Redistricting Board's Attorney's Health Problems Delay Court Date Until December 9 - 16

Michael White, the Alaska Redistricting Board's attorney, had significant surgery in September, according to a motion filed before the Superior Court, and so the Board has asked for any trial date to be delayed beyond the scheduled November 7 - 15 dates the judge reserved.  Judge McConahy originally set these dates should a trial be necessary. 

He made it very clear in that September 19 order he hadn't decided if a trial was needed:

“The Court expresses no opinion at this time whether such an evidentiary hearing will be necessary or that any such hearing would require all the allotted time.”

 The new order, dated October 3,  responding to the Board's motion (with no objections from the plaintiffs), sets the potential court time for Dec. 9 - 16.   Compared to the "no opinion at this time" language above, this time the judge hints that there will be a hearing.

‘The need for a hearing and on what specific issues will be addressed in the omnibus order on the summary judgment.”

I'm not an attorney so I can only use the rules of standard English to evaluate whether that sentence means the judge has decided there will be a hearing.  He doesn't say "If" in that sentence, but I guess when he addresses "the need for a hearing" he could say there is no need.  But this language is significantly closer to there being a hearing than the language in the previous memo.

The motion to continue the trial went into far more graphic detail about White's health issues than I thought needed to be public.  Again, I don't know what's normal for this sort of thing in court, but I don't think an attorney should have to reveal that level of detail about his health to the public.  If I were running things I'd allow the ill attorney to share the information with the plaintiffs and the judge and then have the those details kept out of the public records.  For those with a legitimate medical interest in those details, they are in the motion.  For others who are just nosy, I've rigged the link to destroy your computer if you click on it.  

Weather Note:  It's a good idea to take serious cold weather gear if you go to Fairbanks for the trial in mid-December. Weather Spark gives a lot of weather information; from what I can tell from their graphs, the weather is very likely to be 'frigid' (below 15˚F
[-9 ˚C]) most likely in the range of 0˚F [-17˚C] and -15˚F [-26˚C].  And so close to the solstice, sunrise to sunset in Fairbanks will be less than four hours. In the past, the Fairbanks hearing was available online or by phone.  I better check with the Board's staff to make sure they'll do that again in December.  I'm not headed to Fairbanks in the middle of the Anchorage International Film Festival. 

Blogging Note:  This procedural stuff is much easier to write about than the substantive issues in the motions.  On those I'm falling behind, but I'm hoping to catch up and get something posted before the judge writes his omnibus order.  I was hoping, now that the motions and the objections to the motions are in, to write something that compares them.  Maybe that's too ambitious.  I need to print them all out.  My laptop screen is just too small to compare them.  Plus, most of these are pdfs that I can't cut and paste text from.  Plus I'm in LA spending being with my mom, taking care of paper work and other household repairs for her. Fortunately, she has a great caregiver and they get along well. 

Looks Like the Anchorage International Film Festival Isn't Going To Meet October 5 Deadline [UPDATED]

[UPDATE 9:40pm:  The Festival website has been updated.  Dean got my email and it now says:

"Don’t Panic

We made a typo on the filmmaker FAQ page – official selections will be announced October 15th. Please forgive us and don’t panic if you didn’t get a notice from our programming team today because nobody did since the programming teams are still finalizing their selections."]

From the Anchorage International Film Festival (AIFF) film maker FAQ page:

How will I be notified if my film is selected?

We’ll notify you that your submission media has arrived within a week of its arrival at the festival office. We’ll list all selected films on our website by October 5th. If you do not receive an “Official Selection” notice, or if your film is not listed on the AIFF website, please understand that this means your film was not chosen for the festival. However, we contact all filmmakers prior to the festival start with thanks for supporting the AIFF and the art of independent film. Please contact us if you are the rare filmmaker who didn’t receive an email from us. We take pride in good communications.

When I saw that date, it seemed a little early.  Perhaps not for notifying the film makers - they need plenty of lead time if they are going to travel to Anchorage in December - but for getting the list up on the website.

And the list isn't up and it's 7:00 pm in Anchorage.  

Last year I posted that the list was up on October 19, 2012 and that festival started a week earlier than this year.  I suspect that someone was being a little optimistic when they put up the October 5 date.

So, if you submitted a film, don't worry yet.  Nothing seems to be up.  It's not on some page you can't find. 

 I do have a call and email into the guy who does the website.  He's very professional and fanatic about getting all the details just right.  I'll let folks know what's happening if I find out. 

Four Alaskan Senators Point Out "Alaskans are among the least insured in the nation with 20.6 percent of our state living without health insurance" And Ask Governor What He Plans To Do About It

I reported recently that Alaska Senator Bill Wielechowski had sent a public records request to the Parnell administration requesting that the Lewin Group study of the impact of expanding Medicaid in Alaska under the Affordable Care Act be made public.  (It was completed in April.)

Today the Senator was joined by Senators Berta Gardner, Johnny Ellis, and Hollis French in a letter to the Governor asking him not only to release the report, but to get moving since the time for signing up for insurance has already begun.  Particularly, they note that Parnell's administration has abdicated any participation in the insurance exchange for Alaska, thus leaving it totally to the federal government with no Alaskan input. 

They also note Alaska's low level of health insurance coverage and a study by the Alaskan Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) that finds many benefits for Alaskans in expanding Medicaid. 


Here's the beginning of the Senators' letter:

Governor Sean Parnell
550 W. 7th
Avenue, Suite 1700
Anchorage, AK 99501
4 October 2013

Dear Governor Parnell,

Fall is upon us, and with it, the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. While many provisions of the Act have yet to take effect, one of the more important changes, the health insurance marketplace, has just come online October 1st of this year. With this deadline only recently passed, we believe now is the appropriate time for your administration to address a variety of questions Alaskans have regarding the state’s role in ensuring a smooth transition into a more affordable, efficient health care system. 

We’ve heard, mostly from media sources, that the exchanges have yet to be set up and that your administration decided not to participate in any decision-making processes that would have allowed for an Alaska-specific exchange. While we question the wisdom of giving up Alaska’s ability to have an exchange specifically designed for and adaptable to Alaska’s unique needs, that decision is past, and we hope to have a more public and open discussion about expanding Medicaid in Alaska.

According to a study by The Society of Actuaries, Alaskans are among the least insured in the nation with 20.6 percent of our state living without health insurance. The study found that, should you decide to accept the Medicaid expansion, the percentage of uncovered Alaskans would drop to just over 8 percent.

It is critically important for legislators, as well as the public, to have access to the information the administration is using to make its decision with regards to the Medicaid expansion. We ask that your administration finalize the Alaska DHSS sponsored Lewin Medicaid Expansion Recommendation Report so that Alaskans can more fully understand the issues and benefits. .  . 

The whole letter is here.

I would also recommend that the Senators, if they haven't already, look at 

the study the Lewin Group did for the State of New Hampshire.  (Phase I)

It shows huge advantages for the state in expanding Medicaid, far more than the costs.  I'm not sure what New Hampshire contracted Lewin to study, but my look at the Alaska contract with Lewin caused me to believe that they were basically asked to look at what it would cost and not how the state might benefit. 

Here's the Table of Contents for Phase II (January 2013) of the study: (Note, this is Phase II)

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 1

I.  INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 11

II.  SUMMARY OF PHASE I ANALYSIS ..................................................................... 13

III.  PHASE II ANALYSIS AND RESULTS .................................................................. 15

   A.  Impact on Other State Programs ..................................................................................15

   B.  Impact on the Uninsured ............................................................................................. 19

   C.  Impact on Providers .................................................................................................... 24

   D. Economic Impact ......................................................................................................... 37

   E.  Impact on Commercial Market ....................................................................................41

IV.  METHODOLOGY......................................................................................................... 46

   A.  Impact of ACA on Medicaid DSH Payments ........................................................ 46

   B.  Health Systems ............................................................................................................ 47

   C.  Federally Qualified Health Centers ..............................................................................52

   D.  Community Mental Health Centers ........................................................................55

   E.  Cost-Shifting ...................................................................................................57

   F.   Economic Impact ..........................................................................................................58

I'm sure a lot of what it contains will be duplicated in the Alaska study.  At the very least, comparing the two studies should prove interesting.  How are they the same and how are they different and why?  Because the data are different, or because the instructions are different?

Generally Not Seen In Anchorage

I rode my bike down to the beach and did some errands on the way like depositing a check for my mom at her bank.  Here are a few things I saw that you won't see (generally in some cases, or ever in other cases) in Anchorage.


I'm not sure how long this bumper sticker would last on someone's car in Anchorage.  We have quite a few of that ilk that's rabidly anti-Obamacare and would tear down the US government just to stop the program.   If they couldn't get at the government, what might they do you your car instead?

Just under a dozen pelicans over Santa Monica beach.

A new Tesla Model S.   The Tesla website says about this all electric car:

"At the base price of $62,400, including the $7,500 Federal Tax Credit, Model S comes equipped with a 60 kWh battery, 19” wheels, black textile and synthetic leather interior, 17” touchscreen, seven speaker sound system with AM/FM/HD radio, mobile connector, and a J1772 charging adapter."

I don't think we (in Anchorage) have any Municipal Beach and Harbor trucks and just a few artificial palms outside here and there. 

We do have food trucks, but not collections of diverse food trucks like this lunch rally:  Cousins Maine Lobster;  Great American Burger;  Calbi Tacos; Sanjay Patel's Bollywood Bites;   Son of a Bun; and Luckdish Curry.   And there were more trucks on the right and behind me. 

 Blick is a great art materials store my son introduced me to in San Francisco.

Murkowski Shows Some Backbone On Obamacaricide, At Least On Energy Bill

I need to give credit to one of my US Senators, Republican Lisa Murkowski, for calling out her colleagues for blocking legislation with amendments intended to kill or maim Obamacare. 

In this case Murkowski seems to be upset about amendments to kill the Affordable Care Act added onto an energy bill to require the government to be more energy efficient and require more energy efficient building codes.  I suspect some of this the Obama administration could and would do without legislation.

I don't want to make too big a deal about this because her voting record on the government funding bills appears to be less daring.  Looking at her voting record for the last week, it appears she voted the Republican Party line on the government shut down.  The key vote that was not split on party lines was the 79-19 vote to end Sen. Cruz's filibuster.    Murkowski voted with the 79 to end the filibuster.  That vote allowed the Democrats to pass an amendment to cut out the House attempts to kill the Affordable Care Act and then to pass the Senate  bill to keep the government running. (Which the House then rejected.)  Those last two votes were split on party lines too. (Does that mean that all but 19 Republicans really wanted the government funding to pass so they helped end the filibuster to give the Democrats the room to pass it, but they didn't want their constituents see a yes vote on the actual bill?)


From The Hill:

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) on Wednesday called out Republicans who tried to pile ObamaCare amendments onto bipartisan energy efficiency legislation that recently stalled on the Senate floor.

“What we need to reckon with is the fact that you have got a process that is being used for political advantage and gain rather than to advance policy,” she said.

Of course, if they are willing to shut down the whole government to kill Obama's health reform, a little energy bill is no big deal to them.  

“Maybe we need to embarrass those in the leadership that it is high time that you focus on the policy side of this,” Murkowski said at an energy forum hosted by the group Center Forward.

She expressed hope that, if the bill returns to the floor, an agreement could be struck that only allowed energy-related amendments. .  .

While Murkowski criticized efforts to link the bill to ObamaCare, she predicted that if it hadn’t been for those amendments, there would have been others that Reid found “equally onerous” and given him “cause to pause.”

The underlying energy bill contains measures to encourage better building codes, train workers in energy efficient building technologies, help manufacturers become more efficient and bolster efficiency in federal buildings."

Here's a link to the whole piece, "Sen Murkowski Calls Out Her Party For Energy Riders."

Got A Suspicious Job Announcement From World Economic Forum? Forward It To itsecurity@weforum.org

I got a suspect email this morning.  It began:

"Hello Dear Sir/Madam,Good day to you.
The World Economic Forum ® (WEF®)  is looking for competent and motivated
persons with a strong belief in its purpose and mandates, who are willing
to dedicate themselves to a rewarding international career in different
locations around the world.  The World Economic Forum ® (WEF®) provides
an opportunity to serve in a dynamic, multicultural environment in a
variety of jobs in the support of global causes.
World Economic Forum ® (WEF®) staff uphold the principles and core values
of the Organization, including integrity, professionalism, efficiency and
respect for diversity.  The World Economic Forum ® (WEF®) welcomes
applications from nationals of all Member States and strongly encourages
women to apply. Applicants with disabilities are considered by the World
Economic Forum ® (WEF®) for employment under all types of contracts in
full compliance with the World Economic Forum ® (WEF®) Charter. World
Economic Forum ® (WEF®) offers a variety of ways to join its workforce.
It also offers university students opportunities to serve as interns.
 
A.Position: Environmental Officer
Location:Belgium/USA
Salary: $180,600.00 USD.
Contract: Full time . . ."

It goes on to offer 15 more well paid positions in great locations, mostly in Europe.

The Signs of Fraud:

1. Not addressed to me by name.  Why me?  Why would I get an email out of the blue from this organization that I don't know anything about?
2. Too good to be true.  Why do they need to email these job announcements?  At these salaries and in these locations, there'd be no shortage of well qualified applicants without a mass email.
3. Format is tacky.  I didn't spot any obvious English errors as I scanned it, but it looks 'wrong' on the page.  I could explain that, but I just as well not spell it out tol other potential scammers.

What's in it for them?  Step 2, if you responded, would likely ask you to fill out and send in a job application that would require all sorts of personal data they could then use to do any number of things.

This was enough for me to google World Economic Forum, which does exist.  Down on the bottom of the page where there are lots of links I found, under MEDIA, "fictitious email warning."

"Alert on Fictitious 'Forum' E-mails

It has been brought to our attention that fraudulent e-mail messages are being sent by individuals purporting to be representatives of the World Economic Forum.
These messages have in the past used the names of the Forum’s management team, with "Reply To" addresses that do not end in "@weforum.org". They may use Yahoo, Gmail or Hotmail accounts, and occasionally addresses which are similar to Forum ones (e.g. @weforum-jobs.org).
Typically, though not exhaustively, the messages take the form of invitations offering membership, the possibility to participate in Forum events (e.g. “Davos 13”) as an individual or as part of a ‘delegation’, or offers of employment. They often ask the potential ‘victim’ to respond for further information.
Ultimately the recipient will be asked to provide passport, bank and other personal details, and finally payment (usually via Western Union or MoneyGram) to the fictitious Forum representative.
These e-mails are not legitimate World Economic Forum communications, and are in most cases a form of advance fee fraud. Their objective is to mislead victims into paying for a fictitious membership, event registration or "training course" prior to an offer of employment. 
Please note:

• E-mails from the World Economic Forum are only sent from addresses ending in: @weforum.org. 
• To assist "webmail" providers and your IT team in the identification and filtering of fraudulent messages, the World Economic Forum maintains an up-to-date SPF (Sender Policy Framework) record. 
• Participation in the Annual Meeting is by invitation only and is reserved exclusively for Members of the World Economic Forum and invited guests. 
• Employment opportunities are published on the website of the World Economic Forum and are never advertised via unsolicited email communications. 
• The World Economic Forum does not use Western Union or MoneyGram to receive payments. 

If you have received one of these e-mails or have any doubts about the authenticity of a message you have received from the Forum please forward the message to itsecurity@weforum.org for verification.
The World Economic Forum disclaims all responsibility with respect to any expense, loss, and/or damage of any kind, which might have occurred in connection with any fraudulent membership or event registration invitation."

And there it is.  Pretty easy to check out.  But I suspect the people who fall for this stuff overlap with people who think that Ted Cruz is a hero.   And buy lottery tickets every week. 

How Many Years Did The Pony Express Last? And Other Tidbits From The Autry Center For The American West Part 1

Spurred on by the New York Times review last week of the Autry Center of the American West we decided to check it out while we were with my mom in LA.  It said this was no longer a place to glorify the Hollywood cowboy.  It had become a serious museum.

The cowboy stuff is still there, but so is a lot of other stuff.  And it's beautifully displayed.  And as I look deeper into some of the things we saw, this post is getting longer and longer.  Maybe it will be two. 

So, let's start with some cowboy stuff.  This sculpture at the entrance is of Pony Express riders by Douglas Van Howd.  Specifically, the plaque says, this one depicts the carrying of Abraham Lincoln's inaugural address in record time from a telegraph office in Nebraska to newspaper office in Sacramento - seven days and seventeen hours.  There was something about the Pony Express that caught people's imagination, because it only existed from 1860-1861, but we still know about it.

The museum is now run, according to the NY Times article, by a Native American - W. Richard West, Jr. - who also was the founding director of the Smithsonian's Museum of the American Indian.  So the super macho white cowboy Hollywood sold is being nuanced with other folks who inhabited the West.  Indians play a big role in the Autry now.  And there's some context for paintings of Indians that puts it into some context.

For example, this piece, Ben Examining the Pots by Eanger Irving Couse has this description:

"Couse prioritized romanticism over ethnography, often depicting models from the Taos Pueblo with objects of Hopi, Navaho, or Cheyenne origin.  This painting likely depicts Ben Luhan, a member of the Taos Pueblo who first posed for the artist at age twelve and became one of his favorite models."

Ernest Blumenschein (1874-1960), upper left, was a fellow founder of the Taos School with Ben Couse (above).  The painting "New Mexico Peon" (1942) uses Epimenio Tenorio as the model.  Tenorio, the note says, 

"sold his house to Blumenschein in 1919, working thereafter as his handyman and occasional model."

That sounds like a novel length story right there.

"Iesaka Waken" (1922) by Maynard Dixon (1875-1946)  according to the note:

"Maynard Dixon's art was about the geometry of the Southwest as an open space in which Native peoples once moved freely"

John Sonsini completed Christian and Francisco in 2013.  The note with it says

"Day laborers who congregate throughout the city in search of work, their cowboy dress refers to the ranches and farms of their homeland."

"The Force of Nature Humbles All Men" (2002) by Howard Terpning (1927- ). It's a big picture.  It wasn't until I got home that I looked up Terpning, who was 75 when this was done.  Terpning had quite a commercial career before he turned began doing this sort of work.  Below, you can see that he did some of the most well known movie posters.









Rondal Partridge has an impressive pedigree in the world of photography.  In a small exhibit called "Yosemite After Adams" he's got this grim 1965 photo.

It's called "Pave It and Paint It Green."

His website says:

"Son of the renown photographer Imogen Cunningham, Partridge began helping his mother in the darkroom at the age of five. At seventeen he became Dorothea Lange's apprentice, driving her up and down the back roads of California as she created her well-known images of migrant laborers.
In 1937 and 1938 he worked with Ansel Adams in Yosemite, taking the now-famous photograph, Ansel in the High Sierra, late 1930s."

(The lettering in the center is a reflection of the title of the exhibit.)

Part 2 later. 

Is an Attorney General a General? “Sticklers will abstain. Others will blithely persist. And the militarization of high legal offices will march forward.”

The gist of this is:

1. An attorney general is NOT a general.
2. An attorney general is an attorney.
3. The general part is an adjective that describes what kind of attorney she is.  One that handles all general law issues.  
4. Calling an attorney general "general" makes no sense at all.  
5. The plural of attorney general is 'attorneys general.'

This all started when I checked that I was spelling attorneys general correctly. 

I got a NY Times blog post that was campaigning to change the official plural from 'attorneys general' to 'attorney generals.'

Whoa, I thought, we're say attorneys general because we're talking about attorneys we're not talking about generals.

 So I dug a little further.  "General" in attorney general doesn't mean a top ranking military guy.  It isn't even a noun.  It's an adjective.  It means 'not specific.'  It's an attorney who does general law rather than specializing in a particular area.

In this case the adjective comes AFTER the noun because it's borrowed from a Romance language where adjectives normally come after the noun. 

The Grammarist gives a good explanation of this plus other examples:

"Postpositive adjectives

Postpositive adjectives are adjectives that follow the nouns they modify. Such constructions evince the influence that Romance languages, especially French, have had and still have on English. French, Spanish, and Italian all use postpositive adjectives as a rule.
In general, postpositive adjectives sound unnatural in English, but there are a few set phrases that conventionally comprise modifiers following nouns—for example:

• accounts payable
• attorney general
• body politic
• court martial
• God almighty
• heir apparent
• notary public
• poet laureate
• postmaster general
• time immemorial
• words unspoken

.  .  .  To pluralize phrases that conventionally use postpositive adjectives, we usually make the noun plural—for example, poets laureate, attorneys general, courts martial—but some writers treat such phrases as compound nouns and put the s at the end."

Etymology Online gives a little more of the history of the word

attorney (n.)

early 14c. (mid-13c. in Anglo-Latin), from Old French atorné "(one) appointed," past participle of aturner "to decree, assign, appoint," from atorner (see attorn). The legal Latin form attornare influenced the spelling in Anglo-French. The sense is of "one appointed to represent another's interests."

In English law, a private attorney was one appointed to act for another in business or legal affairs (usually for pay); an attorney at law or public attorney was a qualified legal agent in the courts of Common Law who prepared the cases for a barrister, who pleaded them (the equivalent of a solicitor in Chancery). So much a term of contempt in England that it was abolished by the Judicature Act of 1873 and merged with solicitor.

Johnson observed that "he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney." [Boswell]

The double -t- is a mistaken 15c. attempt to restore a non-existent Latin original. Attorney general first recorded 1530s in sense of "legal officer of the state" (late 13c. in Anglo-French), from French, hence the odd plural (subject first, adjective second).

My browsing on this led to the issue of people addressing the attorney general  as "General."  Whoa again.  I'd looked this up when Committee Chair Jay Ramras addressed Acting Attorney General Dan Sullivan as "General."  The Virginia State protocol manual - a state with a strong military tradition - said you call an attorney general "Mr."   Grammarphobia  gives probably the ultimate answer to this.  It even talks about people Supreme Court Justice Kagan, insisting, when she was solicitor general, that people call her general!  But that turned out to be an equal rights thing.  If solicitors general who were men were called 'general' than she insisted that she be treated the same way.  It's also the source of the "Stickler" quote in the title of this post.

The ultimate essay on this topic that they all refer to seems to be this one by Michael Herz.

But does it even matter?   Language changes every day.  Who cares?  People today, one might argue, don't even know what a noun and an adjective are.

A cynical response to that would be:   that's why Fox News has a loyal following. 

There are a number of reasons it matters.

•  It's wrong grammatically and it's wrong in meaning.  We don't make adjectives plural.  And here 'general' means 'wide ranging, not specific.'  It doesn't mean the top rank in the army here.  Changing the meanings of words to suit the ignorant and lazy is what Fox News does.  I say we should educate them and show them the benefits of working a little harder. 
• English has a rich heritage and has many complexities.  It's like a modern computer program that is packed with possibilities that most people will never use.  English has words and grammatical functions that, for people who have mastered them, can allow one to say things precisely enough to communicate accurately with someone who also has mastered them.  The grammar can help reinforce the meaning of a sentence.  Just like the many hidden functions of a computer program add complexity, they also give people the ability to do more sophisticated things.
• Good communication among human beings is critical to better understanding and less fighting and more cooperation.  We have a remarkably rich language.  The words and grammar are tools to help us think and help us convey those thoughts to others.  Adding new words as we develop new concepts is great.  Modifying old words so they make sense today is also great.  Such things add complexity and more tools to think and communicate well. But changing the general in attorney general from an adjective to a noun changes the whole meaning of the word.
• Along those lines, the Michael Herz essay raises the concern that changing an attorney general from an attorney to general moves us subtly from a nation that reveres the rule of law to one that is ruled by military. 
• Attorney general, as the Grammarist citation above points out, is an unusual construction in English.  It's because the term is borrowed from a Romance language.  Having words that are different from the norm help remind us that the norm isn't the only way.  And leaving borrowed words a little odd, help remind us of their heritage and our long standing relationships with other cultures.  English owes a lot to German, to French, to Latin, and many other languages.  And it's good to be reminded that 'pure' English isn't pure.  

Does this really matter in the big picture of the universe?  Not really.  But it matters as much or more than knowing the name of some celebritie's last three husbands or the lyrics of the number ten hit song this week.  Or how many strike outs a baseball player had.  The words of our language help us communicate with each other - they are the tools of peace and harmony.  Not knowing them and how to use them lowers our chance of good communication.  Moving the 'S' from attorney to general totally changes the term, what it means, and to a much smaller degree changes who we are. 

Things Hanging In The Air

This huge spider didn't like me getting close to its web and ran off quickly so this was the best shot I could get. 

Later, there was a helicopter sitting as stationary as it could above my mom's house for a ten minute period or so.  Then after a while it was back.  Making a lot of noise.  No search lights.  Just sitting there.  

What was going on?  Was this security for VIPs flying to or from the Santa Monica Airport two blocks away?  When the electrician called to finalize coming out today to rewire my mom's house, he asked if we'd seen the big plume of smoke that seemed to be in Santa Monica.  We hadn't.  And we didn't connect the helicopter and the smoke until just now when I found this LA Times story online. 

Coroner's officials have yet to sift through the charred wreckage of the crash of a small plane at Santa Monica Airport this weekend as they await special equipment to clear the heavily damaged site.
Fire officials said the crash -- which occurred about 6:20 p.m. Sunday when a twin-engine Cessna Citation coming from Hailey, Idaho, veered off the right side of the runway and slammed into a nearby storage hangar -- was unsurvivable.

Both the hangar and the jet burst into flames, officials said, and the hangar collapsed.
The jet holds up to eight people, according to Cessna and registration information, but authorities have not said how many people were on the plane.
Early Monday morning, David Goddard, chairman of the Santa Monica Airport Commission, estimated that the crash site was about 150 feet from residences. Had the plane not hit the hangar, it could have gone up an embankment and gotten over a wall before slamming into homes, he said. . .

The hangar fire burned at a relatively high temperature because jet fuel was involved, fire officials said. The flames then spread to two hangars nearby and caused minor damage.
The intensity of the fire and the collapsed hangar made it hard to access the wreckage of the plane or read its tail number, making it difficult to identify those on board, sources told The Times.

 The complete story is here.

My condolences go out to the families of those killed in this accident.  People die every day in all sorts of ways.  We don't have the time or emotional energy to invest in every death.  But we should be respectful to those who are immediately impacted and then review our own lives to be sure we're doing what's really important with people we really love. 

Was Lewin Contracted By Alaska To Find Fault With Medicaid Expansion Under Affordable Care Act?

I posted the other day about Sen. Bill Wielechowski's unsuccessful attempts to get a copy of the Lewin Group's completed report on the impacts of Alaska expanding Medicaid under the  Affordable Care Act.  It was finished last April but, apparently in violation of the state's public access laws, the Parnell administration has not released copies of the report.

The original press release that alerted me to this, did, however, have a copy of the contract the state had with the Lewin Group.

As I read this contract, I only see them being asked to identify the potential problems, not the benefits of expanded Medicaid in Alaska.   Look for yourself:


[Sorry, the PDF was in a format that didn't allow copying text.  These are screen shots - rather than writing it all out.  You can see the original contract here.]

You can click on the images to enlarge them considerably

 

(A) through (I) ask for costs.  

(E) is particularly cynical.  It asks for the costs of people who will lower their income to become eligible.  I do know a few folks who are forced into keeping their income low to stay qualified.  One is a graduate student at UW who was paralyzed from the waist down in a motorcycle accident and has other accident related problems.  His parents are not alive.  He's pretty much on his own.  He had to turn down a job because it would put him at an income level that would make him ineligible for Medicaid and his medical expenses are huge.  The job didn't offer insurance, but would have made him ineligible.  

I also know an FAS kid who has some serious deficits  which make living a normal life difficult.  But he also has some great skills which means he can hold down a low level job, which he has done for a number of years now.  But he has to watch how much he makes or will lose his Medicaid eligibility which would end any health care.  

Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe they're just trying to calculate the costs of this sort of person.  But I have a hunch they believe there are all these welfare cheats out there who love being poor so they can live on government handouts.  I know such people exist, but most people would love to have a good paying job that had health coverage.  

There's only one item in the list of deliverables - #8 - that looks for positives.  #8 is cost savings due to reduction or elimination of existing programs.


As I mentioned in the previous post on this, the Lewin Group's study on the same topic for New Hampshire lists the costs to the state of New Hampshire to be around $100 million.  BUT it then goes on to explain that New Hampshire will get about 20 times that much (about $2 billion) in Federal revenues to the state.   It also says that 22,000 fewer people in New Hampshire will UNinsured.

This Alaska contract doesn't seem to call for these positives.  It doesn't ask for how much federal money will come in or how many people will become eligible for Medicaid and sign up.  Well, that's not exactly true.  It does ask for different categories of folks who will likely sign up - but the focus of the contract is not on the benefits of more people being covered.  Rather it seems to be on the liabilities to the state of more people being covered by health care.  My sense is they see people who have Medicaid as deadbeats. 

I always try to acknowledge that I might be missing something.  I might, so if my thinking here is overlooking key points, I hope readers will point that out to me.  But from what I see of the contract, the Parnell administration was contracting for a report that would support their position against the state expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.  An honest study would look at the costs AND the benefits and then determine the right policy.