The Bruins big gamble

You know what the best thing about October is? Hockey season begins again. And for the first time in at least 15 years, expectations for the Bruins are very high. After last season's surprise showing, the Bs are one of the favorites for the Stanley Cup.

Near the end of last season, the Bruins decided that their best chance to win a cup would be with Tim Thomas as their starting goaltender. So they went out and signed the then 34-year-old to a 4-year, $20-million contract. Well, I hope Bruins' management is right. Because they've tied themselves up in a salary cap knot for the next four years.

The problem with the Thomas contract is that the Bruins are hoping that he can do what almost no goalie has ever done before. Here's what I mean...

I've gone to hockey-reference.com and looked at every goaltender since expansion in 1966-67 to find those who started more than half of their team's games at age 34. There were only 28 goalies other than Thomas who met that criteria. Of the 28...

• At age 35, 19 were still their team's primary starter (appeared in more than half of their team's games).
• At age 36, 13 were still their team's primary starter.
• At age 37, 11 were still their team's primary starter.
• At age 38, 6 were still their team's primary starter.
• Of those 6, only three of them were their teams primary starter for every year between ages 35 and 38. (Ed Belfour, Tony Esposito, and Dwayne Roloson).
• Only two of the 28 won a cup as their team's starter between ages 35 and 38. (Patrick Roy at age 35 and Dominik Hasek at age 37).

Chances are at sometime over the next four years--if not for most of them--Thomas will be getting $5m to sit in the press box because he's hurt, or sit on the bench because his skills have atrophied. And because 8% of the cap is tied up in someone who can't play, someone else--Lucic, Savard, Wheeler, Rask--will be gone.

Obviously the Bruins felt that the best chance to win a cup in this window was to keep Thomas. Either they had to give him 4/$20m or they would have had to pay him $7m per year for a shorter deal. I guess they figured that it would be better to be hamstrung in '12 and '13 than to be short on money (or an experienced goalie) in '10 and '11.

But Thomas had better turn out to be Dominik Hasek (the only goaltender in the last 45 years to win his first cup over the age of 34--and even he missed half of his 35 season due to injury and did not play at all at age 38) or they'll be in trouble in the out years.

Expected 2009 Boston NFL TV Schedule

Every year I try to look at the NFL schedule and guess which games we in the Boston area will get to see on local TV week-by-week (Although for some reason, I didn't do it last year. Go figure.) The formula I use to pick the games is explained here. Here is the expected TV schedule:

WEEK 1
Thursday, Sep. 10
8:30 PM...NBC...Tennessee at Pittsburgh
Sunday, Sep. 13
1:00 PM...FOX...Minnesota at Cleveland
1:00 PM...CBS...N.Y. Jets at Houston
4:15 PM...FOX...Washington at N.Y. Giants
8:20 PM...NBC...Chicago at Green Bay
Monday, Sep. 14
7:00 PM...ESPN...Buffalo at New England
10:15 PM…ESPN...San Diego at Oakland

OK, so I cheated on this one. I had originally predicted that Fox would send us the Philadelphia-Carolina game because it pitted two of the NFC's top teams from last year and was an NFC East game. You know, solid reasons to send an out-of-market game to Boston. But I checked the listings and apparently Fox has decided that we, along with the rest of the country, just can't wait to watch the magical Brett Favre play against a Cleveland team that was awful last year and that some have predicted will be the NFL's worst in 2009. You know, because he's Brett Favre!

Miami-Atlanta might be a better 1:00 CBS game than Jets-Texans. But CBS thinks we care more about the Jets than the team that actually won the AFC East, and Jim Nantz and Phil Simms are doing the game--making it their #1 national game--so we're getting them instead.

WEEK 2
Sunday, Sep. 20
1:00 PM...CBS...New England at N.Y. Jets
4:05 PM...FOX...Tampa Bay at Buffalo
4:15 PM...CBS...Pittsburgh at Chicago
8:20 PM...NBC...N.Y. Giants at Dallas
Monday, Sep. 21
8:30 PM...ESPN...Indianapolis at Miami

Not too tough a call here. The 4:05 Fox game is either Bucs-Bills or Niners-Seahawks. The others are lay-ups (although I'd rather see Baltimore-San Diego as the 4:15 CBS game).

WEEK 3
Sunday, Sep. 27
1:00 PM...FOX...Atlanta at New England
4:15 PM...CBS...Miami at San Diego
8:20 PM...NBC...Indianapolis at Arizona
Monday, Sep. 28
8:30 PM...ESPN...Carolina at Dallas

Since the Pats are at home and CBS has the doubleheader, we only get one game in each slot (the NFL has some arcane rule that a local affiliate can't show a game opposite the home team when they are at home). Dolphins-Chargers is the best 4:15 game and the one that would mean the most to Patriots fans, but the early assignments have Nantz and Simms doing Pittsburgh-Cincinnati in that slot. God help us if they ship that mismatch to Boston instead of Miami-San Diego.

WEEK 4
Sunday, Oct. 4
1:00 PM...CBS...Baltimore at New England
4:15 PM...FOX...Dallas at Denver
8:20 PM...NBC...San Diego at Pittsburgh
Monday, Oct. 5
8:30 PM...ESPN...Green Bay at Minnesota

Same situation as in Week 4 with the Patriots at home. Nothing tough about this one.

WEEK 5
Sunday, Oct. 11
1:00 PM...CBS...Oakland at N.Y. Giants
1:00 PM...FOX...Dallas at Kansas City
4:15 PM...CBS...New England at Denver
8:20 PM...NBC...Indianapolis at Tennessee
Monday, Oct. 12
8:30 PM...ESPN...N.Y. Jets at Miami

This is a very intriguing week. Not because there are a bunch of good 1:00 games to choose from, but because there are no good games. I stuck to the script and have CBS sending us the Raiders-Giants, but a rationale could be made for two of their other 1:00 games. Division-rival Buffalo against an awful Cleveland team? The Super Bowl-champion Steelers against a terrible Lions squad? Because of the Raiders' addition of Richard Seymour and the presence of the Giants, I'm sticking with that mismatch.

On Fox, I'm going with Cowboys-Chiefs because it's an NFC East team against former Patriot Matt Cassell. Tampa-Philly is the best game in this slot, but I think the presence of Cassell will make the difference in the assignment. Of course, Minnesota-St. Louis is a possibility if the network suits still think we want to watch Our Lord and Savior Brett Farve.

WEEK 6
Sunday, Oct. 18
1:00 PM...CBS...Baltimore at Minnesota
1:00 PM...FOX...N.Y. Giants at New Orleans
4:15 PM...CBS...Tennessee at New England
8:20 PM...NBC...Chicago at Atlanta
Monday, Oct. 19
8:30 PM...ESPN...Denver at San Diego

Even though the Patriots are home, CBS can still show a 1:00 game because they have the doubleheader. I had Ravens-Vikings as the 1:00 CBS game before American Hero Brett Farve joined Minnesota, so I'm sticking with that one.

WEEK 7
Sunday, Oct. 25
1:00 PM...CBS...New England at Tampa Bay (London)
1:00 PM...FOX...Minnesota at Pittsburgh
4:15 PM...FOX...Atlanta at Dallas
8:20 PM...NBC...Arizona at N.Y. Giants
Monday, Oct. 26
8:30 PM...ESPN...Philadelphia at Washington

Again, I had Minnesota on my schedule even before Roman God Brett Favricus graced us with his return, so nothing changes there. Falcons-Cowboys is the pick as it will most likely be Fox's national game at 4:15, though I'd love to see them send us Saints-Dolphins if Miami is still a threat in the AFC East.

WEEK 8
Sunday, Nov. 1
1:00 PM...CBS...Miami at N.Y. Jets
1:00 PM...FOX...Minnesota at Green Bay
4:15 PM...FOX...N.Y. Giants at Philadelphia
Monday, Nov. 2
8:30 PM...ESPN...Atlanta at New Orleans

Easy pickings. AFC East rivals on CBS, General MacArthur's triumphant return to Green Bay on Fox at 1:00, and an NFC East game involving the Giants at 4:00.

WEEK 9
Sunday, Nov. 8
1:00 PM...CBS...Miami at New England
4:05 PM...FOX...Carolina at New Orleans
4:15 PM...CBS...San Diego at N.Y. Giants
8:20 PM...NBC...Dallas at Philadelphia
Monday, Nov. 9
8:30 PM...ESPN...Pittsburgh at Denver

No tough choices here.

WEEK 10
Thursday, Nov. 12
8:20 PM...NFL...Chicago at San Francisco
Sunday, Nov. 15
1:00 PM...FOX...Tampa Bay at Miami
1:00 PM...CBS...Jacksonville at N.Y. Jets
4:15 PM...FOX...Dallas at Green Bay
8:20 PM...NBC...New England at Indianapolis
Monday, Nov. 16
8:30 PM...ESPN...Baltimore at Cleveland

Each of the three afternoon slots could go in an different direction. Tampa-Miami is the 1:00 Fox game that would mean the most to Patriots fans and will probably get the nod, although Atlanta-Carolina is probably the best game in the slot. On CBS, Jaguars-Jets is the pick, but I have a sneaking suspicion that Buffalo-Tennessee will be a bigger game by week 10. If so, the suits just might send us that one. At 4:15, Eagles-Chargers is also a very good game and may be the choice if either Dallas or Green Bay falters.

WEEK 11
Thursday, Nov. 19
8:20 PM...NFL...Miami at Carolina
Sunday, Nov. 22
1:00 PM...CBS...Indianapolis at Baltimore
1:00 PM...FOX...Atlanta at N.Y. Giants
4:15 PM...CBS...N.Y. Jets at New England
8:20 PM...NBC...Philadelphia at Chicago
Monday, Nov. 23
8:30 PM...ESPN...Tennessee at Houston

Colts-Ravens will definitely be the top CBS game at 1:00, but Buffalo-Jacksonville could be the call in Boston if the Bills are in contention in the AFC East. Washington-Dallas will probably be the top Fox game at 1:00, but the Giants win out here.

WEEK 12
Thursday, Nov. 26
12:30 PM...FOX...Green Bay at Detroit
4:15 PM...CBS...Oakland at Dallas
8:20 PM...NFL...N.Y. Giants at Denver
Sunday, Nov. 29
1:00 PM...FOX...Carolina at N.Y. Jets
1:00 PM...CBS...Miami at Buffalo
4:15 PM...FOX...Chicago at Minnesota (move from 1:00)
8:20 PM...NBC...Pittsburgh at Baltimore
Monday, Nov. 30
8:30 PM...ESPN...New England at New Orleans

A very tricky slate to predict. The CBS game is a given, but the Fox games are completely up in the air. Fox has the doubleheader, but they currently do not have any 4:15 games on the schedule, so not only do I have to guess which games we will see, I also have to guess which game(s) will be flexed to 4:15. Originally I had expected Washington-Philadelphia to be flexed to the national game--and I think that will still be a good choice when the time comes. But now that the Superman is now in a purple uniform, I'm guessing Vikings-Bears will be Fox's pick. I think Carolina-Jets stays at 1:00.

WEEK 13
Thursday, Dec. 03
8:20 PM...NFL...N.Y. Jets at Buffalo
Sunday, Dec. 06
1:00 PM...CBS...Tennessee at Indianapolis
1:00 PM...FOX...Philadelphia at Atlanta
4:15 PM...FOX...Dallas at N.Y. Giants
8:20 PM...NBC...New England at Miami
Monday, Dec. 07
8:30 PM...ESPN...Baltimore at Green Bay

Another open Sunday as the Pats are again on national TV. I don't see any flexing this week and I really don't see any tough choices, either.

WEEK 14
Thursday, Dec. 10
8:20 PM...NFL...Pittsburgh at Cleveland
Sunday, Dec. 13
1:00 PM...FOX...Carolina at New England
4:15 PM...CBS...San Diego at Dallas
8:20 PM...NBC...Philadelphia at N.Y. Giants
Monday, Dec. 14
8:30 PM...ESPN...Arizona at San Francisco

Condensed schedule as the Pats are at home on Fox and CBS has the doubleheader. I don't think any flexing will affect this schedule.

WEEK 15
Thursday, Dec. 17
8:20 PM...NFL...Indianapolis at Jacksonville
Saturday, Dec. 19
8:20 PM...NFL...Dallas at New Orleans
Sunday, Dec. 20
1:00 PM...CBS...New England at Buffalo
1:00 PM...FOX...Atlanta at N.Y. Jets
4:15 PM...FOX...Green Bay at Pittsburgh (move from 1:00)
8:20 PM...NBC...Minnesota at Carolina
Monday, Dec. 21
8:30 PM...ESPN...N.Y. Giants at Washington

Packers-Steelers is a lock to move out of the 1:00 slot and I can't see Fox letting NBC have it (NBC has the most awesome quarterback ever in the Sunday night slot anyway), so they are the pick at 4:15. Falcons-Jets is an easy pick in Fox's early slot.

WEEK 16
Friday, Dec. 25
7:30 PM...NFL...San Diego at Tennessee
Sunday, Dec. 27
1:00 PM...CBS...Jacksonville at New England
4:05 PM...FOX...St. Louis at Arizona
4:15 PM...CBS...Baltimore at Pittsburgh (moved from 1:00)
8:20 PM...NBC...Dallas at Washington
Monday, Dec. 28
8:30 PM...ESPN...Minnesota at Chicago

I am going out on a little bit of a limb here. Jets-Colts is currently the only game listed for 4:15. Because the Giants are at 1:00, the Jets will not be flexed out of that spot. Normally, Jets-Colts would be a lock to be the Boston game, but I think the Jets will be out of contention by week 16 (and the Colts may also be done by then). Since I expect CBS to flex Ravens-Steelers to this spot, I'm going to guess that they send that game to Boston because it should actually mean something. St. Louis-Arizona is the least bad of two bad Fox games at 4:05.

WEEK 17
Sunday, Jan. 3
1:00 PM...CBS...New England at Houston
1:00 PM...FOX...Atlanta at Tampa Bay
4:15 PM...CBS...Pittsburgh at Miami (moved from 1:00)
4:15 PM...FOX...Philadelphia at Dallas (moved from 1:00)
8:20 PM...NBC...N.Y. Giants at Minnesota (moved from 1:00)

Of course, other than the Patriots game, does anyone have any real idea which games will be flexed and which will be important in the final week of the season? No, but I've come up with what I think is a pretty good guess. The last time The Anointed One "retired" NBC picked his final game to be their prime time offering. This time, I actually think the game will also mean something, so it is my pick for Sunday night. I think Steelers-Dolphins and Eagles-Cowboys will also both include teams that are fighting for playoff spots (not to mention that the Steelers and Cowboys are marquee teams), so they are the choices to move to 4:15. Either Falcons-Bucs or Panthers-Saints (or both) will be for the NFC South title, so that will be the early Fox game.

How many times will your favorite (or not-so-favorite) team be on TV here in the Boston area? Glad you asked...

New England....16
N.Y. Giants.......13
Dallas...............13
Miami...............10
Pittsburgh..........10
Minnesota..........9
N.Y. Jets...........8
Philadelphia......8
San Diego...........8
Atlanta...............8
Chicago..............7
Green Bay...........7
Baltimore...........7
Indianapolis.......7
Buffalo...............6
Carolina.............6
Tennessee...........6
Denver................5
New Orleans.......5
Washington........4
Arizona...............4
Tampa Bay.........4
Houston.............3
Jacksonville........3
Oakland.............3
Cleveland...........3
San Francisco.....2
Kansas City.........1
Detroit................1
St. Louis.............1
Cincinnati...........0
Seattle................0

Just a reminder...the Schilling for Senate idea was mine first

Now that there is an open Senate seat up for grabs, speculation has heated up that Curt Schilling will be a candidate for the Republican nomination. As the speculation swirls, I just want to remind people that I was the first to propose the idea, back in November on 2006:

The state's Republican party is in such shambles it would be fair to ask: Can they find a viable candidate to run for Senate in two years?

I can only think of one really good option for them: Curt Schilling.

About six weeks after that, the media picked up on the possibility of a Schilling candidacy. I wrote then about some correspondence I had with a TV station wanting to interview me for a Schilling for Senate story:

So, three-and-a-half months after I started the whole Curt Schilling for Senate thing by explaining exactly why Schilling would make a great candidate, the story finally has some legs. Sure, it took a talk-show caller to get the ball rolling. But I didn't really expect a whole lot to come of it in the first place.

I kind of thought it was going to take off back in November when I first wrote the article here and cross-posted it at Blue Mass Group. Universal Hub linked to the post and the Hub Blog pooh poohed the idea, but after a couple of days of traffic, things settled down.

But not completely. Out of the blue about a month later, I received an email from the political editor at an in-state TV news organization, wanting to do an on-air piece about my post...

So here we are again, with Schilling openly discussing the possibility. I don't think I would ever vote for him, but if he runs don't forget where you heard it first.

* * * * *

Here is my original rationale for a Schilling candidacy, as I wrote it on November 9, 2006:

Over the next week or so I'm going start looking ahead at the next big election, and I figured I'd start at the bottom. The state's Republican party is in such shambles it would be fair to ask: Can they find a viable candidate to run for Senate in two years?

I can only think of one really good option for them: Curt Schilling. What do we know about Schilling that would make him a viable candidate?

1. He is a Republican. After helping the Red Sox win the World Series in 2004, he spent the week between the end of the Series and election day campaigning for President Bush in TV appearances and on the stump. Would his support of the president be a liability? Probably not...there were still a lot of people who supported the president in 2004.


2. He will be available. His contract with the Red Sox ends at the end of the 2007 season. That would give him five months or so until the primary (it's early in 2008 because of the presidential race), and a little over a year to the general election. He wouldn't have to worry about the primary at all--the minute he announced his candidacy the decks would be clear--and he'd be left with plenty of time to run a general election campaign. In fact, he could get a head start since the Democratic primary could be hotly contested.


3. He brings instant name recognition and popularity. Everyone in Massachusetts knows who Curt Schilling is, and they probably have a generally positive view of him. The old joke is that a member of the 2004 Red Sox will never have to buy a drink in Massachusetts. That level of built in support would go a long way. Instead of volunteers running around in orange jumpsuits, he'll have his supporters wearing "bloody socks." In a strange way, that would be endearing.


4. He will have no problem raising money. See number 3. Not only does he have quite a bit of his own money if he needed to tap into it, but he would be able to raise lots of money in both Massachusetts and across the country based on his star power alone. And don't think that national Republicans will forget his support of Bush. He'd instantly have as much money to run as he needs.


5. He can campaign as a true outsider. Because he won't have a voting record on issues, he will be able to define himself. If I had to guess, I'd imagine him as a strong-defense, low-tax, social libertarian...the only type of Republican that could be successful in Massachusetts. But even if he's not, he'll have the ability to let voters know who he is, and not have to worry about having a trail of votes that can be twisted and used against him.


6. He can campaign as a local businessman. Just last week, the Boston Business Journal reported that Schilling had rented space in Maynard to house his start-up video game business. Schilling will be able to say that he has "created jobs in Massachusetts," that he "understands the needs of small business," etc. etc.


7. He has a TV presence. Not every athlete is comfortable with the cameras, but Schilling certainly is. In fact, some of us who follow the Red Sox think he's too much of a publicity hog: always on TV, calls WEEI to vent about this or that issue, frequents internet message boards (I'm one of those who wishes he'd just shut up and pitch). In any event, he is a skilled commentator and would be a media darling.


8. There is no one else. Quick, name a Massachusetts Republican. Mitt Romney's running for president, so he's out. Kerry Healey? Her only chance would be if Deval Patrick failed miserably right out of the gate and people began wondering if she weren't so bad after all. Paul Cellucci might be a possibility I suppose, but his ties to President Bush are so strong that he might have difficulty here, not to mention that he saddled us with two years of Jane Swift (uh, no). Wayne Budd was Deval Patrick before Deval Patrick. Former Suffolk County DA Ralph Martin, perhaps? Do any of those names inspire you?

All of this speculation is based on one huge assumption: John Kerry will run for President and the seat will be an open seat. If Kerry stays on, I'd guess that he will not face any real opposition. But if he goes, there will be a huge fight for the first senate opening in 24 years. I wouldn't be surprised if Curt Schilling is part of the mix.

Correcting the Health Care Crazies -- Part 2

A few days ago, I received an email about the House health care bill that included so many inaccuracies and outright lies, that I was compelled to respond. This is the second post in rebuttal to that email. Earlier discussion of the health care debate is here.

Yesterday, I looked at self-insured plans and out-of-pocket maximums. Today's topics are those folks the crazies say will get to dictate your health plan and illegal immigrants.

• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)

I think this is supposed to be scary because it is "the guvmint" whose committee will set guidelines; otherwise, this is no different than what goes on today. Here is the text of the bill:

(1) IN GENERAL.—There is established a private-public advisory committee which shall be a panel of medical and other experts to be known as the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans.

Of course, every health insurer already has a panel that "decides what treatments and benefits you get." When you get your benefits book (assuming you already have insurance), there will be a very long section listing which conditions are not covered, which treatments are not allowed, or which procedures will only be partially paid for. Those decisions were made in advance by a committee of doctors, actuaries, and accountants who decide what should and should not be covered.

The bill calls for a committee to make recommendations to those insurers who are part of the health exchange. These recommendations will ensure that those carriers offering coverage through the exchange meet minimum standards of coverage. If you purchase insurance through the exchange and want to have a procedure done that is not covered by the plan you choose, you can pay out of pocket for the procedure...just as you can today.

And because you have the option to buy a private plan through the health care exchange (or through your employer), you will have the option to appeal...just as you do today.

• Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.

The "Health Choices Commissioner" is the head of the agency, like the Postmaster General or the Director of FEMA. From the bill:

(a) DUTIES.—The Commissioner is responsible for carrying out the following functions under this division:

(1) QUALIFIED PLAN STANDARDS.—The establishment of qualified health benefits plan standards under this title, including the enforcement of such standards in coordination with State insurance regulators and the Secretaries of Labor and the Treasury.

(2) HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE.—The establishment and operation of a Health Insurance Exchange under subtitle A of title II.

(3) INDIVIDUAL AFFORDABILITY CREDITS.— The administration of individual affordability credits under subtitle C of title II, including determination of eligibility for such credits.

(4) ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS.—Such additional functions as may be specified in this division.

The Commissioner is charged with setting the standards that companies who wish to offer insurance through the exchange must meet. He or she is responsible for administering this exchange of plans. He or she is also coordinates the subsidy paid to people who make less than three-times the federal poverty limit.

You will have a choice. You can choose to keep the plan you have with your employer or not. If not, you can choose from any number of plans in the exchange. If you are not wealthy, your premiums through the exchange may be subsidized. The commissioner runs the plan. He or she does not make any of those decisions for you.

• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.

Oh brother. Let's just go to the bill:

(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.

"Personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care" is pretty ambiguous. When I read that, it tells me that participants cannot be discriminated against for any host of reasons--religion, race, gender, age, etc.--but let's assume the Crazies are right and this is a way to sneak illegal immigrants into the bill. Even if we concede the point, this section only allows undocumented immigrants to purchase health care through the exchange.

In order for someone to qualify for "free health care," one would have to be so poor that they would receive a full subsidy for their care (which would not happen because participants who are that poor would get their care through Medicaid, not the exchange). However, illegal immigrants cannot receive subsidy credits. From page 143 of the bill:

SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

That's about as plain as legislative language gets. "No Federal payment for undocumented aliens." So if there is no Federal payment, there is no free (or subsidized) health care. Period.

Next time: Big Brother wants your checking account.

For the eleventy-billionth time, Leominster is NOT IN WESTERN MASS.!

Hey, Jon Keller. I know that you have this Pavlovian need to whack Deval Patrick like a mole in an amusement park game every time he is presented in even the slightest positive light. But please, if you're going to cite statistics in doing so, at least get them right.

You can start with the following geographical truth: Leominster, Fitchburg, Gardner, Athol and all of Worcester County are not in Western Mass.

Here's Keller, on a recent poll suggesting that the governor is actually popular in Western Mass:

...if western Mass. residents were legitimately polled, their approval of the governor's work might more closely reflect the reality of life out there. Compared with a statewide jobless rate of 8.7%, as of July 1 the Leominster/Fitchburg/Gardner area was suffering from 10.9% unemployment; Athol, 10.8%, Springfield, 9.1%, up from only 5.8% a year ago; North Adams, a disastrous 9.5%, and so on. One bright spot: Amherst, at only 6.7% unemployment.

Well, if Keller were legitimately informed, his point might more closely reflect the reality of life out there. And that reality is that Central Mass.--which includes Leominster, Fitchburg, Gardner, and Athol--gave the governor the highest disapproval rating of any region at 60% unfavorable.

So yes, the region of the commonwealth with the highest unemployment holds the governor in the lowest regard.

If Keller would venture outside of 128--or at least look at a map--he would know that region is NOT IN WESTERN MASS.!

Correcting the Health Care Crazies -- Part 1

As you know, I've just about had it up to here with the misinformation surrounding the national health care debate. Well, last week I received a chain email from a conservative friend of mine that has just about put me over the edge. I'm not going to post the whole thing here (if you want to read the whole email, I've preserved a PDF of it), but here is the introduction:

If you don't have the time to read the whole health care bill, it's not a problem. The work has already been done for you. WAKE UP!

If you haven't seen any of this stuff, be prepared to be shocked. If this becomes widely known, there will be rioting in the streets a la Iran after the recent election.

I'm scared to death to know what the next 500 pages will say. This is worse than anything even I foresaw.

A few highlights from the first 500 pages of the Healthcare bill in congress....

I have highlighted a few of the items that are down right unconstitutional

It then goes on to list 48 provisions that are allegedly in the first 500 pages of the bill. Now, I realize that I probably shouldn't even try to argue with someone who starts by saying "The work has already been done for you." I mean, why not just take this guy's word for it, he's already read it! But I'm a sucker, I guess. So I pulled up the text of the house bill and actually read the sections that the email writer referenced. Funny, but I don't think it says what he or she thinks it says.

So over the next little while, I'm going to go through the email charge by charge and relate to you what it actually says. The first two charges (the text of the email is in bold):

Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!

Employers who self-insure essentially pay their employees' health care costs out of pocket (the premiums that the employees pay goes into a pool that the employer uses to pay claims). The suggestion here is that the government is trampling on the rights of these employers by auditing all of them.

Here is what the bill says (emphasis mine):

(1) STUDY.—The Commissioner, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Labor, shall conduct a study of the large group insured and self-insured employer health care markets. Such study shall examine the following:

(A) The types of employers by key characteristics, including size, that purchase insured products versus those that self-insure.

(B) The similarities and differences between typical insured and self-insured health plans.

(C) The financial solvency and capital reserve levels of employers that self-insure by employer size.

(D) The risk of self-insured employers not being able to pay obligations or otherwise coming financially insolvent.

(E) The extent to which rating rules are likely to cause adverse selection in the large group market or to encourage small and midsize employers to self-insure.

The bill doesn't mandate that all self-insured plans be audited, it calls for a study of both self-insured and fully insured to compare their effectiveness and to determine whether or not both approaches adequately cover employees. The bill does not require that all self-insured plans open their books (which would be an audit). What it does do is give the government the broad information necessary to determine whether or not self-insured plans are providing an adequate level of care.

Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!

This is one of my favorite lies. Here is the offending text (emphasis mine):

(c) REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO COST-SHARING AND MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE.—

(1) NO COST-SHARING FOR PREVENTIVE SERVICES.—There shall be no cost-sharing under the essential benefits package for preventive items and services (as specified under the benefit standards), including well baby and well child care.

(2) ANNUAL LIMITATION.—

(A) ANNUAL LIMITATION.—The cost-sharing incurred under the essential benefits package with respect to an individual (or family) for a year does not exceed the applicable level specified in subparagraph (B).

(B) APPLICABLE LEVEL.—The applicable level specified in this subparagraph for Y1 is $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family. Such levels shall be increased (rounded to the nearest $100) for each subsequent year by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (United States city average) applicable to such year.

(C) USE OF COPAYMENTS.—In establishing cost-sharing levels for basic, enhanced, and premium plans under this subsection, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent possible, use only copayments and not coinsurance.

The emailer is trying to make people believe that the "Annual Limitation" of $5,000 or $10,000 is referring to a limit on the amount of health care available to you. Thus, your "ration" would be $5,000 ($10,000 for your whole family). This is entirely 180 degrees backwards. The "Annual Limitation" is commonly referred to as an "out-of-pocket maximum" and is a feature of nearly all health insurance plans. It is literally the maximum an employee would pay out of pocket for health services in a particular year. So if you suffered a catastrophic event and needed hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical services, the most you would have to pay is $5,000. The insurance company would pick up the rest.

Instead of the government rationing health care, the out-of-pocket maximum ensures that a provider will not ration your health care because of your inability to pay. So rather than the government limiting the amount of health care you receive, it is limiting the amount you will have to pay for the health care you need. And it is doing so by requiring that private health insurance companies that want to be offered through the Health Care Exchange continue to offer reasonable out-of-pocket maximums, which most insurers already do.

Next time, the Health Choices Commissioner and illegal aliens.

Times and Courier gets health care debate right

Gatehouse Media and its local papers--including the Times and Courier--have been doing a fantastic job the last week or so covering the local discussion on health care reform. Instead of concentrating on the heat of the battle between reform opponents and supporters, Gatehouse has written a couple of articles this week about the substance of the bill and the debate about the bill’s merits.

I realize that actually covering the issues instead of the emotional outbursts shouldn’t be worthy of praise, but the entire discussion about health care over the last three weeks or so has been about death panels and socialists and shouting and near-fist-fights. There has been very little about the actual words of the proposals themselves.

Against this backdrop, the coverage in the Gatehouse papers is refreshing. In their coverage of a town hall meeting held Saturday by Rep. Niki Tsongas, writer Chloe Gostis sets the scene by mentioning the tension in the hall, but then steps beyond the shouting and actually looks into the claims made in the meeting:

But some skeptics like Mary Crantz of Chelmsford, don’t think the government is responsible for helping people who can’t afford insurance or are unemployed.

“This is a land of opportunity,” said Crantz, an Air Force veteran. “Opportunity to work and serve. And the ability to choose. 250 million Americans have the privilege of insurance because they work to pay for it. Please Congresswoman Tsongas, represent the 250 million people who are willing to pay for their healthcare....”

Opponents of the bill have been disseminating information that says the Health Care Commission will decide a person’s plan and coverage. But according to Politifact.com, a nonpartisan fact-checking Web site run by the St. Petersburg Times, consumers can choose their plan and coverage.

Still, some forum attendees said the bill would rob them of their choices.

This is far, far better than what we’re getting from most media. The reporter here takes two sides of an argument and then goes to a source to actually find the truth. Most media organizations stop at presenting the two arguments. They have confused balance with objectivity. Reporting two views is balance. Reporting the underlying facts (in this case a congressional bill) is objectivity.

But that’s not all the Times and Courier has on the subject. On the day before the town hall, Tsongas sat down with the media for what appears to be a wide-ranging discussion of the issue. Yesterday, the T&C posted a long-form interview with Tsongas, complete with a glossary of health-care related terms, a listing of places to get further information, and the contact information for Rep. Tsongas and Senators John Kerry and Ted Kennedy.

Gatehouse media and the Times and Courier are doing an exemplary job covering the issue. Readers and other media outlets should take notice.

Congressmen from Crazytown

I’m trying to figure out when congress became Crazytown. It’s bad enough that hysterical mobs call President Obama a socialist and a Nazi and accuse him of all sorts of nefarious plots and schemes, but when a congressman does the same thing it makes one wonder:

[Georgia Republican Rep. Paul] Broun, who last year made national news by comparing Obama to Hitler, called Cuba's former dictator Fidel Castro and leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Obama's "good buddy."

He also spoke of a "socialistic elite" - Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid - who might use a pandemic disease or natural disaster as an excuse to declare martial law.

"They're trying to develop an environment where they can take over," he said. "We've seen that historically."

Look. If there is one thing that is not going to happen, it’s the cancellation of an election. We’ve held elections nine times during bona fide wars; we’re not going to cancel one because of the flu or an earthquake. (In 1918, we held midterms election despite fighting a world war and a flu pandemic. God forbid, but I’m sure we can do it again if we have to).

Sadly, it’s not just the crazies in the Republican caucus who get so hysterical that they develop delusions about canceled elections and martial law. In July, 2007 our very own Rep. John Olver said “at [a] meeting with constituents that he could envision the United States attacking Iran and Bush declaring martial law, suspending the 2008 elections.”

Can we just discuss the issues as they are presented, and not try to figure out how our political opponents are trying use those issues to become dictators? Because as far as I can tell, that is not and has not been part of anyone’s plan. On either side.

What it means to be a conservative

I have no idea who originally wrote this, but here is conservatism at its core:

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy.

I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal water utility.

After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like, using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

I watched this while eating my breakfast of U.S. Department of Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank.

On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.

And then I log on to the internet -- which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration -- and post on Freerepublic.com and Fox News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.

Anti-healthcare mob comes to Worcester

There are a few things that I have absolutely no use for. I can't stand bullies who shout and intimidate instead of carrying on with a discussion. I have no use for people who won't listen to an argument. And I have no use at all for someone who resorts to calling people Nazis.

So you can imagine what I think of this:

WORCESTER — U.S. Reps. James P. McGovern and Richard E. Neal were heckled and booed after trying to rally support today for President Barack Obama's plan for a comprehensive national health insurance program.

The two Worcester-area Democratic lawmakers were shouted down several times by people attending a packed “town hall” meeting at the University of Massachusetts Medical School.

UMass officials threatened several times to end the gathering because of the raucous behavior, which occurred despite a heavy police presence.

At one point, Mr. McGovern was likened by an attendee to Josef Mengele, the Nazi officer who performed experiments on concentration camp survivors.

Look, if people want to oppose the bill, go right ahead. Ask tough questions, be skeptical, let people know what you think.

But why yell? Why attempt to intimidate? Why suggest that our congressmen are no different than Nazi criminals? Because the opponents know they cannot win this fight on the merits.

They know that if the question is whether or not all Americans deserve health care, a universal health care system will win.

They know that if the discussion is about banning insurance companies from discriminating against people with preexisting conditions, the health care reformers will win.

They know that once the American people understand that competition from a public plan will force private companies to cut their costs to compete, a public plan will win.

So instead of arguing otherwise, they attempt to intimidate.

Earlier tonight, Rachel Maddow had a report exposing the medical industry lobbyists behind the "hooliganism."

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Tags: Massachusetts Worcester Health Care James McGovern Richard Neal