Joe Bageant shows a wealth of common sense

Here's a taste of it:

The Entertainment Value of Snuffing Grandma

A Nation of Children Roots for the Mafia

by Joe Bageant / August 20th, 2009

Every day I get letters asking me to weigh in on the healthcare fracas. As if a redneck writer armed with a keyboard, a pack of smokes and all the misinformation and vitriol available on the Internet could contribute anything to the crap storm already in progress. Besides that, my unreasoned but noisy take on this issue is often about as welcome as a fart in a spacesuit. None of which has ever stopped me from making a fool of myself in the past. So here goes.

There ain’t any healthcare debate going on, Bubba. What is going on are mob negotiations about insurance, and which mob gets the biggest chunk of the dough, be it our taxpayer dough or the geet that isn’t in ole Jim’s impoverished purse. The hoo-ha is about the insurance racket, not the delivery of healthcare to human beings. It’s simply another form of extorting the people regarding a fundamental need — health.

Unfortunately, the people have been mesmerized by our theater state’s purposefully distracting and dramatic media productions for so long they’ve been mutated toward helplessness. Consequently, they are incapable of asking themselves a simple question: If insurance corporation profits are one third of the cost of healthcare, and all insurance corporations do is deliver our money to healthcare providers for us (or actually, do everything in their power to keep the money for themselves), why do we need insurance companies at all? Answer: Because Wall Street gets a big piece of the action. And nobody messes with the Wall Street Mob (as the bailout extortion money proved). Better (and worse) presidents have tried. Some made a genuine effort to push it through Congress. Others expressed the desire publicly, but after getting privately muscled by the healthcare industry, decided to back off from the idea. For instance:

• Franklin Roosevelt wanted universal healthcare.
• Harry Truman wanted universal healthcare.
• Dwight Eisenhower wanted universal healthcare.
• Richard Nixon wanted universal healthcare.
• Lyndon Johnson wanted universal healthcare.
• Bill Clinton wanted — well we can’t definitely say because he made sure that if the issue blew up on him, which it did, Hillary would be left holding the turd. Is it any wonder that woman gets so snappy at the slightest provocation? First getting left to hold the bag on healthcare, then the spots on that blue dress.

So why did American liberals believe Obama would bring home the healthcare bacon? Because they live in an ideological cupcake land. It’s a big neighborhood, a very special place where “Your vote is important,” and “by electing the right candidate, you can change our beloved nation.” Most of America lives in that neighborhood, even though they’ve never personally met. It’s a place where the shrubbery and flowerbeds of such things as “values” and “hope” bloom. Hope that our desires coupled with the efforts of a good and decent president can affect “change.” Evidently these voters never heard the old adage, “Hope in one hand and piss in the other, and see which one fills up first.”

Health Industry Invests Our Money In—Tobacco!

from Truthout.org:

Canadian, US, UK Life, Health Insurers Investing Heavily in Tobacco Companies

Friday 05 June 2009

by: Agence France-Presse | Visit article original @ Agence France-Presse

Life and health insurance companies retain major
investments in the tobacco industry. (Photo: Bloomberg)

Canadian firm Sun Life has $1 billion in two companies.

Major U.S., Canadian and British life and health insurance companies have billions of dollars invested in tobacco companies, says a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Wesley Boyd, the study's lead author, found that at least $4.4 billion US in insurance company funds are invested in companies whose affiliates produce cigarettes, cigars and chewing tobacco.

"Despite calls upon the insurance industry to get out of the tobacco business by physicians and others, insurers continue to put their profits above people's health," said Boyd, a faculty member of Harvard Medical School.

"It's clear their top priority is making money, not safeguarding people's well-being," he wrote.

Tobacco is considered the leading cause of lung cancer and a major risk factor for heart attack, stroke, pulmonary disease and cancer.

According to the World Health Organization, it is a contributing factor in 5.4 million deaths a year.

Researchers first revealed that health and life insurance companies had major investments in tobacco companies in 1995 in an article in the British medical journal Lancet.

"Although investing in tobacco while selling life or health insurance may seem self-defeating, insurance firms have figured out ways to profit from both," Boyd wrote.

"Insurers exclude smokers from coverage or, more commonly, charge them higher premiums. Insurers profit - and smokers lose - twice over."

According to the study, U.S. insurer Prudential Financial Inc. has $264.3 million invested among three U.S. tobacco companies, including Reynolds America and Philip Morris.

Canadian insurer Sun Life Financial Inc., which sells life, disability and health insurance, has a stock portfolio with more than $1 billion in two tobacco companies, including $890 million in Philip Morris.

Prudential Plc, which sells health and disability insurance, has $1.38 billion in two tobacco companies, including British American Tobacco.

The study also details the substantial tobacco investments of the U.S. firms Northwestern Mutual and Massachusetts Mutual Life, and the Scottish firm Standard Life Plc.

Gupta a Disaster waiting to happen

So says the progressive legit group, Physicians for a National Health Program:

Dear PNHP members and friends,

The report this week that President-elect Obama is considering Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN's chief medical correspondent, for the position of U.S. surgeon general is deeply troubling.

Among our concerns are these:

1. He has very little background in public health, preventive medicine or administration.

2. He has openly opposed progressive health reform, going so far as to cite false information to denigrate single payer (e.g. in his error-laden attack on Michael Moore's film "Sicko") and parroting the health insurance lobby's distortions of single payer.

3. As a media figure, he has been disturbingly cozy with Big Pharma. He co-hosts Turner Private Networks' monthly show "Accent Health," which airs in doctors' offices around the country and which serves as a major conduit for targeted ads from the drug companies. Another example: In 2003, despite mounting evidence to the contrary, he publicly downplayed concerns about the dangers of Vioxx. It was removed from the market a year later by its manufacturer, Merck.

4. In the 2008 election campaign, his reporting on John McCain's health proposals was misleading and implicitly positive, giving undeserved credence to McCain's claims that buying private health insurance on the open market is a financially viable option for most Americans.

We urge you to write to President-elect Obama and express your opposition to Gupta's possible nomination, and to urge Obama to nominate a more acceptable candidate for this critically important post. You can do so by clicking here: http://change.gov/page/s/healthcare.

Sincerely yours,


Quentin D. Young, M.D.
National Coordinator



Physicians for a National Health Program
29 E Madison Suite 602, Chicago, IL 60602
Phone (312) 782-6006 | Fax: (312) 782-6007
www.pnhp.org | info@pnhp.org

Something to Stand For

Physorg.com:

Study Finds That Sitting May
Increase Risk of Disease

Most people spend most of their day sitting with relatively idle muscles. Health professionals advise that at least 30 minutes of activity at least 5 days a week will counteract health concerns, such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes and obesity that may result from inactivity. Now, researchers at the University of Missouri-Columbia say a new model regarding physical activity recommendations is emerging. New research shows that what people do in the other 15 and a half hours of their waking day is just as important, or more so, than the time they spend actively exercising.

“Many activities like talking on the phone or watching a child’s ballgame can be done just as enjoyably upright, and you burn double the number of calories while you’re doing it,” said Marc Hamilton, an associate professor of biomedical sciences whose work was recently published in Diabetes. “We’re pretty stationary when we’re talking on the phone or sitting in a chair at a ballgame, but if you stand, you’re probably going to pace or move around.”

In a series of studies that will be presented at the Second International Congress on Physical Activity and Public Health in Amsterdam, Hamilton, Theodore Zderic, a post-doctoral researcher, and their research team studied the impact of inactivity among rats, pigs and humans. In humans, they studied the effects of sitting in office chairs, using computers, reading, talking on the phone and watching TV. They found evidence that sitting had negative effects on fat and cholesterol metabolism. The researchers also found that physical inactivity throughout the day stimulated disease-promoting processes, and that exercising, even for an hour a day, was not sufficient to reverse the effect.

There is a misconception that actively exercising is the only way to make a healthy difference in an otherwise sedentary lifestyle. However, Hamilton’s studies found that standing and other non-exercise activities burn many calories in most adults even if they do not exercise at all.


“The enzymes in blood vessels of muscles responsible for ‘fat burning’ are shut off within hours of not standing,” Hamilton said. “Standing and moving lightly will re-engage the enzymes, but since people are awake 16 hours a day, it stands to reason that when people sit much of that time they are losing the opportunity for optimal metabolism throughout the day.”

Hamilton hopes that creative strategies in homes, communities and workplaces can help solve the problem of inactivity. Some common non-exercise physical activities that people can do instead of sitting include performing household chores, shopping, typing while standing and even fidgeting while standing. Given the work of muscles necessary to hold the body’s weight upright, standing can double the metabolic rate. Hamilton believes that scientists and the public have underestimated common activities because they are intermittent and do not take as much effort as a heavy workout.

“To hold a body that weighs 170 pounds upright takes a fair amount of energy from muscles,” Hamilton said. “You can appreciate that our legs are big and strong because they must be used all the time. There is a large amount of energy associated with standing every day that can’t be easily compensated for by 30 to 60 minutes at the gym.”

Only 28 percent of Americans are getting the minimal amount of recommended exercise. Hamilton predicts that eventually there will be health campaigns with doctors advocating limiting sitting time, just like they ask people to limit sun and second hand smoke exposure.

“The purpose of medical research is to offer effective new strategies for people whom the existing therapies are not working,” Hamilton said. “Because our research reveals that too little exercise and excessive sitting do not change health by the same genes and biological mechanisms, it offers hope for people who either are not seeing results from exercise or can not exercise regularly.

The lifestyle change we are studying is also unlike exercise because it does not require that people squeeze an extra hour into their days and/or get sweaty at the gym, but instead improving the quality of what they already are doing. One misrepresentation is that people tend to say 'I sit all the time, so your studies suggest that I can't even work,' but Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson showed us that you can be very productive and still do great work in an office with a 'standing' desk."

Source: University of Missouri

“The enzymes in blood vessels of muscles responsible for ‘fat burning’ are shut off within hours of not standing,” Hamilton said. “Standing and moving lightly will re-engage the enzymes, but since people are awake 16 hours a day, it stands to reason that when people sit much of that time they are losing the opportunity for optimal metabolism throughout the day.”

Hamilton hopes that creative strategies in homes, communities and workplaces can help solve the problem of inactivity. Some common non-exercise physical activities that people can do instead of sitting include performing household chores, shopping, typing while standing and even fidgeting while standing. Given the work of muscles necessary to hold the body’s weight upright, standing can double the metabolic rate. Hamilton believes that scientists and the public have underestimated common activities because they are intermittent and do not take as much effort as a heavy workout.

“To hold a body that weighs 170 pounds upright takes a fair amount of energy from muscles,” Hamilton said. “You can appreciate that our legs are big and strong because they must be used all the time. There is a large amount of energy associated with standing every day that can’t be easily compensated for by 30 to 60 minutes at the gym.”

Only 28 percent of Americans are getting the minimal amount of recommended exercise. Hamilton predicts that eventually there will be health campaigns with doctors advocating limiting sitting time, just like they ask people to limit sun and second hand smoke exposure.

“The purpose of medical research is to offer effective new strategies for people whom the existing therapies are not working,” Hamilton said. “Because our research reveals that too little exercise and excessive sitting do not change health by the same genes and biological mechanisms, it offers hope for people who either are not seeing results from exercise or can not exercise regularly.

The lifestyle change we are studying is also unlike exercise because it does not require that people squeeze an extra hour into their days and/or get sweaty at the gym, but instead improving the quality of what they already are doing. One misrepresentation is that people tend to say 'I sit all the time, so your studies suggest that I can't even work,' but Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson showed us that you can be very productive and still do great work in an office with a 'standing' desk."

Source: University of Missouri

WalMart Steals Money from Your Kids

From education-portal.com:

Wal-Mart Steals Billions From Public Schools

Aug 03, 2007 -- Wal-Mart wants you to think you're getting a bargain, but in reality, the store is taking you for the ride of your life and stealing billions from public coffers that should be dedicated to funding our public education system.

The High Cost of Low Prices

• State and local governments have awarded $1 billion in subsidies to Wal-Mart--money that could have been used to fund our struggling public education system or other public services. (Source: NEA.org)
• Taxpayers are forced to contribute billions to health care and public assistance funds every year to cover Wal-Mart employees who are not eligible for the company's insurance plan. California alone spends $86 million each year. (Source: UC Berkeley Study)
• The Walton Family Foundation has donated more than $100 million to private organizations that buy political influence and undermine public education support. (Source: MediaTransparency.org)

Our public education system desperately needs more funding. If Wal-Mart ceased stealing from our public coffers and quit donating money to dismantle public schools, perhaps that funding would be available.

What a 200 Employee Wal-Mart Store Costs You

Item	Cost to Taxpayers
Low Income Tax Credits/Deductions	$125,000
Child Health Programs (Federal Share)	$108,000
Title 1	$100,000
Housing Assistance	$42,000
Free/Reduced School Lunches	$36,000
Low Income Energy Assistance	$9,750
Annual Total	$420,750

According to a recent Congressional report, every 200 employee Wal-Mart store in the U.S. costs federal taxpayers a whopping $420,750 a year. This does not include the government subsidies given to Wal-Mart, or the amount contributed by local/state taxpayers. Wouldn't it be nice if this money could be used to sponsor one school rather than one Wal-Mart store?

Always Lies. Always.

The Wal-Mart Corporation often brags about the philanthropy efforts of its founding family, the Waltons, but the bulk of the money donated to education goes to efforts that support vouchers, charter schools, and tuition tax credits. According to USA Today, Wal-Mart donated more than $250 million to such causes in six years time.

In fact, the National Education Association (NEA) charges that the late John Walton provided tens of millions of dollars towards the anti-public education movement and sat on the boards of several major pro-voucher organizations.

Don't let Wal-Mart's advertising fool you. This company is stealing tax dollars from the public education system, and their 'donations' hurt more than they help.

---

The National Education Association recently joined the national 'Wake-Up Wal-Mart' campaign in an effort to educate the public about the effects of Wal-Mart on our public school system. If you're interested in joining the campaign, you can learn about it by visiting NEA.org or wakeupwalmart.com.

Feinstein's dangerous voting bill, S.1487

This is stolen direct from Mark Crispin Miller's great site:

ALERT! Hearing on Feinstein's Senate bill scheduled for 7/25!

Senate Rules Committee has scheduled hearing to receive testimony on S. 1487, "The Ballot Integrity Act of 2007"[sic]

Wednesday, July 25, 2007 at 10:00 a.m.

http://rules.senate.gov/hearings/

Sen. Feintein is apparently NOT waiting to see what happens with HR 811-or maybe the House bill will be voted on beforehand.

Now is the time to call-again-both the House, to vote NO on H.R. 811, and the Senate, to vote NO on S 1487.

Also: Call those presidential candidates who are co-sponsors of S 1487-Clinton, Obama and Dodd. Call Kennedy and Sanders, too.

Ask how they can support a bill that gives unprecedented power to private vendors and Bush/Cheney's EAC.

Mary Ann Gould

Voice of the Voters

MCM here.

As I've noted before, S 1487 is so bad it even makes Holt's bill look good.

So that you'll be armed w/ specifics when you call your representatives, those Democratic presidential candidates and Kennedy and Sanders, here, again, is the eye-opening analysis of S 1487, from John Gideon that I sent out recently:

From John Gideon:

Mark,

This deconstruction of S-1487 is very well done and we are proud to feature it on VotersUnite.Org. Here is just a small part of what Robert Bancroft has to say about Sen. Feinstein's gift to Corporate America:

http://www.votersunite.org/info/S1487Deconstruction.asp

>>snip<<>Votes are less safe, and less likely to be counted, in S.1487:

o S.1487 replaces most references to "paper ballot" with "paper record", a stinging reminder that the two are not equal.

o S.1487 removes the test of "clear and convincing evidence" with regards to tampering, making the paper records easier to ignore.

o S.1487 allows the paper ballots of an entire precinct to be ignored, if there is any hint of "mischief", while H.R.811 suggests that any tampering be considered on a machine-by-machine basis

o S.1487 deletes language in H.R.811 that requires prominent reminders for voters to double-check their paper records before casting the vote.

o S.1487 adds dangerously racist "residual benchmarks", and deletes accuracy standards established by HAVA.

o S.1487 alters disclosure requirements, to offer improved protection for corporate "trade secrets", at the expense of vote integrity.

o S.1487 permits some machines used in vote tabulation to be connected to the internet, while H.R.811 does not.

o S.1487 deletes language in H.R.811 that would require polling stations to offer real, paper ballots, as an alternative to electronic voting.

H.R.811 makes some minimal effort to constrain the role of the Commission, but S.1487 goes hog-wild:

o H.R.811 relies on the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology to develop best practices, but S.1487 hands that responsibility over to the Commission.

o H.R.811 would like States to play a role in the certification process. S.1487 hands control to the Commission. It even permits the Commission to break its own rules on a whim ("emergency
certification").

o H.R.811 requires disclosure between manufacturers, labs and state election officials, but S.1487 makes the Commission the central command.

o H.R.811 mandates that the Commission shall select labs at random "to the greatest extent practicable", but S.1487 weakens the language.

o H.R.811 requires the Commission to inform the public if it has "credible evidence of significant security failure at an accredited laboratory", but S.1487 deletes this, preferring such knowledge remain a secret between the lab and the Commission.

o H.R.811 tries (albeit timidly) to define some limits on the role of the Commission, but S.1487 has all such limitations deleted.

o H.R.811 allows the Director of the National Science Foundation to determine who is eligible to receive grants for research, but S.1487 gives this responsibility to the Commission.

H.R.811 has a lot more to say about audits:
o H.R.811 requires that States may not give any advance notice as to which precincts will be selected for audit. S.1487 has this line deleted.

o H.R.811 allows audits to be skipped if the winning candidate received 80% or more of the total votes, S.1487 does not.

o H.R.811 requires the entity conducting the audit to "meet the standards established by the Comptroller General to ensure the independence" of all parties, and requires that audits be performed "under generally accepted government accounting standards." S.1487 deletes all of this.

o H.R.811 attempts to outline several additional requirements for the audit, including that at least 10% of all precincts be audited in the case of a particularly close race. S.1487 suggests 2%.
o H.R.811 provides States the opportunity to develop their own audit standards, so long as the National Institute of Standards and Technology verifies the proposed method is at least as accurate as the method that H.R.811 outlines. S.1487 deletes this; why consult NIST when one can simply defer all judgment to the Commission?

o H.R.811 requires random audits, but also insists that at least one precinct from each county be audited. S.1487 deletes this safeguard.

o H.R.811 insists that the Commission adopt model audit procedures before the next Presidential election. S.1487 is content to wait until 2010.

o H.R.811 appropriates $100,000,000 to assist states in paying the cost of a rigorous audit regime. S.1487 tells States to go lay an egg.

Other assorted differences:
o S.1487 deletes several legal protections for "aggrieved persons", who have been disenfranchised, to seek remedy.

o S.1487 cuts the total research spending by $2,000,000.

o S.1487 cuts the total grants for purchase of equipment by $400,000,000.

o While H.R.811 bases funding allocation on voting age population, S.1487 bases it on the number of precincts.

o S.1487 expands and clarifies the protection of voters who speak certain languages other than English, referring to 1965 Voter Protection Act.

o S.1487 pushes back most deadlines, many not effective until after the next Presidential election.