O:9:"magpierss":22:{s:6:"parser";i:0;s:12:"current_item";a:0:{}s:5:"items";a:15:{i:0;a:7:{s:5:"title";s:40:"Moral Hazard in Healthcare and Hamburger";s:4:"link";s:41:"http://www.democracyforutah.com/node/2727";s:11:"description";s:1680:"<p>Moral hazard is the idea that when individuals and executives are protected from punishment for their bad judgments and risk-taking, they will continue such behavior in the future.  <p><b>Moral hazard is repeatedly held up by Republicans and health insurance companies, as the reason that universal affordable healthcare is a BAD IDEA.</b> <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/08/29/050829fa_fact?currentPage=all">The rationale goes like this</a>:<br />
<blockquote>If you think of insurance as producing wasteful consumption of medical services, then the fact that there are forty-five million Americans without health insurance is no longer an immediate cause for alarm. After all, it’s not as if the uninsured never go to the doctor. They spend, on average, $934 a year on medical care. A moral-hazard theorist would say that they go to the doctor when they really have to. Those of us with private insurance, by contrast, consume $2,347 worth of health care a year. If a lot of that extra $1,413 is waste, then maybe the uninsured person is the truly efficient consumer of health care.</blockquote>
 Yup, our Legislature will argue with straight faces that we'd go to the hospital instead of playing golf, if they make healthcare too cheap.<p><b>Interestingly, Republicans and too many Democrats seem to be blind to moral hazard created by deregulation.</b>  For example: If the US Dept of Agriculture had the staff to test our ground meat processors and the mandate to shut down Cargill or Tyson after, say, two successive E Coli contamination events within 3 years, that might reduce the incentive to value profits over the health of the American public.</p>
";s:8:"category";s:89:"EconomyFood and AgricultureGovernment, BadHealthcareRight-Wing AgendaUniversal Healthcare";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Mon, 05 Oct 2009 08:14:49 -0600";s:7:"summary";s:1680:"<p>Moral hazard is the idea that when individuals and executives are protected from punishment for their bad judgments and risk-taking, they will continue such behavior in the future.  <p><b>Moral hazard is repeatedly held up by Republicans and health insurance companies, as the reason that universal affordable healthcare is a BAD IDEA.</b> <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/08/29/050829fa_fact?currentPage=all">The rationale goes like this</a>:<br />
<blockquote>If you think of insurance as producing wasteful consumption of medical services, then the fact that there are forty-five million Americans without health insurance is no longer an immediate cause for alarm. After all, it’s not as if the uninsured never go to the doctor. They spend, on average, $934 a year on medical care. A moral-hazard theorist would say that they go to the doctor when they really have to. Those of us with private insurance, by contrast, consume $2,347 worth of health care a year. If a lot of that extra $1,413 is waste, then maybe the uninsured person is the truly efficient consumer of health care.</blockquote>
 Yup, our Legislature will argue with straight faces that we'd go to the hospital instead of playing golf, if they make healthcare too cheap.<p><b>Interestingly, Republicans and too many Democrats seem to be blind to moral hazard created by deregulation.</b>  For example: If the US Dept of Agriculture had the staff to test our ground meat processors and the mandate to shut down Cargill or Tyson after, say, two successive E Coli contamination events within 3 years, that might reduce the incentive to value profits over the health of the American public.</p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1254752089;}i:1;a:7:{s:5:"title";s:52:"Trust me, your hamburger is safe to eat (wink, wink)";s:4:"link";s:41:"http://www.democracyforutah.com/node/2726";s:11:"description";s:826:"<p><b>Were you under the impression that the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspected the meat we eat? Or that hamburgers labelled "beef" contain only beef? Wrong and Wrong.</b> USDA "allows [hamburger] grinders to devise their own safety plans", and merely "encouraged them to test the ingredients first."</p> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/health/04meat.html?_r=1&amp;bl">Michael Moss's expose of commercial hamburger meat producers</a> details the history of the hamburger that sent a 22 year-old dance instructor into a coma for 9 weeks and left her paralyzed:<br />
<blockquote>Confidential grinding logs and other Cargill records show that the hamburgers were made from a mix of slaughterhouse trimmings and a mash-like product derived from scraps that were ground together at a plant in Wisconsin.</p>
";s:8:"category";s:52:"EconomyFamiliesFood and AgricultureShared Prosperity";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Mon, 05 Oct 2009 07:34:50 -0600";s:7:"summary";s:826:"<p><b>Were you under the impression that the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspected the meat we eat? Or that hamburgers labelled "beef" contain only beef? Wrong and Wrong.</b> USDA "allows [hamburger] grinders to devise their own safety plans", and merely "encouraged them to test the ingredients first."</p> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/health/04meat.html?_r=1&amp;bl">Michael Moss's expose of commercial hamburger meat producers</a> details the history of the hamburger that sent a 22 year-old dance instructor into a coma for 9 weeks and left her paralyzed:<br />
<blockquote>Confidential grinding logs and other Cargill records show that the hamburgers were made from a mix of slaughterhouse trimmings and a mash-like product derived from scraps that were ground together at a plant in Wisconsin.</p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1254749690;}i:2;a:7:{s:5:"title";s:54:"Why the uninsured are increasing your healthcare costs";s:4:"link";s:41:"http://www.democracyforutah.com/node/2725";s:11:"description";s:1929:"<p>Op-ed from Robert W. Robertson Jr., M.D., in the <a href="http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2009/09/healthcare-cost-shifting.html" target="new">LA Times</a>:</p>
<blockquote><ol>
<li>The uninsured numbers are constantly increasing.</p>
<li style="margin-top: 0.5em">The unreimbursed expenses incurred by hospitals in treating those ever-increasing numbers of the uninsured are constantly increasing.<br />
<li style="margin-top: 0.5em">Hospitals must increase their charges in order to cover the ever-increasing costs of treating the uninsured.<br />
<li style="margin-top: 0.5em">Medical insurance companies must increase the premiums of those they insure in order to pay for the increased hospital charges when their insureds seek treatment.<br />
<li style="margin-top: 0.5em">Each time insurance premiums increase, another portion of the population opts out of carrying insurance. Individuals or companies reach a point, finally, when they can no longer afford insurance, and individual policyholders or employees of companies which drop their benefits enter into the pool of the uninsured.<br />
<li style="margin-top: 0.5em">More uninsured people = increased, unreimbursed hospital costs = increased hospital charges = increased insurance premiums = more uninsured people.... The upward spiral is incessant.</ol>
<p><b>The pressure created by the ever-increasing number of the uninsured is the driving force behind the ever-increasing cost of medical care in the United States. That force is unrelenting. It can only accelerate. It has created a system which is unsustainable.</b></p></blockquote>
<p>The only solution, Dr. Robertson says, is to bring all the uninsured into the system. But, I would add, health insurance has to be made affordable for those who currently can't afford it. Simply mandating that people buy insurance won't cut it. If you can't afford insurance, you can't afford the fine either.  </p>
";s:8:"category";s:30:"HealthcareUniversal Healthcare";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:32:54 -0600";s:7:"summary";s:1929:"<p>Op-ed from Robert W. Robertson Jr., M.D., in the <a href="http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2009/09/healthcare-cost-shifting.html" target="new">LA Times</a>:</p>
<blockquote><ol>
<li>The uninsured numbers are constantly increasing.</p>
<li style="margin-top: 0.5em">The unreimbursed expenses incurred by hospitals in treating those ever-increasing numbers of the uninsured are constantly increasing.<br />
<li style="margin-top: 0.5em">Hospitals must increase their charges in order to cover the ever-increasing costs of treating the uninsured.<br />
<li style="margin-top: 0.5em">Medical insurance companies must increase the premiums of those they insure in order to pay for the increased hospital charges when their insureds seek treatment.<br />
<li style="margin-top: 0.5em">Each time insurance premiums increase, another portion of the population opts out of carrying insurance. Individuals or companies reach a point, finally, when they can no longer afford insurance, and individual policyholders or employees of companies which drop their benefits enter into the pool of the uninsured.<br />
<li style="margin-top: 0.5em">More uninsured people = increased, unreimbursed hospital costs = increased hospital charges = increased insurance premiums = more uninsured people.... The upward spiral is incessant.</ol>
<p><b>The pressure created by the ever-increasing number of the uninsured is the driving force behind the ever-increasing cost of medical care in the United States. That force is unrelenting. It can only accelerate. It has created a system which is unsustainable.</b></p></blockquote>
<p>The only solution, Dr. Robertson says, is to bring all the uninsured into the system. But, I would add, health insurance has to be made affordable for those who currently can't afford it. Simply mandating that people buy insurance won't cut it. If you can't afford insurance, you can't afford the fine either.  </p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1254511974;}i:3;a:7:{s:5:"title";s:45:"If insurance companies ran the postal service";s:4:"link";s:41:"http://www.democracyforutah.com/node/2724";s:11:"description";s:1321:"<p>Musings by <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/22/784328/-That-Stamp-Will-Cost-You-$23,000,-Pal." target="new">Hunter at Daily Kos</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>If health insurance companies ran the mail service, you wouldn't know what it would cost to mail a package, because nobody involved would be able to tell you, even if you spent the better part of a week on the phone with them. You would know what it cost you one only after you received the bill for mailing it. This bill would come one month later, but additional charges would be added a month after that, more additions would come two months later, the total would be revised again in four months, and would be adjusted again after six months. If you want to complain, knock yourself out, but chances are you won't even remember what it was you mailed back in the summer of 2008 or whenever-that-was. [...]</p>
<p>If health insurance companies ran the mail service, your contract to have packages delivered would stand a chance of being revoked if you actually mailed one. [...]</p>
<p>And your package delivery service wouldn't just idly sit by and send what you wanted them to send. They'd <em>tell</em> you want you wanted to send. Flowers are nice, but couldn't you just send a card? Cookies are a bit much, don't you think?</p></blockquote>
";s:8:"category";s:10:"Healthcare";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:45:16 -0600";s:7:"summary";s:1321:"<p>Musings by <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/22/784328/-That-Stamp-Will-Cost-You-$23,000,-Pal." target="new">Hunter at Daily Kos</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>If health insurance companies ran the mail service, you wouldn't know what it would cost to mail a package, because nobody involved would be able to tell you, even if you spent the better part of a week on the phone with them. You would know what it cost you one only after you received the bill for mailing it. This bill would come one month later, but additional charges would be added a month after that, more additions would come two months later, the total would be revised again in four months, and would be adjusted again after six months. If you want to complain, knock yourself out, but chances are you won't even remember what it was you mailed back in the summer of 2008 or whenever-that-was. [...]</p>
<p>If health insurance companies ran the mail service, your contract to have packages delivered would stand a chance of being revoked if you actually mailed one. [...]</p>
<p>And your package delivery service wouldn't just idly sit by and send what you wanted them to send. They'd <em>tell</em> you want you wanted to send. Flowers are nice, but couldn't you just send a card? Cookies are a bit much, don't you think?</p></blockquote>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1253659516;}i:4;a:7:{s:5:"title";s:62:"Why Reagan's Economic Advisor Supports Single-Payer Healthcare";s:4:"link";s:41:"http://www.democracyforutah.com/node/2723";s:11:"description";s:1018:"<p>Paul Craig Roberts was an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration, and is called  the "Father of Reaganomics." He writes about <a href="http://counterpunch.org/roberts09142009.html">The Healthcare Deceit at Counterpunch</a>:<br />
<blockquote><p>The current health care “debate” shows how far gone representative government is in the United States.  Members of Congress represent the powerful interest groups that fill their campaign coffers, not the people who vote for them.  The health care bill is not about health care.  It is about protecting and increasing the profits of the insurance companies.  The main feature of the health care bill is the “individual mandate,” which requires everyone in America to buy health insurance.  <b>Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont), a recipient of millions in contributions over his career from the insurance industry,</b> proposes to impose up to a $3,800 fine on Americans who fail to purchase health insurance....</p>
";s:8:"category";s:53:"Government, BadHealthcarePoliticsUniversal Healthcare";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:29:12 -0600";s:7:"summary";s:1018:"<p>Paul Craig Roberts was an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration, and is called  the "Father of Reaganomics." He writes about <a href="http://counterpunch.org/roberts09142009.html">The Healthcare Deceit at Counterpunch</a>:<br />
<blockquote><p>The current health care “debate” shows how far gone representative government is in the United States.  Members of Congress represent the powerful interest groups that fill their campaign coffers, not the people who vote for them.  The health care bill is not about health care.  It is about protecting and increasing the profits of the insurance companies.  The main feature of the health care bill is the “individual mandate,” which requires everyone in America to buy health insurance.  <b>Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont), a recipient of millions in contributions over his career from the insurance industry,</b> proposes to impose up to a $3,800 fine on Americans who fail to purchase health insurance....</p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1253327352;}i:5;a:7:{s:5:"title";s:74:"Meet Cleon Skousen, the Mormon conspiracy theorist who inspires Glenn Beck";s:4:"link";s:41:"http://www.democracyforutah.com/node/2722";s:11:"description";s:1758:"<p><a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/16/beck_skousen/index.html" target="new">Salon</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>By 1963, Skousen's extremism was costing him. No conservative organization with any mainstream credibility wanted anything to do with him. Members of the ultraconservative American Security Council kicked him out because they felt he had "gone off the deep end." One ASC member who shared this opinion was William C. Mott, the judge advocate general of the U.S. Navy. Mott found Skousen "money mad ... totally unqualified and interested solely in furthering his own personal ends."</p>
<p>When Skousen aligned himself with Robert Welch's charge that Dwight Eisenhower was a "dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy," the last of Skousen's dwindling corporate clients dumped him.  [...]</p>
<p>In 1981, Skousen published "The 5,000 Year Leap," the book for which, thanks to Beck, he is now best known. But it wasn't that Skousen book that made the biggest headline in the 1980s. Toward the end of Reagan's second term, Skousen became the center of a minor controversy when state legislators in California approved the official use of another of his books, the 1982 history text "The Making of America." Besides bursting with factual errors, Skousen's book characterized African-American children as "pickaninnies" and described American slave owners as the "worst victims" of the slavery system. Quoting the historian Fred Albert Shannon, "The Making of America" explained that "[slave] gangs in transit were usually a cheerful lot, though the presence of a number of the more vicious type sometimes made it necessary for them all to go in chains."</p></blockquote>
<p>Beck and Skousen make Limbaugh look rational.</p>
";s:8:"category";s:25:"ReligionRight-Wing Agenda";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:48:52 -0600";s:7:"summary";s:1758:"<p><a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/16/beck_skousen/index.html" target="new">Salon</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>By 1963, Skousen's extremism was costing him. No conservative organization with any mainstream credibility wanted anything to do with him. Members of the ultraconservative American Security Council kicked him out because they felt he had "gone off the deep end." One ASC member who shared this opinion was William C. Mott, the judge advocate general of the U.S. Navy. Mott found Skousen "money mad ... totally unqualified and interested solely in furthering his own personal ends."</p>
<p>When Skousen aligned himself with Robert Welch's charge that Dwight Eisenhower was a "dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy," the last of Skousen's dwindling corporate clients dumped him.  [...]</p>
<p>In 1981, Skousen published "The 5,000 Year Leap," the book for which, thanks to Beck, he is now best known. But it wasn't that Skousen book that made the biggest headline in the 1980s. Toward the end of Reagan's second term, Skousen became the center of a minor controversy when state legislators in California approved the official use of another of his books, the 1982 history text "The Making of America." Besides bursting with factual errors, Skousen's book characterized African-American children as "pickaninnies" and described American slave owners as the "worst victims" of the slavery system. Quoting the historian Fred Albert Shannon, "The Making of America" explained that "[slave] gangs in transit were usually a cheerful lot, though the presence of a number of the more vicious type sometimes made it necessary for them all to go in chains."</p></blockquote>
<p>Beck and Skousen make Limbaugh look rational.</p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1253292532;}i:6;a:7:{s:5:"title";s:47:"What kind of healthcare reform do doctors want?";s:4:"link";s:41:"http://www.democracyforutah.com/node/2721";s:11:"description";s:914:"<p>Right now a huge argument is going on about whether to include a public option in healthcare reform legislation. Policymakers should understand the views of U.S. doctors on this - and finally we have reliable information on how doctors view the public option.  According to the <a href="http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=1790">New England Journal of Medicine Sept 14</a>, <b>the majority of U.S. doctors support a public option combined with private healthcare plans</b>.  <p>Over 5000 doctors were asked to choose between 3 options:
<ul>
<li>public plus private options – people younger than 65 could choose to enroll in private plans or in a Medicare-like public plan </li>
<li>private options only, with tax credits or subsidies to help low-income people buy private coverage</li>
<li>public option only, eliminating private plans and covering everyone through a single Medicare-like plan</li>
</ul></p>
";s:8:"category";s:38:"HealthcarePoliticsUniversal Healthcare";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:12:26 -0600";s:7:"summary";s:914:"<p>Right now a huge argument is going on about whether to include a public option in healthcare reform legislation. Policymakers should understand the views of U.S. doctors on this - and finally we have reliable information on how doctors view the public option.  According to the <a href="http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=1790">New England Journal of Medicine Sept 14</a>, <b>the majority of U.S. doctors support a public option combined with private healthcare plans</b>.  <p>Over 5000 doctors were asked to choose between 3 options:
<ul>
<li>public plus private options – people younger than 65 could choose to enroll in private plans or in a Medicare-like public plan </li>
<li>private options only, with tax credits or subsidies to help low-income people buy private coverage</li>
<li>public option only, eliminating private plans and covering everyone through a single Medicare-like plan</li>
</ul></p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1252966346;}i:7;a:7:{s:5:"title";s:39:"Wars - The Gift That Keeps On Taking $$";s:4:"link";s:41:"http://www.democracyforutah.com/node/2720";s:11:"description";s:717:"<p>Interesting how upset the Mad TeaParty gets about the Trillion Dollar Deficit NOW, and how silent they were when the GOP was legislating that deficit.  War costs keep on growing for a lifetime.  Michael Winerip on the <a href="">continuing drain on US healthcare from the Vietnam war</a> <b>four decades later</b>:<br />
<blockquote><p>On so many fronts, the country still pays for the Vietnam war.  A veteran diagnosed with PTSD may receive over $3000/month if judged 100 % disabled.  That stipend comes out of the veterans compensation and pension system, which <b>this year is expected to pay $44.7 billion</b> for ...benefits, with the biggest share going to veterans of Vietnam and the current conflicts.</p>
";s:8:"category";s:35:"HealthcarePoliticsRight-Wing Agenda";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Sun, 13 Sep 2009 09:32:50 -0600";s:7:"summary";s:717:"<p>Interesting how upset the Mad TeaParty gets about the Trillion Dollar Deficit NOW, and how silent they were when the GOP was legislating that deficit.  War costs keep on growing for a lifetime.  Michael Winerip on the <a href="">continuing drain on US healthcare from the Vietnam war</a> <b>four decades later</b>:<br />
<blockquote><p>On so many fronts, the country still pays for the Vietnam war.  A veteran diagnosed with PTSD may receive over $3000/month if judged 100 % disabled.  That stipend comes out of the veterans compensation and pension system, which <b>this year is expected to pay $44.7 billion</b> for ...benefits, with the biggest share going to veterans of Vietnam and the current conflicts.</p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1252855970;}i:8;a:7:{s:5:"title";s:49:"Obama's Speech on Healthcare Hit Important Target";s:4:"link";s:41:"http://www.democracyforutah.com/node/2719";s:11:"description";s:1096:"<p>My anecdotal, small-sample poll of friends who are Utah Independents and mellow Democrats elicited extremely favorable reviews of President Obama's speech on his healthcare plan. He was specially praised for clarity ("he used short words and simple sentences") and being very effective in communicating exactly what his plan was - and what it was not. It was welcomed as an effective counter to the right-wing raving that's been dominating the news.  This has cheered me up enormously.  It appears that the President was very effective with an important target audience - independents and relatively disengaged voters who have health insurance.
  <p>BTW, for those who were mightily offended by Joe Wilson (R -SC) calling the President a liar, here's <a href="https://services.myngp.com/ngponlineservices/contribution.aspx?X=6cwW216jAySP3q7awYn0iL/IaW3f6QSVRI83JVdL8Dc=">the link to contribute to his opponent in the midterm election</a>.  His opponent in the Congressional elections of 2010 is Rob Miller, a former Marine and Iraq war veteran.  Hey, is he related to OUR Utah Rob Miller?</p>
";s:8:"category";s:35:"HealthcarePoliticsRight-Wing Agenda";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:50:17 -0600";s:7:"summary";s:1096:"<p>My anecdotal, small-sample poll of friends who are Utah Independents and mellow Democrats elicited extremely favorable reviews of President Obama's speech on his healthcare plan. He was specially praised for clarity ("he used short words and simple sentences") and being very effective in communicating exactly what his plan was - and what it was not. It was welcomed as an effective counter to the right-wing raving that's been dominating the news.  This has cheered me up enormously.  It appears that the President was very effective with an important target audience - independents and relatively disengaged voters who have health insurance.
  <p>BTW, for those who were mightily offended by Joe Wilson (R -SC) calling the President a liar, here's <a href="https://services.myngp.com/ngponlineservices/contribution.aspx?X=6cwW216jAySP3q7awYn0iL/IaW3f6QSVRI83JVdL8Dc=">the link to contribute to his opponent in the midterm election</a>.  His opponent in the Congressional elections of 2010 is Rob Miller, a former Marine and Iraq war veteran.  Hey, is he related to OUR Utah Rob Miller?</p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1252687817;}i:9;a:7:{s:5:"title";s:62:"Let's take on Big Food in addition to Big Healthcare Insurance";s:4:"link";s:41:"http://www.democracyforutah.com/node/2718";s:11:"description";s:1260:"<p>Michael Pollan in the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/opinion/10pollan.html" target="new">NYTimes</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>The American way of eating has become the elephant in the room in the debate over health care. [...] But so far, food system reform has not figured in the national conversation about health care reform. And so the government is poised to go on encouraging America’s fast-food diet with its farm policies even as it takes on added responsibilities for covering the medical costs of that diet. To put it more bluntly, the government is putting itself in the uncomfortable position of subsidizing both the costs of treating Type 2 diabetes and the consumption of high-fructose corn syrup. [...]</p>
<p>Cheap food is going to be popular as long as the social and environmental costs of that food are charged to the future. <b>There’s lots of money to be made selling fast food and then treating the diseases that fast food causes. One of the leading products of the American food industry has become patients for the American health care industry.</b></p></blockquote>
<p>Big Agribusiness and Big Healthcare get federal subsidies, and they both get lots of customers and make tons of money. Everybody wins! Except you. </p>
";s:8:"category";s:30:"Food and AgricultureHealthcare";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:38:08 -0600";s:7:"summary";s:1260:"<p>Michael Pollan in the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/opinion/10pollan.html" target="new">NYTimes</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>The American way of eating has become the elephant in the room in the debate over health care. [...] But so far, food system reform has not figured in the national conversation about health care reform. And so the government is poised to go on encouraging America’s fast-food diet with its farm policies even as it takes on added responsibilities for covering the medical costs of that diet. To put it more bluntly, the government is putting itself in the uncomfortable position of subsidizing both the costs of treating Type 2 diabetes and the consumption of high-fructose corn syrup. [...]</p>
<p>Cheap food is going to be popular as long as the social and environmental costs of that food are charged to the future. <b>There’s lots of money to be made selling fast food and then treating the diseases that fast food causes. One of the leading products of the American food industry has become patients for the American health care industry.</b></p></blockquote>
<p>Big Agribusiness and Big Healthcare get federal subsidies, and they both get lots of customers and make tons of money. Everybody wins! Except you. </p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1252687088;}i:10;a:7:{s:5:"title";s:34:"Public option is unpopular in Utah";s:4:"link";s:41:"http://www.democracyforutah.com/node/2717";s:11:"description";s:541:"<p>According to pollster Nate Silver at <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/09/analysis-public-option-is-likely.html" target="new">fivethirtyeight.com</a>, the public option is unpopular in Utah, including in Blue Dog Rep. Jim Matheson's district (UT-2). The public option is still a good idea, of course, but we shouldn't try to convince Matheson with the argument that it's wildly popular among his constituents.</p>
<p><center><img src="files/images/publicoption1.png"><br><img src="files/images/publicoption2.png"></center></p>
";s:8:"category";s:30:"HealthcareUniversal Healthcare";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:29:07 -0600";s:7:"summary";s:541:"<p>According to pollster Nate Silver at <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/09/analysis-public-option-is-likely.html" target="new">fivethirtyeight.com</a>, the public option is unpopular in Utah, including in Blue Dog Rep. Jim Matheson's district (UT-2). The public option is still a good idea, of course, but we shouldn't try to convince Matheson with the argument that it's wildly popular among his constituents.</p>
<p><center><img src="files/images/publicoption1.png"><br><img src="files/images/publicoption2.png"></center></p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1252686547;}i:11;a:7:{s:5:"title";s:43:"Speeches won't get healthcare reform passed";s:4:"link";s:41:"http://www.democracyforutah.com/node/2716";s:11:"description";s:1194:"<p>Timothy Noah at <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2227604/" target="new">Slate</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>If President Obama wants to pass a health reform bill, he shouldn't be giving a speech to Congress tomorrow. In fact, he shouldn't be giving any more speeches, period. <b>From now until whenever, any time he had scheduled for speeches on health care should instead be spent meeting privately with Democratic holdouts to explain how very difficult their lives will be if they don't vote yes.</b> [...]</p>
<p>But these votes aren't going to be won through speechifying. They're going to be won through some combination of flattery, arm-twisting, and promise-giving. One argument I might make if I were Obama: "You're a Democrat, and I'm a Democrat. <b>If the Democrats' health reform fails to pass, then, yeah, I'll look weak. <i>But you'll look weaker.</i></b> Remember the 1994 midterm elections? Bill Clinton's health reform plan was in deep trouble, causing him serious problems, but it caused even more serious problems for Democrats in Congress. Two years later Clinton won himself a second term, but in 1994 the Democrats lost the House and Senate. <i>Capiche?</i>"</p></blockquote>
";s:8:"category";s:30:"HealthcareUniversal Healthcare";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Wed, 09 Sep 2009 13:51:04 -0600";s:7:"summary";s:1194:"<p>Timothy Noah at <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2227604/" target="new">Slate</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>If President Obama wants to pass a health reform bill, he shouldn't be giving a speech to Congress tomorrow. In fact, he shouldn't be giving any more speeches, period. <b>From now until whenever, any time he had scheduled for speeches on health care should instead be spent meeting privately with Democratic holdouts to explain how very difficult their lives will be if they don't vote yes.</b> [...]</p>
<p>But these votes aren't going to be won through speechifying. They're going to be won through some combination of flattery, arm-twisting, and promise-giving. One argument I might make if I were Obama: "You're a Democrat, and I'm a Democrat. <b>If the Democrats' health reform fails to pass, then, yeah, I'll look weak. <i>But you'll look weaker.</i></b> Remember the 1994 midterm elections? Bill Clinton's health reform plan was in deep trouble, causing him serious problems, but it caused even more serious problems for Democrats in Congress. Two years later Clinton won himself a second term, but in 1994 the Democrats lost the House and Senate. <i>Capiche?</i>"</p></blockquote>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1252525864;}i:12;a:7:{s:5:"title";s:54:"If you love capitalism, regulate the financial markets";s:4:"link";s:41:"http://www.democracyforutah.com/node/2715";s:11:"description";s:940:"<p>Richard Berner, Chief U.S. Economist at Morgan Stanley, offers the following lessons from the collapse of Lehman Brothers one year ago (<a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/09/08/five-lessons-from-the-financial-crisis/" target="new">WSJ</a>):</p>
<blockquote><p>1. “A strong and well-regulated financial system should be the first line of defense against financial shocks …. <b>[T]he more free-market oriented we want our economies to be, the more we need official supervision and oversight of our financial institutions and markets.</b> That’s because truly free-market economies involve a high risk of business failure, and corresponding high risks to the financial institutions and investors that lend to and invest in those businesses. A key lesson from this crisis is that competition among lenders breeds innovation, but also instability.”</p></blockquote>
<p>In other words, markets don't regulate themselves.</p>
";s:8:"category";s:7:"Economy";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Wed, 09 Sep 2009 13:44:03 -0600";s:7:"summary";s:940:"<p>Richard Berner, Chief U.S. Economist at Morgan Stanley, offers the following lessons from the collapse of Lehman Brothers one year ago (<a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/09/08/five-lessons-from-the-financial-crisis/" target="new">WSJ</a>):</p>
<blockquote><p>1. “A strong and well-regulated financial system should be the first line of defense against financial shocks …. <b>[T]he more free-market oriented we want our economies to be, the more we need official supervision and oversight of our financial institutions and markets.</b> That’s because truly free-market economies involve a high risk of business failure, and corresponding high risks to the financial institutions and investors that lend to and invest in those businesses. A key lesson from this crisis is that competition among lenders breeds innovation, but also instability.”</p></blockquote>
<p>In other words, markets don't regulate themselves.</p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1252525443;}i:13;a:7:{s:5:"title";s:25:"How we got into this mess";s:4:"link";s:41:"http://www.democracyforutah.com/node/2714";s:11:"description";s:1578:"<p>Bad choices, bad strategy, and a general lack of spine:</p>
<ul>
<li>The White House has no overarching message or story on healthcare reform (Drew Westen at <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/why-the-president-has-bee_b_278971.html" target="new">Huffington Post</a> &mdash; you <strong>really</strong> need to read this). </p>
<li style="margin-top:0.5em">The White House doesn't care about framing or language (James Wolcott at <a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/online/wolcott/2009/09/there-are-times-when-the.html" target="new">Vanity Fair</a>).<br />
<li style="margin-top:0.5em">The Obama team no longer understands the concept of "emotional truth" (former Obama regional field organizer Marta Evry at <a href="http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/7873" target="new">firedoglake</a>).<br />
<li style="margin-top:0.5em">The White House learned the wrong lessons from the Clinton healthcare debacle (Steve Singiser at <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/7/778251/-Lessons-From-94But-Are-They-The-Right-Ones" target="new">Daily Kos</a>).<br />
<li style="margin-top:0.5em">And you know things are bad when even Obama's former deputy campaign manager Steve Hildebrand says he is "losing patience" with the White House (<a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26866.html" target="new">Politico</a>). (That would be the same <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-hildebrand/a-message-to-obamas-progr_b_149089.html" target="new">Steve Hildebrand</a> who scolded progressives for criticizing Obama's cabinet appointments.)</ul>
";s:8:"category";s:30:"HealthcareUniversal Healthcare";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Tue, 08 Sep 2009 13:47:02 -0600";s:7:"summary";s:1578:"<p>Bad choices, bad strategy, and a general lack of spine:</p>
<ul>
<li>The White House has no overarching message or story on healthcare reform (Drew Westen at <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/why-the-president-has-bee_b_278971.html" target="new">Huffington Post</a> &mdash; you <strong>really</strong> need to read this). </p>
<li style="margin-top:0.5em">The White House doesn't care about framing or language (James Wolcott at <a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/online/wolcott/2009/09/there-are-times-when-the.html" target="new">Vanity Fair</a>).<br />
<li style="margin-top:0.5em">The Obama team no longer understands the concept of "emotional truth" (former Obama regional field organizer Marta Evry at <a href="http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/7873" target="new">firedoglake</a>).<br />
<li style="margin-top:0.5em">The White House learned the wrong lessons from the Clinton healthcare debacle (Steve Singiser at <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/7/778251/-Lessons-From-94But-Are-They-The-Right-Ones" target="new">Daily Kos</a>).<br />
<li style="margin-top:0.5em">And you know things are bad when even Obama's former deputy campaign manager Steve Hildebrand says he is "losing patience" with the White House (<a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26866.html" target="new">Politico</a>). (That would be the same <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-hildebrand/a-message-to-obamas-progr_b_149089.html" target="new">Steve Hildebrand</a> who scolded progressives for criticizing Obama's cabinet appointments.)</ul>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1252439222;}i:14;a:7:{s:5:"title";s:43:"Public Option: Buy Into Medicare At Any Age";s:4:"link";s:41:"http://www.democracyforutah.com/node/2713";s:11:"description";s:571:"<p><a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/08/adventures_in_the_rabbit_hole.php">Josh Marshall</a> suggests "Public Option For Dummies":<br />
<blockquote>In an interview with the Economist magazine recently, former House Majority Leader and current FreedomWorks Capo Dick Armey said that something like a Public Option would be great. But the issue comes down to choice.  "If you in fact freely choose to enroll in Medicare that's a wonderful gift," said Armey, "it's a charity, it's something I applaud. But when they force you in, that's tyranny."</p>
";s:8:"category";s:38:"HealthcarePoliticsUniversal Healthcare";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:59:10 -0600";s:7:"summary";s:571:"<p><a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/08/adventures_in_the_rabbit_hole.php">Josh Marshall</a> suggests "Public Option For Dummies":<br />
<blockquote>In an interview with the Economist magazine recently, former House Majority Leader and current FreedomWorks Capo Dick Armey said that something like a Public Option would be great. But the issue comes down to choice.  "If you in fact freely choose to enroll in Medicare that's a wonderful gift," said Armey, "it's a charity, it's something I applaud. But when they force you in, that's tyranny."</p>
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1252123150;}}s:7:"channel";a:5:{s:5:"title";s:46:"Democracy for Utah - Democracy Begins With You";s:4:"link";s:31:"http://www.democracyforutah.com";s:11:"description";s:136:"Democracy for Utah is a grassroots organization dedicated to promoting American values and supporting progressive issues and candidates.";s:8:"language";s:2:"en";s:7:"tagline";s:136:"Democracy for Utah is a grassroots organization dedicated to promoting American values and supporting progressive issues and candidates.";}s:9:"textinput";a:0:{}s:5:"image";a:0:{}s:9:"feed_type";s:3:"RSS";s:12:"feed_version";s:3:"2.0";s:8:"encoding";s:5:"UTF-8";s:16:"_source_encoding";s:0:"";s:5:"ERROR";s:0:"";s:7:"WARNING";s:0:"";s:19:"_CONTENT_CONSTRUCTS";a:6:{i:0;s:7:"content";i:1;s:7:"summary";i:2;s:4:"info";i:3;s:5:"title";i:4;s:7:"tagline";i:5;s:9:"copyright";}s:16:"_KNOWN_ENCODINGS";a:3:{i:0;s:5:"UTF-8";i:1;s:8:"US-ASCII";i:2;s:10:"ISO-8859-1";}s:5:"stack";a:0:{}s:9:"inchannel";b:0;s:6:"initem";b:0;s:9:"incontent";b:0;s:11:"intextinput";b:0;s:7:"inimage";b:0;s:17:"current_namespace";b:0;s:15:"source_encoding";s:5:"UTF-8";}