• To raise awareness and enlist the public’s aid for the needs of severely injured servicemen and women,
• To help severely injured service members aid and assist each other, and
• To provide unique, direct programs and services to meet the needs of severely injured service members.

Their core values begin with the word “fun” and are followed by the ideals of “integrity, loyalty, innovation, and service.” The organization’s board of directors is composed of veterans, the majority of whom have suffered some sort of combat related injury.

In May of this year in one of its “Making a Difference” segments “NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams” featured a great story about the project and how it was going about the task of helping and improving the lives of injured combat veterans. The first video below is that segment as it appeared on national TV. The following two videos, broadcast on the web but not included in the original broadcast due to time constraints, tell more about the experiences of two of the program’s participants.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ModaOCUREfc

www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTDYyZ_nC4M

www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-Ck_fOZucA

If you would like to learn more about the Wounded Warrior Project, contribute to its program, or help refer someone you know whom you believe could benefit from its services you can contact the organization through its website by clicking on this link: Wounded Warrior Project or (http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/ ).

The Wounded Warrior Project Is A Great Program is a post from: Tim’s California Views @ Oflanagan’s Net

PG&E’s service territory covers most of California. (SRA land is protected forest areas.)

PG&E’s service area, “stretches from Eureka in the north to Bakersfield in the south, and from the Pacific Ocean in the west to the Sierra Nevada in the east.”  That territory covers, “141,215 circuit miles of electric distribution lines and 18,616 circuit miles of interconnected transmission lines.”  As well as, “42,141 miles of natural gas distribution pipelines and 6,438 miles of transportation pipelines.”  The majority of its income derives from “5.1 million electric customer accounts” and “4.3 million natural gas customer accounts.”

In my home located just south of Sacramento, California, PG&E supplies our gas service while the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) provides our electricity.

On Tuesday, June 8, 2010, California will hold a primary election where voters will have the opportunity to, among other things, vote on five statewide ballot measures.  One of those is Proposition 16.

If you live in California or just outside one of its borders and have had your TV on you will have been inundated with commercials paid for by PG&E urging you to “Vote ‘Yes’ on proposition 16.”  Here is the earliest, most re-run, and most misleading commercial.

What The PG&E Commercials Say The Proposal Is:

In its commercials the PG&E actors call Proposition 16 the “Taxpayers Right To Vote Act.”

What The Official Ballot Says The Proposal Is:

The official ballot identifies the proposal by this name, “Imposes New Two-Thirds Voter Approval Requirement For Local Public Electricity Providers.  Initiative Constitutional Amendment.”

There is no official reference to any so-called “taxpayers right to vote act” except in the arguments in favor of the proposition.  (The arguments in support are signed by the presidents of the historically arch-conservative California Taxpayers’ Association and California Chamber of Commerce.  As of April 22, 2010, [the most recent mandated financial reporting deadline as of this writing] neither of those organizations had contributed any funds in support of the proposal.  Only PG&E had.)

What It Actually Does:

According to California’s prestigious non-partisan Legislative Analyst, Proposition 16 would place, “new voter approval requirements on local governments before they can use ‘public funds’—defined broadly in the measure to include tax revenues, various forms of debt, and ratepayer funds—to start up electricity service, expand electricity service into a new territory, or implement a CCA (Community Choice Aggregation – an arrangement in which a city, county, or combination of the two can go into the business to provide their residents with electrical power; presumably at lower cost than corporations like PG&E.  A fairly new law, several communities are exploring this option.).”

• “First, before an authorized local government entity can start up electricity service, it must receive approval by two-thirds of the voters in the area proposed to be served.”
• “Second, before an existing publicly owned utility can expand its electric delivery service into a new territory, it must receive approval by two-thirds of the voters in the area currently served by the utility and two-thirds of the voters in the new area proposed to be served.”
• “Third, the measure requires two-thirds voter approval for a local government to implement a CCA.”

What That Means: If your city, county, or combination of the two wants to break away from PG&E’s sole right to sell you electric power it must first put that proposal on a ballot.  But then,

• If the measure gets 50% of the votes +1: The measure loses, PG&E wins.
• If the measure gets 55% of the votes: The measure loses, PG&E wins.
• If the measure gets 60% of the votes: The measure loses, PG&E wins.
• If the measure gets 65% of the votes: The measure loses, PG&E wins.
• If the measure gets 66% of the votes: The measure loses, PG&E wins.

Only if the measure gets 66 2/3% of the votes +1 or more does PG&E lose and you win.  The odds of you and your community winning such a vote are far worse than your chance of winning a pay-off at any Nevada or Indian casino.

Arguments Against It:

Contrary to what PG&E and its supporters claim or imply Proposition 16 is definitely not a measure to increase or grant new voter rights.  Certainly not like one would expect in a traditional democracy; where the votes of the majority rule.  Instead, Proposition 16 establishes the right of a negative minority to keep things as they are.  Like in an undemocratic oligarchy or banana republic.  And all for the benefit of one power company, PG&E.

It’s the 2/3 positive vote requirement which plays the killer role in Proposition 16.  If it’s authors had required a simple, normal, democratically standard majority vote to allow the replacement of PG&E electrical service with an alternative it might have seemed a reasonable idea.

But worse than any bailout, Proposition 16 amounts to a permanent, locked in gift of California’s resident’s monthly pay to PG&E’s coffers.  This attempt at legal thievery must not be allowed.

Comparison of PG&E contributions and “No On 16″ resources.

Who Has The Money In This Dogfight?:

Proposition 16 has been PG&E’s proposal from the beginning.  Operating through the front group they created (the long-winded “Yes on 16/Californians to Protect Our Right to Vote, major funding from Pacific Gas and Electric Company, a coalition of taxpayers, business and labor”), PG&E developed the proposal’s language and paid for it to be circulated for signatures.

According to financial reports last filed on April 21 with the Secretary of State PG&E has been the sole contributor to the “Yes On 16” campaign.  To the tune of $31,040,000.00.

At the same time the organizers of the opposition “No On 16” campaign (the equally long-winded “No On Prop 16, Stop The Pg&E Powergrab, Sponsored By Local Power And The Utility Reform Network”) have received funding from a variety of individuals and organizations.  But to the tune of a comparatively measly $58,449.00 (last reported April 22).

Thus, as of this writing, the “No” campaign has raised roughly 19% of the funds contributed by PG&E.  The disparity of the financial resources available in this struggle are graphically illustrated in the chart shown.

What Will PG&E Do If Proposition 16 Fails?:

Despite the apparent unevenness of the funds available to each side, I think there is a good chance PG&E could lose.  In researching this article in late April I found a growing movement among local law makers, towns, cities, and newspapers against Proposition 16.  An incomplete but growing list is posted here at the “No On 16” site.

PG&E has invested a huge amount of money in this effort.  And there are widespread rumors it intends to spend more.  Loosing this campaign will not only mean the money spent on it was wasted on an ill-conceived gamble.  It could also be a serious political and credibility blow to the company.

If you were a PG&E stockholder what would your reaction be?  And what of company president and CEO Peter Darbee (who earned nearly $9 million in 2009)?  Will he and his staff who recommended the company pursue Proposition 16 be asked to leave?  Should they be?

Recommendation:

I’m definitely voting No on Proposition 16 this June 8.  I hope all California voters do as well.

The Results:

Proposition 16 was rejected by the voters.  The vote was 2,462,108 in favor (47.5%) but 2,718,549 against (52.5%).  I guess sometimes money just can’t buy the voter’s love.

California’s Proposition 16: What Is It? Why All The Noise? is a post from: Tim’s California Views @ Oflanagan’s Net

I think I need one of these.  They are made in England:

Or maybe one of these.  You can get them here in the U.S. now:

Don’t you think I should get one?  If so, which would be better?  Be honest now.  Share your true feelings.

I Think I Need One is a post from: Tim’s California Views @ Oflanagan’s Net

Two women were sitting next to each other at a bar.  After  a while, one looks at the other and says, “I can’t help but think, from listening to you, that you’re from Ireland.”

The other woman responds proudly, “Yes, I sure am!”

The first one says, “So am I!  And where about in Ireland are ya from?”

The other woman answers, “I’m from Dublin, I am.”

The first one responds, “So, am I!  And what street did you live on in Dublin?”

The other woman says, “A lovely little area.  It was in the west end.  I lived on Warbury Street in the old central part of town.”

The first one says, “Faith, and it’s a small world.  So did I!  So did I!  And what school did ya go  to?”

The other woman answers, “Well now, I went to ‘Holy Heart of Mary’, of course.”

The first one gets really excited and says, “And so did I!  Tell me, what year did you graduate?”

The other woman answers, “Well, now, let’s see.  I graduated in 1964.”

The first woman exclaims, “The Good Lord must be smiling down upon us!  I can hardly believe our good luck at winding up in the same pub tonight!  Can you believe it?  I graduated from ‘Holy Heart of Mary’ in 1964 me self!”

About this time, Michael walks into the bar, sits down, and orders  a beer.

Brian, the bartender, walks over to Michael shaking his head and mutters, “It’s going to be a long night tonight.”

Michael asks, “Why do you say that, Brian?”

Brian answers, “The Murphy twins are drunk again.”

The Murphy Twins is a post from: Tim’s California Views @ Oflanagan’s Net

Some of the debates, and much of the misinformation, have been about how the US system of health-care delivery compares to systems used in other countries; particularly those which are modern industrialized democracies like our own.  In August of last Summer an article published in The Washington Post did a good job of exploding many of the myths about health-care delivery in countries similar to ours.  I did not see the article when it first came out and I’m sure many others did not either.  So I’m sharing it here in its entirety.

The article was authored by T.R. (Thomas) Reid, a reporter, documentary film correspondent, and author. He is also a frequent guest on National Public Radio’s (NPR’s) Morning Edition.  Which is where I first listened to, and grew to immensely enjoy, his commentaries about life in Japan, the Far East, England, Europe, and the USA.  I’ve added emphasis (using bold or underlining) to those items in the original article I feel are of particular importance to the US debate.

5 Myths About Health-care Around the World

By T.R. Reid
Sunday, August 23, 2009

As Americans search for the cure to what ails our health-care system, we’ve overlooked an invaluable source of ideas and solutions: the rest of the world. All the other industrialized democracies have faced problems like ours, yet they’ve found ways to cover everybody — and still spend far less than we do.

I’ve traveled the world from Oslo to Osaka to see how other developed democracies provide health-care. Instead of dismissing these models as “socialist,” we could adapt their solutions to fix our problems. To do that, we first have to dispel a few myths about health-care abroad:

1. It’s all socialized medicine out there.

Not so. Some countries, such as Britain, New Zealand and Cuba, do provide health-care in government hospitals, with the government paying the bills. Others — for instance, Canada and Taiwan — rely on private-sector providers, paid for by government-run insurance. But many wealthy countries — including Germany, the Netherlands, Japan and Switzerland — provide universal coverage using private doctors, private hospitals and private insurance plans.

In some ways, health-care is less “socialized” overseas than in the United States. Almost all Americans sign up for government insurance (Medicare) at age 65. In Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands, seniors stick with private insurance plans for life. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is one of the planet’s purest examples of government-run health-care.

2. Overseas, care is rationed through limited choices or long lines.

Generally, no. Germans can sign up for any of the nation’s 200 private health insurance plans — a broader choice than any American has. If a German doesn’t like her insurance company, she can switch to another, with no increase in premium. The Swiss, too, can choose any insurance plan in the country.

In France and Japan, you don’t get a choice of insurance provider; you have to use the one designated for your company or your industry. But patients can go to any doctor, any hospital, any traditional healer. There are no U.S.-style limits such as “in-network” lists of doctors or “pre-authorization” for surgery. You pick any doctor, you get treatment — and insurance has to pay.

Canadians have their choice of providers. In Austria and Germany, if a doctor diagnoses a person as “stressed,” medical insurance pays for weekends at a health spa.

As for those notorious waiting lists, some countries are indeed plagued by them. Canada makes patients wait weeks or months for nonemergency care, as a way to keep costs down. But studies by the Commonwealth Fund and others report that many nations — Germany, Britain, Austria — outperform the United States on measures such as waiting times for appointments and for elective surgeries.

In Japan, waiting times are so short that most patients don’t bother to make an appointment. One Thursday morning in Tokyo, I called the prestigious orthopedic clinic at Keio University Hospital to schedule a consultation about my aching shoulder. “Why don’t you just drop by?” the receptionist said. That same afternoon, I was in the surgeon’s office. Dr. Nakamichi recommended an operation. “When could we do it?” I asked. The doctor checked his computer and said, “Tomorrow would be pretty difficult. Perhaps some day next week?”

3. Foreign health-care systems are inefficient, bloated bureaucracies.

Much less so than here. It may seem to Americans that U.S.-style free enterprise — private-sector, for-profit health insurance — is naturally the most cost-effective way to pay for health-care. But in fact, all the other payment systems are more efficient than ours.

U.S. health insurance companies have the highest administrative costs in the world; they spend roughly 20 cents of every dollar for non-medical costs, such as paperwork, reviewing claims and marketing. France’s health insurance industry, in contrast, covers everybody and spends about 4 percent on administration. Canada’s universal insurance system, run by government bureaucrats, spends 6 percent on administration. In Taiwan, a leaner version of the Canadian model has administrative costs of 1.5 percent; one year, this figure ballooned to 2 percent, and the opposition parties savaged the government for wasting money.

The world champion at controlling medical costs is Japan, even though its aging population is a profligate consumer of medical care. On average, the Japanese go to the doctor 15 times a year, three times the U.S. rate. They have twice as many MRI scans and X-rays. Quality is high; life expectancy and recovery rates for major diseases are better than in the United States. And yet Japan spends about $3,400 per person annually on health-care; the United States spends more than $7,000.

4. Cost controls stifle innovation.

False. The United States is home to groundbreaking medical research, but so are other countries with much lower cost structures. Any American who’s had a hip or knee replacement is standing on French innovation. Deep-brain stimulation to treat depression is a Canadian breakthrough. Many of the wonder drugs promoted endlessly on American television, including Viagra, come from British, Swiss or Japanese labs.

Overseas, strict cost controls actually drive innovation. In the United States, an MRI scan of the neck region costs about $1,500. In Japan, the identical scan costs $98. Under the pressure of cost controls, Japanese researchers found ways to perform the same diagnostic technique for one-fifteenth the American price. (And Japanese labs still make a profit.)

5. Health insurance has to be cruel.

Not really. American health insurance companies routinely reject applicants with a “preexisting condition” — precisely the people most likely to need the insurers』 service. They employ armies of adjusters to deny claims. If a customer is hit by a truck and faces big medical bills, the insurer’s “rescission department” digs through the records looking for grounds to cancel the policy, often while the victim is still in the hospital. The companies say they have to do this stuff to survive in a tough business.

Foreign health insurance companies, in contrast, must accept all applicants, and they can’t cancel as long as you pay your premiums. The plans are required to pay any claim submitted by a doctor or hospital (or health spa), usually within tight time limits. The big Swiss insurer Groupe Mutuel promises to pay all claims within five days. “Our customers love it,” the group’s chief executive told me. The corollary is that everyone is mandated to buy insurance, to give the plans an adequate pool of rate-payers.

The key difference is that foreign health insurance plans exist only to pay people’s medical bills, not to make a profit. The United States is the only developed country that lets insurance companies profit from basic health coverage.

In many ways, foreign health-care models are not really “foreign” to America, because our crazy-quilt health-care system uses elements of all of them. For Native Americans or veterans, we’re Britain: The government provides health-care, funding it through general taxes, and patients get no bills. For people who get insurance through their jobs, we’re Germany: Premiums are split between workers and employers, and private insurance plans pay private doctors and hospitals. For people over 65, we’re Canada: Everyone pays premiums for an insurance plan run by the government, and the public plan pays private doctors and hospitals according to a set fee schedule. And for the tens of millions without insurance coverage, we’re Burundi or Burma: In the world’s poor nations, sick people pay out of pocket for medical care; those who can’t pay stay sick or die.

This fragmentation is another reason that we spend more than anybody else and still leave millions without coverage. All the other developed countries have settled on one model for health-care delivery and finance; we’ve blended them all into a costly, confusing bureaucratic mess.

Which, in turn, punctures the most persistent myth of all: that America has “the finest health-care” in the world. We don’t. In terms of results, almost all advanced countries have better national health statistics than the United States does. In terms of finance, we force 700,000 Americans into bankruptcy each year because of medical bills. In France, the number of medical bankruptcies is zero. Britain: zero. Japan: zero. Germany: zero.

Given our remarkable medical assets — the best-educated doctors and nurses, the most advanced hospitals, world-class research — the United States could be, and should be, the best in the world. To get there, though, we have to be willing to learn some lessons about health-care administration from the other industrialized democracies.

T.R. Reid, a former Washington Post reporter, is the author of The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health-care.  His piece above originally appeared in Washingtonpost.com here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101778.html on Sunday, August 23, 2009.  His book can be purchased at Amazon.com here in either hardcover, large print hardcover, or Kindle formats. You can read more about T.R. Reid at wikipedia.

Opinion

Here is what I think:

• A modern, successful society would be one which provided the best health-care for each and every one of its citizens at the lowest cost possible.  That is the kind of society I want to live in.  There is no good reason why the US could not have that kind of society now.
• The current proposals before Congress now should be adopted now.  Problems with details can and should be resolved in follow-up legislation.
• The examples of successful health-care delivery systems and practices in the countries cited above put the US system to shame.  We can and must do better.  We can begin by adopting many of the practices outlined.

Question(s) For You

What do you think?

Is the current US system of health-care delivery acceptable?

Given what you believe you know of the current reform proposals before Congress, should they be adopted now?

Or do you support the idea put forth by many Republicans that the whole plan up for a vote be discarded and a new plan negotiated?

Are there things we can and should learn from the other countries cited above?

Thank you for reading.

Tim

—–

Exposing Some Health-care Lies is a post from: Tim’s California Views @ Oflanagan’s Net