Health Care Hyperbole vs Voting

I’ve been reading and hearing a lot of comments from people who believe that Washington is not listening to the American people. I’ve heard a lot of complaints about a rushed process that didn’t allow people to see the details of the complicated health care proposals, 2,700 pages, back room deals, secret negotiations, trashing of rules and the Constitution.

I’ve been listening to these complaints daily for months. Months! So where was the rush?

I couldn’t tell you how many hours I’ve spent listening to or reading about ideas and comments from both sides of the health care discussion. I think I understand the major parts of this bill. I believe people who don't understand the basics of this bill have no one to blame but themselves. I listened and read a lot so I could understand the issues and arguments. Isn't that what you are supposed to do? Too many people are lazy and want someone else to do their thinking.

I suspect I understand health care reform at least as well as I understand my credit card agreements, my car insurance, the privacy statement from my bank, my health insurance policy, the 30 pages of documents I signed for my home loan or any other number of complicated documents we have to deal with. This is a complicated world. I’m sure I understand the health care bill better than those agreements I am constantly being forced to accept when I use my computer.

Back room deals. Secret negotiations. I think I’ve heard about all of them. I agree the “Cornhusker Kickback” was disgusting, but we all know that. What was secret about it? If it hadn’t been removed in the reconciliation bill, a simple bill next week could remove it. Why didn’t Republicans just write a bill to do that and then dare Democrats not to vote for it? (Answer: That solution is too reasonable. It is not inflammatory enough.)

Health care was passed by a majority in the House and a super majority in the Senate. Democrats correctly used the rules of the Congress to pass the bill. Democrats correctly used the reconciliation rules to make some changes to the health care bill that had just been passed. No rules were trashed.

There may be a debate about whether parts of the bill are unconstitutional. OK, if that is what you think, we have a way to deal with this. The courts.

As to Washington not listening to American, well I’m an American. I and millions of other Americans believe Washington has been listening. Now was the time to start making health care available to all Americans and to start the process to bring some rationality to how health care is provided. The bill that passed is not perfect and not what I would have liked to have, but it is a start. We now need to work to make it better.

I heard a woman on NPR yesterday complaining about the health care bill. She seemed very reasonable until she admitted that she was glad that at least conservatives had the Second Amendment and their guns since they might be needed. I wished someone had asked her how her guns would help resolve her concerns about the health care law.

One thing I know. If you believe that Washington is not listening to you, there is a way to make sure they get the message – vote. Leave the rifle over the fireplace.

My Bad

In a previous blog, after Scott Brown was elected in Massachusetts, I suggested President Obama should scale back his plans for health care reform. I want to assure readers, that was the only bad advice I’ve ever given anyone.

Advice For President Obama

Peggy Noonan, a columnist for the Wall Street Journal and a speech writer for President Reagan, was on Meet The Press this morning. She believes that the reason Scott Brown won last week was the distrust voters have of all institutions, especially government.

That is certainly a symptom of the problem. But why are people so upset with government?

I think there are several reasons.

It is easier to destroy than to build. It is easier criticize than create. It is easier to divide people than to unite them. In the current political environment it is easier and safer to oppose than to compromise. And it is politically safer and more effective to offer specious criticism than to propose alternatives.

People don't get mad and motivated by something they are satisfied with, unless someone threatens to take it away. So the best political strategy is to get voters mad and motivated. Republicans are historically better at this than Democrats.

In general, people have short memories. What have you done for me today?

People crave simplicity.

People want government to leave them alone until they need something. Then they want government to fix it now.

For all these reasons, it is politically expedient to blame the government for all problems.

Thomas O'Neill, Sr., famously said "All politics is local." Today it is "All politics is personal." People are apprehensive about the economy and deficit spending and will punish politicians who do not vigorously share their concerns and their solutions. Except for the people who think abortion is the most important issue. Except for the people who think guns are the most important issue. Except for the people who think Iraq, Afghanistan, health care, terrorism or (fill in the blank) is the most important issue. And more importantly, what good is government if it can't fix it now.

The primary goal of most politicians is to get re-elected or, better yet, get elected to a more powerful position. So politicians, like Ben Nelson of Nebraska, believe it is in their interests to use the power of their offices to buy the support of voters and/or donors. Such abuse of the political system properly disgusts voters. Instead of venting their anger on the offending politician, it is often redirected to a political party, Congress in general, the president or all of the above.

Polls show that people think we are still going in the wrong direction and they blame Democrats and President Obama for not fixing it. Fair enough, they are in office, but it took years to generate the problems that confronted President Obama last year. Why do we expect him to fix them all in a year?

I have some suggestions for President Obama. Learn a lesson from your predecessor. Decide what you think is important and go for it. To hell with what voters think. Show that you have ideas and principles that you will fight for.

Pick a few issues. Pare the concepts down to bumper stickers and work to implement them. No foreign oil. Pre-existing shouldn't mean uninsured. The American economy should make jobs for many not billions for a few. A job for everyone who is willing to work (twenty years ago that would have probably gotten you labelled as a communist, but it may work now).

Global warming and true health care reform are too complicated for voters. Do what you can to move the country forward. Make it better than what you found, but take your own advice and don't make the perfect the enemy of the possible. Only when health care and climate change are true disasters will people really understand and you'll probably be out of office by then.

If that is too cynical, try this. Work to make government more responsive, competent and effective by doing a few important things well and soon. Stay away from any issue that might force voters to think. Restore trust in government. Win in 2012 and use that mandate to do a few big things in your next four years.

Free Speech. Not Priceless.

I was astounded when courts interpreted the Second Amendment while consciously ignoring the reference in the amendment to militias.

I was appalled when Congress passed a law that destroyed habeas corpus.

Now I'm speechless.

Today the Supreme Court some how decide that corporations, that previously had at least some of the same rights as an individual, actually have the constitutionally protected right to free speech.

And when I say I'm speechless, I'm actually speaking for all of us. We are all speechless. Our individual speech will now be drowned out by unlimited speech from corporations.

Politicians generally do not vote their consciences. They vote to please their constituents and their donors. Now corporate donors are no longer limited in the amount they can funnel to a candidate. Sure, we still have to vote, but the political discussion and process can be bought with huge sums of money. That happens all too much today. Starting tomorrow there are no limits on how much a corporation can spend to buy an election. No politician will be able to get elected without lining up huge sums of money from corporations. They will be bought and you and I are too poor to play in this game.

Corporations are not individuals, even though they may have been granted some of the same rights. They are not citizens. They can't be drafted. They can't serve on a jury. They can't vote. They can't marry (think about that). Or can they? Once they can buy elections, there is no limit to what powers they can give themselves. Their power will only be constrained by other large corporations.

We have been trying for decades to prevent individuals or large groups from buying elections and politicians. That is all gone.

You can imagine dire consequences of this ruling. Maybe we are making too much of this. But if we are correct and this is as bad as we think, once the tipping point is reached and corporations really control Congress, we won't be able to change it back.

I think the solution may be to change the law to make it clear that corporations are not people.

Pop-Top Health Care

Health care reform took another step forward last night with the passage of a bill in the House.

I don't know if we will ever get a bill or if it will cost a lot of money or if it will accomplish what I hope needs to be done. I hope it passes, but I don't have a lot of hope. If a bill passes and becomes law, flawed as it will be, at least we will have a framework which future generations can build on. Assuming they have more guts and foresight than current and previous generations.

Personally, I believe a single payer, government run system would be better, but we are not good at legislating big, contentious issues like health care. Isn't that a good reason for government to stay out of health care? Yes, except everyday we live with evidence that the alternative is worse.

I try to listen to lots of different ideas so I was interested in listening to stories about health care systems in other countries. Contrary to what you often hear, I think most people in these countries are satisfied with their health care systems. I heard about one country on NPR (National Public Radio, if you don't listen to it, you should) where you can call and talk to health care professionals day or night, and if your condition warrants it and you can't come in, they will send a doctor to make a house call. Amazing.

In the U.S., I believe we pay about twice as much per person for health care as other countries with government sponsored health care. We do benefit from some of the best health care in the world, if you can afford it.

But two other anecdotes really bother me.

I believe it was the man in charge of health care in Great Britain who said that no one in his country ever goes bankrupt trying to pay for health care. In the U.S., health care bills are the number one cause of personal bankruptcy. He also pointed out the people in Great Britain never have to worry about losing their health care because they lose their job.

In my office we have containers to recycle soda cans. Someone recently added old gallon milk jugs and asked people to tear off the pop-top tabs and put them in the jug to help pay the medical bills for a very ill two year old girl. I heard an official from a foreign country comment on NPR that they were taken aback the first time they saw such an appeal in the U.S.. He was shocked that a parent in the United States of America had to resort to begging to get money to pay for health care for their seriously ill child. That was unheard of in his country.

Think about, some parents in the United States have to beg for health care for their sick children!

The news this morning talked about a few Democratic members of Congress who threatened to stop the health care reform bill unless harsh anti-abortion language was added to the bill. The language was added to gain their votes. Abortion is a serious ethical issue and I understand that people can have strong beliefs on both sides of the issue, but this move really bothers me. Supporters of a woman's choice could take the same stand and refuse to vote for the bill unless the abortion restrictions are removed (the Hyde Amendment would still apply).

I have a question for people who think the current health care system is fine or would rather not have reform if they can't have their personal needs satisfied.

What do you think when you pass the milk jug begging for help for a sick child?

Obama Administration Uses Torture!

Breaking news. Terrorist suspect Najibullah Zazi has admitted ties to al-Quida and attending a terrorist training school in Pakistan.

But that isn't the real news.

The real news is that the Obama administration has taken former Vice-President Cheney's advice and used torture!

They haven't admitted they used torture, yet. But we know that real important information can only be forced from terrorists with torture. Therefore, the Obama administration must have tortured Najibullah Zazi.

Darn, I expected better from President Obama.

You Lie!

A few weeks ago I heard a TV commentator advise that Democrats needed to learn from Republicans how to speak in "bumper stickers". This is the common wisdom that by labeling an issue, you control it.

Drill, Baby, Drill!

No New Taxes!

Life Begins At Conception!

Death Panels!

Secede!

Of course, this is a lot easier for Republicans. They think and communicate via bumper stickers. "Nuance" is an epithet that Republicans use to denigrate Democrats. Institutes of higher education are always "bastions of liberalism". The mainstream media always has a "liberal bias" (as compared to?). Climate change is a fraud. President Obama isn't a citizen. Evolution is just a theory. Medicare is not a government run health plan. Do you see a pattern here?

During the Bush administration, more than once I complained to conservative friends that I objected to being called unpatriotic or worse if I questioned administration policies. My conservative friends countered that they objected to being considered stupid. That is fair enough until you listen to them explain their positions. Bumper stickers may be a simple way to summarize your position, but they don't form the basis for a discussion and they do nothing to convince anyone you know what you are talking about.

Joe Wilson has apologized for his "You Lie!" outburst. I listened to him today on Fox News Sunday. He did not apologize for calling the president a liar. A lie is conscious effort to not tell the truth. So he really believes the president intentionally meant to lie to Congress and the American people. He never once explained why he thought the president would presumably want to give insurance coverage to all illegal immigrants. That would require too much explanation. Way too much for a bumper sticker.

What bothers me most about Representative Wilson's outburst is that it only feeds the outrage in people who who much prefer a bumper sticker rather than a discussion and continues to distort the debate.

I'm sure there are already cars with "You Lie!" bumper stickers.

I'd like to ask Representative Wilson why he didn't yell "That's Not True!" or "You Are Wrong!"? Too many syllables?

Let's Hear It For A Wise Latina Woman

Tomorrow, confirmation hearings will begin in the Senate for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

Republics will make a show, just to show they can.

This morning on Fox News Sunday, Texas Senator John Cornyn questioned Judge Sotomayor's qualifications to be on the Supreme Court partly because of her often quoted comment "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Senator Cornyn strongly believes justice should be blind.

Supreme Court rulings are seldom nine to nothing. What accounts for this difference of opinion? Justices hear the same facts and come to different conclusions, often based on predictable ideological lines. Maybe some of the differences come from life experiences.

Also, there are eight men and one woman currently on the Supreme Court. There have only been two women Supreme Court Justices in our nation's history. This in a country that has about the same number of women citizens as men (actually, today women are in the majority). Those facts would suggest that, historically, male presidents and predominantly male Senates have decided that a man's legal opinion is better than a woman's.

So Senator Cornyn's opinion that the legal system should be blind to characteristics such as gender and race is noble, but these ideals don't seem to apply to the executive and legislative branches when it comes to judicial appointments.

Simple Universal Health Care Plan

Universal health care will involve rationing, but as I explained in a previous blog, our current health care system already has rationing. In fact, health care will always involve rationing because in an advanced technological society, the cost of unlimited, advanced health care options for everyone will always exceed our ability to afford them.

I have a proposal. When a person is born, they are given a health care fund. For this discussion, let us say it is one million dollars. They can use this money for all their non-elective health care needs. Preventive care, medicine, surgeries, mental health, dental, etc. All these costs would be deducted from the balance of their account. When the money runs out, their access to further health care is ended, although they can continue to receive hospice care until they die.

In addition, starting at age 21, the balance in their account goes down every year on their birthday. On each birthday starting at age 21, the balance in their fund goes go down by 15,000 dollars.

Ideally, this would be the entire system, but we could add incentives as long as they are objective and consistently applied. For example, once a year you could take a fitness test. Those who don't smoke, keep their weight down, exercised and could pass the test, would have their balance reduced considerably less than the standard 15,000 dollars. I know this doesn't seem fair to people with unpreventable conditions, but life is not fair. But people who actively work to keep themselves healthy may decrease overall health care costs, freeing money to increase the lifetime allowance or decrease the annual reduction. This would benefit people who can't qualify for a fitness allowance reduction.

People would be able to buy supplemental insurance, but the premium would greatly exceed the cost to provide this benefit. The additional money would be used to help pay for the system and thus make insurance available to everyone.

Universal Health Care and Rationing

In the current debate over a national health care system, we have heard a lot about how this will lead to rationing. The truth is that we have a lot of health care rationing under the current system.

Anyone who isn't rich or have a job with health care benefits suffers from rationing.

Elective surgeries, experimental procedures and procedures that are considered to be ineffective are usually not covered by health insurance. This is certainly rationing and who determines what is covered? The health insurance company. Or in some cases, your employer, who opts for a less expensive plan.

If you are not covered by health insurance at work and you have the money and you haven't already been diagnosed with a serious condition, you can sign up for any number of insurance plans. Every plan has limits (rationing) and you pay more for less rationing. For example, many of the lower cost options for women do not have any maternity benefits.

Rationing is often used as another term for "cost control".

Another complaint against universal health care is that people don't want to pay for other people's health care. They accept the shared costs of insurance, but object to paying for people who don't contribute any thing to the cost of the insurance. I believe these people think it is a matter of fairness.

But, of course, people without health insurance go to the emergency room and the cost of that care is passed along to people who use health care and can pay.

But even for many people with insurance, the costs are not shared fairly. Every employer plan I've been in charges different fees to the employee depending on how many people are covered. Covering just the employee costs the employee a lot less than covering the employee and a spouse. A family plan costs the employee even more except a family plan is the same cost whether the family has one child or ten. How is that fair?

Life's not fair, so why should paying for health care be fair? Health care costs must be controlled and that will inevitably lead to what some people will call rationing.

So lets have a discussion of the best way to create a health care system that is "fair" and affordable. "Rationing" will be one of the tools we use to achieve this.

Torture Proof

Several conservative pundits have stated that water boarding is not really torture. Well if water boarding (and other questionable techniques the Bush Administration approved) are not really torture, why were they effective at getting information?

You’ve captured a terrorist and believe he has information about an attack that could kill hundreds, thousands or millions of people (the Jack Bauer scenario). What would convince this terrorist to tell you what you want to know? Threat of a wedgie? A water balloon fight? No, according to the Bush Administration, the only thing that would work is some sort of coercion that would force a person to talk. You might need water boarding, thumb screws, nail pulling, the rack or something equally painful.

But wait, if water boarding is not really torture, why would anyone tell you something they otherwise wouldn’t just because of water boarding?

So the proof that water boarding is torture are the very claims by Bush Administration officials that it was effective

Why Not Really Torture?

I’m also bothered and confused by the “the ends justify the means” defense of "enhanced interrogation techniques" being espoused by Bush Administration defenders. How did the Bush Administration decide where to draw the line of acceptable versus unacceptable techniques? If they were really worried about the safety of U.S. citizens and convinced that torture, excuse me, "enhanced interrogation techniques" were required, why weren't they willing to authorize techniques more severe than water boarding?

The line had been drawn for decades with the Geneva Conventions and U.S. law. The Bush Administration thought these rules were inadequate to the threat we faced. They decided they needed to move that line, but they only moved it a little.

I'm missing something.

Who Deserves Jail Time?

There are many things that bother me about the Bush Administration torture policies.

The Administration didn’t have the balls to admit what they were doing when they were initially caught. They let U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib go to jail for using techniques that somehow just happened to be many of the same techniques that Bush Administration lawyers had approved in written memos. If soldiers can do jail time for using these techniques, it sure seems logical that people up the chain of command can go to jail for authorizing them.

Ugly Alert!

There is one thing sure about the current controversy over U.S. torture policies under the Bush Administration; it is going to get ugly.

We’ve heard accusations that President Obama has lost control of the torture issue. Of course, he never had control. Too much was already known. He could have tried to prevent release of the torture memos, but the courts would have eventually forced their disclosures and then President Obama would have been accused of being complicit.

Former Vice-President Cheney has not helped. Well maybe he has helped…, helped himself and fellow former administration members. He has positioned himself and them to be vindicated should another attack occur (after 9/11/2009, that is).

Their argument is that the Bush policies kept us safe after 9/11 and that fact justifies whatever they did. Of course, as I’ve previously written (Who Has The Best Record?), Bill Clinton kept us safe after the first World Trade Center attack in 1993 and I haven’t heard anyone claim he authorized terrorism (although there may have been renditions). And we have at least one documented case (the planned bombing of the LA airport in 2000) where they thwarted a terrorist attack.

I don’t think we know why the terrorists attacked when they did and why we haven’t been attacked since 9/11. But if water boarding 3 terrorists is the reason we haven’t been attacked in the U.S. since 9/11, we are in trouble. I haven’t heard about any recent high level terrorists we’ve apprehended who we could torture to prevent the next attack.

Nuts and Dolts of the Republican Party

Did I just hear Republican strategist Todd Harris on Hardball call CPAC the "nuts and dolts of the Republican Party"?

HA!

Republics Got Deficit Religion

Senator Judd Gregg was on NPR today complaining about deficit spending by President Obama. He was outraged that Democrats were heaping debt on our kids and grand kids.

This is standard Republic talk. I was appalled by the deficits run up under President Bush. Why weren't Republics concerned then? Suddenly they've gotten deficit religion.

Sorry guys, you missed your chance. If President Obama currently had the financial situation that George W. Bush had when he became president, I'd be on you side.

As it is, we are in a massive hole that in large part was created by President Bush and the Republics.

I suggest Republics wait for 8 years. We can then see how well President Obama did with the economy he inherited compared to what President Bush did with the economy he inherited.

Until then, Republics, SHUT UP!

Foreclosures: We Needed More Lawyers?

This past week, I heard a talking empty head (i.e. television analyst) complaining about President Obama's mortgage rescue plan bailing out people who faced foreclosure . He wanted to know why the rest of us should have to help people who made bad decisions. When the host said that some of these people were duped into taking these loans, the talking empty head was astounded. He couldn't understand. Didn't these people have their lawyers look over these loan contracts? This guy then asked the host something like, "Did you ever buy a piece of property where you didn't have your lawyer check everything?" The host said "No" when he should have told the guy he was an out-of-touch idiot.

It might be a better world if we all had lawyers who could look over our shoulders and check all our decisions. What do you think?

There Is Always A Silver Lining

It is becoming clear why most Republics won't support a bailout for the Big 3 auto makers, they see a failed auto industry as a chance to bust the unions.

"Margin Of Mischief" - Again?

It is election eve and there are concerns about what kind of difficulties voters will encounter tomorrow. We can hope there will be few, but the question is, why should there be any?

We cannot call ourselves a democracy if we cannot hold a fair and accurate election. Another election won by either candidate within the margin of mischief is unacceptable. In a landslide, a few uncounted or miscounted votes, while not acceptable, will not affect the outcome of the election. But in an election that is close, especially with our outdated electoral college, a fair and accurate count is essential.

In a democracy, holding fair and accurate elections must be the number one priority!

We accept the thought that people should pay their taxes, but they shouldn't have to pay one more penny than they are legally obligated. Said differently, do everything you can to minimize the amount you must legally pay, but if you can cheat and not get caught - go for it. Our current system treats elections much the same way. If you can manipulate an election to you or your party's favor, go for it. It doesn't matter if what you are doing is essentially preventing a qualified voter from voting or tricking them into voting the way you want them to vote. As long as you don't get caught - go for it.

I suggest that for presidential elections, the ballot be limited to federal offices, president/vice-president and Congress. Why should there be long lines because of long ballots? Why should elections be swayed by contentious ballot issues whose main purpose may be to affect presidential voting? Democracy is worth the cost and inconvenience of having another election for these other issues on a different day.

While I'm not in favor of the federal government running the national election. I would be in favor of a non-partisan group establishing requirements that states would have to meet. Our current system allows local and state politicians to game the system to their party's advantage.

I hope this election is not won within the margin of mischief, but I can't understand why, eight years after we saw what problems incompetent and/or malicious election officials can cause, we are still facing a national election with worries about whether or not it will be fair and accurate.

The Dark Side

Jane Mayer's book "The Dark Side" was more disturbing than Woodward's book. I have to admit I started to read "Hubris" (by David Corn and Michael Isikoff) right after I finished "Cobra II" (by Michael Gordon and Gen. Bernard Trainor) and had to stop reading because I went into overload. The lies, deceptions and mismanagement were just too much. I was getting sick. So I waited a few month's before tackling Jane Mayer's book. Even with the pause to calm my anger, several times while reading this book I had to pause again for fear I would soon jump up and start screaming. At other points I just became very sad for the things that were done in our name.

Much of the story about torture and the attack on civil liberties had already been documented in the press., but I was struck by several points.

It is clear that the emotion driving the White House after 9/11 was not fear, but panic. The basic policy mandate was not analyze, but act. The extent to which panic overrode everything, even the Constitution, was amazing.

I was also struck by their total disregard for civil liberties, international law, the Constitution of the United States and in many cases, common decency, fairness and common sense. The guidance from the top, particularly the Vice-President, was that we are in a war for our existence and we should do anything and everything to counter this threat. One can understand this rational on 9/11, but that mind set prevailed for several years.

People who were identified as "bad" were no longer human. They no longer had any rights including the right to know what they were accused of or defend their innocence. While there were terrorists in the group of people that were tortured, there were also many innocent people who were tortured for extended periods. The fact that they were innocent didn't really seem to matter. It also sounds like there are still people, dead and possibly alive, that we do not know about. I think the torture program was much broader than I thought and there may still be people imprisoned, tortured and killed that we will never know about.

I was amazed at the lengths people would go to sanction and defend these terrible torture policies.

I was also amazed with how many people had no moral compass or whose compass always pointed up. When legal opinions were needed to justify torture, the question was not what does the law tell us, but how do we twist the law to justify what the people we report to want us to do. The extent of this legal and moral plasticity was at times breathtaking.

I was somewhat surprised, and a little ashamed at my surprise, at how many good people stood up to authority, resisted pressure and took personal risks to do what they thought was right. Much went wrong in the last few years, but even when this administration went to great lengths to surround itself with right thinking, compliant, sycophants, it managed to let in some people who were willing to take risks to do the right thing. There are heroes in this book.

I think it is important that people read Jane Mayer's book. The use of torture was more widespread than I had appreciated. But even more importantly, I came away with the strong feeling that freedom is tenuous and the threat is more internal than external. I can't seem to find the right words to explain how this book has affected me, but it did. Of all the terrible things that happened on 9/11 and since then, I wonder if the Bush descent to the "Dark Side" is the worst.

If you read this book, hang in there and read the entire book. It has a lot of details that get wrapped up into a hell by the end.