Do they know?

In 2004 during the Democratic Convention, I found myself at the home of a diehard FoxNews watcher. There was no possibility of watching the convention on another channel.

I really wanted to see the speakers, to follow what the Democratic party was presenting to the country in what seemed to me to be a critical election. The war, the war, the war. That was my primary reason for becoming active in the election - registering voters, going door to door, stuffing envelopes (literally), making calls, whatever I, a total novice at political engagement could find to do. The Iraq war, in my mind was a disaster. Thousands of American members of our military were dying, thousands more coming home with missing limbs, traumatic brain injuries, PTSD.

Someone I knew was a member of the National Guard and was deployed as a medic. Three times the vehicle he was riding in was blown up by an IED, all three times there were severe injuries, in one attack, a soldier in the vehicle was killed.

National Guard: Service in the War on Terror

Meanwhile, my friend's wife struggled at home trying to keep their four children on track, to deal with their worries and nightmares about whether they would see their father again or if he too would be killed. She found taking care of everything that goes into daily life in a family of four children aged five to fourteen by herself was a lot harder than she thought it was going to be. "I'll never again complain that he's not doing enough to help," she told me. "I realize every day how much he was contributing, now that he's not here."

When he came home, it was a struggle for everyone. He spent hours every day jogging. Friends remarked that he seemed to show little emotion, that he was changed from the outgoing, friendly person they had always known. He was distant. The children, who had always impressed me as some to the nicest, most interesting, and most well-behaved children I had ever known, started struggling.

After he had been home for about six months, his wife finally managed to to convince him to go to Ft Hood to be evaluated for PTSD. He had PTSD. Treatment helped.

But it would always be there. He had been changed. His children and his wife had a hole in their lives - the time in their lives when he should have been home, at the supper table, goofing around with the kids, sleeping next to his wife at night.

And for what? Because Saddam Hussein was a bad guy? Seriously? Even George Bush said Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11, seemed insulted when a reporter asked a question that implied that Bush had said so at some point. Iraq was the only country in the Middle East where Al Qaida was not active - Saddam and Bin Laden were archenemies. Bin Laden thought Saddam was a heretic who had betrayed Islam, Saddam thought Bin Laden was a religious fanatic who posed a threat to his dictatorship.

So why? Why did my friend and his family and thousands of American service people pay the price they paid? For what? I swear, I still have not heard a good answer to that.

And what about the Iraqi people. Millions of people who simply got up every morning, got their kids ready for school, went to work, came home and cooked supper . . . just like people all over the world, but trying to do it while dealing with shortages and poverty caused by sanctions, with the daily anxiety that must be a fact of life when living under a dictatorship, and then, suddenly bombs are falling all around them, on their homes, on their children.

Excerpts from Iraq, the Human Cost

• The Iraq Ministry of Health at the same time as the second Hopkins study, found 400,000 excess deaths, 151,000 by violence.

• The number of displaced persons, both internal (within Iraq) and external (refugees, mainly in Jordan and Syria) ranged from estimates of 3.5 million to 5 million or more, which were directly attributable to the war. According UNHCR, the UN refugee agency, the total number of internally displaced equals more than 1.3 million, and the number of refugees exceeds 1.4 million. 

• Health-related impacts on children in Iraq, from the Brussels Tribunal and Global Research, Canada, describes the broad effects on children, including birth defects, cancer, inadequate nutrition . . .

• "Within less than a decade, the occurrence of congenital birth defects increased by an astonishing 17-fold."

And for what? For what? Why?

How could any of us sit idly by and do nothing to stop this insane destruction? The destruction of bodies, of minds, of families, of our own military and of ordinary people in Iraq? 

I wanted to hear how the Democrats were going to stop this insanity. How were they making the case to the country, to the voters, that the insanity must stop?

But where I was, I couldn't see any of that. The speakers were tiny and far away in the background. You could see someone was speaking, but there was no audio of what they were saying. In the foreground was Bill O'Reilly and a couple of others like he him he was talking to, and all they talked about was that Teresa Heinz Kerry had said, "Shove it" to a reporter before the convention began. 

Here's what they were talking about:

 Cable news networks obsess over Teresa Heinz Kerry comment

On July 26, the cable news networks devoted extensive air time to Teresa Heinz Kerry's exchange with an employee of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, a conservative daily newspaper owned by Richard Mellon Scaife (known as the “Funding Father of the Right” ), who paid for the controversial anti-Clinton Arkansas Project.

That's all FoxNews viewers could see or hear about the Democratic Convention.

This is what they didn't hear: From the LA Times

“When we send our young men and women into harm’s way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they’re going,” Obama said. “And to never -- ever -- go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace and earn the respect of the world.”

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, one of the administration’s most vociferous critics, called the war “misguided,” and said that “instead of making America more secure,” the administration’s politics “have made us less so.”

And so, as Trump's trial in the Senate is now underway, I listened to FoxNews in the midst of it and I heard nothing about what happened in Ukraine. Nothing about the testimony of the members of our Foreign Service, of our State Department.

Only jokes and ridicule of Nancy Pelosi's and Adam Schiff's appearance and mannerisms. Over and over again, "ridiculous witch hunt," "Trump did nothing wrong," "Democrats just hate him because liberals are haters, that's the main thing that motivates them, that's all they've got, hatred. Hatred of America and everything it stands for." And on and on. Just that.

So when I see

I think, well of course not. Everything that the rest of us - those who learn about what is happening in the world from a variety of sources, not just FoxNews - know about this whole sordid story, Republicans, including Republican Senators apparently, don't know anything about it. 

We read the news articles, watched or listened to the testimony . . . they didn't.

As always, it's critically important to FoxNews that their viewers don't see for themselves and make up their on minds. They must only know what FoxNews tells them, and that is going to be very little.

Fox News Really Doesn’t Want You to Tune Into Trump’s Impeachment Trial

“It was unbelievably boring. I don’t know how people can follow it.”

That same strategy appears to be playing out on Fox News, which went to great lengths to convince viewers that the trial wasn't worth their attention. 

"Unbelievably boring" is how Fox & Friends Steve Doocy described the first day. "we watched it so you don't have to watch the entire thing," Pete Hegseth told viewers. 

As warranted, we will dip in and out, but we're not going to torture you," Hannity said. He then paused to highlight Trump's lawyers, whose performances Hannity praised ad "excellent."

So as I watch the Senate trial and I hear Republicans still saying this is just a witch hunt, that Trump did nothing wrong, and I think, how on earth can they say that? Don't they know what he did?

And the answer is . . .

No. They don't.

Impeachment Manager Hakeem Jeffries:



And now you know.

What did the founders mean by "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"?

The Federalist Papers : No. 65   HAMILTON

Friday, March 7, 1788 The Powers of the Senate Continued

To the People of the State of New York: 

THE remaining powers which the plan of the convention allots to the Senate, in a distinct capacity, are comprised in their participation with the executive in the appointment to offices, and in their judicial character as a court for the trial of impeachments. As in the business of appointments the executive will be the principal agent, the provisions relating to it will most properly be discussed in the examination of that department. We will, therefore, conclude this head with a view of the judicial character of the Senate. 

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. 

The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt. 

The delicacy and magnitude of a trust which so deeply concerns the political reputation and existence of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs, speak for themselves. The difficulty of placing it rightly, in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny. 

The convention, it appears, thought the Senate the most fit depositary of this important trust. Those who can best discern the intrinsic difficulty of the thing, will be least hasty in condemning that opinion, and will be most inclined to allow due weight to the arguments which may be supposed to have produced it. 

What, it may be asked, is the true spirit of the institution itself? Is it not designed as a method of NATIONAL INQUEST into the conduct of public men? If this be the design of it, who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves? It is not disputed that the power of originating the inquiry, or, in other words, of preferring the impeachment, ought to be lodged in the hands of one branch of the legislative body. Will not the reasons which indicate the propriety of this arrangement strongly plead for an admission of the other branch of that body to a share of the inquiry? The model from which the idea of this institution has been borrowed, pointed out that course to the convention. In Great Britain it is the province of the House of Commons to prefer the impeachment, and of the House of Lords to decide upon it. Several of the State constitutions have followed the example. As well the latter, as the former, seem to have regarded the practice of impeachments as a bridle in the hands of the legislative body upon the executive servants of the government. Is not this the true light in which it ought to be regarded? 

Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS? 

Could the Supreme Court have been relied upon as answering this description? It is much to be doubted, whether the members of that tribunal would at all times be endowed with so eminent a portion of fortitude, as would be called for in the execution of so difficult a task; and it is still more to be doubted, whether they would possess the degree of credit and authority, which might, on certain occasions, be indispensable towards reconciling the people to a decision that should happen to clash with an accusation brought by their immediate representatives. A deficiency in the first, would be fatal to the accused; in the last, dangerous to the public tranquillity. The hazard in both these respects, could only be avoided, if at all, by rendering that tribunal more numerous than would consist with a reasonable attention to economy. 

The necessity of a numerous court for the trial of impeachments, is equally dictated by the nature of the proceeding. This can never be tied down by such strict rules, either in the delineation of the offense by the prosecutors, or in the construction of it by the judges, as in common cases serve to limit the discretion of courts in favor of personal security. There will be no jury to stand between the judges who are to pronounce the sentence of the law, and the party who is to receive or suffer it. The awful discretion which a court of impeachments must necessarily have, to doom to honor or to infamy the most confidential and the most distinguished characters of the community, forbids the commitment of the trust to a small number of persons. 

These considerations seem alone sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that the Supreme Court would have been an improper substitute for the Senate, as a court of impeachments. There remains a further consideration, which will not a little strengthen this conclusion. It is this: The punishment which may be the consequence of conviction upon impeachment, is not to terminate the chastisement of the offender. After having been sentenced to a prepetual ostracism from the esteem and confidence, and honors and emoluments of his country, he will still be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. Would it be proper that the persons who had disposed of his fame, and his most valuable rights as a citizen in one trial, should, in another trial, for the same offense, be also the disposers of his life and his fortune? Would there not be the greatest reason to apprehend, that error, in the first sentence, would be the parent of error in the second sentence? That the strong bias of one decision would be apt to overrule the influence of any new lights which might be brought to vary the complexion of another decision? 

Those who know anything of human nature, will not hesitate to answer these questions in the affirmative; and will be at no loss to perceive, that by making the same persons judges in both cases, those who might happen to be the objects of prosecution would, in a great measure, be deprived of the double security intended them by a double trial. The loss of life and estate would often be virtually included in a sentence which, in its terms, imported nothing more than dismission from a present, and disqualification for a future, office. It may be said, that the intervention of a jury, in the second instance, would obviate the danger. But juries are frequently influenced by the opinions of judges. They are sometimes induced to find special verdicts, which refer the main question to the decision of the court. Who would be willing to stake his life and his estate upon the verdict of a jury acting under the auspices of judges who had predetermined his guilt? 

Would it have been an improvement of the plan, to have united the Supreme Court with the Senate, in the formation of the court of impeachments? This union would certainly have been attended with several advantages; but would they not have been overbalanced by the signal disadvantage, already stated, arising from the agency of the same judges in the double prosecution to which the offender would be liable? To a certain extent, the benefits of that union will be obtained from making the chief justice of the Supreme Court the president of the court of impeachments, as is proposed to be done in the plan of the convention; while the inconveniences of an entire incorporation of the former into the latter will be substantially avoided. This was perhaps the prudent mean. I forbear to remark upon the additional pretext for clamor against the judiciary, which so considerable an augmentation of its authority would have afforded. 

Would it have been desirable to have composed the court for the trial of impeachments, of persons wholly distinct from the other departments of the government? There are weighty arguments, as well against, as in favor of, such a plan. To some minds it will not appear a trivial objection, that it could tend to increase the complexity of the political machine, and to add a new spring to the government, the utility of which would at best be questionable. But an objection which will not be thought by any unworthy of attention, is this: a court formed upon such a plan, would either be attended with a heavy expense, or might in practice be subject to a variety of casualties and inconveniences. It must either consist of permanent officers, stationary at the seat of government, and of course entitled to fixed and regular stipends, or of certain officers of the State governments to be called upon whenever an impeachment was actually depending. It will not be easy to imagine any third mode materially different, which could rationally be proposed. As the court, for reasons already given, ought to be numerous, the first scheme will be reprobated by every man who can compare the extent of the public wants with the means of supplying them. The second will be espoused with caution by those who will seriously consider the difficulty of collecting men dispersed over the whole Union; the injury to the innocent, from the procrastinated determination of the charges which might be brought against them; the advantage to the guilty, from the opportunities which delay would afford to intrigue and corruption; and in some cases the detriment to the State, from the prolonged inaction of men whose firm and faithful execution of their duty might have exposed them to the persecution of an intemperate or designing majority in the House of Representatives. Though this latter supposition may seem harsh, and might not be likely often to be verified, yet it ought not to be forgotten that the demon of faction will, at certain seasons, extend his sceptre over all numerous bodies of men. 

But though one or the other of the substitutes which have been examined, or some other that might be devised, should be thought preferable to the plan in this respect, reported by the convention, it will not follow that the Constitution ought for this reason to be rejected. If mankind were to resolve to agree in no institution of government, until every part of it had been adjusted to the most exact standard of perfection, society would soon become a general scene of anarchy, and the world a desert. Where is the standard of perfection to be found? Who will undertake to unite the discordant opinions of a whole commuity, in the same judgment of it; and to prevail upon one conceited projector to renounce his INFALLIBLE criterion for the FALLIBLE criterion of his more CONCEITED NEIGHBOR? To answer the purpose of the adversaries of the Constitution, they ought to prove, not merely that particular provisions in it are not the best which might have been imagined, but that the plan upon the whole is bad and pernicious. 

PUBLIUS. 

Avoiding GMOs isn’t just anti-science. It’s immoral.

Avoiding GMOs isn’t just anti-science. It’s immoral.

Great deals on Obamacare for 2018

Are you shopping for Obamacare? There are some incredible deals this time and you could very likely be paying less than you were last year. 

Important disclaimer: Actual policies vary by location so no promises, but MANY people are getting more coverage and/or paying less than last year, so it pays to shop carefully.

This year is pretty weird because of Trump’s cancellation of the Cost Sharing Reduction payments to insurance companies. His goal was to sabotage Obamacare in hopes that it would implode or something but as usual, he didn’t think it through and it’s pretty much backfired. Enrollments are up 79%.

Here’s what I’ve learned and how it works:

If you make between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level and buy an insurance plan on the Affordable Care Act marketplace, the amount you pay each month as a premium is a percentage of your income, not the amount the insurance company has set as the premium for that policy.

For example, if your income last year was $35,000 and you are a single mom with 2 kids, you will pay 5.02% of your income as a health insurance premium. That comes to $146 per month. The rest of the premium is paid for as a premium subsidy by the federal government. (Actually, it’s a tax credit paid in advance to the insurance company on your behalf, but whatever. Call it a subsidy, it’s easier.)

Bottom line, if the insurance company set the premium for the policy you chose last year at $500 per month, you sent them $146 every month and the subsidy paid the $354 difference.

Suppose you're now shopping for 2018. Your income hasn’t changed – it’s still $35,000. But your insurance company is raising the premium to $900/mo. Holy cow! What do I do now? Answer: Send them $146/mo, same as last year. It’s still 5.02% of your income. What’s changed is that your subsidy is now $754 instead of $354. Thing is, you never saw that subsidy anyway, so from your point of view, nothing’s changed.

So if you are in the income range that qualifies for a premium subsidy and you hear that your premiums are going way up this year, tune it out. Your premium is a percentage of your income, period. It doesn’t affect you. It affects the federal government which has to come up with more subsidy to cover the rest of your premium, but you pay the same as you did before.

What makes this year weird is the change in the Cost Sharing Reduction (CSR). What is that? Well, if you make between 100% and 250% of poverty level, AND YOU SIGN UP FOR A SILVER PLAN, (that part is key – hence the caps) you get some extra help to lower your deductible and co-pays. Your total out of pocket costs for the year are capped. For example, if you are that single mom with two kids making $35,000/yr, your out of pocket costs for the year cannot exceed $2450, even though someone not eligible for CSR may be paying a much higher deductible and co-pays.  The insurance company has to pay the difference between your cap and what someone who makes more money and who has to pay the full amount of deductible and co-pays would pay.

Note, this is paid for by the insurance company, not the federal government, and they are required by the ACA law to provide it, so they can’t weasel out of doing no matter what.

Since it’s a financial hit to the insurance companies to have to cover this for lower income enrollees, in the past the feds have reimbursed the insurance companies in the form of CSR payments to the insurance companies. But the law is unclear about whether the federal government is required to reimburse the insurance companies or not, and the matter is hung up in court at the moment. Under Obama, the decision was made to keep making the payments until the matter is decided.

Trump, however, decided that one of the ways he was going to sabotage Obamacare (along with cutting the sign-up time, firing most of the people that help with signing up (navigators), almost eliminating advertising to remind people when the sign up period is and how to sign up etc.) was the stop paying the CSR payment to the insurance companies.

But as usual, he didn’t think it through and it’s backfired.

Since the Cost Sharing Reduction is only available to people who sign up for a silver plan, the insurance companies responded by dramatically raising the premiums on their silver plans to cover the costs that they will now no longer be reimbursed for.

But the amount of PREMIUM subsidy you get is also tied to the cost of a silver plan. So remember, if the premium goes up, you pay the same but your subsidy increases. You can use that subsidy to buy any plan. So this year you may get a real windfall by switching to a bronze or gold plan, depending on whether you’re young and healthy and don’t expect to need much health care, or if you’re older and/or have other reasons to need a lot of doctor visits and prescription drugs. Maybe even a hospitalization.

If you qualify for CSR and high deductible or copays would be a financial disaster for you, stick with silver. You’ll pay the same as you always have no matter how high the insurance company sets their rates and you’ll have help with the deductible and copays.

But if you are young and healthy and your main goal is to pay as little as possible to have some kind of coverage in case random disaster strikes – or to avoid the penalty – you can sign up for a bronze plan for next to nothing because the subsidies are now so high. Or actually nothing – about half of enrollees can now get bronze coverage of $0 premium cost. That’s right, your premium would be $0. Our hypothetical single mom with 2 kids (who are on CHIP btw) who makes $35,000/yr can get a bronze plan for $22/mo.

On the other hand, consider the opposite situation. You’re older or have a chronic condition whose costs add up fast. You’ve had a silver plan in the past because that was what you could afford, but you really wished you could get a gold plan because it covers more.

If you don’t need the CSR because you have savings that can cover deductibles etc. or if you make between 250%-400% of poverty level and don’t qualify for CSR anyway, you may now be able to find a gold plan that you will pay a lower premium for next year than you paid for your silver plan this year. Why? Because, in the background, the higher premium for silver means a higher subsidy and you can apply that to any level plan, including gold.

Looks like quite a few people are going for the gold in 2018 The Gold Rush  (btw David Anderson writes – in the wonkiest way possible – about health insurance more or less daily. If you want to know more check out https://www.balloon-juice.com/category/mayhew-on-insurance/

More reading: 

 How premiums are changing in 2018 (from Kaiser)

Trump's Obamacare sabotage accidentally resulted in more free health plans

Here's how Affordable Care Act marketplaces are shaping up under Trump's watch (from Bloomberg) 

obamacarefacts.com

And of course, the mothership www.healthcare.gov

(Note: If you'd like to shop around before signing up or signing in, click on "$ See plans and prices - Preview Now"

You're not going to believe this

The original in comic form:
You're not going to believe what I'm about to tell you

This guy’s bank got a $1.4B bailout in 2008. Now GOP & Dem Senators want to roll back rules on his bank. That’s how DC works, & it stinks. pic.twitter.com/g6JVZnhns8

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) November 14, 2017

Austin March for Science - Earth Day 2017

Future scientist carefully examines dead bird. . . .

. . . pokes it with a stick.