Piggybacking On The Special Interests, Ctd

by Patrick Appel

A reader writes:

This piece looks at the wrong data. You suggest that correlations be examined between political contributions and donors’ profitability. The latter component, profitability, needs to be changed to return on investment for political contributions. Warren Buffett has said that there is no higher return that a corporation can earn, historically, than through the investment of cash in the political process. Dollar for dollar he thinks that this activity out earns all other profitmaking ventures. You need to identify dollars invested/contributed against dollars returned. Overall profitability of a corporation,rather than political dollars returned to the contributor, will dilute the figure. No company can earn, in all its other activities, as much as it can earn through political contributions. This is why, in market speak, we have only scratched the surface for political contributions. As more and more people become aware of the returns, the higher the number of corporations that will engage in the political process.

Max Balks

by Chris Bodenner

And Chait fumes:

The worst news of a terrible week is that Max Baucus is even more pathetic than I thought, and believe me, I had set the bar extremely low. A few weeks ago, Max Baucus told his committee that if he had not reached a bipartisan agreement by September 15, he would go ahead and push a vote through his committee anyway. I hailed this as huge news. (The Republicans have every incentive to delay health care negotiations indefinitely, even if they plan to sign on eventually.) […] Now (and by "now" I mean last Friday) I see that the "Gang of Six" negotiating a bipartisan health care bill has decided to blow off this deadline.

Keep Your Eye On The Lawyers II

by Chris Bodenner

Ackerman also worries, but makes some promising points:

[T]roops get all kinds of sympathy that CIA operatives never do, and therefore there's an expectation of moral virtue that [Lynndie] England, in the eyes of many, tacitly violated; by contrast, CIA operatives are expected to do bad things in our name that we'd rather not hear about. It's easier, in other words, to hang them out to dry. Furthermore, the CIA's interrogation program has been vouched for by George W. Bush personally, so the few-bad-apples argument is much harder for apologists to make, even if Interrogator Jim used 8 oz. of water to waterboard when the rules clearly told him to use 4 oz. or whatever. But we'll see.

Keep Your Eye On The Lawyers

by Patrick Appel

Marcy Wheeler worries about the torture documents due to be released today (we will be following this story all day):

If it is, indeed, DOJ's plan to release all the other torture documents save the [Office of Public Responsibility (OPR)] report, it will have the effect of distracting the media with horrible descriptions of threats with power drills and waterboarding, away from the equally horrible description of lawyers willfully twisting the law to "authorize" some of those actions. It will shift focus away from those that set up a regime of torture and towards those who free-lanced within that regime in spectacularly horrible ways. It will hide the degree to which torture was a conscious plan, and the degree to which the oral authorizations for torture may well have authorized some of what we'll see in the IG Report tomorrow.

If it is, indeed, DOJ's plan to release the [inspector general’s] Report and announce an investigation without, at the same time, releasing the OPR report, it will serve the goal of exposing the Lynndie England's of the torture regime while still protecting those who instituted that regime.

The View From Your Sickbed

by Patrick Appel

A mother describes her family's struggle to keep their daughter Sophie insured:

In fall of 2005, we decided to switch from our private, self-employment insurance that we had used for years to Blue Cross. There was a week long gap between the policies – something that we didn't think anything of, because we simply did not know better. Just as our Blue Cross plan was set to start, we received a notice from them stating that they considered Sophie to have a pre-existing pulmonary problem (due to the amount of doctor's visits for pneumonia), and that while they would cover her in general, they wouldn't cover any pulmonary/respiratory issues until she had gone two years without needing medication or problems.

Our reaction: OMG. Actually I believe it was OMFG. All of a sudden, Sophie was without coverage for pulmonary problems. This was absolutely terrifying. What if she got sick?! What if she needed to be hospitalized?! We spent the next couple of months researching every insurance company that we could, begging them to take Sophie. Nope, it wasn't going to happen.

And then our biggest fear came true: Sophie got very, very sick.

And I'm ashamed to say that although we knew that she was incredibly ill, we actually considered keeping her home from the doctor's office, as we knew that this would be yet another strike against her getting insurance. Luckily we pulled our heads out of our asses and took her to the doctor anyway, and it's good that we did, because Sophie was so critically ill that she was sent straight from the doctor's office to ICU. She was so sick that we couldn't even wait for an ambulance; they helped me throw our limp, blue daughter into our car, and I drove like hell to get her to the hospital next door.

Let me state that very clearly one more time: we almost didn't take our baby girl, who was in severe respiratory distress, to the doctor because we knew that it would hurt her chances of getting insurance.

I realize that your reality of living in the U.S. and of health insurance is likely very different than this. But I'm going to ask you to sit for a moment and imagine being in our shoes in that situation. Imagine the shame and guilt of almost keeping your child home from the hospital until it was too late, and then imagine the horror of seeing your child naked in ICU, hooked to many different machines. There is no way to describe how this felt.

One night in ICU? $10,000, not covered by insurance.

After this hospitalization, we were approached by a hospital social worker, who suggested we apply for SoonerCare. SoonerCare is Oklahoma's Medicaid program for kids. Luckily I'm a social worker who was working for a non-profit at the time, so we had no problems meeting financial criteria. (Ha ha. A little social work humor there.) SoonerCare does NOT exclude kids for pre-existing conditions, and it covers Sophie's medications and treatment 100%.

Since that horrible October in 2005, Sophie has needed hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of treatments, hospitalizations, surgeries, medications, testing, and interventions in order to stay strong and healthy, and in some instances, to stay alive.

She has required three bronchoscopies, the middle section of her lung removed, extensive genetic testing, cardiology work ups, dozens of x-rays, CT scans, and a two week trip to a pulmonary hospital in Denver. When she's healthy, she requires three steroids, twice a day, and when she's sick she is usually on five steroids, twice daily. She's been diagnosed with right middle lobe syndrome (though not anymore, since she had it removed), a genetic mutation of cystic fibrosis, severe uncontrollable asthma, and severe sinus disease.

Since SoonerCare is the only insurance that will accept Sophie, we have to meet their financial criteria, which means living at or below the poverty level. I have had to quit wonderful jobs because I made too much money to qualify for SoonerCare. At this point I can only work either part-time, or for a very small salary, because we CANNOT afford to lose Sophie's healthcare coverage. It's the most important thing in our lives. We structure every single financial and professional decision we make around staying eligible for SoonerCare.

And while we'll gladly continue to live at the poverty level in order to provide our daughter with the healthcare that keeps her alive, we SHOULDN'T HAVE TO. We would happily pay outrageous premiums and co-pays, and do whatever else it took to get Sophie covered by regular health insurance. But you know what they all tell us?

She has to go two years with no pulmonary medications and no doctor's visits because of respiratory problems before anyone will accept her. Sophie can't go two DAYS without her medications, let alone two years.

Burning On

by Patrick Appel

Sincere thanks to Conor Clarke and Peter Suderman for doing a superb job this week and to Bob Wright (who was on Colbert last week) for his work the week before. I hope you will buy Bob's new book, visit Conor Clarke at his Atlantic blog, and keep up with Peter at Hit & Run and The American Scene.

This week we're very lucky to have Atlantic Contributing Editor Hanna Rosin and Dish alum Conor Friedersdorf guest-blogging alongside Chris and myself. Andrew e-mailed me today to say he is "slowly returning to the life of full consciousness," which I take as a good sign. Here is Andrew's sign off post for those readers who missed it. He'll be back to full-time blogging after Labor Day, but Andrew claimed when he left that he would "be contributing some photo-blogging from the Cape and maybe a few notes from the books [he's] reading," so perhaps we'll see him around these parts before then.

End of Guest Blogging

by Conor Clarke

This has been my second time guestblogging on the Dish, and it did not disappoint. I probably got more angry emails this time than last time. But I don't mind, and it seems to me that the great thing about blogging — especially here — is the opportunity to have one's idiotic beliefs whipped painfully into shape by a large, intelligent and responsive audience. So, thanks.

A quick and shameless plug: I hope some of you join me over at my own Atlantic blog, which I'll be writing for the next few weeks, until graduate school intervenes. (And maybe after, if grad school is boring.) I will further add that my own blog has a comment section. Why settle for writing a mean email, when you can leave a mean comment? Or both?