desseMundo home

I’m hopelessly liberal, like Noam Chomsky-Ralph Nader liberal. And I often post my feelings about things on Facebook, much to the chagrin on 90% of my friends who are on the right. Here is a response I posted to a Las Vegas shooting that occurred a couple of days ago.

I was not trying to bait a response to my initial post; it was actually meant to be funny. Erin, my cousin, later responded to my diatribe by saying we shouldn’t argue over Facebook, which tells me I won. I think when someone comments, it’s fair game to comments back. I still feel like a jerk.

I came up with this about 15 minutes ago. We know that in Half Life 2: Episode 3 there will be a character that utilizes sign language. Valve has been very open about this, and it is one of the only pieces of information about the game that we know about. There has been some speculation about who this character will be, but I think it is quite obvious.

It will be Gordon Freeman.

Freeman, the protagonist, has been must throughout the Half Life series, and all along the way, he has never said a single word. Maybe this is no mistake. I think it was a conscious decision on Valve’s part to have Gordon be a mute, and possibly deaf (if he wasn’t at the beginning of the series, the point blank grenades probably induced it). The sign language will finally be Gordon’s way of speaking. Maybe Alex has learned it in the off time, she is as smart as Gordon and her father, so there is no doubt she could learn it very quickly. Maybe the player will have to signal for her during the coop portions of the new game.

Nevertheless, if the time we’ve waited for the game so far is any indication of the time we still have left, don’t expect my theory to be corroborated anytime soon.

Jean Schmidt,  my congresswoman, recently released this statement:

Washington, D.C. - The United States is home to the best doctors and hospitals in the world. We are blessed to be living in a country on the forefront of cutting-edge, life-saving technology and pharmaceuticals.  Unfortunately, the rapid advances in medical care and treatment that we have seen over the past few decades have come with a steep price tag.  Ever-increasing costs of medical coverage have left many Americans without access to the life-saving treatment many of us take for granted.
President Obama is correct when he says that the costs associated with our current health care system are unsustainable.  Too many Ohio families cannot afford health care coverage and too many Ohio employers are struggling to provide coverage for their employees.  As costs for coverage continue to climb, the quality of the coverage we have continues to decline.  Having insurance that doesn’t pay much is little comfort to those that rely on coverage when we need it.

There is broad support in Congress for reforms that will increase competition, make coverage more affordable for families and individuals, ensure coverage for pre-existing conditions, and allow individuals to retain their health care when changing jobs.  Unfortunately, the health care reform bill that Speaker Pelosi will bring to the House floor in the near future will actually increase the cost of health care coverage, mandates a government take over, force people out of their current coverage and lead to the loss of millions of jobs.

Under the Speaker’s plan, the Federal government would establish minimum coverage requirements for acceptable health plans.  Individuals will be required to be covered.  If you choose not to obtain coverage or can not afford coverage, you will be penalized 2.5% of your Modified Adjusted Gross Income.  Employers with a payroll exceeding $250,000 will be required to provide acceptable coverage to all of their employees.  Those who choose not to provide coverage or cannot afford to do so, will be penalized 8% of their payroll costs.  According to the non-partisan Lewin Group, these provisions will cause 114 million individuals to lose their current health coverage.

The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that all of the changes to our health care system will cost almost $1.3 trillion — at a minimum.  To pay these costs, the Speaker proposes to impose a surcharge on individuals earning more than $280,000.

Unfortunately, of taxpayers who file in the top income brackets, more than half are small businesses filing as individuals.  According to the National Association of Manufacturers, 68% of manufacturers file as individuals and they have an average payroll of $570,000.  Using a formula developed by President Obama’s own economic advisers, these tax increases will lead to the loss of 4.7 million jobs.

At a time when our economy is in the throes of a deep recession and Ohio’s unemployment rate has topped 11%, we should be working to increase employment and actually lower the costs of health care coverage.  This plan does the opposite.  In fact, in recent Congressional testimony, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office said that this plan would actually increase the costs of health care coverage as well as increase the federal budget deficit.

We can and must do better.  I stand ready to work with my democratic colleagues to improve our health care system.  Let’s start over and work in a bipartisan way to accomplish this important goal for the American people.

But, let us first agree to some core principles.  No one should be forced to accept worse coverage than they already have.  No one should be forced to change doctors.  Finally, we should all agree that the easiest way to help those that don’t have and desperately need coverage, is to reduce the cost of everyone’s coverage.

This message shows inadequate understanding of the bill, by someone who is going to be voting on it. I can forgive a constituent not understanding it. But for Schmidt to get it wrong is absolutely unforgivable. So I wrote her:

Congresswoman Schmidt,

This message is in response to your recent statement on the health care reform (http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/oh02_schmidt/healthcare1.html). Before you make such statements in the future, I suggest you make sure you have read the bill, because your understanding of the provisions is laughable.

Let’s look at a few of these misunderstandings, because if you’re going to try to shout down the bill, you ought to know what you’re talking about, right? These are really only concerning paragraph 4 of the statement, the rest of it is the same brand of rhetoric we got the pleasure of hearing a few years ago when you called John Murtha a coward.

1) ” If you choose not to obtain coverage or can not afford coverage, you will be penalized 2.5% of your Modified Adjusted Gross Income.”

- This statement is wrong. Yes, there is a 2.5% tax on your MAGI if you do not enroll, however there is also a waiver available for those individuals in times of hardship. And how many people do you think don’t have coverage, and don’t because they choose not to have it? Did you read this section, Congresswoman? I think you ought to, and while you’re at it, read the rest of the bill too. If you had, this next point would have been all too easy to avoid making.

- Look this up in Sec. 59b

2) “Employers with a payroll exceeding $250,000 will be required to provide acceptable coverage to all of their employees. Those who choose not to provide coverage or cannot afford to do so, will be penalized 8% of their payroll costs.”

- Again, you are either deliberately misleading your constituents, or haven’t read the bill. There is an opt out available to those workers who have their own coverage. Additionally, and possibly most embarrassing (for you, not me), small employers will not pay 8%. If you had read the bill, you would have seen the table detailing the percentages paid by small employers for failing to provide coverage: if your company has a payroll of up to $250k per year, you pay no fee. $250k – $300k, you pay 2% (just so you know 2% is not the same as 8%). $300k – $350k pays a 4% fee (again, not 8%). And $350k – $400k, 6%.

- Also note that this is payroll, not profits. Profits could be much higher, but those aren’t taken into account in this section.

- Sec 313

3) “According to the non-partisan Lewin Group, these provisions will cause 114 million individuals to lose their current health coverage.”

- The Lewin Group is almost certainly partisan when it comes to this issue, Congresswoman. They are owned by United Health Group, an HMO who made $81 Billion (and is making more) by doing what you yourself said HMOs do best: provide horribly inadequate, horribly expensive health care coverage to citizens, and reap the rewards every day. They have 81 billion reasons to say more than a third of the american population will lose coverage.

I am a college student who lives in your district and regularly votes in the elections, and I am ashamed that you would release such a statement with misleading information. Because it’s all about misleading isn’t it? Your party has become the party of the roadblock. That sort of has a nice ring to it doesn’t it? “Roadblock Republicans”? If you continue this trend, I will look forward to contributing to your defeat in the elections of 2010.

I look forward to hearing your response, and maybe even a retraction of that statement,
Ben Stockwell

Here’s hoping she reads it, she hasn’t ever gotten back to me before.

I do an Edith Bunker impression, among others.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

I like this call. I can feel myself hitting a stride and feeling really comfortable keeping in character now. Which might be in part because I do the voice about 60% of the time when I’m not on the radio, just to see people’s reaction.