Position Paper: Free Health Care, Trump Style

Created with https://Tagul.com

Somewhat quietly, or more quietly than I thought he would have, His Hairness released his healthcare plan a few days ago.

Of course, it came with the usual bluster -- not unique to Trump, but an affliction they all seem to have, as if the sound bite about the plan is more important than the plan itself.

Since March of 2010, the American people have had to suffer under the incredible economic burden of the Affordable Care Act... passed by totally partisan votes in the House and Senate and signed into law by the most divisive and partisan President in American history, has tragically but predictably resulted in runaway costs, websites that don't work, greater rationing of care, higher premiums, less competition and fewer choices...the damage done by the Democrats and President Obama, and abetted by the Supreme Court, will be difficult to repair unless the next President and a Republican congress lead the effort to bring much-needed free market reforms to the healthcare industry.

So, what's the approach?  Well, "on day one" he'll ask Congress for a full repeal; the assumption is that what failed 50-some-odd times will pass this time. And it will pass, we assume, because

We will work with Congress to make sure we have a series of reforms ready for implementation that follow free market principles and that will restore economic freedom and certainty to everyone in this country. By following free market principles and working together to create sound public policy that will broaden healthcare access, make healthcare more affordable and improve the quality of the care available to all Americans. (emphasis Trump's)

Full repeal, of course, would put preexisting conditions back into play; would put older dependent children back into safety net programs; and preventative services, which now must be rendered without cost share, would go back into the mix of deductible and copays. Rules regarding admin costs as a percentage of total premium collected would also be out the window, allowing insurers to profit freely as they saw fit.

And mental health benefits might also suffer a hit, except that Trump notes (as do all politicians) that

Finally, we need to reform our mental health programs and institutions in this country. Families, without the ability to get the information needed to help those who are ailing, are too often not given the tools to help their loved ones. 

He points to some "promising reforms being developed in Congress" that deserve bipartisan report, but doesn't get into specifics.

Notably, his plan doesn't mention how he's going to increase access to healthcare as he emphasized above; his plan primarily addresses access to health insurance, which is a very different thing.

 Here are the other highlights:

• Elimination of the individual mandate - because "no person should be required to buy insurance" unless they want to, proving once and for all that in America it's more important that we have auto insurance that might never be used than it is that we have health insurance that is the gift that keeps on giving. 

• Sale of insurance across state lines, as long as the plans comply with the applicable state laws and regulations. This will drive costs down and satisfaction up, we're told. Here in New York, where we just experienced the free market free fall of Health Republic, I'm not sure lower premiums are all they're cracked up to be when it comes to insurance.

• Review Medicaid options so that people don't slip through the cracks, and make sure that folks who want insurance can get it. This is for the people who cannot benefit from the free market bonanza that will save the world.  He also proposes Medicaid block grants so that states can do what they know best, and to incentivize the identification and elimination of fraud, waste and abuse. 

• Allow tax-free contributions to health savings accounts (HSAs) which then become part of the person's estate with no 'death penalty.' The HSA funds could be used by anyone in the family, without penalty, and "should be particularly attractive to young people who are healthy and can afford high deductible health insurance plans."  (The young and healthy are the ones who are taking the penalty of the individual mandate instead of signing up for insurance because the penalty is less than the premiums.)

• Transparency in pricing from providers, "especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals" so people can price-shop.  

• Cheaper drugs, via removing "barriers into entry in free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products." This includes access to "imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas."  The free market, in pharma, gave us Martin Shkreli. And, who will make sure that the imported drugs are "safe and dependable" -- do we take the word of the regulators in the socialist, free-insurance-for-all countries that benefit from these prices now?

One more piece of the plan is this:

• Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system.

Translated: government-sponsored health care. Free health care. Say it either way, doesn't much matter. I mean, say your income tax responsibility is $5,000, and say you pay $6,000 in health insurance premiums. That means that the $5,000 Uncle Sam is counting on getting from you is now $1,000 that Uncle Sam owes you. Which means that someone else is going to be picking up the costs, right? And if someone else is paying for your insurance, it kind of makes your health insurance free, doesn't it?

Multiply that by the millions and millions of Americans who have insurance, and it seems we're headed down a very bad path, don't you think, especially this is all to be done under our current tax system.

I'm not naive about the Affordable Care Act -- clearly it can be improved, starting with offering basic plans as an alternative to high deductible health plans, which are NOT for everyone even though they're less expensive -- but I stand firmly against full repeal. 

I support transparency, and I support requiring insurers, including the one I've worked at for almost 26 years, to spend less on admin and more on benefits. I support having more nurse-practitioners and physician assistants, particularly in lightly populated rural areas and very densely populated urban areas, so that people can access health care when they need it.  I support exhaustive efforts against fraud, waste and abuse in all government programs, including healthcare. I support challenging states to look critically at their safety net programs to reduce costs (and benefits, where they are overly rich) and to not shift the burden to local governments. There's more, but I'm not the one running for office. 

As Trump does, I support building a better economy, where more people are working and able to afford insurance. 

But one thing I don't get is how free health care offered by a Republican is going to Make America Great Again, when it's a sign of the apocalypse when it's offered by a Democrat. 

My Middle-aged White Lady Perspective: Every Tom, Ricardo and Hasid

A friend posted a letter on Facebook, ostensibly from an 'everyday American' to the Republican National Committee (RNC), explaining why people are rallying behind His Hairness as the leading candidate for President, and why the RNC is basically looking for love (or money) in all the wrong places.

The author of the letter is allegedly an 80-year-old lifelong Republican; I doubt that's the case, given that he never mentions serving his country, but proudly calls out that he has "a great deal of respect and influence with hundreds of senior ball players who network with thousands of others around the country" but then fails to explain why his influence with old ballplayers should be noteworthy.

While he agrees with the positions of the GOP, he's tired of them not listening to the people that elected them, and he shares an analogy to make the point of why people like him are supporting Trump. 

You've been on vacation for two weeks, you come home, and your basement is infested with raccoons. Hundreds of rabid, messy, mean raccoons have overtaken your basement. You want them gone immediately...You call the city and four different exterminators but nobody could handle the job. There is this one guy however, who guarantees you he will get rid of them, so you hire him. You don't care if they guy smells, you don't care if the guy swears, you don't care how many times he's been married, you don't care if he was friends with liberals, you don't care if he has plumber's crack...you simply want those raccoons gone! You want your problem fixed! He's the guy. He's the best. Period.

Trump, you see, is the raccoon-catcher: the smelly dude you call when no one else can or will do the job. The writer continues, describing the raccoons - or the outcome of having them in the basement:

This country is weak, bankrupt, our enemies are making fun of us, we're being invaded by illegal aliens and bringing tens of thousands of Muslim refugees to America while leaving Christians behind to be persecuted. We are becoming a nation of victims where every Tom, Ricardo and Hasid is part of a special group with special rights, to the point where we don't even recognize the country we were born and raised in. "AND WE JUST WANT IT FIXED" and Trump is the only guy who seems to understand what the people want.

So, can I say that I'd love to hear from any Christian who's been left behind here in America to be persecuted? Or even from someone who personally knows a person who's been persecuted as a Christian here in America? President Obama might be one, since he's been forced to defend his faith against accusations of being a Muslim since before he took the oath of office. Hell, even his American birth was questioned. 

For the purposes of this post though, POTUS would not count, unless he reached out to me directly to discuss his persecution.  Which would be cool, for sure, but is about as likely as it is that anyone else will contact me. 

Maybe the persecuted left-behind Christians are the ones who weren't voted into office? 

The folks most recently sent to Washington, and to statehouses around the country, are probably the single largest group of self-proclaimed religious politicians ever elected. They're happy to tell us over and over again how Christian they are, as they cut safety net programs, abolish women's health care, try to get us into another war or three, pretend that they really think man and dinosaur strolled the earth together just a few short years ago, denigrate Americans who don't look like them, cheat on their spouses, their constituents, or both, and create an ever-widening gap between the haves and the have nots. But they're darn good Christians, they say.  

Another question: the author says that our enemies are making fun of us. I don't know about you, but I wonder when we started worrying about that?  

And isn't it much worse that our friends are embarrassed by the activities of this election cycle, and of our elected officials over the past several years (anyone remember freedom fries?) and are afraid of the outcome of our election and what it means to our standing as leader of the free world, and to them as our allies?  If I had to pick one, I'd sure rather our friends were ready, able and willing to stand with us against our laughing enemies than I am about the laughing enemies themselves. 

And finally, since you're having such a hard time recognizing the country you were born in, would it help if we re-segregated schools, buses and water fountains? Maybe instead of having an all-volunteer military, you'd prefer we went back to the draft where we might offer deferrals for rich white folks, and send everyone else off, allow us to sacrifice 58,000 American lives fighting someone else's civil war? And go back to a set of special rights for white men, and a lesser set of rights for women and people of color? Or send all the black athletes back to their own leagues, and maybe not let them play senior ball with you?

I'm not suggesting that Trump will take us back there, to those times. I'm questioning if, as the supposed 80 year old writer of this letter says, we really want to go back and recognize the country in which he was born and raised.

From my middle-aged white lady's perspective, my answer is no, thank you, but thank you very much for asking.  

Oh - and tell the plumber to pull up his pants, will you?

I Solemnly Swear

I (Marco Rubio. John Kasich. Raphael Cruz.), do solemnly swear, to support Donald J. Trump should he become the nominee of the Republican Party in the race for the Presidency of the United States.

I pledge my honor, my money, and my delegates to a man I believe is a bully.

A racist. 

A liar.

A fraud.

A fake Christian.

A liberal.

A phony.

An under-endowed, thrice-married cheating husband.

A man who makes ties in China.

And a man who doesn't represent me or my values.

I Do So Solemnly Swear.

God Bless Donald Trump, and God Bless the United States of America.

Amen.

Wondering, on Wednesday (v48)

I  am, truly.

Wondering, I mean.

Where do we go from Super Tuesday? Are the paths forward any more obvious, or did yesterday make it worse? How do the parties respond? And what happens over the next two or three weeks, particularly on the Republican side, when we hit the winner-take-all states?

(And, I'm wondering, why are there twice as many delegates at stake on the Democratic side than on the Republican side?)

So far, it looks like mainstream/traditional Republicans seem to be falling into three camps:

• I don't like Trump, or what he says, but I'll live with him if that's what it will take to win the Presidency. 
• I don't like Trump and I want him to stop being a (fill in the blank) for the good of the party, or we'll find a way to stop him,even if it means supporting Cruz or Rubio (shudder).
• I don't like Trump, and if he's the nominee I'll vote for Hillary. (Yes, there are Republicans  saying this every day, and not just on NPR)

'Modern' Republicans, the ones who are turning out in record numbers in the primaries fall into one big camp, under the big top:

• I like Trump, and I don't care how he says what he says, or that he lies, or that he mocks me at every turn (even if I don't get that he's mocking me), because he's not a politician and we're sick of politicians, and oh by the way, we like that he swears and is a bully because, well, because that's what we need in America because that's what it feels like I want to do to everyone I run into, especially if they don't look like me, because white people are going to be in the minority and I'll be damned if I'm going to take that lying down, and I need a blowhard like Trump to make me feel good about myself and about my country goddam!

Mainstream/traditional Democrats seem to be falling into several camps:

• I like Hillary, and it's her turn, and/or she's the best chance we have and/or because she's a woman and it's time we had a woman president
• I don't like Hillary, because she has so much baggage, but she's the only one who's electable so I'll live with her.
• I don't like Hillary, so we have to keep pushing for Bernie to win.
• I don't like Hillary and if she's the nominee I'm going to vote for Trump (again, every day, people say this).
• I like Bernie, and he's the only one who can beat whoever the Republican nominee is, and so I'm all in for him.
• I don't like Bernie, and if he's the nominee I'm going to vote for Trump.

Really liberal Democrats, and new ones, are pro-Bernie, are donating small amounts of money in large numbers, but he's not turning that into votes (or maybe I should say, he's not turning that into delegates). He was too liberal for Massachusetts, for heaven's sake - or not well organized enough there to beat Clinton.  And I don't understand why he didn't even put up a fight in half of the Super Tuesday states? 

Where do we go from here? Sill wondering. 

The one thing I do know is, the Dems better figure out a path forward, and quickly, to start focusing a whole lot of effort on getting out the vote, even while they try and figure out who's going to be the nominee. Republicans are showing up in droves, and that's not giving me a warm fuzzy about November. 

Grains of Salt (v6): Dues Not Deals

Regular readers know that I'm not a huge fan of giving away tax dollars to corporations or organizations that don't need them. Or maybe, I should say, to those who shouldn't need them.

And so, naturally, I'm intrigued by an article I saw in Sunday's paper about MACNY, the Manufacturer's Association of Central N, and a couple of state senators, David Valesky and Jeffrey Klein, both members of the Independent Democratic Conference. The pols have proposed that MACNY "administer a centralized apprenticeship program for local factories."

You see, our manufacturing employees are getting old - average age is 56, according to MACNY's President, Randy Wolken. They're probably tired, too, I'd guess - most manufacturing jobs are not as easy as say, my desk job - and it makes sense that we need to have replacements at the ready as these folks start to age out of the workforce.

Wolken also noted that

With the $500,000, if it's added to the state budget, MACNY could run a central apprenticeship program that would reduce costs and administrative red tape for all local manufacturers. Much of the state money would pay for administrative costs involved in running the program. 

MACNY's website shows they have more than 330 member firms. Not all of them are manufacturers, but there are a lot of notable regional companies, many with global reputations, such as Welch Allyn, SRC, Lockheed Martin, Corning Inc, Tessy Plastics, and Par Technology among them. And, certainly, there are lots of smaller companies and likely some start ups who have signed on for the benefits of membership, which include networking, governmental affairs, shared purchasing services, and yes, training opportunities and consulting services.

MACNY's reach extends far outside the Central New York Area. This is important, I think, when we talk about coughing up $500,000 to help train employees. They are not a little trade group for Syracuse and Onondaga County - they're a trade group for everyone, from Rochester to Albany, from Watertown to Binghamton and Elmira. Do they really need half a million in taxpayer dollars to organize a training program, particularly when much of the money, by their own admission, is for administrative costs??

Our economy is such that, in many places, we don't build things anymore: we pour things. That's right: instead of opening companies that make things, we open coffee shops, places which tend to pay less than a good manufacturing job would pay. I mean, there are over 40 Dunkin' Donuts alone within 10 miles of me. We have a fairly new one, completely drive through, built in the shadows of the I-81 interchange with 690 East.

This one may very well come down whenever we decide what we're going to do with the interstate, which makes me question whether the group that built the tiny little DD has designs on a government payout of their own down the road. But I digress.

Folks say that part of the reason we have high unemployment and that we don't build things anymore is that factories cannot find skilled people to hire, and so jobs - good paying jobs, ones that might pay as much as tomorrow's minimum wage - go unfilled. If the jobs could be filled, we're told, we could grow our economy, and we could stabilize our population base, and we could support all of those coffee chains that dot the landscape, and make it possible for small businesses and start ups to grow, and, well, you get the picture.

But again -- does an organization with MACNY's membership and reach really need half a million in taxpayer dollars, no matter how pure their motives and how valuable the services that would be offered if the money was there?

Throw in one more point mentioned in the press coverage of this initiative, and my thinking becomes more clear:

The two (senators) were surrounded by officials from local labor unions and the MACNY who support the concept...

Use your dues, folks- not taxpayer dollars - to support your members and their training needs.

Tuesday's Number: $143,881

Tuesday is the day my local paper, The Post-Standard, publishes the weekly business section. In addition to special features, tips from stock experts, budgeting advice and the like, we get the judgment and bankruptcy listings.

This is the fourth full year I’ve been tracking these numbers – I captured part of the year in 2012 – and the third year that I’ve captured filings by hospital.  I include anything that is likely a patient debt owed to a hospital, nursing home, physician or physician group, medical supplier, and so on; I do not include filings by insurance companies, many of which are so diversified it would not be a fair assumption that the filing is related to medical care or health insurance.

In the first three years, the overall total was $67,965,862 – a staggering amount of money for a relatively small metropolitan area that includes the city of Syracuse and her suburbs, the towns and villages of Onondaga County, and to a lesser extent, some of the even smaller neighboring towns and villages.  As I reported in the 2015 recap, we turned sharply down last year – some $7M – and the hope is that we will continue to see progress in the overall total. Of course, a better sign of health would be an increase in the number of satisfied judgments; people’s ability to pay off their debt (or their willingness, as the case may be) is something else I’m hoping to see this year. 

This week, there were eleven new judgments, totaling $119,886, and one bankruptcy, for $23,995. No satisfied judgments were reported.

Here’s the breakdown by hospital:
Crouse had four, for $28,925
SUNY Upstate had six, totaling $84,441

The remaining $30,515 was split between a regional hospital to the east of Syracuse, and the NYU Hospitals Center, which picked up this week’s the bankruptcy. 

The paper only publishes filings of $5,000 or more.

Grains of Salt (v5): Overtime Overdrive

What's spilling out of the salt shaker tonight? Overtime. Lots and lots of overtime.

First up, a question for you: where you work, do department heads get paid overtime?

You know, managers and directors and VPs and the like? Or even supervisors, the ones we call 'front-line management' in the corporate world?

In that corporate world, at least that I've experienced, they don't. Once you're management, you're out of the hourly mix and paid a salary that covers the regular hours you're expected to put in, as well as a few extra. For, as I learned many long years ago, there are 168 hours in a week and if it takes you all of them to do your job, so be it.

Now, clearly that's harsh, and unrealistic, and not work-life balanced or any of those other things, but there's some logic in thinking that management folks are paid to do what needs to be done, and that they've moved beyond hourly wage responsibilities, and so have correspondingly moved beyond hourly pay and time-and-a-half for their extra time.

So, having always worked in an office environment (fortunately not long in one like the draconian 168-hours-in-a-week situation), I continue to be surprised that the Chief of the Syracuse Fire Department gets paid overtime. And so does the Chief of the Syracuse Police Department. And so do a whole host of 'managers' within the SFD and the SPD.

The top 90 wage earners for 2015 in the City of Syracuse are all either SPD or SFD. There might be more, that's just the slice of the data that shows folks who made more than Mayor Stephanie Miner, who has a salary of $115,000 - with no overtime. Collectively, the top 90 earned $4,954,489 more than their base pay - an average of $55,668 each.  Thirty-two are police officers, two are firefighters - and the rest are 'ranked' or 'titled' in some way, making it at least appear that they have some kind of management responsibility.

The city's adding some new officers this spring, we were told in the mayor's State of the City address, and at least on the SPD side, they are trying to address the persistent overtime recipients through counseling, or limiting how many hours they can get, but I'm not sure that's going to tackle the OT at the top of the org chart - and that's where it looks like we need some creative solutions.

Can't there be some way that we can pay a reasonable, no-overtime salary to the leaders of our finest and bravest, at least through the first few levels of the org chart, and still get good people to serve?  Can't we find a way to suitably reward them, but not pay out boatloads of overtime, and the corresponding bumped-up pensions that go along with these wages?

Anyone have any ideas?

Mitch McConnell Needs Me!

thinkprogress.org photo

Some time ago, I signed up to get emails from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, so I could keep my finger on the pulse of what was going on in Opposition Land (as if anyone actually has a finger on the pulse of what's going on over there).

Mitch needs my support -- now -- and I need to act quickly, if I am to be a good conservative. Here's what he's telling me:

I've heard a great deal from Americans across the country and know millions of Americans are concerned about the current vacancy on the US Supreme Court.  The future of our country will be greatly impacted by the next justice appointed to the US Supreme Court. This is a serious matter and one that deserves a great deal of thought and consideration. 

It's not a decision that should be quickly made in an election year.  That's why Senate Republicans are taking our role in confirming the next Supreme Court Justice seriously.

It is also why Senate Republicans have decided to give the American people a voice in the selection process, by waiting until after the American people have elected new leadership this November, to continue with the confirmation process. I hope you will stand with Senate Republicans in holding the line on the US Supreme Court. You can sign our petition to take action and stand with us here.

Support from conservatives like you is greatly appreciated and crucial to the future of our nation's Constitutional Republic. Thank you for your continued support. 

 The petition advises that

Justice Scalia's replacement could tip the ideological balance of the Supreme Court for decades to come. We must not allow President Obama to politicize this decision in an election year or place another rubber stamp for his progressive agenda on the Supreme Court.  

Stand with Senate Republicans: The American people deserve to have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice. Join Senate Republicans in WAITING to fill the vacancy on the US Supreme Court until after the 2016 election.

I'm almost a little verklempt, thinking that Mitch McConnell needs me to help him do the right thing!

I'm touched that the Senate, under McConnell's guiding hand, wants to take their role in confirming the next Supreme Court Justice seriously. But now I'm quite concerned. Was the Senate not being serious when they voted on Obama's nominations of Elena Kagan (confirmed by a 63-37 vote) and Sonia Sotomayor (68-31)? Is it only the next one that matters? What about the one after that?

And I'm left wondering, Mitch, what else haven't you been serious about? Should we go back and check the votes on anything that was decided during an election year?

And what about the things you need to do this year, like the budget? I would think that the future of our country will be greatly impacted by the budget that eventually gets approved: funding for education, veterans, active military, safety net programs, immigration activities, Homeland Security - these are critically important. How can we possibly trust you to vote on a budget during an election year? Should that also be postponed until after the election?

And, frankly, wouldn't that apply to anything else you have to consider this year? Or is this your tacit admission that you can't be trusted to focus on anything other than the election, and trying to maintain your majority?

I found a quote from the very needy Mitch McConnell; it came right after the November 2014 mid-term election, when the Senate flipped its majority to the dark side. I think it's applicable today:

I always like to remind people that divided government is not unusual in this country. When the American people choose divided government I don't think it means they don't want us to do anything, I think it means they want us to look for areas of agreement.(emphasis added) 

Isn't this a golden opportunity for you to walk the talk, and get the Senate on board with at least holding hearings on a nomination, as it your Constitutional responsibility, and maybe even accepting someone for the Court that this President (with the voice of the American people behind him), nominated, and who the Senate, (with the voice of the American people behind it as well), unanimously confirmed to a lower bench during this very Obama term?

If a person's 100% acceptable for the Federal Bench, what do you fear with that same person on the Supreme Court?

Or, is it really that you'd rather have Hillary Clinton fill the next vacancy?

Government 'Safety' Initiatives

Tech giant Apple is "doubling down" in their battle with the US government over back-door access to iPhones.

As I write this, there's a report on NPR noting that CEO Tim Cook has compared the software the FBI asked for to cancer; asking for this for one phone means getting it for all, that use of the access can't be controlled, and that it will spread beyond this one specific request.

I appreciate that we need to fight terror, and that we need to keep Americans safe, but who gets to choose?

For example, we have had bills that would make it illegal for someone on a terror watch list to get a gun. Those bills cannot pass, due to NRA-fueled opposition (and the related self-preservation instincts of elected officials).  Why? Well, someone might be on those lists in error, and heaven forbid we take that chance and prevent them from owning a gun.

Similarly, laws have been proposed that would allow physicians to collect information about guns from people who end up in ERs, but we can't ask about that, even though information gained may help save lives.

Imagine for moment that, in the interest of protecting us, the government ordered companies to make only 'smart guns' -- that would be great, right? The gun could only been fired by the owner, preventing countless deaths.  How long would it take before politicians, lobbyists and everyone else went crazy fighting that?

How about food labeling? Want to know how much salt is in your restaurant meal? We're ok with allergen labeling, but sodium? Don't go there. It could save lives -- heart diseases kill thousands of Americans year after year - but we can't intrude, it's too costly, it's too burdensome on businesses, etc.

And tell me, why do we still allow cigarettes to be sold?

Yet today, we have the government ordering a company to make a very specific product,  to override an already very specific product they make, in the interest of 'safety' and protecting Americans from an unknown threat.

With the support of many in Congress, law enforcement, regular folks, and the very same business world that so vehemently opposes regulations designed to protect us from their products and their customers.

All to see if we can find any additional information about two criminals, and with complete disregard for the people who might be in those phones who have nothing to do with terrorist activities.

When will these multiple constituencies come together to spend an equal amount of time and effort on the threats we already know?

Tuesday's Number: $565,058

Tuesday is the day my local paper, The Post-Standard, publishes the weekly business section. In addition to special features, tips from stock experts, budgeting advice and the like, we get the judgment and bankruptcy listings.

This is the fourth full year I’ve been tracking these numbers – I captured part of the year in 2012 – and the third year that I’ve captured filings by hospital. Included in the numbers are those filings that likely represent a patient debt owed to a hospital, nursing home, physician or physician group, medical supplier, and so on.

I do not include filings by insurance companies, many of which are so diversified it would not be a fair assumption that the filing is related to medical care or health insurance.

In the first three years, the overall total was $67,965,862 – a staggering amount of money for a relatively small metropolitan area that includes the city of Syracuse and her suburbs, the towns and villages of Onondaga County, and to a lesser extent, some of the even smaller neighboring towns and villages.  

As I reported in the 2015 recap, we turned sharply down last year – some $7M – and the hope is that we will continue to see progress in the overall total. Of course, a better sign of health would be an increase in the number of satisfied judgments; people’s ability to pay off their debt (or their willingness, as the case may be) is something else I’m hoping to see this year. 

This week, there were

• 21 new judgments, totaling $587,191
• three satisfied judgments, totaling $30,997 and
• one bankruptcy, for $8,864

Here's the breakdown for the Syracuse hospitals:

• Crouse had eight, including two of the repayments, for a net of $42,309
• St Joe's picked up the third repayment, leaving them with a $19,468 credit
• SUNY had sixteen filings, for a total of $542,222

The paper only publishes filings of $5,000 or more.

Listening to a One-Percenter

The senator is upset with a political and economic system that is often rigged to help the privileged few at the expense of everyone else, particularly the least advantaged. He believed that we have a two-tiered society that increasingly dooms millions of our fellow citizens to lives of poverty and hopelessness. He thinks many corporations seek and benefit from corporate welfare while ordinary citizens are denied opportunity and a level playing field. 

I agree with him.  

Would it surprise you that a one-percenter, equally adored on the right and abhorred on the left, made the statement above, in reference to Bernie Sanders?  And that he agrees specifically that corporate welfare is bad, and our criminal justice system is screwed up, and that our Democrats and Republicans, through their actions, "perpetuate a cycle of control, dependency, cronyism and poverty in the United States" and that is has to stop?

This person is definitely not a Sanders supporter, however. Sanders believes big government has to solve the problems created by our political system of "picking winners and losers," where the author would instead focus on the results of throwing government money and programs at our problems. Those results -- that we we still have the problems -- proves, he feels, that more government is not the answer.

He retreats to his corner, and goes on to say,

When it comes to electing our next president, we should reward those candidates, Democrat or Republican, most committed to the principles of a free society. Those principles start with the right to live your life as you see fit as long as you don't infringe on the ability of others to do the same. They include equality before the law, free speech and free markets and treating people with dignity, respect and tolerance. In a society governed by such principles, people succeed by helping others improve their lives.

Thoughts?

• Is there a collision between "the right to live your life as you see fit" and not "infring(ing) on the ability of others to do the same" in a modern America?  Would there be marriage equality, or would that be infringing on those who disapprove? Could a business refuse to provide services to a customer living life they see fit by choice or by genetics (as a gay person, or a Muslim, or a person of color), or would that be a forbidden infringement on the customer? Can a business be forced to provide health benefits to employees, or is that an infringement on the company living life freely as it chooses?

• What does "equality before the law" look like? Would we really want to treat a poor person the same as a rich person in our criminal justice system? Provide them unlimited access to reasonable and viable counsel? Provide them with equal opportunities to stay out of jail, find alternatives, protect their rights the same as we would a rich person's?  What about people of color? Can we handle equality before the law?

• Is a free market that lays off American workers and gives the jobs to people who earn less in a year than an American earns in a month, or a week, or in the case of some CEOs, in an hour or even a half hour, operating in the same universe as "treating people with dignity, respect and tolerance?" Is a free market, charging whatever price someone pulls out of their hat (even for critical and life-saving services), or paying as little as possible in wages and benefits, acting in any way dignified, respectful and tolerant? And if so, of whom?

• What are the measures of how "people succeed by helping others improve their lives?" Is it providing an effective, adequately funded educational system, starting from the very beginning, that affords all who are willing the chance to learn and grow and succeed whatever their aspirations? Is it affordable post-secondary education, including trade schools, apprentice programs, community colleges, state university systems, and private colleges and universities? And jobs in your field when you when you complete your chosen path?  Is it a reasonable starting wage and benefit package, with opportunity for growth and longevity at a company?

• Will our free will, and our free markets, make today's situation better or worse? Reduce poverty and income disparity, or make them worse? Help people become more self-sufficient, or be even less able to support those who are at the bottom of the scale? Move us towards greater tolerance, dignity and respect, or make it even worse, if that's possible? Will the homeless be housed, the hungry be fed, man's inhumanity to man go poof into the air? 

I'm not convinced that Bernie has the right answer, any more than I'm convinced that this guy, Charles Koch, has the answer.

We do agree, though, on this, his closing thought:

I don't expect to agree with every position a candidate holds, but all Americans deserve a president who, on balance, can demonstrate a commitment to a set of ideas and values that will lead to peace, civility and well-being rather than conflict, contempt and division. When such a candidate emerges, he or she will have my enthusiastic support.

Hear, hear.

The Irony Board: The Pope and The Candidate

Today's headlines are eye-caching for sure, aren't they?

We've got that rascally pontiff, Pope Francis, saying that if Donald Trump really said what it's reported he's said about immigrants and having Mexico build a wall and all that, then he's "not a Christian" because people who only look to build walls instead of building bridges are not acting in the true spirit of Christ.  The pontiff also noted that he would give Trump the benefit of the doubt, in case he didn't really say all of those harsh, hateful things.

Trump responded that it was disgraceful for a religious leader to question another person's faith, which is kind of bizarre because I think religious leaders more than anyone have that right and responsibility, to challenge people to be more faithful and their behaviors to be more in keeping with a faith-based life, right?

The other part of Trump's response is by far more fascinating:

If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS' ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been president because this would not have happened.

Do you see what I see?

If Trump gets elected, which he's been telling us is going to happen, he would crush ISIS, destroy ISIS, kill the Muslims and their families, and on and on and on.  But now, in his Franciscan retort, seems either he's not elected, (the pope would have only wished and prayed for such a thing) or Trump can't defeat ISIS, because they're going to attack the Vatican...

People have been talking about the irony of a man who lives in a walled city questioning someone else looking to build a wall; I don't see the irony there at all. The Vatican City (officially the Vatican City State) is a country within a city within a country, The walls are not new; they were built in the 1500s and 1600s (parts predate that by several hundred years).

This, in contrast to the Trump Wall (large enough to support the giant block golden Trump name), which will be bright and sparkly new, designed to isolate the one country that has, for most of its existence, been considered a shining star of freedom, a beacon of hope and democracy, a place like none other in history - America, the land of the free and home of the brave - from her southern neighbor.

The Trump Wall, to be built by the administration of The Man Who Wants To Make America Great Again, is but one irony here.

It's also ironic that the party of no, the party of go help yourself, the party of trickle down, the party of rape defenders, the party of eliminating healthcare, the party of companies are people too, the party of hate towards anyone they deem not Christian enough, is upset by someone challenging them and their standard-bearer's faith

The party that invites a leader of another country, a walled country at that - to come here, to blast our President, to slam our principles and our policies, and walk away with billions in aid - that same party is upset about a foreign leader calling out their bad behavior?

That it's Trump - the thrice married, daughter-ogling, violence-exhorting, loudmouthed, race-baiting, everyone-baiting candidate, the man lied about which church he belongs to - questioning the pontiff, calling his comments 'disgraceful', calling him a pawn?

Ah, the irony.

Consensus: To Boldly Go (Part 2): Let's Do This

Let's look again at the guidance in the editorial that followed on the heels of the Consensus report that dropped at the end of January:

Citizens and leaders of our community and our region need to talk a lot more, think more deeply about the commissions's recommendations, question the assumptions of each other and ourselves, and summon the will to change the status quo.

(If you're interested, here's the full report, or a summary, and I encourage you to read these if you live in the Central New York area.)

Public officials have been asked to not comment extensively on the recommendations, and I think for the most part they appear to be paying attention to that request. There have been several public meetings, some in the city and some outside, and many comments shared on the news, on articles published about the recommendations, and on social media generally. What seems to be clear is that there is a divide in sentiment based on where a person lives. I'm over-generalizing here, but not by a lot:

• Many city residents appear to fear a lack of standing, a lack of voice, if the city gets absorbed into the county. The economic savings, or the opportunity for the 'city' itself to survive, are positives, but the thought that people of color would have "less consideration" under a county government where they would be in the minority, seem to be outweighing the benefits in many people's minds.
• On the other hand, people from the suburbs are concerned with the lack of savings that will come from consolidation, and fear being saddled with all of the city's problems in return for their $200 or so savings. The city's problems, as perceived by some who've commented, have crime and poverty high on the list, and from a suburban perspective, having "their (own) resources" go towards fixing "their (city people's) problems" is wrong. 

Where have we seen similar divide in community conversations?  Just about everywhere, I think -- most notably in our long conversation on what to do with I-81 that cuts the city in half.  Again, over-generalizing here as well:

• Folks who live in the 'burbs want to maintain their reasonably fast commute into the city and the reasonably fast exit from it at the end of the work day. Many have been less interested in the 'city' as other than a place they have to go to for work, and leave quickly, and don't want to see that changed. They don't want to see tax dollars wasted on anything fancy, because they're not interested in putting the city back together.
• City residents, some of whom are still living where they lived when the interstate cut through the heart of the city, through some of its oldest, most culturally-thriving yet economically challenged neighborhoods seemingly without a thought, want to get "their city" back, want to tear down the divided highway that divides the city, and are either not concerned with or perfectly OK with a tunnel, or a boulevard or some hybrid solution that moves traffic more slowly. 

John Cleese/Monty Python

So how do we bridge the divide? The Consensus folks paved the way for us. They put the road map on the table, with a lot of  easy-to-understand facts and figures and, to their credit, not a ton of editorializing. 

They believe, and I agree, that we need to do something to save what we love about living in Syracuse and Onondaga County, and I think that something  has to be something completely different if we're to have the chance to thrive. 

Now, it's up to us, just us, to think deeply, to listen, and to talk. 

If you're a city resident, put yourself in the position of someone in the suburbs and picture this whole Syracuse-Onondaga community from their perspective. And then, think about what sacrifices we can reasonably make for the greater good, and how we might be better off if we let some things go. At the same time, think about how the new plan can be structured to balance everyone's needs for fair representation so no voices get lost in the shuffle.

If you're a county resident, do the same thing - pretend you live in the city (there are some really beautiful neighborhoods here, by the way) and think about what your future will look like if we don't make some critical decisions on how we allow the city where you work, where you attend concerts and SU games and where you go to restaurants and hospitals, and museums. Picture there being no 'city' here. And think of a way to support the city that supports the majority of us in the county.

If you don't want the empty shell of a city, and the bloated multiple jurisdictions that exist in the county, the choice is clear. The path is not completely defined (more on that later), but the choice is clear.

Let's build our Syracuse-Onondaga community.

Tuesday's Number: $141,561

Tuesday is the day my local paper, The Post-Standard, publishes the weekly business section. In addition to special features, tips from stock experts, budgeting advice and the like, we get the judgment and bankruptcy listings.

This is the fourth full year I’ve been tracking these numbers – I captured part of the year in 2012 – and the third year that I’ve captured filings by hospital.  I include anything that is likely a patient debt owed to a hospital, nursing home, physician or physician group, medical supplier, and so on; I do not include filings by insurance companies, many of which are so diversified it would not be a fair assumption that the filing is related to medical care or health insurance.

In the first three years, the overall total was $67,965,862 – a staggering amount of money for a relatively small metropolitan area that includes the city of Syracuse and her suburbs, the towns and villages of Onondaga County, and to a lesser extent, some of the even smaller neighboring towns and villages.  As I reported in the 2015 recap, we turned sharply down last year – some $7M – and the hope is that we will continue to see progress in the overall total. Of course, a better sign of health would be an increase in the number of satisfied judgments; people’s ability to pay off their debt (or their willingness, as the case may be) is something else I’m hoping to see this year. 

This week, there were

• nine new judgments, totaling $144,060
• two satisfied judgments, for $16,409 and
• Two bankruptcies, totaling $13,991

Here’s the breakdown by hospital:

• Crouse had nine, with a net of $120,037
• St. Joe's had one, with a net credit of$6,420
• SUNY Upstate had two, totaling $15,427
• Community General, a part of SUNY, had one, for $12,517

This was the first filing for Community in fourteen weeks, and only their seventh filing since 2014. 

The paper only publishes filings of $5,000 or more.

Quick Takes (v6): The Rich Really Are Different

Quick Takes

We've long been told that rich people are just like the rest of us. You know, they put their pants on one leg at a time, and they have great kids and wonderful pets and they go off to work, and they donate to charity and all that.

And of course, they cheat on their spouses and their taxes, and they have addiction problems and they lose their jobs and stuff, just like regular Joes and Josies.

They tend to have bigger houses, sometimes even nicer houses. And also just like regular folks, some of them think about downsizing when they retire, moving into something smaller, getting rid of clutter and whatnot.

Today, however, we learn that they really are different from us regular folks, if they're willing to partake in this new project that's splattered on the front page of our newspaper.

In the east suburbs, which is where we have the highest concentration of wealth in our neck of the woods, there's a plan to build a new luxury apartment retirement community, with a full gym and a movie theater and other amenities which the developer tells us will make it like being on a 5-star cruise ship, without the waves and American Idol wanna-be singers, I'm guessing. Here's the pitch:

Our all-inclusive resort-style senior living communities are the ideal senior living options for adults 55 and over who seek an elegant, comfortable and safe place to call home. Designed to complement your lifestyle, our luxurious accommodations, unmatched amenities, flexible dining options and leisure activities set the tone for the retirement of your dreams.

Importantly, the 128 apartments will range in size from 566 to 1206 square feet, or around the size of the average walk-in closet in the homes of people who could be anticipated as potential residents of the new community.

The developer asked for (but admitted they don't need) a $3.4 million tax package on the project, or about 10% of the project's $33.85 million cost.  Two folks from the company told OCIDA, the Onondaga County Industrial Development Agency that they'd be creating 35 jobs, and that they'd like a break because it

would make the project more economically feasible and would lower the monthly rent for tenants from $3,800 to $3,500, making them more affordable for the growing population of residents reaching retirement age.

You are reading that right - $3,500 per month for a three-bedroom, 1200 square foot apartment, plus luxury cruise amenities.

I wonder if the residents will have to dress for dinner at the captain's table?

Consensus: To Boldly Go (Part 1)

It was just shy of two years ago that I first learned about the Consensus group, the gang of volunteers who undertook the mission of modernizing government for us here in Syracuse and Onondaga County.

In this post from February 2014, I recounted how Consensus had been awarded a $250K state grant to hire a consultant to help come up with a plan, and how commissioners visited with the editorial board of the Post Standard, and that the editors of the paper were going to be firm with this group:

We intend to hold them to their promises of real results. We urge them to be bold. Listen to the naysayers, but ignore the ones who put their self-interests above the community's. We urge them to include new voices in the discussion, not just the same arguments from the usual suspects. 

And, at that time, I wondered why we were going to be patient for some 18 months to have this group and their consultants come up with a plan to do something about our 15 villages, 19 towns, 16 police departments and 55 fire departments. And of course, the City of Syracuse.  I closed the post with this thought:

When it gets to that point (when one or more of these entities was no longer able to provide services) will people look back and say, boy, I wish we had worked slower on this and hired more consultants?

Well, the Consensus team released their preliminary recommendations three weeks ago, outlining several significant areas of overlap of the many and varied governmental jurisdictions in Onondaga County. And again, the folks at the paper are chiming in, encouraging us now, the citizens, not the experts.  Here's part of the editorial from January 29th, a few days after the report was released:

Citizens and leaders of our community and our region need to talk a lot more, think more deeply about the commission's recommendations, question the assumptions of each other and ourselves, and summon the will to challenge the status quo.

The status quo has history, time and inertia on its side. But the status quo is, in a word, unsustainable.  

Hindsight being 20/20, both of these editorials are spot on: we needed the Consensus commission to be bold, and we all need to pay attention, think about what they recommended, and participate in the discussion on what the report and its recommendations mean to us.

On the former, the ask to be bold, what do you think?  Did the preliminary recommendations go far enough?

The most-talked-about idea, under the bucket of Creating Regional Governance Capacity, includes moving to

Establish a process toward creating a new city-county government and service delivery structure that leverages the functional and scale similarities of the region's two largest local governments...(where) there is approximately $20 million in potential cost elimination through combination of governance, administrative and service delivery infrastructure over time

At the same time, the group recommended a

formal mechanism and defined process whereby towns and villages in the Syracuse - Onondaga community can join the new city-county framework over time - an "opt-in" process whereby they can join by a vote of the constituents in that municipality. 

Is it truly bold to recommend combining city and county government and leave the towns and villages out of it? And why is it left to those who live outside the city to pick and choose the time at which they come online with the new thinking, if ever, when city residents are expected to swallow the bitter pill of metropolitan government first, and quickly?

It seems, at least on the surface, that saving $20M is the highest priority, unless you're in the suburbs and beyond, in which case constituent service is still the measure of good government. It seems that, as long as we figure out how to save the money, we can let that history and inertia, that status quo, remain in effect for those who have left the city in the rear-view mirror of their moving van.

And while I certainly don't disagree with saving the money - as I noted above, there's some low-hanging fruit for the City and County to pick, which they should harvest quickly - it seems that there's much that could be done by the County Legislature to move everyone in the "towns and villages in the Syracuse-Onondaga community," as the Consensus report calls it, into the fold as quickly as possible, not as slowly as they would choose.

I hope the final recommendation address this aspect more forcefully.

That idea of a "Syracuse-Onondaga community" looks to be one of the bigger stumbling blocks to the success of this whole concept. That's where we have to talk a lot more, and think a lot more deeply.

More on that tomorrow.

Quick Takes (v5): Brokaw and Trump

Quick Takes

I don't think Tom Brokaw likes Donald Trump.

For the second time in about ten days, Brokaw has offered commentary on Trump and what he's doing to this election cycle, and perhaps, to all elections in the future.

On Meet the Press at the end of January, Brokaw allowed as how the thrice-married Trump, a man who has had affairs all over the world, was doing just fine with evangelicals in Iowa (although he under-performed the polling and only finished second).

Tonight, on NBC's Nightly News, Brokaw lamented the loss of civility personified by Trump. The name calling, Brokaw pointed out. The finger-wagging; the shushing; the sneering, the whole mess that is Trump on the campaign trail, he left out.

The latest example of this?  Trump's repeating of an audience member's comment (a woman's comment, by the way) that Ted Cruz is a "pussy."  Which, of course, drew a huge roar from the crowd. We would expect nothing less.

It is hard to imagine any other candidate lasting a week using his language and style. But it is working for him, helped by the echo chamber of social media and cable television. 

Brokaw is right on one point - no one else could get away with this. But he's wrong on one very significant point: it's not just social media and cable TV that are keeping Trump alive. It's the mainstream media, like his very own NBC, which keeps Trump alive, in the news, all the time -- and for free.

While other significantly more civil candidates struggle to get air time, and have to pay millions to get ads on television, Trump is there, every night, for free. It's so ridiculous, he even points it out to them, and they do it anyway.

Brokaw notes that

By tonight we'll know if the Trump 'take-no-prisoners' style adds up to a big victory.

The answer, we have learned, is yes.

Trump was projected the winner with barely over 10% of the vote counted; as I write this, now less than a quarter of the votes have been tallied, and Trump, at 34%, is leading John Kasich (15%), with Jeb! and Ted Cruz tied at 12%.

Tuesday's Number: $131,474

Tuesday is the day my local paper, The Post-Standard, publishes the weekly business section. In addition to special features, tips from stock experts, budgeting advice and the like, we get the judgment and bankruptcy listings.

This is the fourth full year I’ve been tracking these numbers – I captured part of the year in 2012 – and the third year that I’ve captured filings by hospital.  I include anything that is likely a patient debt owed to a hospital, nursing home, physician or physician group, medical supplier, and so on; I do not include filings by insurance companies, many of which are so diversified it would not be a fair assumption that the filing is related to medical care or health insurance.

In the first three years, the overall total was $67,965,862 – a staggering amount of money for a relatively small metropolitan area that includes the city of Syracuse and her suburbs, the towns and villages of Onondaga County, and to a lesser extent, some of the even smaller neighboring towns and villages.  As I reported in the 2015 recap, we turned sharply down last year – some $7M – and the hope is that we will continue to see progress in the overall total.  Of course, a better sign of health would be an increase in the number of satisfied judgments; people’s ability to pay off their debt (or their willingness, as the case may be) is something else I’m hoping to see this year.  

This week, there were

• eleven new judgments, totaling $20,289; 
• one satisfied judgment, for $41,969; 
• and two bankruptcies, totaling $53,154.

By hospital:

• Crouse had nine, for $94,667;
• St Joe's had two, for $19,411; and
• SUNY Upstate had two,including the $41K repayment, for a net credit of $20,768

A local radiology group and a North Country medical center accounted for the remaining $38,074. 

The paper only publishes filings of $5,000 or more.

My Middle-aged White Lady Perspective: A Special Place in Hell

There are probably lots of special places in hell, for all kinds of special people.

People who harm children. People who kill animals, like the two most heinous recent cases in my neck of the woods one involving a horse, another a family's dog. Pedophile priests. The folks who put Bruce Springsteen and Beethoven on Muzak. The people who 'gummied' the world. Those who prey on senior citizens. The people who make up drug names. Whoever it was who decided that sagging pants and side boob are fashion statements.

And now, there might be a special place for me; I'm seriously on the fence about Hillary Clinton (that's a subject for another post), but I've been put on notice by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, on the stump for Hillary in New Hampshire, who told us,

Just remember - there's a special place in hell for women who don't help other women.

The crowd roared, as it was supposed to -- after all, the folks who were there were most likely already in the bag for Hillary, as Albright said she was, back in November. She also noted, referencing Bernie's stump speech line

So people are talking about a revolution. What a revolution it would be to have a woman president.

A 78-year old successful woman, a trailblazer, tells us there's only one kind of revolution, and there's only one vote a woman can make and go to heaven.

If I were 30 or so years younger, and a Bernie Sanders supporter, it would be even worse: I'd not only have a special place in hell, but I'd be supporting a candidate simply because of a penis. Not the candidate's penis, heaven forbid - the penises of his supporters.

Just listen to Gloria Steinem, in response to a question from Bill Maher on Hillary's gender gap with young women.

And when you're young you're thinking 'where are the boys?' The boys are with Bernie.

And she said it after noting the exact reason many young women actually say they're Feeling the Bern:

I did not say 'thank you for the vote.' I got mad on the basis if what's happening to me. And I think that's true of young women too. So they're made as hell because they're graduating in debt and they're going to earn a million dollars less in their lifetime to pay it back. You  know, they're mad about what's happening to them.

An 81-year old, trailblazing feminist, telling us that young women are just in it for the boys.

This is the same Gloria Steinem who, back in 1996, endorsed Bernie Sanders, a progressive and a feminist, according to people who spoke on his behalf, in his Congressional race against a woman. At a college where the audience is not surprisingly young, and appears to be mostly women.

Steinem began her talk by saying

I'm only here today to make Bernie Sanders an honorary woman.

That was a close as she came to mentioning a penis.

Now, I don't think that Madeleine Albright really thinks that Gloria Steinem should rot in hell for supporting Bernie Sanders in a race against a woman 20 years ago. And I don't think that Gloria Steinem really believes that young women support male politicians because they're looking for boys.

That may have been the case back in their day, but it's specifically because of women like Steinem that women don't need to be thought of as being involved in something just to hook up with guys, or, heaven forbid, to find a husband.  And it's specifically because of women like Albright that young women and even middle-aged white ladies like me can see themselves as more than just a wife, just a mom, just a low-paid worker in the service sector, and actually be more than that if they choose.

I think both of them know better than to say what they said, even if they were kidding. Because we know, you and I, that anyone - male or female - who had made that kind of statement to either Albright or Steinem would not have been thought funny by these women.

There's a great definition of 'feminist' about six minutes into the video that contains Steinem's endorsement of Bernie, which starts around 15 minutes in.  The definition was provided by Sally Conrad, a former Vermont state senator.

To be a feminist, a person doesn't have to be a woman. A feminist is  person who challenges the power structure of this country. A person who realizes that every decision whether made by government policy makers or corporate executives, is colored by the race, class, and gender of the people in power. A feminist is person who tries to shift that imbalance of power away from those who have it all, to those who don't have any.

By that definition, and by his own words, Bernie Sanders is a feminist, and he's been a consistent feminist all along. In fact, absent references to specific dates and people, you'd be hard-pressed to know that the speech he makes in the 1996 video is not the speech he gives on the stump today, 20 years later.

We women can support any candidate we want, for whatever reason we want, and we shouldn't be shamed by other women who hold different viewpoints. After all, blindly following the female candidate back in 2008 could have led us to a two-term-VP Sarah Palin presidential campaign today.

Had I contributed to that, I'd surely deserve a special place in hell.

Wondering, on Wednesday (v47)

Add Rand Paul and Rick Santorum to the list of the fallen on the Republican side.

Paul announced today that he's suspending his campaign, and will go back and fight in earnest to keep his Senate seat - because only in America, or maybe only in Kentucky, do we allow a person to run for two different offices at the same time.

Santorum, who last time out was the favorite of the evangelicals and the winner of the Iowa caucus, never garnered any fervor for his message which, I think, was basically that he was an evangelical, too. Once, that was enough - but now, not so much. This time out? Dead last. He's thrown his support behind Marco Rubio.

Jeb! is reduced to asking people for applause, and may soon be asked to step aside by the same folks who put $100,000,000 into getting him elected, and that won't be pretty.  I'm wondering, this Wednesday, if the Bush example will make people think twice about investing millions and millions and millions in someone before a single vote has been counted?

Meanwhile, the rest of them meander acrosss New Hampshire, at least for a little longer. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Carly Fiorina gives up before, or shortly after, the voting next week.

Living here in reliably blue New York, I don't get to see any of the presidential candidates. The Ds trust they don't need to ask for our votes, and the Rs don't bother asking for them.  Doomed to irrelevance, I wondered if my New Hampshire brother was going to make a point of seeing any of the candidates this time around.

He's much more quietly political than I am; it's not that he doesn't care as much, he cares differently. For more years than I can remember, he's been in plastics, working at companies large and small, owned by Americans, by Germans, by Chinese. He's worked to keep other Americans working, sometimes successfully and sometimes, less so - and he understands what it's like to have his own job disappear, leaving him scrambling to find something so he could pay his bills.

If I were him, I'd be out there trying to see all of the candidates, listen to what they have to say about our economy, and good old fashioned American jobs, the kind where we build things instead of serving things, and our educational system, and yes, maybe a little bit about immigration, less still about terrorism and war.

But instead of searching the schedules to see who was going to be in his area, he said he was searching for a candidate that matters, and he added,

What a circus. The world must be in hysterics watching this.

We talked a little about the UK debating on whether they should ban Trump (they chose not to), and he went on to tell me that he gets frustrated just watching the snippets of their speeches and appearances on television, that he'd definitely not be able to sit through the real thing. He lamented the lack of real plans on the part of most of the candidates, the lack of logic, and the abundance of rhetoric and hate.

While I don't think many of the candidates are talking to me, I thought they'd be talking to my brother. But it seems he's waiting for one of them to make sense to an ordinary American without any particular agenda of hate.

I wonder, how long will he have to wait?

Tuesday's Number: $355,713

Tuesday is the day my local paper, The Post-Standard, publishes the weekly business section. In addition to special features, tips from stock experts, budgeting advice and the like, we get the judgment and bankruptcy listings.

This is the fourth full year I’ve been tracking these numbers – I captured part of the year in 2012 – and the third year that I’ve captured filings by hospital.  I include anything that is likely a patient debt owed to a hospital, nursing home, physician or physician group, medical supplier, and so on; I do not include filings by insurance companies, many of which are so diversified it would not be a fair assumption that the filing is related to medical care or health insurance.

In the first three years, the overall total was $67,965,862 – a staggering amount of money for a relatively small metropolitan area that includes the city of Syracuse and her suburbs, the towns and villages of Onondaga County, and to a lesser extent, some of the even smaller neighboring towns and villages.  As I reported in the 2015 recap, we turned sharply down last year – some $7M – and the hope is that we will continue to see progress in the overall total.  Of course, a better sign of health would be an increase in the number of satisfied judgments; people’s ability to pay off their debt (or their willingness, as the case may be) is something else I’m hoping to see this year.  

This week, there were:

• 33 new judgments to hospitals, doctors, or other medical providers, for $355,713
• no satisfied judgments and
• no bankruptcies 

Here’s the breakdown by hospital:

• Crouse had four, totaling $29,699
• SUNY Upstate had 17, totaling $296,350

A local rehab center ($21,977) and a physician practice ($7,687) account for the balance.

The paper publishes only those accounts of at least $5,000.

The Voice

America, or at least a strongly evangelical, college educated young group of them (the high voter turnout segments in Iowa) has.

They rejected the establishment Republicans pretty handily, and dealt a blow to the establishment Democrat as well.

Trump's second place finish was, to me, a good Deal, and an affirmation of sorts, but somewhat overshadowed by the Cruz victory. Do we now hope for Rubio to pick up speed and support?

And how does the Clinton camp get out from under the heavy burden of 'inevitability' after the dead heat with Bernie Sanders? Will we see full attack mode, or will she try to maintain some sense of calm and 'presidentiality'  as they move down the road?

On to New Hampshire, where we're likely going to see more folks drop out of the race (Huckabee and O'Malley are the immediate Iowa suspenders) and even  more scrambling for the precious early votes that drive this crazy game.