Lance Armstrong: Time for “Comprehensive” Health Care Reform

Lance Armstrong overcame testicular cancer to win the Tour de France seven consecutive times.  Writing for CNN.com, he advocates for “thoroughly comprehensive [health care] reform.”

Armstrong points out that he lacked health insurance when doctors diagnosed his disease.  Had he been an ordinary citizen, probably he would have died or ended up with crushing debt.  But one of his sponsors used their financial leverage to make their insurance carrier pick up Armstrong and pay for his treatment.  (He doesn’t identify the insurance company.)

Put plainly, the impact of diseases like cancer won’t subside with the recovery of economic markets. The threat they bring grows, minute by minute. Increasing investment now to combat that threat, even in the midst of a recession, will pay substantial dividends in the decades to come by driving down the costs of treatment and public assistance.

We must advocate for effective, high-quality and comprehensive health services. The issues are complex and deserve the most constructive debate leading to progress; not piecemeal changes, but thoroughly comprehensive reform.

To this day, my family and I remain on Oakley’s insurance plan. We are the lucky ones. We can’t allow luck to determine the fate of Americans’ health.

What do you think?

Do you think our current system is fine as it is, and should not be altered?  Do you believe we need reform but without government involvement (the “public option”)?  Do you believe we need a system that closely resembles that in a particular country? (Which one?)

Fox News vs. Barack Obama

The Obama White House has recently asserted that Fox News is the “communications arm of the Republican Party.”   Fox News and its supporters are appalled by this, pointing out among other things that Fox News offers both opinion and “hard” news in its programming, and that the two should be distinguished.

Media Matters has released this compilation of clips dating back to January illustrating the attitude of Fox News toward Barack Obama.  It appears to me the line between “opinion” and “news” is a bit blurry at Fox.  Watch it and decide for yourself:

What do you think?  Is Obama justified in mounting a counter-offensive?

I’m sure many of my readers support Fox News.  Don’t be afraid to speak up.  Fox News claims to be fair and balanced.  A Fox News advocate could support this assertion by showing the “balance” of all these attacks on Obama.  Can anyone put together a five minute compilation of clips where Fox News personalities compliment Obama and defend some of his policies?

Maurice Sendak to Worried Parents: “Go to Hell”

Not much you can say about this.

Telling the story of a naughty little boy, Max, who is sent to bed without his supper only to journey by boat to a land where wild monsters live, Sendak’s classic tale was first published in 1963 and has captured children’s imaginations ever since. With a film version adapted by Dave Eggers and Spike Jonze out later this year, Sendak told this week’s edition of Newsweek that he would “not tolerate” parental concerns about the book being too scary.

“I would tell them to go to hell,” Sendak said. And if children can’t handle the story, they should “go home,” he added. “Or wet your pants. Do whatever you like. But it’s not a question that can be answered.”

I haven’t seen the film myself, but I do remember the book.  I also remember Little Bear, a wonderful TV show based on stories by Else Holmelunk Minarik and illustrations by Sendak.

December 21, 2012: The End of the World

As I’m sure everyone knows, planet Earth will explode on December 21, 2012, a fact somehow revealed by an obscure calendar system invented by mesoamericans many centuries ago.

Relative to our calendar, the Mayan Long Count Calendar started on August 11, 3114 BCE.  Like a car’s odometer rolling over to all zeros, the calendar runs out on December 21, 2012.  The result: the end of the world.  There’s even a new movie about this.

Yes, people actually believe this nonsense.  But that’s no surprise, given all the end of the world predictions we’ve endured over the centuries.  James Randi has a list of 44 such failed prophecies.  It might make you feel better to read it, if you’re worried about there being any truth to the 12/21/12 absurdity.

Civil Gideon

Stephen Schwinn at Constitutional Law Prof Blog writes about the effort to recognize a Constitutional right to counsel in civil cases involving basic human needs.

The issue may come to the Supreme Court this term.  Earlier this month, in a highly unusual move, the Court asked the Texas Solicitor General for views at the cert. stage on Rhine v. Deaton, a civil right to counsel case involving a Texas mother’s private custody dispute with temporary foster parents.  See more here and here.  The Court has not previously recognized a categorical right to counsel under the federal Constitution; instead, it created a barrier to such a right under Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process in Lassiter v. Department of Social Services.

When Is It Legal to be Naked?

At Outside the Beltway, James Joyner writes about the remarkable story of Eric Williamson.  Williamson, who lives in Springfield, VA, was arrested for being naked . . . in his home.  In the original version of the story, provided by Williams, he was in his kitchen at 5:30 AM making coffee, when a woman and her seven-year-old child spied him from his front yard.  Initially, Williamson’s arrest appeared to be an absurd abuse of the state’s power to control behavior.  After all, if a man’s home is his castle, surely he’s allowed to walk around in it with no clothes.

But it turns out truth is a bit different . . . Williamson was observed at 8:40 AM, not 5:30 AM, and may have made an effort to expose himself to the woman and her child.  Follow the link for more info.

Heading into Fall Break

Fall Break begins at my school this weekend, and at schools all across the nation.  And just in time for it, there’s a lot to grab your attention.

• Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize.  Lots of reaction of course, such as this artice at Time.com.  And this from John McCain.
• Something for Obama to think about: Army chaplians say troops in Afghanistan are losing heart.
• The Autumn Leaves Festival is this weekend in my hometown.
• Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, recently asserted that Obama’s health care proposals will accomplish “precisely what the Nazis did.”  That makes sense, though, given that Obama is the Antichrist.
• The MLB postseason is in full swing.  Yankees are up 1-0.
• Terrific cycling blog: 6 Years in a Rain Cape.  Joe Parkin lived the dream in Belgium, and now he’s writing about it and answering reader questions.
• What happens to you if you don’t commit a crime in the U.S.?  You get probation, a fine, and financial ruin.
• At Cato, Jim Harper writes about the Deliberative Process, a novel concept: our representatives would actually know what they’re voting on (and so would we).
• We elect a governor in Virginia next month.  Republican Bob McDonnel leads Democrat Creigh Deeds in the latest polls.

Weekly Standard Cheers Chicago’s Loss in Olympic Bid

Check this out:

This was the blog post at the Weekly Standard’s web site this afternoon.  It’s since been changed.

This is a perfect example of putting the Party’s interests ahead of the nation’s.  It appears the people who work for the Weekly Standard, especially John McCormack, are Republicans first, and Americans second.

H/T: Think Progress.

Bush White House: Harry Potter Encouraged Witchcraft

Turns out J. K. Rowling was put up for a Presidential Medal of Freedom, but Bush rejected the idea because the Harry Potter series “encouraged witchcraft.”  This comes from Matt Latimer’s book, Speechless: Tales of a White House Survivor.

Jonathon Turley writes more about it at this link.  Turley goes on to observe:

What is particularly strange is that Bush seemed to live within a fantasy world of his own, albeit a biblically inspired fantasy. He reportedly told French President Chirac how the Iraq war was the foretold final struggle between Gog and Magog, here.

I don’t know why Turley calls Bush’s belief system “strange.”  It’s rather common among religious conservatives in the United States.  Bush was elected twice after all, and I suspect very few of his supporters would be surprised or concerned about his approach to the Bible vis-a-vis domestic and international policy.  In fact, I think many knew exactly what they were getting when they voted for him.  (If voters didn’t know about Bush’s religious convictions, shame on them.  It should have been obvious from the beginning of his first campaign that his political ideology was driven by a strongly-conservative approach to Christianity.  At least that’s the image he presented. )

If Turley means that Bush’s beliefs lie outside the range of his experience, he needs to get out more.  A massive number of U. S. citizens read the Bible as God’s direct word for modern man, and see in its pages prescriptions for virtually every problem ailing modern society.  And they vote.  Is this news to Turley?

As for Harry Potter encouraging witchcraft, what can one say? Bush and others who are concerned about witchcraft obviously view the world from an entirely different reference frame than the rest of us.  To me, this is like worrying about whether my daughters will defect to the Klingon Empire if they get wrapped up in Star Trek.  After all, more than a few Star Trek fans like the Klingons.  The central point of course is that Klingon Empire does not exist.  Neither do the fantastic elements of Rowling’s Harry Potter universe.  Nevertheless, for fundamentalists, Harry Potter makes reference to a world that indeed has an objective existence beyond the pages of Rowling’s books.  That central point of disagreement must be addressed at the outset, and common points of agreement must be identified, if there is to be any meaningful conservation on this subject.  How to proceed from here is anyone’s guess.

Jon Kyl: “I Don’t Need Maternity Care”

At the Senate Finance Committee meetings this week, Jon Kyl, junior Republican senator from Arizona, offered an amendment to prohibit the government from specifying which benefits should be included in a standard package.  One of the end results, had the amendment passed, is that employers would not be required to provide maternity care benefits.

“I don’t need maternity care,” Kyl said. “So requiring that on my insurance policy is something that I don’t need and will make the policy more expensive.”

Here is what Debbie Stabenow (D-Mi) said:  “I think your mom probably did.”

Watch it here:

Stabenow’s rebuke was a sweet as any mother could deliver.  Good for her.  I would’ve called Kyl a Douchebag-Jackass.

But Kyl is by no means alone in his thinking.  Although the amendment failed, it received nine votes out of 23.  And note that few individual health insurance plans cover maternity costs.

Follow this link for more information.