– Romney said some awful things to his wealthy supporters.
– But of course, both sides do it.
– 4755 Fauntleroy development: 1st look at street-level ‘concepts’
– Don’t throw tomatoes at the Vancouver Education Association.
– Candy corn is a flavor that doesn’t work in candy corn. Maybe don’t add it to Oreos.
I love that a UW student won gold at the Paralympic games:
Meg Fisher won gold in the women’s road race time trial at the London Paralympic Games earlier this month.
A Physical Therapy doctorate student at UW, Fisher hails from Missoula, Montana. She documents her athletic endeavors on her blog and on Twitter at @GoMegFisher.
Today, she is at the White House getting hugs from our nation’s leaders:
Yesterday Jim McDermott introduced a bill aimed at making sure America has enough primary care doctors in the future. From his press release:
Modeled after the successful ROTC program, RDOCS offers full scholarships to medical students in exchange for a 5-year service commitment in a medically underserved area. RDOCS will be administered by the states, which will send RDOCS scholars to their state-operated medical schools. RDOCS officers (as they are known after graduation) will then become licensed and serve as primary-care doctors in their state of residence. The program is authorized to start immediately and begin graduating its first additional 4,000 new primary-care doctors in 2020, and 20,000 new doctors by 2024.
McDermott added, “Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, we are going to get close to universal health coverage in the United States. But universal coverage will not be meaningful if we don’t have enough doctors to serve our population. I am optimistic that Congress can demonstrate leadership in restoring our doctor workforce for the next generation.”
Fantastic. This is yet another way we’re going to have to make sure the Affordable Care Act works. We’re going to have to make sure there are enough doctors in the country. But, of course, the Republicans control the House of Representatives, so Joel Connelly isn’t sure about its ability to pass.
McDermott is a senior member of the tax-writing House Ways & Means Committee. When Democrats held a majority, he co-authored (with Republican Rep. Jerry Weller of Illinois) legislation that enacted a sweeping overhaul of foster care in America.
The fate of RDOCs, in a polarized House, is less certain. The House is spending less than one-third of 2012 in session.
Sure, that too. I don’t have anything like a whip count, but it seems like a worthy thing.
I was not aware of the Washington Safe Routes to School program before today.
Washington’s Safe Routes to School program provides technical assistance and resources to cities, counties, schools, school districts and state agencies for improvements that get more children walking and bicycling to school safely, reduce congestion around schools, and improve air quality.
But as these things go far too often, I’m only hearing about this worthwhile program as it faces going away. Transportation for Washington are trying to save it, and they have a letter you can send to Governor Gregoire.
Right now, Governor Gregoire has a choice. She can slash funding that gives tens of thousands of children the opportunity to walk and bike to school. Or she can keep funding the state’s Safe Routes to School program that improves our children’s safety and health. The Governor must make her decision by October 1.
Yes, I know: there are so many great, so many worthy programs out there. And they’re all in trouble in the current economic climate, and bullshit way we raise revenue in this state slower than economic growth. But, this is a worthy program, and I think it deserves the fight too.
My advice, as always, when an activist group has a form letter is to make it your own. Especially the first line or two, because the intern or staffer who is getting a bunch of these has already read the letter as a form letter, and the more you just copy and paste, the less they’re inclined to read it again.
It seems like for as long as I can remember, People For Puget Sound have been a part of the environmental community. Putting pressure and getting things done for the good. So it’ll be sad to see them go.
Despite these achievements, People For Puget Sound is at a crucial juncture. Recent and current economic realities have constrained our ability to raise necessary funds to keep the organization moving forward independently. In light of these difficult economic circumstances and the urgent need to continue our work, the board of directors has determined that the best course of action in service to our mission is to transition our programs to other organizations that embrace our commitment to Puget Sound. We are pleased to share that we are in the process of negotiating with two well-respected organizations that will enable our work to continue into the future.
We are planning to add our policy expertise, grassroots strength, advocacy, and education know-how to expand Washington Environmental Council’s work to protect Puget Sound. We are also in discussions about transitioning our restoration projects to EarthCorps, a long-term People For Puget Sound partner, which would enable them to expand their portfolio of projects in Puget Sound. Both of these venerable organizations are passionate about stopping the flow of polluted runoff into the Sound, restoring critical habitat, protecting shorelines, and preserving Puget Sound for generations to come. We are confident that they will be able to efficiently and effectively carry our mission forward.
– It’s going to be a long season if the Seahawks can’t even win with a free timeout from the scab refs.
– It’s Time to Freak Out About Climate Change
– The Battle Cry of Freedom is a Republican song, but maybe it’s time for the Democrats to appropriate it.
– I wouldn’t say it’s time for a new party, but Democrats should embrace their urban ideals.
– A call for help putting up flags at the West Seattle Junction.
– I saw Samsara at Cinerama over the weekend, and it was quite spectacular.
[HA Bible Study is on hiatus through the November election as we honor Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney by studying the scriptures of his Mormon religion.]
Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 3:9
And thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one planet above another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob, which Kolob is after the reckoning of the Lord’s time; which Kolob is set nigh unto the throne of God, to govern all those planets which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.
Discuss.
In Tampa, the Republican argument against the president’s re-election was actually pretty simple—pretty snappy. It went something like this: We left him a total mess. He hasn’t cleaned it up fast enough. So fire him and put us back in.
Now, there were two other attacks on the president in Tampa I think deserve an answer. First, both Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan attacked the president for allegedly robbing Medicare of $716 billion. That’s the same attack they leveled against the Congress in 2010, and they got a lot of votes on it. But it’s not true.
Here’s what really happened. There were no cuts to benefits at all. None. What the president did was to save money by taking the recommendations of a commission of professionals to cut unwarranted subsidies to providers and insurance companies that were not making people healthier and were not necessary to get the providers to provide the service.
And instead of raiding Medicare, he used the savings to close the doughnut hole in the Medicare drug program and—you all got to listen carefully to this; this is really important—and to add eight years to the life of the Medicare trust fund so it is solvent till 2024.
So President Obama and the Democrats didn’t weaken Medicare; they strengthened Medicare. Now, when Congressman Ryan looked into that TV camera and attacked President Obama’s Medicare savings as, quote, the biggest, coldest power play, I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry because that $716 billion is exactly, to the dollar, the same amount of Medicare savings that he has in his own budget. You got to get one thing—it takes some brass to attack a guy for doing what you did.
(Full text).
Yesterday, coming home from Drinking Liberally, I was reading the paper version of the New York Times. And I guess it was seeing all of the headlines for the Op-Ed columnists all together. I noticed that all the headlines were shit.
They’re Not What They Used to Be doesn’t tell you what “they” refers to. People over 30 will say that about just about anything if given the opportunity. Maybe say “conventions” in the headline. The Elevator Speech refers to a common phrase that BoBo mentions in the piece. But again, it’s a common enough phrase, especially in the business world that just using that as the headline doesn’t actually tell you anything. The Hex on Paul Ryan is the least terrible of the headlines, and it’s not particularly good either. I guess you could probably guess that the hex is being picked as VP, but the piece probably spent more time on Biden than Ryan, so maybe something more VP related would be better.
I’m fortunate.
When I was laid off from my job last month, I was eligible for continuation of my health insurance. I have enough money saved up that I can pick up the large portion of the premiums that used to be contributed by my employer. I was persistent enough, and knowledgeable enough, to navigate through the shoals of bureaucracy that lay between employer-based and formerly-employed insured status.
It was frustrating for several weeks. For instance, I wasn’t allowed to apply for continuation coverage while still insured. Then I couldn’t write a check for the first month of coverage until my application for continuation coverage was received, processed, and accepted. It took over a week after my check was deposited before my status was updated from no coverage to insured. Even after that change was acknowledged, it required a call to the PBM (pharmacy benefit manager), a business separate from the insurer, to update my prescription insurance.
When it all settled out, the insurance was reinstated retroactively to the first day of the month. But I still had to make sure that the claims rejected while I was in limbo were resubmitted (I haven’t yet contacted the lab that drew and tested a blood sample). Every one of those steps wastes money—customer service operators who could have helped someone else, clerks who had to open, photocopy, and file my applications, eligibility assessors who had to process my paperwork, personnel at my providers who had to send my claims to the insurer for a second time, computers that had to rerun those claims. It was only a little bit of money each time, but of course those infinitesimal amounts add up to big bucks when multiplied by thousands or millions of incidents. At least I get my EOBs electronically, so I didn’t kill many trees by generating all those papers twice.
My office visits and lab tests hadn’t made it through the providers’ billing systems by the time I became retroactively covered, so they had no visible impact on my wallet. Because the office personnel don’t know the alleged prices of their services, they probably couldn’t require up-front payment anyway. Not so when it comes to prescriptions … I had to pay the full retail price before I could get my medications. Once covered, I went back to the drugstore to have my credit card reimbursed for the cash I’d laid out.
As it happens, I take six “maintenance medicines”, prescriptions that I refill every month. All six are generics, costing appreciably less than the brand name versions of those medications. Even so, the full retail price of a month’s-worth of my meds was rather hefty — $445.74 (brand names would have run $864.67). After my coverage was restored retroactively, I went back to Bartell so that they could resubmit the prescriptions to my insurance. After applying the (appreciably lower) price negotiated by the insurer, and after accounting for the portion of that price paid by the insurer, my out of pocket cost for those six prescriptions came to just $11.98. I have very good insurance.
Similarly, were I not insured, the price of an office visit would be $219.00. My insurer had negotiated an allowed amount of $83.01 for that sort of visit, only about 38% of the alleged retail price. And my out of pocket portion of the insurer-negotiated price comes to a mere $12.45. To reiterate, I have very good insurance.
I knew it would work out as it did. And I had the resources to ease the difficulties of the bureaucratic delays. But suppose I didn’t have a credit card. Suppose I lived from paycheck to paycheck, with only a debit card and a meager bank account. Then, I would have had a problem. Then, I might have been required to choose between maintaining my health and buying groceries, or maybe even between medicines and rent. Forced into such a dilemma, filling prescriptions would undoubtedly fall behind food and shelter.
Being unemployed and uninsured, then, is a double triple-whammy:
I could go on. I could mention the uncertainties faced by providers; because of the myriad insurers with myriad rules and myriad methods of bill submission, they never know how much they’ll actually receive in reimbursement for their services (and they must hire additional staff to handle all those procedures). I could argue for something like Medicare for all, or for a sensible healthcare system like those in civilized nations (there are many models to choose from, all of which are better and less costly than ours).
Instead, I’ll just thank my lucky stars that my layoff isn’t the kind of financial and health disaster that it could be if I didn’t have resources. And I’ll pay my insurance premiums every month.
[Cross-posted from Peace Tree Farm]
Please join us tonight for an evening of politics and conversation over a pint at the Seattle Chapter of Drinking Liberally. Material for tonight’s discussions: The hurricane that is the G.O.P. convention, Rob McKenna’s refusal to release his tax returns, and, perhaps, today’s Arizona, Vermont, Alaska and Oklahoma elections ….
We meet every Tuesday at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Starting time is 8:00pm. Some people show up earlier for Dinner.
Can’t make it to Seattle’s DL tonight? Check out one of the other DL meetings over the next week. The Tri-Cities chapter also meets tonight. And on Monday, the Yakima, South Bellevue and Olympia chapters meet.
With 235 chapters of Living Liberally, including thirteen in Washington state four in Oregon and three more in Idaho, chances are excellent there’s a chapter near you.
Over at Publicola, Erica C. Barnett takes the piss out of this King 5 report.
But first, KING offers viewers a lesson in transportation taxonomy. Specifically: Cars are “traffic”; transit is not.
“Here on Alaska, two traffic lanes have been taken away and turned into bus-only lanes,” reporter Natasha Ryan intones, gesturing—with no apparent irony—at the completely empty street behind her. (Screen shot above). “Residents say there already aren’t enough parking spots. … Now residents fear that once the RapidRide stops that are already in place here on Alaska actually start service it’s going to mean even less parking.”
Got that? Bus-only lanes “take away” lanes from the streets’ rightful users—single-occupant cars.
This is fine as far as it goes, but it got me thinking: it’s yet another TV report that assumes its viewers are drivers. I assume a majority of its viewers are drivers as a majority of the people in the region are drivers. But plenty of their viewers must take the bus, as the bus is regularly quite crowed.
A while ago, I wrote that I was always surprised when newspapers aren’t the biggest advocates of public transit. Since we’re getting to an era when TV news can be watched on the bus (but still not in the car, hopefully), I wonder if maybe the knee jerk anti-transit stuff will come to an end. But I won’t think it’ll come any time soon.
– I love the fact that The Stranger are trying to bring down Frank Chopp with a Socialist candidate.
– This is the best headline I’ve seen in a while.
This year I will be starting college in France and I am going to France for two reasons. One being that I love France, its language and culture; the other being that I will be paying roughly $400 for my annual tuition without scholarships, grants, loans taken out or federal aid. (And additionally, I am still able to apply for federal aid for my housing). I am not able to go to a respected university in my own country without going into debt for the next few decades. It wasn’t always this way. And it doesn’t have to be.
Since the 1980’s the percentage of the federal budget that has been spent on education has decreased significantly, while the cost of education has skyrocketed and increased more than 5x the rates of inflation.
Some argue that we can’t afford to put more money into public universities. I say that’s a lie. We waste plenty of money into defense spending on weapons we will never use. Some defense spending is of course important, but to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into things we have no need for, or will never use is fiscally irresponsible.
What we can’t afford is committing an entire generation of educated people to the debt sentence. People starting their lives with tens of thousands of dollars in debt will not only severely damage our economy but it will also alienate entire groups of people who are brilliant and have potential that will either never be able to develop it or be struggling too hard to pay back into loans to be able to invest in their dreams.
The tuition costs we have now specifically hinder growth and that is not what education is about and it is not what our country says we’re about either. We say that we are the country of possibilities that anyone who works hard can make their way in the world. So then why am I someone who has worked hard for years needing to leave my country just to have access to a decent education without starting my adulthood in debt? I have stayed in the top 5% rankings in my class in one of the best schools in the country, a National Honor Society Member, took 10 AP classes, 5 honors classes and 5 classes that were considered college in high school classes for which I received college credit. I was a JV athlete in cross-country, a captain and varsity athlete in gymnastics and a varsity athlete in track and field in my high school. Additionally, I have babysat since I was 12 and babysat with an additional job from the time I was 16. And this year, on top of those two jobs, I had an internship with Darcy Burner.
So the fact that I didn’t receive enough scholarships to make school reasonably priced is not based on the fact that I didn’t work hard or didn’t do well in school. For every dollar in scholarships available there are 2 dollars of tuition. In the past, this number was reversed.
This week at a student activism conference, I met some students who have been in the ongoing protests in Quebec. They have had hundreds of thousands of students in the streets protesting and on strike because of the plan to have tuition raised from $2,168 to $3,793 between 2012 and 2017. When an American student at the conference asked, “why are you striking? You have the lowest tuition in Canada.” The Quebecois student responded, “we have the lowest tuition in Canada BECAUSE WE STRIKE.”
So, why are we not all in the streets? We’ve normalized the way in which we deal with tuition and higher education but that doesn’t make it right. We need to fight for our right to an education. As a country we seem to agree with that from elementary school until high school so what makes higher education any different?
We can do better than this. We can fight for our right to education. If not an education that is as cheap as it is in France, at least something that is more manageable for the average citizen.The students of this country need to step up and stand together to fight for access to education without going into debt before it’s too late.
The Libertarian Party of Washington State is suing to keep Mitt Romney off the ballot.
Their argument may be familiar to you…I wrote about it recently. By law, the Washington State Republican Party is a minor party and it hasn’t met the signature gathering requirements of a minor party for the fall Presidential election.
You can read the Libertarian’s complaint here. But let me briefly recap the argument.
In 2010, the WSRP didn’t nominate, or even endorse, anyone in the only statewide election. The reason, as I mentioned earlier, was that the Teabaggers were going to raise holy hell if Dino Rossi (who entered the race very late) got the nomination over uber-teabagger Clint Diddier for the U.S. Senate race.
Dino Rossi won a spot on the general election ballot by placing second in the primary. But, prior legal precedent has firmly established that our top-two primary is a “‘winnowing’ election designed to send only two candidates on to the general election without regard to political party nomination or affiliation,” rather than a nominating election.
So the Republicans failed to have a party nominee receive at least 5% of the vote in a 2010 statewide election as per RCW 29A.04.086:
“Major political party” means a political party of which at least one nominee for president, vice president, United States senator, or a statewide office received at least five percent of the total vote cast at the last preceding state general election in an even-numbered year.
They also failed to file the 1,000 signatures this year as is required for a minor party by RCW 29A.20.111 et seq.
Thus the Libertarians point out in their complaint:
Accordingly, the Washington State Republican Party is not entitled under the R.C.W. to have its nominee’s name printed on the November general election ballot, although its candidate (presumably Mr. Romney) is entitled to run as a write-in candidate.
In other words, the Libertarians (who are currently a minor party) want fair and equal treatment with the Republicans who, evidence suggests, is now a minor party.
And they have a point! It is how the law is written. And if the law is followed as written, there should be no Republican presidential ticket on our ballots this fall.
Here’s the thing. The relevant RCW actually predate the top-two primary. And, from one perspective, the major/minor party status law doesn’t quite jibe with a top-two primary system. In fact, in 2009, the SOS office pushed legislation that would have changed the major/minor party part of the law to better reflect a top-two primary. Alas, the bill (SB 5681) failed.
After my last post on this topic, I emailed the Secretary of State office to ask for their take on this issue. Dave Ammons respond with a helpful summary of the SOS position:
The Legislature has not repealed the old RCWs that were put in place for the old pick-a-party primary system, so many of the old definitions are still on the books. All three levels of federal courts (District Court, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and U.S. Supreme Court) have commented at some point in the 8 year litigation over the Top Two Primary system that Initiative 872 impliedly repealed the old party nomination procedures for the pick-a-party primary. The upshot is that we have adapted many procedures for the Top Two Primary in WAC.
WAC 434-208-130 define major and minor political parties. The relevant paragraphs of the WAC state:
(1) For purposes of RCW 29A.04.086, “major political party” means a political party whose nominees for president and vice-president received at least five percent of the total votes cast for that office at the last preceding presidential election. A political party that qualifies as a major political party retains such status until the next presidential election at which the presidential and vice-presidential nominees of that party do not receive at least five percent of the votes cast.
In other words, the SOS office is relying on a WAC that changes the RCW, under the argument that the RCW’s major/minor party definitions were implicitly “repealed” when the pick-a-party procedures were replaced for the top-two primary.
The argument might make sense, except for two things. First, the major/minor party definitions as they exist under RCW are a little awkward to deal with, but they are certainly not incompatible with a system that primarily has top two primaries (except for presidential elections). Therefore, an argument can (and will!) be made that the definitions were not implicitly repealed as suggested by the SOS office. And you cannot use the WAC to “override” the RCW.
The second point is that the legislature actually considered the issue in SB 5681. They had a chance to change the law to dovetail with the definitions in the WAC. And they declined to do so!
It is a fascinating problem! That said, I don’t relish the idea of Mitt Romney being kept off the ballot.
What I enjoy about this predicament is just how fucked up the Teabaggers have made things for the WSRP. In almost any other year, the Republicans would have had the clone-like unity to rally behind the “chosen” candidate. They would have proudly nominated him and, knowingly or not, maintained their legal eligibility as a major party under all definitions. But not in 2010.
This is why I always keep a good stock of popcorn in my pantry….
Update (11:45 pm): I modified the post to remove an extraneous quote that was accidentally left in the original. I clarified the language in a couple of spots, too.
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!