Meet The New Dan
So Dave Letterman has now officially outed himself as a leftist buffoon.
I'm talking about Letterman's treatment of Bill O'Reilly last night on Late Night where Letterman exposed his true colors as a typical coastal leftist with a templated mind.
I'm not a huge O'Reilly fan, but he's at least fighting the good fight most of the time and exposing the less sophisticated news connisewer rats to what could roughly be called conservative ideology (albeit with a populist spin).
O'Reilly isn't exactly one of the top guys to us conservatives, but to coastal leftists he is the Enemy and Letterman saw his chance to make A Stand and be heralded at cocktail parties for years.
Here he plays the liberal-approved were-you-ever-in-Vietnam? card:
Letterman: "Have you lost family members in armed conflict?"
O'Reilly: "No, I have not."
Letterman: "Well, then you can hardly speak for her, can you?" [applause]
Here he refuses to answer a direct question from O'Reilly, showing his intellectual laziness and entertainer's arrogance:
O'Reilly: "This is important, this is important. Cindy Sheehan lost a son, a professional soldier in Iraq, correct? She has a right to grieve any way she wants, she has a right to say whatever she wants. When she says to the public that the insurgents and terrorists are 'freedom fighters', how do you think, David Letterman, that makes people who lost loved ones, by these people blowing the Hell out of them, how do you think they feel, what about their feelings, sir?"
Letterman: "What about, why are we there in the first place? [applause] The President himself, less than a month ago said we are there because of a mistake made in intelligence. Well, whose intelligence? It was just somebody just get off a bus and handed it to him?"
Here, Letterman channels Mitch Berg:
O'Reilly: "No way. [waits for applause to die down] No way you're going to get me, no way that a terrorist who blows up women and children."
Letterman: "Do you have children?"
O'Reilly: "Yes I do. I have a son the same age as yours. No way a terrorist who blows up women and children is going to be called a 'freedom fighter' on my program." [mild audience applause]
Here he tries to show that he's above all this silly debating stuff, but he feels that O'Reilly is wrong. He knows what he knows, even if he has never watched O'Reilly's show:
Letterman: "I'm not smart enough to debate you point to point on this, but I have the feeling, I have the feeling about 60 percent of what you say is crap. [audience laughter] But I don't know that for a fact. [more audience applause].
Paul Shafer: "60 percent."
Letterman: "60 percent. I'm just spit-balling here."
O'Reilly: "Listen, I respect your opinion. You should respect mine."
Letterman: "Well, ah, I, okay. But I think you're-"
O'Reilly: "Our analysis is based on the best evidence we can get."
Letterman: "Yeah, but I think there's something, this fair and balanced. I'm not sure that it's, I don't think that you represent an objective viewpoint." (ED NOTE: Earth to Dave--O'Reilly is a commentator, not a news anchor. Is this a tough distinction to make?)
O'Reilly: "Well, you're going to have to give me an example if you're going to make those claims."
Letterman: "Well I don't watch your show so that would be impossible."
O'Reilly: "Then why would you come to that conclusion if you don't watch the program?"
Letterman: "Because of things that I've read, things that I know."
O'Reilly: "Oh come on, you're going to take things that you've read. You know what that says about you? Come on. Watch it for a couple, look, watch it for a half hour. You'll get addicted. You'll be a Factor fan, we'll send you a hat."
Letterman: "You'll send me a hat. Well, send Cindy Sheehan a hat"
O'Reilly: "I'll be happy to."
What incredible hubris Letterman showed last night. What disdain for the values of half of the people in the country. Amazing that a popular entertainer would go so far out on a limb like this.
I know there are a sizeable portion of what I call the Thank-You-Sir-May-Have-Another-Conservatives who don't want to hold entertainers responsible for their BS rhetoric and will gladly suffer any slight, diss or direct kick in the nuts and just throw up their hands and say "Oh well, I don't like him because of his politics".
Well, I think that has to change. Letterman needs to become persona non grata to thinking conservatives. He needs to be the butt of jokes. He needs to be mocked, scorned and ridiculed. He needs to become the new Dan Rather.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
The Man Behind The Mask
Breaking news over at Minnesota Democrats Exposed. The exposer exposes himself:
My name is ******* ******** and I am Minnesota Democrats Exposed.
What? You thought I was going to make it that easy? Follow the link to find out who MDE really is. No fooling around this time.
Breaking news over at Minnesota Democrats Exposed. The exposer exposes himself:
My name is ******* ******** and I am Minnesota Democrats Exposed.
What? You thought I was going to make it that easy? Follow the link to find out who MDE really is. No fooling around this time.
Send in the Gatekeepers
On Monday I wrote about an error appearing in the Sunday the New York Times regarding their characterization of a 30% decrease in the number of US military wounded in Iraq between 2004 and 2005 as being "much higher" in 2005. In the off chance the public editor doesn't read Fraters Libertas (except for the Atomizer posts), I also sent an email pointing out the discrepancy and requesting a correction.
Within seconds I go an automated reply with these assurances:
Thanks for your message to our Reader Comment mailbox. Your e-mail will reach the appropriate editor promptly. We are grateful to readers who take the time to help us report thoroughly and accurately.
Ordinarily a comment about news coverage will receive a further reply. And we do pay respectful attention to all messages, even those that are part of organized letter-writing campaigns, for which we are not staffed to reply individually. A correction generally takes two or three days to appear on Page A2, after fact checking.
I never got a personal reply to my inquiry (which means I'm now officially an organized campaign), but I do see the correction has been printed. And it looks like the damage runs deeper than I thought:
An article on Sunday about American military casualties in Iraq misstated figures in some copies for the American service members wounded in 2005 and 2004 as reported by the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, a nonprofit group that tracks American service members killed and wounded in Iraq. According to the group, 5,557 American service members were wounded in 2005, not 9,157; and 7,989 were wounded in 2004, not 7,956.
This is actually a different error than the one I pointed out. In my edition of the NYT, the casualty numbers were reported correctly, it was their news summary on page 2 that gave them an exactly opposite characterization. Now they're saying that the actual numbers reported in some editions were incorrect. Apparently by the time my edition went to print, those numbers had been corrected in the article, but they forgot to fix the summary. So post correction, yet another correction needed to be made. Which brings up the inevitable question, with gate keepers like this, who needs circus clowns?
Curious as to whether the post-correction correction needed a further correction, I Googled the source the NYT is blindly quoting as the definitive tabulator of US military casualties.
Iraq Coalition Casualty Count indeed does list the number of US military wounded in 2005 as 5,777 and for 2004 as 7,987. Although there are numerous tables and charts listed on the main page, it's easy to identify this information from the site, and cut and paste into a spreadsheet to confirm the calculations. Which makes me wonder how the NYT reporter, Dexter Filkins, and his gatekeepers produced the erroneous numbers in the first place. I ran a few other combinations but couldn?t come up with the 9,157 wounded in 2004 that was originally cited. Any enterprising bloggers who have time to figure out where they went wrong might uncover some hilarious insight about what part of "wounded" or "2005" the Times doesn't understand.
But, with that truncated, buried correction, I'm sure the editors and their apologists now feel that they've done their jobs. Wrong has been righted, and they can breezily moveon.org to other stories that reinforce their beliefs.
In reality, the error and bias linger on. The facts of the story they were pursuing should have produced the following headline and plot summary:
Casualties in Iraq down sharply in '05
I haven't seen that article yet. As the gatekeepers have demonstrated, in their judgment, good news like that isn't fit to print.
On Monday I wrote about an error appearing in the Sunday the New York Times regarding their characterization of a 30% decrease in the number of US military wounded in Iraq between 2004 and 2005 as being "much higher" in 2005. In the off chance the public editor doesn't read Fraters Libertas (except for the Atomizer posts), I also sent an email pointing out the discrepancy and requesting a correction.
Within seconds I go an automated reply with these assurances:
Thanks for your message to our Reader Comment mailbox. Your e-mail will reach the appropriate editor promptly. We are grateful to readers who take the time to help us report thoroughly and accurately.
Ordinarily a comment about news coverage will receive a further reply. And we do pay respectful attention to all messages, even those that are part of organized letter-writing campaigns, for which we are not staffed to reply individually. A correction generally takes two or three days to appear on Page A2, after fact checking.
I never got a personal reply to my inquiry (which means I'm now officially an organized campaign), but I do see the correction has been printed. And it looks like the damage runs deeper than I thought:
An article on Sunday about American military casualties in Iraq misstated figures in some copies for the American service members wounded in 2005 and 2004 as reported by the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, a nonprofit group that tracks American service members killed and wounded in Iraq. According to the group, 5,557 American service members were wounded in 2005, not 9,157; and 7,989 were wounded in 2004, not 7,956.
This is actually a different error than the one I pointed out. In my edition of the NYT, the casualty numbers were reported correctly, it was their news summary on page 2 that gave them an exactly opposite characterization. Now they're saying that the actual numbers reported in some editions were incorrect. Apparently by the time my edition went to print, those numbers had been corrected in the article, but they forgot to fix the summary. So post correction, yet another correction needed to be made. Which brings up the inevitable question, with gate keepers like this, who needs circus clowns?
Curious as to whether the post-correction correction needed a further correction, I Googled the source the NYT is blindly quoting as the definitive tabulator of US military casualties.
Iraq Coalition Casualty Count indeed does list the number of US military wounded in 2005 as 5,777 and for 2004 as 7,987. Although there are numerous tables and charts listed on the main page, it's easy to identify this information from the site, and cut and paste into a spreadsheet to confirm the calculations. Which makes me wonder how the NYT reporter, Dexter Filkins, and his gatekeepers produced the erroneous numbers in the first place. I ran a few other combinations but couldn?t come up with the 9,157 wounded in 2004 that was originally cited. Any enterprising bloggers who have time to figure out where they went wrong might uncover some hilarious insight about what part of "wounded" or "2005" the Times doesn't understand.
But, with that truncated, buried correction, I'm sure the editors and their apologists now feel that they've done their jobs. Wrong has been righted, and they can breezily moveon.org to other stories that reinforce their beliefs.
In reality, the error and bias linger on. The facts of the story they were pursuing should have produced the following headline and plot summary:
Casualties in Iraq down sharply in '05
I haven't seen that article yet. As the gatekeepers have demonstrated, in their judgment, good news like that isn't fit to print.
We all know the boys and the girls are doing it
From today's Grand Forks Herald comes news of an interesting match-up on the ice:
The U.S. Olympic women's hockey team faces off against the Warroad High School boys' hockey team tonight in Warroad.
A capacity crowd of nearly 25-hundred is expected for the game at The Gardens Arena in Warroad, a hotbed of hockey near the Canadian border.
The game will count as one of the Warriors' regular-season games. It'll be played under Minnesota State High School League rules, with one exception -- no checking allowed.
That is one very important exception. While playing the body is still part of the gal's game (no check most certainly does not mean no contact), there's a big difference between angling someone off into the boards and full check hockey. I would imagine that this will be a tough adjustment for the Warroad boys and I would expect them to come out playing tentatively. With their speed and stick handling skills, this might allow the Olympic women to open up a lead early on.
Playing on a smaller rink under the Minnesota high school rulebook should help Warroad. Since the game does count, they will have an incentive to win. More than just not wanting to get beat by a bunch of girls.
The puck drops at 7:30 tonight.
From today's Grand Forks Herald comes news of an interesting match-up on the ice:
The U.S. Olympic women's hockey team faces off against the Warroad High School boys' hockey team tonight in Warroad.
A capacity crowd of nearly 25-hundred is expected for the game at The Gardens Arena in Warroad, a hotbed of hockey near the Canadian border.
The game will count as one of the Warriors' regular-season games. It'll be played under Minnesota State High School League rules, with one exception -- no checking allowed.
That is one very important exception. While playing the body is still part of the gal's game (no check most certainly does not mean no contact), there's a big difference between angling someone off into the boards and full check hockey. I would imagine that this will be a tough adjustment for the Warroad boys and I would expect them to come out playing tentatively. With their speed and stick handling skills, this might allow the Olympic women to open up a lead early on.
Playing on a smaller rink under the Minnesota high school rulebook should help Warroad. Since the game does count, they will have an incentive to win. More than just not wanting to get beat by a bunch of girls.
The puck drops at 7:30 tonight.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
He Ain't Heavy? Why You Mother...
Talkers magazine lists their Heavy Hundred of 2005, which they claim to be a list of the "100 Most Important Radio Talk Show Hosts in America." The list includes a slew of hosts that I've never heard of (Blute & Scotto???), some baffling selections (Randi Rhodes???), and a few names that local listeners will recognize (Joe Soucheray and Jason Lewis).
But it's probably most notable for a couple of critical absences. No Hugh Hewitt and no Dennis Prager. Huh? Are they really trying to claim that Arlene Violet from Rhode Island (described as a "household name in the Ocean State" and lauded as a "consistent performer") is more important that either of the nationally syndicated Salem talk hosts? Puh-leaze.
But it's probably most notable for a couple of critical absences. No Hugh Hewitt and no Dennis Prager. Huh? Are they really trying to claim that Arlene Violet from Rhode Island (described as a "household name in the Ocean State" and lauded as a "consistent performer") is more important that either of the nationally syndicated Salem talk hosts? Puh-leaze.
A Herd, Not A Pack
The lack of creativity and original thinking among the Twin Cities major media outlets was amply demonstrated in the wake of the recent firing of Vikings head coach Mike Tice. On Sunday, the day that Tice's pink slip was rather awkwardly delivered, I watched the coverage on the local news at 10pm. All three of the network affiliates had dispatched reporters and camera crews to Bunny's Bar in St. Louis Park, an establishment that Tice was known to frequent. They were all there looking for sober reflections from the Bunny's regulars on the news that Tice had just been canned. I've been to Bunny's (both the old and the new digs) on more than a few occasions myself and the words "sober" "reflections" and "Bunny's regulars" are not usually associated together with good reason. Let's just say these interviews did not make for the most compelling news reporting.
I found it amusing that all three TV stations came up with the same lame approach to the story. I imagine that some producer at each station was sure that they were the one with the unique angle and were quietly congratulating themselves on their brilliance. "I've got it. We'll send a crew out to that bar that Tice hangs out at. What's it called? Oh yeah, Bunny's. Get over to Bunny's right away."
Imagine their disappointment when they found out that the Bunny's parking lot was jammed with news vans.
Today, because we apparently just can't enough of the Tice-Bunny's connection, we get to hear even more about the fallout at the bar over the firing, this time courtesy of Saint Paul's favorite sports scribe, Patrick Reusse:
There was more than Tice missing from Bunny's on Sunday night. During the evening, the sign that declared a prime parking spot as belonging to Tice was removed from its post.
Probably one of the news guys bringing back a souvenir. Round up the usual suspects. Most of the local media.
The lack of creativity and original thinking among the Twin Cities major media outlets was amply demonstrated in the wake of the recent firing of Vikings head coach Mike Tice. On Sunday, the day that Tice's pink slip was rather awkwardly delivered, I watched the coverage on the local news at 10pm. All three of the network affiliates had dispatched reporters and camera crews to Bunny's Bar in St. Louis Park, an establishment that Tice was known to frequent. They were all there looking for sober reflections from the Bunny's regulars on the news that Tice had just been canned. I've been to Bunny's (both the old and the new digs) on more than a few occasions myself and the words "sober" "reflections" and "Bunny's regulars" are not usually associated together with good reason. Let's just say these interviews did not make for the most compelling news reporting.
I found it amusing that all three TV stations came up with the same lame approach to the story. I imagine that some producer at each station was sure that they were the one with the unique angle and were quietly congratulating themselves on their brilliance. "I've got it. We'll send a crew out to that bar that Tice hangs out at. What's it called? Oh yeah, Bunny's. Get over to Bunny's right away."
Imagine their disappointment when they found out that the Bunny's parking lot was jammed with news vans.
Today, because we apparently just can't enough of the Tice-Bunny's connection, we get to hear even more about the fallout at the bar over the firing, this time courtesy of Saint Paul's favorite sports scribe, Patrick Reusse:
There was more than Tice missing from Bunny's on Sunday night. During the evening, the sign that declared a prime parking spot as belonging to Tice was removed from its post.
Probably one of the news guys bringing back a souvenir. Round up the usual suspects. Most of the local media.
Help Wanted
As New Years comes and goes we return to business as usual here at Fraters Libertas Industries. We look forward to another prosperous and productive year, which will be our fourth in the blogging game and our fifth overall as a web site. During that time we've been proud to tally over 93 million hits and 37 unique visitors.
But in order to maintain the high quality product that our readers have come to expect, we realize that we can't simply stand pat and rest on our laurels. We knew it had to happen. We felt the tables turnin'. So we promise to turn some pages so that we'll be here when you're ready to roll with the changes.
The problem is that the four of us come up with these things, we know they're gold, but nothing happens. You know why?
Time. It's all this meaningless time. Laundry, real jobs, drinking, going to Keegan's to play trivia. Do you have any idea how much time Atomizer wastes at the bar?
Anyway, we've all got a lot of things in our hoppers. Oh, we've got hoppers. Big hoppers. We're ideas men without the time to follow through on all the petty details required to bring those ideas to fruition.
And so we would like to announce a new opening here at FLI. Intern. Unpaid of course. Television has 'em. Radio has 'em. Newspapers have 'em. Politicians have 'em (sometimes literally). Why not us?
We believe that this is the first blogging internship to be offered and expect it to generate quite a response. All you'll need is a telephone, internet access, and a positive attitude. Qualified applicants should be web savvy, have an ear for baloney, know how to mix an excellent Manhattan, be proficient in Photoshop, have a well-honed BS detector, and live for research.
You'll enjoy the prestige of working behind the scenes for one of the world's most mispronounced blogs. This is also an excellent opportunity for J school students looking to gain an understanding of what blogs are really all about. Without editors or gate keepers!
But you should be aware that it's not all sunshine and chocolate. Working for Atomizer is not unlike a day in the office with Buddy Ackerman.
Get your resume in today.
But in order to maintain the high quality product that our readers have come to expect, we realize that we can't simply stand pat and rest on our laurels. We knew it had to happen. We felt the tables turnin'. So we promise to turn some pages so that we'll be here when you're ready to roll with the changes.
The problem is that the four of us come up with these things, we know they're gold, but nothing happens. You know why?
Time. It's all this meaningless time. Laundry, real jobs, drinking, going to Keegan's to play trivia. Do you have any idea how much time Atomizer wastes at the bar?
Anyway, we've all got a lot of things in our hoppers. Oh, we've got hoppers. Big hoppers. We're ideas men without the time to follow through on all the petty details required to bring those ideas to fruition.
And so we would like to announce a new opening here at FLI. Intern. Unpaid of course. Television has 'em. Radio has 'em. Newspapers have 'em. Politicians have 'em (sometimes literally). Why not us?
We believe that this is the first blogging internship to be offered and expect it to generate quite a response. All you'll need is a telephone, internet access, and a positive attitude. Qualified applicants should be web savvy, have an ear for baloney, know how to mix an excellent Manhattan, be proficient in Photoshop, have a well-honed BS detector, and live for research.
You'll enjoy the prestige of working behind the scenes for one of the world's most mispronounced blogs. This is also an excellent opportunity for J school students looking to gain an understanding of what blogs are really all about. Without editors or gate keepers!
But you should be aware that it's not all sunshine and chocolate. Working for Atomizer is not unlike a day in the office with Buddy Ackerman.
Atomizer: What I am concerned with is detail. I asked you go get me a bottle of Sapphire. You bring me back Tanqueray. That isn't what I asked for. That isn't what I wanted. That isn't what I needed and that shit isn't going to work around here.
Intern: I, I just thought...
Atomizer: You thought. Do me a fucking favor. Shut up, listen, and learn. Look, I know that this is your first day and you don't really know how things work around here, so I will tell you. You have no brain. No judgement calls are necessary. What you think means nothing. What you feel means nothing. You are here for me. You are here to protect my interests and to serve my needs. So, while it may look like a little thing to you, when I ask for a bottle of Sapphire, that's what I want. And it's your responsibility to see that I get what I want.
Get your resume in today.
Monday, January 02, 2006
Temperance Tantrum
Since I've spent most of the last day or two either drunk or hung over, I'm just now getting to the stacks of recent newspapers covering my kitchen table. What I have found there makes me a very un-happy boy.
Saturday's St. Paul Pioneer Press featured this piece on the front page detailing an 18 year old Wisconsin law allowing bars to stay open past normal hours on New Year's Eve.
Since all of this keyboard clacking is wreaking havoc with my already pounding headache, let's all just read an excerpt:
I'll tell you who...the Mad Mothers themselves:
Kari, and those of her ilk, have already succeeded in blackmailing states to adopt the national .08 standard that makes criminals out of people who have two glasses of wine with dinner while people like this drive freely.
It is now painfully obvious that their ultimate goal is to criminalize the mere act of having a drink because you and I are just too stupid to know how to do it responsibly. At least they're now being honest about it.
Since I've spent most of the last day or two either drunk or hung over, I'm just now getting to the stacks of recent newspapers covering my kitchen table. What I have found there makes me a very un-happy boy.
Saturday's St. Paul Pioneer Press featured this piece on the front page detailing an 18 year old Wisconsin law allowing bars to stay open past normal hours on New Year's Eve.
Since all of this keyboard clacking is wreaking havoc with my already pounding headache, let's all just read an excerpt:
The law dates to 1987, when the Legislature offered it as a concession for making bar closing times a uniform 2 a.m. across the state, (Pete) Madland (executive director of the Tavern League of Wisconsin) said.Sounds reasonable, don't you think? No sane human is in favor of drunk driving and if staggering bar closing times reduces the drunk driving threat on New Year's Eve by even a hair, who could argue?
"Some would close at 1 o'clock, some at 2 o'clock. Milwaukee would close at 6 o'clock," he said.
The patchwork shutdowns led to a lot of barhopping and, presumably, drunken driving, he added.
"The benefit, I think, is it allows bars to stay open longer (on New Year's), instead of everybody having to leave the doors at 2 o'clock," Madland said.
He said that since bars can choose to close at different times during the morning, it staggers the number of potentially intoxicated drivers on the road at any given time.
I'll tell you who...the Mad Mothers themselves:
Kari Kinnard, president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving in Wisconsin, wasn't aware the law existed. She fears it could cause trouble.I nearly spit my morning Irish whiskey all over my bowl of Cheerios when I read that little nugget. In one single sentence, Kari exposes M.A.D.D. for the frauds that they really are. Their mission has nothing to do with ending drunk driving. They seek the resurrection of the eighteenth amendment, pure and simple.
"The problem that it creates is that when you open up access to alcohol, you open up increased risk to irresponsibility and other dangers," she said from her Appleton office.
Kari, and those of her ilk, have already succeeded in blackmailing states to adopt the national .08 standard that makes criminals out of people who have two glasses of wine with dinner while people like this drive freely.
It is now painfully obvious that their ultimate goal is to criminalize the mere act of having a drink because you and I are just too stupid to know how to do it responsibly. At least they're now being honest about it.
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Ain't That A Kick In The Teeth?
Yesterday on the Northern Alliance Radio Network, we were discussing a series of new laws for Minnesota that would take effect with the coming of the New Year. One of these new laws concerned the cap on dental benefits available under state provided medical care:
More Low-Income Dental Care: A $500 annual benefit cap for dental care has been removed under the Medical Assistance, MinnesotaCare and General Assistance medical care programs.
We joked that this bill was no doubt pushed by the "Big Dentistry" lobbyists at the legislature. Near the end of the second hour of the show, we received a call from a dentist who explained that contrary to our comments, dentists in the state were not benefiting from treating patients under these state plans and, in fact, most dentists had stopped seeing such patients because the state was only willing to reimburse 43% of the charges incurred. Our caller said that costs made up 70% of his charges, so he was losing a good chunk of change by treating patients on these state supported plans and would no longer continue to do so in 2006.
My wife, who has experience in the medical insurance arena, e-mailed me during the show to back up the dentist's claims:
I am glad the dentist called your show. That's exactly correct. The MA reimbursement rate is so low that most dentists don't want to take MA patients. We had a hard time finding dentists in the network that will take them. If they do take them, they are usually at their max....like the dentist said, they don't want all MA patients. Shows why the legislature is out of tune as to what is going on, increasing the cap is not going to help the persons on MA.
Also, most private dental plans have caps....look at ours, for example, has a cap of 1500-2000 per yr.
I am sure someone had concerns that MA persons not getting the dental care they need, not looking as to why, just increase the cap....typical political move!
The dentist also made a good point that a lot of the MA patients don't show up for the appts, that is true across the board when it comes to medical care.....we had to develop incentives for MA patients to go to their appts (i.e. gave them Target gift cards if they went to x amount of appts in a row).
So let's recap what we've got going here. The state program is supposed to provide dental care for people who can't afford it on their own. But the state reimbursement rate is so low that dentists refuse to treat the patients. Bad situation for all involved: those who need the care, the dentists, and the taxpayers of the state.
The solution from the legislature? They raise the caps, which does nothing to address the root of the problem and, in fact, makes it worse as our dentist caller explained that all that raising the caps would do is cause him to lose even MORE money.
Your government at work folks.
More Low-Income Dental Care: A $500 annual benefit cap for dental care has been removed under the Medical Assistance, MinnesotaCare and General Assistance medical care programs.
We joked that this bill was no doubt pushed by the "Big Dentistry" lobbyists at the legislature. Near the end of the second hour of the show, we received a call from a dentist who explained that contrary to our comments, dentists in the state were not benefiting from treating patients under these state plans and, in fact, most dentists had stopped seeing such patients because the state was only willing to reimburse 43% of the charges incurred. Our caller said that costs made up 70% of his charges, so he was losing a good chunk of change by treating patients on these state supported plans and would no longer continue to do so in 2006.
My wife, who has experience in the medical insurance arena, e-mailed me during the show to back up the dentist's claims:
I am glad the dentist called your show. That's exactly correct. The MA reimbursement rate is so low that most dentists don't want to take MA patients. We had a hard time finding dentists in the network that will take them. If they do take them, they are usually at their max....like the dentist said, they don't want all MA patients. Shows why the legislature is out of tune as to what is going on, increasing the cap is not going to help the persons on MA.
Also, most private dental plans have caps....look at ours, for example, has a cap of 1500-2000 per yr.
I am sure someone had concerns that MA persons not getting the dental care they need, not looking as to why, just increase the cap....typical political move!
The dentist also made a good point that a lot of the MA patients don't show up for the appts, that is true across the board when it comes to medical care.....we had to develop incentives for MA patients to go to their appts (i.e. gave them Target gift cards if they went to x amount of appts in a row).
So let's recap what we've got going here. The state program is supposed to provide dental care for people who can't afford it on their own. But the state reimbursement rate is so low that dentists refuse to treat the patients. Bad situation for all involved: those who need the care, the dentists, and the taxpayers of the state.
The solution from the legislature? They raise the caps, which does nothing to address the root of the problem and, in fact, makes it worse as our dentist caller explained that all that raising the caps would do is cause him to lose even MORE money.
Your government at work folks.
Asleep at the Gate
The first issue of my 6-month subscription to the Sunday New York Times arrived this morning. It was a requested and welcome Xmas gift and I suspect it will prove to be the gift that keeps on giving. Right out of the box, it doesn't disappoint. From the page 2 "News Summary" of articles that appear elsewhere in the issue (not online, transcribed by me):
At least 844 members of the American military were killed in Iraq in 2005, nearly matching 2004's total of 848, and the number of wounded in 2005 was much higher than in the previous year, according to information provided by the United States government and a nonprofit organization that tracks casualties in Iraq.
I'm not sure who writes these summaries and how many levels of editorial control go into proofing and approving them, but it appears they need to add at least one more level. The facts from the article written by the unfortunately named Dexter Filkins:
From Jan. 1, 2005 to Dec. 3, 2005, the most recent date for which numbers are available, the number of Americans military personnel wounded in Iraq was 5,557. The total wounded in 2004 was 7,989.
A 30% decrease reported on page 6 and summarized on page 2 as "much higher." I'm not sure if the New York Times needs another layer of gate keepers or maybe just a good book keeper to teach the staff some basic math.
Either way, it's another good opportunity to remind ourselves of the warnings from U of M professor Larry Jacobs on the dangers of blogs:
Along with partisanship, credibility is another problem for blogs. There's nothing in the First Amendment about the need for an editor. Bloggers can write anything they want; they can spout fact or fiction. Jacobs advises readers to beware: "There's no gatekeeping here."
And for that, perhaps we should be thankful. With gatekeepers like those we find in the MSM, who needs barbarians?
At least 844 members of the American military were killed in Iraq in 2005, nearly matching 2004's total of 848, and the number of wounded in 2005 was much higher than in the previous year, according to information provided by the United States government and a nonprofit organization that tracks casualties in Iraq.
I'm not sure who writes these summaries and how many levels of editorial control go into proofing and approving them, but it appears they need to add at least one more level. The facts from the article written by the unfortunately named Dexter Filkins:
From Jan. 1, 2005 to Dec. 3, 2005, the most recent date for which numbers are available, the number of Americans military personnel wounded in Iraq was 5,557. The total wounded in 2004 was 7,989.
A 30% decrease reported on page 6 and summarized on page 2 as "much higher." I'm not sure if the New York Times needs another layer of gate keepers or maybe just a good book keeper to teach the staff some basic math.
Either way, it's another good opportunity to remind ourselves of the warnings from U of M professor Larry Jacobs on the dangers of blogs:
Along with partisanship, credibility is another problem for blogs. There's nothing in the First Amendment about the need for an editor. Bloggers can write anything they want; they can spout fact or fiction. Jacobs advises readers to beware: "There's no gatekeeping here."
And for that, perhaps we should be thankful. With gatekeepers like those we find in the MSM, who needs barbarians?
Make Sure That The Arrest Warrant Says THE Ohio State University
Clarett wanted on robbery charges:
COLUMBUS, Ohio - Maurice Clarett was wanted by police on Sunday after he was accused of using a gun to rob two people in an alley behind a bar.
The troubled former Ohio State running back fled when the bar owner or manager, who knew Clarett and the victims, came into the alley and identified him shortly before 2 a.m. Sunday.
According to police, the 22-year-old Clarett left the scene in a white sport utility vehicle with two other men and took only a cell phone from his alleged victims, who weren't injured. He was wanted on two counts of suspicion of aggravated robbery.
The Vikings could use a running back next year, couldn't they? Hmmm...
Clarett wanted on robbery charges:
COLUMBUS, Ohio - Maurice Clarett was wanted by police on Sunday after he was accused of using a gun to rob two people in an alley behind a bar.
The troubled former Ohio State running back fled when the bar owner or manager, who knew Clarett and the victims, came into the alley and identified him shortly before 2 a.m. Sunday.
According to police, the 22-year-old Clarett left the scene in a white sport utility vehicle with two other men and took only a cell phone from his alleged victims, who weren't injured. He was wanted on two counts of suspicion of aggravated robbery.
The Vikings could use a running back next year, couldn't they? Hmmm...
Tidbits
* Star Tribune Letters from readers Saturday, December 31st:
A COUNCIL PAY RAISE
Bad timing
I wish to thank the Minneapolis City Council for voting itself a pay raise (Star Tribune, Dec. 24) while -- through its smoking ban -- turning my business from profitable to unprofitable and eliminating paychecks for four former employees.
TERRY KEEGAN, MINNEAPOLIS
** 2006 predictions for the local airwaves at freedomdogs.com:
Bob Davis will be offered anything he wants and move to 7-11 am since he is the only listenable and marketable talent left on the station. Jason Lewis will move back and take the evening drive slot back on 1500. In an effort to be "fair (mushy) and balanced (liberal)," KSTP will give the noontime slot to "centrist" Al Franken who will use his show as a vehicle to launch his Senate campaign against the dark lord Coleman. On Saturdays, Strom will purchase a full 9 hours and read from the classics, smoking the finest cigars in his pajamas.
*** Via e-mail news comes that ConservaTV is on the air:
I've recently launched a website, ConservaTV, which is a C-SPAN for conservatives. The site contains links to speeches by Republican presidents, interviews with conservative authors, and rants from a few loony leftists. The site will continue to grow as I find more audio and video links of interest to conservatives.
A COUNCIL PAY RAISE
Bad timing
I wish to thank the Minneapolis City Council for voting itself a pay raise (Star Tribune, Dec. 24) while -- through its smoking ban -- turning my business from profitable to unprofitable and eliminating paychecks for four former employees.
TERRY KEEGAN, MINNEAPOLIS
** 2006 predictions for the local airwaves at freedomdogs.com:
Bob Davis will be offered anything he wants and move to 7-11 am since he is the only listenable and marketable talent left on the station. Jason Lewis will move back and take the evening drive slot back on 1500. In an effort to be "fair (mushy) and balanced (liberal)," KSTP will give the noontime slot to "centrist" Al Franken who will use his show as a vehicle to launch his Senate campaign against the dark lord Coleman. On Saturdays, Strom will purchase a full 9 hours and read from the classics, smoking the finest cigars in his pajamas.
*** Via e-mail news comes that ConservaTV is on the air:
I've recently launched a website, ConservaTV, which is a C-SPAN for conservatives. The site contains links to speeches by Republican presidents, interviews with conservative authors, and rants from a few loony leftists. The site will continue to grow as I find more audio and video links of interest to conservatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)