Health Insurance & Socialism

The opinion article in the NDN on Wed. certainly caught my eyes with Rep. Loughlin screaming, "Socialized Medicine- Don't go There." Socialized medicine. I haven't heard that bugaboo since I was a h.s. debater with the topic of whether or not we should adopt Medicare. It was in the early 1900's that the AMA decided to torpedo attempts to supply Amercian's health care coverage with the then ominous threat of "socialism." OOOh, very scary. It also sounds like Communism- aren't they the same? Nope. What socialist countries can you even name off the top of your head?

Do you know who the AMA got to promote this campaign of deep-sixing Medicare in the Sixties? Ah, that vernable Republican icon- Ronald Reagan. What else has the AMA opposed under this banner- HMO's, Medicare, Medicaid, chiropractors, and it's not all that crazy about psychiatrists either. With less than 15% of practicing physicians now belonging to this group, who cares?

Rep. Loughlin also touts the "Patients' Choice Act." Sounds good, right? Choice is good. Unfortunately, this act is now also commonly referred to as the Swiss Cheese Policy and not because it tastes good or melts well. Sure, you'll be able to get healthcare coverage. Ah, but pricing, pricing, there's the rub. Women will pay more along with seniors like me. Just when you need it, how can you afford it?

The good Rep. also supports "Medicare Accountability" organizations. Yup, let's concentrate all our efforts fixing a program that works. Tax credits (this only works if you actually are paying substantial taxes to begin with), taking away your rights to sue physicians, hospitals, etc. all are part of his solution to our healthcare dilema. Less government is better (boy, that certainly worked out in New Orleans, didn't it), Wash. bureaucrats made this mess (hey, didn't Republicans runn the show for 14 yrs.) & berating Rep. Kennedy along with the DMV (it's recently taken me less time there than at my doctor's)= Conservative Republican magical mystery tour. He forgot to mention that he also favors mom & apple pie, rah, rah.

I don't want "universal acess" to health care, I want affordable coverage for everyone! I also want a single-payer system. Choice- yup. I choose a public plan and, if I want, I add to it with private coverage. Do I trust insurance companies to now suddenly come up with a plan to economize? Oh, surely. They just never thought that we were interested in that before.

Don't go there, indeed. We should have travelled there years ago and it's people like State Rep. Loughlin that blocked us. He wants us to have the same quality healthcare that Rep. Kennedy enjoys. 75% of the his costs are paid for by- US as part of the federal plan (FEHBP). Yup, I could live with that.

How stupid are we? Let's see- 119 million Americans are ready to sign-up today for a public plan. And sixty-three percent favor an increase in the governmental regs over their health care plans while attempting to lower costs and cover more Americans. Six out of ten Americans believe that health care should be a right. Not so dumb after all.

Patients' Choice Act? We don't need no stinking patients choice act! We need universal health care insurance. Now.

Legislators Not Voting

Perhaps they just can't make up their minds, perhaps they don't want to vote against their leadership or the Governor, perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. We elect them to vote & make the hard decisions, even if we don't agree.


Thursday the State House of Reps voted on a bill to expunge some criminal records in which a deferred sentence was received. I'm not going to go over its merits, just the resulting vote. The guv, the state police, & the att'y gen'l were all against. The bill brought up some heated debate.

"I mean, as much as I like redemtion, Mr. Speaker, I also have a belief in the freedom of information and a knowledge of history, " argued House Minority Leader Robert A. Watson, R-East Greenwich... "My God, I am not going to do that today. I never will be that irresponsible with my vote. Ever."

So one would assume he voted against the bill. One would be wrong. He voted not at all (he was absent). Neither did Rep. Loughlin (R-Tiverton) nor Rep. Amaral (R-Tiverton & P'mouth). Local legislators voting against it were Rice, (P'mouth & Midd), Long (Jamestown & Midd.), & Coaty (Npt.). Rep. Amaral was also absent. Local supporters were Jackson (Npt. & Midd.) & Gallison (Bristol & P'mouth). Rep. Loughlin asked the lege journal to reflect that if he had voted, it would have been in the negative (closest thing to a mulligan the Lege offers).

The bill now heads to the Senate. BTW, I've said this before- tracking legislators votes is almost impossible. You have to head directly for the legislative journal for the day the bill was voted on. One also can't assume a legislator voted just because they were there. Each vote needs to be checked. Not apple pie easy. Many times the journals (esp. the Senate) can take awhile to post. The "Newport Daily News" no longer provides even weekly coverage of what our legislators are doing. I guess because it just doesn't matter.


Or does it?


Thanks to Projo reporter Katherine Gregg for the heads-up.

Rep. Loughlin Considering Challenging Rep. Kennedy

Just picked this up from yesterday in Projo. You'd already heard that rumor posted awhile ago here.

Ah, sweet seduction from national Republicans.

Rep. Loughlin's State House District covers all of Little Compton & Adamsville, and part of Tiverton. It was gerrymandered for a Republican and it's worked! He had no opposition in 2006 and ran against Dem. Forte in 2004. Of course, you have to realize that it was a Dem. Lege that did this. The leadership was upset with former Dem. Rep. Enos & gerrymandered him out of a seat basically. Sometimes you need a scorecard in this state to tell the Dems from the Republicans.

If he forgoes the federal office, he'll go for the State Rep. (2nd choice). He's involved in media (his own business) & even if he loses, with the networking he can do, he may well end up ahead pocket-wise even if he loses vote-wise. Robataille hasn't fared too badly since he ran for Rep. in District 93 & lost by only a few votes. He now is the Guv's new public relations official. He also runs a public relations/media firm.

Thanks to reporter Peter Phipps

Driving Public Policy with Reps. Long & Loughlin

**UPDATE** Bill passed.

Recently the Daily News published an article entitled, "Republicans oppose prison release plan." What is intriguing is that some Republicans in House debate on the Guv's budget proposal put forth a bill aimed at allowing early release for prisoners and placing us more in-line with other states; thereby saving bucks (millions). This proposal awards good prison behavior with time-off their sentence (there are maxes). "... the proposal came from a study committee formed by the governor to look into the exploding prison population."

"Committee members agreed that it didn’t make sense to give more time off to the worst criminals, Neal said.“The worse your crime, the more good time you are eligible for,” Neal said. “On its face, that doesn’t make any sense.”Those who may be concerned about early release of prisoners should keep in mind that the prisoners being released would be getting out soon anyway, Neal said."

The vote on the bill was put off at the request of House Republicans, oddly enough. It is their Party's Guv who is putting forth the budget.

“I get concerned when monetary policy drives public policy,” said Rep. Bruce J. Long, R-Middletown [& Jamestown].

“Are we making corrections policy for budgetary reasons or correction reasons?” asked Rep. John J. Loughlin II, R-Tiverton [and Little Compton]. “Would this have even come up if not for the deficit?”

These are intriguing, even mildly provocative statements. It drives the question then, what should drive public policy? What part should budgetary concerns play in deciding public policy? How do you jive the Governor's recent budgets which seek severe cuts in public services, et al, and freezes state/school aid? How do you explain the Republican caucus' decision to call for even more severe cuts; e.g., cancelling school unfunded mandates, cutting dept. budgets even more stringently than the Governor put forth?

Sure sounds like the budget driving public policy to me. Cut the budget, please, we don't care where. Oddly enough, I saw neither Rep. at the recent budget hearings over proposed cuts to mental health & Medicare. Talk about the budget driving public policy! Sure would like to have heard them post these questions to the Finance Committee.

Rep. Loughlin II-"Because I Say So"

On Fri., Nov. 16, Representative Loughlin (Tiverton & Little Compton) authored "Guest View" in the "Newport Daily News" (no link). The Representative evidently feels no need for a fact checker before clicking on that send button. The headline reads: "Time has come for state to change pension system." He then proceeds to dump the State's defined contribution plan for teachers and state workers to a "defined-benefit" plan (401-k) for new hires (bill H-5447, Loughlin & Long). He laments "another do-nothing legislative study commission" studying this idea.

Now I've never met the Rep. and I'm sure that he's kind to small animals, generous to kids, & doesn't abuse his wife. But how about a bit of research? Instead what follows are the usual Republican ramblings about "Union bosses" (four times). Oooh, scary bad men dictating to mindless followers. Let’s stick to the facts, ma'am.

So here are the facts. House Speaker Murphy called for an analysis of the numbers & a review of other states' experiences in this area. This is a bad thing?

Actuarial data (you know - that fact stuff) says that switching new State employees & teachers to a 401(k) system would cost taxpayers $480 million more than the current system. The Governor's office paid for this analysis. Uh-oh, doesn't sound so good now.

The primary reason that the pension fund now costs the State monies, is the former practice of "underfunding." These were short-term budget solutions for which we will be paying 23 years until no more pension deficits.

The Representative exaggerates the number of states adopting such a plan & left out details. One state, Alaska, made an initial contribution of $450 million to the plan and towns/cities have had substantial increases in their contributions. Another just switched back because of the high associated costs. Few states (I found three) now have this kind of pension plan. Six states offer this as an option and fewer still have hybrid plans.

State pension fund investments often demand corporate and social accountability. R.I. withdrew investments from companies that overtly or indirectly aid in genocide in Sudan’s Darfur region. "Economically targeted investments," a type used by some of the nation's 2,400 public pension funds, are re-invested in the State- such as the Quonset Business Park.

Possibly figuring into this plan are financial management firms poised to administer millions of new accounts worth billions of dollars in fees.

Am I against pension fund 401(k)'s? No, but I do think that it bears some careful study by ALL of the stakeholders, not just Rep. Loughlin. We the people are invested in this and are not just mindless idiots fooled by some quick, glib remarks. Save the State money? Prove it and do the research.

Anne Hutchinson Bridge - Has a Good Ring To It

This is the second time around for Rep. Rice's bill to rename the Sakonnet Bridge. I've heard Sen. Gibbs state that it should remain as it is. A tribal official also wants to preserve the bridge name (guess the river isn't enough).
Last year Amy intro'd this bill & anticipated no problems when she rec'd agreement from Rep. Loughlin to back it. Silly girl. After she told him she'd write a letter to the Tiv. Town Council asking for support. Rep. Loughlin did an about face (hmm, maybe this has to do with his military background) & had his own "new bill" to rename it after a Tiverton resident placed on the agenda & her request never made it to the agenda. The fight was on! True political machinations at their worse!
This yr. his bill is to keept the current bridge name. The Portsmouth Council has supported her bill. Rep. Loughlin's bill is to keep it as the Sakonnet Bridge.
So, we'll all call it the Sakonnet Bridge (or the Portsmouth Bridge) anyway. Just like we refer to the Pell Bridge as the Newport Bridge or the Jamestown bridge rather than Jamestown-Verrazano Bridge. Honoring an unusual and influential Colonial woman is a good thing. I believe that it has a good chance of passing. But will the guv veto??
BTW, I think Amy actually wrote this herself (or a very capable aide). No spelling errors, no grammar problems. Amazing what a little education can do for a person (spell-check doesn't hurt either).

What is the significance of naming the Sakonnet River Bridge after Anne Hutchinson, the founding mother of Aquidneck Island?

It would mean that our state would finally have a bridge named after a woman — a powerful female figure and natural leader who defied a Colonial government that stood for religious persecution.
It would mean that Rhode Island would recognize Anne Hutchinson as a pioneer for rights that we hold so dear: religious freedom, female equality, and civil liberties for all people.
It would mean that our state would join Massachusetts and New York — states where Hutchinson made only a relatively marginal impact — in honoring a woman who played an integral role in the history of Aquidneck Island, our state, and our nation.
Nearly 400 years ago, in a time when women were subjugate to men, Anne Hutchinson refused to compromise her beliefs that all people should be afforded the basic rights to freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom to worship. She founded Portsmouth in 1638 and is listed on the Rhode Island Secretary of State’s Web site as the first founding woman of a town in North America.
Anne Hutchinson is to Aquidneck Island what Roger Williams is to mainland Rhode Island. With the many memorials dedicated to Roger Williams, I find it surprising that there is any opposition to naming one bridge after one of the founding members of our state, particularly since only 10 percent of Rhode Island’s buildings, etc. are named after women.
In the last 15 years, Rhode Island has continued to honor living legends with the naming of the Claiborne Pell Bridge and the T.F. Green Bruce Sundlun Terminal in Warwick. Honoring a worthy person such as Anne Hutchinson who is vital to Rhode Island’s history is just as important as recognizing those significant Rhode Islanders who are still with us.
While I do understand that most Rhode Islanders will continue to refer to the bridge as the “Sakonnet River Bridge,” it is important to note that Anne Hutchinson’s name is synonymous with the Sakonnet River, as Hutchinson and her husband built their Common Fence Point home very close to where the bridge is currently located. My legislation to name the new bridge the “Anne Hutchinson Bridge” has been endorsed by the Portsmouth Town Council, the League of Women Voters, the Women’s Fund and Rhode Island historian Patrick Conley and I urge every resident of Aquidneck Island to support this measure to commemorate a truly great woman who changed the face of history.

Rep. Amy Rice

Why do Gibbs, Loughlin, & Waluk Support McCain?

Still waiting for a public comment on why so many Republicans, especially our Senator June Gibbs came out in support of Sen. McCain. Could it be the payback for coming here to raise support for former Sen. Chafee? Nah!

So why? His non-support of gay/lesbian marriage? stance against gun control? Perhaps supportive of his pro-war stance???

Why not back Mass. Mitt Romney (hey, it's right NEXT to us)? Familiar with favorite son candidacies?

Oops, forgot. R.I. Sen. Gibbs was a key player in Bush's election & re-election team here. When McCain backed out of the 2000 Primary & supported Bush, he expected payback from the Bushies. And it's here. Which reminds me, what about the guv? Not a peep from him yet. Hiding behind the bushes like Cheney, waiting?

Too little, too late. Afraid McCain's day is gone.

So why the support? Sen. Gibbs, why? Against gun control, against gay/lesbian marriage, FOR the Iraq war? I'd like to know & I bet that I'm not the only one. McCain doesn't seem to be the straight-shooter he once was perceived to be (yeah, bad pun intended). Talk about pandering.

So speak up! Get out that script! How about it,Because June-says-so? I know you're there. How about you, Newport Mayor Waluk, and Representative John Loughlin (Little Compton, Adamsville, Tiverton)? There certainly was plenty of speechifying a few months ago. There's also been a fair amount of letter writing/press releases (which aide/assistant/policy wonk did that?). What happened? Going down with a sinking ship or will there be a mass exodus (sorry, that pun in remembrance of Passover)?


Doesn't appear that any of you were even willing to back your candidate with moola, according to the "Washington Post." Heck, I back my candidates with money, work, and WORDS. I'm waitin'. And I'm not alone.

Rep. Loughlin Defines Republicans Again

This time the Rep. goes big time by being published in Projo. Seems as if he did a little cleaning up of his original guest op ed piece in the "Newport Daily News" (see below). Do you think that he read the critique below & on "Newport Nine?" Nah! The latter had his published in the daily snooze (sorry, no link).

Same critique now. Oddly enough, nowhere in the article does Loughlin use the word "jobs," but it makes for a great headline.

Wonder who did the rewrite? The grammatical error is gone & other changes were made. Projo editors may have cleaned it up or House Republican staffers who have, like, dictionaries.

Rep. Loughlin Defines Republicans???

It’s the biggest bunch of baloney since an Oscar Mayer commercial. I’m referring to Rep. John Loughlin’s apology for being a Republican in Thurs. “Newport Daily News.” Sorry, no free link. It’s a “Guest View” entitled, “R.I. Republicans must Present Vision.” There’s a “Duh!” moment if ever there was one.

Rep. Loughlin represents Little Compton & some of Tiverton. He had no opposition this election so this article affords him an opportunity to elucidate on what his “vision” is. He must be feeling somewhat intimidated by the Dem. victories this Fall & the desertion of Rep. Scott recently from the Republican party. Having a Republican represent our District is as useful as teats on a bull.

Part of the R.I. Republican Party’s core principles is a “limited government.” One sure wouldn’t guess this from the Party’s expansion of government on the national scene. Or the Guv’s wanting to raise salaries and add jobs for non-certified office holders today. The guv’s reason for this comes from his spokesman, “I understand that the funds to pay for these positions and salary increases are coming from gambling revenues that would not have otherwise been provided to the state. As a result, there is no cost to the taxpayer.” Hey, buddy, it’s ALL our money!

Another core belief is that of “expanding economic opportunity by creating new wealth in society is far preferable to perpetuating a culture of dependency through government-run programs.” Translation: the rich get richer and everyone else…well, remember it’s the “ownership society.” Problems? Well, you’re on your own. What, you don’t buy the trickle-down malarkey? It worked well for Vanderbilt and Rockefeller. That part in our Constitution” to promote the general welfare” was a typographical error. All taxes are bad, don’t you know?

He then points to “the biggest threat to our prosperity today is the ever-esculating tax burden and its ringleader, the real-estate property tax.” And here I thought it was the loss of good-paying jobs. The irony is that he quotes Teddy Roosevelt twice in the article. It was Teddy who wanted to heavily tax the wealthiest and help to redistribute wealth. Taxes received from the federal and state governments have been cut so much in recent years that local communities, the bottom of the food chain, have had no other choice but to raise taxes. As I’ve said many times, while the fed’l & state legislators take bows for reducing taxes (yet giving us a plethora of un-funded mandates), it’s left up to local council people to either raise taxes or cut essential services.

Rep. Loughlin states Republicans believe in “protecting our environment.” Guess they’ve missed how the Guv keeps refusing to sign the regional pact for reduction of greenhouse gases. Or do they still not believe in global warning like the Prez?

His last quote was quite on the mark, though. “If you could kick the person in the pants responsible for most of your trouble, you wouldn’t sit for a month.” You’ve got a national party that has split into different factions. This has translated into a state party that has the same factions and no one able or willing to unify it. Perhaps they should all become Democrats. Or perhaps they just don’t have a viable agenda. In fact, after reading his article, I’m still not sure what the agenda is. Perhaps it’s all an oxymoron. Say one thing but do another. But make it sound good.

I have to wonder why this article was written by a two-term legislator when our District has the two longest serving Republicans (Long & Gibbs). One would think that they would be able to best articulate the “Republican vision.” Maybe they’ve forgotten it.

See more comments on this at Newport Nine. Oops, I missed the grammatical error. Thanks, Tom!