Before we move on, there are two things to be aware of. First, regarding telemedicine, you should know that 21 out of Michigan’s 83 counties lack even one OBGYN. Currently, women in those areas who wish to terminate their early-stage pregnancies can consult with doctors, either by phone, or via internet, and have medications prescribed that will abort said pregnancies. (A description of the process can be found here.) 5711 would stop this from happening, forcing women in the Upper Peninsula, for instance, to travel hundreds of miles to receive the same safe, legal and effective treatment. Secondly, according to Planned Parenthood of Mid and South Michigan, there are currently only 32 non-hospital facilities in the state that provide abortions, and only 4 of them are run by Planned Parenthood. (It’s also worth noting, that, according to NARAL, 83 percent of Michigan counties already have no abortion provider.) If 5711 were to be signed into law, it’s like that all of the non-Planned Parenthood facilities would close, leaving, at most 4 facilities left in the state of Michigan that could provide abortions.

I say “at most” because, as I understand it, only one of the four facilities run by Planned Parenthood currently meets the ridiculously overly-stringent criteria established by 5711, and that’s the facility in Ann Arbor. The others, according to Planned Parenthood’s Director of Community and Media Relations Desiree Cooper, with whom I just spoke, would require qualification under a “waiver provision” that’s currently included in the proposed law. Without the waiver provision, as I understand it, that could leave Michigan with one facility, as, according to Cooper, these new “regulations call for unnecessary facilities improvements that could cost upwards of $250,000.” (Unfortunately, according to Cooper, they “don’t know the criteria for waivers yet,” and won’t until after the bill is signed and the political wrangling begins.)

And, that’s only part of the picture. In addition to the 5711 omnibus, there are also several other abortion-related bills waiting for the Governor’s signature. “Also passed by the legislature in this lame duck session are SB 612, 613 and 614,” said Cooper, “which would ban all private insurance coverage of abortion – coverage that is currently considered part of the core benefits for 80 percent of insurance companies nationally. There is no exception for insurance coverage ban even in the cases of rape, incest, fetal anomaly or health of the mother. If a woman wants such coverage, she must buy a separate rider.”

And, as far as we know, all of this is on the Governor’s desk at this very moment, waiting for his signature… which is why I’m asking you tonight to put down whatever you’re doing, and contact him. He needs to hear from you right now. And you need to ask for your friends to do the same.

The Governor may have screwed a lot of us with the recent passage of union-killing right-to-work legislation, but, as he demonstrated yesterday, when he vetoed the legislation that would allow people to carry firearms into schools, churches, hospitals, daycares and stadiums, he’s not completely beyond reason. He knows that passing the right-to-work legislation hurt him badly. He knows that his public support is plummeting, and that, according to a recent poll by Public Policy Polling, only 38% of voters approve of the job that he’s doing, making him the 3rd least popular Governor in the United States. He’s got to know that, if he loses women, it’s all over. But, as we’ve discussed before, there are rumors that he promised to sign this regressive anti-woman legislation into law in exchange for votes on right-to-work. And, if that’s the case, I’m not surprised to hear that he’s putting the decision off to the last possible minute, in hopes that it won’t get press during the holidays. So, that doesn’t give us very much time. We need to convince him right now that he’d be better off breaking his word to few Senate and House Republicans, than encountering the wrath of Planned Parenthood supporters. (You remember what happened to the former head of the Susan G. Komen Foundation, right?) So please make the call right now.

Lastly, if you’re up for it, you can give money to Planned Parenthood here, and support all the good work that they do in the area of women’s health, of which abortion services are just a small part.

McGuire: No one respects quarantine anymore! Nobody comprehends quarantine, and absolutely nobody comprehends the fact that sometimes your “rights” and “liberties” do not have any place in this conversation. We have totally drug-resistant tuberculosis! And what do people with totally drug-resistant tuberculosis do? Do they lock themselves in their houses for the rest of their lives? Do they eat a bullet? No! They get on airplanes. And then they get pissed off when the CDC yells at them. Quarantine exists so that we can continue as a species to exist. And yes, it sucks if I say to you, “Dude, really sorry, had to shoot your wife. Had the totally drug-resistant tuberculosis, yo.” But you know what sucks more? Killing an elementary school because you went outside with your totally drug-resistant tuberculosis…

Does anyone in the audience happen to know if this is true? Are there really no formal restrictions on flying with drug-resistent TB? Could that be possible? I mean, if we can put people on a no-fly list because they once called a distant relative in Egypt who donated to a Muslim charity that provided bandages to a suspected terrorist organization, can’t we put on people who are known to have deadly, highly-contageous diseases with no known cure? Personally, given how air is recirculated on flights, I’d rather take my chances with the would-be terrorist.

Oh, and while we’re on the subject of TB, I should mention that the Arbor Opera Theater’s recent production of Giacomo Puccini’s La bohème was quite good. I took Clementine, and we had a great time… or, at least as good of a time as one can have watching a woman die from consumption.

[note: I found this interview with Seanan McGuire though a post at Metafilter.]

MARK: Some time ago, as I understand it, you became interested in the health consequences associated with typical American and Indian diets. And, being a researcher by training, you began to employ the scientific method, looking for way to solve the problem…

SWAROOP: I have been cooking for nearly 21 years. About three years ago, though, I started monitoring, very closely, what goes into my cooking (such as oils, processed sugar, and processed grains), and what my family eats (what percent of our diet consists of fresh greens, vegetables, fruits, whole grains, etc). This all began when I was diagnosed with type II diabetes. It was around this time that I started reading more on food and nutrition, and, the more I read, the more it made logical sense to me that food is directly linked to many health conditions. I am a convert now to the chiastic adage created by the father of western medicine, Hippocrates, who said, “let food be thy medicine and thy medicine your food”.

What struck me more than anything else were the trends in obesity, especially in kids. It’s scary that kids in this generation may be more sick than their parents, suffering from type II diabetes, and cardiovascular problems, which could be easily averted by the application of simple rules in eating (whole grains or seeds, some greens, vegetables and fruits, and less meat). What amazes me is that, while the data is all around us, most of us are very “reactive” — until we are malaised by an action that we’ve taken, we do not think about its effect/outcome. That is one reason why prevention has not taken off well, either in people’s thinking, or with regard to government funding.

Childhood obesity, in the US, is on a dramatic rise. Over the past two or three decades, there has been a 300% increase in adolescents who suffer from obesity, which is a major risk factor for a number of conditions, such as high cholesterol, hypertension, orthopedic problems, depression, and type II diabetes. Look at the numbers: one-in-three kids in the United States is overweight or obese, and one-in-five children have at least one of the conditions listed above. Once again, ours may be the first generation where kids will have lesser life expectancy than their parents. We need to think about this very seriously.

Also, look at obesity in adults. 64% of our population is overweight/obese, and lifestyle diseases (such as cardiovascular problems and diabetes) are a major “killer”. These diseases kill nearly half a million people every year – more people than tobacco – and millions suffer (33.5% percent American have high blood pressure, and 25.8 million people are diabetic). And, the most intriguing part of this is that these sufferings and deaths are “easily” preventable with simple solutions.

MARK: What made you think that you might be able to address the problem? I mean, seeing the problem is one thing, but something made you think, “I might be able to fix this,” right? What made you think that you might be able to solve this riddle that people have been struggling with for so long… how to get people to change their behavior and eat good, nutritious food that won’t kill them?

SWAROOP: My own experience. I am type II diabetic who was obese, and is still borderline overweight. I have controlled my diabetes by changing to a whole grain and natural food diet. I don’t believe that I can “fix” the problem, though. Each person has to find his or her own solution to fix it. What I can do is to provide a platform where people can have an access to whole grain-based, and nutrionally-dense food. The second thing that I can do, based on my own experience, is to train and educate. On this front, I will be delivering lectures to kids and their parents at Ann Arbor Public Schools beginning next year. The understanding that humans are biological machines that need “good fuel”, just like any other manmade machine, is lacking. In my thinking, this is partly due to the fact that biological machines do not instantly fail when improper “fuel/lubricants” are ingested. Since there are no immediate adverse reactions to high-calorie, low-nutrition diets, these actions are perpetuated.



MARK: Tell us about the grain cake that you’ve invented. What makes it special?

SWAROOP: I remember, while growing up, I was told to eat from different food groups in order to get better nutrition. At Hut-K, I made a flat bread we call Back2Roots, with 15 different kind of whole grains (all in grain form, except for the wheat and the African millet flour). It is unique in a number of ways. It provides all of the essential amino acids that we need in our diet, and it is high in fiber/complex carbohydrates. It is also rich in minerals and vitamins coming from the different grains. Plus, it has good natural fats, that from blended almonds, walnuts, peanuts and coconuts. And, we use natural ingredients, such as greens, herbs, spices and vegetables, to make it a very delectable culinary experience.


MARK: Would it be safe to say that the storefront on Packard was a test? What I mean by that is, you’d created these products in your home, you’d tried them out on your family, you’d seen positive health improvements in your own life, and now you wanted to see if you could convince others to go on this journey with you, right? Well, what have you learned? Has the test been a success?

SWAROOP: Yes, it is my laboratory for creating food, and my “guinea pigs” have been my kids, wife and friends.

There two advantages to these kinds of food. When there are grains, carbohydrates are in complex form, and the their digestion is slow. So, there is no “insulin shock” with this kind of food, and, also, there is no “post food lethargy”. This is the perfect food for lunch at work, as one tends to remain as active after eating it, as in “pre-lunch state”. So, there is no loss of productivity due to food.

The reaction from customers has been mixed — many customers are very excited about the food when I talk to them about the healthy ingredients (how I have swapped sugars for fresh and dried fruits, substituted baking for frying when possible, and how I stealthily add raw fresh greens), while there are some who don’t care… My getting off medication as a result of eating this food and exercising is motivational for many, and may, I imagine, influence a change in their eating habits. Further, through my food, I can make a dent in thinking process of those who do not hear my lectures, which are coming soon…

MARK: Indian street food, at least locally, seems to be taking off as a segment of the restaurant market. Nehee’s in Canton is always packed, and now they’ve expanded into two other spin-out ventures. The food is delicious, but it’s not exactly healthy. Your products, while delicious, are a bit more complicated… I don’t know how else to say it… The flavors are complex. They don’t offer immediate gratification in the same way. Is that fair to say? Assuming you agree, how do you convince people to put in the work? How do you go about educating their palates?

SWAROOP: This is a difficult question for me. Neehee’s is nice to place to go and eat, and I do want to compare their food with mine.

I do not agree that there is no gratification in my food. The taste has been my priority and is also the first step in our food development process. I have done my homework on this and if you look at our chaats, they are probably the best you can find. In the core chaat category, you will NOT find a better panipuri, dahi sev puri or papdi chaat. This is my challenge to you. And with our food, bonus is nutrition; high nutrition per calorie.

MARK: I didn’t say that there was no gratification. I enjoy your food very much. It’s delicious. I was just saying that some other street food, that is deep fried, full of fat, and heavily processed, may have more of an immediate appeal to someone accustomed to fast food. I was curious as to how you’d win those people over.

SWAROOP: It is difficult to educate customer’s palate in the restaurant industry, partly because one eats at the restaurant once in a while. Most of the times, either you like it or not. Thus my topmost priority was taste. Once I got that right, I started to play around addition of greens, vegetables, fruits and dry fruits.


MARK: Given what you’ve learned so far, what’s next? Might we expect a cook book? Will you be packaging your bread, and selling it through other stores? Could there be another restaurant launched in India?

SWAROOP: Yes there is a book cooking in my mind. I have drafted chapters and categories. This is my free time fun. My current priority is to develop an education and training platform for kids wherein I can make a dent in the “state of health of our future generation”.

Regarding packaging, a number of investors have approached me, but I am still testing. I am currently trying this with my friends and family living close by (hand delivered) and far away (by shipping). The “Back II Roots” roti is an ideal “working breakfast” food. The ancient grain roti is made from 15 whole grains and is full of complex carbohydrates. Thus it is digested slowly which aids body to keep on going for many hours without a “refill”. Probably, by the end of this year, if everything go right for us, there will be “Hut-K Nutrilicious” frozen food.

There were two initial queries coming from India for starting Hut-K there but nothing in immediate future.



In addition to the location at 3200 Packard, Hut-K also has a presence at Mark’s Carts in Ann Arbor.

GEORGE ZORNICK:

…To give a nickel-version of the dispute here: under health care reform, the federal government will begin requiring people to purchase private health insurance in 2016, or face a $695 penalty. (People who can’t afford it would get an exemption). Opponents of the law argue this is an unconstitutional coercion of individuals by the federal government, while the administration argues it is within Congress’s right to require the purchase of health insurance under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The reasoning is that the federal government clearly has the power to regulate the health insurance industry under that clause, as it spans every state in the nation.

If the Court strikes down the mandate, then the part of health care reform that forbids health insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions would almost certainly be repealed. If the government forbid those denials but didn’t force people to first buy a plan, then plenty of people would just wait until they got sick to buy insurance.

This would be a critical blow to one of the central premises behind health care reform. Re-instituting the individual mandate would be unconstitutional. So what then?

One obvious option, besides just doing nothing and allowing health care costs to continue their exponential growth while more people lose coverage, is a single-payer health insurance plan. There is no doubt about the constitutionality here—the government is clearly allowed to levy taxes to fund public benefits. Medicare, for example, is not challengeable on the same grounds as Obama’s health care reform.

So if health care reform goes down, the next logical step may well be just extending Medicare to everyone. This was not politically possible in 2009, but perhaps the demise of “Obamacare” would make it moreso as legislators looked for other solutions…

ROBERT REICH:

…The dilemma at the heart of the (Affordable Care Act) is that it continues to depend on private health insurers, who have to make a profit or at least pay all their costs including marketing and advertising.

Yet the only way private insurers can afford to cover everyone with preexisting health problems, as the new law requires, is to have every American buy health insurance – including young and healthier people who are unlikely to rack up large healthcare costs.

This dilemma is the product of political compromise. You’ll remember the Administration couldn’t get the votes for a single-payer system such as Medicare for all. It hardly tried. Not a single Republican would even agree to a bill giving Americans the option of buying into it…

The President and the Democrats could have avoided this dilemma in the first place if they’d insisted on Medicare for all, or at least a public option.

After all, Social Security and Medicare require every working American to “buy” them. The purchase happens automatically in the form of a deduction from everyone’s paychecks. But because Social Security and Medicare are government programs financed by payroll taxes they don’t feel like mandatory purchases.

Americans don’t mind mandates in the form of payroll taxes for Social Security or Medicare. In fact, both programs are so popular even conservative Republicans were heard to shout “don’t take away my Medicare!” at rallies opposed to the new health care law.

There’s no question payroll taxes are constitutional, because there’s no doubt that the federal government can tax people in order to finance particular public benefits. But requiring citizens to buy something from a private company is different because private companies aren’t directly accountable to the public. They’re accountable to their owners and their purpose is to maximize profits. What if they monopolize the market and charge humongous premiums? (Some already seem to be doing this.)

Even if private health insurers are organized as not-for-profits, there’s still a problem of public accountability. What’s to prevent top executives from being paid small fortunes? (In more than a few cases this is already happening.)

Moreover, compared to private insurance, Medicare is a great deal. Its administrative costs are only around 3 percent, while the administrative costs of private insurers eat up 30 to 40 percent of premiums. Medicare’s costs are even below the 5 percent to 10 percent administrative costs borne by large companies that self-insure, and under the 11 percent costs of private plans under Medicare Advantage, the current private-insurance option under Medicare.

So why not Medicare for all?

Because Republicans have mastered the art of political jujitsu. Their strategy has been to demonize government and seek to privatize everything that might otherwise be a public program financed by tax dollars (see Paul Ryan’s plan for turning Medicare into vouchers). Then they go to court and argue that any mandatory purchase is unconstitutional because it exceeds the government’s authority.

Obama and the Democrats should do the reverse. If the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate in the new health law, private insurers will swarm Capitol Hill demanding that the law be amended to remove the requirement that they cover people with pre-existing conditions.

When this happens, Obama and the Democrats should say they’re willing to remove that requirement – but only if Medicare is available to all, financed by payroll taxes.

If they did this the public will be behind them — as will the Supreme Court.

So, what do you think? It it even remotely possible that a Supreme Court decision against the administration could be a good thing in this instance?

The move to drop Planned Parenthood shouldn’t surprise anyone. The pinkwashing non-profit has been leading up to it for a while. Last year, they brought on a new Vice President of Public Policy by the name of Karen Handel… Handel, an anti-abortion politician, had recently run for Governor of Georgia, with the endorsement of Sarah Palin, and lost… And, in November, with Palin’s “Mama Grizzly” calling the shots, Komen quietly announced that they would no longer support embryonic stem cell research.

The folks at Komen, as I mentioned above, say that their decision to drop Planned Parenthood was precipitated by a recent internal change in policy concerning partner organizations that find themselves under investigation by governmental entities. There seems to be evidence, however, that this rule was put in place specifically so that Komen could justify turning their backs on Planned Parenthood, and the women they serve. Here, with more on that, is a clip from The Atlantic:

…Komen, the marketing juggernaut that brought the world the ubiquitous pink ribbon campaign, says it cut-off Planned Parenthood because of a newly adopted foundation rule prohibiting it from funding any group that is under formal investigation by a government body…

But three sources with direct knowledge of the Komen decision-making process told me that the rule was adopted in order to create an excuse to cut-off Planned Parenthood. (Komen gives out grants to roughly 2,000 organizations, and the new “no-investigations” rule applies to only one so far.) The decision to create a rule that would cut funding to Planned Parenthood, according to these sources, was driven by the organization’s new senior vice-president for public policy, Karen Handel, a former gubernatorial candidate from Georgia who is staunchly anti-abortion and who has said that since she is “pro-life, I do not support the mission of Planned Parenthood.” (The Komen grants to Planned Parenthood did not pay for abortion or contraception services, only cancer detection, according to all parties involved.) I’ve tried to reach Handel for comment…

And here’s a little more about Handel, from The Nation.

…Handel is not your typical philanthropy administrator. She is a Republican pol, a former Georgia secretary of state, who ran in the 2010 gubernatorial primary, with endorsements from Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and anti-immigrant finger-pointing Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. At that time she described herself as “staunchly and unequivocally pro-life,” opposed to stem cell research and a fan of crisis pregnancy centers—places that have repeatedly been shown to use scare tactics and misinformation to dissuade women from seeking abortions. She vowed to eliminate from the state budget pass-through grants to Planned Parenthood for breast and cervical cancer screenings. Interestingly, she had previously supported these grants, using the exact arguments defenders of Komen’s PP grants are making now: PP is the only organization capable of doing the work—reaching low-income women, for whom the PP clinic is often the only medical care the get—and the grant money does not fund abortions. Handel’s turnaround shows you how quickly the anti-choicers have claimed formerly neutral turf: in only a few years a relationship deemed normal and good—in Georgia!—and the only existing way of providing needed services was branded with the mark of the beast.

Planned Parenthood says Komen grants totaled around $680,000 in 2011 and $580,000 the year before, accounting for around 170,000 of the 4 million breast exams it has given in the last five years. It’s pretty shocking that Komen would deprive of services women it has itself admitted have no other way of getting them. As Jodi Jacobson reports on RH Reality Check, in 2011 Komen itself acknowledged PP’s essential role in breast care…

Obviously, being “pro life” is important to the women who run this organization, and I respect that, but I can’t quite reconcile how defunding programs that screen the poor for breast cancer really helps bolster that position.

I know that this is being covered elsewhere on the web, and that I didn’t really ad anything new to the conversation, but I wanted to make sure that it was recorded here, in the official MarkMaynard.com archive, just in case my site is the only one to survive the coming apocalypse.

I’ll be curious to see how all of this plays out. I’ve heard from a few friends that they’ll no longer fundraise for Komen, but, instead, find other organizations that actually 1) believe in science, and 2) care about providing breast cancer screenings to those who couldn’t otherwise have them. I wouldn’t be surprised if this spelled the end for Komen. I don’t suspect, however, that it will hurt the momentum of the movement against breast cancer. People will just find a more credible conduit through which to apply their talents… Personally, I think this is probably a good thing. I love when conservatives overreach, and, in the process, expose themselves for what they truly are…

OK, now I’m going to go and see if I can find out how much Brinker, as the head of Komen, pays herself.

And, while I’m doing that, if you’re so inclined, you can make a contribution to Planned Parenthood of Mid and South Michigan here.

Medical marijuana cannot be sold through private shops, the Michigan appeals court said Wednesday in a major decision that strikes at businesses trying to cash in on pot and cuts off a source for people with chronic ailments.

A three-judge panel said the 2008 medical marijuana law, as well as the state’s public health code, does not allow people to sell pot to each other, even if they’re among the 99,500 who have state-issued marijuana cards.

Big Daddy’s Hydro store is shown closed in Detroit, Wednesday, Aug. 24, 2011. Medical marijuana cannot be sold through private shops, the Michigan appeals court said Wednesday, Aug. 24, 2011, in a major decision that strikes at businesses trying to cash in on pot. A three-judge panel said the 2008 medical marijuana law, as well as the state’s public health code, does not allow people to sell pot to each other, even if they’re among the 99,500 who have state-issued marijuana cards.

The court said Compassionate Apothecary in Mount Pleasant, Mich., can be immediately shut down as a “public nuisance.” The 3-0 decision means local authorities can pursue similar businesses, estimated at 200 to 300, in their communities.

It was not immediately clear whether they would, but state Attorney General Bill Schuette said he’s notifying all 83 county prosecutors.

Personally, I don’t care if marijuana is legal. All things considered, hugh-fructose corn syrup is probably worse for mankind. What I do have a problem with, though, is the ridiculous charade that so-called “medical marijuana” has become. As someone who knows seriously ill individuals who rely on marijuana to deal with the pain and loss of appetite that often accompany serious disease and treatment, I find the current paradigm, in which anyone can qualify by paying a graduate of a third-rate medical school his or her fee for a 2-minute consultation consisting of leading questions about carpal tunnel, offensive in the extreme. I say we just make the shit legal for all of those over 21 and tax the hell out of it. If people want to waste their lives on pot, let them. Just don’t ask me to pretend that they’re doing it for any other reason than that they’re lazy fucks who enjoy watching television while high.

update: As with all the medical marijuana posts I’ve ever written, this one is attracting a lot of comments, many of which refer to me as a fucking douche. Here are a few of them, along with my response.

THOM ELLIOTT:
“Lazy fucks” who “waste their lives”… sounds like the utter majority of yr countrymen to me, why the spleen towards reefer smoking? I know many perfectly productive humans who smoke reefer, and so do you. How many bars are there in MI? What kind of public nuisance are they? As far as I’m concerned the mundane over consumption of alchohol and its associated public drunkenness is one of our society’s most destructive activities. How many lives has drinking destroyed? How many crimes perpetrated by drunkards? Why is it deadly, dangerous products like alchohol or socalled antidepressants get a pass, and proven nearly harmless and *gasp* healthful substance is so oppressed? You have to have a card and jump through a bunch of hoops to engage in a harmless behaviour with positive effects for most and particularly the chronically ill, and you’re encouraged to throw yr life away with booze on billboards and advertisements everywhere you look.

I just don’t get it… this charade? The people who have twisted this nation’s youth with ritalyn to make them pay attention to nonsense, or have turned a generation of adults into amphetamine or morphene addicts with adderal or darvocet? These are the people who shouldn’t participate in the charade of making a harmless substance available in abundance?? If anything it was a positive development in the course of a deeply troubled institution. Why is it people on paxil don’t need special cards or have to go to “compassion centers”? Why is it legislation on oxycodone has no signs of rapid or unpredictable alteration? The only reason reefer is illegal to begin with is racism, these dispensarys are much needed business for our area.

DAVID GOMEZ:
You guys do know that Attorney General Bill Schuette has long standing family ties to Dow Chemical right? The largest chemical company in the world who makes a ton of money from selling their chemicals to big pharma, the same big pharma who wants to government to tell you what you can put in your body so that you are forced to use their products to treat yourself.

It’s not even hard to find dirt on Schuette, I did a simple google search and found a story from 1990 about how when he was a MI rep Schuette voted in favor of some things that would directly benefit Dow, the Midland MI based corporation. He also had Dow stock that was valued around 1.2 million at the time. He’s a corporate chemical boy just like all of the other NEOCONS.

Schuette doesn’t give a F*** about the will of the people or protecting our neighborhoods, all he cares about maintaining the status quo and controlling people’s lives. Yes, lets continue the War on Drugs which targets mostly minorities and is turning the US into an authoritarian regime.

GLEN S
Now that they have eliminated unemployment, fixed our failing public schools, rebuilt our crumbling infrastructure, and reinvigorated our dying cities — it’s nice to see that Michigan’s “small government” Republicans finally have time to turn their attention to more pressing issues — including cracking down (or at least, attempting to restrict) the outcome of a law that voters passed by an overwhelming (2-to1) margin, and which passed in all 83 Michigan counties.

MARK MAYNARD:
I know I’m douchey about some stuff, and I guess this is one of those things. I’ve got tons of friends that smoke pot. I’ve also go tons of friends that drink too much. In both cases, I think they’d be more productive if they did less of it. But, like I said, I don’t think that it should be illegal. So, I guess I’m on your side. I just think that pot makes people lazy. Like I said, though, in the whole scheme of things I think it’s better for society than high fructose corn syrup, which makes people fat and stupid. Sorry if you find this insulting. It’s just what I think. That doesn’t change the fact that I believe it should be legal. Nor does it change the fact that I know many people who need pot for medical reasons. I just find it insulting when I see young people in Insane Clown Posse tshirts and sideways baseball caps going into these “medical” facilities to get their pot. I find it insulting to those in society who really do need it.

PETER LARSON:
For the record, I also hate pot. I mean, I hate pot in the same way I hate Air Supply, Clint Black, Insane Clown Posse and mayonnaise. I also hate people that go and get wasted all the time and drive home rather than take a taxi.

I also hate the tired claims of weed as some kind of miracle drug. At best, it’s a mild sedative and an anti-convulsant. Not to say that those things don’t help people, but weed will not cure HIV, it won’t cure cancer and won’t keep you from being depressed and generally feeling like a useless bag of dirt.

By the “medical marijuana” advocates’ arguments, we should all have poppy fields in our backyards and home-grown heroin refineries in our garages. Heroin also helps people with chronic pain, depression and a variety of other problems. Granted, heroin can kill you, though driving while smoking weed can also kill you.

I am for the legalization of weed, but I personally think that these conversations of it’s “medical” benefits are vastly overblown (very little true science backs up much of the claims you see on internet discussion boards) and are counterproductive toward developing responsible drug policy.

Mostly, I think that weed advocates are much like religious zealots and are too clouded by their own love for the bud to convince me of much.

That’s just my opinion.

I don’t have time to transcribe the whole thing, but here are a few quotes.

…Big money owns and controls much of what takes place in the United States Congress. We had a bad situation before, and, since (the) Citizens United (decision), it’s much, much worse. In a variety of ways, we’re going to have to take apart Citizens United. We’re going to have to pass legislation to minimize what it is doing. And, at the end of the day, we’re probably going to have to pass a constitutional amendment which makes the radical opinion that a corporation is not a person, and that a handful of billionaires cannot pollute and take over the political system by spending unlimited sums of money in secret in order to elect candidates who support their agenda…

The way you fight back is through grassroots organizing. These guys may have billions of dollars, and they may have the Supreme Court, and they may be able to attract the money from the Koch brothers and other billionaires, but, if we can build a strong grassroots movement of politically conscience people who understand that the function of government is to represent working people and the middle class, and not billionaires, we can beat them… We need to make it very, very clear how corrupt the system is… to what degree the billionaires and large corporations are manipulating the campaign finance system in order to give tax breaks to the rich, in order to continue unregulated free trade, in order to deregulate Wall Street and the oil companies.. (and remove) environmental protection laws. So, I think their arrogance may be something that we can effectively use against them…

I think that this particular point many Republicans are doing what they are doing not for any great philosophical reasons, but because what they do can attract huge sums of money. You can get huge amounts of money from Wall Street when you talk about deregulating Wall Street, and not bringing back (the) Glass-Steagall (Act), for instance. You get money from the oil companies when you talk about continuing to give them tax breaks despite the fact that they make billions in profits. You get money from the military industrial complex if you continue to support large military budgets and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan…

Oh, and guess what else? Sanders proposed legislation today that, if passed, would make health care possible for everyone in the United States. Here’s a clip:

This week, Senator Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, introduced the American Health Security Act of 2011(S. 915 in the Senate and HR 1200 in the House), a bill that would create a state-based system similar to Medicare but open to Americans of all ages.

“The United States is the only major nation in the industrialized world that does not guarantee health care as a right to its people,” Sanders said at a press conference announcing the measure on Capitol Hill. “It is time that we bring about a fundamental transformation of the American health care system. It is time for us to end private, for-profit participation in delivering basic coverage.”

“The best way to reduce costs and guarantee coverage for all is through a single-payer system like Medicare,” said McDermott. “This bill does just that — it builds on the new health care law by giving states the flexibility they need to go to a single-payer system of their own. It will also reduce costs, and Americans will be healthier”…

It pisses me off that I can’t be as proud of my Senators. How about you?

Here’s a clip from the transcript, thanks to our friends at ThinkProgress:

With regard to the idea of whether you have a right to health care, you have realize what that implies. It’s not an abstraction. I’m a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery. It means that you’re going to enslave not only me, but the janitor at my hospital, the person who cleans my office, the assistants who work in my office, the nurses.

Basically, once you imply a belief in a right to someone’s services — do you have a right to plumbing? Do you have a right to water? Do you have right to food? — you’re basically saying you believe in slavery.

I’m a physician in your community and you say you have a right to health care. You have a right to beat down my door with the police, escort me away and force me to take care of you? That’s ultimately what the right to free health care would be.

I just wish we could travel back in time and let America’s slaves know that they were like 21st century doctors.

And I can’t wait till we get the public option, so that I can go to Paul’s house in the middle of the night, pound on his door and demand my free eye exam.

And here’s that ThinkProgress piece.

Today is the one-year anniversary of President Obama signing the Affordable Care Act into law, which when fully implemented, will cover 32 million Americans and begin to lower the rate of growth in health care spending. “The bill I’m signing will set in motion reforms that generations of Americans have fought for , and marched for, and hungered to see,” Obama said during last year’s signing ceremony. “That our generation is able to succeed in passing this reform is a testament to the persistence — and the character — of the American people, who championed this cause; who mobilized; who organized; who believed that people who love this country can change it,” he added. Health care advocacy groups around the nation will host educational events in 33 states today to raise awareness about the law’s benefits and the government’s efforts in implementing the measure thus far.

IMPLEMENTATION SUCCESS: As a result of the law, states received $250 million in federal funding to strengthen their ability to review, revise, or reject unreasonable premium rate hikes. Nearly four million seniors who fell into the Medicare Part D doughnut hole received federal assistance that helped them purchase medications and 150,000 seniors have undergone a free wellness exam this year. The government recovered $4 billion in fraud last year and the law provides more funds to crack down on waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare and has been busily implementing new regulations that are designed to keep health insurers more accountable and increase access to coverage. As of this year, insurance companies can no longer discriminate against children with pre-existing conditions, drop coverage because of a simple mistake on an application, institute lifetime caps, limit choice of doctors, charge more for emergency services obtained out of network, or levy deductibles, co-payments or co-insurance for certain preventive benefits. More than a million young adults can stay on their parents’ plans until their 26th birthday, and everyone will have the right to appeal insurer decisions to an independent third party. Similarly, four million small businesses have access to $40 billion in tax credits and 12,400 Americans with pre-existing conditions are receiving coverage through temporary high-risk insurance pools that will provide coverage for sicker individuals until 2014. Americans can already compare available plan benefits, prices, and application denial rates at HealthCare.gov. In 2011, the website will include pricing and comparison information for small businesses.

LOOKING AHEAD: Starting in 2014, individuals and families will have even more options through state-based health care exchanges that will allow Americans to select new regulated plans that will offer a comprehensive set of benefits. Under the law, if states fail to establish their own exchange, the federal government will build one for them — something a surprisingly high number of conservative states are willing to accept. States like Louisiana, Florida, Georgia and Alaska have refused to build their own unique marketplaces and have instead suggested that they would allow the federal government to step in. States that establish their own exchanges will be able to run their own markets (or partner if with other states), determine which insurance companies can offer coverage and dictate benefit rules. Americans below 133 percent of the federal poverty line (FPL) will be able to enroll in an expanded Medicaid program. In the coming year, the federal government will issue more specific regulations about how much flexibility states will have to structure their health insurance exchanges and how generous those plans have to be. This year, restaurant chains and vending machines will be required to disclose nutritional content of food and Medicaid will stop reimbursing hospitals for conditions acquired during hospitalization.

REPUBLICANS PREDICTED THE WORST: In the year since reform passed, Republicans in the House repealed the law (only to see the measure fall in the Senate) and are now attempting to defund reform. During the nearly 10-month legislative battle that preceded passage, the GOP characterized the bill as a “socialist” “government takeover” and warned Americans that the bill would destroy lives and American society, hurling apocalyptic warnings that seem downright satirical a year later. For instance, on the eve of passage now-House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said that passage of reform would result in “Armageddon” because the law will “ruin our country.” Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) predicted “there will be no insurance industry left in three years” and announced that seniors would “die soon,” while Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) stated that “no new health insurance policies can be written once this federal plan comes into effect.” Fox News pundit Sean Hannity said, “If we get nationalized health care, it’s over; this is socialism” and Glenn Beck predicted “the end of prosperity in America forever…the end of America as you know it.” Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) suggested that seniors will be “put to death” by the government and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) lamented that a similar fate faced American women. Potential presidential candidate and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) warned that health reform “will destroy the country” because, “in the next year or so,” America will have to “dramatically cut the military because we can’t pay for it.”

It’s also worth noting that, yesterday, House members in the great state of Vermont voted to transition toward a single-payer system. Assuming the Vermont Senate follows suit, it will become the first state to do so, and it will also make Vermont about one million times more attractive to the young college grads leaving Michigan as though they’d just pulled back a shower curtain to find Carrot Top’s face staring back at them.

On the subject of the Affordable Care Act, I’m still not happy about it. I still think that Obama should have pushed harder for a public option. I think it would have been the right thing to do fiscally, morally and politically… The fact that the Republicans, and their corporate overlords hate it so much, though, tells me that, despite what I might think, there’s actually something good in it, beneath all the corporate give-aways.