The New York Times Says Something Mildly Critical of Profit-Driven Healthcare; Conservatives Predictably Lose Their Damn Minds

983494_13007489From the din certain people on the right have been making, they apparently think that the New York Times has the unilateral power to set American domestic economic policy. Someone really needs to explain to some people the difference between offering an opinion on a matter of public interest and tyrannically imposing dictates. Newspapers generally do the former. Very, very, very few people do the latter.

The pages of the New York Times featured a rather poorly-sourced, polemical piece by Eduardo Porter entitled “Health Care and Profits, a Poor Mix.” He cites a 1984 study that found that for-profit nursing homes used far more sedatives on their patients than comparable nursing homes that were affiliated with churches, and therefore non-profit. The reason, according to Porter (citing other authors), was that sedatives are cheaper than caregivers, and it is better for the bottom line to dope up your residents as opposed to hiring trained staffers who can provide individual attention and treatment.

That sounds perfectly rational, actually. Is Porter right? Well, he only has the one study that was published during Reagan’s first term, along with a scattered assortment of other academic papers. That hardly builds up to a mountain of evidence indicting profit-driven nursing homes. There is a certain amount of common-sense appeal to the idea that nursing home administrators who are principally beholden to corporate shareholders have greater incentive to cut corners, and it certainly happens all the time. Nonprofit healthcare facilities, however, don’t exactly get to write blank checks for state-of-the-art care. Their motivation might be to stretch the money out until the next grant check arrives. Porter’s article raises some good questions, but does not give us enough information to state a definitive preference.

Of course, that doesn’t stop some people from going apoplectic. See, Porter committed the cardinal sin of saying something mean about the free market. The free market—sorry, the Free Market—is always right. Because shut up.

A Google search of the two authors of the 1984 study, Bonnie Svarstad and Chester Bond, yields a treasure trove of overreaction. (Incidentally, their paper, “The Use of Hypnotics in Proprietary and Church-Related Nursing Homes,” does not appear to be available online, so none of us can check Porter’s work.) Let us bring on the hysterics! Continue reading


Share

Kay Bailey Hutchison Gets It (Better Late Than Never)

473px-Kay_Bailey_Hutchison,_official_photo_2Retiring Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison recently opined on how her party (the Republicans) really blew it with women voters:

“When we talk about women’s issues and the social issues, people have to stop acting like the woman is a throw-away here,” the Texas senator, who is retiring, said on CNN’s “Starting Point.” “We’ve got to talk to women about the issues they care about.”

[Emphasis added.] I noticed something during the campaign when certain Republican candidates discussed issues pertaining to anyone who did not fit the affluent white Christian male demographic. It seemed to me like they tended to talk about people in those groups (e.g. women, people of color, LGBT people), but they rarely if ever talked to them. I’m not just referring to the more abhorrent of the Republican field, a la Todd Akin. Even Mitt Romney had a tendency, when addressing women’s issues, to speak as though he were discussing abstract concepts, rather than deeply-held concerns that affect the lives of more than half of the people in this country.

I don’t see how the Republican party can stop being the party of old, rich, white, Christian men, and those who aspire to belong to their club, without more soul-searching and compromise than is possible. Then again, people sang dirges to the demise of the Republican Party in 2006 and 2008, and the same was said of the Democratic Party in 2004 and 2010. It is impossible to say what will happen to the two parties with which we are stuck, but it is fun to guess.

I’m just glad to see that there is at least one Republican senator – albeit a retiring one – who is getting a clue.

Photo credit: ”Kay Bailey Hutchison, official photo 2″ by United States Congress. (http://hutchison.senate.gov/resources/presskit.zip) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.


Share

My less-celebratory thoughts on the election results, as shamelessly stolen from this legal blog that I like

Because of this compulsive need I have to share my thoughts on things, I tend to write a lot. I also tend to delete much of what I write because it felt good to get it out onto a screen, but no one actually needs to read it. Every so often I type a response to someone’s Facebook post, decide the world will be just fine and dandy without my contribution to the discussion, and then hit Enter instead of Delete by accident.

Hilarity rarely ensues when that happens.

The internet is not short of celebrations today. It’s also not short on eschatological rantings, which should not be surprising. The internet does not need me whooping and hollering, and I need to be packing for my big move anyway (more on that later, I’m sure.) Fortunately, I frequent the blogs of people who seem to manage their time better than I do, at least judging my their published output.

Ken at Popehat, who you should be following if you are not already, offered his post-election thoughts Wednesday morning. I do not agree with everything Ken has to say there, but he hit the nail on the head for me in a section entitled “I’m not happy Obama won.” I’m borrowing the section that hit home for me, or at least that expresses the ambivalence I feel on certain issues:

Romney might have been somewhat more belligerent on the international stage than Obama, though their foreign policy differences seemed to be mostly matters of degree and recrimination for Obama’s mishandling of Benghazi. Romney would surely have continued the ruinous War on Drugs, the steady one-way ratchet of the insipid “tough on crime” mindset, the post-9/11 security state, and the unprincipled asterisk grafted onto the Constitution that is the open-ended War on Terror. My chief concern is that because Obama — a Democrat widely (but inaccurately) classified as a liberal — is doing those things, they will become even more firmly entrenched and normalized.

Guantanamo. Drone attacks. Surveillance. Bradley Manning. The list of matters where I diverge sharply with the Obama administration may not be extensively long, but it goes to the very heart of some pretty fundamental concepts of government checks and balances, not to mention big abstract nouns like liberty. These issues never came up during the election because, at least in that context, the two candidates barely differed at all. I cannot commiserate with Obama’s opponents on the right on any of these issues because these are the issues that make him look like a Republican.

I might also argue that his economic policies are really just Republican Lite, and that anyone who thinks he’s some sort of Marxist is either ignorant of actual Marxism, delusional, or a shameless liar, but it’s late and I’m tired. We have four more years to try vainly to explain that Obama cannot be a socialist and a fascist at the same time, or that he is neither at any rate.


Share

The Bluest County in Texas

Austin often seems like a blue island in a sea of red. Yesterday, Travis County (which includes Austin) went for President Obama by 60%, according to Fox News. Yes, I’m relying on Fox News’ election returns. Let it never be said that I don’t occasionally slum it online. Of course, the state overall went 57% for Romney. It got me wondering, though, since we vote precinct-by-precinct, county-by-county, and then the winner takes all at the state level, what is the actual Bluest County in Texas?

Starr County, Texas.

Screen Shot 2012-11-07 at 11.59.33 AM

Screen capture from foxnews.com

The area has likely been inhabited for 11,000 years. Europeans first arrived there in 1638, when Jacinto García de Sepulveda went looking for Dutch sailors rumored to be on the Gulf coast. That really has nothing to do with yesterday’s election, though.

Starr County went 86% for Barack Obama. Romney drew a paltry 13%. Fox News does not provide a breakdown for other parties, literally lumping them in the “Other” category.

According to the 2011 Census Bureau estimate, 61,715 people live in Starr County. Of those, 95.6% are “of Hispanic or Latino Origin.” A language other than English is spoken in the homes of 96.0% of the county’s residents. The county borders the Mexican state of Tamaulipas. The county seat, Rio Grande City, has a population of roughly 13,834 people, and is the birthplace of Lieutenant General (ret.) Ricardo Sanchez, who commanded the coalition ground forces in Iraq from June 2003 to June 2004.

The county also seems to have a corruption problem. A former sheriff pleaded guilty to federal drug conspiracy charges in May 2009 and received a 64-month prison sentence. A deputy sheriff was charged with federal bribery, extortion, and drug charges in July 2012.

That’s all I’ve got. I just thought it was interesting.

Photo credit: Screen capture from foxnews.com.


Share

“Here, have a taco”

With the news of Meat Loaf’s endorsement of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, it may be worth taking a moment to remember his finest performance. While Meat Loaf has undoubtedly had a distinguished career, it was his duet with Chef for 1998′s Chef Aid album that stands above all the rest, including his consumption of an animated taco on a two-dimensional stage.

South Park – Chef Aid – Tonight Is Right for Love from Stanley Trent on Vimeo.
 

 


Share

The Libertarian Dream World

Ian Boudreau seems to have captured the idealistically ethereal nature of libertarian ideas in today’s political discourse:


Discuss.


Share

My Live-Facebooking of the Presidential Debate, October 3, 2012

For the heck of it, I went back and copied my stream-of-consciousness rants from Wednesday night’s debacle. I mean debate. The now-mythical evening will probably puzzle political scientists for a few minutes, but it at least gave us some memes. (Edited for typos and whatnot):

7:59 p.m. I’m live tweeting this bee-yotch! (I give my ADD 10 minutes before I start seriously thinking about boobs) #debate

8:02 p.m. The last time we had a Presidential #debate, I didn’t even have a Twitter account. How did I share my thoughts? How did we do anything???

8:04 p.m. I’m sure Jim Lehrer is a great #debate moderator, but you know who we need? Mills Lane, that’s who.

8:06 p.m. Obama may have the best excuse in history for skipping out on an anniversary dinner. #debate

8:07 p.m. Since the candidates always answer the first question with a “glad to be here” soliloquy, shouldn’t the first question just be “‘Sup?”

8:08 p.m. Is someone writing down Romney’s 5 points? Because I’m sure he’ll change them tomorrow.

8:12 p.m. Just for the record, Lehrer asked Romney if he had a question for Obama, and he’s making a speech. #debate

8:13 p.m. Okay, seriously, Jim, cut Romney off if he won’t ask a question!!! #debate

8:17 p.m. It’s hard to make accurate statements about Romney’s tax plan when he stays so coy about it. #debate

8:19 p.m. “Now he’s saying that his big bold idea is ‘never mind.’” #debate

8:22 p.m. Romney keeps referencing conversations he’s had with ordinary people. We’ve seen how that tends to go for him, though… #debate

8:23 p.m. Did Romney really just say his first priority is jobs? #debate

8:27 p.m. “Going forward with the status quo won’t work” says Romney. You mean like Republicans blocking everything Obama tries to do? #debate Continue reading


Share

Republican Challenger Portrays Nancy Pelosi as Leader of a Zombie Cult, Obviously Doesn’t Realize How Awesome That Would Be

Republicans, to borrow a phrase, have a pop-culture problem. To borrow another phrase, while Democrats get to rub elbows with A-listers, Republicans get to “shake Jon Voight’s cold lizard hand.” The downward slide continued this week, with a, uh, memorable ad from a California race.

The plucky challenger for Nancy Pelosi’s seat, John Dennis, has put out an ad depicting Pelosi as some sort of zombie cult leader engaged in animal sacrifice. I do not condone animal sacrifice as a general rule, but I also know the difference between literalism and satire (more so than most Republicans.) What I fail to see, however, is how depicting Nancy Pelosi as leader of some sort of zombie cult–possibly even a zombie army!–is going to make people not want to vote for her. Seriously, who wouldn’t want someone who could command a zombie army as their elected representative?

Let me first say that I don’t believe I have ever heard a Republican candidate address someone as “dude” before. It’s strangely refreshing, while at the same time highly unsettling. That said, the actress portraying Nancy Pelosi appears to have accepted this gig immediately after her final rejection from all the suburban L.A. community theater programs. On a very, very good day, she might pass for a Poor Man’s Jessica Walter, but she’s not likely to even manage the notoriety of a Johanna Goldsmith with this role.

Seriously, though, the knowledge that even the tiniest possibility exists that Nancy Pelosi leads a secretive army of the undead makes me want to fly out to Cali and commit a little in-person voter fraud come November.

(Note to Republicans: The previous sentence is an example of sarcasm. I do not intend to commit in-person voter fraud in California or anywhere else. Nevertheless, feel free to misinterpret me and discuss my blog on Fox and Friends. I need to monetize this biatch.)


Share

I’m already boycotting CNN

Nancy_Grace

Avert your eyes…

With the first Presidential Debate coming up in a couple of days, it must be time for a boycott! Ultraviolet, which does some excellent work, I must say, is calling on people to boycott CNN’s coverage of the debatesuntil they fire Eric Erickson:

The first presidential debate is just two days away—and it’s a huge opportunity for all of us to send a strong message to CNN: Condoning sexism is bad for business.

CNN has remained silent since Erickson’s outrageous comments referring to the first night of the Democratic National Convention as the “The Vagina Monologues” Almost unbelievable, considering this was nowhere near his first offense. From defending Rush Limbaugh when he called a Georgetown graduate student a “slut,” to accusing women in the Obama administration of pushing American intervention in Libya “like women drivers” with “no plan,” “no map,” and “no shopping list.” (seriously.)

It’s not like firing Erickson would actually do anything to improve the tone of public discourse. Another hydra head would pop up to take his place, and the entire right wing would have an additional whining point to bring up at every opportunity. Still, the message is important, and I wholeheartedly agree that Erickson’s rhetoric tends towards the toxic.

This has nothing to do with free speech rights, by the way, so please, nobody waste the nation’s time by bringing that up. The government isn’t trying to shut Erickson down, private citizens exercising their economic power of the purse are the ones doing this.

I’m sure someone or many someones will weep that liberals are hating on Erickson just because he has an opinion that differs from theirs. I actually love when people make this argument, because to me it signals that the speaker has no intention of actually defending the substance of those opinions. They just want to wail and gnash their teeth that the liberals are being mean to them. If your only retort is that you have a right to your opinion, it could simply signal that you have reached an impasse with an opponent. If that is your opening retort, though, it suggests that you do not actually have an argument, or just can’t be bothered to defend or explain it. Just saying.

At any rate, I will not be participating in the boycott because I do not need to. I refuse to watch CNN as long as they give air time to Nancy Grace. She has done more damage to our concepts of criminal justice and basic jurisprudence (it’s a legal term, look it up) than anyone else in recent history, in my humble opinion.

Photo credit: ’Nancy Grace’ by Vidiot [CC-BY-SA-2.0], via Wikimedia Commons.


Share

The Election Gets Surreal, Yo

The 2012 election season has already been a smorgasbord of weirdness, but now it has crossed over into some sort of sublime remix wonderland. Witness President Obama’s 99 Problems Political Remix (lyrics NSFW):

You definitely want to stick it out to the last line.


Share