PDA

View Full Version : For consideration



JDogger
03-24-2010, 11:28 PM
Since others here sometimes regale us with contrarian posts;


The Party of Cruelty

By James Howard Kunstler



on March 22, 2010 7:13 AM



It was amusing to see the Republican party inveigh against health insurance reform as if they were a synod of Presbyterian necromancers girding the nation for a takeover by the spawn of hell. This was the same gang, by the way, who championed the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, then regarded as the most reckless giveaway of public funds in human history. Along the way, they enlisted an army of nay-sayers representing everything dark, disgraceful, and ignorant in the American character. If the Republicans keep going this way, they'll end up with something worse than Naziism: a party that hates everything but believes in absolutely nothing.
The most striking elements of so-called health care in America these days is how cruel and unjust it is, and in taking a stand against reforming it the Republican party appeared to be firmly in support of cruelty and injustice. This would be well within the historical tradition of other religious crusades which turned political such as the Spanish Inquisition and the seventeenth century war against witchcraft. Whatever else the Democratic party has stood for in recent history, it has tended to oppose institutional cruelty and injustice, and notice that it has also been the party for keeping religion out of government.
Now a health care reform act has passed and there's some reason to hope that insurance companies will be prevented from doing things like canceling the coverage of policy-holders who have the impertinence to actually get sick, which has been their main device for revenue enhancement, and we'll see how they cope with the idea that being alive in a treacherous world is the fundamental pre-existing condition.
I surely don't know if the nation can afford to pay for what this law requires, but then can we really afford to pay for anything? including the salaries, retirement benefits, and health insurance of congressmen, not to mention two wars, bailout life support for banks, rising unemployment benefits, shovel-ready stimulus projects, et cetera, blah blah? Probably not.
My guess is that the health care "industry" will unravel in the years ahead under the weight of its own hypercomplexity just as all the other hypercomplex systems of normal American life (such as it is) groan and collapse under their own unworkable immensities and I speak here of industrial-style farming, Big Box "consumerism," Happy Motoring, too-big-to-fail finance, centralized public education, and the pension racket. All the activities of daily life in this country have poor prospects for continuing in their current form.
At least this once a workable majority in the government has stood up to the forces of cruelty and injustice, and whatever else happens to us in the course of this long emergency, it will be a good thing if the party of fairness and justice identifies its adversaries for what they are: not "partners in governing," or any such academical-therapeutic bullshit, but enemies of every generous impulse in the national character.
I hope that Mr. Obama's party can carry this message clearly into the electoral battles ahead, painting the Republican opposition for what it is: a gang of hypocritical, pietistic sadists, seeking pleasure in the suffering of others while pretending to be Christians, devoid of sympathy, empathy, or any inclination to simple human kindness, constant breakers of the Golden Rule, enemies of the common good. In fact, the current edition of the Republican party has achieved something really memorable in the annals of collective bad intentions: they have managed to create a sense of the public interest whose main goal is the destruction of the public interest.
This is exactly what the Republican majority on the Supreme Court did earlier this year by deciding that corporations which are sociopathic by definition in being answerable only to their shareholders and nothing else should enjoy the same full privileges in election campaign contributions as human persons, who are assumed to have obligations, duties, and responsibilities to the common good (and therefore to the public interest). This shameful act by the court majority only underscores the chief defining characteristic of Republicans in their current incarnation: an inability to think. And so, naturally Republicans gravitate toward superstition and the traditional devices of improvident religious authorities persecution of the weak, torture, denial of due process, and dogmas designed to spread hatred.
I hope the American public begins to understand this, because they have been manipulated in their own pain and hardship by these dark forces, and their thrall to the likes of John Boehner, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush, Hannity, and the rest of these vicious morons could easily increase as their economic hardships deepen. We're facing a comprehensive contraction of wealth and economy that is going to challenge every shared virtue in our national soul, and we're not going to meet these difficulties successfully without a sense of mutual obligation and sympathy for each other. The Republican party is just itching to turn a giant thumbscrew on the US public that is, before they try to start burning their enemies at the stake. We understand that the Health Care Reform Act is a first stand against that.

Henry V
03-25-2010, 12:09 AM
On a related note .....
Far-Right GOP's Viciousness, Venom Familiar to Some of Us
Bill Mann.

On Nov. 22, 1963, just as we learned President Kennedy had been murdered down in Dallas, half the kids in my high-school English class in suburban Oklahoma City stood up and cheered. A few cried.

When I tell people this now, often and understandably, they think I'm making it up. I'm not. I've asked fellow Army brats whose families were also stationed in Oklahoma and Texas if they had the same experience in their Southwestern schools. All of them said yes. JFK was hated by many people in that part of the country, and probably still is.

So, I've seen this kind of ugliness and viciousness before. Just not outside Oklahoma/Texas politics.

Beauty, someone once joked, is only skin deep, but ugly is forever. That's one of many things today's venomous right-wing extremists don't get. The Fox News crowd has gone well beyond the bounds of common decency recently, and we shouldn't let any of these merchants of hate forget that they've left a permanent stain on our democracy after their disgraceful tactics and countless lies during the health-care debate.

Does anyone else remember George Bush's Karl Rove-inspired vicious attacks on the classy Ann Richards in the 1994 Texas governor's race? In Texas and Oklahoma, I learned from living there, it's a football mentality -- winning is all that matters, no matter how ugly you win. I've seen this poisonous mentality spread throughout the country, largely abetted by the ugliness that is Fox Noise.

Spitting on black Congressmen and spewing homophobia at Barney Frank? Hey, why not? Yelling "Baby Killer!" at pro-life Bart Stupak? It just feels right to the poisonous right.

San Francisco Chronicle blogger Mark Morford noted this about the behavior of the far-right loudmouths who are the darlings of Fox News during the past few days of the health-care debate. The bottom of the barrel just got a whole lot deeper.

"Like millions, I was fairly convinced it simply could not get much worse or more acrimonious than when Dubya ran the nation into the ground, embarrassing and humiliating us planetwide a thousand times over as the rogue idiot pseudo-cowboy laughingstock war-hungry prick of the civilized world. I was wrong."

Many of us lefties said plenty of unkind and unflattering things about Bush, but it was mostly out of disgust. Viciousness of the kind I experienced in my high-school days in Dubya's Southwest is something I hadn't experienced much since then -- until the health-care debate's shameless, nonstop litany of lies and fear-mongering.

Morford again, on the not-so-grand Old Party's disgraceful behavior :

"The Republicans have been pure venom. Theirs was a systematic fearmongering, a nonstop bombardment of misguidings and untruths, an acid bath of panic overlaid with a fine sheen of racism and rage. This is turning out to be easily the nastiest, meanest GOP organization in ages, the house that Karl Rove built, a group shaming their own party's once-noble legacy. Even Reagan, who claimed Medicare would destroy the country, would be stunned at this gang's level of savagery."

I'm dismayed that the level of nastiness and venom I saw in high school has made it out of Oklahoma and Texas politics into the national arena.

Being a Republican is in my DNA. I was a registered Republican until 2006. Both my parents were rock-ribbed Republicans when they were alive. But they'd never recognize this current bunch of oleaginous hypocrites and fearmongers. I didn't leave the Republican Party. It left me.

The party of moderates/conservatives I grew up in and once loved has become a rallying point for far-right extremists. It's truly a national disgrace.

Henry V
03-25-2010, 12:16 AM
In an ironic twist, many of the provisions of the fixes bill that Republicans are trying to kill were backed by Republicans during debate on the Senate health care bill.

On a related note, take a look at what Senator Grassley is now taking credit for in the entirely partisan ,"rammed down our throats" health care bill that he did not vote for.

Dems accuse Grassley of flip flopping on health care - http://iowaindependent.com/30524/dems-accuse-grassley-of-flip-flopping-on-health-care

M&K's Retrievers
03-25-2010, 02:06 AM
On a related note .....
Far-Right GOP's Viciousness, Venom Familiar to Some of Us
Bill Mann.

On Nov. 22, 1963, just as we learned President Kennedy had been murdered down in Dallas, half the kids in my high-school English class in suburban Oklahoma City stood up and cheered. A few cried.

When I tell people this now, often and understandably, they think I'm making it up. I'm not. I've asked fellow Army brats whose families were also stationed in Oklahoma and Texas if they had the same experience in their Southwestern schools. All of them said yes. JFK was hated by many people in that part of the country, and probably still is.

So, I've seen this kind of ugliness and viciousness before. Just not outside Oklahoma/Texas politics.

Beauty, someone once joked, is only skin deep, but ugly is forever. That's one of many things today's venomous right-wing extremists don't get. The Fox News crowd has gone well beyond the bounds of common decency recently, and we shouldn't let any of these merchants of hate forget that they've left a permanent stain on our democracy after their disgraceful tactics and countless lies during the health-care debate.

Does anyone else remember George Bush's Karl Rove-inspired vicious attacks on the classy Ann Richards in the 1994 Texas governor's race? In Texas and Oklahoma, I learned from living there, it's a football mentality -- winning is all that matters, no matter how ugly you win. I've seen this poisonous mentality spread throughout the country, largely abetted by the ugliness that is Fox Noise.

Spitting on black Congressmen and spewing homophobia at Barney Frank? Hey, why not? Yelling "Baby Killer!" at pro-life Bart Stupak? It just feels right to the poisonous right.

San Francisco Chronicle blogger Mark Morford noted this about the behavior of the far-right loudmouths who are the darlings of Fox News during the past few days of the health-care debate. The bottom of the barrel just got a whole lot deeper.

"Like millions, I was fairly convinced it simply could not get much worse or more acrimonious than when Dubya ran the nation into the ground, embarrassing and humiliating us planetwide a thousand times over as the rogue idiot pseudo-cowboy laughingstock war-hungry prick of the civilized world. I was wrong."

Many of us lefties said plenty of unkind and unflattering things about Bush, but it was mostly out of disgust. Viciousness of the kind I experienced in my high-school days in Dubya's Southwest is something I hadn't experienced much since then -- until the health-care debate's shameless, nonstop litany of lies and fear-mongering.

Morford again, on the not-so-grand Old Party's disgraceful behavior :

"The Republicans have been pure venom. Theirs was a systematic fearmongering, a nonstop bombardment of misguidings and untruths, an acid bath of panic overlaid with a fine sheen of racism and rage. This is turning out to be easily the nastiest, meanest GOP organization in ages, the house that Karl Rove built, a group shaming their own party's once-noble legacy. Even Reagan, who claimed Medicare would destroy the country, would be stunned at this gang's level of savagery."

I'm dismayed that the level of nastiness and venom I saw in high school has made it out of Oklahoma and Texas politics into the national arena.

Being a Republican is in my DNA. I was a registered Republican until 2006. Both my parents were rock-ribbed Republicans when they were alive. But they'd never recognize this current bunch of oleaginous hypocrites and fearmongers. I didn't leave the Republican Party. It left me.

The party of moderates/conservatives I grew up in and once loved has become a rallying point for far-right extremists. It's truly a national disgrace.

Wow, I didn' realize we were so screwed up. But wait. Maybe it's you and the fact that you quote Mark Morford. Perhaps you should attempt to get a little class. You have some class it's just all low.

Hew
03-25-2010, 05:39 AM
Awww, the wiberals feelwings are hurt because the evil Wepbubwicans are being mean to poor Obama and the Democwats.

Eight years of vile nastiness directed at Bush and now you want everybody to play nice? Your chickens have come home to roost, biatches. Enjoy 'em. ;-)

Henry V
03-25-2010, 10:04 AM
Wow,
You follow the lead of cutting and pasting an article, which is done almost daily here by many right wingers, and it results in a personal attack. Yes R&K , you are right, I am the one with low class.

The repubs are just following their playbook and their chickens will also come home to roost. Motivating your constituents through fear, extreme negative feelings toward administration, and reactionary are sure fire ways to success... Keep up the great work as far as I am concerned.

http://cache-01.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2010/03/500x_rnc3.jpg

road kill
03-25-2010, 10:35 AM
LESS THAN A WEEK AGO THERE WAS MANY POSTS AND OUTRAGE ON THIS BOARD ABOUT DEMOCRATIC PARLIAMENTARY MOVES - See below, How does the shoe fit on the other foot???????????


Yeah, you know what they say about "PAYBACK!!":D




rk

M&K's Retrievers
03-25-2010, 10:54 AM
Wow,
You follow the lead of cutting and pasting an article, which is done almost daily here by many right wingers, and it results in a personal attack. Yes R&K , you are right, I am the one with low class.



http://cache-01.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2010/03/500x_rnc3.jpg

What cut and paste?

duckheads
03-25-2010, 10:57 AM
Awww, the wiberals feelwings are hurt because the evil Wepbubwicans are being mean to poor Obama and the Democwats.

Eight years of vile nastiness directed at Bush and now you want everybody to play nice? Your chickens have come home to roost, biatches. Enjoy 'em. ;-)


That pretty much sums it up Hew!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Buzz
03-25-2010, 11:16 AM
The right sure knows how to use that Bully Pulpit.

Henry V
03-25-2010, 05:52 PM
What cut and paste?
Sorry about the confusion. Replace the first "you" with "I". Get it now.

Henry V
03-25-2010, 10:30 PM
To keep this thread fair and balanced I thought I should post this article from a person on the right. Well at least he was the former President's speech writer who worked for a right wing think tank until today.

How GOP can rebound from its 'Waterloo'

Editor's note: David Frum writes a weekly column for CNN.com. A resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, he was special assistant to President Bush in 2001-2. He is the author of six books, including "Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again" and the editor of FrumForum.

Washington (CNN) -- What the hell do we Republicans do now?

In the very short run, our course is obvious enough: There will be more votes on health care in the Senate, and we will vote nay again. But this is anti-climax territory. The decisive vote occurred Sunday night.

The "what next?" question pertains to the days further ahead, after President Obama signs the merged House-Senate legislation and "Obamacare" becomes the law of the land.

Some Republicans talk of repealing the whole bill. That's not very realistic. Even supposing that Republicans miraculously capture both houses of Congress in November, repeal will require a presidential signature.

More relevantly: Do Republicans write a one-sentence bill declaring that the whole thing is repealed? Will they vote to reopen the "doughnut" hole for prescription drugs for seniors? To allow health insurers to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions? To kick millions of people off Medicaid?

It's unimaginable, impossible.

But there are things that can be done, and here are some early priorities:

1) One of the worst things about the Democrats' plan is the method of financing: an increase in tax on high-income earners. At first that tax bites only a very small number, but the new taxes will surely be applied to larger and larger portions of the American population over time.

Republicans champion lower taxes and faster economic growth. We need to start thinking now about how to get rid of these new taxes on work, saving and investment -- if necessary by finding other sources of revenue, including carbon taxes.

2) We should quit defending employment-based health care. The leading Republican spokesman in the House on these issues, Rep. Paul Ryan, repeatedly complained during floor debate that the Obama plan would "dump" people out of employer-provided care into the exchanges. He said that as if it were a bad thing.

Yet free-market economists from Milton Friedman onward have identified employer-provided care as the original sin of American health care. Employers choose different policies for employees than those employees would choose for themselves. The cost is concealed.

Wages are depressed without employees understanding why. The day when every employee in America gets his or her insurance through an exchange will be a good day for market economics. It's true that the exchanges are subsidized. So is employer-provided care, to the tune of almost $200 billion a year.

3) We should call for reducing regulation of the policies sold inside the health care exchanges. The Democrats' plans require every policy sold within the exchanges to meet certain strict conditions.

American workers will lose the option of buying more basic but cheaper plans. It will be as if the only cable packages available were those that include all the premium channels. No bargains in that case. Republicans should press for more scope for insurers to cut prices if they think they can offer an attractive product that way.

4) The Democratic plan requires businesses with payrolls more than $500,000 to buy health insurance for their workers or face fines of $2,000 per worker. Could there be a worse time to heap this new mandate on smaller employers? Health insurance comes out of employee wages, plain and simple. Employers who do not offer health insurance must compete for labor against those who do -- and presumably pay equivalent wages for equivalent work.

Uninsured employees have now through the exchanges been provided an easy and even subsidized way to buy their own coverage. There is no justification for the small-business fine: Republicans should press for repeal.

That platform is ambitious enough -- but also workable, enactable and likely to appeal to voters. After 18 months of overheated rhetoric, it's time at last for Republicans to get real.

I've been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes, it mobilizes supporters -- but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead.

Now the overheated talk is about to get worse. Over the past 48 hours, I've heard conservatives compare the House bill to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 -- a decisive step on the path to the Civil War. Conservatives have whipped themselves into spasms of outrage and despair that block all strategic thinking.

Or almost all. The vitriolic talking heads on conservative talk radio and shock TV have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination.

When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say -- but what is equally true -- is that he also wants Republicans to fail.

If Republicans succeed -- if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office -- Rush's listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less and hear fewer ads for Sleep Number beds.

So today's defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it's mission accomplished.

For the cause they purport to represent, however, the "Waterloo" threatened by GOP Sen. Jim DeMint last year regarding Obama and health care has finally arrived all right: Only it turns out to be our own.

YardleyLabs
03-26-2010, 08:34 AM
Good article.

Gerry Clinchy
03-26-2010, 09:33 AM
Good article, in some respects. I thought.

1) Maybe they actually planned it that way? :-) Makes it appear that the only the "rich" will be taxed, but without an index that changes over time. Sort of what happened with the original concept of the Federal income tax.

However, I can't quite reconcile how carbon taxes could be a positive thing for employers or their employees (meaning "us"). Replacing one govt imperative (health care coverage) with another (carbon taxes) would just be a "wash" for economic stimulation.

2) I agree with #2. There is no real reason to continue to rely on employers providing health care coverage. If there is a way for individuals to participate in a larger "group" and receive the actuarial benefits thereof, employers can concern themselves with purely wage compensation.

3) Logic doesn't quite work for me. The only way that one can maintain actuarial integrity of covering some of the high-cost "requirements" is by mandating that everyone pay a portion of those costs even if they are highly unlikely to use the services For example, everyone's policy includes maternity coverage even if they never use that benefit. Any "overage" from those premiums collected can also be used to offset some of the costs for covering the pre-existing conditions that were not covered before.

OTOH, co-pays of even $20 for most customary care, could be very useful to overall cost-control and actuarial integrity. The legislators should have not presumed that private insurance companies were mathematically "dumb" when they utilized that mechanism.

Gerry Clinchy
03-26-2010, 09:51 AM
I think this is a good article as well:

Source: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Manhattan-Moment/Obamacare-the-day-after-89005267.html (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Manhattan-Moment/Obamacare-the-day-after-89005267.html)
Paul Howard, Washington Examiner, 3-24-10
Let's offer this concession to President Obama and House Speaker Pelosi: if everything in the health-care reform legislation plays out exactly as they claim over the next 20 years, the U.S. health-care sector will become a beacon of productivity, cost increases will slow, the deficit will shrink, and health-care stakeholders—doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and patients—will live together happily ever after. That's unlikely in the extreme.

The historic legislation passed by the House Sunday night builds exploding costs and deficit spending into its structure via a system of subsidies and budget gimmicks. After campaigning for a year to get health-care costs under control, President Obama will sign a law that spends trillions to expand coverage but does little to contain costs. As a result, we've created yet another entitlement program that the country can ill afford.

Middle-class families who don't get health-care insurance through their employers will receive generous taxpayer-provided subsidies, starting in 2014, to buy health insurance through the bill's insurance exchanges. Currently, employees who do get insurance at work pay for it out of their own compensation (through reduced salaries and pensions). The subsidies will eventually create enormous political pressure to move more people into the exchanges, driving up government spending.

The legislation imposes draconian mandates on insurers: "guaranteed issue," which forces insurers to sell to any applicant, and "community rating," which requires them to offer cheaper coverage to older, sicker applicants by charging younger ones more (the bill mandates a maximum 3-to-1 ratio for age-adjusted premiums). It bans lifetime limits on coverage by insurers while placing caps on individuals' out-of-pocket spending. All of these measures will help drive up insurance costs in the individual market. (The Congressional Budget Office estimates that insurance premiums will rise 10 percent to 13 percent in this market, but many analysts think that’s a low-ball figure.)

Since federal regulations on insurance will operate in addition to existing state mandates, provider groups will continuously lobby Washington to add new mandates, boosting insurance costs still higher.

The legislation's funding is Madoffian in structure. The CBO estimated that the new law would slash the federal deficit by about $138 billion in its first decade. But this is true only if you think that you can rob Peter to pay Paul.

For instance, the "savings" includes $53 billion in new Social Security revenues—but those revenues should be earmarked for Social Security, not a new entitlement. Scratch that out.

The purported savings also include $70 billion in premiums for a new voluntary long-term care program, called CLASS. But CLASS is an insurance scheme. Premiums must be held in reserve to cover future payments. Scratch that out, too.

Further, the savings estimates ignore as much as $114 billion in appropriations needed to get Obamacare up and running. Taken together, these three charges are more than enough to wipe out any expected deficit reduction in the first decade.

And all this is on top of the program's biggest gimmick: close to $500 billion in cuts to Medicare reimbursements. Democrats claim that the reductions both shore up the Medicare program and help fund new coverage expansions, but they can't do both. Medicare faces a staggering $38 trillion long-term deficit. Putting the program on solid financial footing should be the top priority. Instead, Democrats are using Medicare savings to fund a new entitlement program.

Obamacare's defenders argue that reimbursement cuts and a new Medicare super-committee empowered to drive Medicare reforms from the top down will usher in productivity savings, as hospitals and doctors become more efficient to make up for lost revenue. In a market environment, where firms compete for consumer dollars based on price and quality, this might actually happen.

But in Obama's post-reform world, the competition will be fought most fiercely on K Street, as interest groups lobby Congress, the Department of Health and Human Services, and Medicare officials to tilt the rules (and spending) in their favor.

At the end of the day, President Obama has won the biggest expansion of the government since Medicare's creation in 1965. What should conservatives do next? While repeal sounds like an attractive line of attack, it would be extremely difficult—requiring a supermajority in Congress—especially once the subsidy spigot opens in 2014. Moreover, America's health-care woes would still need to be addressed. The more sensible approach might be to reform the reforms: to take the shell of Obamacare and make it market-friendly.

Conservative policymakers could replace the sliding-scale subsidies (which discourage work with high marginal tax rates) with a single flat-tax deduction or tax credit, funded by phasing out the employer tax deduction.

Risk pools can be expanded with federal dollars and made permanent to cover the highest-cost patients who can't afford to buy their own insurance without help. Real interstate competition would help lower insurance costs. Exchanges are a sound idea but should be lightly regulated to hold down prices. The federal government should also concentrate on creating transparency in health care so that consumers can easily compare price and quality.

Finally, medical malpractice reform would help reduce the practice of defensive medicine, saving billions every year.

Further, Medicare reform must be separated out from health-care reform. The temptation to squeeze one entitlement to fund another is just too powerful. Instead, we should gradually transform Medicare into a premium-support initiative for private insurance, in which seniors choose their own private plans based on price and coverage. Medicare's Part D already operates this way.


The battle over Obamacare has been fierce, bitter, and highly partisan. It's not likely to end now; on the contrary, the legislation's design guarantees fights for years to come. Conservatives should strive not just to fix its worst features, but more broadly, to make health care better for all Americans.

HuntsmanTollers
03-26-2010, 12:02 PM
Extremists on either side are bad for the country. The accusations made regarding to the far right can also be made against the far left. Does the generalizations either side make help? When Nancy Pelosi equates her actions to the Selma march is she not personnally attacking anyone in opposition? Yes the battle over health care has been partisan, I will not argue that point. The math made this a partisan issue because no compromise was required from the either party. That equals bad politics in a two party system. Promoting health care reform legislation and taking items off the table before discussions start is not a way to promote collaboration. In my opinion this bill hasn't done anything to control one of the biggest costs of health care in the US and that is administrative/policy costs. Now we have only added more administrative controls and personnel how is that going to control costs? You want to have a discussion let's discuss. If you want to enflame the conversation that easy to do, just target the extreme 10%. Unfortunately our news organizations have led us down this path because sensation sells. Whatever happened to reporters being fact finders and keepers of the public good? Now no matter what news source you read, the personal bias always seems to shine through. One of the things I learned in a college sociology class several years ago is that the left and right really aren't that far apart. Read articles in true left wing journals and compare them to articles in right wing journals. The line is more fuzzy and gray than most feel comfortable admitting.