All Hank, all the time.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Put aside who's in charge for a minute- what plan do you expect to be in effect? If they had a plan to evacuate NO "if the levees break in a major Hurricaine" I would want to know why they didn't get out and beef up the levees.

the page starts out by saying most problems are handled locally- and only major things are national- major things are less predictable and less the stuff for which you can plan.

You wouldn't count the destruction of New Orleans as "major"?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
DeLay intends to file an ethics complaint against McKinney.

PLF: we need an irony ruling.

You're shitting us, right? I couldn't find it in a quick google search, but then again I'm distracted today.


If he does, I think they should resolve it with a cage match between the two of them, possibly using chainsaws.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You're shitting us, right? I couldn't find it in a quick google search, but then again I'm distracted today.


If he does, I think they should resolve it with a cage match between the two of them, possibly using chainsaws.

I would support this - just stick one chainsaw in the cage (along with one mace, one spear, etc.), and see who gets there first.

But here's the source, As cited by wonkette .

[Replaced_Texan]

Anyone else fascinated by the legislation mandating the purchase of health insurance in the state?

Individuals who can afford private insurance will be penalized on their state income taxes if they do not purchase it. Government subsidies to private insurance plans will allow more of the working poor to buy insurance and will expand the number of children who are eligible for free coverage. Businesses with more than 10 workers that do not provide insurance will be assessed up to $295 per employee per year.

All told, the plan is expected to cover 515,000 uninsured people within three years, about 95 percent of the state's uninsured population, legislators said, leaving less than 1 percent of the population unprotected.

. . .

The Massachusetts bill creates a sliding scale of affordability ranging from people who can afford insurance outright to those who cannot afford it at all. About 215,000 people will be covered by allowing individuals and businesses with 50 or fewer employees to buy insurance with pretax dollars, and by giving insurance companies incentives to offer stripped-down plans at lower cost. Lower-cost basic plans will be available to people ages 19 to 26.

Subsidies for other private plans will be available for people with incomes at or below 300 percent of the poverty level. Children in those families will be eligible for free coverage through Medicaid, an expansion of the current system.

The Massachusetts bill was hammered out with proposals and input from state Democratic legislators; Mr. Romney, a Republican; Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a Democrat; insurers; academics; businesses; hospitals; and advocates for the poor, including religious leaders.

They were motivated in part by a threat by the federal government to eliminate $385 million in federal Medicaid money unless the state reduced the number of uninsured people. The state was supposed to have the bill completed by January, but state officials said they were confident that the federal government would approve of Tuesday's bill.

I'm still wading through the bill, but it looks pretty damned impressive.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Anyone else fascinated by the legislation mandating the purchase of health insurance in the state?

I'm still wading through the bill, but it looks pretty damned impressive.

Ty should be all over that.

I assume they know the demographics, but my initial reaction is that the people most likely not to buy insurance are also the least likely to be filing tax returns (not because they're evaders, but because they have low income).

That said, if, as the NY Times reported, the problem is well-paid young males, then this should solve that.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Dear Sidd: I believe I speak for all republicans here when i say we will not defend the actions of the Deputy Press Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security- get this- even though he is a Republican political appointee.

Should someone post about him, and then a follow up post moves in a different direction, this does not mean someone is trying to deflect the discussion.

Hank (helpful) Chinaski

Hank,

You really look much better as an elderly woman. Just a thought.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You wouldn't count the destruction of New Orleans as "major"?

sometimes when you're reading a post do you have mini-strokes so you black out for a line or two?

Hank (thoughtful and concerned) Chinaski

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Put aside who's in charge for a minute- what plan do you expect to be in effect? If they had a plan to evacuate NO "if the levees break in a major Hurricaine" I would want to know why they didn't get out and beef up the levees.

the page starts out by saying most problems are handled locally- and only major things are national- major things are less predictable and less the stuff for which you can plan.

Put aside who's in charge for a minute - do you really think it's acceptable for our national incident management system to be composed essentially of the following?

1. Organization
We should come up with some kind of organization to handle emergencies.
2. Communication.
People at different agencies and levels of government should be able to communicate. We should come up with a plan and some standards for how to do that.
3. Maybe we should come with some other stuff, too.

I'm not being critical here of New Orleans. I'm being critical of the fact that DHS hasn't put into place a working framework to deal with emergencies at all.

DHS and FEMA have had years to come up with a basic structure to use to handle emergencies, and the best they've come up with is "we should come up with something."

Here's what I want to see:
- Communications standards.
- First responder checklists and protocols
- Command checklists and protocols
- Clear instructions for organizing and handling an emergency, including protocols for deciding who is in charge, when, for what, and for how long.

I've written disaster recovery and incident response plans. For the most part, they don't address particular emergencies (i.e. do this if a terrorist attack, do this if a tornado) because such planning is ultimately fruitless. Instead the create a framework to deal with almost any emergency. It's not rocket science, but it does take a little work and a fair amount of thought.

Good plans are structured as organizational charts and cheklists. Bad plans talk about structures without actually creating them, so that in a time of emergency, nobody has a chance of figuring it out. NIMS is a bad plan.

The worst part is that restructuring the government to create DHS appears to have destroyed what functional systems that did exist. I don't know what the system was like before the DHS era, because it wasn't of professional interest at the time. But it didn't seem to be this broken.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Ty should be all over that.

I assume they know the demographics, but my initial reaction is that the people most likely not to buy insurance are also the least likely to be filing tax returns (not because they're evaders, but because they have low income).

As I said here before, I have questions about how you make this work, and why it would work better than mandating health coverage by forcing people to pay for it through their taxes. I'm hoping RT will figure it out and explain.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As I said here before, I have questions about how you make this work, and why it would work better than mandating health coverage by forcing people to pay for it through their taxes. I'm hoping RT will figure it out and explain.

Well, it's because Hank likes his health plan and doesn't want anyone to fuck with it.

[SlaveNoMore]

Replaced_Texan
Anyone else fascinated by the legislation mandating the purchase of health insurance in the state?

I'm still wading through the bill, but it looks pretty damned impressive.

Lovely.

The pimp hand of State of Taxachussetts slaps its citizens once again.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Well, it's because Hank likes his health plan and doesn't want anyone to fuck with it.

It sounds like exactly what I asked for. now if they'd vote out Teddy Kennedy i might consider opening a second office there. Chinaski & GGG- Attorneys at Law!

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Lovely.

The pimp hand of State of Taxachussetts slaps its citizens once again.

I suspect that they'll be paying far, far less than anyone else in the country for healthcare, and its insurers, providers and employers will be happy too.

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Lovely.

The pimp hand of State of Taxachussetts slaps its citizens once again.

I thought you advocated the Ownership Society. No?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I suspect that they'll be paying far, far less than anyone else in the country for healthcare, and its insurers, providers and employers will be happy too.

Right now, without the bill, there is a sense in which Massachusetts already has universal health coverage paid for with some combination of tax dollars and private money; this just rationalizes the system.

If someone is uncovered right now, they are still able to get free treatment (though not for all that ails them) at tax-exempt hospital facilities; to the extent the patient doesn't have funds to pay for the care, they go into an uncompensated care pool that is funded by levies on the more profitable hospitals and by tax money - that is, the uncompensated care adds to the cost of other people's healthcare and comes out of taxes.

The basic idea behind this bill was to get all the interested parties in a room to hash out how the uninsured were covered and to rationalize it, providing them with fuller coverage while cutting back on some of the costs. There's some new money coming from taxes, but much of that is spent on tax reduction for people who are covered. Most of the new money will come from the third party payors, but if it works there will be a long-term cost savings from the rationalization (less emergency healthcare, more preventative care = less total cost). There is a spirited debate right now, however, over whether the uninsured really do use ERs to a disproportionate extent, and if the traditional wisdom is wrong, there will be higher premiums partially offset by increased tax deductions.

Note that the bill is going to be signed by a Republican Governor currently running for President as a right-wing nutcase.