Let's talk for a second about medical malpractice reform. The republicans are right that this needs to be addressed in ANY health care reform, but I rather think that my version of malpractice reform will be somewhat more generous than the corporate-minded republicans would be.
Part of the problem with medical malpractice... indeed, with ANY litigation in America today is that Americans tend to view a settlement or judgment the same way that we view winning the lottery – an easy way to big bucks. And who decides on the judgment amount? Americans. So they award their fellow American a ridiculous amount of money in the hopes that someone will do the same for them someday.
So let's start by nailing down the definitions of damages a little more closely. “Damages” in general describes the money paid out to remunerate the injured party for their injuries. These fall into two categories: actual damages and punitive damages.
Actual damages refer to compensation to cover actual monetary losses. If you have to miss work because of the malpractice, or are deprived of your ability to earn future income.
Punitive damages are moneys paid to... as the name suggests... PUNISH the person that you're suing. Personally, I think that doctors shouldn't be liable for punitive damages except in cases of GROSS negligence. If the doctor just screwed up... it's sad, but you know what? It happens. Now, if the doctor was high or drunk, ill, suffering insomnia or something else that should really prevent him from practicing and THAT is what caused the malpractice, well, that's different. Hurt the hell out of that sucker.
Some states place “caps” on medical malpractice, amounts that the awards can't exceed. I think that this is what the republicans would like to see on a federal level. I CAN agree with that, but only if the caps are not set dollar amounts, but sliding amounts based on a scale.
For instance... and this is going to sound cold... if a child dies due to malpractice, the child should be worth less in monetary award than a spouse. The reason? The typical parent has no expectation of the child EVER being a wage earner in their household. So actual damages should be extremely low, although money for counseling for the parents should be included as actual damage. To those who find that unfair, let me ask you a question... is there ANY amount of money that will replace your child? If you get a new car, or a boat, will that make the loss of your child any easier? I know that in my case, it would not. Some parents can't survive the loss of a child no matter HOW much money they get, and some parents like John Walsh and his wife recover from the loss of a child with NO money and come back to do amazing things.
Now, it's different if you have a child who is rendered incapable of taking care of themselves. Say brain damage. I think that in those cases, a child's award should EXCEED that of an adult. It should be calculated depending on the age of the child, life expectancy, the years that the person will need care (and all of those years should be paid) as well as future earnings. Not entirely sure how you would calculate future earnings for a child in grade school or high school, but I'm sure that there MUST be.
Now do you get an idea why this isn't addressed in the health care bill? No matter how vital I think that it is, or YOU think that it is, it is a deep, complex issue with no easy solution. And when you DO apply an easy solution (such as the states that cap malpractice judgments at a set dollar amount) you wind up not treating each person as an individual, giving some people far more than they should be awarded and others far less.
Peace.
Rev. Randal
Monday, September 21, 2009
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Let Me Get This Straight...
I watched Republican leader John Boehner on the Newshour on PBS last night rant and rave about how frightened Americans are of trillion dollar deficits.
Um... Mr. Boehner? I realize that you're one of the history-revising republicans who thinks that this decade went 1999, 2009 with nothing in between, I feel compelled to remind you that the trillion dollar deficits had nothing to do with President Obama's health care plan and very little to do with the stimulus and rescue packages passed under EITHER President Obama or he-who-must-not-be-named. The trillion dollar deficits come from the mess in Iraq that was rammed down America's throat by YOU, Mr. Boehner, your fellow republicans and the last man to sit in the oval office. (Even the republicans seem to not want to hear his name these days.)
Which reminds me, I owe the sitting President an apology. Mr. President, I am dreadfully sorry for saying that you weren't getting us out of Iraq fast enough. In my impatience, I forgot that we are on a timetable requested by the Iraqi people to keep our troops there to help them rebuild through the end of 2011. My error.
Now.
To put this as politely as I can.
Any politician... especially any REPUBLICAN politician... who voted for the war and yet wants to say that health care isn't feasible because of America's trillion dollar deficit needs to SHUT THE FUCK UP! IT'S YOUR FAULT!
Universal health care is a good thing... it is a necessary thing... and it is a MORAL thing. The mess in Iraq that squanders our treasure and human lives is NONE of these things.
You know, whenever I hear republicans talk about this sort of thing, all that I can hear is “Why aren't you cleaning our mess up faster?”
SHUT
UP
It amazes me that ANY Americans still listen to you guys, let alone take you seriously. Like the death panel bullshit. From the first time that I heard that, I thought “Surely Americans are not dumb enough to take that seriously.” Way to prove me WRONG, America.
Rep. Boehner also said, regarding the “tea parties” and the town halls, that he liked to see Americans “involved in the system”. These people are not involved in the system any more than the kids who protested the Iraq war without bothering to vote were. They're either A) being paid by the insurance industry to block progress or B) simply hoping that they can shout loudly enough or be obnoxious enough to make one of the news shows. Which, by the way, need to stop giving these people air time.
Let me get one more thing straight while I'm at it...
The republicans have been harping since the beginning of the primaries that THEY are the ones who are going to protect your second amendment rights, and that Obama was going to send goon squads into your house to take your hunting rifles away. REEEEAAALLLY.
When someone wore a T-SHIRT protesting he-who-must-not-be-named to one of his appearances, he relegated them to “free speech zones” miles away “for his safety”. Can you imagine what would have happened to one of these people who turned up WITH A GUN? Whereas President Obama HAS armed protestors turning up at his appearances and makes no attempt whatsoever to remove them.
So let's get this straight... WHO'S protecting your second amendment rights?
Peace.
Rev. Randal
Um... Mr. Boehner? I realize that you're one of the history-revising republicans who thinks that this decade went 1999, 2009 with nothing in between, I feel compelled to remind you that the trillion dollar deficits had nothing to do with President Obama's health care plan and very little to do with the stimulus and rescue packages passed under EITHER President Obama or he-who-must-not-be-named. The trillion dollar deficits come from the mess in Iraq that was rammed down America's throat by YOU, Mr. Boehner, your fellow republicans and the last man to sit in the oval office. (Even the republicans seem to not want to hear his name these days.)
Which reminds me, I owe the sitting President an apology. Mr. President, I am dreadfully sorry for saying that you weren't getting us out of Iraq fast enough. In my impatience, I forgot that we are on a timetable requested by the Iraqi people to keep our troops there to help them rebuild through the end of 2011. My error.
Now.
To put this as politely as I can.
Any politician... especially any REPUBLICAN politician... who voted for the war and yet wants to say that health care isn't feasible because of America's trillion dollar deficit needs to SHUT THE FUCK UP! IT'S YOUR FAULT!
Universal health care is a good thing... it is a necessary thing... and it is a MORAL thing. The mess in Iraq that squanders our treasure and human lives is NONE of these things.
You know, whenever I hear republicans talk about this sort of thing, all that I can hear is “Why aren't you cleaning our mess up faster?”
SHUT
UP
It amazes me that ANY Americans still listen to you guys, let alone take you seriously. Like the death panel bullshit. From the first time that I heard that, I thought “Surely Americans are not dumb enough to take that seriously.” Way to prove me WRONG, America.
Rep. Boehner also said, regarding the “tea parties” and the town halls, that he liked to see Americans “involved in the system”. These people are not involved in the system any more than the kids who protested the Iraq war without bothering to vote were. They're either A) being paid by the insurance industry to block progress or B) simply hoping that they can shout loudly enough or be obnoxious enough to make one of the news shows. Which, by the way, need to stop giving these people air time.
Let me get one more thing straight while I'm at it...
The republicans have been harping since the beginning of the primaries that THEY are the ones who are going to protect your second amendment rights, and that Obama was going to send goon squads into your house to take your hunting rifles away. REEEEAAALLLY.
When someone wore a T-SHIRT protesting he-who-must-not-be-named to one of his appearances, he relegated them to “free speech zones” miles away “for his safety”. Can you imagine what would have happened to one of these people who turned up WITH A GUN? Whereas President Obama HAS armed protestors turning up at his appearances and makes no attempt whatsoever to remove them.
So let's get this straight... WHO'S protecting your second amendment rights?
Peace.
Rev. Randal
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Memo to the President RE: Afghanistan
Dear Mr. President,
I'd like to take a moment to address the issue of Afghanistan, since you seem open to considering alternative viewpoints to your own on this issue, unlike your predecessor.
I have grave concerns about further military action in Afghanistan. You ran (at least partly) on a platform of getting us the HELL out of Iraq, which you seem to show little interest in doing. Instead, you seem at least willing to send MORE of our young men and women to die in a foreign land in a struggle that is, ultimately, not ours.
I would also like to ask the questions of you on this issue that I asked your predecessor on Iraq...
1)What is our objective? If we engage in a military action without an objective, then there will be no end.
2)Corollary to that, what constitutes “victory” in Afghanistan? How do we know when we've “won” so that we can go home. You're an intelligent man... if you believe that there is a military solution to terrorism, i'd like to hear your argument.
Afghanistan is a war that SHOULD have been fought eight years ago, Mr. President, when the stated objective was to capture and punish Osama Bin Laden. They failed. Our window of opportunity for that has passed.
Mr. President, I understand and sympathize with your desire for bipartisanship. It is an admirable goal, and one that I share. The problem is that the Republican party has drifted so far into never-never land that you're not making compromises to any kind of intelligent middle-right... instead you are having to drift to the FAR right in order to appease racists who are NEVER going to be appeased by you. No matter HOW far to the right you go, it will never be enough to please them, unless you turn into another George W. Bush.
And I and the other people who voted for you do not want that.
Peace.
Rev. Randal
I'd like to take a moment to address the issue of Afghanistan, since you seem open to considering alternative viewpoints to your own on this issue, unlike your predecessor.
I have grave concerns about further military action in Afghanistan. You ran (at least partly) on a platform of getting us the HELL out of Iraq, which you seem to show little interest in doing. Instead, you seem at least willing to send MORE of our young men and women to die in a foreign land in a struggle that is, ultimately, not ours.
I would also like to ask the questions of you on this issue that I asked your predecessor on Iraq...
1)What is our objective? If we engage in a military action without an objective, then there will be no end.
2)Corollary to that, what constitutes “victory” in Afghanistan? How do we know when we've “won” so that we can go home. You're an intelligent man... if you believe that there is a military solution to terrorism, i'd like to hear your argument.
Afghanistan is a war that SHOULD have been fought eight years ago, Mr. President, when the stated objective was to capture and punish Osama Bin Laden. They failed. Our window of opportunity for that has passed.
Mr. President, I understand and sympathize with your desire for bipartisanship. It is an admirable goal, and one that I share. The problem is that the Republican party has drifted so far into never-never land that you're not making compromises to any kind of intelligent middle-right... instead you are having to drift to the FAR right in order to appease racists who are NEVER going to be appeased by you. No matter HOW far to the right you go, it will never be enough to please them, unless you turn into another George W. Bush.
And I and the other people who voted for you do not want that.
Peace.
Rev. Randal
Monday, September 14, 2009
US and the G8
I want to talk here for a minute about a group of nations that we belong to called the "G8". What this stands for is "group of eight", and, although it's not politically correct to say it, we are basically the eight nations that rule the world. In alphabetical order, the G8 is Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the UK and the US. China is not represented there, and frankly I think that they should be. They kind of hold us by the short and curlies and we've given them so much money and power that we've basically turned them into a very, very scary world power. 21st century technology and money in hands controlled by a sixteenth century mindset.
Be that as it may, I got to wondering how well we actually fit with this group of enlightened nations.
So let's start with health care. ALL of the G8 provides health care for it's citizens… except us. A L L of them.
So that means that they spend more on health care than us, right? Wrong. Canada comes closest, but even they only spend half as much money on a per capita basis than we do. We're spending more money and STILL not covering everyone? Something's seriously wrong there, folks.
So what about life expectancy? Well, let me start by saying that the WORLD'S average life expectancy is 67 right now and we're WAY above that. So that's okay. But what about the rest of the G8? Well, if you're Japanese, you're living to about 82 right now. Of course, that may change with the vengeance with which they've adopted McDonald's over the last decade. If you're Canadian, you're living to about 81, eh? Just over 81 in Canada, just under it for the French. If you're Italian, you're going to about 80 and about 79 for the Germans. Take it from a half-German… that's only because they're too damned stubborn to die! Frankly, I can't help but wonder that they're not higher on the list. If you're British, you're going to about 79 as well. And the states? 78. The only one of the G8 that we beat is Russia. If you're Russian, it's 66.
Okay, what about infant mortality? Our combination of veneration of our children, hatred for abortion and THE FINEST FUCKING HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD means that we should have no infant mortality to speak of, right? Well, let's see… Well, the Japanese are at the top of that list, too. They lose about 3 infants per 1000 live births. Then us, right? Well, no. Then France. They lose about 4. Then us? Wrong again. next comes Germany who loses about 4 and then the UK who loses about 5. God, tell me that we're doing better than Russia, at least. Well, Canada and Italy each lose about 5 per 1000 live births, and then… YES! US! We lose about six babies out of every 1000 live births - more than twice as many as Japan. Slovenia, Singapore and Czechoslovakia all have lower infant mortality rates than us. So let's see, that's 7. Again, we do better than Russia, where they lose about 16 babies per 1000 live births. Compared to Russia, WE ROCK! But since when have we set our goals as being "We're not as bad as Russia"?
The final point that I'd like to make, and the only one NOT associated with the health care debate is this one…
Out of this group of nations, this group that I think most of us would consider among the most civilized and advanced of the nations on the Earth right now, only the United States of America ritually puts people to death. Even Russia has outlawed capital punishment.
Jesus, how can we even consider that we're worthy to sit at the big-kids table with this group?
Peace.
Rev. Randal
Be that as it may, I got to wondering how well we actually fit with this group of enlightened nations.
So let's start with health care. ALL of the G8 provides health care for it's citizens… except us. A L L of them.
So that means that they spend more on health care than us, right? Wrong. Canada comes closest, but even they only spend half as much money on a per capita basis than we do. We're spending more money and STILL not covering everyone? Something's seriously wrong there, folks.
So what about life expectancy? Well, let me start by saying that the WORLD'S average life expectancy is 67 right now and we're WAY above that. So that's okay. But what about the rest of the G8? Well, if you're Japanese, you're living to about 82 right now. Of course, that may change with the vengeance with which they've adopted McDonald's over the last decade. If you're Canadian, you're living to about 81, eh? Just over 81 in Canada, just under it for the French. If you're Italian, you're going to about 80 and about 79 for the Germans. Take it from a half-German… that's only because they're too damned stubborn to die! Frankly, I can't help but wonder that they're not higher on the list. If you're British, you're going to about 79 as well. And the states? 78. The only one of the G8 that we beat is Russia. If you're Russian, it's 66.
Okay, what about infant mortality? Our combination of veneration of our children, hatred for abortion and THE FINEST FUCKING HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD means that we should have no infant mortality to speak of, right? Well, let's see… Well, the Japanese are at the top of that list, too. They lose about 3 infants per 1000 live births. Then us, right? Well, no. Then France. They lose about 4. Then us? Wrong again. next comes Germany who loses about 4 and then the UK who loses about 5. God, tell me that we're doing better than Russia, at least. Well, Canada and Italy each lose about 5 per 1000 live births, and then… YES! US! We lose about six babies out of every 1000 live births - more than twice as many as Japan. Slovenia, Singapore and Czechoslovakia all have lower infant mortality rates than us. So let's see, that's 7. Again, we do better than Russia, where they lose about 16 babies per 1000 live births. Compared to Russia, WE ROCK! But since when have we set our goals as being "We're not as bad as Russia"?
The final point that I'd like to make, and the only one NOT associated with the health care debate is this one…
Out of this group of nations, this group that I think most of us would consider among the most civilized and advanced of the nations on the Earth right now, only the United States of America ritually puts people to death. Even Russia has outlawed capital punishment.
Jesus, how can we even consider that we're worthy to sit at the big-kids table with this group?
Peace.
Rev. Randal
Sunday, September 6, 2009
On Van Jones' Resignation
Van Jones, President Obama's “Green Energy Czar” resigned today after that asshole republican Glen Beck revealed some of his checkered past. These included calling republicans “assholes” (oops), signing a petition to blame the Bush administration for 9/11 and claiming that white people are polluting black neighborhoods. You know what? I kind of buy that last one. He's been called a racist for making that statement, but let's face it... America, especially white America, especially white RICH America, tends to use the rest of the world and the people who aren't rich white Americans as their personal toilets. I mean, for how long have we been dumping our physical and toxic waste on underprivileged countries, and opening prisons, halfway houses and dumps in poor neighborhoods? So you know what, Van? I'm with you on that last one.
As far as the Bush administration orchestrating 9/11 goes... sorry, Van. I just don't think that they had the collective intelligence or ability to keep secrets necessary for that. Cheney might have pulled it off if he were alone, but he would have had to have relied on way too many other people. So I just don't buy it.
As far as calling republicans “assholes” goes... look, I love republicans. I have some dear republican friends. My best friend is a republican. But lets face it, in public, such as F-word news and your elected representatives, YOU GUYS ACT LIKE A BUNCHA ASSHOLES! Still, if he aspired to a political office he shouldn't have said it. And the President should have screened him better.
So Van took a well-deserved resignation. Good. I wish that he'd quit whining about how he was “smeared”. Van, buddy, you said it, you SHOULDN'T have said it, it's done. Let it go.
But I can't help but wonder...
What about the republican representative who called the Obamas “uppity”? Or the one who said that defeating health care was a golden opportunity to “take down” the president? Or the men who were involved in “leaking” Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA agent? Yeah, I know that they scapegoated Scooter Libby for that, but even he was pardoned by Bush. What about the republican (and democrat) representatives who foisted this mess in Iraq and the “USA PATRIOT” act on us? Why don't any of THESE people resign?
Don't get me wrong. I think that Van was wrong for what he said. And I think that he's downright CRAZY to believe that the Bush administration orchestrated 9/11. But as the right rejoices in his resignation, why aren't they calling for the heads of the rest of these people? We need to get beyond the partisanship that caused Van to call republicans “assholes”, but also the partisanship that causes republicans to protect the rest of these... well... assholes.
Peace.
Randal
As far as the Bush administration orchestrating 9/11 goes... sorry, Van. I just don't think that they had the collective intelligence or ability to keep secrets necessary for that. Cheney might have pulled it off if he were alone, but he would have had to have relied on way too many other people. So I just don't buy it.
As far as calling republicans “assholes” goes... look, I love republicans. I have some dear republican friends. My best friend is a republican. But lets face it, in public, such as F-word news and your elected representatives, YOU GUYS ACT LIKE A BUNCHA ASSHOLES! Still, if he aspired to a political office he shouldn't have said it. And the President should have screened him better.
So Van took a well-deserved resignation. Good. I wish that he'd quit whining about how he was “smeared”. Van, buddy, you said it, you SHOULDN'T have said it, it's done. Let it go.
But I can't help but wonder...
What about the republican representative who called the Obamas “uppity”? Or the one who said that defeating health care was a golden opportunity to “take down” the president? Or the men who were involved in “leaking” Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA agent? Yeah, I know that they scapegoated Scooter Libby for that, but even he was pardoned by Bush. What about the republican (and democrat) representatives who foisted this mess in Iraq and the “USA PATRIOT” act on us? Why don't any of THESE people resign?
Don't get me wrong. I think that Van was wrong for what he said. And I think that he's downright CRAZY to believe that the Bush administration orchestrated 9/11. But as the right rejoices in his resignation, why aren't they calling for the heads of the rest of these people? We need to get beyond the partisanship that caused Van to call republicans “assholes”, but also the partisanship that causes republicans to protect the rest of these... well... assholes.
Peace.
Randal
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Let's Get Our Terms Straight...
I realize that many Americans are vague at best on their social studies skills, but let's try to get some terminology straight, shall we?
To begin with, socialism is NOT the antonym (opposite) of democracy. Socialism, along with communism and capitalism are ECONOMIC systems. Democracy, along with fascism and anarchism are POLITICAL systems. It is possible to be, for instance, a fascist, capitalist society. Or an anarchic communist system. We claim to have a democratic capitalist system here, although I think that the two are hostile to one another and I'll explain why at the end of this post.
So let's begin by defining the economic systems that I've listed above.
Socialism is a political philosophy that supports social and economic equality, collective decision-making, and public control of productive capital and natural resources. So imagine... if president Obama WERE actually a socialist, WE'D get to decide where our oil went instead of private corporations profiting off of it. Wouldn't that be nice? Now bear in mind that we DO have a lot of socialist programs in the United States, including education, libraries and medicare/medicaid.
Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general. Bear in mind that this is the same root word as “community”, which everyone agrees is good. As one wit put it, communism means what's mine is mine and what's yours is also mine. The problem with it? As George Carlin said, “People like to own shit.”
Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned. Examples of capitalist societies are the United States and Saudi Arabia. Good company that we keep, huh?
Now for the political systems.
Democracy is a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them. Examples of democracies include the United States and Iran. Again, great company.
Just for shits and giggles, since we're actually a “democratic republic”, let's define a republic. A republic is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch.
Fascism is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology and a corporatist economic ideology. In other words, if you apply this to an economic system, you have a government run by corporations. Sound familiar?
Anarchism is equal rule by all people. Impossible, in other words. In practical application, it becomes rule by the strongest.
So why do I say that democracy and capitalism are at odds? Because when the wealthy have more access to government leaders than the poor, like we have in the US, the poor become politically powerless.
So before we start bandying these terms about, let's start being sure of what they mean, okay guys?
Peace.
Rev. Randal
To begin with, socialism is NOT the antonym (opposite) of democracy. Socialism, along with communism and capitalism are ECONOMIC systems. Democracy, along with fascism and anarchism are POLITICAL systems. It is possible to be, for instance, a fascist, capitalist society. Or an anarchic communist system. We claim to have a democratic capitalist system here, although I think that the two are hostile to one another and I'll explain why at the end of this post.
So let's begin by defining the economic systems that I've listed above.
Socialism is a political philosophy that supports social and economic equality, collective decision-making, and public control of productive capital and natural resources. So imagine... if president Obama WERE actually a socialist, WE'D get to decide where our oil went instead of private corporations profiting off of it. Wouldn't that be nice? Now bear in mind that we DO have a lot of socialist programs in the United States, including education, libraries and medicare/medicaid.
Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general. Bear in mind that this is the same root word as “community”, which everyone agrees is good. As one wit put it, communism means what's mine is mine and what's yours is also mine. The problem with it? As George Carlin said, “People like to own shit.”
Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned. Examples of capitalist societies are the United States and Saudi Arabia. Good company that we keep, huh?
Now for the political systems.
Democracy is a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them. Examples of democracies include the United States and Iran. Again, great company.
Just for shits and giggles, since we're actually a “democratic republic”, let's define a republic. A republic is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch.
Fascism is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology and a corporatist economic ideology. In other words, if you apply this to an economic system, you have a government run by corporations. Sound familiar?
Anarchism is equal rule by all people. Impossible, in other words. In practical application, it becomes rule by the strongest.
So why do I say that democracy and capitalism are at odds? Because when the wealthy have more access to government leaders than the poor, like we have in the US, the poor become politically powerless.
So before we start bandying these terms about, let's start being sure of what they mean, okay guys?
Peace.
Rev. Randal
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)