it doesn't take a crystal ball to calculate the impact of increasing premium costs, increased underwriting 'standards,' and decreasing benefits (especially in limited benefit plans) on levels of satisfaction in the very near future.
We aren't about to be crushed by taxation. This argument brings to mind the Lone Ranger jokes: Who's WE kemo-sabe? If by WE we're talking about the top 1% of the earners in the country, then probably yes, they'll see some tax increases. Probably not back up to the level they were paying during the Reagan Administration, but some increases nonetheless. However, WE, the other 99% of the population are overdue for a break at some point. This is as good as any. If you believe that taxing the ultra rich will result in the loss of employment and jobs then frankly you have fallen for the Grand Hoax of the Late 20th Century. The Supply-Side Economic Theory was the product of economists looking to support a particular ideologic argument; NOT a demonstrable economic theory supported by observation and statistical underpinning. Instead of a scientifically deductive theory supported by evidence; it was an inductive exercise in support of an ideology. If one is looking for Junk Science, the Supply Side Theory is (pun intended) a capital argument.
In short, there are no economic, social, or indeed, rational arguments in support of the current system of health care access and affordability. However, there are the howls of those who fear any incursion into the profitability of their corporate sponsors. This is a simple question: Senator, Do you support the insurance corporations or do you have our best interests at heart?
Health care reform as currently designed is better for: self-employed individuals, small businesses (including small partnerships and single proprietorships), and young families. It improves the viability of the Medicare system for those over 65 years of age.
The status quo is better for the insurance giants (Aetna, UnitedHealth, The Blues etc.) and the major multinational corporations which can leverage the size of their employee pool to get better rates from the insurance companies.
The question, at bottom, is really that simple. It's the level of dis-information, misinformation, and outright lying that's complicated.
There are no "death panels," there are provisions to allow a medical professional to get paid for services rendered while assisting the elderly with "advance directives," the complexity of which vary from state to state. Interesting, isn't it, that when this payment was a Republican idea it was great. However, when incorporated into the health care reform legislation 'it' became the infamous "death panels."
There are no provisions to take your guns away. That's a fund raising ploy designed to grab attention by attaching a 2nd amendment argument to health care reform. Medical professionals will continue to keep anonymous fire arm injury and death statistics as they always have. There's nothing new here - just an old ploy inserted into a new issue.
There are no provisions for rationed care. Believing this requires a leap beyond logic into the realm of fiction. The argument goes that if health care reform is a "government takeover" (Luntz GOP talking point) and all government health care is rationed; therefore, health care will be rationed in the new system. Whoa. First, there is no government takeover. At best there are (1) government subsidies to help people buy private insurance; and (2) a public option in the insurance exchange for those unable to qualify for or obtain private insurance. Secondly, if there is rationing in the current system, then it's now being done by insurance corporations which intend to get as much profit from selling policies as possible while allowing the lowest claims payout they can manage. If everyone is covered, a person could just as easily argue that there will actually be less rationing in a broader system.
No one is losing any liberty. Opponents of health care reform are employing hyperbole and hyperventilation. You will be just as free to buy private health care insurance after the passage of the bill as you were the day before. You will be just as free to choose your own doctor as you were the day before, and you will be just as free to determine (with your doctor's advice) your treatment plan. You will not, however, be free to decide you don't want to buy any insurance thereby sticking the rest of us with your medical bill when you end up in the emergency room and can't pay for your own treatment. At present the rest of us are paying about $1,017 per year in higher premiums to cover your irresponsibility. [USAT] If this is tyranny, then so is automobile insurance. The idea behind mandatory coverage for health insurance is the same as that for auto coverage: My so-called "right" to be uninsured ends at your front bumper. My so-called "right" to be uninsured for medical expenses ends at your checkbook when you pay inflated premiums to cover my emergency room bills.
The "market" isn't going to fix this. If the good old Free Market worked the way ideological idealists believed we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. To those who argue that we can't restructure the insurance system because it represents a major portion of our economy and therefore we can't "disturb" its prosperity, the obvious rejoinder is that any segment of the economy that has the capacity to bankrupt other sectors isn't working in the overall best interests of the nation. The present market set up is on track to replace comprehensive policies with limited benefit plans which actually pay for fewer medical needs, have life time limits, and aren't nearly as "affordable" as their proponents claim. These plans, do however, maximize the profitability of the insurance giants.
We can afford this. In fact, we can't afford not to reform the health care system. It's been really interesting to listen to Senators who voted in favor of Medicare Part D in 2003 which was NOT paid for, offset, or otherwise financed, now claiming that the Deficit Is Coming, the Deficit Is Coming! Aside from the utter hypocrisy of those who voted for Medicare Part D, and who were fine with letting the Bush Administration keep the costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan off the books, there's another facet to the discussion. There are few greater drags on the overall American economy than the cost of health care benefit premiums. Tell a small business owner that he or she can expect 28% to 33% higher premiums in the next year? Tell the same business owner that he or she employs too many older workers, too many women, or has too low a turnover rate to qualify for the benefit plans of the past - and that now the firm must offer fewer benefits for the same price as the old plan? Or at an increased price?
Most people appear satisfied with the health care benefits from their employers NOW. However, it doesn't take a crystal ball to calculate the impact of increasing premium costs, increased underwriting 'standards,' and decreasing benefits (especially in limited benefit plans) on levels of satisfaction in the very near future.
We aren't about to be crushed by taxation. This argument brings to mind the Lone Ranger jokes: Who's WE kemo-sabe? If by WE we're talking about the top 1% of the earners in the country, then probably yes, they'll see some tax increases. Probably not back up to the level they were paying during the Reagan Administration, but some increases nonetheless. However, WE, the other 99% of the population are overdue for a break at some point. This is as good as any. If you believe that taxing the ultra rich will result in the loss of employment and jobs then frankly you have fallen for the Grand Hoax of the Late 20th Century. The Supply-Side Economic Theory was the product of economists looking to support a particular ideologic argument; NOT a demonstrable economic theory supported by observation and statistical underpinning. Instead of a scientifically deductive theory supported by evidence; it was an inductive exercise in support of an ideology. If one is looking for Junk Science, the Supply Side Theory is (pun intended) a capital argument.
In short, there are no economic, social, or indeed, rational arguments in support of the current system of health care access and affordability. However, there are the howls of those who fear any incursion into the profitability of their corporate sponsors. This is a simple question: Senator, Do you support the insurance corporations or do you have our best interests at heart?
Friday, November 20, 2009
Ensign Votes To Limit Number Of Veterans Eligible For Caregiver Assistance, Fails
Senator John Ensign (R-NV) was pleased to vote “aye” on Senator Tom Coburn's amendment to the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2009 (S.1963). [rc 351] Ensign was one of 32 members of the Senate to do so. The amendment failed 32-66. The vote was nothing more, nothing less, than some grandstanding United Nations bashing, to “transfer funding for the United Nations contributions to offset costs of providing assistance to family caregivers of disabled veterans.” And for this opportunity to grandstand, 1 member of the Senate (Coburn), and his 31 colleagues held up a bill that passed 98-0. [rc 352]
Aside from the blatant recalcitrance of Senator Coburn, the other 31 may have also inadvertently supported an amendment that went much further than merely shaving U.S. contributions to the U.N. The actual amendment reads: “The Secretary of State shall transfer to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, out of amounts appropriated or otherwise made available in a fiscal year for ``Contributions to International Organizations'' and ``Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities'', such sums as the Secretaries jointly determine are necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act and the amendments made by this Act.” Unless my eyes deceive me, the United Nations isn't mentioned in this paragraph. While agencies and the courts are aware of, and attentive to, “legislative intent,” the wording of statutes is important. This paragraph could, quite easily, have had a fiscal impact on any international organization and the funding for any international peacekeeping operation. If this weren't bad enough, there was a second, somewhat more technical sounding paragraph in Coburn's amendment.
Dear Disabled Vets, These People Are Not Your Friends
(a) Limitation.--Section 1717A(b), as added by section 102 of this Act, is amended--(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end; (2) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; and''; and (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph: ``(3) who, in the absence of personal care services, would require hospitalization, nursing home care, or other residential care.''.(b) Expansion.--Such section 1717A(b) is further amended, in paragraph (1), by striking ``on or after September 11, 2001''. (Coburn Amendment to S. 1963) So, what would this paragraph have done to the bill for veterans' caregivers?
Here's the original language, which eventually passed the Senate. “`(a) In General- (1) As part of home health services provided under section 1717 of this title, the Secretary shall, upon the joint application of an eligible veteran and a family member of such veteran (or other individual designated by such veteran), furnish to such family member (or designee) family caregiver assistance in accordance with this section. The purpose of providing family caregiver assistance under this section is--`(A) to reduce the number of veterans who are receiving institutional care, or who are in need of institutional care, whose personal care service needs could be substantially satisfied with the provision of such services by a family member (or designee); and`(B) to provide eligible veterans with additional options so that they can choose the setting for the receipt of personal care services that best suits their needs.” Taking that “and” out looks pretty tame, until we note that in the original language there are TWO functions of the statute: (1) To reduce the necessity of institutional care; AND (2) to provide eligible veterans with additional options. Read in the most restrictive manner, Coburn's amendment changed the purpose of Section 1717A could be interpreted as “to reduce the number of veterans receiving institutional care BY providing options.” In the first instance the emphasis is placed on the veteran, in Coburn's amendment the legislative language emphasizes cost reduction. But wait, there's more.
Now, we move to section 2(c) in the original: “`(2) The Secretary shall evaluate each family member of an eligible veteran (or other individual designated by the veteran) who makes a joint application under subsection (a)(1) to determine- `(A) the basic amount of instruction, preparation, and training such family member (or designee) requires, if any, to provide the personal care services required by such veteran; and `(B) the amount of additional instruction, preparation, and training such family member (or designee) requires, if any, to be the primary personal care attendant designated for such veteran under subsection (e).
Sect. 1717A: (b) Eligible Veterans- For purposes of this section, an eligible veteran is a veteran (or member of the Armed Forces undergoing medical discharge from the Armed Forces)--`(1) who has a serious injury (including traumatic brain injury, psychological trauma, or other mental disorder) incurred or aggravated in the line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service on or after September 11, 2001; and `(2) whom the Secretary determines, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense as necessary, is in need of personal care services because of--`(A) an inability to perform one or more independent activities of daily living; `(B) a need for supervision or protection based on symptoms or residuals of neurological or other impairment or injury; or `(C) such other matters as the Secretary shall establish in consultation with the Secretary of Defense as appropriate.
Remember, Coburn, Ensign, et. al. wanted an insertion: “ by adding at the end the following new paragraph: ``(3) who, in the absence of personal care services, would require hospitalization, nursing home care, or other residential care.' The original language directed the VA to determine whether family members or other caregivers had the training necessary to care for the veteran, and if any additional training might be necessary. Coburn and his 31 allies would have limited assistance to those caregivers aiding a veteran who would require hospitalization, nursing home, or residential care – and omitting any form of “assisted living.” In short, the Coburn amendment wasn't just about bashing the United Nations, it also included a change in legislative emphasis AND a further limitation on the number of veterans whose caregivers could be assisted by the bill.
So, the next time the flags start waving and the band plays martial music, and 32 members of the United States Senate expend much hot air proclaiming their love, admiration, respect, and honor for this nation's veterans it might do to remember that (1) a bill to provide assistance for veterans' caregivers was used as a vehicle for waving the Blue Flag of anti-internationalism, (2) the backers of the amendment to S. 1963 tried to restrict the number of those caregivers (and by extension veterans themselves) eligible for assistance.
Those supporting the amendment: Alexander (R-TN), Barrasso (R-WY), Bayh (D-IN), Bennett (R-UT), Brownback (R-KS), Bunning (R-KY), Burr (R-NC), Chambliss (R-GA), Coburn (R-OK), Cornyn (R-TX), Crapo (R-ID), DeMint (R-SC), Ensign (R-NV), Enzi (R-WY), Graham (R-SC), Hatch (R-UT), Hutchison (R-TX), Inhofe (R-OK), Isakson (R-GA), Johanns (R-NE), Kyl (R-AZ), LeMieux (R-FL), McCain (R-AZ), McConnell (R-KY), Murkowski (R-AK), Risch (R-ID), Roberts (R-KS), Sessions (R-AL), Shelby (R-AL), Thune (R-SD), Vitter (R-LA), Wicker (R-MS).
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Nothing Like A Little Sunlight: S 1963 on Senate Floor
Perhaps Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) got a bit exhausted trying to explain how he could easily vote for military operations and then place a personal hold on a bill to support veterans' caregivers, because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has S. 1963 on this morning's agenda. [Senate] The Senate will convene for some "morning business" and then S. 1963 will be the next item under discussion.
Three hours will be available to discuss Senator Coburn's amendment. "The Secretary of State shall transfer to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, out of amounts appropriated or otherwise made available in a fiscal year for ``Contributions to International Organizations'' and ``Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities'', such sums as the Secretaries jointly determine are necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act and the amendments made by this Act." This might be characterized as the Make Secretary of State Clinton's and Secretary of Defense Gates' Blood Boil Amendment. Of all the ways to offset funding for veterans' health care services this has to be one of the rather more inane.
Coburn, evidently unaware that Clinton and Gates have been steadfastly working to get greater commitments from our allies for operations in Afghanistan, has determined that the best way to fund veterans' health services is to take the money out of our contributions to international peacekeeping operations....
There also seems to be a bit of hypocrisy in this mix as well. Coburn supported the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now he's apparently done a 180 taking an old fashioned America First isolationist position. His explanations for this maneuver should make good C-SPAN watching this morning.
Three hours will be available to discuss Senator Coburn's amendment. "The Secretary of State shall transfer to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, out of amounts appropriated or otherwise made available in a fiscal year for ``Contributions to International Organizations'' and ``Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities'', such sums as the Secretaries jointly determine are necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act and the amendments made by this Act." This might be characterized as the Make Secretary of State Clinton's and Secretary of Defense Gates' Blood Boil Amendment. Of all the ways to offset funding for veterans' health care services this has to be one of the rather more inane.
Coburn, evidently unaware that Clinton and Gates have been steadfastly working to get greater commitments from our allies for operations in Afghanistan, has determined that the best way to fund veterans' health services is to take the money out of our contributions to international peacekeeping operations....
There also seems to be a bit of hypocrisy in this mix as well. Coburn supported the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now he's apparently done a 180 taking an old fashioned America First isolationist position. His explanations for this maneuver should make good C-SPAN watching this morning.
FYI: Links to Information about health care reform legislation
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has posted the Senate version of health care reform legislation. The full version of the bill is available in PDF form at the Speaker's website. If you wish to compare this to the House version of health care reform legislation, the House version is available online as H.R. 3962.
The Congressional Budget Office report on the Senate version of Health Care reform legislation is available here in PDF form. USA Today has an article summarizing some of the differences between the House and Senate versions of the legislation. CNN's synopsis of the bill is available here.
The Congressional Budget Office report on the Senate version of Health Care reform legislation is available here in PDF form. USA Today has an article summarizing some of the differences between the House and Senate versions of the legislation. CNN's synopsis of the bill is available here.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Dilly Dally Daily News
Alas, Jon Ralston is probably right and we shall be entertained (if not altogether amused) by the specter of yet another special session of the Assembled Wisdom in Carson City, NV. The entertainment will no doubt feature Governor Gibbons acting as though he has never said a single word about “the burdensome regulations imposed by the unnecessary bureaucracy of the Federal government,” and grasping to satisfy the “burdensome regulations imposed by the unnecessary bureaucracy of the Federal government” to get $175 million. Ralston fills in the details. However, according to the Nevada Appeal, Gibbons hasn't decided if or when he'll call his “Last Gasp” session.
Jack Schofield, former member of the state legislature and currently serving on the University System Board of Regents, has announced his intention of running against Republican Dean Heller for Nevada's 2nd Congressional District Seat. [Merc] We can expect Heller to continue his immigrant bashing motif, and to persist in cuddling next to Rep. Joe “You Lie” Wilson in as many photo ops as possible. [LV Sun] Also among the list of those things which are perfectly predictable: Heller will make arguments as silly as the “iPod Example” as to why a significant portion of the Nevada population is without health insurance, [LVSun] and seek to justify irresponsible self-serving behavior at the expense of public security and personal wealth. [DB] If only people could find health insurance the premiums for which cost no more than an MP3 player! Perhaps the best scenario for which the citizens of Nevada's 2nd district may hope is that Heller gets Scozzafava'ed by a follower of Our Lady of Perpetual Campaigning, the darling of the Club for Growth, Sharron Angle. After all, she did give him a run for his money in the 2006 primary season when she drew 35.29% of the GOP vote to his 35.90%. [NVSoS] Angle now has her sights set on larger game – Senator Harry Reid's seat in the 112th. [LV Sun]
Senator Reid's attention isn't focused on Our Teabagging Lady of Perpetual Campaigning at the moment: He's scheduled to take the Senate version of health care reform legislation to a 5 pm caucus, and thence to a public unveiling later this evening. [TPM] [Politico] Senator Tom “Hold on S.1963” Coburn (R-OK) wants to have the entire bill read on the Senate floor – stall, delay, and try to derail. The Coburn stall make be indicative of the GOP's actual incapacity to defeat the measure. Coburn and his allies may not get much help from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, ardent opponents of anything that might really serve business interests (like lower group health insurance premiums) which has already announced that if a planned study of health care reform legislation doesn't support its agenda, then they'll bury the study. [TPM]
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder responded to the Wet Pants Dancing conservatives who appear to want AQ conspirators to be granted the equivalency of state recognition in military tribunals (as if they were representing a state in war crimes trials) in his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee: “We cannot rest for a single minute – and we will not. The ongoing investigation in Colorado and New York reminds us that there are people who live in this country whose radicalization leads to a desire to commit terrorist attacks against the very country that shelters them. They can become supporters of al-Qaeda or they can become anti-government radicals in the model of Timothy McVeigh. The presence of would be domestic terrorists further highlights the need for collaboration between law enforcement and intelligence agencies at all levels of government.” It might be easier for the Department of Justice to do its job if Senate Republicans weren't doing a stall job on department appointee nominations: “At this point in the first year of President Bush’s administration, the Senate had confirmed 12 of his lower court judicial nominees; as of November 16, 2009, the Senate has approved only six, while eight remain on the Executive Calendar, continuing to await confirmation by the full Senate. Similarly, as of November 16, 2009, three of eleven Assistant Attorneys General have yet to be confirmed. I hope the Committee will continue to approve these nominations, and it is imperative that the full Senate act on them expeditiously.” (emphasis added)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Seed Newsvine
