The Death Penalty

.
In the news is the impending execution of the main DC sniper.

Now, this "wild-eyed liberal" used to be a firm believer in the death penalty: some people are just too mean to be allowed to live. "Kill 'em." that was my attitude.

Since we no longer live in communities of such isolation that we can expel those sufficiently anti-social people who refuse to comply with the general rules of the community, I used to feel the death penalty was an acceptable solution. The Amish--and others--still practice shunning. So what are we to do?

I had an epiphany. The moment I became convinced the death penalty was a bad idea. I changed my mind in an instant. It was before the extensive exposures of the Innocence Project (although, their work has added to my certainty that the death penalty should be discarded). My insight came when Timothy McVeigh stated that he wanted to receive the death penalty.

At the place in time when I heard that, I knew with sudden and complete clarity that he should be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. No quick, easy out for someone who had killed and maimed that many children. He should be kept alive for a very long, long time. Alive, in a cell where photos of the mangled bodies of his victims are displayed for him to view. (I guess I can be a very vengeful person.)

Anyway, a life sentence: give those that are guilty a good long time to consider their sins; give those that are wrongfully convicted time to have their innocence proved.

Change the laws. Abolish the death penalty.
.

HR 3962 As Passed

.
I was going to get on my soap box and rant about HR 3962 as it passed the House on Saturday night. But I was having a great deal of trouble being even marginally coherent. Then I read this by Rep. Dennis Kucinich. 'Bout it in a nutshell. (All emphasis is mine.) So, just in case you missed it, for your reading pleasure, Rep Kucinich will explain--succinctly.

We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system.

Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick.

But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies—a bailout under a blue cross.

By incurring only a new requirement to cover pre-existing conditions, a weakened public option, and a few other important but limited concessions, the health insurance companies are getting quite a deal. The Center for American Progress’ blog, Think Progress, states, “since the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option, health insurance stocks have been on the rise.” Similarly, healthcare stocks rallied when Senator Max Baucus introduced a bill without a public option. Bloomberg reports that Curtis Lane, a prominent health industry investor, predicted a few weeks ago that “money will start flowing in again” to health insurance stocks after passage of the legislation. Investors.com last month reported that pharmacy benefit managers share prices are hitting all-time highs, with the only industry worry that the Administration would reverse its decision not to negotiate Medicare Part D drug prices, leaving in place a Bush Administration policy.

During the debate, when the interests of insurance companies would have been effectively challenged, that challenge was turned back. The “robust public option” which would have offered a modicum of competition to a monopolistic industry was whittled down from an initial potential enrollment of 129 million Americans to 6 million. An amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue single-payer health care was stripped from the bill at the request of the Administration. Looking ahead, we cringe at the prospect of even greater favors for insurance companies.

Recent rises in unemployment indicate a widening separation between the finance economy and the real economy. The finance economy considers the health of Wall Street, rising corporate profits, and banks’ hoarding of cash, much of it from taxpayers, as sign of an economic recovery. However in the real economy—in which most Americans live—the recession is not over. Rising unemployment, business failures, bankruptcies and foreclosures are still hammering Main Street.

This health care bill continues the redistribution of wealth to Wall Street at the expense of America’s manufacturing and service economies which suffer from costs other countries do not have to bear, especially the cost of health care. America continues to stand out among all industrialized nations for its privatized health care system. As a result, we are less competitive in steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping while other countries subsidize their exports in these areas through socializing the cost of health care.

Notwithstanding the fate of H.R. 3962, America will someday come to recognize the broad social and economic benefits of a not-for-profit, single-payer health care system, which is good for the American people and good for America’s businesses, with of course the notable exceptions being insurance and pharmaceuticals.

Medicare for All

Single payer is really the only way to go. Let's all hope that after the Senate works their "magic" and the reconciliation committee weaves the 2 bills together, we get a better bill than this gift to the health insurance lobby. I am really beginning to think ugly words.

.

More Wind Power

.
And, now, my gentle snowflakes, if you need less urban and more rural appearance to your wind turbine, and if you still want really high efficiency, then try the RSI turbines. They look just like old-time, in your grand-dad's pasture, windmills.

Isn't that great?

You watch it turn, not hear it turn!
Power blade speeds mean much lower noise (one of the leading complaints of three-blade systems). Also, higher speed means higher friction (and therefore higher wear and maintenance concerns). The WindGen's lower rotation speed means a unit that is more dependable with much lower maintenance and one that is actually pleasing to live with!

Dependable and Reliable
The WindGen’s use of induction generators is well proven worldwide to be more dependable and reliable. In fact this technology is well-established and is commonly used in most of the larger wind farm turbines. Other small turbines use Permanent Magnets and small inverters.

“ON the Grid”, or “Off the Grid” WindGen is both!
The standard unit connects directly to the power grid, but the owner has many options. The WindGen inverter is oversized to handle large wind change events, which are common. Other small turbines that are grid-tie only, have a very small inverters. With WindGen the user can also add battery banks for going “off the grid” or just for more backup power (this option is built into the standard unit so you can add later). Also, the WindGen can be used with other forms of backup power, like Solar or any type of gen/set.

High Wind? No problem!
All other wind units have to shut down to protect their rotor glass blades and gear boxes from runaway(which in high winds can result in thrown blades or falling towers). The WindGen system has been thoroughly tested, and we stand behind our units. We know that rotor runaway is not an option. The WindGen uses proven “windmill design” but still keeps producing power, even in high wind when others have to shut down.

And another really, great thing about RSI? It is an an American company located in the "heartland"--south central Kansas.

I just doesn't get much more American than that.

Rooftop Wind Turbines

.
Oh, boy, advances in rooftop wind turbines. I just had a steel roof installed with a vented ridge. This should be very easy to retro-fit when it becomes financially reasonable.

I wrote about using something like this back in February 2009. I can't tell you how encouraged I am to see that advances are continuing to be made!

>Posted at Inhabitat by Ariel Schwartz, 10/26/09

Rooftop solar panels are unlikely to elicit complaints from neighbors–they’re silent and relatively unobtrusive. But loud rooftop wind turbines? That’s where the virtually NIMBY-proof Ridgeblade turbine comes in. The turbine, designed by a former Rolls Royce turbine engineer at UK-based The Power Collective, boasts a sleek profile that is both powerful and visually pleasing.

Instead of creating a free-standing turbine that sticks out for all the neighbors to see, The Power Collective designed its long-bladed turbine to fit in along the ridge of a roof, where wind currents are strongest. The Ridgeblade packs a powerful punch, too — it has the wind-capturing potential of a medium sized turbine.

The turbine isn’t yet on the market. . . No word on how much the turbine will cost when it is finally released, but your neighbors’ peace of mind might just be worth the extra cost!

Via Cleantechnica

Hang in there, my gentle snowflakes, it will all yet come together.

A Man of the People. Really?

Source: Houston Chronicle, October 17, 2009

Dick Armey, who was the Republican Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives between 1995 to 2002, has been doing well for himself as the Chairman of FreedomWorks, a conservative lobby group. Meredith Simons reports that, according to the group's tax filings for 2008, Armey was paid $550,000. “I don't apologize for my paycheck. I'd like to think I'm worth it," he said. FreedomWorks has been one of the leading groups opposing proposals for healthcare reform. Up until August, Armey had also been a consultant for the Washington D.C. lobbying firm, DLA Piper. He resigned following controversy over his role with Freedomworks as well as with a lobbying firm which represented, among other clients, drug companies supporting health care reform and companies opposing tough action on global warming. Armey told Simons that resigning from the lobbying firm "cost me $750,000 a year for the next 10 years. That's not an easy thing to walk away from.”

Rethinking Solar Power

.
I have been wanting to get rid of the vertical blinds. But maybe they can be retro-fitted?

This is pretty neat.

Illuminating Solar Blinds Turn the Lights On

by Haily Zaki, 11/20/08

What do you get when you take an average vertical blind (the kind found in practically any rental apartment across the United States), outfit it with special mini photovoltaics and LED pixels, then add a healthy dose of creative inspiration? The surprisingly chic and witty Solar Vertical Lamp designed by Yoon-Hui Kim and Eun-Kyung Kim. By creatively applying existing technology, Kim and Kim transform the lowly blind into a sustainable, sexy, and dramatic lighting system. Finally, a blind that has truly seen the light.

The two-dimensional lamps are brilliant in their simplicity. During the day, miniature solar pads soak up the sun’s energy. At night, artfully placed lighting pixels (similar to those used on billboards) illuminate. Simply close the blinds to ‘turn on’ your lights. These smart lights come in table lamp, floor lamp, and chandelier forms that add dramatic ambiance to any room in the house. Besides being completely energy-efficient and saving you tons of money on your monthly bill, you never have to dust them!

Via Yanko Design

I particularly like the "no dusting" feature. Maybe the whole panel could be made to "glow"--kind of like a fantastic night light.
.

medicare for all

.
I promise, even I am getting tired of this subject. So, just once more, with feeling.

We really need HEALTH CARE for everyone in this country. And we need it now.

We need it because this is a fight against death. Not the death that comes for the old and hurting, as a welcome friend. But the death that lurches in and plucks the 11 year old boy suffering with nothing more than an abscessed tooth that will not be treated because the dentist does not "take" medicaid patients; the death that snatches the 17 year old girl who needs a kidney transplant that has been denied by some nameless, faceless insurance clerk. We need it because HEALTH CARE fights for life: the life of each and every citizen that wants it and can hold it.

This is how it should work:

Build a national care system by expanding on the existing Medicare program... This restructuring would involve gradual changes in the age of eligibility for the Medicare system...

(1) Enroll children under 5 years of age, pregnant women and those with lifelong illnesses by the end of 2010.

(2)In 2011, those between 55 and 65 would be enrolled...

(3)In 2012 those from 5 to 15 and those from 45 to 55 would be included.

(4)Those between 15 and 25 as well as those from 40 to 45 would be added in 2013.

(5)Finally, by the end of 2014, by adding the remaining population between 25 and 40 the entire U.S. population would be covered...

There would be Medicare for all in a single-payer system. There would be no limitations based on pre-existing conditions... The changes proposed under the Medicare Expansion program would be relatively easy to make from an administrative standpoint since age is easily verified and the basic system is in place and functioning... [from "Health Care Reform by Medicare Expansion" by Eric W. Fonkalsrud, M.D., and Michael D. Intriligator, Ph.D.]

The medicare rate (of withholding and self-employment tax) could be increased--and adjusted for dependents--to help cover the costs. Any subsidies for low wage earners could be given back through expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit--which can, even now, be received as an advance against withholding for wage earners.

And we have to get a handle on the cost of Medicare fee-for-service, as it is now practiced, in which doctors and hospitals are paid for each suture, fancy diagnostic test and pat on the arm.

We need salaried doctors, too. I know, catch your breath, breathe. Yes, this is socialized medicine. But there ain't no such thing as a "free market" in medical care. There is a free market in food. You can eat beans instead of dining at Emeril's. But you can't tell the surgeon, "No thanks, I can't afford a triple by-pass today. I'll just have this wart removed."

So, we change the way we train doctors. We--the government (that's you and me, my gentle snowflakes) pay for the full cost of the medical education of the young doctors-to-be. And then we treat them as humans during internship. (Not, as in the current system, where interns are virtual medi-slaves.) And then, in return for the public paying for their medical education, each young doctor pledges a ten-year commitment to work for the new Medicare For All system at a reasonable salary. (Sure wish I could take credit for this idea, but I stole it whole-hog from Ted Kennedy! ) Similar arrangements should be made for all other health professionals.

Now, what about the cost of medications? Medicare Part D must be changed to allow for negotiations between Medicare (that's the Government--remember, you and me, my gentle snowflakes) and big Pharma over the price paid for drugs.

After all this, if for no other reason than the utter terror that the Government--you and me--will nationalize them, the hospitals will get in line and support Medicare for All.

Costs will be controlled, contained, made manageable.

There it is: Let the CBO score that!

.