The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com
- Rob Warmowski: Christians, Please Report To The Health Insurance Reform Debate
- Marcia G. Yerman: The Rape of Iranian Women - Under Reported?
- Bernanke's Own Finances Dipped In 2008
- No Breakthrough In Talks But Bipartisan Panel Close To Agreement On Medicare Savings
- Kevin Grandia: Climate Crock of the Week: What's Up with Anthony Watts [take 2]
- Jesse Jenkins: Joe Romm's Strategy to Lose the Clean Energy Race
| Rob Warmowski: Christians, Please Report To The Health Insurance Reform Debate | Top |
| As the health insurance reform circus plays out on the Hill, and the big pharma and health insurance industry lobbies pour tens of millions into the fight to preserve their obscene profits, I'm struck by one question: Where are the Christians in this debate? I don't mean to call out every Christian. I'm not talking about abortion-clinic picketers. They're a busy and vocal bunch, preoccupied with making sure that women who seek an abortion feel sufficiently hated. I'm not talking about Christian military chaplains leading crusade prayer groups among deployed US infantry in Afghanistan. As it is, they're on their third or fourth tour of duty and may be too tired to keep up with domestic issues. Nor am I talking about Republican Christians who decry infidelity, homosexuality and gay marriage in public while conducting extramarital bacchanals in private. Better to keep the doors of that "family" "church" on C Street closed for this fight. Instead, the Christians I'm wondering about are the millions of ordinary, considered followers of a Bronze Age guy named Jesus, a guy who, to my mind, had some pretty specific things to say about the US health insurance industry and its practices. I ask because as often as I hear it repeated that the US is a "Christian nation", I find it very odd that Christians who live here generally don't seem to have noticed the evidence that Jesus Christ would have serious problems with the for-profit health insurance industry. It's an astoundingly wealthy industry that got that way by withholding coverage from the sick at every opportunity. What would the parable-prone healer think of the pay-or-die private health insurance model the US shamefully supports - alone among the 39 most industrialized nations on earth? I'm only a heathen flipping through the Bible, but I think I have an idea. On insurance companies who take premiums, then withhold coverage from its paying and sick customers, Jesus offers no booklets filled with fine print, no long hold times on the phone while He services other customers. He's pretty clear: You shall not steal; you shall not offer false testimony. - Matthew 19:18 Private insurance companies have held on to billions of dollars by routinely denying coverage for any pre-existing medical condition. What would Jesus withhold to maximize shareholder value? And Jesus went about all the cities and villages [...] healing every sickness and every disease among the people. --Matthew 9:35 Heal every sickness? Every disease? With nary a glance at a profit projection spreadsheet? I think it's safe to say Jesus would make a terrible health insurance company MBA. Speaking of profit, what would Christ think of the salary of AEtna CEO Ronald A . Williams? For his corporate leadership, Mr. Williams was paid over $66,000 per day in 2008. Is not His message to Mr. Williams -- and to his contemporaries at Cigna, Coventry, Humana, WellPoint and HealthNet -- simple and clear? "Then [Jesus] said to them, 'Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.'" --Luke 12:15 Or Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. --Matthew 19:24. I'm no bible scholar or expert on the life of Christ. I might just be cherry-picking here. For all I know, there are Biblical verses endorsing price-gouging and commercial empires built upon human sickness. Jesus might have been a big fan of a system that wastes half the money put into it on intermediaries and profit. There might be all kinds of evidence that Jesus wouldn't want universal health care. But I doubt it. | |
| Marcia G. Yerman: The Rape of Iranian Women - Under Reported? | Top |
| On July 25th, a "global day of action in unity with the people of Iran," I took part in an online project by artist and writers. I contributed an image and text to the website Panteas Roses entitled, "Stop the Rape." I had been hearing stories about women demonstrators being raped before their executions, since it was against Islamic law to execute a virgin. I tracked the information back to an article in The Jerusalem Post (7/19/09) by reporter Sabina Amidi, which recounted an interview with a member of the Basiji militia. That same weekend, I learned of a video posted on YouTube about the rape of a young Iranian demonstrator. The person who put it up apologized for the graphic and brutal footage, but defended his choice with a plea for help from the rest of the world. On July 17, 2009, The National Council of Resistance of Iran headlined the story , "Iran: The burnt corpse of of female demonstrator found after a month of captivity." This related to the practice of burning corpses post-rape/torture to cover up the crime. Most of the people who responded to this information asked me why they hadn't heard anything about these incidents in the main stream media. I didn't have an answer...other than main stream media is not the only place to get news. Technorati Profile More on YouTube | |
| Bernanke's Own Finances Dipped In 2008 | Top |
| WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke was among the many Americans whose finances took a sharp hit in 2008, according to disclosure forms released by the central bank on Tuesday. More on Ben Bernanke | |
| No Breakthrough In Talks But Bipartisan Panel Close To Agreement On Medicare Savings | Top |
| WASHINGTON — A bipartisan group of senators agreed tentatively Tuesday on a plan to squeeze an additional $35 billion out of Medicare over the next decade and larger sums in the years beyond, according to congressional officials, a step toward fulfilling President Barack Obama's goal of curbing the growth of health care spending. Under the plan, an independent commission would be empowered to recommend changes in Medicare annually, to take effect automatically unless Congress enacted an alternative. In addition to saving money, the proposal is aimed at turning the program for those age 65 and over into one that more clearly rewards quality, officials said. The commission would be required to recommend $35 billion in savings over a decade from Medicare. There was no immediate estimate on the longer-term effects of the provision, the topic of exhaustive discussion among three Democrats and three Republicans groping for a compromise on legislation atop the administration's domestic agenda. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss details of the private talks. The negotiations occurred as White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel spent much of his day in the Capitol attempting to untangle a dispute that has stalled a companion bill in the House. Progress has been blocked by a group of conservative-to-moderate Democrats seeking to exempt additional businesses from a requirement to offer insurance under the bill, and to alter the rules governing a government insurance option, among other changes. "The legislative process is about give and take," Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., a leader of the Democratic critics, said during a break in the talks. "There could be a breakthrough in the next few hours and then again there may not be." There was no breakthrough, and the talks ended around 9:30 p.m. EDT with no agreement except to meet again Wednesday. The White House and Democratic leaders originally set deadlines of votes in the House and Senate on health care legislation before lawmakers leave the Capitol for a monthlong summer vacation. While Speaker Nancy Pelosi has yet to publicly abandon that timetable for the House, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did so last week, and it appears the earliest either house can vote is in September. Obama is seeking legislation to extend health insurance to millions who lack it, at the same time he has asked lawmakers to slow the growth in the skyrocketing cost of medical care overall. When it appeared more than a week ago that the House bill would fall short on cost-cutting, Obama called on lawmakers to relinquish some of the control they now exercise over setting payments to hospitals and other health care providers under Medicare. Most of the variations under discussion have called for creation of a commission to issue annual recommendations for savings that would go into effect automatically unless the House and Senate blocked them. Currently, Congress must vote affirmatively to make any changes, a system that encourages individual lawmakers to seek favorable treatment for constituents or businesses in their districts or states. Any bipartisan compromise that emerges from the negotiations is also expected to include a number of cutbacks in planned payments to hospitals and other Medicare providers, totaling hundreds of billions of dollars. The bipartisan group is attempting to complete work in time for the Senate Finance Committee to vote on legislation next week. While the lawmakers involved have devoted weeks to the talks, there is no guarantee that any agreement would survive scrutiny in the full Senate. There, Democrats control 60 seats, and liberals, in particular, are expected to seek major changes. Both bills under discussion would require insurance companies to offer insurance to all comers, and bar them from raising premiums on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions. The bills provide federal subsidies to help lower-income individuals and families purchase insurance. ___ Associated Press writer Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar contributed to this story. | |
| Kevin Grandia: Climate Crock of the Week: What's Up with Anthony Watts [take 2] | Top |
| Okay, let's try this again. Peter Sinclair producer of the well-known "Climate Crock of the Week" video series, posted a video debunking weatherman Anthony Watts who runs a Climate Denier Den also known as his Watt's Up With That blog. The video was auto-scrubbed by YouTube after Watts claimed the video broke YouTube's copyright rules. The video has since been reviewed by a number of US copyright experts and (big surprise) there appears to be nothing that could be construed as anything but fair use. This whole situation has raised the ire of even some of the more ardent commenters on DeSmogBlog (the site I manage) who normally disagree with pretty much everything we say on the site. One such commenter, Rick James wrote: "I have to admit it doesn't look good for the skeptic side when something gets scrubbed like this. Watts loses some stature here unless he can post something convincing about why he did it on his blog. Silence won't get it done." One could speculate that Watts had a problem with the clips Sinclair used of Watts being interviewed by Glenn Beck on Fox News (Watts formerly worked as a weatherman for a Fox News affiliate), but that would be pretty weak given that Watts has no problem excerpting large swaths of print articles like this one posted tonight from the BBC on his own website. As I have asked on two posts here on Huffington Post and on DeSmog: tell me Mr. Watts, what part of this video is it that gives you the right to have it removed from the public discourse on climate change? You can email me at desmogblog [at] gmail [dot] com. Here's the video again, reposted on YouTube: | |
| Jesse Jenkins: Joe Romm's Strategy to Lose the Clean Energy Race | Top |
| By Jesse Jenkins & Teryn Norris On Monday, Joe Romm of Climate Progress publicly attacked us for publishing an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle -- called "Will America lose the clean energy race? " ( a longer version was posted here at HuffingtonPost .). In that piece, we urged Congress to fully fund President Obama's energy education initiative and scale up direct pubic investments in low-carbon energy to accelerate our transition to a clean energy economy. Romm asserted that our op-ed "attacks" President Obama and Democratic leaders, when in fact it calls on Congress to support Obama's RE-ENERGYSE energy education program and urges greater public investment in clean energy to compete with Asian challengers. Yet Romm never mentioned the central focus of the op-ed -- RE-ENERGYSE and our efforts to rally support behind it, including a recent sign-on letter with over 100 organizations -- and instead criticized us for what he called "willfully misleading nonsense" about Asian countries' planned investments in clean energy. Romm proceeded to make several factually incorrect statements about Asia's plans for clean energy investment that contradict research in publicly accessible reports and analyses, including those by the Center for American Progress (CAP), which employs Romm. The Breakthrough Institute wrote a comprehensive fact check here to correct Romm's numerous misstatements and clarify the details of public investment plans in China, South Korea and Japan. Romm also criticized us for asserting that Congress must strengthen the Waxman-Markey bill with greater investments in clean energy to compete with Asian challengers and accelerate our transition to a clean energy economy. Why? Because Romm apparently believes the Waxman-Markey proposal -- which would invest only $10 billion per year in clean energy and energy efficiency -- is sufficient to win the clean energy race. It is not. "Waxman-Markey would complete America's transition to a clean energy economy, which started with the stimulus bill," reads the title of a prominently featured post on Romm's website, a claim he has repeated multiple times. "Waxman-Markey would generate more clean energy action than any piece of legislation passed by any country in the history of the world!" exclaimed Romm in another recent post as part of his consistent and ongoing cheer-leading for the legislation. Romm supports his assertion by arguing that Waxman-Markey would invest $14 billion per year in clean energy. This figure is in fact faulty. Romm relies on a House Energy and Commerce Committee summary of Waxman-Markey (rather than his own independent analysis), which relied in turn on EPA analysis in April of the early draft version of the bill . However, according to the EPA's more recent analysis of the actual bill, Waxman-Markey would invest only $8 to $10 billion per year between 2015-2020, as we explain in detail here and as we stated in our op ed . But regardless of whether the number is $10 or $14 billion annually, this pales in comparison to China's planned investment of $44 to $66 billion per year and is clearly insufficient to "complete America's transition to a clean energy economy." A group of 34 Nobel Laureates recently submitted a letter to President Obama urging $15 billion per year in Waxman-Markey for R&D alone , and the Brookings Institution calls for $20-30 billion per year in R&D. The Breakthrough Institute strongly advocates a minimum investment of $30 to $50 billion per year in low-carbon energy research, development, demonstration, and deployment, of which $15 billion should be for clean energy R&D, as recommended by President Obama and the nation's top scientists . China, South Korea and Japan are all redoubling (re-tripling or re-quadrupling may be more accurate) their efforts to spur domestic clean energy industries, building on their stimulus investments by launching major, sustained clean energy investment programs. In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the United States allocated over $60 billion to be spent over two years building American clean energy industries - an excellent start. Yet the Waxman-Markey bill would slash that level of commitment by two thirds. Romm is apparently content with letting U.S. investments in clean energy technologies and industries lapse. The Breakthrough Institute is not. Ironically, in the face of massive direct public investments in countries like China, South Korea and Japan, both the Breakthrough Institute and the real policy analysts at the Center for American Progress believe the U.S. is falling behind in the clean energy race. A recent CAP brief noted that "competitors dominate green industries while America is left behind." CAP's Julian Wong and Andrew Light were some of the first analysts to highlight China's reported plan to invest $440 to $660 billion in clean energy over ten years. And in a report titled "We Must Seize the Energy Opportunity or Slip Further Behind," CAP analyst Ben Furnas argued that "when it comes to preparing our country to compete in the new energy economy ... we lag behind most of our competitors in the rest of the world." The Breakthrough Institute believes the gathering clean energy race demands a vigorous and sustained commitment to clean energy technology and industries and has called on Congress to strengthen U.S. climate legislation, boosting clean energy investments from its current level of $10 billion per year to at least $30-$50 billion per year. In contrast, Romm ardently supports weaker legislation that would invest just $10 billion per year in clean energy and energy efficiency, less than one quarter of China's planned investments. That may be acceptable to Joe Romm -- but it is no way to win the clean energy race. More on Climate Change | |
CREATE MORE ALERTS:
Auctions - Find out when new auctions are posted
Horoscopes - Receive your daily horoscope
Music - Get the newest Album Releases, Playlists and more
News - Only the news you want, delivered!
Stocks - Stay connected to the market with price quotes and more
Weather - Get today's weather conditions
| You received this email because you subscribed to Yahoo! Alerts. Use this link to unsubscribe from this alert. To change your communications preferences for other Yahoo! business lines, please visit your Marketing Preferences. To learn more about Yahoo!'s use of personal information, including the use of web beacons in HTML-based email, please read our Privacy Policy. Yahoo! is located at 701 First Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94089. |
No comments:
Post a Comment