Happy Thanksgiving! I should have given warning days ago that I was going to be out of pocket for a couple. But between traveling (with a cat in tow) and wrapping up some loose work ends, I forgot. Oops.
But no worries. All’s good. I am down in South Florida where I heard the following on the radio…twice:
“Men. Size matters. If it didn’t matter, why do you think a major cable network has a hit show dedicated entirely to a man’s size. It’s not about length. It’s about width and thickness.” [It gets worse. I’ll spare you the details.]
I was expecting a punchline. I thought it was all a euphemism. Nope. They’re really advertising male enhancement supplements on FM radio. (That cable show they’re referring to is clearly Showtime’s “Hung.”)
I remember when I came back here for grad school, almost every other commercial on TV was for plastic surgery with a noticeable emphasis on breast enlargement. So I suppose turnabout is fair play. But it still caught me off guard to hear such a blatant pitch on the air.
Makes you wonder if anyone’s buying the scam…or the product. Did I mention it comes with a free measuring tool? No joke.
Via HuffPo, here’s a little Q and A with Palin supporters standing in line at her book signing in Columbus, Ohio. It’s all disturbing, but I’m particularly fond of the guy in the Steelers jacket who says Palin’s state (“The state that she did govern”) is right across the street from Russia. That gem’s at about 4:55 in:
With her diet failing, Emmy decided this morning it was time to hitch a ride to the gym.
Actually, she curled up and fell asleep in the bag and was not a happy camper when I had to move her to pack up my stuff.
Today’s been a little busier now that we have a Senate health care bill to review. Our official statement went out this morning. You can read it here. And if you’re interested in learning more about the legislation itself, click here for a whole slew of summaries and fact sheets prepared by the Senate.
If you want to see how this bill stacks up compared to the one passed about two weeks ago, the NYT compares the House and Senate bills here and the Washington Post does it here.
Women in Colorado who purchase insurance on the individual market currently pay up to 59 percent more than men for coverage that doesn’t even include maternity care. Now, a group of agents and insurance company representatives in their state are trying to keep it that way.
Justifying their stance on “gender rating” and maternity care, CSAHU spokesperson and lobbyist Cindy Sovine-Miller accused the Colorado legislators of being “[…] more about fairness than math.” Funny, that’s not what others say. “At our hearings this summer, the insurance industry provided no justifiable data or reason for their charging women from 9 percent to 50 percent more for the same policy,” wrote Democratic State Rep. Sue Schafer of Wheat Ridge. “Even men who smoke are charged less than women who do not smoke. Just being female is considered a pre-existing condition.”
Another Colorado group, the Professional Independent Insurance Agents of Colorado (PIIAC), doesn’t want to get all mucked up in the details. Instead, they’re justifying their position on “gender rating” with a lesson on anatomy:
“The bottom line is this,” said the group’s executive VP Barbara Fidler. “As crude as it sounds, we women are more costly relative to our health care. Our plumbing — I don’t mean to sound crude — the gender differences are clearly related to how we’re different… I’m not saying that it’s fair for women to be rated why they are. I think it’s just important to understand.”
Democrats who sell out their party…and women. From The Hill:
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) pledged on Tuesday morning to defeat healthcare reform legislation if his abortion amendment is taken out, saying 10 to 20 anti-abortion-rights Democrats would vote against a bill with weaker language.
“They’re not going to take it out,” Stupak said on “Fox and Friends,” referring to Senate Democrats. “If they do, healthcare will not move forward.”
Stupak’s amendment prohibits any insurance plan on a potential healthcare exchange from accepting federal subsidies if it covers abortion. Pro-abortion-rights lawmakers say that language is too broad and would drastically reduce access to abortion.
We think the best way to pay for health care reform is with a surcharge on the rich. So does a majority of the public, according to a new Associated Press poll. The chart’s on page 11. The question reads:
If the government does things to reduce the cost of health insurance for some Americans or to help more people get health insurance, it would cost the government money. The government could get the money to pay for this in a number of different ways. Next, I’ll read you a list of some ways the government could get the money. After I read you the whole list, I’ll read them one at a time so you can tell me whether you would favor or oppose each one. Here’s the list…
Increasing income taxes paid by people who earn more than $250,000 a year:
Total Favor 57 (Strongly favor 37. Somewhat favor 20)
Neither favor nor oppose 6
Total Oppose 36 (Somewhat oppose 11. Strongly oppose 25)
HCAN released a new report today showing just how many people would have to pay a little more and how many people would gain health insurance as a result. The numbers are astonishing. We even raised the income level from $250,000 to $500,000 for individuals ($1 million for couples) because that’s what’s in the House health care bill now.
Bottom line: About 420,000 people nationwide pay a little more in taxes and more than 29 million people get health coverage. That’s less than 0.4% of the population that would be asked to kick in a bit extra. And as our report points out,
[t]he surcharge will raise $460.5 billion over 10 years—considerably less than the $700 billion in tax cuts these households received over a 10-year period (2001 to 2010) from President George W. Bush.
It’s got a state-by-state breakdown so check out where your state stands here.
I don’t care that she “wrote” a book. I don’t care about the alternate reality she’s created in her head. I don’t care how she thinks the President’s doing (MSNBC should have known better than to indulge that one).
Everyone – from Winfrey to Walters to the interchangeable talking heads on cable TV – please stop giving her a platform for her delusion.
I blame the McCain campaign for creating a monster, but now it’s totally the media’s fault for feeding it and keeping it alive.
Btw – I know why the title of her work of fiction is called “Going Rogue,” but just take a second and look up the definition of rogue. The first definition.
n. 1. An unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person