Democratic Caucus: We Must. We Shall.

by: Jeanette

Sun Feb 21, 2010 at 13:00:32 PM AKST

The Democratic Party has scheduled a Caucus on Saturday March 20th, 2010 at the Lucy Cuddy Center, UAA campus at 9:00 a.m.
(Building # 6 on map: http://www.uaa.alaska.edu/map/...

Bravo.  Give me some more vitamins.  Raucus Caucus.  Raucus Caucus.  

I read this excerpt from Ted Kennedy's book, True Compass.  I think its message has meaning today in a post Obama election America whose participants feel a similar sense of confusion and betrayal.

It was a question that many in Congress must have asked themselves.  It implied a crushing sense of betrayal.  Here we were, by our own sights, a collection of affluent, well-educated, polically successsful white men who had devoted years to a constellation of causes that might well have led to electoral defeat for any or all of us.  School desegregation. Desegregation in universtities.  Desegregation in transportation and public gathering places.  The Civil Rights Act.  The Voting Rights Act. The poll tax repeal. We acted, as I have said, because we believed that the principle of equality and justice among the races was a cause larger than our own ambitions.  We believed that our victories in these causes would change history.  And at the very moment in American time when we were anticipating a mood of joyfulness and uplift, our cities were exploding in violence.  How could it be?

There we no easy answers (True Compass, p. 247).

We elected our first African-American president to whom we look for change.  Many of us in Alaska, went out on a limb to express our desire for a more progressive approach to government.  Many of us risked retaliation by our employers and our peers for publicly expressing our progressive ideas and opinions.  We feel disappointed, but do we need to be?  

Echoing Ted Kennedy, who found many of his dreams thwarted by events beyond his control, there are no easy answers, more correctly, no obvious answers.    Answers can be found, and evidence of change does exist, however, we must be aware of how and where to find those answers and be wiling to look beyond the superficial to identify those changes that have occurred.  

A very careful study of government in Washington today, specifically in our many Departments will reveal that much improvement has occcured in the past year.  The FDA has received long overdue funding and has utilized that money to hire inspectors to ensure our meats and produce are safe (have you noticed that our meat once again bares evidence of the blue and pink stamp of inspection).  The TSA has and continues to undergo reorganization to improve its service and in doing so has pin pointed weak areas in the system (Department of Homeland Security reports).  More importantly, a change in leadereship culture encourages personnel to expose weakness rather than hide it and bluster through with false bravado.  The Department of Health and Human Services has begun the slow, arduous climb back towards rebuilding a system starved nearly to death by far right Republican's staunch refusal to neither fund it nor outright abolish it.  This department will play a key role in providing the infrastructure that will revitalize public health in ways only envisioned by those who desperately fought to implement it for all Americans.  

Now, more than ever, we need to back incumbants who represent middle class America, both to keep them informed of our will and show our support.  We do this not because they deserve special treatment, but because we believe their actions in Congress have demonstrated their value as representatives to ALL of the cities, boroughs and districts, rich and poor alike.  Those who have done well by their constituents should be rewarded with the privilege to continue in service.  

I feel certain that our country has moved, at least in part, away from the notion that a candidate can be 'sussed up by reading a few slogans, or a popular hairdo.  I know the fellow recently elected to the Senate in Massachussets seems to embody those very characteristics, but I believe he won, based not on superficial charisma, but because of the lack of voter turnout in the state.  

Voter turn out must be the key.  Every time the numbers in the ranks of the every day citizen swell, a progressive candidate, mindful of the larger structure of humanity, gets elected.  I cannot stress enough, that our greatest challenge in the coming election is to find ways to get as many people to the polls as possible.  We must genuinely reach out to those in need of assistance, who wish to be active citizens, and get them to the voting booth.  As community organizers who love our communities, we have to help every citizen see the importance of their vote.  We must link them to the process of government, and  remind those in government that the poorest and hardworking amongst us have a voice.  

I am one of those who must be reminded.  I know the frustration that grips me and threatens to paralyze me, to convince me I am powerless.  I have no time, no money.  I have stood idle in the belief that "If only I could get above the hassles of everyday existence, and find the time I need to make a difference."  These realities plague me, and I am certain plague many working class and middle class constituents in many voting districts.  But if I do not participate in my government, who will?  I will tell you.  Those with time and money.  

However powerful money may seem in government, it  cannot affect the power of one day in the polls when the public chooses to flex its electoral muscle.  Money can be used by those in power to forestall us in court with endless appeals, while they wait for us to die (Exxon Valdez), but they cannot stop us from marching to the polls.   We stop ourselves.  We allow ourselves to be beaten down.  We allow ourselves to indulge in self pity, and hopelessness. Let us not forget, we number in the millions, and we make a difference when we vote.  Obama's election proved that possible.  Now we must apply that discipline, that belief to local politics. If we are powerless, and our vote does not count, why then did those in control of southern government in the sixties turn the hoses on the young people who traveled to the south to register black voters, and on the voters themselves when they showed up to participate in their government?

Here and now, we either embrace the concept of grass roots, or we bury our heads in the sand and cry "foul."  Our system of government was intended to flow from the bottom up.  Our President is "inaugurated" meaning that he/she is embedded into a system of government already in place.  They are not crowned or incorporated.  They do not gain their position by buying controlling shares in company stock.  They are "inaugered."  If the system is ineffective, how effective can a President be?  We are the system.  It was structure to serve and protect, to provide the religious freedom and economic level playing field necessary to make "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" available to all humanity.  We the people are the most glorious part of the system.  We are volitale and unpredictable.  We are the backbone of the workforce that generates the taxes that drive the engine of government.  Why should we not care who administers the wealth we work to provide?  

The assemblymen and women we elect to local council must make budgets, plan neighborhoods and administer those who uphold the codes and laws that govern the citizens.  They do so within the confines of state and federal law.  They are the first in the chain that links each community to the larger government in Juneau and in Washington D.C.  What hope have we to influence how our federal money is spent if we do not take interest in this most basic link?  The budget they create  becomes part of the tapestry of the state fiscal design that in turn is woven into the larger federal budget.  If we do not ask for what we want in clear terms how can we expect to receive the money we need to build stronger neighborhoods?

We can meet these local candidates face to face.  We can demand they answer the public call for information, debate and something more relevant than a billboard sign, a sixty second sound bite over the airwaves, a Tweet or even droves of sign waivers.  We can refute the money they spend on campaigns by demanding they address us in public in buildings and during business hours paid for with our money.  We have this power.  We can tell them in letters and post cards that we want them in person, not on a triple fold piece of card stock stuffed into the cracks of our doors while go about the business of living.  We can cut through the mountains of money that bolster their drive for office by dictating to them the terms of their candidacy.

I urge all to attend the Democratic Caucus.  Bring your ideas, and your spirit.  This caucus gives us a platform to launch our concerns, but we must also bring a spirit of cooperation.  How have you been effected by your local representation?  What can they do to meet your needs and expectation.  In turn, how can they convey to you the difficulties they face?  What do they need from us to help them achieve their goals in Congress.  Be prepared to sweat.  Awe the leadership with your numbers once again.  Alaska stands at a cross roads in time.  The old cannot be as it was, nor will the future simply emerge rosy and complete without our participation.  

I will end by saying that when one talks to many of the younger, politically active folk in Anchoroage, one begins to ascertain that they possess a bit more patience their parents and grandparents.  They seem to reckon correctly that the change they seek will not be attained in one or even two presidential cycles.   No.  This generation is a lovely paradox of rationales in that, while they thrive on instant messaging and the joy to be had in acquiring the latest design in skinny jeans or a coach purse, they possess a healthy skepticism of those who believe that they will achieve salvation and the good life by hating the right people, investing blindly in the stock market because "I said so," and rejecting the principle that government seeks only to destroy humanity.  

As always, I am hopeful.  As always, I believe in my fellow humans to do what is right.    
 

"A Ray of Hope in Haiti" A Rally Cry to Improve Our Health Care Infrastructure

by: Jeanette

Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 16:13:05 PM AKST

http://www.thedailybeast.com/b...

I have followed the work of Paul Farmer since I first read about his efforts in Bill Clinton's "Giving."  

What a blessing that some very forward thinking individuals were already organizing to upgrade the health care in one of the poorest regions of Haiti when this earthquake struck.  My partner spent quite a bit of time in Haiti during the embargo years, and has a deep respect for the spirit of Haitians.  

According to Ms. Goldberg,

He [Paul Farmer] founded Zanmi Lasante in the 1980s, while he was still at Harvard Medical School, eventually building it from a two-room clinic into a full-service hospital with a network of satellite clinics and home health visitors. Altogether, it serves more than two million people. Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, and Cange, the town where Zanmi Lasante was founded, is one of poorest parts of Haiti. Yet the care provided at the hospital is, by all accounts, excellent. It is also largely free. No one is turned away for lack of funds; support comes from Partners in Health, the Boston-based NGO that Farmer co-founded. As he told The New York Times, "For me, an area of moral clarity is: you're in front of someone who's suffering and you have the tools at your disposal to alleviate that suffering or even eradicate it, and you act."

The current level of health care in England, Germany and other European countries came to be in part by the devastating toll on humanity brought about by the relentless bombing campaigns of World War II.  Millions of walking wounded flooded the already overtaxed hospitals in England and Europe.  The governments of those countries affected most by the destruction had little choice but to establish a health care system capable of addressing the overwhelming needs of a post war society.  

I hope this article helps bring into perspective the importance of a solid health care infrastructure in a society, and how teamwork and proper planning can make it possible even with limited resources and funds.  So much has been said and written regarding the potential cost of reorganizing our own health care infrastructure, yet the cost of not doing so can be seen in the faces of survivors of Hurricane Katrina, the Indonesian tsunami and Haitian survivors of the quake who came to realize that surviving the initial catastrophes was only the beginning of their struggles.  

My thoughts and prayers go with the volunteer nurses from California who are organizing to fly to Haiti to care for the sick and wounded.    

President Obama will be here next week! **Update** Postponed one day

by: Celtic Diva

Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 18:14:37 PM AKST

After the horrible events of today at Fort Hood, it's nice to get some good news:

WASHINGTON - President Obama will make his first-ever visit to Alaska next week, on Veterans Day, as part of a multi-day journey to Japan, China, South Korea and Singapore.

The president will stop Wednesday at Elmendorf Air Force Base in Anchorage to refuel Air Force One. While in Alaska, he'll mark the Veterans Day holiday with the military personnel at the base, the White House said.

As soon as I hear anything pertinent (like how to get tickets, if it's even possible) I'll post it.
*******************************************UPDATE*************************************************

It seems that they had to postpone until the day AFTER Veteran's Day...per the ADN:

The stop in Alaska was postponed a day so the president could visit Fort Hood, Texas, the scene on Thursday of a mass shooting that killed 13 at a U.S. Army base.

The White House described the Elmendorf stop as "an event with the men and women of our Armed Forces," and said that more details would be released in the coming days. It remains unclear whether the event will be open to the public.

I spoke with members of the Democratic Party.  As of now, they are in discussion with the White House and at the moment it seems to be Armed Forces only.  I have a veteran friend checking to see if that extends to retirees with base/post access.  I'll know more on Monday.

By the way, I'm having a quiet weekend with the "fam" but I will be posting tomorrow...possibly with an "emails" update.

A Good Website for Home Owners With Mortgage Troubles

by: Jeanette

Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 19:10:50 PM AKDT

The following webpage casts more light on the crisis, and provides some very useful information to those affected by it. The language is plain and the summary straight forward.

http://homeownersconsumercente...

I encourage everyone to peruse the site, which covers far more than merely the lending crisis.  I stumbled upon the site some weeks ago while researching potential problems with sheet rock made in China.  

The damage done to our country's financial regulatory authority during the Bush Jr. years has yet to be fully understood.  Even the battle waged today over health care has at its core the villainous touch of those who bent Washington to the will in Wall Street.  The insurance crisis and the home lending crisis share basic roots in a system run riot with deregulation.  

A "Conservative" on Homelessness, Part I--Why does Dan Fagan hate Anchorage's homeless children?

by: Celtic Diva

Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 03:06:16 AM AKDT

Dan Fagan, talk-show-host-with-delusions-of-being-an-Anchorage-School-District-expert (though he has no children and didn't attend school in Alaska), once again waxes false on all matters educational.  This time, he accuses the Anchorage School District of "inflating" the number of homeless kids and the media of covering it up.  Why on Earth would anyone believe that educators would want to skew those numbers?

According to Dan, it's because ASD wants all of our "tax dollars" in any way they can get them...and the media is helping in that conspiracy.

It's very difficult to quote from the article because it's literally impossible to find anything in it that isn't a half-truth or a complete fabrication.  I'll simply share information I obtained through my own conversation with David Mayo-Kiely and will provide links to actual documentation that best explains the program but can't possibly explain Dan's outright lies.

According to the ASD Website:

In addition to the children and youth temporarily residing in shelters, the CIT/H Project also works with children and youth who stay in other transitional living situations such as tents, campgrounds, motels, cars or with friends. Our staff works with parents to assist them with their roles as first educator, helper and advocate in their child's continuing educational experience.

Note the key phrase:  "transitional living situations."  This ties in with the first claim Fagan was making against the ASD--that they counted any kids living with relatives as "homeless," even going so far as to claim that they were randomly counting all family members living together as "homeless."  

The above statement and corresponding federal documentation shows that to be untrue.

The Anchorage School District's policy on homeless youth is dictated by Federal mandate...an unfunded mandate at that.  It is the result of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act which has an interesting history Mr. Fagan clearly ignored:

...the legislation was passed by large bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress in 1987. After the death of its chief Republican sponsor, Representative Stewart B. McKinney of Connecticut, the act was renamed the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. It was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on July 22, 1987.

According to the Act's definition:

The term "homeless children and youths"--

(A) means individuals who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence (within the meaning of section 103(a)(1)); and

(B) includes--

(i) children and youths who are sharing the housing of other persons due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason; are living in motels, hotels, trailer parks, or camping grounds due to the lack of alternative adequate accommodations; are living in emergency or transitional shelters; are abandoned in hospitals; or are awaiting foster care placement;

(ii) children and youths who have a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings (within the meaning of section 103(a)(2)(C));

(iii) children and youths who are living in cars, parks, public spaces, abandoned buildings, substandard housing, bus or train stations, or similar settings; and

(iv) migratory children (as such term is defined in section 1309 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965) who qualify as homeless for the purposes of this subtitle because the children are living in circumstances described in clauses (i) through (iii).

When I spoke to Mr. Mayo-Kiely, the key word to look at when determining whether or not a child qualifies as "homeless" is "choice."  Is that family living with a relative or friend because they "chose" to be there, or did they just lose their housing and had nowhere else to go?  The second family (the one "in transition") would be counted as "homeless" under the definition.

Mr. Mayo-Kiely also emphasized that people fitting that description...living with a relative or friend, make up an extremely small percentage of the overall number.

The second issue Mr. Fagan has a problem with are the actual numbers involved.  According to Mr. Mayo-Kiely, there were 1176 homeless students as of September 30, 2009 who met the federally mandated criteria...this was up from 852 students who met the criteria in September of 2008.  Today, he said the count has risen to 1255 ASD students.  If we include their siblings who are not students in the District, the count rises to 1990 children.  

If Fagan had been paying attention, he would discover that these numbers are not at all unreasonable.  

Recently, the School District was surprised by 500 new students for which they were unprepared:

 The School District has had a surge of 516 students that administrators were not planning on when classes started last month,and needed an additional 30 teachers and 23 tutors and teacher's assistants to keep class sizes low, Superintendent Carol Comeau said.

And this may be a trend:

The School District found itself in similar straits last year. With several hundred more students enrolled in its 100 schools than officials had planned on by the same time last year, the School Board approved spending $1.7 million to hire 18 more teachers plus other staff.

And where these kids are coming from would have a HUGE impact on the numbers:

Many of the students showing up in classrooms last year were from families who had moved to Anchorage from the Bush or the Lower 48, Comeau said.

In other words, the school district was flooded with folks who left their homes to move here looking for jobs, a PFD and a place to live.  By the way, now that the PFDs have come in and conditions in Rural Alaska are dire, educators are concerned that they will see more children coming into the District over the next few months.  It's not hard to do the math and see how the numbers add up.  Ignoring that, there is still plenty of other evidence:

--the shelters in Anchorage, especially those for families and children like McKinnell House, Claire House and the AWAIC Shelter, have ALREADY been at and over capacity in September and October with waiting-lists to get in.

--The Anchorage Coalition on Homeless's emergency shelter plan called "Beyond Shelter" already has a waiting list this year.  I repeat, this is the "emergency plan" for those who need shelter immediately.

--Where it used to be that to show one was "homeless" would speed up the process to get Anchorage Housing Section 8 Assistance, that is no longer the case.  Today, homeless families must wait six months to a year for rental assistance.

--Elgin Jones of Kid's Kitchen has put out calls for assistance as the number of children he now feeds everyday is skyrocketing.

--Food Bank of Alaska has seen an explosion in the need for charitable food starting in 2008. Many across the state believe that trend will only continue.

Only a complete idiot would not understand that homelessness is on the rise and that homeless families are the fastest growing group.

Finally, Dan Fagan's argument is based on the assumption that we are wasting tax dollars on these homeless children.  Let's examine what benefits they get:

1)  Free lunch through the FEDERALLY MANDATED school lunch program.  However, this program also has a sliding-fee-scale component for which all children are eligible so it isn't a "benefit" only for these kids.  It's most likely that the majority of families designated as "homeless" would already fit that financial criteria without the designation.

2)  FEDERALLY MANDATED transportation to their "school of origin."  This only applies, of course, if there is a "school of origin" so this wouldn't benefit folks coming in from out-of-state or out-of-town.  

The reason for this goes along with the of the McKinney-Vento Act's commitment to helping children's success in school.  Studies show that when one upheavel (losing their home) is compounded by going to a strange school, kids are less likely to thrive.  Keeping homeless kids in familiar surroundings helps them to cope better with a difficult situation.

David Mayo-Kiely explained that when making these transportation decisions, they always look for the most cost-effective methods. I looked it up in the 2008-2009 District Budget to see how much the school bus transport would cost for the Homeless Program:  $380,000.  However, when compared to the cost of the regular Contracted Bus Transport ($11,275,622) the cost appears to be minimal.  

And by the way, DID I MENTION THAT THE TRANSPORTATION AND COSTS ARE FEDERALLY MANDATED?

Also, Mr. Fagan seemed to be incensed that there were a few of these students who actually took a taxi to school.  

Again, the District determines the most cost-effective method and these situations where someone rides a taxi are extremely rare. However, as I learned from this article on busing kids home to Girdwood from South High after extracurricular activites, it costs about $125 - $150 each day to run those busses one way. A $15.00 taxi ride each way for a child sure seems like a bargain.

I also wondered where was Mr. Fagan's "outrage" when No Child Left Behind was passed--one of the largest unfunded mandates in history?  Title 1 schools fail for the year if only one of the 42 categories isn't met (example:  not enough AK Native children showed up to take the test that day).  If they "fail" two years in a row, parents can choose to have their children bussed to a different school using our property taxes.

For some reason, that doesn't bother Dan Fagan...probably because a good chunk of the blame for that falls on George W. Bush.

To summarize:

Dan Fagan is upset that the Anchorage School District is doing its job by identifying and assisting homeless youth based on federally mandated criteria established by Ronald Reagan.  He is further incensed because this federal mandate is unfunded, thereby requiring that the money to follow these regulations comes from the General Fund.  However, he's not upset by the hundreds of thousands of dollars out of the General Fund which must pay for the requirements of No Child Left Behind.

Have I got that about right?

Update on Records Requests and Emails...nothing has changed under Gov. Parnell

by: Celtic Diva

Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 12:06:54 PM AKDT

This week, Sean Cockerham and Alaska AP both wrote pieces on the Alaska Democratic Party's long and continued wait for their records request...Per AP:

Public records requested more than a year ago for Palin's e-mails still haven't been provided by the state, and Alaska Democratic Party Chairwoman Patti Higgins said she thinks officials are trying to hide something.

"I think this is a travesty of justice," Higgins told the Anchorage Daily News.

Public records in Alaska are supposed to be provided within 10 days, but the state can extend the deadline for complicated requests. State officials said it's taking a lot of time to process the request for e-mails because so many were sought.

According to both articles, the request includes emails to and from the governor with various keywords, including "Monegan" and "Wooten".  This betrays the date of the request which was September 2008, in the thick of the Troopergate investigation.

However, in Cockerham's article he adds this:

Democratic Party Chairwoman Higgins said she'll meet with the Alaska Civil Liberties Union to see if the ACLU would be willing to file a lawsuit seeking to force the state to produce the records, which she requested on Sept. 22, 2008. State officials said her request involves reviewing about 21,000 documents.

Higgins said she also worries the state will black out much of the information and charge large fees. "The other threat that the state is giving us is that this may cost us up to half a million dollars," she said, promising to sue if that turns out to be the case.

You wonderful folks whose money paid for our yet undelivered record's request have been incredibly patient, especially considering the conflicting issues between advocacy and reporting/blogging:  I can't always write about "behind the scenes" activities.  I have had conversations and email traffic with advisors over the months regarding this and I'm unable as yet to talk about things still in the works.  However, there is some news.

As a reminder, this is where we stood as of July 2nd, the last contact I had with the Department of Administration regarding this records request (click the letter for a larger, easier-to-read copy):

After the Cockerham/AP articles, it was suggested that I write a letter to Mr. David Jones, the lawyer from the Attorney General's office quoted in both articles.  

(Disclaimer:  I do not believe FOR ONE SECOND that the Democratic Party should pay a single cent for their records request.  I just used the information to highlight the differences.)

Mr. Jones:

I saw the quotes from you in the Associated Press story on the Democratic Party emails and was struck by several things:

a)  The Democratic Party has not paid you anything for their emails, and

b)  You send them regular notification that extensions have been granted.  

My public records request has not been in the works for as long as the one they submitted.  However:

1)  I sent a money order (receipt acknowledged in the attached July 2nd letter) for $5,552.64 to the Department of Administration for my records request to be completed.

2)  Only parts 3 and 4 were sent (see letter) which was only two pages and was a record request itself, which made it unnecessary to search for it.  The previous emails describing what the money would pay for makes that fact very clear.

3)  The money was to search for parts 1 and 2 (again, see letter).  I have heard nothing about it.

4)  I have also received nothing from your office or the Department of Administration stating that any extension has been granted.

5)  My request only covers a five employees' email accounts and about 10 months of time.

It seems to me that the Department of Administration is in violation of AS 40.25, which requires the agency to provide the information within 10 days of receiving the requested fees.  As it is now October and the money was received before July 2nd, I wonder if this also may qualify as a breech of contract, since I have not received the product for which I've already paid?

This email is to request a response from your office.

Thank you for your attention.

Linda Kellen
aka:  Linda Kellen Biegel

Note:  I purposely did not send any letters or "reminders" to the Department of Administration over the last several months regarding the records request because I wanted to see how long it took them to request an extension...THEY NEVER DID.  (I didn't want to tell you guys either because, yes, they still monitor this website.)

Yesterday, I received this letter from Michelle Fabrello of the Department of Administration in response to my communication to the Attorney General's office:

First off, these are emails between the Governor's Office and two members of the media...a gossip columnist and a buffoon.  I have searched and searched the list of exempted records from AS 40.25.140 and found not ONE SINGLE CATEGORY where those emails could fit WITHIN REASON even if they used petroleum jelly and a shoehorn.

Secondly, I like how THEY lay out my options.  They say that I "could treat the failure to respond" to the request as "a denial" and appeal "to Governor Parnell or to superior court."

Actually, I am much more likely to view the entire process THIS WAY:

AS 40.25.125. Enforcement: Injunctive Relief.

A person having custody or control of a public record who denies, obstructs, or attempts to obstruct, or a person not having custody or control who aids or abets another person in denying, obstructing, or attempting to obstruct, the inspection of a public record subject to inspection under AS 40.25.110 or 40.25.120 may be enjoined by the superior court from denying, obstructing, or attempting to obstruct, the inspection of public records subject to inspection under AS 40.25.110 or 40.25.120. A person may seek injunctive relief under this section without exhausting the person's remedies under AS 40.25.123 - 40.25.124.

I have some serious work ahead of me before I respond to this letter.

I look forward to your comments, suggestions, advice and rantings!

Progress report on American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

by: Jeanette

Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 15:50:05 PM AKDT

http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/...

As words and accusations by and against the nations politicians soar through the virtual universe, this web site might be a helpful tool to discern for oneself what has and hasn't been done to help the nation's economy rebound.  

This site along with thomas.loc.gov can be helpful when sifting through the pablum offered up by the news machine in all its various forms.  The news media, scaled down as it is to produce maximum profits from minimum outlay of funding, has retooled its reporting mechanisms to seek out words and phrases that peg the "popularity" meter.  It cannot be relied upon to deliver any pertinent research regarding any subject of any complexity in time to arm the citizen with any useful information.

Even more useful than the recovery.gov site are the individual sites for each Department of US government (Interior, Agriculture).  Compare the sites now to what they were a year ago, and you would see a big difference in content and focus.  The focus now is getting information out to the public.  The government actually wants us to see what they are doing, and have gone a long way to restoring the checks and balances as well of systems of measurement that allow the President and his Secretaries to adequately monitor the output of each Department.  

I feel that mentioning this is important during a period in President's term when Americans seem to be losing faith in his administration.  Many of you know that I tend to fore go what politicians say they intend to do, and focus on what they actually do.  The Bush administration all but wiped out the portion of our government that reported on its own progress - its own oversight. I believe this purposeful handicapping of our government was his greatest failure of office,  his greatest crime as President.  Yes, he authorized illegal wire tapping, sent our children out to fight an unauthorized war, and supported torture of our enemies, but had he (and the rest of his ilk) not willfully blinded our government, and grossly neglected his duties as chief executor of American, infrastructure would have existed to warn us of impending disaster.    

What I expect of our current President is that he do all that he can to begin the slow and painful process of rebuilding the infrastructure of our civil government.  I see evidence of his efforts in every department.  The information highway has begun to disseminate crucial information, and internal mechanisms of oversight are being restored.  

If you can, take a few moments to tour the infrastructure of our government and see what you think.  Some of the websites are down right inspirational.  I know some will say that we see only what they want us to see.  In rebuttal, I say that I have been watching, and the shifting pattern reveals much to the observer.  I would rather be blinded by an overly enthusiastic pie in the sky civic attitude, than be confronted by shadows upon shadows and led down corridors leading nowhere.  That was the government website of the past.  Today it is a bit different.  Take a peek.  

I'm Gonna Wash that Gal Right Outta My Hair

by: Jeanette

Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 19:08:23 PM AKDT

A train of thought roared through my head last night, and I let it run its course.  I vented my spleen, and spoke my piece concerning Sarah Palin.  Like a woman emerging from the steam of a wood heated sauna in winter, I am ready to plunge into the snow, and let the poisons be washed from me.

This morning all I could think about were the women of Alaska.  Sarah Palin, in all her ignominious glory, has compelled me to appreciate more deeply the women who move and shake this state in a way that no mere earthquake could accomplish.  I am thirsty for history.  

Does anyone remember the old museum pictures up at the Hatcher's Pass mine?  What about Ruth, the indefatigable truck driver who earned the respect of the miners to whom she brought luxury goods?  What about the faces of all those female teachers from long ago who hung on the walls of the old Pioneers school building?  Has anyone visited the new Anchorage museum lately, and gazed upon the portraits of the native women from the coast and the interior?  Their faces capture the sheer power of knowledge and culture passed from matriarch to matriarch?

But what of today?  What portraits can be taken today that will tell stories to our daughters and to our sons?  I see Elvi Gray-Jackson in her seat at the Municipal assembly chambers.  Tears stream down her face as she pleads the case of AO 64 before her peers, and places her career on the line before all her constituents.  Then I see the upturned face of CC as she sits before her mike at KUDO.  She is smiling, and she is eager for the opportunity to tackle the issues of the day, of the hour.  I am at a town hall meeting.  There is a woman testifying against the "prisons for profit" system that has robbed her son of a future, and an Irish woman asking her representative for funding to help her teach students who have been kicked out of the school system in Anchorage.  I am surrounded by a crowd of laughing, rowdy gals walking the Kincaid trail to support cancer research.  Women everywhere engaged, alive, unwilling to be discounted by whatever hardships life tosses in their paths.  

We fight ceaselessly for ethics reform, health care reform, to have the hockey rinks plowed in the winter, to get breakfast served to our poorest children in need of sustenance.  Sometimes we fight for our lives in bad relationships. Sometimes we just fight with ourselves for our own sanity. Win?  Not always, but always we fight.  

Sarah Palin is a blip in the road of our history. She reminds us of a not to distant past when women happily threw other women under the bus, into the pits, or onto the flames to achieve their own goals.  We reject this model of femininity as the accepted means to ascend to a position of power.  We are the women of the future, blessed by our past, secure in the present.  Our stories are told in the eyes of our children, our friends, our lovers, our parents.

If we want peace, we will have it.  If we seek health care for our children, we will have it.  If we want to demand fair wages for our citizens, we shall have it.  As we walked among the savannas of the ancient past and learned the shapes of healing herbs and nutritious plants, so shall we walk among the tallest skyscrapers and barest tundra to seek what will be best for our families.  We will thrive.   We are the women of Alaska.  

As for Sarah Palin from this day forward.  What can I say, or rather sing.  Sing it sisters (brothers welcome too).

I'm gonna wash that gal right outta my hair.
I'm gonna wash that gal right outta my hair.
I'm gonna wash that gal right outta my hair.
And send her on her way.

One Million For What: No Tribute Will I Pay To Palin This Day

by: Jeanette

Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 18:50:52 PM AKDT

My grandmother woke up before dawn every morning for the first forty years or more of her life, trudged out of doors, loaded coal into a bucket, walked back to her home, and stoked up the pot bellied stove so that her family would be warm when they came to the table for breakfast.  

The single mother who lives beside me gets up every morning, feeds her cubs, and drives them to school every morning, so that they can have a better future.    

The Philippine woman who lives on the other side of me works in a hotel everyday while her husband manicures yards, and plows snow at all hours to save money for their son's college education.  She frets over the fate of her relatives back in the Philippines.

Our own beloved Diva I surmise, tends her flock, her garden, her home, and her daughter so that they will all prosper and thrive, and still she finds the time to question authority out of control.  

Ann Strongheart fought for the well being of her community, cares for her daughter, tends to the everyday chores, and buried her husband...

A gay woman grabs a cup of Java, kisses her partner of ten years good morning, heads to work, skirts unwelcome intrusions into her private life so that she can keep her job.  

A young woman begins a career in an industry dominated by men.  She has to work harder than most men to prove herself.  She finds ways to cope, to get 'er done in the face of impossible odds.

All over Alaska, ordinary woman do extraordinary tasks for their families, for themselves, for their careers.  Many, if not most, do not question their lot in life.  They do.  They must.  They have no choice.

Sarah Palin was blessed with good looks, the opportunity to attend college, colleges, and the extraordinary good fortune of being in the right place (post Murkowski Alaska) at the right time.  She had all the advantages, and what did she do?  She quit.  She walked away from her career, her goal, her dream.

Picture me in a cafeteria on my lunch break.  I am surrounded by men whom I respect, and who I believe respect me.  We are watching the TV overhead.  The teleprompter running under the face of the pretty newswoman announces that former Governor Palin's book sells one million copies during its first day of release.  I sit quietly.  The man on my left comments that Sarah didn't have a chance against the legislators.  The man on my right chimes in and remarks that she did the right thing by resigning.  She couldn't get anything done with all the opposition against her.  The man opposite me agrees with the second man's assessment.  I take a deep breath, and make the following comment.  I will paraphrase.

"Everyone of you sitting next to me is a supervisor in this company, and I bet not one of you got where you where by giving in to the 'opposition.'  Not one of you would respect a man for making the kind of decision that Sarah Palin made, and this conversation would be very different if it had been a man.  Well, I am not cutting her any slack.  She signed on to be a governor, and she quit.  As a woman, as a citizen, I am disappointed.  I worked my ass off as a maintainer in the Air National Guard, and I didn't quit.  I know a lot of women who face much greater adversity, and they didn't quit, and I am saddened that a woman who obviously quit in the face of hardship will make unfathomable amounts of money by hiring someone to write her story, and sell it to the public."

I stood up, put my tray in the little tray thingie by the galley, smiled at the airman first class manning her station, and walked back to my cubicle.  

Women live in my state who can write words that bring tears to my eyes.  Women live in this state (CC, this one is for you, thank you from the bottom of my heart for all your support), who despite anguish and hardship, fulfill their obligations no matter the pain.  Women live in this state who carry burdens on their shoulders no woman should be asked to carry, and never flinch, never question.  I love these women.  I cherish these women.  I want to tell them all that they matter.  I don't understand why the world twist and turns as it does.  I don't know why some women die in the span of the few seconds it takes for a bomb to explode over a city in Bosnia, while others reap rewards undeserved.  

Why, why and why?  There but for the grace of our maker go I.

HR 3200: Severing the Ties of Health Insurance to Wall Street

by: Jeanette

Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 17:31:22 PM AKDT

The following section of HR 3200 addresses specific reforms to the tax code which would significantly impact the ability of umbrella companies to redistribute profits from health insurance companies towards corporate coffers and out of the hands of premium payers.  Here is the text of this legislation.

SEC. 442. DELAY IN APPLICATION OF WORLDWIDE ALLOCATION OF INTEREST.

     (a) In General- Paragraphs (5)(D) and (6) of section 864(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are each amended by striking `December 31, 2010' and inserting `December 31, 2019'.

     (b) Transition- Subsection (f) of section 864 of such Code is amended by striking paragraph (7).

PART 2--PREVENTION OF TAX AVOIDANCE

SEC. 451. LIMITATION ON TREATY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN DEDUCTIBLE PAYMENTS.

     (a) In General- Section 894 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to income affected by treaty) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

     `(d) Limitation on Treaty Benefits for Certain Deductible Payments-

           `(1) IN GENERAL- In the case of any deductible related-party payment, any withholding tax imposed under chapter 3 (and any tax imposed under subpart A or B of this part) with respect to such payment may not be reduced under any treaty of the United States unless any such withholding tax would be reduced under a treaty of the United States if such payment were made directly to the foreign parent corporation.

           `(2) DEDUCTIBLE RELATED-PARTY PAYMENT- For purposes of this subsection, the term `deductible related-party payment' means any payment made, directly or indirectly, by any person to any other person if the payment is allowable as a deduction under this chapter and both persons are members of the same foreign controlled group of entities.

           `(3) FOREIGN CONTROLLED GROUP OF ENTITIES- For purposes of this subsection--

                 `(A) IN GENERAL- The term `foreign controlled group of entities' means a controlled group of entities the common parent of which is a foreign corporation.

                 `(B) CONTROLLED GROUP OF ENTITIES- The term `controlled group of entities' means a controlled group of corporations as defined in section 1563(a)(1), except that--

                       `(i) `more than 50 percent' shall be substituted for `at least 80 percent' each place it appears therein, and

                       `(ii) the determination shall be made without regard to subsections (a)(4) and (b)(2) of section 1563.

                 A partnership or any other entity (other than a corporation) shall be treated as a member of a controlled group of entities if such entity is controlled (within the meaning of section 954(d)(3)) by members of such group (including any entity treated as a member of such group by reason of this sentence).

           `(4) FOREIGN PARENT CORPORATION- For purposes of this subsection, the term `foreign parent corporation' means, with respect to any deductible related-party payment, the common parent of the foreign controlled group of entities referred to in paragraph (3)(A).

           `(5) REGULATIONS- The Secretary may prescribe such regulations or other guidance as are necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this subsection, including regulations or other guidance which provide for--

                 `(A) the treatment of two or more persons as members of a foreign controlled group of entities if such persons would be the common parent of such group if treated as one corporation, and

                 `(B) the treatment of any member of a foreign controlled group of entities as the common parent of such group if such treatment is appropriate taking into account the economic relationships among such entities.'.

     (b) Effective Date- The amendment made by this section shall apply to payments made after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 452. CODIFICATION OF ECONOMIC SUBSTANCE DOCTRINE.

     (a) In General- Section 7701 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating subsection (o) as subsection (p) and by inserting after subsection (n) the following new subsection:

     `(o) Clarification of Economic Substance Doctrine-

           `(1) APPLICATION OF DOCTRINE- In the case of any transaction to which the economic substance doctrine is relevant, such transaction shall be treated as having economic substance only if--

                 `(A) the transaction changes in a meaningful way (apart from Federal income tax effects) the taxpayer's economic position, and

                 `(B) the taxpayer has a substantial purpose (apart from Federal income tax effects) for entering into such transaction.

           `(2) SPECIAL RULE WHERE TAXPAYER RELIES ON PROFIT POTENTIAL-

                 `(A) IN GENERAL- The potential for profit of a transaction shall be taken into account in determining whether the requirements of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) are met with respect to the transaction only if the present value of the reasonably expected pre-tax profit from the transaction is substantial in relation to the present value of the expected net tax benefits that would be allowed if the transaction were respected.

                 `(B) TREATMENT OF FEES AND FOREIGN TAXES- Fees and other transaction expenses and foreign taxes shall be taken into account as expenses in determining pre-tax profit under subparagraph (A).

           `(3) STATE AND LOCAL TAX BENEFITS- For purposes of paragraph (1), any State or local income tax effect which is related to a Federal income tax effect shall be treated in the same manner as a Federal income tax effect.

           `(4) FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING BENEFITS- For purposes of paragraph (1)(B), achieving a financial accounting benefit shall not be taken into account as a purpose for entering into a transaction if the origin of such financial accounting benefit is a reduction of Federal income tax.

           `(5) DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULES- For purposes of this subsection--

                 `(A) ECONOMIC SUBSTANCE DOCTRINE- The term `economic substance doctrine' means the common law doctrine under which tax benefits under subtitle A with respect to a transaction are not allowable if the transaction does not have economic substance or lacks a business purpose.

                 `(B) EXCEPTION FOR PERSONAL TRANSACTIONS OF INDIVIDUALS- In the case of an individual, paragraph (1) shall apply only to transactions entered into in connection with a trade or business or an activity engaged in for the production of income.

                 `(C) OTHER COMMON LAW DOCTRINES NOT AFFECTED- Except as specifically provided in this subsection, the provisions of this subsection shall not be construed as altering or supplanting any other rule of law, and the requirements of this subsection shall be construed as being in addition to any such other rule of law.

                 `(D) DETERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF DOCTRINE NOT AFFECTED- The determination of whether the economic substance doctrine is relevant to a transaction (or series of transactions) shall be made in the same manner as if this subsection had never been enacted.

           `(6) REGULATIONS- The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this subsection.'.

     (b) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to transactions entered into after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 453. PENALTIES FOR UNDERPAYMENTS.

     (a) Penalty for Underpayments Attributable to Transactions Lacking Economic Substance-

           (1) IN GENERAL- Subsection (b) of section 6662 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after paragraph (5) the following new paragraph:

           `(6) Any disallowance of claimed tax benefits by reason of a transaction lacking economic substance (within the meaning of section 7701(o)) or failing to meet the requirements of any similar rule of law.'.

           (2) INCREASED PENALTY FOR NONDISCLOSED TRANSACTIONS- Section 6662 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

     `(i) Increase in Penalty in Case of Nondisclosed Noneconomic Substance Transactions-

           `(1) IN GENERAL- In the case of any portion of an underpayment which is attributable to one or more nondisclosed noneconomic substance transactions, subsection (a) shall be applied with respect to such portion by substituting `40 percent' for `20 percent'.

           `(2) NONDISCLOSED NONECONOMIC SUBSTANCE TRANSACTIONS- For purposes of this subsection, the term `nondisclosed noneconomic substance transaction' means any portion of a transaction described in subsection (b)(6) with respect to which the relevant facts affecting the tax treatment are not adequately disclosed in the return nor in a statement attached to the return.

           `(3) SPECIAL RULE FOR AMENDED RETURNS- Except as provided in regulations, in no event shall any amendment or supplement to a return of tax be taken into account for purposes of this subsection if the amendment or supplement is filed after the earlier of the date the taxpayer is first contacted by the Secretary regarding the examination of the return or such other date as is specified by the Secretary.'.

           (3) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Subparagraph (B) of section 6662A(e)(2) of such Code is amended--

                 (A) by striking `section 6662(h)' and inserting `subsections (h) or (i) of section 6662', and

                 (B) by striking `GROSS VALUATION MISSTATEMENT PENALTY' in the heading and inserting `CERTAIN INCREASED UNDERPAYMENT PENALTIES'.

     (b) Reasonable Cause Exception Not Applicable to Noneconomic Substance Transactions, Tax Shelters, and Certain Large or Publicly Traded Persons- Subsection (c) of section 6664 of such Code is amended--

           (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively,

           (2) by striking `paragraph (2)' in paragraph (4), as so redesignated, and inserting `paragraph (3)', and

           (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new paragraph:

           `(2) EXCEPTION- Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--

                 `(A) to any portion of an underpayment which is attributable to one or more tax shelters (as defined in section 6662(d)(2)(C)) or transactions described in section 6662(b)(6), and

                 `(B) to any taxpayer if such taxpayer is a specified person (as defined in section 6662(d)(2)(D)(ii)).'.

     (c) Application of Penalty for Erroneous Claim for Refund or Credit to Noneconomic Substance Transactions- Section 6676 of such Code is amended by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d) and inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection:

     `(c) Noneconomic Substance Transactions Treated as Lacking Reasonable Basis- For purposes of this section, any excessive amount which is attributable to any transaction described in section 6662(b)(6) shall not be treated as having a reasonable basis.'.

     (d) Special Understatement Reduction Rule for Certain Large or Publicly Traded Persons-

           (1) IN GENERAL- Paragraph (2) of section 6662(d) of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

                 `(D) SPECIAL REDUCTION RULE FOR CERTAIN LARGE OR PUBLICLY TRADED PERSONS-

                       `(i) IN GENERAL- In the case of any specified person--

                             `(I) subparagraph (B) shall not apply, and

                             `(II) the amount of the understatement under subparagraph (A) shall be reduced by that portion of the understatement which is attributable to any item with respect to which the taxpayer has a reasonable belief that the tax treatment of such item by the taxpayer is more likely than not the proper tax treatment of such item.

                       `(ii) SPECIFIED PERSON- For purposes of this subparagraph, the term `specified person' means--

                             `(I) any person required to file periodic or other reports under section 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

                             `(II) any corporation with gross receipts in excess of $100,000,000 for the taxable year involved.

                       All persons treated as a single employer under section 52(a) shall be treated as one person for purposes of subclause (II).'.

           (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Subparagraph (C) of section 6662(d)(2) of such Code is amended by striking `Subparagraph (B)' and inserting `Subparagraphs (B) and (D)(i)(II)'.

     (e) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to transactions entered into after the date of the enactment of this Act.

I submit this section to readers because that some entity of the media wants the public to focus their attention on the Baucus bill, which I believe to be wholly inadequate in its efforts to reform health care.  Even with a public option, the bill does not address key loopholes in laws regulating the health insurance industry and those companies who claim ownership to health insurance companies.  

Even if the Baucus bill incorporates a public option into its context, it cannot hope to achieve the end result sought by most Americans.  The public option it would propose could not stand against the power and financial resources available to the for profit, private, multi payer health insurance industry.  

I will continue to reiterate that, although long and drawn out, HR 3200 does the most to directly address loopholes in current law which allows insurance agencies to discriminate against against the best interest (financial and moral) of the premium policy holder.  

I want a single payer system, but I cannot fathom how it can be achieved until we have effectively severed the ties between for profit health care and the ultra powerful, multi-national corporations who own them.  The entire medical industry from hospitals to hospice is entangled in the web of for profit health insurance.  We must drive them from the plate before we can hope to savor the stew that awaits us in the form of a single payer system.

Stand Aside US Senate and Let the US House Reform Health Insurance and Health Care Now

by: Jeanette

Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 18:48:12 PM AKDT

The good Senator Baucus has shown America his hand at the table of Health Care reform, and progressive constituents are not impressed.  This bill offers no public option (a catch phrase whose complete meaning has yet to be fully evaluated), and it does nothing to regulate the for profit, private, multi-payer, health insurance industry.  

Here is a copy of the current text of the bill titled Chairman's Mark America's Healthy Future Act of 2009.  I was not able to pull a copy from the thomas.loc.gov.  

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/11...

Here is what the Insurance Journal thinks of this bill.  

http://www.insurancejournal.co...

I am very disturbed that the Insurance Journal describes the bill in these terms

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D,Mont.)
today introduced the America's Healthy Future Act, landmark health care reform legislation to lower costs and provide quality, affordable health care coverage. The Chairman's Mark will make it easier for families and small businesses to buy health care coverage, ensure Americans can choose to keep the health care coverage they have if they like it and slow the growth of health care costs over time. It will bar insurance companies from discriminating against people based on health status, denying coverage because of preexisting conditions, or imposing annual caps or lifetime limits on coverage. The bill
would improve the way the health care system delivers care by improving efficiency, quality, and coordination. The $856 billion dollar package will not add to the federal deficit. The Finance Committee will meet to begin voting on the Chairman's Mark next week.

Point of fact:  this bill does not "bar insurance companies from discriminating against people based on health status, denying coverage because of preexisting conditions, or imposing annual caps or lifetime limits on coverage." As with most Senate bills introduced in advance of actual House legislation, it outlines in flowery terms the proposed wishes of the Senate.  

The House, and only the House, will get to the guts of the language and address reform in line by line legislative language.  I admire the late Senator Ted Kennedy, but even his legislation amounts to little more than a directive to the House as regards relevant legislation.  

At a mere two hundred and twenty-three pages, this bill does nothing to close the loop holes in current health insurance regulation - loop holes used by health insurers to hack and slash distribution of benefits to policy holders in such a way as to benefit top executives and the all mighty shareholder. As was the case with legislation co sponsored by Don Young, this legislation proposes to create "super brokers" offering insurance to those individuals whose insurance policies are 150% above the national average.  This does nothing to cover the person whose insurance rates rose less than that, or those having insurance policies with less than desirable coverage.  

H.R. 3200, long and verbose, was crafted to address, line by painful line, the loopholes in the federal tax codes, the social security act, and the Public Health Service Act.  We may crave the simpler version, but true relief lies in the mind numbing details of the more compplex House resolution.  

Senator Baucus' bill references HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996), a bill, which in content and in spirit appears to protect the ability of health insurers to convolute the process of health care more than it protects the rights of the patient or claimant.  

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/HIPAAGe...

If asked, most health care professionals associate HIPAA with patient privacy as opposed to any meaningful regulation of health insurers.  In short, HIPAA is what we study in the heath care industry when we need to know what information is shared between what agencies in what capacity.

HIPAA and the Gramm Leach Bliley Act of 19 are very similar both in spirit and in content.

http://banking.senate.gov/conf/

Both Acts spend inordinate amounts of legal language to explain the rights of the average person to have their personal information guarded, yet do little to explain why that personal information needs to be guarded in the first place.  HIPAA, to my mind, was the precursor to Gramm Leach Bliley of 1999.  HIPAA was necessary to allow insurance agencies to access your credit information as a means to gauge how much they could charge you for your insurance premiums, even as Gramm Leach Bliley 1999 was needed to allow investors to blur the lines of banking so that they could issue loans to individuals based not on  ability to pay, but ability to sell or flip properties.  The two bills were orchestrated in the same cultural mindset, and the damage inflicted on the public by both has yet to be fully realized.  

As Americans, pondering the ramifications of health care reform, we must continue to focus on the dollar.  Health insurers want to continue to funnel profits from insurance premiums to either their direct shareholders or to the larger umbrella organizations.  We, as payers of premiums, must insist that our rights be held sacrosanct above those of the share holder and CEO.  

H.R. 3200 holds the greatest hope for meaningful health insurance reform.  Without this reform, a public option cannot hope to be truly effective in delivering affordable premiums and guaranteed coverage for essential medical procedures.  Every tactic thus employed by the conservative right has been to deflect our attention from this House bill.  This bill frightens them, and it is only the precursor to what they fear most - a single payer system.  H.R 3200 will seriously impact profits.  If profits fall, who will pay for the lobby to protest a single payer system?  Contact your state Senator and House of Representative and tell them to tell the US Senator and House of Representative that the citizens of Alaska want HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM.  Tell them why,in no uncertain terms, that their interest and action on your behalf amounts to a vote to keep them in office.  Contact Mr. Don Young and tell him that you do not support his alternative bills (H.R. 3218 and H.R. 2516,which he no longer officially claims to cosponsor), and want him to vote for HR 3200, and any other legislation that opts for significant health insurance regulation.  

Diversity, unity, family

by: yksin

Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 00:17:39 AM AKDT

The original of this post can be found on my website.

I learned midway through Tuesday that KTVA Channel 11 would be interviewing Heather Aronno of SOSAnchorage.net (the factchecker alternative to Prevo's poisonous homophobe site) about the True Diversity Dinner.  (Good job, Heather!) KTVA also interviewed the Anchorage Assembly member from my district who represents me, Elvi Gray-Jackson, as well as the Assembly member from my district who doesn't represent me, Dan Coffey.  And also one of Alaska's top progressive bloggers, Shannyn Moore.  The story on the True Diversity Dinner and the Mayor's Unity Dinner (which used to be a Diversity Dinner until Mayor Sullivan got hold of it) was the first story on Tuesday evening's news broadcast from KTVA.

True Diversity Dinner Announced on KTVA

You can also read the text version of the story on KTVA's website. [Ref #1]

Shortly after I learned Heather was being interviewed, a query popped up in my email from Alaska Dispatch's Maia Nolan.  She asked me if I'd be willing to respond to two comments she'd received from the Mayor's office about the dinners, as follows:

Sullivan spokesperson Sarah Erkmann:

No comment beyond that planning for the Unity Dinner continues with the mayor's full support. It should be noted that funds raised at the dinner support the municipality's diversity programming throughout the year. So withholding support for the event may have an adverse impact on the city's ability to fund programs next year. The mayor has continually said that he thinks the values that bind us together are just as important as what separates us. The phrase I've heard him use is 'respect diversity, celebrate unity.'

Mayor Dan Sullivan (from press release):

Our community is made up of many unique groups, but we all share some common values: the importance of family, quality education for our children, and safe, vibrant neighborhoods. This year's event is meant to celebrate these values while respecting the diversity that makes Anchorage such a great place to live.

I'm speaking only as myself, but I think the others involved with the alternative True Diversity Dinner would agree with me that we have no argument with the Municipality's diversity programming.  Nor are we asking for anyone to withhold support if they choose to attend the Unity Dinner.  But a lot of us find there to be a pretty big discrepancy between Mayor Sullivan's veto of an ordinance which would have accorded equal protection from discrimination for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans citizens and visitors to Anchorage, and his supposed valuation of diversity.  I'm not sure who chose the Unity Dinner's keynote speaker, Lynn Swann, but to me that choice underscores that that reference to "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" in the muni's diversity statement is, at least this year, lip service -- Swann during his 2006 run for governor of Pennsylvania endorsed an amendment to PA's constitution that would have prevented same-sex couples from  having the same rights -- medical, marriage, estate -- as heterosexual couples.

The result of this is, many of us who fought for equal rights for LGBT people in Anchorage -- and that includes non-LGBT as well as LGBT people -- don't see much place for LGBTs or their allies as either individuals or as families in the Mayor's vision of diversity. Several of us bloggers who had written a lot over the summer about the Assembly hearings started talking about how to respond to our feelings after the mayor's veto of ordinance 64.  We decided that holding some kind of protest wouldn't actually make us feel any better.  So we decided instead to celebrate the values we'd been fighting for.

I very much share the values Sullivan named: "the importance of family, quality education for our children, and safe, vibrant neighborhoods." My partner and I raised her nephew from age 9 to the present (age 21) -- a kid, I might add, whose entire life before he came to live with us was one of physical and emotional abuse and neglect at the hands of his (heterosexual) family.  I was the main economic support for my family; if my employer had decided to fire me simply for being a lesbian, not only would I suffer, but so would that boy.  Lucky for me that my employer didn't.  But that's a prospect that many families headed by LGBT people still face.  Sullivan's veto makes it clear that he only deems some families important -- and mine's not one of them.  So much for "unity."

I'm really glad that I'll be in company on the night of the 25th with people who do think my family's important. [Ref #2; emphases added]

So much for "unity."  So much for the "Unity Dinner."

The True Diversity Dinner will be held on September 25, 2009 at 7:30 PM at the Snow Goose Restaurant in downtown Anchorage. Tickets for the dinner are $10.00 and can be purchased at Borders Books & Music. We hope to have a midtown venue selling tickets soon; see the True Diversity Dinner blog for updates.

References

1. 9/15/09. "Controversy Brews between 'Diversity' & 'Unity'" by Christina Grande (KTVA Channel 11 News) (misdated on KTVA's website as 9/4/09).
2. 9/15/09. "More on the dueling diversity dinners" by Maia Nolan (Alaska Dispatch).
3. 5/13/09. "Channel 11 interview, part 1 (the video)" by Melissa S. Green (Henkimaa).
4. 5/13/09. "Channel 11 interview, part 2 (the full story)" by Melissa S. Green (Henkimaa).

Should white heterosexuals be permitted at a diversity event?

by: yksin

Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 12:53:30 PM AKDT

Melissa S. Green
Henkimaa.com

I forgot the other day to crosspost my announcement of the True Diversity Dinner to be held September 25 at 7:30 PM at the Snow Goose in downtown Anchorage. This is an alternative to the $60/head Borg Unity Dinner that Mayor George Sullivan will be holding at the same time.  Our plates cost $10 -- just enough to cover costs -- and tickets are available at Borders Books and Music (the people doing the footwork here hope to have another ticket location soon).

Anyway, you can read my original post on my website: True Diversity Dinner: September 25, 2009.  Or, visit the True Diversity Dinner blog, where you can also nominate and vote for diversity award recipients in various categories, including the ever popular "Epic Fail" award.

And now here's my current post, which is also about the True Diversity Dinner.  I hope to see you there.

This post can also be read at its  original home on my website. Thanks.

Should white heterosexuals be permitted at a diversity event?

Well, duh. Isn't it obvious?

Apparently not to some.

Over the past couple of days on the "vote" page at the True Diversity Dinner blog, where people are being encouraged to nominate and vote for awards on "excellence in the representation, advancement, and advocacy of diversity" in Anchorage, at least a couple of people have nominated the ACLU of Alaska for the Excellence in Non-Profit Award. The ACLU is one of the organizations, along with Equality Works, that took a major leadership role in the effort to pass the Anchorage equal rights ordinance, AO 2009-64, which -- had Mayor Sullivan not vetoed it a week after its passage -- would have added sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of personal characteristics on the basis of which it would be illegal to discriminate in employment, housing, public accommodations, financial practices, education, and municipal practices.

Here's where disputation began.  I'll just give you the entire conversation.  Note that John Aronno, an administrator at the True Diversity Dinner blog, removed a portion of the conversation from the comments because they distracted from what the page was for: nominating & voting on the awards.  But I'd subscribed to comments so had the full conversation in email, & can restore them here.

Kevin Smith (9/13/09 2:28 pm): The ACLU in Alaska is led by a white male, Jeffry [sic] Mittman, so I don’t think they would qualify for a diversity award. If Mittman is gay or transgender, I withdraw my objection.

john aronno (9/13/09 4:43 pm): Mr. Smith, no offense intended, but that would also respectively mean that I should bow out, as should my wife, two of our speakers, probably most of the dance group performing, and a good portion of the sponsors and guests attending the event. This is a diversity dinner, not an exclusivity dinner.

Kevin Smith (9/13/09 8:54 pm): Mr. Aronno,

No offense taken and I hope you will not be offended when I say that if all of the people you listed are white then perhaps a percentage of you should not attend. Certainly the sponsors of True Diversity will understand if their sponsored tickets are taken up by more diverse elements of our society.

Diversity cannot be truly celebrated if all you have are white people (even gay ones) with the rest of our diverse society there as mere window dressing.

John Aronno (9/13/09 11:27 pm): I'm not sure that I, or anyone else, should apologize for celebrating, supporting, and encouraging diversity. That doesn't even make sense. I can't help that I'm a white, heterosexual male, and I feel that it's fairly irresponsible for you to suggest that I, or anyone else, should stay home because of it. Are you really saying that I shouldn't have a say, because of who I am? Doesn't that spit in the face of absolutely everything we're trying to accomplish here?

john aronno: Mr. Smith, I’m removing our conversation, because it does no common good for the purpose of this event. However, if you’d like to continue it, please feel free to email your comments to AlaskaCommons@gmail.com
Thanks,
john

Kevin Smith (9/14/09 12:21 pm): Mr. Aronno, Enjoy your meal. Your willingness (or lack thereof) to discuss true diversity in a public forum leads me to believe you will be dining with a lot of people that look just like yourself. Bon appetit.

Mel Green (posting as yksinainen, 9/14/09 12:46 pm): Oh good grief. I sat next to John at most of the Assembly meetings listening to countless redshirts spew repetitive homophobia — in fact, he sat there when I couldn’t because it was too painful to listen to the ignorance & hatred — & all through it he acted as one of the best advocates I know of for diversity & equality. And now you Kevin Smith are going to sit there as the litmus test judger of whether or not he’s diverse enough to be at this event? Which would not even be occurring in the first place, were it not for his efforts?

Fine way to throw aside your allies. Well, maybe not your ally — but one I’ve all summer long been pleased to have as mine.

Mel Green, Henkimaa.com
Diversity “credentials” : lesbian from working class (white) background

An observation: in John's first response, was he referring to the sexual orientation and gender identity of the people he referred to, or to their race? -- because it is all three that Mr. Smith referred to in disqualifying Jeffrey Mittman as representing diversity.  John did not actually say, as Mr. Smith assumed, that "all of the people [he] listed are white." And nor are they.

But here's the crux of the matter:

Diversity isn't an individual characteristic. Does the fact that I'm a lesbian make me diverse? No, it only makes me a lesbian.  Does the fact that John is a white heterosexual male make him not diverse? No, it just makes him a white heterosexual male.  Neither of us can be diverse or not diverse all on our own: diversity or its lack is a quality of groups and systems, not of individuals.  It's the differences between the members of the system, that makes the system as a whole richer, stronger, and more viable.   (Not to mention less boring.)

It should be obvious that being unwelcoming to a particular group within a diverse population doesn't strengthen diversity or the community.  It weakens it. That understanding has been fundamental to our fight this past summer for the Anchorage equal rights argument: LGBTQ people shouldn't be excluded from equal protection under the law any more than other Anchorage citizens.  But if LGBTQ people should be included, what's the possible logic in excluding white heterosexuals, or even just white heterosexual males? Should we, the several bloggers organizing this dinner, print on the $10 tickets being sold for the event: "Don't buy this ticket if you're white and straight"? Hardly.  Should we qualify nominations for the diversity awards that will be given out at the dinner to state that no one should be nominated who is straight and white?  Hardly.

Especially when some of those straight white people have done so much for the effort in the battle for equality and diversity in Anchorage as they have done -- more, in some cases, than many LGBTQ or nonwhite people have done.  They have done so because they value the same thing that I do: a community in which we are valued for our differences as much as for what we share: in which the rich heritage of human diversity is honored, respected, and cherished.

I'm glad to have people like this on my side.  I'm on their side, too. My appreciation to John Aronno of Alaska Commons, Heather Aronno of SOSAnchorage.net, Janson Jones of the blog Floridana Alaskiana v2.5, Linda Kellen Biegel of Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis, AK Muckraker of the Mudflats, Shannyn Moore of Just a Girl from Homer, Phil Munger of Progressive Alaska, Gryphen of Immoral Minority, Jeffrey Mittman of the Alaska ACLU, my friend and coworker Pam Kelley of the UAA Justice Center, my nephew Miles Green, and all the other white heterosexuals (or presumed to be so) who blogged, organized, testified, wrote letters and emails, and/or showed up at the Loussac Library in support of equality in Anchorage over the past summer -- because you love diversity too. And a special thank you to the white heterosexuals (or presumed to be so) on the Anchorage Assembly who joined Elvi Gray-Jackson (who I also thank) in voting on August 11 for the Anchorage equal rights ordinance: Patrick Flynn, Sheila Selkregg, Jennifer Johnston, Mike Gutierrez, Matt Claman, and Harriet Drummond.

I look forward to seeing you, along with all of us who are not white and/or heterosexual, at the True Diversity Dinner on September 25.

Note of addendum 3:35 PM: I've just been informed privately that one of the people in the above list of "presumed to be" heterosexuals is, in fact, not heterosexual. Which just goes to show: just as many people are wrongly assumed to be gay, other people are wrongly assumed to be heterosexual. In either case, discrimination on the basis of actual or assumed sexual orientation is wrong, wrong, wrong. Let's also remember that diversity includes ethnic and religious diversity -- so just reducing people to the description "white" doesn't cut it either. 

No, Debbie, Title VII does NOT prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in employment. Hello?

by: yksin

Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 19:24:17 PM AKDT

So Close, Yet Stimulus Funds So Far

by: Jeanette

Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 14:23:09 PM AKDT

Yeah, sort of...  Why am I not performing a series of backstrokes along the length of my keyboard?  Probably because I already spent the money on the much needed upgrades, and the energy rebate is not retroactive.  I do have some work still to be done, but the bulk of the money has already been spent.  I couldn't put off replacing my windows any longer.  When the installers were able to work me into their schedule, I had to jump on the opportunity.  Had I not, my windows might well have fallen out of their casements before winter's end (no exaggeration intended for dramatic effect).

I, like many others in the state, signed up in the spring for an energy audit by a state approved inspector.  The inspections are required before a person can apply for an energy rebate.  Realizing that I had several thousand dollars worth of work to be completed, I signed up for the inspection as soon as I could.  Unfortunately, a backlog of applicants and lack of funding for the audit reimbursements all but assured that I would not receive my inspection until the end of summer.

So, when the hope of stimulus money loomed on the horizon, I grew enthusiastic.  Then, when our oh, so clever Governor vetoed the energy stimulus money, my hoped dimmed, but did not perish altogether as I waited for the possibility of a veto override.  When that happened, my spirits rallied once more.  Then my windows arrived, and the contractor told me that if I didn't get them installed now, I wouldn't see them installed in time for winter.  Sigh.

Had Sarah Palin just signed the stimulus package, the energy audit company would have had the funding to schedule my audit sooner.  Here is how the audit and energy rebate works:  I pay the inspector $450 up front.  They do the inspection telling me what improvements need to be made, and I make them.  The state reimburses me $325, and I apply the cost of the work that was done towards a tax credit.  The only thing holding up the auditors was the funding for the reimbursements.  

The good news is that if you are waiting for your audit and were say, 1000 or so on the list, you may receive a phone call soon from an energy auditor.  The bad news for me is that I cannot claim tax credit for any of the work that was done before my inspection.  I will most likely fore go the audit and free up my portion of the rebate for someone else.  It won't do me much good, and someone else might still be able to benefit from the rebate.

So here I sit, unemployed since June, my hopes dashed for some sort of reimbursement for upgrading the energy efficiency of my home.  I am thankful that I was able to take measures to decrease the cost of heating bills.  I am luckier than many here in Anchorage and out in the bush communities.  

To Mrs. Palin:  whether through inexcusable ignorance or simply a callous disregard for the struggles of the citizens in your state, you have done us all a great disservice by vetoing the stimulus money for the energy package.  I am tired of you and those like you, who profess to understand the free market, who espouse its glory and constantly berate us for not bowing down to worship at its patent pended alter.  

I will not extol its virtues, or lift on high its gladiators, mediators, grifters and shapeshifters, but will continue to see it for what it is:  a medium for making money, neither inherently good or evil, but capable of both qualities.  I will chose to do business with governments and financial entities worthy of my money and time, and do my utmost to shun those that seek to bilk me of my hard earned paycheck.

I am expected to pay all my bills on the net amount I take home, whilst I watch corporations extend their profits through rebates, refunds, tax shelters and stimulus packages.  

I refuse to elevate CEOs, CFOs, COOs and all other blank, blank, Os to the stature of the new Feudal Lords of state excepting their policies and procedures as word of law.  I will not extend to them the divine right of rulers.  A founding father once warned me of doing so, and will heed that warning.  

So Mrs. Palin, and those who seek to curry the favor of these would be feudal Lords of the modern age, I hurl this shot across your bow.  Be wary the masters you choose.  I will seek the company of my neighbors, and strive to be worthy of their trust long before I rest my carcass on some plot of land paid for by the likes of the beltway marauders who seek to pillage and destroy the government I gave up eleven years of my life to protect and defend.

In the words of the talented members of Monty Python,

"Just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at you from some lake, doesn't make you the Lord and ruler of ALL England."

Fade out to the sound of coconuts, er, hoofbeats pounding in the distance...

Who Will Stand in the Lion's Place? We Will Stand Where the Lion Once Stood!

by: Jeanette

Thu Aug 27, 2009 at 17:15:02 PM AKDT

The lion of the Senate has passed.  Who will take his place?  Who will roar as passionately?  Who will take up the fight for the health and welfare of the pride?  Who will give up so much for so many?  Who will show their underbelly, and suffer the slings and arrows of the enemy?

We will stand for the lion!  We will continue his roar!  We were lost, but he never ceased his roar!  We followed the sound!  We have come home, and now we stand to protect the pride!  Our coats of many colors unite, and we honor the Lion's passion for humanity!

Stand fast!   Throw back your heads, and roar!  Beware, enemy, beware!  The pride has awakened!

Senator Murkowski's Opinion of Health Care Reform Remains Unchanged

by: Jeanette

Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 10:03:32 AM AKDT

I was very disappointed yesterday when at four o'clock p.m., I realized the window installers had a made a mistake that would need to be corrected immediately.  I had to wait for them to come and fix the problem.

A good friend of mine, "B, attended the meeting, and has kindly agreed to share with me her notes.  In addition to "B"s notes, I also read several news accounts of the Town Hall meeting including this from KTUU, Channel 2.  

http://www.ktuu.com/Global/sto...

From what I learned, it doesn't appear that Senator Murkowski's views on health care reform have changed at all since her last town hall in Fairbanks, or from what is published on her website.  

http://murkowski.senate.gov/pu...

Senator Murkowski still thinks the "bill" (note the singular form of the word) before Congress is "to costly and ineffective."  My friend, who shall be called "B" told me that the Senator did not chose to discuss in any great detail how and why she believes the health care plan is too costly and ineffective.  Costly and ineffective compared to what:  the current situation with multi-payer, for profit, health insurers who have a 35% (AETNA) and 65% (Blue Cross) control of the health insurance market in Alaska? What is the comparison between the 1 billion spent in Alaska on Medicaid to the $200 billion wasted by the health insurers through "ineffective" administrative costs (AMA 2009 National Health Insurers Report Card).  How many years does it take for $200 billion to add up to one trillion?    

Apparently, at one point during the meeting, a young woman of high school age, stood up and commented that people didn't seem as inclined to protest the cost of the Iraq war, and no one seems to want to discuss how the debt from the war will impact future generations.  And, yet, she noted, people all over the country keep talking about the trillion dollar cost of health care reform and the burden it will place on the youth of America.  "B" said the audience gave the young lady a nice round of applause after she finished speaking.  

The Senator did remark that "she agrees changes do need to be made" to the current system of health care, but had nothing much to say about the Republicans plan to make those changes. "B" reported that members of the audience made comments both in favor of and against Medicare and Medicaid.  Murkowski reiterated her belief that both of these programs are inadequate to meet health care needs of Alaskans.  The Senator did not discuss the chronic lack of funding for these programs, and its impact on the ability of the programs to retain the services of medical providers.

Contrast this with the Chamber of Commerce meeting on August 10th.  Senator handed out several very well organized fliers at his meeting.  They were ripe with facts and figures, as well as credible sources to back them up.  Those very same facts, figures and links to helpful informational sites can be found on his website.  Senator Murkowski's site contains roughly the same information she presented at the town hall meeting last night and earlier in Fairbanks.

KTUU reported that:

"The forum was pretty tame compared to last week's held by Sen. Mark Begich where a large crowd turned out to shout down the plan. On hand Thursday were people on both sides of the debate."

This does not surprise me in the least.  Progressive Alaskans came to hear what the Republicans have to offer the people of America.  To effectively listen one must remain quiet.  In addition, "B" mentioned that the members of her group chose to spread out in the audience so that they could discuss their opinions with folks who were open to doing so.  Contrast this approach with the tactics of "teabaggers" who push to the front of audiences to make their numbers appear larger.  Take that you "big oaf."  

I truly apologize for not having attended.  Despite my criticism of our senior Senator, I refuse to develop a political callous on my liberal heart, and discount the possibility that our presence and voice might not yet convince her to rethink her position.  My belief in the power of rational discussion is what compelled me to remain after the press conference earlier this month, and attempt to talk with protesters.

Here is my response to a news article on the Channel 2 website (link provided above), which sums up my feelings about what Senator Murkowski had to say at the Town Hall meeting:

Bottom line - the goal of health care reform is to make health care more available and affordable to the public. Health insurance is merely a means by which we pay our medical debt. For those of us who can afford it, we purchase a health insurance policy that will pay the most toward that debt. We expect insurers to honor their contractual obligations. Mounting evidence says that this is not always the case. Policies have become overly complicated, riddled with exclusions, and patients and medical providers alike are fed up. The primary culprit in the current mess surrounding health care is the multi-payer, for profit, health insurance system. According to the American Medical Association (AMA), "The inefficient and inconsistent claims process adds as much as $200 billion annually to the health-care system." The following link will take you to the AMA website where one can read the all the details of the 2009 National Health Insurers Report Card from which I took the above quote. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pu...  Private health insurers must either bow to stricter regulation and place the needs of the premium holder above those of the shareholder, or move over and let the government find a solution. If the definition of socialism is the unequal redistribution of wealth, than having the profits from my premiums divvied up at the end of the year for redistribution to shareholders of the company qualifies my private insurer as a socialist institution. I invite anyone who doubts that statement to take a look at the year end financial statements for their health insurance company.

I concur with Linda's comment in her earlier blog that republicans have nothing to add to meaningful health care reform. Indeed, they appear to be in the midst of developing new strategies to further delay reform.  The basic Republican message is, "Let them eat 0g transfat, low carb, no preservative, organic, low sodium cake!"  

To illustrate this final comment, I present this link from last night's Rachael Maddow show.  This is just too good.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26...

 

The Stock Market Rallies and AETNA's Claws Tighten on Alaskan Pocketbooks

by: Jeanette

Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 14:42:39 PM AKDT

http://www.marketwatch.com/sto...

How much more proof do we need that health insurance reform is the cornerstone to health care reform.  

I stated in my article yesterday that the assets of health insurance make up a healthy chunk of many common investor and retirement portfolios.  Our premiums have made insurance companies a lucrative stock option.  The public option directly threatened the profits of health insurance companies and their parent umbrella organizations.  Health insurers, by their own admission, fear competition, especially competition that would offer a true safety net to  policy holders at an affordable rate.  AETNA admits that certain factors,  

"can significantly and adversely affect Aetna's business and profitability; failure to achieve desired rate increases and/or profitable membership growth due to the slowing economy and/or significant competition..."

http://www.aetna.com/news/news...

The stocks of AETNA, the health insurer that holds a 35% share of the insurance industry in Alaska, have rebounded in the wake of several news articles stating that Obama may have abandoned the public option. Such a rebound only strengthens the argument that the policies and practices of health insurers lie at the core of what ails the American health care system.

Bucking a bearish Monday trend in the broader stock market, shares of health-insurance companies including UnitedHealth Group Inc. (UNH 28.48, +0.42, +1.50%)  and Aetna Inc. (AET 29.63, +1.35, +4.77%)  rose after the comments by Obama as well as members of his administration over the weekend. Health insurers have fought a public plan.

The weight of evidence pointing to the need for extensive health care reform grows larger by the day.  Even the AMA points to the waste and inefficiency of the health insurance industry as source of woes to health care.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pu...

If indeed the President has backed down on a  public option (and I won't accept this without a direct quote from him), we must then turn our attention to the legislative details of health care reform that pertain to regulating the health insurance companies.  It is clearly evident that health insurers are either not adequately regulated or are under regulated due to the habit of conservatives to underfund the agencies that oversea regulation.  

Onward to the next level...

AETNA (35% share Alaska) and Blue Cross (65% share) need a swift kick in the hiney.  They have jacked our premiums up and, in my opinion, failed to adequately explain their reasons for doing so.
And here is what AETNA had to say about rising losses from what they claim to be increased medical costs.

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/Ex...

"Our second quarter results do not meet our expectations or the standards we have established over several years of strong operational execution and financial performance," said Ronald A. Williams, chairman and CEO. "We continue to see upward pressure on medical costs beyond what we projected in early June, which we believe is driven in part by changing provider behavior in the face of a deep recession. We did not fully capture the impact of these forces in our 2009 pricing. This is disappointing, but it can be fixed."

Mark Bertolini, president, said, "We believe these increases in Commercial medical costs are largely the result of continued higher claim intensity, such as services rendered in a higher cost setting and more tests and procedures per visit, resulting in higher costs for emergency room, ambulatory, laboratory and preventive services. We are taking immediate actions to address these issues."

What "immediate actions" does Mr. Bertolini propose they take.  What do they mean by "it can be fixed."  Do they intend to cut back even further on coverage?  Do they intend to discount the already discounted payments they make to doctors participating in HMOs and PPOs?  Can we dare to hope they intend fix the problems by cutting back on their own waste and inefficiency, instead of claiming that the consumer or the medical providers are to blame?

And speaking of administrative inefficiency there is still the issue of H.R. 3218.  Rep. Don Young supports legislation that seeks to establish IMAs, which would then oversee health insurance issued to high risk individuals in each state.  The proposed IMAs, for all intents and purposes, differ very little from the insurance brokers who already complicate the process of finding affordable health insurance.   In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if plans are not already in the works to simply elevate the brokers to the position of IMAs.  You scratch my back, and I.... Well, you know.  

I had planned on taking the day off, but this piece stirred me up.  

I am tired of being ripped off.  I am sick of having to choose between the lesser of evils.  Our state has a huge stake in this issue whether we know it or not, and if I can help, I want Alaskans to "know it."  There can be no "not."

In Honor of Mr. Roland Shanks and the Others Who Testified At the Press Conference

by: Jeanette

Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 14:02:39 PM AKDT

Hi I'm the person Jeannette idenified in her post as the women with an oxygen bottle on her shoulder.  I'm actually a man, I thought after the chemotherapy took my ponytail I wouldn't have that problem anymore, but I guess it didn't help.  I don't blame her things were a little confusing out there.  I was diagnosised with Lung Cancer 3 and a half years ago, and have been dealing with the health care industry in Anchorage since.  I also want to set the record straight on a couple of other nonfacts that were getting thrown around by some of our noisy friends.  I don't work for a union, I work for a small nonprofit, we provide technical assistance to communities on environmental issues.  Nobody paid me to be there, in fact I took annual leave, so there would be no question of who I was representing.  I was representing me, myself and I and that is all.  I do also do volunteer work on Health Care Reform with the Alaska Chapter of the American Cancer Society, but I was not representing them yesterday, just me, myself and I.  Nobody wrote my speech for me, in fact anybody who bothered to notice would have seen I didn't have any prepared comments.  My friends in the Native community have taught me that if you have something important to said just open your mouth and let your heart speak the truth, and that is what I was doing yesterday.  Yes, we met with Senator Begich and Senator Murkowski's staff.  We called and ask for an appointment and they scheduled a time.  I'm sure that anybody who wants to meet could go through the same process.  I can assure you I have no special connection to Senator Murkowski's office, and I didn't make the appointments the Democratically based Organizing for America did.  I became involved in this debate because I've seen the problem with the system from close up and I want to do what I can do to make it better for the people who will have to deal with this issue in the future.  I don't really expect to get much benefit from the reforms, most will probably take effect after my cancer and I have finished our dance, but I want the next generation to have it better.  I want cancer patients in the future to be able to concentrate on fighting their illness and not fighting the system and the insurance companies.  I suspect that most of the people who are happy with their insurance have never tried to use it for any serious illness.  Among the people at meet at cancer events I most hear horror stories.  I really appreciate all the effort you put into making Alaska a better place to live, Thank You.
> Roland Shanks
>  For as long as space exists
> And sentient beings endure,
> May I too remain,
> To dispel the misery of the world

Mr. Shanks, you and the others who spoke deserved better than what you received at that press conference.  Would that I could have done more to quell the noise from the tea baggers who selfishly tried to drown you out.  I am so sorry I could not, and I am sorry that I didn't get the chance to speak to you.  You will be heard, and what you have done will help the next generation.  Your dance is one we all would rather avoid, but ultimately some, like my father, must face.

I cannot adequately express my gratitude to the hospice people who helped my father, my brothers and I deal with our dad's journey from life to death.  The night before my father died, when his pain was greatest, and I felt so terribly useless, I was able to call a call a hospice nurse.  She helped me cope, and her guidance eased my father's pain.  My father had the resource and support system to plan for his death.  He was a pharmacist, and understood what he would face in the end.  He was lucky.  I cannot possibly imagine anyone having to face cancer alone fighting with the insurance company for every procedure and possible drug.  Thank you, Mr.Shanks, for sending this letter.  I will do my best to spread this letter and its message to as many folk as will listen.  

The Anchorage Assembly Passes Ordinance 64, Version S-2 Amended

by: Jeanette

Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 09:57:49 AM AKDT

Despite the crowd that came to attend last night's meeting, I managed to snag a seat inside the main assembly chambers.  The crowd within waited patiently for the assembly to work its way through the agenda.  Finally sometime after six o'clock the issue of Anchorage Ordinance 64 was put before the assembly.  All members were present as was Mayor Sullivan.

Dan Coffey introduced his Anchorage Resolution (AR) something or other. The resolution would authorize the assembly of a panel of six members to further study the (sarcasm on) "actual or perceived" existence (sarcasm off) of discrimination against homosexuals and transgendered people, as well as the possibility of conflicts with the Constitution.  The assembly members praised the good intention behind Mr. Coffey's contribution, then voted it down.  The general consensus was that Anchorage had spoken and the citizens wanted a vote.  No muss.  No fuss, just git 'er done.  

After that bit of business was dispatched, AO 64, version S-2, was placed before the assembly for a final vote. Each assembly member gave their testimony and revealed how they intended to vote.  Many of the testimonies were very emotional and passionate.  Ms. Gray-Jackson broke down into tears when she spoke of her gay nephew and her desire to see him protected.  Assemblyman, Patrick Flynn, shared with the assembled crowd, the contents of a letter from his postman.  The postman, described by Mr. Flynn as having provided excellent service to the public for many years, had written Mr. Flynn a brief note to say that he had left the state after retirement in favor of a more open and progressive city down south.  And in a very surprising and poignant speech, Assemblywoman, Jennifer Johnston, spoke of the person who inspired her to enter public service.  "That person did more for his community, for the state and country than I could do in 10 lifetimes, but that person's life was short, it was cut by suicide, and I've often wondered if that person had been born 60 years later if the outcome would have been different,"  The room remained silent with only a few murmurs from the red shirts who were beginning to realize the vote would not go in their favor.  

Other assembly members stated why they would vote no on the ordinance.  Mr. Starr said he felt compelled to honor his religious beliefs and follow the wishes of his constituency.  They didn't want a yes vote and neither did he.  Mr. Coffey, always the lawyer, launched into a lengthy spiel about language, lawsuits, and the need to move cautiously.  Assemblywoman Ossiander concurred with him, but provided specific details within version S-2 that with which she most disagreed.  She too was quite emotional as she announced her intent to vote no.  "This is a hurtful thing to do and I'm trying not to look at certain people in the audience right now, but I'm not going to be supporting this," was her honest and heartfelt statement.  I honestly cannot recall what Mr. Birch said in explanation of his vote of no, but I am sure he felt strongly about it as well.  

One comment that stood out above the rest in terms of "good ole practicality" came from Assemblywoman Harriet Drummond who said something to the effect of, "I cannot and will not send 50,000 students, who have been taught in our school system to treat each other with respect, out into a city that continues to discriminate."  Thank you Ms. Drummond.

Just before the final vote was tallied, Assemblyman Guttierrez took a few moments to praise Assemblywoman Ossiander for her contributions as chair and moderator during the many hearings.  Though many have disagreed with her decision to allow non residents to testify at the hearings, Ms. Ossiander kept the peace and dealt fairly with each person who testified during those many, painful long hours.  The crowd stood up and rendered to her enthusiastic applause, and I must note that those wearing blue shirts stood up first with a good portion of those in red shirts reluctantly following suit.  Ms. Ossiander smiled very gratefully, and seemed genuinely surprised.  

The votes were tallied on the big screen and the ordinance was passed.  Only four voted against the bill:  Birch, Ossiander, Coffey and Starr.  No sooner had the ordinance been passed, when Assemblywoman Selkregg moved to introduce two amendments to the ordinance.  Both amendments included phrasing that clarified the right of employers to maintain separate bathrooms and uphold standards of behavior and dress codes.  Mr. Guttierrez seconded the motion, the assembly voted and the amendment was added to version S-2.  Ms. Selkregg then called for a re-vote on the newly amended ordinance, however, no one chose to change their original vote.  

For several moments after passage of the ordinance, the crowd remained very quiet.  Only a few disappointed moans issued from the group of individuals in red sitting in front of me.  Very slowly those who came to hear the final vote filtered back out into the lobby.  No harsh words were spoken. No cross looks exchanged.  No one broke out in cheers.  Groups of people exchanged hugs.  Others simply huddled quietly together discussing the unfavorable outcome.   The whole affair took place peacefully in the best tradition of public assembly and government.  

In our near past, change, both good and bad, has come in punctuated bursts, fits and starts, and seldom lasted or made any real impact on the issues they addressed, but a new era may be emerging:  one where change occurs more slowly, solutions are achieved more thoughtfully, and the outcomes produce more lasting results as citizens relearn the art of public discourse, as we re-learn the ins and outs of our own government, and as we take risk and expose ourselves to criticism, and sometimes outright anger.  These are passionate times because people must deal with problems left unresolved after decades of chest pounding and empty promises.  Citizens realize that we must step in and take a greater interest in how our government functions, as well as how our lives are impacted by business. We begin to see the weaknesses, and we begin to discern for ourselves who in civics and business serve with distinction, govern apathetically or seek only to serve themselves, and their own best interests.  

Whatever may happen next with this ordinance, I am happy this day, this moment.  I remember the outcome of a similar attempt to secure equal protection in 1993, and I find little to compare between what has transpired in the past months to what transpired over a decade ago.  The gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, trans-gender community has grown stronger, our friends and relatives have become fiercely outspoken with their love and support, and in general the community has become more accepting.  I realize some, perhaps many might disagree, and I respect those views, but many others have felt the shift in the social attitude, and have chosen to drop their guards and make the attempt to bridge a gap that has fractured our city for too long.

To express the sentiment of so many as they made their way back to cars, bikes and buses, I am happy for what we have achieved today, regardless of what may be faced tomorrow.  No veto can erase the achievements of so many who put so much on the line.  And for those who couldn't come forward, I send my love to you, and hope with all my heart that one day we will all be able to openly make the artistic, financial and volunteer contributions to this city that for years have been made in desperate, patient silence.