I don’t know if my story applies to many others, but here goes. My husband received a kidney transplant in October 2009. Since that time, he’s been on three different daily doses of anti-rejection drugs. Fortunately, our employer-provided health insurance has covered them and his other medications with very reasonable copays. The highest has been $15 for a month’s supply. Imagine my surprise when last week I was notified by our pharmacy that the copay for one was now $100 for a month’s supply. It’s very shocking when you are on a fixed retirement income and so many other costs are rising. I called our prescription drug provider and was told that as per the agreement, if a month’s supply was under $1000 the copay was $15 maximum but if it exceeds $1000, then the copay becomes $100. His myfortic acid had gone from $967 to $1027, a $50 increase. So, now our copay increased from $15 to $100, an $85 increase. Insane, I told the insurance customer service person. She reminded me of all the years it had only been $15 and said I could be grateful for that.
I called the pharmacy and was told they could try to submit it to Medicare Part B if they had a prescription from his nephrologist listing his diagnosis. So, I called the doctor and requested they send the pharmacy an updated prescription. Imagine my delight and surprise when I got notified by the pharmacy that his prescription was ready to pick up and the copay was ZERO! I’m happy but wondering why this wasn’t done way back when he first started this medication. Oh well, as least it’s covered now and I hope and pray Republicans don’t find a way to cut Medicare in the future as those cuts hurt people in ways the lawmakers can’t even imagine. If any of this resonates with you, please pass it on or comment. Thank you.
Monday, February 10, 2020
Wednesday, August 14, 2019
Pigeonholing People
Political pundits get into trouble when they insist on pigeonholing voters. Yet, they persist in trying to lump people together. Here’s an example: An over 70 rural white voter, according to the pundits, most likely is conservative, feels threatened by people of color and immigrants, feels “economic anxiety” and is most likely a Trump supporter. Isn’t that how many in that demographic are characterized? Yet, I and many of my friends are over 70 rural white voters and we voted for Hillary Clinton.
Another example: A 40 year old, white, non-college educated male factory worker. Again, the pundits pigeonhole this person as most likely threatened by immigrants coming to take their jobs and most likely a Trump supporter. But, is it true? I know several men who fit this category and they are avid Bernie Sanders supporters.
The point is that political pundits err when they insist on trying to find simplistic explanations for complex issues like why certain candidates are popular. For a more nuanced explanation than I can give, see
Another example: A 40 year old, white, non-college educated male factory worker. Again, the pundits pigeonhole this person as most likely threatened by immigrants coming to take their jobs and most likely a Trump supporter. But, is it true? I know several men who fit this category and they are avid Bernie Sanders supporters.
The point is that political pundits err when they insist on trying to find simplistic explanations for complex issues like why certain candidates are popular. For a more nuanced explanation than I can give, see
Sunday, January 27, 2019
Political Polling
According to the NCPP, there are 20 questions that journalists should use in looking at public polling data. I think they are actually good for all of us to know. Are you interested in knowing how the NCAA suggests a reporter analyze a poll? If so, please go here for the article: http://www.ncpp.org/?q=node/4 Maybe even copy and paste it to your favorite journalist! Here is a PDF file you can send to them: http://www.ncpp.org/files/20%20Questions%203rd%20edition_Web%20ver_2006.pdf
In short, here are the 20 questions:
In short, here are the 20 questions:
- Who did the poll?
- Who paid for the poll and why was it done?
- How many people were interviewed for the survey?
- How were those people chosen?
- What area (nation, state, or region) or what group (teachers,lawyers, Democratic voters, etc.) were these people chosen from?
- Are the results based on the answers of all the people interviewed?
- Who should have been interviewed and was not? Or do response rates matter?
- When was the poll done?
- How were the interviews conducted?
- What about polls on the Internet or World Wide Web?
- What is the sampling error for the poll results?
- Who’s on first?
- What other kinds of factors can skew poll results?
- What questions were asked?
- In what order were the questions asked?
- What about "push polls?"
- What other polls have been done on this topic? Do they say the same thing? If they are different, why are they different?
- What about exit polls?
- What else needs to be included in the report of the poll?
- So I've asked all the questions. The answers sound good. Should we report the results?
For a quick minute explanation go here: http://www.takepart.com/video/how-political-polls-work-civics-minute-video
Thursday, April 5, 2018
The Right to Vote
Did you know that the U. S. Constitution did NOT originally define who had the right to vote? It deferred that decision to each state. As you can imagine, this created much confusion. Many states only allowed Caucasian male property owners the franchise. Some allowed Caucasian males with taxable income to vote. New Jersey even allowed women to vote if they met the property requirement. In some places freed slaves and non-white Americans were allowed to vote, again if they met the property requirement. Many states and local jurisdictions started requiring poll taxes be paid to vote and literacy tests passed. By the time of the Civil War, most white males were allowed to vote whether they owned property or not. By not clearly defining the right to vote, the framers of the Constitution created chaos. Many citizens were kept from voting because they were deemed to be "undesirable". Now, if any of this is beginning to sound like what is again happening in our country, you might want to start paying attention!
Carol Anderson, Professor Of African American Studies at Emory University, and best selling author of White Rage: The Unspoken Truth Of Our Nation’s Divide, has a new book on voting rights entitled, One Person, No Vote. Available on September 11, 2018, this is the story of how absolutely fragile the voting franchise is in our country. Anderson details how these rights have been challenged before leading to several amendments to the U. S. Constitution that guarantee citizens' right to vote. Unfortunately, there are always those who want to make voting harder, especially for persons of color and poor people. Professor Anderson's newest book is very well written with extensive notes. It is a must read for anyone interested in learning about the history of voting in the United States of America.
No one should take their right to vote for granted. To learn if you can vote this year by clicking this link: iwillvote.com Then, please check this link to learn all you can about voting and access to resources to help you exercise your rights. http://www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/Voting/Learn.shtml
Carol Anderson, Professor Of African American Studies at Emory University, and best selling author of White Rage: The Unspoken Truth Of Our Nation’s Divide, has a new book on voting rights entitled, One Person, No Vote. Available on September 11, 2018, this is the story of how absolutely fragile the voting franchise is in our country. Anderson details how these rights have been challenged before leading to several amendments to the U. S. Constitution that guarantee citizens' right to vote. Unfortunately, there are always those who want to make voting harder, especially for persons of color and poor people. Professor Anderson's newest book is very well written with extensive notes. It is a must read for anyone interested in learning about the history of voting in the United States of America.
In 1965, our Congress also passed the Voting Rights Act. See this link for brief timeline of voting rights up to 2016: https://www.aclu.org/timeline-history-voting-rights-act As you can see, citizens are again having to face efforts by some in power to keep others from be able to vote. In 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Shelby vs. Holder, gutted a critical protection of the voting rights act, section 4. This allowed states to begin enacting voter new restriction laws. Since then there have been numerous court fights and decisions to restore voters' rights. A simple review of the ACLU timeline linked above is illuminating. There is no ABSOLUTE right to vote. Voting can be restricted.
Saturday, August 5, 2017
I am a Democrat
I am a Democrat. I vote for and support Democrats. The Democratic Party Platform lays out what I believe. https://www.democrats.org/party-platform Every four years, we craft a new platform in consultation with Democrats from all over the country.
During the 2016 election cycle, Bernie Sanders, an Independent from Vermont, was allowed to run for president in the Democratic primaries and caucuses. I did not support him because as I said, I vote for Democrats. But, I did like some of his ideas. Some of those actually made it into the party platform. I am thankful that Senator Sanders caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate and votes with them frequently.
I supported Barack Obama when he ran for Senate here in Illinois in 2004. And I supported him in 2008 when he ran for president. I would have been just as excited if Hillary Clinton had won the nomination that year as I'd always liked her.
When Hillary ran for president again in 2016, I was 100% behind her. As a staunch supporter of Hillary, I was often attacked on social media. I was called a Hillbot. And worse. Many attackers claimed to be supporters of Bernie Sanders. It was so terrible for me and others, that many considered leaving social media. Hillary supporters began calling them Bros. And a huge divide split the party.
Many feelings were hurt by the name calling and attacks from both factions. Republicans and third party candidates were thrilled. The more Democrats and Bernie supporters attacked each other, the less heat they felt. Some of the vilest attackers weren't even true Bernie supporters. They were paid to divide the left.
In the end, most Bernie supporters ended up voting for Hillary. But, the most ardent, the ones for whom everything is a "purity test", either voted third party or chose to sit out the election.
One of the consequences is that we have Trump as president. Another serious consequence is that as a party, we still have divisions that will impact our ability to win elections. Republicans also have divisions, as we've seen with their efforts to repeal ACA. But, Republicans don't let their divisions get in the way of electing Republicans.
I want to win elections as much as any other person. But, I don't want to see the Democratic Party win by becoming like the Republicans, who will do and say anything to win. Democrats are on the right side of history. We support issues that affect every single American.
We don't have to cheat or compromise our values to win. Republicans have won because they have tons of money for advertising and because they stopped millions of people from voting!
We are the majority! We won the popular vote. We can win if we stay true to our Party's values. If you think like I do, then I ask, are you willing to put your money on the line? Two of my friends have started a SuperPac for progressive Democratic candidates. This is a legitimate SuperPac with all of the legal requirements. It is called Democrats Work for America. Here is our Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/DemsWork4USA/ We also have a website: DemocratsWorkForAmerica.org We have a Twitter account: https://twitter.com/DemsWork4USA
Recently, Angela Marx wrote about us in DailyKos: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/7/30/1685365/-ATTN-Candidates-Democratic-Party-Chairs-DemocratsWorkForAmerica-org-a-SuperPAC-for-you
Please consider donating. We carefully screen any candidate we chose to support. Thank you.
During the 2016 election cycle, Bernie Sanders, an Independent from Vermont, was allowed to run for president in the Democratic primaries and caucuses. I did not support him because as I said, I vote for Democrats. But, I did like some of his ideas. Some of those actually made it into the party platform. I am thankful that Senator Sanders caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate and votes with them frequently.
I supported Barack Obama when he ran for Senate here in Illinois in 2004. And I supported him in 2008 when he ran for president. I would have been just as excited if Hillary Clinton had won the nomination that year as I'd always liked her.
When Hillary ran for president again in 2016, I was 100% behind her. As a staunch supporter of Hillary, I was often attacked on social media. I was called a Hillbot. And worse. Many attackers claimed to be supporters of Bernie Sanders. It was so terrible for me and others, that many considered leaving social media. Hillary supporters began calling them Bros. And a huge divide split the party.
Many feelings were hurt by the name calling and attacks from both factions. Republicans and third party candidates were thrilled. The more Democrats and Bernie supporters attacked each other, the less heat they felt. Some of the vilest attackers weren't even true Bernie supporters. They were paid to divide the left.
In the end, most Bernie supporters ended up voting for Hillary. But, the most ardent, the ones for whom everything is a "purity test", either voted third party or chose to sit out the election.
One of the consequences is that we have Trump as president. Another serious consequence is that as a party, we still have divisions that will impact our ability to win elections. Republicans also have divisions, as we've seen with their efforts to repeal ACA. But, Republicans don't let their divisions get in the way of electing Republicans.
I want to win elections as much as any other person. But, I don't want to see the Democratic Party win by becoming like the Republicans, who will do and say anything to win. Democrats are on the right side of history. We support issues that affect every single American.
We don't have to cheat or compromise our values to win. Republicans have won because they have tons of money for advertising and because they stopped millions of people from voting!
We are the majority! We won the popular vote. We can win if we stay true to our Party's values. If you think like I do, then I ask, are you willing to put your money on the line? Two of my friends have started a SuperPac for progressive Democratic candidates. This is a legitimate SuperPac with all of the legal requirements. It is called Democrats Work for America. Here is our Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/DemsWork4USA/ We also have a website: DemocratsWorkForAmerica.org We have a Twitter account: https://twitter.com/DemsWork4USA
Recently, Angela Marx wrote about us in DailyKos: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/7/30/1685365/-ATTN-Candidates-Democratic-Party-Chairs-DemocratsWorkForAmerica-org-a-SuperPAC-for-you
Please consider donating. We carefully screen any candidate we chose to support. Thank you.
Saturday, May 13, 2017
We're Stuck
There's no easy way to say this. We are stuck with Trump. When voters stayed home or voted for 3rd party candidates, Trump was able to get just enough votes to squeak by in 3 key states so he could get a victory in the Electoral College. It doesn't matter that he LOST the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. Some say that enough voters were disenfranchised in those states to achieve the EC victory.
The reality now is that we are stuck. Don't put your hopes on Republicans impeaching him. His base will stick with him no matter what outrageous thing he does. Republicans won't even think of impeachment unless his base somehow decides he's trouble.
So, what are the 72+million of us who voted for someone else going to do? As I see it, we can protest, pay close attention to what he's doing, and most of all, we can vote. Midterms and special elections aren't as sexy as Presidential elections. Democrats don't usually bother. But, not this time. This time, Democrats must realize that we don't have the luxury of not voting. The right is busy winning elections, from school board to state legislatures to US Congress. Are we just going to sit back and cede our country to them? No! We are going to make sure we are registered, help others to get registered and we're going to vote like our lives depend on it. Because they do!
The reality now is that we are stuck. Don't put your hopes on Republicans impeaching him. His base will stick with him no matter what outrageous thing he does. Republicans won't even think of impeachment unless his base somehow decides he's trouble.
So, what are the 72+million of us who voted for someone else going to do? As I see it, we can protest, pay close attention to what he's doing, and most of all, we can vote. Midterms and special elections aren't as sexy as Presidential elections. Democrats don't usually bother. But, not this time. This time, Democrats must realize that we don't have the luxury of not voting. The right is busy winning elections, from school board to state legislatures to US Congress. Are we just going to sit back and cede our country to them? No! We are going to make sure we are registered, help others to get registered and we're going to vote like our lives depend on it. Because they do!
Friday, April 28, 2017
Playing by the Rules
Would you play a chess game with someone who played by a different set of rules than you? That really wouldn't make sense would it? Especially if your set of rules put you at a disadvantage. Yet, this is exactly what some critics would expect of Democrats. Critics want Democrats to pass some kind of purity test that says they shouldn't take campaign monies from Wall Street or corporations while their opponents continue to rake in the big bucks.
When Barack Obama was first running for president in 2008, he promised to pursue with his opponent the course of using only public financing for their campaigns. When he saw how primary opponents were gaming the system using 527 groups (now called Super PACs) he reversed course. The linked article explains his reasoning. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/19/AR2008061900914.html.
As is everything in politics, it's complicated. We now have many critics of the Democratic party who want us to play by a different set of rules than our opponents. Democrats are expected to win races, but are asked to follow rules that would hinder their chances of winning.
It would be great if we had a system where presidential candidates could only use public financing and that prohibited outside groups from collecting monies or holding fundraisers for candidates. But, we don't have that. Our Supreme Court has ruled that corporations also have free speech rights under our Constitution. Their money is their speech. So, we have a system that allows PACs and Super PACs and we cannot require Democrats to play by a different set of rules than their opponents. If Democrats don't win elections, they don't have much opportunity to enact laws to change the system or to implement their platform.
Right now winning is vital. Be wary of any critic who wants to improve the Democratic Party by requiring Democrats to play by a different set of rules than their opponents.
When Barack Obama was first running for president in 2008, he promised to pursue with his opponent the course of using only public financing for their campaigns. When he saw how primary opponents were gaming the system using 527 groups (now called Super PACs) he reversed course. The linked article explains his reasoning. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/19/AR2008061900914.html.
As is everything in politics, it's complicated. We now have many critics of the Democratic party who want us to play by a different set of rules than our opponents. Democrats are expected to win races, but are asked to follow rules that would hinder their chances of winning.
It would be great if we had a system where presidential candidates could only use public financing and that prohibited outside groups from collecting monies or holding fundraisers for candidates. But, we don't have that. Our Supreme Court has ruled that corporations also have free speech rights under our Constitution. Their money is their speech. So, we have a system that allows PACs and Super PACs and we cannot require Democrats to play by a different set of rules than their opponents. If Democrats don't win elections, they don't have much opportunity to enact laws to change the system or to implement their platform.
Right now winning is vital. Be wary of any critic who wants to improve the Democratic Party by requiring Democrats to play by a different set of rules than their opponents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)