No I didn't die

I've been one of the clone-drones participating in Linden Lab's SecondLife:
http://www.secondlife.com/

where indeed there are political discussions and pretty much everything else in the virtual world as there is in real life. There is even a group or two who protest the rampant consumerism that exists in SecondLife. Anonymous is there, replete with flying phantom boxes and pictures of old men getting it on with other old men and bedsores. Anonymous has land there on SecondLife (no I won't say where. Let's just say that as a bisexual woman, I am willing to ignore the ribbing of gays and feminists because I support Anonymous when it comes to Scientology.) A.A. meetings are there. So is an active Aspie community as well as some t.b.i. survivors.


A brief synopsis of what I think about some of the current events going on:

1. It appalls me that President Bush welcomed the Pope with such open arms. Used to be that fundamentalist Christians were equating the Pope and the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church with such things like the Beast, the mark of the Beast, and going to hell. Okay, so politically the President couldn't snub the Pope I suppose. But did Bush really have to go pick up the Pope himself? On the plus side, as far as I know, no rounds of golf were shared by the two of them during the Pope's stateside visit.

2. I am sorry that the government is giving most of us a rebate check because the country is in financial debt. On the other hand, I could use the money. Anyone who really hates the idea is welcome to send me their cash.

3. I am weary of the Clinton/Obama run-off. I want them to get it over with and just pick whoever is going to run on the democratic ticket. And I am not convinced that the country will be better off with either of those two as president (if the Democrats "win.") I mean, some folks wanted a Democrat-controlled Congress. So far I haven't seen any great things come out of this Congress.

4. I hate VESID.

spike

FEDS AND STATES INTO HEALTHCARE 2/3/07

By now most folks have heard about Bush's proposed tax benefit for medical insurance program-- spend a bunch of money to get a tax deduction. Spend too much money and get whacked by the IRS on April 15th. Don't have the money, you are stuck. A senior or disabled person on Medicare will wind up paying more. Poor people on Medicaid will be given vouchers for three thousand bucks. I swear sometimes the government is trying to kill some of us off. Ultimately, this stuff will result in decreasing funds available for Social Security Retirement beneficiaries. Cat food and medication vs. tuna fish-- you choose.

That is the abbreviated version as presented on physician discussion boards [According to the current Medscape poll, a full 74% of physicians are against the Bush 41 plan]. The fuller version is a maze. Very few folks have come up with a viable alternative. Now, a group of physicians has. The group is called "Physicians for a National Health Program." They are proposing "single payer national health [insurance]." The idea is attractive.

The main difference between their proposal and socialized medicine is that doctors will not be paid by the government. Some other advantages of their proposal are: lowered cost for all, no co-pays, medical decisions will once again be between patient and doctor without interference by insurance agencies whose best interests do not coincide with what is best for our health, and there will be no uninsured AMERICAN CITIZENS.

The website is quite thorough and also refutes arguments put forth by the opposition. One of those arguments is that the United States currently does not ration our health care. Of course it does. Anyone who has had to deal with finding physicians who accept Medicaid will tell you that health care in this country is indeed rationed. So will folks who have to have root canals without anesthesia because their insurance will not pay for anesthesia, folks who need treatment whose H.M.O.s are refusing to pay, folks without dental insurance or insurance for glasses who go without dental care and eye care.

Now, the thing is that this will not result in the creation of a bureaucracy because as stated at:
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php?page=2
[direct quote]

Won’t this just be another bureaucracy?

The United States has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. Over 24% of every health care dollar goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, and other non-clinical costs. Because the U.S. does not have a system that serves everyone and instead has over 1,500 different insurance plans, each with their own marketing, paperwork, enrollment, premiums, rules, and regulations, our insurance system is both extremely complex and fragmented. The Medicare program operates with just 3% overhead, compared to 15% to 25% overhead at a typical HMO.

It is not necessary to have a huge bureaucracy to decide who gets care and what care they get, if and when everyone is covered and has the same comprehensive benefits. With a universal health care system we would be able to cut our bureaucratic burden in half and save nearly $150 billion per year. [end of quote]

Speaking of bureaucracy, I was astonished to learn that Texas is mandating a cervical cancer vaccination for all fifth and sixth grade girls. Because cervical cancer can be gotten from things like rape or a husband, the religious right politicians there went along with it. Because Merck doubled its' production of the vaccine at the same time that it doubled its' lobbying funding for the state of Texas, I can't help but think that the lovely mix of Politicians plus Pharmaceuticals has wielded Power.

My friends tell me that the vaccination only targets cervical cancer, that there are other non-cancer related strains of H.P.V. That has not been mentioned in the news much or in the commercials and it ought to be. Of greater concern is that the vaccination mandation does allow for parents to opt out on religious or philosophical grounds. Yet I think it should be the other way around. The vaccine should be put on the list of "recommended but not required" which would return the decision-making to the parents, doctor, and in a few cases girl involved.

But then Merck would lose out on some of the profits it is making off of our lives.

radical sapphoq
with shout-outs to Natalie and Megs

MORE MESSING WITH HEALTH CARE SICKNESS 1/26/07

Our politicians are at it again. President Bush wants to re-vamp medical insurance in such a way that would involve tax cuts for those buying into less-comprehensive less-expensive policies. There are perceived advantages for part-timers perhaps. And some threats and fears. Some critics have speculated that employers will not continue to fund most of the expense for health care, for example. Then there is the rising cost of health care coupled with inflation. The insurance companies themselves are not crying "foul" but the proposal has already been sacked in Washington.

As expected, most of the Dems don't want anything to do with the plan proposed by Bush 41. The current three Dem contenders for the 2008 race have different plans. Clinton as in Hill the Pill wants universal health care for all, Obama wants it for all within the next six years, and Edwards is willing to increase our spending deficit to do it.

Ted Kennedy naturally wants to expand the public dole by putting everyone on Medicare. As much as I have my reservations about Bush's idea, I sure don't think Medicare for all is a great thing to do. Folks I know who have been forced onto Medicare due to disabilities are complaining that they are getting large doctor bills. Medicare does not pay the physicians "enough" so instead of writing off the rest to taxes, many physicians are billing their patients for what Medicare will not pay.

Medicare is a busted system and fixing it does not mean opening the doors for everyone to get it. Universal health care was a flop when proposed once before. Focusing on getting health care for all American children has garnered popularity as a feel-good thing to do. Not as "the right thing to do." Unfortunately, the Bush 41 plan would strip some coverage mandates-- preventative care in some cases and treatment to keep people from killing themselves in others.
I believe in preventative care and certainly in treatment for mental health disorders. Yet, I think that the Bush 41 proposal should be the subject for serious study of how to tweak it in order to make it workable.

Once again, radical sapphoq wishes to remind all the universal health care advocates that there will be no universal health care in this country unless it provides as good or better as what the rich folks currently have. No rich folk want to give up what they got. As far as ownership vs. entitlement, radical sapphoq is squarely on the ownership side of things but thinks that the Dems prefer entitlements.

radical sapphoq

NUKES AND MORE 1/13/07

Once again two of my unfavorite dictator-types are in the news. Ahmadinejad of Iran and Chavez of Venezuela had a nice tete a tete today concerning the Iranian Nuclear Programme and the selling of oil. Both countries play important roles in OPEC. It appears that the two men [both of whom some of my more liberal buddies continue to assure me are "good guys"] are intent upon signing agreements formalizing their co-operation on various industrial projects and stuff like that. The two countries will be jointly investing in factories producing iron, steel, petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, health care equipment, and munitions. The men both hate the United States, and are seeking to strengthen economic ties in light of a possible U.N. embargo.

Ahmadinejad also intends to attend the swearing-in of Rafael Correa as Ecuador's new prez, meet with Bolivia's Evo Morales and with Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega. President Bush, who opposes the nuclear capability developing in Iran, is uneasy about having Venezuela join in the quest for nukes.

Conde Rice, on her own excursion, is trying to persuade Israel and forces loyal to Palestine's weakened Abbas Fatah movement to unite against Hamas. To this end, President Bush wants Congress to grant "training" money. Unfortunately, the Hamas is very popular in Palestine and the people there are very much against creating any sort of temporary state. Hamas and Palestine want a permanent state to be created rather than going through any intermediate steps which may serve to embroil the Palestinian Authority in further legal battles.

Meanwhile, Pakistan is demanding that the United States share any terrorist intelligence while neighboring Bangladesh is shutting down elections and arresting 2552 people. John Negroponte testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that Pakistan is the center of the Al-Queda network and that the mountainous tribal regions between Pakistan and Afghanistan must be brought under control. Negroponte's testimony pissed off the Pakistani government. President Bush is lobbying to give Pakistan a bit more than one million dollars in U.S. aid in October of 2007-- which is still a bit less than what Pakistan is used to getting. A large contingent of Islamic anti-American demonstrators protested continued American military presence anywhere in the Middle East.

Robert Gates has called for an increase of 27K Marine and 65K Army troops, in light of the drain currently being placed upon our current armed forces. It will take time to enlist and to train the new recruits-- about five years and 10 billion bucks a year. National guard reserve units can also be recalled or have their tour of duty involuntarily extended.

All of these events point to escalating conflicts and wars rather than a hoped-for peace. It may very well be that a draft will become a national necessity. Additionally, we the people of the United States need to look at how to decrease our dependency upon oil and manufactured goods from other countries who hate us.

radical sapphoq

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/
Satellite?cid=1167467723728&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=38862

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6258243.stm

http://www.judeoscope.ca/breve.php3?id_breve=3056

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/
2007/01/13/AR2007011300834.html

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/170734

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2007/01/13/2003344572

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,9294,2-10-1462_2054196,00.html

http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=5228

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/news/archives/international/2007112/99857.htm

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/4465262.html