Paranoia of the Week

As we all know, numerous Republicans (and even various Democrats) do not fully support President Obama's health care plan and, in turn, have issues with multiple aspects of the legislation. With this particular posting, I wanted to address a specific section in the House of Representatives version, a section towards which those opponents are truly taking an alarmist's view. When addressing the establishment of a national medical device registry by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the H.R. 3200 bill states this registry will "facilitate the analysis of postmarket safety and outcomes data on each device that (A) is or has been used in or on a patient and (B) is a Class III device or a Class II device that is implantable, life supporting or life sustaining".

The concerns being incorrectly raised by certain individuals are not so much about the registry but the actual devices themselves. With that being said, let's address the section cited above. First and foremost, the national medical device registry would include "claims data, patient survey data, standardized analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of data from disparate data environments, electronic health records and any other data deemed appropriate".

The proposed registry certainly seems to be an extremely valuable tool, especially considering the fact that data would contain information from Class III devices. Class III devices are defined by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as either "(1) life supporting or life sustaining, (2) for a use which is of substantial importance in preventing impairment of human health or (3) presenting a potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury". Those types of devices include brain stimulators, heart pacemakers, intrabone implants, replacement heart valves and silicone filled breast implants.

Now where the alarmists start to come out of the woodwork is the portion concerning Class II devices. Designated as such due to their need for special labeling requirements, mandatory performance standards and postmarket surveillance, Class II devices are typically non-invasive and include acupuncture needles, gas analyzers, infusion pumps, medical imaging machines, physiologic monitors, powered wheelchairs, surgical drapes and surgical needles and suture materials. However, since the FDA approved and classified an "implantable radiofrequency transponder system for patient identification and health information" as a Class II device in January 2005, critics of the current administration's health care bill are claiming that these transponder systems will be utilized by President Obama to provide U.S. citizens with the "mark of the beast" (as described by at least one white supremacist web site).

Am I saying that these transponder systems will not be a possibility in the future? Of course not. I am also not saying that I would be the first in line to volunteer for one to be implanted under my skin. At the same time, I would not oppose the implant either, especially if the new information technology involved with the process would both improve the secured access of medical records and reduce health care costs. With that in mind, many Americans continue to condemn President Obama without taking just a couple of minutes to look into the annals of the previous eight years. Under the Bush administration, all new U.S. passports issued in October 2006 and beyond were (and still are) equipped with radio frequency ID (RFID) chips which can transmit personal information, such as the name, date and place of birth, gender, nationality and a digitized photograph of the passport holder. Also during the Bush presidency, the United States Department of Agriculture implemented a program intended the extend animal health surveillance by identifying and tracking specific animals (including most livestock species, various wild game and certain species of fish) through the use of RFID tags. Last but not least, when the aforementioned "implantable radiofrequency transponder system" was approved by the FDA, the Department of Health and Human Services (which oversees the FDA) was headed by Secretary Tommy Thompson. The technology, manufactured by VeriChip Corp. (a subsidiary of Applied Digital Solutions), was officially approved in January 2005 and Thompson left his Cabinet post two weeks later. Less than six months later, Thompson was appointed as a compensated member of the Board of Directors of VeriChip and Applied Digital Solutions. And just when you thought you had heard it all, Thompson almost immediately announced that he was planning on having one of the transponder systems from VeriChip injected into his arm. (In true Tommy Thompson fashion, he never went through with the actual procedure.) However, just four days after it was announced he was joining the Board of Directors of both companies, Thompson had some very interesting things to say about the technology (things that apparently everyone has since forgotten) during an interview with CBS MarketWatch:

• "All you have to do is run a wand over [the chip] and will then bring up your medical records. So it's very beneficial and it's going to be extremely helpful and it's a giant step forward to getting what we call an electronic medical record for all Americans."
• "There will be no encroachment on privacy, there won't be any adverse impact on the arm or tissue. And so it's really, very -- it's a failsafe kind of system."
• "You can also do it to replace dog tags with the United States Armed Forces."
• "The whole health care industry is way behind in technology and this is going to give that, really that impetus, to get the changing, the transformation which I call, that's badly needed in our health care system. Ninety-eight thousand people died last year because of mistakes in hospitals, in clinics, by doctors and other providers. And the chip philosophy, the chip procedure and technology, can help to prevent a lot of those untimely deaths and a lot of those mistakes and that's why I'm so excited about it."

Education Is Such a Pain in the Ass

As President Obama plans to address the nation's school children and youth (pre-kindergarten through twelfth grade) on Tuesday, Republicans and conservative parents throughout the country are, for some reasons probably unclear even to themselves, complaining about the online and televised speech. Describing President Obama's 15-20 minute address as "very socialistic", "an underhanded tactic", "a form of indoctrination" and "indicative of the culture that the Obama administration is trying to create", many of those parents are demanding that school officials allow their children to participate in alternate activities (which probably means keeping them at home for their own form of indoctrination).

Despite the fact that President Obama's speech is intended to be an inspirational and pro-education message. these Fathers and Mothers of the Year are objecting to the language in the list of suggested classroom activities before, during and following the address for students in pre-kindergarten through sixth grade. For example, "What do you think the President wants us to do?" and "Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us?". So much for "Ask now what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." With all of that being said, the following is just a short list of the other aspects of this story which both amuse and infuriate me:

• Another section of the outline for students in pre-kindergarten through sixth grade that these lunatic parents took issue is the suggestion of writing "letters to themselves about what they can do to help the President". To themselves? What is the harm in that? The White House eventually caved and changed the language in that suggestion to writing letters about "how they can achieve their short term and long term education goals". With a little research, the Obama administration would have realized that this concession was clearly a mistake. Why? President Obama is certainly not the first President to speak directly to the country's school children and youths. President George H.W. Bush delivered an address in 1991 to students nationwide from a junior high school in Washington, D.C. In fact, President Bush began his speech by stating "Thanks for allowing me to visit your classroom to talk to you...and millions more in classrooms all across the country". At the conclusion of his speech, Bush requested of the students: "Write me a letter -- and I'm serious about this one -- write me a letter about ways you can help us achieve our goals." Sound familiar? Yes, expect this request wasn't for the students to write letters to themselves.
• In a wildly incorrect accusation, Jim Greer, the Chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, uttered that, in President Obama's attempt to "indoctrinate America's children to his socialist agenda", "school children across our nation will be forced to watch the President justify his plans for government run health care, banks and automobile companies; increasing taxes on those who create jobs and racking up more debt than any other President". When asked by POLITICO.com to provide any sort of basis for Greer's comments, the Republican Party of Florida was, not surprisingly, unable to offer any type of support to that effect.
• In the areas of Virginia in which I live and work, things aren't any better. Betsy Overkamp-Smith, the spokesperson for the York County School Division, remarked that "We've had quite a few complaints about it. None of the comments have been, 'I think this is a great idea'." District officials with the Chesterfield County Public Schools commented that "We do not wish to interfere with our staff's ability to repeat past opening day successes".

Seriously? Do these whining parents and politicians really believe that, in a 15-20 minute speech, President Obama can brainwash our nation's students in less time than it takes to deliver a pizza? (Well, if he did accomplish that major feat, it would be the fault of the parents, not President Obama.) It is astonishing that these all of a sudden perfect parents are completely against the President of the United States addressing our school children and youth. Maybe they would be more comfortable with the situation if President Obama delivered the address either (1) as a character in a video game, (2) while trying to escape from the killer in the "Saw" movies or (3) while riding in a shopping cart with the cast from "Jackass". I'm sure their sons and daughters would.

How Quickly They Forget...

With the Republicans continuing their rapid attacks on President Obama and his attempts to change the health care system in our country, it is obvious that they are once again suffering from their very own form of selective amnesia. Apparently those individuals have erased from their mind the fact that the Bush administration allocated $950 million to establish universal health care for the citizens of Iraq. Yes, you read that correctly. In fact, Article 30, Section 1 of the Iraqi Constitution (which the United States assisted in drafting) declares that "The State shall guarantee to the individual and the family - especially children and women - social and health security, the basic requirements for living a free and decent life".

In defense of the U.S. funded health care for all Iraqi citizens, Tommy Thompson,the former Secretary of Health and Human Services, stated in March 2004 that "Even if you don't have health insurance, you are still taken care of in America. That certainly could be defined as universal coverage." I guess that all depends on which hospital you go to, as this recent article shows: http://www.app.com/article/20090823/NEWS/90823012/-1/FRONTTABS01/N.J.+hospital+accused+of+diverting+uninsured++Medicaid+patients+to+other+hospitals. With that being said, I am not surprised by Thompson's ridiculous comments. This is the same individual who, during a presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in May 2007, provided the following response to a question regarding whether or not a private company opposed to homosexuality should have the right to terminate a gay employee: "I think that is left up to the individual business. I really sincerely believe that that is an issue that business people have got to make their own determination as to whether or not they should be." The next morning, Thompson called into "American Morning" on CNN and backpedaled: "I made a mistake. I misinterpreted the question. I thought that I answered it yes when I should have answered it no. I didn't hear, I didn't hear the question properly and I apologize. It's not my position. There should be no discrimination in the workplace and I have never believed that."

If that wasn't enough, when addressing a conference organized by the Religious Action Center (RAC) of Reform Judaism in April 2007, Thompson referred to his lucrative transition from public service to the private sector by uttering "You know that's sort of part of the Jewish tradition and I do not find anything wrong with that". After the conclusion of his speech, Thompson was reportedly pulled aside privately by the Director of the RAC, Rabbi David Saperstein, and then returned to the podium to issue the following remarks: "I just want to clarify something because I didn't by any means want to infer or imply anything about Jews and finances and things. What I was referring to, ladies and gentlemen, is the accomplishments of the Jewish religion. You've been outstanding business people and I compliment you for that." When speaking to a reporter from POLITICO.com, Thompson blamed his insensitive comments on the fact that he "was tired".

This Wonderful Day in History

On August 19, 1946, William Jefferson Blythe III was born at the Julia Chester Hospital in Hope, AR. Blythe's father, a traveling salesperson, died in an automobile accident three months before Blythe was born and Blythe's now widowed mother eventually remarried four years later. And although Blythe was not formally adopted by his mother's second husband, he officially took his current surname at the age of fourteen as a kind gesture towards his stepfather. That last name? Clinton. Fast forward thirty-one years later, William Jefferson Clinton was thankfully elected as the 42nd President of the United States. Enough said.

The Truth Is Just a Minor Inconvenience

In a question regarding the so-called "grassroots" movement in opposition to President Obama's health care plan, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) replied last week by stating "I think they're AstroTurf. You be the judge -- carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on health care." Well, on Thursday, the blowhard known as Rush Limbaugh provided these comments on his radio show: "The Speaker of the House accusing people of showing up at these town hall meetings of wearing swastikas -- that is not insignificant, folks. This woman is deranged. They are unraveling but that is not insignificant. You have the Democrat Speaker of the House saying that people, citizens who are concerned about health care, are now wearing swastikas. She's basically saying that we are Nazis. She is saying that the people who oppose this are Nazis."

First of all, you pathetic windbag, Pelosi did not imply that your fellow conservatives were "wearing" swastikas, only carrying signs containing those symbols. (This is in addition to posters of President Obama with an Adolf Hitler mustache and hanging dummies of Democratic members of Congress in effigy.) Second, there is not one mention of or any comparison to the word Nazi in Pelosi's entire statement. I can read it back to you, Rush, if you would like. (I would like to reiterate that I am not a big fan of Pelosi so sticking up for her is not one of my favorite things to do.) But just when you thought that Limbaugh might have been finished with his incorrect and offensive ramblings, unfortunately he continued:

• "This party, the Democrat Party and where it's taken this country, the radical left leadership of this party bears much more resemblance to Nazi policies than anything we on the right believe in at all."
• "You will find that the Obama health care logo is damn close to a Nazi swastika logo."
• "There are far more similarities between Nancy Pelosi and Adolf Hitler than between these people showing up at town halls to protest a Hitler like policy that's being heralded by a Hitler like logo." As before, Pelosi made no mention of Adolf Hitler or Nazis in her comments.
• "You want to start talking, Ms. Pelosi, about ties to the Nazis? Let's focus on your party and some of the greatest heroes in your party that you hold up. And let's look at your policies, Ms. Pelosi. Your policies come dangerously close to some of those policies that Hitler forced on the German people. This is outrageous stuff for her to be running around saying these are unruly mobs with swastikas."
• "Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate. His cabinet only met once, one day. That was it." This is a tremendous point by Limbaugh, considering the fact that President Obama has clearly conducted numerous meetings with the members of his Cabinet. You definitely have to hand it to Limbaugh--he has certainly never let the facts stand in his way.

Historical Events of the Day

The significance of the first event is due to its impact on the present day, not only from a political standpoint but a cultural and sociological as well. On August 4, 1961, Barack Hussein Obama was born at the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu, HI. Both students at the time, his mother from Kansas and his Kenyan father divorced less than three years later. (And as many Republicans would have you believe, the exact moment of Obama's birth, or possibly even before, is when his parents and other family members, hospital officials, the Hawaii state government, the governments of both Kenya and the United States, the Democratic Party, etc. conceived their conspiracy to put Obama into the White House. Because, of course, we all know how racially tolerant the 1960s in America were.) Luckily that theory has been proven to be complete nonsense and the rest, as they say, is history.

The other event from history which occurred on August 4th also had a huge impact on the cultural and sociological world. Acting on a tip from a Dutch informer, the Nazi Gestapo captured fifteen-year-old Anne Frank and her family in a sealed off area of a warehouse in Amsterdam. Eluding detection by living in rooms with blacked out windows and never flushing the toilet during the day, the Franks had taken shelter in the warehouse in July 1942 to avoid deportation to a Nazi concentration camp. With her final entry into her now famous diary on August 1st, Anne and her family were arrested just three days later (and after twenty-five months in seclusion). They were transported to a concentration camp in Holland and, in September, Anne and the majority of her family were shipped to the Auschwitz concentration camp in German occupied Poland. And then, in the fall of 1944, with the Soviet liberation of Poland underway, Anne and her sister Margot were moved to the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp in Germany. Suffering from the deplorable conditions of the camp, both sisters caught typhus and died in March 1945. (The camp was liberated by the British less than two months later.) Her father Otto was the only member to survive and, following the war, he returned to Amsterdam. He was reunited with Miep Gies, one of his former employees who had assisted in sheltering him and his family. Gies handed Anne's diary to him, which Gies had fortunately discovered undisturbed after the Nazi raid. Since its initial publication in 1947, "The Diary of Anne Frank" has been translated into more than fifty languages and serves as a literary testament to the nearly six million Jews, including Anne herself, silenced in the Holocaust.

Despite her and her family's two arduous years in hiding, Anne wrote the following as one of her last diary entries: "It's really a wonder that I haven't dropped all my ideals because they seem so absurd and impossible to carry out. Yet I keep them because, in spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart. I simply can't build up my hopes on a foundation consisting of confusion, misery and death. I see the world gradually being turned into a wilderness, I hear the ever approaching thunder, which will destroy us too. I feel the suffering of millions and yet, if I look up into the heavens, I think that it will all come right, that this cruelty too will end and that peace and tranquility will return again. In the meantime, I must uphold my ideals, for perhaps the time will come when I shall be able to carry them out." I included this because I feel it is also extremely poignant to the trials and tribulations that President Obama has (and will continue to) experienced during his first six months in office.

Letter to the President

Dear President Obama,

I openly admit that I voted for you during the election and happily sport an Obama/Biden sticker on the back of my car. However, I just don't understand the need for your recent "beer summit" with Vice President Biden and two guys from MA. Now I realize Professor Gates is a friend of yours and that, as an African American, racial equality is extremely important to you. But, c'mon man, just send a couple of fruit baskets or something. That time, regardless of how short, could have been devoted to the much bigger issues that you inherited from the four presidents before you. On the other hand, at least you didn't stick your nose into a private matter between a husband and his dying wife and sign legislation to inhumanely keep the woman alive like your predecessor did in Florida a few years ago. Thanks for not being that jackass! Keep it real.

Mark Hall
Port Haywood, VA

The Epitome of Crazy

It is utterly astonishing to me that, despite the fact President Obama is already more than six months into his term, the conservative nutjobs continue to openly doubt the legitimacy of President Obama's birth certificate and, in turn, his citizenship. I guess these right wing idiots think that, if they keep discussing this topic, then President Obama's election victory will be magically overturned. This is especially ironic considering the questions (whether they are valid or not) surrounding the citizenship of his opponent during the presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). With that being said, I want to make sure that the other side of the argument is kept out there so the following links (http://theharrowdownhill.blogspot.com/2008/12/sore-losers-of-week.html and http://theharrowdownhill.blogspot.com/2008/12/they-finally-got-big-one-right.html) for two of the postings that I previously published on this topic. At the same time, it is nice to see that the editors of the National Review Online (with which I rarely agree) published an editorial (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTRjMTFhMzQxYmEzNjA2YWIwOTU4YWVjNzRmODE2NTI) against the dimwitted individuals who continue the debate on President Obama's citizenship.

One of the leaders of this group of tin foil hat wearing rocket scientists is Orly Taitz. Aside from being a birther (as the people who believe President Obama is ineligible to hold that office are now called), Taitz is also an attorney, a dentist and a real estate agent. (Yes, you read that correctly.) However, before we start listening to the ramblings of a lunatic, let's take a closer look at Ms. Taitz's various actions, background and "credentials".

• Taitz claims that, in order to be classified as a natural born citizen, both parents must be U.S. citizens. But the fact that his father was a British citizen has no effect on President Obama's status as a natural born citizen of the United States. Section 1401 of Title 8 of the U.S. Code states that an individual born either inside or outside of this country is considered to be a national and a citizen of the United States at birth if one of the parents is a U.S. citizen (his mother).
• Ironically, there is no evidence of Taitz's immigration to or arrival in the United States or documentation of her naturalization although records for those events are publicly available for the years from her birth in 1960 through the present day. There is also no evidence of her name being on the list of registered voters in California, a state in which Taitz has lived since 1987.
• Although she is a member of the State Bar of California, Taitz is not listed as a member of the American Bar Association (ABA). By the way, the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California is currently conducting an investigation after an official complaint was filed regarding Taitz and her actions.
• The law school from which she graduated, William Howard Taft University, is not accredited by the ABA. The school also does not require applicants to complete the LSAT, which is an examination administered by the Law School Admission Council for prospective law school candidates.
• Since William Howard Taft University is a distance learning institution only, Taitz’s degree entitles her, at most, to practice law in California.
• Taitz describes herself as an expert in constitutional law. However, before her interest in Obama's citizenship began, her only cases involved defending herself against medical malpractice and breach of contract suits. And if that's not enough, her husband Yosef has appeared in court on multiple occasions for various charges (including fraud and assault and battery) but never utilized his wife as his attorney. (That's a shocker.)
• The address listed for her law practice is the same as for one of her dental offices.
• Taitz claims to have earned her Master's degree in dentistry from The Hebrew University of Jerusalem but the institution does not have her listed as an alumnus.
• Her real estate license from the Department of Real Estate in California expired in February of last year.
• Along with President Obama, Taitz has accused the following individuals of treason: (1) all of the Supreme Court justices, (2) every member of the United States Congress, (3) U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, (4) U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan and (5) other officials from the federal government.
• Taitz is encouraging her supporters and fellow wackos nationwide to organize themselves as wholly unlawful "citizen's grand juries" and presenting their "indictments" of President Obama to government officials.
• Taitz claimed that Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Carroll Childers was listed as a plaintiff that she and Maj. Stefan Cook filed against President Obama. However, in an e-mail to the "Ledger-Enquirer", Maj. Gen. Childers stated "You have bad information. I have not joined the lawsuit brought by Maj. Cook. Please retract that information and do not print it again...I have notified Dr. Taitz that I am no longer a plaintiff in any motion she might process." Taitz's response? "Probably it’s some kind of mistake. I don’t know what happened." Well, there's nothing like playing around with the reputation of a career military man.
• Philip Berg, another infamous birther, filed a lawsuit against Taitz which accuses her, among other things, of harassing Berg and other plaintiffs in the case and plagiarizing the briefs Berg used in his birth certificate related actions for her own filings.
• Earlier this year, Taitz contacted local law enforcement, the FBI and the Supreme Court and claimed that her two previous web sites were being hacked and sabotaged. As a result, the PayPal accounts she used to collect donations would not receive any further contributions. However, her New Jersey based webmaster, Lisa Ostella, disagreed with Taitz's claims. Why? If Taitz’s web sites were actually hacked, then the security of all of Ostella’s clients would have been compromised. Ostella has challenged Taitz to provide her PayPal records but refuses to do so. Maybe the size of her and her husband's house has something to do with it: http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/birds-eye-view-map/25575662_zpid/#birds-eye-view.

Recommended Films of the Week

Earlier this evening, I watched an amazing documentary called "Food, Inc.". The film does a tremendous job at detailing various food safety issues, the plight of the American farmer and other scary aspects of food production in the United States. For those individuals interested in this subject matter, I would also recommend another documentary called "Death on a Factory Farm". By the way, my favorite quote from tonight's documentary was from Joel Salatin, the owner of Polyface Farms (http://www.polyfacefarms.com/), which is a family owned, multigenerational, pasture based, beyond organic, local market farm in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. When discussing, among other things, genetically modified foods, Salatin stated that "I'm continually amazed by our ability to hit the bull's eye on the wrong target".

You Couldn't Ask For a Better Source

Wendell Potter, the Senior Fellow on Health Care at the Center for Media and Democracy, recently appeared on the "Bill Moyers Journal" on PBS to discuss, among other things, the scare tactics used by health care companies. With a twenty-year as a corporate public relations executive, Potter was the Director of Corporate Communications at CIGNA until he resigned last year to join the socially responsible Center for Media and Democracy. Potter's appearance with Bill Moyers was certainly timely, given the current debate regarding President Obama's health care plan. And after listening to Potter speak for almost an hour, I certainly understand why many individuals, including myself, feel that the health care system needs to be drastically reformed. If you have not done so already, I certainly encourage you to watch Michael Moore's documentary "SiCKO" to full appreciate the clips included in this interview but I have included some other quotes from Potter's appearance below:

• "I thought that [Michael Moore] hit the nail on the head with his movie. But the industry, from the moment that the industry learned that Michael Moore was taking on the health care industry, it was really concerned."
• "The industry has always tried to make Americans think that government run systems are the worst thing that could possibly happen to them, that if you even consider that, you're heading down on the slippery slope towards socialism. So they have used scare tactics for years and years and years to keep that from happening. If there were a broader program like our Medicare program, it could potentially reduce the profits of these big companies. So that is their biggest concern."
• "In memos that would go back within the industry, [Moore] was never, by the way, mentioned by name in any memos because we didn't want to inadvertently write something that would wind up in his hands. So the memos would usually-- the subject line would be-- the e-mails would be "Hollywood". And as we would do the media training, we would always have someone refer to him as Hollywood entertainer or Hollywood moviemaker Michael Moore."
• "You know, we have more people who are uninsured in this country than the entire population of Canada. And that, if you include the people who are underinsured, more people than in the United Kingdom."
• "I was watching MSNBC one afternoon. And I saw [Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN)]. He's just down the road from where I grew up, in Chattanooga. And he was talking-- he was asked a question about health care reform. I think it was just a day or two after the President's first health care reform summit. And he was one of the ones Republicans put on the tube.
  And he was saying that, you know, the health care problem is not necessarily as bad as we think. That of the uninsured people, half of them are that way because they want to 'go naked'."
• "The industry doesn't want to have any competitor. In fact, over the course of the last few years, has been shrinking the number of competitors through a lot of acquisitions and mergers. So, first of all, they don't want any more competition, period. They certainly don't want it from a government plan that might be operating more efficiently than they are, that they operate. The Medicare program that we have here is a government run program that has administrative expenses that are like three percent or so...[The health care companies] spend about 20 cents of every premium dollar on overhead, which is administrative expense or profit. So they don't want to compete against a more efficient competitor."
• "Back in the early '90s, or back during the time that the Clinton plan was being debated, ninety-five cents out of every dollar was sent, you know, on average was used by the insurance companies to pay claims. Last year, it was down to just slightly above eighty percent. So investors want that to keep shrinking."
• "A big chunk of [a health care premium] goes into shareholders' pockets. It's returned to them as part of the investment to them. It goes into the exorbitant salaries that a lot of the executives make. It goes into paying sales, marketing and underwriting expenses. So a lot of it goes to pay those kinds of administrative functions -- overhead."
• "The people who are enrolled in our Medicare plan like it better. The satisfaction ratings are higher in our Medicare program, a government run program, than in private insurance."