I think this story from JS Online should pretty much put an end to any pretense that our health care system bears any resemblance to a free market economy.

An elderly woman underwent hernia surgery and had to stay overnight for observation. She was already required to take certain medications and, therefore, had the necessary supplies. However, the hospital refused to allow her to take her own medications during her stay; charging her the inflated in-house rates for the medications. Her medication bill included $16 for four acetaminophen tablets (that’d be Tylenol), $4 for a single multiple vitamin, $49 for two breast cancer tablets that Walgreens sells for $9.93 each when purchased in a 30-day supply, and $13.98 for an antacid tablet that sells for $1.27. She also was charged $258 for an asthma inhaler that costs $42 at Walgreens.

Meanwhile, Medicare only pays for prescription medicines for patients who are “admitted,” but not for patients who are merely “checked in for observation.” Regardless of the status, however, patients are not allowed to bring in medications they have already purchased themselves.

One hospital administrator justified the practice of jacking up the prices for in-house drugs by noting that the hospital loses money on Medicare and Medicaid patients and, therefore, has to make up the costs elsewhere, such as from the uninsured or from those covered by commercial insurers.

Tracy Warner at the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette has a column entitled Americans have CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. Consideration of our rights as citizens primarily takes place in the context of smoking bans. However, “rights” as they pertain to the use of seat belts figure prominently in the piece as well. Given our recent discussion of the issue, I think it’s worth a read.

It’s not terribly insightful, I suppose, but this post at MyDD reminded me how our considerations of candidates is shaped by our political memories and not just our philosophies about policy. The post is about a college student who is developing a Facebook network in support of Barack Obama.

The group had a celebratory conference call just now after they got their 100,000th sign-up, and I was on the call briefly. It was kind of silly, with college guys chit-chatting about the different candidates. There wasn’t a hugely passionate embrace of Obama and the discussion centered around ideas and information that aren’t on CNN and Fox News. These kids are talking to each other, swapping information easily and quickly. They also don’t really remember the bitterness of the Clinton impeachment, and they are not scarred by the politics and fear-mongering prior to the Iraq war that touches each of us, or the incompetence of the Kerry campaign angered all of us who tried to volunteer but were treated as an ATM. Politics for them can be hopeful and fun, as light as another Facebook group.

If I step back and take a look at my own political views, particularly on the national level, it’s tough for me to erase the stain of the Clinton impeachment when considering Republican candidates. Aside from a bit of volunteering for Bush-Quayle in ’88 and some enthusiasm for Perot in ’92 and to a lesser extent ’96, the impeachment was more or less my political awakening. It angered me deeply that the bedrock of our Constitution was being tampered with over something so frivolous and transparently political. Heap on that the toxicity of the Rehnquist Supreme Court stopping the vote count in Florida, and the Iraq War for good measure, and you have a big thumb on my own internal political scales for future Congressional and Presidential races.

Obviously, I’m aware of my own biases in this respect. What I tend to forget is that others have different political memories or (in many cases) no political memories. That goes a long way toward explaining why I can see a candidate much differently than another person, even where our analysis and opinions of the candidate’s policy choices are essentially the same.

Tim Storey, writing for NCSL’s “The Thicket” has a blog post entitled Reapportionment is Coming. Reapportionment is the decennial process by which Congressional seats are apportioned among the states. Since the total number of Congressional seats are capped at 435, as the population shifts in the U.S., the allotment of Congressional seats has to be shifted accordingly.

Among other things:

Redistricting consultant Kim Brace of Election Data
Services ran the 2006 estimates through the apportionment formula and
found that if the 2006 data were used, six states would gain seats in
the U.S. House (and electoral votes), and seven states would lose a
seat. The winners: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, Texas (+2) and
Utah.  And the states losing seats: Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts,
Missouri, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania.  Brace’s full analysis is
available here. 

Redistricting consultant Clark Bensen of Polidata
Incorporated took the 2006 estimates and projected them forward to 2010
and found even more change.  Bensen projects these big gainers: Texas
(+4), Florida (+2), and Arizona (+2) with Georgia, Nevada, Oregon,
Washington and Utah each gaining one seat.  Bensen’s projected losers:
Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, New Jersey, New York (-2), Ohio (-2) and Pennsylvania. 
Furthermore, Bensen predicts that the average number of people in each
U.S, House district would be close to 725,000 after the 2010 round of
redistricting.  The complete Polidata analysis is here.

An annual outpouring of rage, once again we have Buffalo Beast’s 50 most loathsome. Good reading.

I had to steal this one from bilerico because I liked it so much (and because Eisenhower is a distant relative of mine — great, great grandfather was the brother of Eisenhower’s great grandfather or something like that.)

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired represents, in the final analysis, a theftt from those who hunger and are not fed, who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

–Dwight D. Eisenhower

The Christian Science Monitor has an article focused on the efforts afoot in the U.S. House of Representatives to cut federal subsidies and tax breaks to oil companies by about $14 billion over the next 10 years and redirect those subsidies to renewable energy.

What’s really good about the article is that it digs in and explains the tax breaks and subsidies currently given to the oil company — citing a figure of about $3.5 billion for the year 2005. That strikes me as a bit obscene given the huge profits realized by the oil companies in the past few years. For example, Exxon enjoyed a 4th quarter profit of $10.71 billion.

[tags]oil, energy, taxation[/tags]

Motorists of northern Indiana have to be wondering what they did to get so lucky. They will have ever-increasing tolls for the next 75 years. According to this editorial in the Evansville Courier Press, Jamie Jorczak, director of public-private partnerships for the Indiana Department of Transportation has stated that Gov. Daniels is firmly against making the planned I-69 from Indy to Evansville a toll road.

[tags]Privatization, transportation[/tags]

The AP has an article entitled Biden Wants Confederate Flag Off Grounds, having to do with Sen. Joe Biden’s comment that he thinks the Confederate flag should not be displayed on South Carolina’s statehouse grounds.

In Columbia, S.C., more than six years after the Confederate flag was taken down from the Capitol dome, its location in front of the Statehouse remains an issue.

“If I were a state legislator, I’d vote for it to move off the grounds out of the state,” Biden said at an NAACP march and rally at the Statehouse.

Jim Hanks stood across from the South Carolina Statehouse with about 35 Confederate flag supporters.

“We love this flag. We love our heritage,” said Hanks, of Lexington.

. . .

Biden expects legislators here will eventually move the flag. Pointing to his heart, he said, “as people become more and more aware of what it means to African-Americans here, this is only a matter of time.”

For my part, my distaste for a State displaying the Confederate flag has nothing to do with questions of race — though I can certainly see why it would for others. For me, it’s a question of patriotism. Simply put, the Confederate flag represents treason against the United States of America. South Carolina’s “heritage” is a heritage of disloyalty to our country. I don’t think people in the present day should be punished for the sins of their fathers; but, at the same time, I don’t think they should be celebrating acts of violence against the U.S.