Health Care Reform has been resurrected like Lazarus from the grave. I suspect Anthem Blue Cross’s raising of health insurance premiums up to as much as 39% has been the catalyst.

The Daily Beast today displays the following:

The televised health-care summit President Obama will host Thursday is being billed as likely the last chance for the GOP to influence the legislation. The Obama administration said health-care proposals will be published on its website Monday and will likely be a melding of the House and Senate Democrats’ versions of the reform legislation. The summit has been hyped as a chance to break through partisan gridlock and listen to Republican ideas. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced Saturday that the final Democratic bill will be unveiled Monday evening, and that Democrats will finish up health care within the next 60 days using the budget reconciliation process, a procedure that requires a simple majority vote and would block a potential Republican filibuster. Republicans have decried reconciliation as a partisan move.

Maybe, just maybe, the Democratic leadership is about to cast off its timidity and going to move forward on health care reform. Thank you Anthem Blue Cross!

The White House will publish its updated healthcare proposals sometime tomorrow, Monday, so we can all see for ourselves what is being touted. Something that should have been done, I think, many months ago.

We can all, then see our elected representatives deal with the plan on live TV on C-SPAN when members of congress meet on Thursday. Now that is transparency!

I’m not a fan of the Tea Party. CNN ran a poll to determine just who those folks are that populate the new Tea Party.

Activists in the Tea Party movement tend to be male, rural, upscale, and overwhelmingly conservative, according to a new national poll.

CNN found that Tea Party activists would vote overwhelmingly Republican in a two-party race for Congress.

“If the Tea Party runs its own candidates for U.S. House, virtually every vote the Tea Party candidate gets would be siphoned from the GOP candidate, potentially allowing the Democrats to win in districts that they might have otherwise lost.”

[Read more →]

The following is a letter to the editor that appeared in today’s Las Vegas Sun. It was written by a school teacher, Jeremy Christensen of Las Vegas. I’m running it here because I agree with what Mr. Christensen writes:

“It’s time to stop whining that education in Nevada doesn’t work because of a lack of funding,” Gov. Jim Gibbons said in his State of the State address last week. “We need to quit throwing money at programs that haven’t worked and don’t work for our children.”

What hasn’t worked and doesn’t work for our children is throwing clichés and ideology at problems.

This question is not as complicated as it seems. What is a reasonable cost to educate a child? Most of the other states in our nation believe that it costs more than what we spend in Nevada. How do these other states pay for the generous investments they make to educate their children?

Forty-five states in our country have an effective state-level corporate tax rate of at least 5 percent. How long have zealous ideologues proclaimed that businesses would flee if we even considered any taxes on corporations? These corporations pay taxes almost everywhere else in the United States. How long have our children suffered some of the largest class sizes in the nation and parades of long-term substitutes in vital courses such as mathematics because of this outrageous lie?

The state of Nevada is not making a good-faith effort to provide quality education for its children. Apparently our children have no voice or heroes to stand up for them and say enough is enough. The greatest sins in Sin City are committed against its children.

Governor “No New Taxes” Gibbons has a duty to those school children to see that their education proceeds with quality and unabated. It is his duty as elected governor whether he wants to raise taxes or not. I personally don’t care whether he gets re-elected or not. I didn’t vote for him to start with. I do care about the education of Nevada’s children.

All my kids are now grown with kids of their own. All still in California, which has its own financial problems. My grand daughter, Joan, will graduate from the University of California-Chico in June. She plans to then attend law school. She works and attends college now, has she has done since she started. One of my grand sons, Aaron, is attending college in California with the objective of obtaining a degree for his future as an accountant. He also works to pay for and attend school. But the financial burden of college tuition and expenses for law school are mammoth to a 22 year old.

Cutting the education budget, again, as proposed by Governor Gibbons, may be expedient to him, but not to those kids trying to get a college education.

Nevada maintains one of the lowest commitments in the nation for education. California is slipping fast, losing it’s once high education status.

I read that Nevada’s mining industry has enjoyed a low rate of taxation for 150 years. The implication being that that industry does not pay its fair share of taxes—a tax status that is unfair to ordinary taxpayers in Nevada.

I, frankly, think it is time that Governor Gibbons begin to realize that his obligation to Nevada taxpayers is higher than his adherence to his “no new taxes” creed. It is time to fairly and evenly raise taxes in Nevada, even if it requires applying a fair tax on the mining industry.

Dr. Jack Schofield announced his candidacy for election to the House of Representatives for Nevada’s Congressional District #2 on Veteran’s Day.

I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Schofield last summer here in Pahrump. I was impressed and want to introduce him to the voters of Nye County. He is unique.

He is a former Nevada State Assemblyman and State Senator. Born in 1923. In 1941 he was the Golden Gloves Welterweight Champion. He earned a Bachelor’s of Science degree from the University of Utah in 1949, a Master’s degree from University of Nevada Reno in 1967, and a doctorate in Educational Administration and Higher Education from University of Nevada Las Vegas in 1995.

He is a veteran of World War II and a member of the famous Flying Tigers.

During World War II, Jack served as a B-25H Mitchell bomber pilot for the United States Army Air Force. Lieutenant Schofield was a member of the 22nd Bomb Squadron, 341st Bomb Group, 14th Air Force based at Yangkai, China. As part of the 14th Air Force Flying Tigers, Lieutenant Schofield and his crew flew combat for allied troops fighting in China. The Flying Tigers were renowned for their flights and bombing runs through enemy fire, over the Himalayan Mountains to deliver supplies and support the ground troops in the China-Burma-India campaign.

He is experienced.

He served as a Nevada State Assemblyman from 1970-1970, and as a Nevada State Senator from 1974-1978 where he fought for the rights of Nevada’s working people. Jack served as an instructor and administrator in the Nevada public school system for forty-four years from 1953-1997 and currently presides on the Nevada Board of Regents where he has held a seat since 2002. He remains active in the Civil Air Patrol as a lieutenant colonel and serves as the Government Affairs Advisory for the Nevada Wing. He is an entrepreneur and real estate developer. He currently sits on the Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education.

He is a devoted husband and family man.

Jack and his wife, Alene Earl, recently celebrated their sixty-seventh wedding anniversary. They are the proud parents of six children, they have thirty-two grandchildren, and forty-eight great grandchildren. He has maintained a lifelong interest in weight lifting, nutrition, boxing, and still enjoys golf and tennis. He is honored to attend graduation ceremonies at the Jack Lund Schofield Middle School in Las Vegas. At his request, the middle school is proud to have the Flying Tiger as its mascot.

Jack is seeking the Democratic nomination in Nevada’s 2nd district. He is running to restore Nevada’s economy, protect America’s military veterans, and guarantee every Nevadan’s right to a proper education.

It is obvious he has devoted his life to public service. I can remember World War II and the history making flights of the Flying Tigers over the Himalayan Mountains.

Being a beneficiary of the GI bill I share Dr. Schofield’s support and advocacy for educational opportunities.

I will endeavor to follow Dr. Schofield’s campaign on the blog I write. Those of you who do not yet know of him can learn all about him on his campaign website at http://jack2010.com/. When you get to his campaign site be sure to read the “15 American Rights” on his home page. Those are core fundamental rights which I endorse as well.

When his campaign comes to Nye County I recommend you try to attend and personally meet Dr. Schofield yourself. I think you will find him, as I did, friendly, articulate, gracious and capable.

Alan Grayson (D-FL) who gave us “The Republican Health Care Plan—Don’t Get Sick” and if you do “Die Quickly” has prompted the Republicans to initiate a money-raising website called Alan Disgrayson.com which proclaims:

The time has come to send (dis)Grayson home. That is why, Leader Boehner and NRCC Chairman Sessions are pleased to announce the official “FL-08 Nominee Fund.” Any dollar donated to this fund will go directly to the Republican candidate who emerges from the primary to challenge (dis)Grayson in 2010.

Looks like Grayson is doing something right. (See The Republican Health Care Plan.

Senator Ensign of Nevada is no friend of Nevadans. He posted the following on his website:

Photo from the Las Vegas Sun: Senate Finance Committee members Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., left, and Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., talk Tuesday on Capitol Hill before the committee’s debate on health care legislation. Ensign spoke at length about his opposition to a government-run insurance plan.

ENSIGN HELPS DEFEAT DEMOCRAT PUBLIC PLAN AMENDMENTS

Schumer and Rockefeller amendments would have included version of government takeover of health care in bill

Washington, D.C. – Senator John Ensign, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, today voted to defeat two amendments that would have attempted to include a version of a government-run plan in the healthcare reform bill.

“I strongly oppose a government takeover of our healthcare system in America and will continue to fight against Democrats’ attempts to include it in the bill,” Ensign said.  “A government takeover could force private insurers out of the industry and could force hundreds of millions of Americans, against their will, into government-run health care. A public plan, with one signature from President Obama, could destroy our healthcare industry as we know it and turn every one of our healthcare decisions over to government bureaucrats.”

Because the federal government will act as a competitor, a regulator, and a funder, a government-run plan would ultimately force private insurers out of business. The Congressional Budget Office Director has testified that it would be “extremely difficult” to create “a system where a public plan could compete on a level playing field” against private coverage.  The two amendments, offered by Democrat Senators Chuck Schumer and Jay Rockefeller, would have included a version of the public plan in the Senate healthcare bill.

Fact is the healthcare insurance industry IS the problem.

The Las Vegas Sun carried the following in today’s news coverage:

John Ensign: Public option would be popular, so let’s not do it

WASHINGTON — Republican Sen. John Ensign delivered one of the more curious arguments against a government-run, public health care option during a long and lofty Senate committee debate Tuesday.

People might like it and use it.

Then it would become popular, and too big to fail.

And the government would have to support it.

“Does anyone really believe this Congress will let this government program go away if it has a constituency?” Ensign asked his colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee. “To have a large program like this, once it’s started, you’re never going to get rid of it.”

The public option would be a government-run health care alternative to the private insurance market. It’s intended to provide an option for those currently without health insurance, and, through competition, rein in rising insurance costs.

It has become perhaps the most contentious element in the proposed health care legislation — dividing not only Democrats and Republicans, but also Democrats and Democrats — and is the focus of those trying to defeat the health care bill.

Supporters argue the public option would force insurance companies to compete for all the new business that health care reform would create. The insurance companies stand to gain millions of new customers as both the House and Senate bills require Americans to carry health insurance, just as most states require automobile insurance. More than 30 million Americans are uninsured.

The uninsured could choose to buy the government-run plan or private insurance (and the poor would qualify for an expanded Medicaid program). Those who ignore the new law and go without insurance would face fines.

Tuesday provided a first major test of the public option during an hours-long debate in the Senate Finance Committee, which is the final congressional panel to consider the bill. Committee members were considering two amendments to add the public option.

Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the leading advocate of the public option, delivered an impassioned speech.

Ensign helped hold up the Republican side of the opposition, sometimes drawing on his experience as a veterinarian. For the most part, his argument reflected Republicans’ contention that the new option would be a step toward socialized health care — that the public option would put private insurers out of business.

“All of this is a slippery slope toward complete government-run health care, complete government-run takeover of our health care system,” Ensign said.

Ensign scoffed at the suggestion, proposed in the amendments, that the public option would operate autonomously, relying on premiums paid by customers rather than federal funding. Once the plan got up and running, Ensign said, it would create its own constituency, and Congress would be afraid to kill it off even if it needed federal funding to survive, he said.

“As Ronald Reagan said, ‘The best way to ensure a life is to become a government program,’ ” Ensign said.

“These government programs start and they grow and they grow and they grow and they grow,” he said. “Government was set up to do the things we need it to do, not the things we want it to do.”

The amendments failed. Public option supporters vow to continue fighting on the Senate floor.

Ensign might be right. Should it be adopted, the public option might become too big to fail. Polls show most Americans — 65 percent, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News survey — support a public option.

Lisa Mascaro can be reached at (202) 662-7436 or at lisa.mascaro@lasvegassun.com.

What a reason to defeat the public option proposed by Senator Rockefeller! People might like it? It is pretty clear who Senator Ensign is representing – the health insurance industry.

The Nevada Senate Democratic Caucus announced it will back Tammy Peterson in the race for the state Senate seat held by Republican incumbent Barbara Cegavske.

She is, in the view of the Senate leadership, a “gold-plated candidate,” one state Senate insider said.

But she is not the only Democrat running for the state Senate seat. Another Democrat, Mark Brandon, a former college football star who has an insurance business in the district intends to run for the same seat.

I thought the rules precluded the Democratic Party from endorsing a candidate when two Democrats are competing in the primary election. (Note: The Democratic Party is a separate and distinct entity from the Democratic Party. I don’t know if the rules of the Nevada Senate Democratic Caucus prohibits endorsement of a candidate or not.)

For the official Democratic Party to announce it is backing a candidate in the primary phase of the election process makes it darned near impossible for another Democratic to run successfully.

If Democrat A is recruited to run by the NSDP then Democrat B, who wasn’t recruited by the NSDP, wants to run, then B is virtually out of luck, even if B is the more competent candidate. (Note: So far as I know the NSDP (Nevada State Democratic Party) does not endorse a candidate during the primary election.)

The NSDP, having recruited A, will put their resources behind A and ignore B, putting B at a huge disadvantage.

Of all things, the Democratic Party should be democratic, shouldn’t it?

A similar circumstance occurred here in Nye County last spring. The incumbent members of the county Central Committee decided not to run for re-election. Some “grassroots” Democrats, having toiled diligently in the Obama vs. Clinton primary election campaigns and awakened to political activity, wanted to run for seats on the Central Committee. It is a long story, but suffice it to say, the “old” Central Committee blocked the would-be candidates from eligibility to run for the offices, then endorsed for election the current members of the Central Committee who took office last April. Additionally the “old” Central Committee imposed such stringent voting restrictions that hardly any of the 9,000+ grassroots Democrats in Nye County were eligible to vote for new members of the “new” Central Committee.

The result of the actions of the “old” Central Committee has been a deep resentment and split in the Nye County Democratic Party which still persists.

Hardly the way to run an organized political party.

It is a sticky problem, however. Recruiting good, competent candidates for elective office is one of the most difficult goals of organized politics.

Witness the difficulty of the Republican Party trying to find a viable candidate to run against Senator Harry Reid. Or finding someone to run for Governor when Jim Gibbons says he’s going to run for re-election. The Republican Party is stuck with supporting Gibbons, an incompetent, when there are other Republicans intending to run against Gibbons.

The problem doesn’t help the voters, who, theoretically, are interested in electing the best possible and competent people to office. When either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party tie their hands with rules that closes the possibility for good candidates to even run it shrinks the field for voters to pick from.

There is a lot to be said for recruiting candidates but on the other hand there is a lot to be said for letting candidates bubble up on their own. At the same time allowing anyone and their dog to run allows any wingnut to run.

And, considering how poorly voters perform in making their voting picks, it leaves all of us in a precarious position.

[Source: Las Vegas Sun]

I want to express my thanks to James Wilson of Pahrump who inspired me to write this post. Jim had commented to a prior post that “According to my doctor in Pahrump, his malpractice premiums amount to less than 1% of his gross.  Charge cards assess slightly more than that per transaction.”

Merchants want to negotiate credit card fees they’re charged by banks.

When you go to your local convenience store to buy a jug of wine or six-pack of beer or even a loaf of bread and hand the clerk your Bank of America Visa Card or debit card to pay for it the bank charges the merchant an “interchange” fee of 1 – 2% of the purchase.

That cuts into the merchants profit margin of course and increases the bank’s profits. Merchants don’t like it. They’re fighting back. Banks increased their income by $48 billion in 2008. That isn’t chicken feed.

The Government Accountability Office is doing a study of the fees, as required by a law signed by President Obama in May that bans many unfair credit card industry practices. Can you imagine a Republican Congress or the Bush Administration enacting and enforcing such a law? I didn’t think so.

[Read more →]

Olbermann and Wendell Potter are talking about the Baucus health reform bill. Democratic Senator Max Baucus [Wikipedia] [SmartVote] [OpenSecrets], in my view, has sold out the American people, particularly Democrats, with his proposed health care reform bill. He is so embedded with the health insurance industry and their financial support of him that he has forsaken his constituents (which in a broad sense includes us all) in favor his personal concern to retain his position of power. In short, being owned by the for-profit insurance industry, he believes he can retain his Senate seat.

[Read more →]