Here we go......AGAIN?

From John Curry, July 11, 2008
Subject: CBS video

Do you think we could spare Dennis Leone for a few months and send him to the FDA for sorely needed "bonuses" and related performance (or lack thereof) investigation. Some of the bonuses here pale in comparison to some of those in the non-investment staff during the pre-Leone era at STRS! John

Click here to view video (you'll have to sit through a short commercial first).

Congress Gives Seniors a Break

From John Curry, July 9, 2008

An important vote re. Medicare took place on the floor of the Senate today. If you are now on Medicare, are seeking another MD. to treat you as a Medicare patient or.....are about to go on Medicare, this vote was crucial. Many MD's were worried about taking a 10% "hit" on Medicare reimbursements should this bill fail.

Some MD's (actually quite a few) limit Medicare patients. They were about to drop more Medicare patients or not considering taking on any additional Medicare patients. The healthcare insurance companies didn't want to see today's vote pass because it will also limit some payments to the Medicare Advantage programs.

Well, it is now predicted that this bill will swiftly pass both houses of Congress and will go to the "Great Decider" who has promised to veto this bill. Guess what....he will have this bill overridden! You (and the MD's) will win and the Medicare Advantage programs will loose some of their excessive profits. I'll bet the insurance lobbyists are shedding crocodile tears right now and probably sharing a crying towel with the ceo's of the healthcare insurance companies.

John P.S. How did Ohio's Senators vote? Well, following the news article about today's Senate vote, you will be able to find out with the vote tally!

"One Republican, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, complained that Democrats were trying to ram the Medicare bill through without allowing proper consideration of amendments. But before voicing her complaint, she said she was “thrilled” to see Mr. Kennedy back in the Senate. And she voted in favor of the bill." (Is this called voting your conscience?-John)
-------

Kennedy Casts Key Vote as Medicare Bill Passes

By DAVID STOUT
New York Times, July 10, 2008
Photo: Sen. Edward Kennedy and niece Caroline Kennedy arriving at the US Capitol, July 9, 2008

WASHINGTON — Senator Edward M. Kennedy returned to the Senate on Wednesday for the first time since being sidelined with cancer and was greeted by a bipartisan barrage of whoops, cheers and applause before savoring a legislative triumph.

The starchy formality of the Senate floor dissolved as Mr. Kennedy, the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, arrived to cast his vote on an important Medicare bill. The senator’s presence was considered crucial, since 60 votes were required to advance the measure.

“Aye,” Mr. Kennedy said, flashing a thumbs-up when the clerk called his name. He was one of 69 senators to vote in favor, meaning that the bill has now a veto-proof majority in both Houses.

“I return to the Senate today to keep a promise to our senior citizens,” Mr. Kennedy said in a statement released by his office, “and that’s to protect Medicare. Win, lose or draw, I wasn’t going to take the chance that my vote could make the difference.”

The bill would block a 10 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors because of a statutory formula that reduces payments to doctors when spending would otherwise exceed certain goals. The 69 “yes” votes were 9 more than required to invoke cloture, and under a previous agreement the measure was considered to be approved after clearing that procedural hurdle. The measure had stalled on June 26, falling just short of the 60 threshold.

Mr. Kennedy did not vote on June 26, and how much his dramatic appearance on Wednesday helped to sway sentiment may be debatable. What was certain, though, was that enough Republicans voted “yes” to send the bill through.

Mr. Kennedy’s appearance in the chamber was his first since May, when he was found to be suffering from a brain tumor. Minutes before the vote he was seen walking into the Capitol with his smiling wife, Victoria, by his side. He was escorted into the Senate by Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, and Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, and by his son, Representative Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island.

Democratic lawmakers had apparently been tipped off and applauded almost as one when Mr. Kennedy, white-maned at 76, appeared. Their applause was quickly augmented by Republicans, many of whom generally oppose the senator on the issues but have come to respect the legislative skills he has honed in nearly 46 years on Capitol Hill.

One Republican, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, complained that Democrats were trying to ram the Medicare bill through without allowing proper consideration of amendments. But before voicing her complaint, she said she was “thrilled” to see Mr. Kennedy back in the Senate. And she voted in favor of the bill.

The momentary triumph of personal affection over political consideration was evident when Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican minority leader, flashed a big smile at Mr. Kennedy, and another Republican, Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, shook Mr. Kennedy’s hand. Both Republicans voted against the bill.

President Bush has threatened to veto the bill, in part because it would reduce payments to private Medicare Advantage plans offered by insurers like Humana, UnitedHealth and Blue Cross and Blue Shield companies.

If the president does cast a veto, it would be overridden if the Senate voted again as it did on Wednesday. The bill passed in the House by an overwhelming 355 to 59.

Before Mr. Kennedy appeared on Wednesday afternoon, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, said: “I look across the aisle at my Republican friends. The 60th vote is there.”

And then some. Eighteen Republicans voted “yes,” as did all 49 of the Senate’s Democrats and the chambers two independents, Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernard Sanders of Vermont.

Afterward, Mr. Reid heaped tribute on Mr. Kennedy. “Senator Kennedy showed again today why he is so beloved in our Senate family, why he is the model of public service and an American icon,” Mr. Reid said. “We knew that Senator Kennedy — one of the greatest fighters this body has ever seen — would rise to the challenge and return to work, and what more appropriate time for him to do so than in an effort to protect seniors’ and veterans’ health care.”

David M. Herszenhorn contributed reporting.

Now...how did Ohio's Senators vote...you might be surprised!

John

How they voted: Senate roll call on medicare bill By The Associated Press – 2 hours ago

The 69-30 roll call by which the Senate approved a bill on Wednesday that would void a 10.6 percent pay cut for doctors treating Medicare patients.

On this vote, a "yes" vote was a vote in favor of the bill and a "no" vote was a vote against it. The bill needed 60 votes to advance.

Voting "yes" were 49 Democrats, 18 Republicans and two independents.

Voting "no" were 0 Democrats and 30 Republicans.

Alabama

Sessions (R) No; Shelby (R) No.

Alaska

Murkowski (R) Yes; Stevens (R) Yes.

Arizona

Kyl (R) No; McCain (R) Not Voting.

Arkansas

Lincoln (D) Yes; Pryor (D) Yes.

California

Boxer (D) Yes; Feinstein (D) Yes.

Colorado

Allard (R) No; Salazar (D) Yes.

Connecticut

Dodd (D) Yes; Lieberman (I) Yes.

Delaware

Biden (D) Yes; Carper (D) Yes.

Florida

Martinez (R) Yes; Nelson (D) Yes.

Georgia

Chambliss (R) Yes; Isakson (R) Yes.

Hawaii

Akaka (D) Yes; Inouye (D) Yes.

Idaho

Craig (R) No; Crapo (R) No.

Illinois

Durbin (D) Yes; Obama (D) Yes.

Indiana

Bayh (D) Yes; Lugar (R) No.

Iowa

Grassley (R) No; Harkin (D) Yes.

Kansas

Brownback (R) No; Roberts (R) Yes.

Kentucky

Bunning (R) No; McConnell (R) No.

Louisiana

Landrieu (D) Yes; Vitter (R) No.

Maine

Collins (R) Yes; Snowe (R) Yes.

Maryland

Cardin (D) Yes; Mikulski (D) Yes.

Massachusetts

Kennedy (D) Yes; Kerry (D) Yes.

Michigan

Levin (D) Yes; Stabenow (D) Yes.

Minnesota

Coleman (R) Yes; Klobuchar (D) Yes.

Mississippi

Cochran (R) No; Wicker (R) No.

Missouri

Bond (R) No; McCaskill (D) Yes.

Montana

Baucus (D) Yes; Tester (D) Yes.

Nebraska

Hagel (R) No; Nelson (D) Yes.

Nevada

Ensign (R) No; Reid (D) Yes.

New Hampshire

Gregg (R) No; Sununu (R) No.

New Jersey

Lautenberg (D) Yes; Menendez (D) Yes.

New Mexico

Bingaman (D) Yes; Domenici (R) No.

New York

Clinton (D) Yes; Schumer (D) Yes.

North Carolina

Burr (R) No; Dole (R) Yes.

North Dakota

Conrad (D) Yes; Dorgan (D) Yes.

Ohio

Brown (D) Yes; Voinovich (R) Yes.

Oklahoma

Coburn (R) No; Inhofe (R) No.

Oregon

Smith (R) Yes; Wyden (D) Yes.

Pennsylvania

Casey (D) Yes; Specter (R) Yes.

Rhode Island

Reed (D) Yes; Whitehouse (D) Yes.

South Carolina

DeMint (R) No; Graham (R) No.

South Dakota

Johnson (D) Yes; Thune (R) No.

Tennessee

Alexander (R) Yes; Corker (R) Yes.

Texas

Cornyn (R) Yes; Hutchison (R) Yes.

Utah

Bennett (R) No; Hatch (R) No.

Vermont

Leahy (D) Yes; Sanders (I) Yes.

Virginia

Warner (R) Yes; Webb (D) Yes.

Washington

Cantwell (D) Yes; Murray (D) Yes.

West Virginia

Byrd (D) Yes; Rockefeller (D) Yes.

Wisconsin

Feingold (D) Yes; Kohl (D) Yes.

Wyoming

Barrasso (R) No; Enzi (R) No.

Lima St. Rita's layoffs and a table of Ohio hospital CEO compensation

From John Curry, July 9, 2008

Of particular interest to Limaland readers:

Below is today's Lima News coverage of a news release concerning the beginning of the layoffs of 49 St. Rita's employees. I wonder if their CEO, Jim Reber, will take a compensation cut? What is his salary? Well, I can't tell you exactly but following the news article is a link to Ohio hospital CEO compensations and you can find Mr. Reber listed on page 7 of the Adobe download..remember, this was from 2004. I wonder what it is today? John

July 9, 2008
Staff reports
Lima News

Here is the text of a news release from St. Rita's Medical Center, in Lima, concerning the layoffs of 49 people, beginning today. The medical center was holding a news conference this morning to explain the layoffs:

The need for healthcare continues to grow as does the cost of providing good healthcare, but revenues such as Medicare and Medicaid payment to hospitals are shrinking. In addition, more and more people are uninsured and the need for "charity" care is exploding.

"Throughout the country hospitals have had to reorganize to guarantee quality service," said Jim Reber, St. Rita's president and CEO. "Over the last two years, normal inflation for supplies and employee increases has exceeded our growth in reimbursement by $6 million each year. And we have seen the number of uninsured patients double over that last four years. Four years ago, one in 20 St. Rita's patients lacked health coverage. Today it is one in 10. In Ohio, one in eight is uninsured."

And while services continue to grow, St. Rita's Medical Center is making every effort to be as efficient as possible in providing these services. "We are very pleased with the efforts our staff members have made in recent months to reduce expenses and conserve resources," said Brian Smith, St. Rita's chief operating officer. "As an organization, we will continue to take this approach to do the best with less. Every effort has been made to make necessary changes in the best interest of our patients, our employees and our communities."

After thoughtful and careful evaluation, it became obvious some very difficult decisions had to be made. Primary to the process was to assure quality patient care was not compromised. Also of primary importance is to continue the philosophy of being the best place to work, and to continue St. Rita's mission of caring for the poor and under-served.

Beginning July 9, 2008, St. Rita's will lay off 49 employees. Staff reductions will be seniority based within departments. Affected employees will be given severance based on years of service and provided with future bid opportunities and transition assistance from St. Rita's Employee Assistance Program (EAP).

All affected employees will be personally notified by their manager as soon as possible.

"A layoff is difficult and painful," said Reber, "but it is necessary to maintain St. Rita's fiscal strength to continue to serve the citizens of the 10-county area."

Now, here's the link to Ohio hospital ceo compensation, click on the link below and go to page 7.

John

http://www.ohanet.org/pr/resources/SEIU_report3.pdf

[Check out the other pages too -- a real eye opener! KBB]

Story in the Lima News

Did you get your STRS mailing on time this month?

From Shirlee Zerkel, July 9, 2008
Subject: Have any other retirees had this problem?

Some of us in the Allen and Auglaize county area experienced either late checks or COLA notices this month. A person who still receives their check by mail did not receive hers until July 3rd. I and two other retirees should have received notices from STRS of their COLA increases and did not receive them until July 7th and 8th. Calls to STRS brought the reply that they were mailed on June 27th and it was the US Post Office at fault. Have any other retirees in the state had the same problem?

Shirlee Zerkel

Zerksh@aol.com

Just privatize it...that'll solve the problem, won't it??

EDITORIAL: PRIVATIZED MEDICARE EXPENSIVE BOONDOGGLE

rivervalleynewspapers.com, July 7, 2008 .

Medicare is an expensive program that still leaves beneficiaries with large deductibles and co-payments, and it shortchanges doctors on reimbursements.

One obvious solution is to cut back the bloated payments to private insurance companies which, on average, get 13 percent more than it costs Medicare to offer services itself.

Congress agrees. It voted, 355-59, to block a scheduled cut in doctors' payments by reducing subsidies to insurance companies that manage the privatized portion of the program. President Bush, however, has promised a veto.

The battle between Congress and President Bush raises the larger issue of privatization, particularly privatization of functions that the private sector either can't or won't provide. Health insurance for the elderly is a classic example. Private insurers wanted no part of insuring an elderly population that was prone to file expensive insurance claims; it's more profitable to sell policies to healthy 25-year-olds. The government was the only viable option for elderly health care, which is why Medicare was created in 1964.

For 33 years, Medicare operated successfully as a single-payer program, but then private insurers demanded a piece of the action. In 1997, President Clinton signed a bill that created Medicare Advantage, and the program was significantly expanded in 2003 as part of the law that created the Medicare prescription drug benefit. Nearly a quarter of Medicare's 44 million recipients now get insurance through the privatized program.

The privatized program is more expensive than traditional Medicare. The subsidy that's required to get private insurers to participate costs the federal government $13 billion per year, and there's little evidence that Medicare Advantage provides better coverage for beneficiaries. According to the American Medical Association, 45 percent of Medicare Advantage policyholders have experienced denial of services typically covered in traditional Medicare, and Wisconsin U.S. Senator Herb Kohl held a hearing last year to address misleading and fraudulent sales tactics of Medicare Advantage providers.

It's foolish to believe that the same private sector that had no interest in providing an unprofitable service will efficiently provide that same service if given a government subsidy. Like the subsidized student loan program, Medicare Advantage is nothing more than crony capitalism in which insurance companies receive a guaranteed profit with taxpayers shouldering all the risk. Instead of blurring the line between public and private, public programs should be run by the public for the benefit of the public.

We can start by abolishing Medicare Advantage.

From John Curry, 7/8/08

The other feared "R-word"......rescission.... and the HC insurance companies continue to play the game of "you're out!"

From John Curry, July 8, 2008

Of course, this wouldn't happen in countries that have single-payer medical insurance, would it? But then...we're a country of "rugged individualists," aren't we? Let the ill fend for themselves! John

Definition of "rescission"

Los Angeles Times, July 8, 2008

WellPoint settles with California hospitals over rescissions

Facilities sought payment, they say, for providing care to patients whose policies were later terminated.
By Lisa Girion
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

Anthem Blue Cross parent WellPoint Inc. agreed Monday to pay $11.8 million to settle claims from about 480 California hospitals that it failed to cover the bills of patients it dropped after they were treated -- a controversial practice known as rescission.

The hospitals sued after scores of their patients contended in their own lawsuits that Blue Cross had illegally dropped them.

The patients said Blue Cross had improperly investigated their medical histories after they submitted expensive bills in an effort to use purported preexisting conditions as an excuse for canceling their policies.

The hospitals, including most private and public facilities in California, say they provided emergency and authorized care to patients who were, at the time of treatment, Blue Cross members in good standing. Only later, they contended, did Blue Cross drop the patients and renege on its obligation to pay their bills.

Pending final approval from Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Peter Lichtman, the settlement will allow the hospitals to be reimbursed for disputed bills, said Daron Tooch, a lawyer for Hooper, Lundy & Bookman Inc., the Los Angeles firm representing the hospitals.

As a condition of the deal, the hospitals agreed to stop trying to collect payments for the disputed bills from patients. Anthem Blue Cross still faces separate class-action suits from the state's physicians over bills from patients the company canceled after they treated them. It also faces a class-action suit filed on behalf of more than 6,000 patients dropped by the company since 2001.

The company had reached a tentative settlement with lawyers on behalf of patients more than a year ago. But that deal unraveled when the hospitals and physicians objected that it failed to address providers' medical bills and their efforts to collect from patients.

"You really had to get the hospitals involved to get them to release their claims against the patients," said Tooch, the hospitals' lawyer. "That's why the patients benefit more from this settlement than the prior one."

Settlement talks on behalf of the patients and physicians are ongoing.

Blue Cross also faces regulatory action. The state Department of Managed Health Care announced a $1-million fine against Blue Cross after it concluded last year that its rescission practices were systemically unfair and illegal.

Since then, a California appellate court decision on a rescission case prompted the department to reconsider its case, officials said.

"That decision strengthened the hands of patients," said Daniel Zingale, a healthcare advisor to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. "What's important about that decision is it made clear that it's against the law to take someone's health insurance away from them when they acted in good faith."

Now, Zingale said, the penalty could be stiffer for Blue Cross -- as much as $200,000 per violation on about 1,700 disputed rescissions. Blue Cross, along with competitor Blue Shield, have failed to come to terms with the department over rescissions.

The department is seeking deals that would lead to the restoration of coverage for rescinded patients. Health Net, Kaiser and PacifiCare all have reached negotiated settlements that the department said would lead to such reinstatements.

Department director Cindy Ehnes said, "Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield have not agreed to reissue health coverage, so we will be going back through each of their approximately 2,170 rescission cases to pursue individual fines in each case."

Anthem Blue Cross President Leslie Margolin said the company had been trying to reach a deal with the department for months. She said she had a meeting with senior members of the governor's office staff to go over the company's proposal, including the immediate coverage for seven individuals the department previously demanded it reinstate, as well as third-party reviews of other cases.

"We have been in discussions with the department regarding a fine and have expressed willingness to settle on terms comparable to all other industry agreements," Margolin said.

...and yet another newspaper editorial exposing Medicare advantage plans?

Medicare disadvantage

A House bill attempts to keep doctors in the health-care program and curb a misguided and expensive subsidy for private insurers

Ohio.com, July 8, 2008
On today's Commentary page, Alan J. Bleyer, the president and chief executive officer of Akron General Medical Center, describes the steep challenge of curbing the overall cost of health care. No part of the task is greater than corralling Medicare spending, Bleyer reminding that the program's trustees recently reported that the Medicare trust fund will be depleted in 10 years. With such a prospect in mind, a bipartisan majority of the U.S. House approved legislation that would slow the flow of public dollars to private Medicare Advantage plans.

The hope was, the Senate would give its nod before the July Fourth recess. Unfortunately, the measure stalled. Senate Republicans and the White House argue the bill would harm retirees enrolled in Medicare Advantage. They vastly overstate the danger.

Neither Democrats nor Republicans, senators nor representatives, deserves applause for their fiscal management of Medicare. Still, the House bill would address two pressing matters.

First, the legislation would prevent a scheduled 10.6 percent reduction in payments to doctors who care for millions of older Americans. A fee increase? That saves money? Truth be told, doctors have been steadily squeezed in recent years. The concern now is that physicians will flee Medicare, frustrated with the puny reimbursements, damaging the program in another way. That explains the targeted ad campaign of the American Medical Association, seeking to pressure key Senate Republicans.

What the House seeks (responsibly) is to cover the cost of the payments to doctors. It would do so by requiring Medicare Advantage plans to compete more equally with other program options. As the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities points out, the added competition would likely ease the growth of the private plans, and thus save money.

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (a congressional oversight operation) has been harshly critical of Medicare Advantage, concluding that certain of these private insurance plans cost 17 percent more to cover a beneficiary than under regular Medicare. The commission noted that much of the excess goes into administrative expenses, marketing and plain profit. The Congressional Budget Office calculated last year that such padding would cost an added $149 billion during the next 10 years.

Tellingly, Mark McClellan, a supporter of Medicare Advantage and a former administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services under President Bush, called last year for repairing the unfair competitive advantage enjoyed by key private Medicare plans. The House bill follows his cue. It would require these plans to do as others are required: establish provider networks and collect data on the quality of health care. Such information should aid patients, doctors and taxpayers.

The subsidies for Medicare Advantage plans were established to purchase participation. The price becomes too expensive when doctors face a financial squeeze that pushes many out of the program. These changes hardly address all that ails Medicare financially. They do reflect recognition that soon enough, the program will struggle to make ends meet.

From John Curry

Tom Curtis: Follow-up letter to Bill Leibensperger

July 7, 2008

Hello Bill,

Your failure to respond to my request (below) for a list of positive changes Damon alone brought to STRS comes as no surprise because, simply put, you can't think of any. I can't, either. Your lack of response certainly reflects the mentality of OEA's leadership as it is today: totally out of touch with the original purpose of the organization.

It is clear to me that those in OEA's leadership positions now are far more interested in "being" than in "doing;" being "important" (and rich, compared to the membership) rather than doing a real service to your members (and keeping THEIR dues down). I am well aware, from my own observations, that the OEA leadership will lie and do everything it takes to keep the money coming in from the teachers, money you gladly spend with little oversight. In my mind, the present OEA leadership is no better than the past OEA-connected STRS Board members who ended up in court with ethics convictions. The apples didn't fall far from the tree, did they?

Had Dennis Leone, John Lazares and CORE never come along, you would no doubt have been heaping praise on Damon Asbury for continuing "business as usual" -- continued, unchecked spending while retiree funds hemorrhaged out of control, as in the Herb Dyer days. You and I both know the credit you gave Damon belongs to Dennis Leone, but I don't ever expect you to admit that. That's not "the OEA way." OEA's blinders are bigger than their glasses.

Never ONCE did I see any OEA leaders raise any objections during the entire campaign to end the outrageous spending and unethical policy and management practices on the part of Herb Dyer and the "old Board." Why? Because you were the "power behind the power": the rotten core of the apple, the part teachers never see, but which many of us now see only too clearly. Much of the mess at STRS has been cleaned up, thank God, but there's still plenty that still needs cleaning up. I know I can count on OEA to continue blocking reform every step of the way, because nothing has really changed at 225 E. Broad (OEA). A new face here and there, but the mentality is the same ole' same ole'. Your logo should be those three monkeys, adapted to reflect the OEA way: "See only what OEA wants you to see; hear only what OEA wants to hear and speak only what OEA wants you to hear." Your House of Cards would fall in a minute if the OEA membership could see their leadership for what it really is.

Tom Curtis
-----
June 22, 2008

Bill,

Please humor me by listing all of the wonderful changes that Damon Asbury brought to fruition during his watch at the STRS. But please, only ones not initiated by Dennis Leone.

I look forward to your timely response.

Tom Curtis
-----

Note: The above message was sent 7/7/08 via e-mail to a number of OEA leaders as well as the members of the STRS Board. The inboxes of the following OEA people refused it: Bill Leibensperger, Patricia Frost-Brooks, Dennis Reardon and the OEA Executive Committee. Looks like the Three Monkeys ("See no evil...") are definitely doing their job! KBB

.

.

.

.

.

.
.
.

Obama, McCain, and the Disappearing Light Between Them on Education

From John Curry, July 7, 2008

Sunday, July 6, 2008
http://schoolsmatter.blogspot.com/index.html

Obama, McCain, and the Disappearing Light Between Them on Education

There are two policy issues that threaten the creation of quality public schools for all who choose them, and Barack Obama and John McCain support both of them: corporate charter schools and teacher raises based on test scores.

There are many liberals who believe that they, themselves, support charter schools for the promised innovation that such schools of the imagination, well, promise. As the liberal script goes, charter schools offer the opportunity for parents and teachers to form innovative programs that serve various niches within communities by focusing the school environment and curriculum on things that matter to the constiutents who come together to learn and teach, all the while forgoing the control and bureaucracy of local school boards.

Sounds great, right? Power to the people! Well, to the anti-public school wing of American school reform--the wing with the money--this kind of liberal blather sounded the dinner bell for a new feeding line for the ed industry's corporate welfare artists and the religious welfare scammers who believe the solution to urban poverty is a uniform scripted curriculum for uniformed children who are fed a Spartan diet of behavior modification with their boiled reading and math.

These KIPPster schools, and the corporate charters that emulate them, have an effective PR machine (the American media) that boasts the high percentages of their graduates who attend college. What is not talked about are the large numbers of children and parents who cannot hack the regimentation or cognitive decapitation on which these schools build their mindless parrot learning programs. Many urban parents desperate for something besides the demoralized poverty schools that have been blown up by NCLB look to these newly-painted child workhouses with a hope and a prayer.

So much for liberal dreaming. Not only have the privatizers coopted a good figment of liberal imagination and operationalized it for their own economically-driven ends, but they have used the same idea to attack humane teaching, teacher tenure, collective bargaining, and retirement plans.* What about school libraries and librarians? Who needs them in the small-school chain gangs? Who has time for the library--if there were one?

So while both liberal and conservative politicians rub their chins and consider the 20% payroll savings that the charterizers promise by cutting teacher pay in the charter detention camps, they have arrived at a scheme by which teachers in these "schools" may earn back the pay they will have lost through charterization: higher pay for test scores. The vortex tightens, and the dizzying spin of mindlessness accelerates.

Such visionary planning leads me to conclude at this point in "yes, we can" campaign of 2008 that any real audacity of hope came from those audacious enough to believe that the new boss will be any different on education than the old boss. Read 'em and weep.

Posted by Jim Horn

* Ohio STRS stakeholders...remember when charter school guru Chester Finn criticized Ohio STRS with some unfounded statements? I do! John