Yeah, and?

OK, so we're somehow surprised?

The "public option" in health care has been so watered down and so restricted that it's mostly only going to be available to the unprofitable people... and now the CBO comes back and says "It's going to cost more than current premiums to support", and anti-reform people are crowing that this proves it was a stupid idea to begin with.

So let's look at an analogy.

Let's consider when Sam Walton was starting Wal*Mart. He's got a good idea, and he sees the inefficiencies of the little, locally owned stores, and he says "I think I can take some of the inefficiency out of the system and thereby sell products more cheaply."

Now, let's imagine there was a powerful lobby group for the Mom and Pop shops. These lobbyists have given large amounts of money to a significant number of congressional leaders, and fed them the line that this new lower pricing is somehow bad for America. And they manage to work in regulation with Sam Walton that significantly reduces his ability to leverage his bulk purchasing into lower costs. And the Mom & Pop shops don't want to lose any paying customers, so another regulation is put into place that the new Wal*Mart stores will only be available to the poor and those who have been convicted of shoplifting, the people who don't really have access to the regular stores. And then, because that STILL feels to someone like too great a risk of competition, more regulation is added that says states can opt out of having Wal*Mart stores at all, so some states may just refuse to allow the stores in at all.

Do you think Wal*Mart would have been successful at that point? Oh, and by the way, we also pass a law at the same time that REQUIRES everyone to purchase certain goods that are only available from the Mom & Pop shops and from Wal*Mart (but again, from Wal*Mart only to the "undesirable" customer base).

And to top it all off, you don't even have any cost controls at all on the Mom & Pop shops, so while they're about to be handed a much larger customer base (from which they can skim the cream and leave the undesirables to the new Wal*Mart stores), they've also managed to convince a lot of people that this new legislation is somehow going to hurt them, so they're going to jack up their already high prices even higher. And why not, they have a legacy anti-trust exemption, so in some states, they're really the only game in town. No real competition, mandated customers, why the hell wouldn't they raise their prices insanely?

The Public Option isn't failing because it's a bad idea, it's failing because it's been so watered down by Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats as to become a joke.

They ALL Lie To Us

I was watching last night's "Countdown, with Keith Olbermann", and I got about 5 minutes into it and I had to turn it off, after Mr. Olbermann and Senator Grassley both lied to me.

Olbermann first, because his was the more egregious, in my view:

Olbermann was talking about Sen. Grassley's latest attempt to forestall health care reform, by claiming that "forcing every citizen to buy something violates the 10th Amendment", claiming that it'd be the first time in the history of this nation that the federal government had forced citizens to buy a product.

Olbermann breaks into the clip and says "Oh yeah? Heard of mandatory car insurance?"

This may not be well known, but car insurance isn't mandatory at the federal level. I know, because here in NH, it's not even mandatory at all. Which means that it's not the same situation at all. The 10th Amendment, for those who don't recall, is the one that says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.". Which means that BY DEFINITION, it does not restrict the powers of the States, it restricts ONLY the power of the federal government.

Thus, anything the states do CANNOT violate the 10th Amendment. Therefore, Grassley's argument may hold some water.

In fact, and this is the part that really galls me, a few seconds later, Olbermann replays the clip, with a little more context, and Grassley says something like "...it may be okay for the States to do it, but it's a violation of the 10th Amendment for us to...", and Olbermann repeats his line about car insurance. So not only did he get the law wrong, he actually ignored Grassley when he specifically LISTED the legal issue in question.

Now, on to Senator Grassley: His lie is a bit less blatant, so I'm almost tempted not to call it a lie, just a misdirection. His claim that the federal government has never previously required anyone to buy any service is also bogus. Let's talk about the Interstate Highway System. Let's talk about the NEA. Let's talk about lots of federal programs. OK, maybe Grassley can slip through by claiming that the government paying for something out of tax money isn't quite the same as forcing someone to buy a product. You want a perfect example?

Let's talk about inoculations.

And by the way, Mr. Grassley, let's remember that the Dems wanted a single payer system, paid for by taxes, and it was rejected out of hand, and while you might not like it, by your argument, it's more Constitutionally legal, because it'd be more like those examples above.

So I gave up on last night's Countdown. When both sides are lying to me, it's time to turn off the TV and go do something more mentally stimulating. Like a lobotomy.

And another thing...

Why won't anyone answer the damn question.

The question I keep hearing people ask is "If there is a public option, who would be eligible to choose it?"

And the answer is always "Look, if you like your current insurance, you can keep it."

Fine, that's just ducky, but what if someone *DOESN'T* like their current insurance? Most of the public option plans I've heard debated are limited to small businesses and the otherwise uninsured, and are not available to people who have insurance through their (larger) employer.

So what if I have an insurance company I really don't like, through my large company. Would I have the option to switch? If not, then it's really not that much competition, and that's the name of the game here.

I'm so sick of people "answering" questions with a statement that doesn't even begin to touch on the topic about which they were asked.

Health Insurance Reform

So, let me see if I understand this correctly. I admit, I haven't read all of the Senate Finance bill, but...

It requires all American citizens to have insurance.
It has minimal enforcement of the above.
It has no cost controls on the insurance companies.
It has no public option.
It does nothing to increase competition.
It makes rejecting anyone for insurance illegal.

So... tell me where I'm wrong here...

Doesn't this mean that:

A) a lot more people will buy into the system than before, giving the insurance companies a lot more customers.
B) with those customers required to have insurance, what little incentive there may currently be for insurance companies to keep their profit margin down goes almost entirely away.
C) this means that the insurance companies can charge even higher rates and deny even more claims, and we can't leave because we're required to have insurance.
D) add together the weak enforcement of the insurance mandate and the fact that insurance companies are enjoined from denying anyone coverage who applies for it, there are going to be people who say "the heck with that, I'm not paying for coverage when I don't need it", and will try to buy into the system only when/if they get sick.

So tell me how this bill does anything but guarantee rate increases?

Republicans water the bill down. Insurance companies get their bought Senators on both sides to water the bill down. And what we're left with is a license for those companies to make obscene profits at our expense, and this solves the problems we have with health care in this country how?

This is what I talked about when this whole health care thing started: There is no reform that works and solves all of the problems without at a minimum a strong public option, and better still, a single payer system. A system like TriCare and Medicare, both of which work quite nicely, thank you.

We have a real problem. I haven't run into too many people who disagree on that point (except, of course, for the insurance companies themselves). We need to solve it, and to do so, we need something radical. What they're proposing here will only make the problem worse... and then the people who argued for watering down the bill and argued against a public option or a single payer plan will, come a few years from now, be crowing about how they were right, and what a cluster-**** the "reform" was... without ever admitting or perhaps even realizing that it was they, themselves, who turned a vital reform into something that made the problem worse.

It makes me absolutely sick.

A Prediction

I've been meaning to post this for a few days, and I want to get to it before it's too late.

You want proof that the GOP will find ways to attack anything Obama does and spin it in a bad light: Just watch this story with the "additional troops for Afghanistan" recommended by the General.

If Obama doesn't send those troops, he'll be widely condemned for being weak on national defense, not listening to the generals on the ground, etc.

But if he DOES send those troops, he'll be widely condemned for breaking his campaign promise to bring our troops home and end the war.

And heaven forbid something goes wrong with either of those plans. If he sends more troops and we have a month with a spike in U.S. troop deaths, it will be "Breaking his promise, he sent more of our kids over there to die". If he doesn't, and there's an attack in this country, it'll be "The generals SAID they needed more troops. Obama didn't listen, and people died."

I have to admit, I've given up listening to the Fox News pundits. There's nothing fair or balanced about them. I don't mind the slant so much, I really don't. If they were consistent in their condemnations, if they were slanted towards the conservative ideology and applied that evenly, I'd have respect for them, even when I disagreed with them.

But they aren't slanted towards conservatism, they're slanted towards Republicans, and so they're not espousing an opinion, they're spewing propaganda. I'll pass, thanks.

Q&A

As I sometimes like to do, this is a cross-posted question and my answer from another source. During a conversation, someone asked the question of me, and the response is mine.


Q: Liam, do you find the fact that Obama has cancelled the National day of prayer, but approved a day of prayer for Muslims concerning?

A: I find your mis-characterization of both facts a bit concerning.

First, he didn't cancel the National Day of Prayer, he simply observed it privately rather than in public. And in spite of the dangerous levels of mixture of religion and politics in recent years, I think that's correct. I don't believe our political leader should be leading us all in any religious observance in a nation where we have the freedom to choose our own religious views and not have them imposed or infringed upon by our government. If we someday have a Jewish President, or a Hindu President or a Muslim President or a Scientologist President, I don't want him or her to try to lead the country in his beliefs, and so I don't think a President who shares my beliefs should be trying to lead anybody in them, either. That's what freedom of religion is all about.

Second, Obama's "approval" of a Muslim day of prayer amounts to the same level of observance he gave the Christian one: He gave it recognition but did not publicly participate. The level of religious bigotry in your trying to paint the SAME action as somehow skewed in favor of the Muslim religion is pretty hard to stomach.

It's what he, in his official capacity as President, SHOULD do. Treat all religions equally as much as possible under law. (By which I mean if a religion calls for human saccrifice, he can't give blessing to that rite, of course).

But if we're going to have an officially recognized national day of prayer organized by one religion, then any other religion that wants to have one should also be granted recognition... and the President should either publicly participate in ALL of them (which he probably wouldn't have time to do) or NONE of them.

So no, in the end, I don't find Obama's behavior in this troubling. It is the inherent bigotry in the question that I find troubling.

Fun With Czars

This video is called "Dancing With The Czars". It's from the DNC, so you should be aware that their count of Czars under the Bush Administration includes Czar positions that were held by multiple people over the course of the administration. Still, by honest accounting, Obama still has at least one or two FEWER Czar positions than Bush did.





Now, the last time I posted such a thing, I had one person reply that his problem wasn't with the number of Czars but with the specific people Obama is choosing for his Czar positions.

But I've got several responses to that. First off, that's not what I'm hearing from most people. Glenn Beck is trumpeting not the QUALITY of the Czars, but the QUANTITY, and trying to whip his followers into a froth over the false "fact" that Obama has an unprecedented number of Czars.

Second, we should be surprised that Obama's Czars are going to have liberal tendencies? News flash: he was elected as a direct response to 8 years of conservative rule that the majority of voters did not feel made this country stronger or better. That's why the political pendulum swings... we get tired of one side, then we get tired of the other.

Third, among the things that people tired of in the Bush Administration was people being put into positions of authority that came out of the industries themselves or from the lobbying group for those industries. How many foxes could be put in charge of hen houses before people were going to get tired of chickens mysteriously disappearing? If the only alternative to that is someone whose past is a little bit more socialist than I'd prefer, well, I'll still take actual oversight over what we had recently.

And finally, I'm having a really hard time figuring out the complaints anyway. I've had people send me links about some of these guys, and the complaints seem more often than not to relate to something OTHER than the job the person was chosen for. If I need open-heart surgery, I don't particularly care if the surgeon has a history of speaking out on the opposite side from me on political issues, I only care if he's a damned fine surgeon. But on top of that, there's the whole "boy who cried wolf" syndrome again.

Obama has been in office for 8 months now, and I've lost count of how many people have been tarred as "the most liberal" this or "the most socialist" that. A supreme court nominee who in private was the Right Wing's wet dream, a jurist originally nominated to the bench by a Republican, and significantly further to the right than the Justice she was replacing, and yet they still tried to tar her with the "extreme liberal" brush, so that they could not only get someone who was as far to the right as they could reasonably expect, but still score some cheap political points.

They're STILL humping William Ayers as a terrorist and Obama's best buddy, when in fact everything I've read indicates they hardly knew each other, and Ayers has done a lot of atoning since the 70s.

They're still trying to tell us that health care reform means government telling us when Grandma has to die. They're still trying to tell us that Obama was not born in this country when there's simply no credible evidence to that effect and an overwhelming set of evidence that he was born in Hawaii.

So at this point, I'm afraid another blog post frothing at the digital mouth about how this advisor or that Czar wrote a paper in college supporting one socialist policy or another just doesn't convince me of anything. I just hear the boy crying wolf again and go about my business.

And one last note, by the way: there is no such title in the government as "Czar". It's a shorthand developed by the media for what had previously been known as "policy advisors". One of the first of these "Czars" was the guy in charge of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. That was a bit of a mouthful, and a lot for reporters to type, so they coined the term "drug czar".

And so ultimately, this whole anti-czar crusade has the same intellectual honesty as the re-labeling Prisoners of War as "Enemy Combatants", and by the same token, I could (if I were inclined to be just as intellectually dishonest) point out in all truthfulness that the number of officially designated "Enemy Combatants" increased by whatever factor I chose under President Bush, and I could write it in such a way as to imply that Bush created all of these terrorists and other enemies of the state, and was thus the worst President ever. After all, since he created the new designation, there were none before him, and there existed some under his administration. Mathematically, that's an infinite increase, so I could say "more than doubled" or "more than 10 times as many" or "more than a million times as many", whatever number I thought would be large enough to scare people but small enough to sound credible, and I wouldn't be lying.

If worded carefully, such an argument could be made without ever making any statement which was false, but yet the overall impression given would be a blatant falsehood: That President Bush was somehow responsible for the creation of all of these "Enemy Combatants", rather than simply for their labeling.

The same is true here. If you look at what they ARE, instead of what they are CALLED, these "czar" policy advisors have existed since before anyone alive today was born.

Then again, I'm not sure why I'm still ranting. Those who are going to get anything out of this probably already realize what I'm saying, and those who happily swallow every implied smear against Obama's character will most assuredly either have stopped reading long since (having convinced themselves that I'm just another lying liberal) or have already started to rationalize away the things I've said in favor of some bit of spin or other they've heard that they think disproves what I've said.

Glenn Beck: An Ex-Pat's View

Someone forwarded me this article, written in the U.K.'s Guardian newspaper. It is a piece by an ex-New Yorker who has, in the years since 9/11/2001, moved to Britain, written in reaction to Glenn Beck's 9/12 project.

Click through and read it, then come back and read my thoughts, below (if you're interested).

* * *

Y'know, when I first heard Beck speak of the 9/12 project, I understood his point, but I thought he was being awfully selective. For every bit of unity we felt as a nation, there was a whole lot more shock, a whole lot more anger, a whole lot more fear and a whole lot more "damn the consequences, get the bastards", even though we as yet had no idea who "the bastards" were.

We were hardly the altruistic, fellow-man-loving people Beck romanticizes, we were a terrified mob, willing to string up whoever was responsible, and in the absence of any definitive proof as to who that was, happily ready to string up whoever we happened to find convenient, and willing to throw away our own rights and trample those of others in the thirst for vengeance and for a way to not feel quite so powerless and afraid.

I wish that I could believe something, anything, good came out of 9/11, no matter how small. But it didn't. It was an act of complete evil, and one which we merely managed to survive.

No one who truly loves this country would take us back to that day. No one.

Governments Can't Run Health Care? Really?

Today, I learned some new statistics, and I'm wondering what's left to the argument that government health care causes worse results.

Comparing the United States to Great Britain (socialized health care), Canada and Germany (government single-payer systems), two fun statistics.

First, from the CIA comes infant mortality rates. The rates are given in number of deaths per thousand live births, so the lower the number, the better.

The United States comes in a perfectly respectable 6.26. That's a rank of 180 out of 224 (in this case, the higher the rank, the better. Singapore is #224, with 2.31 infant deaths per 1000 live births).

Canada is #189 (5.04), the U.K. #193 (4.85) and Germany #210 (3.99). All three systems have better infant survival rates that the United States.

Also from the CIA, there is a list of average life expectancies. Of 224 countries, the U.S. comes in 50th, with an average life expectancy of 78.11. This time the LOWER rank is better, the #1 rank is held by Macau with an average life expectancy of 84.36.

The U.K. is #36 (79.01), Germany is #32 (79.26) and Canada is #8 (81.23). Again, each significantly better than the U.S.

So the question I have is this: With these results, how is it that I'm supposed to be afraid of the government getting involved in my health care?

***

Update: Someone just pointed out that France spends 11% of their GDP and covers everyone, we spend 16.5% of ours and leave about 20% of those under 65 un-covered. So I figured I'd check where France fell on the above metrics. They beat all of the above on infant mortality, coming in at #217 (3.33 deaths per thousand live births), and they come in just behind Canada at #9 on the longevity list, with an average life expectancy of 80.98.

One more check in the "government run health care" box.

Forget What I Said Yesterday

Y'know what, forget what I said yesterday. This isn't the place for it.

I still intend to see if I can push this, but re-purposing an essentially failed blog isn't the place for it. If we get started, I/we will start a new one, and I'll redirect my 3 regular readers to look there as we get started.

But this place should remain a place for me to talk about the things I feel I need to talk about, even if it is mostly just to myself.

That said, I've just finished reading this piece by Maureen Dowd of the NY Times, and I wanted to comment.

In the piece, Ms. Dowd makes a pretty strong case that the "you lie" heckling by South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson was prompted primarily by a racist inability to accept that a man of African American heritage is President, and goes on to provide a reasonable argument that this may be an endemic problem throughout the south.

For the first time in my life time, we have what seems like credible groups discussing secession of their varied states. In my life, there have been groups in various states, most notably VT and TX, that have advocated for secession, but these groups never rose to the level of prominence that one could believe that it might actually happen, but I'm not sure I recall a sitting Governor advocating for secession.

And right now, I'm torn between believing that my country is strong enough to overcome this, just as it was strong enough to overcome the civil war and the integration of schools and the striking down of anti-miscegenation laws, and wondering if this racism will actually be enough to rend my country into pieces.

And I find the racism sickening. Literally, physically sickening.

I'm probably over-reacting. In fifteen or twenty years, there will be new troubles to face and I'll probably look back on today, bouncing my grandchildren on my knee, and if I think of it at all, feel silly for having worried.

Still, the powers of hatred are strong, and I think we ignore them at our peril.

This doesn't end as strong as I would like it to, but these are just my thoughts for today.

It Might Just Happen

I'm hoping to re-dedicate this blog to a new purpose in the coming months.

Anyone who has been reading for any length of time at all knows my position on our voting system: How I believe that our country would be strengthened considerably by moving to a system of "instantaneous run-off" elections in which a candidate had to take more than 50% of the vote to attain high office (at this point I'm thinking of federal level stuff, I'm not sure enough people pay attention to their local stuff to differentiate between a plurality of candidates).

I believe this would break the two-party stranglehold that the Democrats and the Republicans have on our Federal government. It would give both of them more targets to vie against, so that they couldn't spend all of their time polarizing us as a society into a people whom (at least the vast majority) believe that their party are the forces of good and the other party a batch of corrupt evil people out to destroy the country for their own gain.

The majority party (or at least, the party with the highest number of seats) in most countries that have such a system has a lower percentage of power than the minority party in our Congress.

They say power corrupts, but in our system, when it does, we have only one viable option: Hope that the other guys have sufficiently recovered from THEIR last bout with power and corruption to be better than the current guys. I remember a quote by one of the Republicans about 5 years ago to the effect of "The Democrats took 40 years in the majority to become this corrupt. We've managed to do it in 7." The quote is approximate, and I forget who made it, but it demonstrates my point: We voted the Democrats back into power because the Republicans had become corrupt, but it had only been 12 years since the Democrats LOST power due to their own corruption. Quite a few of the same people are still in Congress from those days.

So here's why I'm hoping over the next weeks or months to rededicate this blog to that purpose: I have recently become re-acquainted with a friend of mine from high school. He has apparently become something of a high powered ad man, and so while I have what I think are good ideas, I have no idea how to get my message out there for people to hear (as evidenced by the double digit (at its peak) readership of this blog).

He and I agree that the first thing we need to do is get a "Million Man March" sort of thing, with roughly half being supporters of the red guys and half supporters of the blue guys, to march on Washington and tell our elected leaders that we're tired of their first priority being their own party's power and their second being their donors, and only a distant third their constituents.

And based on the things he's been doing since High School (while I've been fiddling around with making computers do funky things), he might actually have some idea as to how to create such an event and get people to hear about it.

I'll write more if we actually decide to take this on. It's a huge task, and we both have lives. But we're also both extremely frustrated with the path this country is on, and so we may very well do this.

Finally, I just want to say that if we ever manage to make this a real thing, and we end up doing publicity for it on the late night shows, I want dibs on the Daily Show. ;-)

Liam.

Enough Already

At what point do people look at the Republican party and Fox News and say "Enough"? Enough lies about the President. Enough false outrage about death panels. Enough pretending that a birth certificate validated by a state isn't sufficient. Enough fear-mongering that encouraging speeches to children as given by Presidents throughout my life time are unprecedented indoctrinations of our youth.

How long until all of their credibility is gone?

I was talking with my Mother this morning, and she asked me for my opinion on some political topics, because she considered me fair minded, and I had to tell her that I'm afraid I'm not any more.

Not because I don't want to be, but because there are only so many times you can hear something and find it to be a lie before you stop hearing it. And the Right Wing Machine has cried wolf so many times now, and demonstrably so, that I'm afraid if Obama DID do something heinous and horrible, it would take extraordinary proof for me to believe it.

And it's not that I'm some huge partisan Democrat, I never have been. It's that in a bit over 7 months of a Presidency, I've already seen so many lies told about this President that I'm beginning to numb to them.

The first few, I investigated carefully. The next few, it took significantly less time for me to become convinced that the accusers were lying.

I pray they day doesn't come when there will be something to it, and I'll just ignore it as the boy is eaten by the wolf. Except that in the story, it is the boy who lied who ends up eaten. In this modern crying of wolf, the boy who lies won't be the boy who dies, the boy who dies may be my country.

And I can only hope and pray that Obama is something close to the man his supporters believe him to be, something significantly more than the last 8 years have given us.

Because I, for one, have had enough of the lies, the liars, and the people who (in some cases through no fault of their own) trust the liars.

ENOUGH!

Three Different Health Care Systems

Folks,

I keep hearing the term "socialized medicine" and "socialism" tossed around with regard to health insurance reform, and I get the sense that a lot of people don't really understand the terms, so I wanted to give a little primer.

There are three different systems that people talk about.

Socialized Medicine

In a fully socialized medical system, health care is not in any way a commodity. Doctors all work for the government, and are paid a salary. Hospitals are owned and run by the government. Pharmacies are owned and run by the government. This is the sort of health care system they have in Britain, their "National Health Service", the one that according to Investors Weekly, would have never allowed Stephen Hawking to survive (although it turns out he's a British citizen, and so has been under NHS care his entire life).

Regardless, that argument was spurious on its face, because at no point since the last election has anyone seriously suggested such a system be put in place here in the U.S.

Single Payer

This is what Canada and much of the rest of Europe has. Doctors and hospitals are still private enterprises, paid by a single health care insurance system run by the government. In the U.S., Medicare, Medicaid and the Veterans plan (which I believe is called "TriCare") are all examples of single payer systems.

In some countries and some systems you can "opt out" of such a system, in others it's just part of your taxes, there is universal coverage in much the same way we have universal roads. You can't "opt out" of the road system here, because you don't have any way of figuring out what portion of your taxes go to road building and maintenance, and you can't get out of paying that portion even if you wanted to.

Such a system has no competition, of course, but it's not run for profit, and spreading insurance over as wide a population as possible, it works in the way insurance is meant to work: Everyone pays into the system whether they need it or not. The ones who get unlucky and need it, get to use it without having it ruin them financially on top of their physical malady. Those who are lucky and don't need it in their entire lives lose, but they still gained the comfort of knowing that IF they got sick, it wouldn't be an additional fiscal burden on top of the physical.

Such a system has been debated, but was taken off the table in the very first compromise the Democrats made with the Republicans (the same Republicans who will look at a bill with tens or hundreds of Republican amendments to it and say "See! The Democrats aren't willing to negotiate or compromise!"). None of the current proposals contain a "single payer" system, although there are those who believe it should.

Public Option

This is what's actually being proposed, and even that is under extreme risk of going away, with all this talk of "socialism", in favor of a watered down bill that will solve no problems and potentially cause more.

Under a public option plan, the government provides a plan such as the "single payer" plan above, but runs it as any other insurance policy, paid for by premiums, and available as an option only. Under such a system, there is no mandate for people to use that particular plan; if a person (or more likely, a company) likes the service they're getting from a private insurer, they're welcome to stay with that private insurer. It just provides a non-profit baseline for comparison, and being government-run, will generally accept people on to its rolls that the private insurance companies deny coverage to.


And by the way, it turns out that we are the only westernized nation that allows insurance companies to be for-profit entities, which is (at least in part) the problem. Competition has been minimized and insurance companies are one of the few industries not subject to anti-trust legislation, meaning that in some places one company can hold a virtual monopoly.

As a result, we have an industry that can afford to spend (according to PBS) $1.4 million every day to fight health insurance reform. Think about that: Their profits are so large, that they can both afford to spend, and are WILLING to spend the equivalent of half a billion dollars per year to defend their cash cow.

Now, decide as you will. But to me, the current system is untenable, and we either need to break down the barriers to competition (which the industry will fight), add in a new option for competition (which the industry will fight) or pass a law disallowing insurance companies from being for-profit companies (which the industry will fight).

A lot of this "socialism" stuff is coming from the PR campaigns bought by that $1.4 million dollars each day ($1.4 million that isn't going to pay for someone's health care, as it would be with a non-profit).

Finally, if we decide to break down the barriers to competition, as some have suggested, take away the states' rights to regulate who can operate in their state and what restrictions they'll be under, we also have to remove the anti-trust exception for insurance companies. Without that, likely we'd have a little bit more competition, but because most health care insurance policies are written by one of four or five major companies, they would likely just agree among themselves to divvy up the territory and maintain the status quo.

Data Mining

Update (9/3):

I've done some digging, and I THINK I've found the origin of this story, and as seems to happen a lot with "Ooooh, look at what big bad Obama" stories, the actual facts are pretty harmless.

As far as I can tell, this archival project comes out of the White House trying to follow existing laws in untested waters.

Recall that one of the many complaints about the Bush White House is that large numbers of official e-mails were not archived properly, and there was some evidence early on of staffers using private e-mail accounts on Yahoo, GMail, etc for official business, to avoid the archiving.

So anyway, the Obama White House has taken web presence to unprecedented levels, with accounts on Twitter, MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, etc. And since this is all electronic communication, they're archiving it. And because these sites all allow people to post comments and send e-mails TO the accounts, they're archiving that as well.

And they MAY be being a tad overzealous in the amount they archive, but the intent is to make sure they fully comply with the intent of the laws, even though they've not yet been tested in these arenas.

I'm guessing that many of the same people who are to today yelling about invasions of privacy and big brother and the like would be the same people who, if they WEREN'T doing this, in a few years would be asking "What are they covering up, that they won't show us the archives of their Facebook communications?"

And if you think I'm being overly simplistic, just remember that these same people have been telling us that Obama wants us to turn in our friends and neighbors for opposing health care, when in fact he asked people to tell him about UNTRUTHS about health care. Not who told them, just the untruths themselves, so that they (the White House) could effectively correct the record.

I'm going to consider this matter closed, unless someone comes to me with conclusive evidence that there's more to it than this. I doubt that will happen.

-----------------------

This is the response I wrote to the posting at this link.

To me, this smells a lot like a propaganda effort. We know people are a bit testy about the illegal spying program that Bush put into place, so lets take something the Obama administration is doing that sounds, superficially, to be similar, and see if we can transfer that anger from Republicans to Democrats.

Keep in mind that the difference between the two is that the earlier program was sifting through (reportedly) all of our phone calls and e-mails, things which are supposed to be relatively private and are supposed to require a court order to access. The second is a program to compile a database of the public information people put on Facebook. It may be creepy to compile it all into a database, but then again, I have friends on there under pseudonyms like "Mare Astra" and "Terma Gant". All they're going to have is a list of your public statements associated with as much of your identifying information as you chose to leave public.

Anyway, here's what I wrote in my comment on the site:


So, let me get this straight... we didn't make a big deal with the previous administration went through our (ostensibly private) e-mails and phone records, but we're going to have a tizzy when this administration goes through the PUBLIC information we put on file with Facebook?

I'm not entirely happy about this, but to me there's a huge difference between compiling publicly available data vs. snooping through things that are supposed to be private and are supposed to require a court order in order to see.

To me, this whole uproar smacks of people trying to tap into the outrage over the illegal spying to use it to tarnish the current administration.

It's Facebook, people. They can only access the stuff you put out and available for everyone to see!

A Great Health Care Read

I know a lot of the people that most need to read this will dismiss it because of the source, and that's sad.

But if you go to this link, you can read an excellent answer to all of the health care reform naysayers' arguments, and a really compelling argument in favor of a public option in the health insurance market.

Check it out. Seriously. Even if you don't want your mind changed, just want to understand the other side a little bit better than "they're socialists who want to destroy America".

Just read it. Please.

Chill Out: Humor Isn't Dead

(And Hyperbole CERTAINLY isn't).

There's an echoing meme making its way through the collective consiousness (or at least, through the media) that the election of Barack Obama has killed political comedy.

Now, I supposed Time magazine (this week, the latest to weigh in on the phenomenon, and I must admit I've only skimmed the start of the article, so I don't know what conclusions they come to) has to fill column inches to stay alive, but c'mon...

Every time there's a new administration, people question whether it's going to be bad for late night shows and comedians, apparently on the mistaken assumption that there actually exists a politician who won't have any scandals, who won't after the ubiquity of the Presidency have ticks and foibles to make fun of and who will never be seen as anything but serious and low-key.

Here's a thought: A new President is GOOD for political comedy. Yes, it makes the job a little harder, but that refreshes the humor for a while! How many more times can we watch Jon Stewart of the Daily Show (and I pick on him because he's still one of the best) do his snarky little Bush laugh or his "Dick Cheney as the Penguin"? He, at least, finds ways to keep the CONTENT of the routine fresh and funny, but how much more comedic gold is there to be wrung out of the recurring Dick Cheney segment "You don't know D*CK"?

Every four or eight years, it's time for the political comedians to get off of their asses and do their jobs, stop riffing on years-old material and actually come up with something new and funny to say. The good ones do it without trouble, to give props where I previously dinged, I have no question the Daily Show will continue to serve up good offerings under this or any other administration.

But the bad ones... the ones who have been feeding us a diet of Iraq jokes and malapropisms and "Dick Cheney is Darth Vader" for the last 5 years. This will be hard on them, but GOOD for comedy, and thus GOOD for us.

I wanted to close this with a call back to an essay I wrote about 4 months back on how there was no "death of the Republican party" as some where saying, any more than there was a "permanent Republican majority" as Tom DeLay and Karl Rove were claiming prior to the 1996 elections... but then I realized that I wrote that one on a business trip and I don't think I ever posted it, and one of the things they teach you about writing is that a call back is really only effective if there's a good chance your readers have READ the thing you're calling back to.

So instead I'll just say that superlatives are rarely accurate and hyperbole is not the greatest thing ever. Tired political comedy will return with familiarity. The Republican party will return with the contempt that familiarity breeds.

In the words of a picture that was going around the internet last November and December, but with Obama replaced by Father Time: Chill out, MF-ers, I got this.

Illegals and Health Care: A Reality Check

Once again, everyone is simplifying the arguments, and once again, everyone is wrong.

The opponents of health care reform are bleating that the Obama plan would grant coverage to illegal aliens, the clear implication being that this would be something new that they do not already have.

Health care reform advocates counter that there's nothing in the bill to give health care to illegal immigrants, the clear implication being that no illegal will be treated on the dime of U.S. taxpayers.

Both implications are false (well, depending on the final plan, of course).

The opponents' claims are false because right now, our emergency rooms are mandated to treat anyone who comes through the door, regardless of ability to pay (insured or not). Are you willing to bet any money that illegals don't know this and aren't bothering to go to the hospital when sick or injured?

Which means that it's a meaningless bogeyman. If illegals manage to slip through under the new health care system, it just replaces the way they slip through under the current system. Yes, perhaps the new system may not make things any better in this regard, but it's clearly disingenuous to argue against repairing a hole in a boat with a non-working motor on the grounds that after the repair, the boat's motor won't work. A change in plan which fixes something and leaves the rest essentially the same is a good change.

Now, as to the proponents claims, it's harder to tell how false they are, because the final plan hasn't been written, but let's assume the absolute worst case scenario (as presented by the opponents), a fully socialized medicine system. If I go to Canada, or England, or France, or Germany, and I break my arm, the hospital doesn't (as I understand it) demand to see my papers before they will treat me. The system is set up to be available to people who need it, and so if I show up, I can use it.

I'm inclined to guess that a socialized system in this country wouldn't be set up to demand passports or other serious documentation of a patient's citizenship before treating them, especially not in the case of emergency treatment.

Now, since a "single payer" (aka "socialized") system isn't even on the table right now, it's possible that proponents are actually correct in this one, that by making health care reform by way of a "public insurance option", we might actually PREVENT some illegals from obtaining care, IF insurance becomes universal for citizens, and IF the law requiring emergency rooms to treat everyone is repealed, and IF in order to buy insurance (or at least, to get subsidies for insurance), proof of citizenship is required.

In that case, only those illegals who have convincingly forged papers would still be treated, but let's be honest: forged papers aren't something we're going to take care of now or ever, certainly not as part of a health care bill.

So the truth is that yes, some people in this country illegally WILL get health care, some of which WILL be subsidized by the taxpayer (either through taxes or through higher medical costs, which in turn raises their insurance premiums, etc), but that this situation already exists, so to present it as something the plan will GIVE to illegals is wrong.

Liam.

Funding Musings...

This whole health care debate is raising my blood pressure. How an amendment, originally offered by a Republican, allowing (not mandating) end-of-life counselling (paid for by Medicare) has turned into "Obama wants to decide if senior citizens live or die" is beyond me.

Well, no, it isn't, I know very well how it happened. But it disgusts me that scoring political points is more important than even something as crucial to our nation as health care reform.

But that's not what I want to talk about this morning.

One of the charges I'm hearing a lot on the left is that the protesters shouting down Democratic town halls are mostly funded by the insurance industry.

Now, I understand how this LOOKS bad. I understand that the insurance industry is giving that money because THEY don't want additional competition. And I certainly understand how shouting down a town meeting is not only not "democracy in action", it is in fact anti-democratic, not allowing opposing voices and viewpoints to be heard.

But... the funding itself does not prove anything to me, necessarily, about the motives of the protesters.

The way I see it, there are two possibilities. I know which one I THINK is going on, but I don't believe it's proved, certainly not by the trail of money.

Possibility number one is that insurance companies give money to people who agree with them. That is, these people *ALREADY* disagreed with health care reform, and already had their agenda, and just went to like-minded people for donations. There's really nothing wrong with that. If I want my Belgian beer to cost less, I might be against a proposed tariff on imported beers. And the Belgian beer companies are probably also against the tariff, but for very different reasons. Common desires make for common bedfellows, even if the reasons are entirely different (I couldn't particularly care less whether they sell more beer or not, and they probably don't care how much I pay for that beer, except to the extent that it affects my choice as to whether TO buy the beer).

Possibility number two is that the insurance companies have contracted with these firms which specialize is ginning up "grass roots" support for one topic or another. The companies and their firms then come up with a set of talking points (like "Obama wants to kill your grandmother" and "Obama's plan will make you give up your current insurance" and "Obama's plan will ration health care", all of which are demonstrably either false or, at best, no change from the current situation) and then go out and make people angry by presenting those talking points as fact and then sending them out.

It seems to me that there's more of the second in this case, just in the fact that the protesters all seem to have the same set of false or misleading talking points. It seems to me that people who have an honest dislike for something, show up and talk about it. Those who have an agenda show up and try to shout down all opposition.

But still, I don't see that it's all that sinister, necessarily, that the funding for anti-health-care-reform might come from the people who stand to gain the most by the status quo.

Who else are the "I don't want this health care reform" groups going to go to? The DNC?

Just my thoughts for today.

Fun Fun...

There's a minor fire-storm on the internet going on about a health care reform protester named Kenny Gladney.

Anti-health-care web sites are claiming Gladney was "brutally" attacked, and the post a video to "prove" it, but the video does not comport with the descriptions of the "brutal beating".

The video shows a man on the ground (reportedly, although this is not seen in the video tape) having been shoved BY Gladney. Someone else pulls Gladney to the ground (ostensibly to keep him off of the other person, who is already on the ground). Gladney jumps right back up, the police take control. A lot of yelling, but with the exception of the man on the ground at the start, Gladney being pulled to the ground and quickly getting back up, and a couple of minor pushes, there's nothing. No punches, no kicks, nothing that should lead to anyone needing medical treatment.

Presumably if it happened AFTER the police were there (and thus, after the end of the video tape), then the police report would document it.

Anyway, here's the fun part. Mr. Gladney claimed injuries and went to the hospital. He has since appeared in public in various medical accoutrements such as casts and wheel chairs. And he is asking for donations to help with his medical bills, since he was laid off from his job a while back and has no health insurance.

That's right, a guy protesting health care reform designed to help people in his EXACT situation. To me, there is a karmic justice (assuming the video tape is all that actually happened).

You can read more on it at this link:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_08/019423.php

Health Care Reform - Do You Have Health Insurance?

I came across an interesting take on what it means to be insured. The site makes a pretty good argument that almost none of us are really insured (except those covered under Medicare).

You can read it here.

Essentially, the author makes the argument that since most of us have health insurance through our jobs, and a lot of people are finding that their jobs are not as secure as they once thought, we don't have reliable health insurance.

He also points out that one of the things that can cause someone to lose their job is a protracted illness, and that while COBRA does exist, losing ones job kind of makes paying the full premiums (generally over $1000/month for family coverage) very difficult. Thus, the time when you most need your health insurance is one of the times you're most likely to lose it.

I did have an issue with his take on things, which I wrote in a comment on his article, and have reproduced below.

Still, the people who are buying into the insurance-company-sponsored hype that all this reform will be bad for those of us who have insurance are not considering what happens if they contract a catastrophic illness and lose their coverage.

I would love to have someone with some actual facts give me reasons why health care reform is a bad thing. Not false claims like "reform just means the government killing the elderly" and "this is government taking over health care, which won't work" and "every country that has this has worse health care than we have, with longer lines and rationing".

None of those talking points is true, they're lies designed to scare you into letting the private insurance companies continue to treat you like a sponge, wringing you dry as long as you have money in your pocket, but tossing you aside the moment there's nothing left to wring from you.

Anyway, as promised, here follows my response to the author of the link above...

--------------------------

There is one point that needs to be taken care of in your otherwise reasonable article: The people who don't grasp that paying into the system while you are healthy is an integral part of the system working.

I can't tell you how often I've heard people complain about Massachusetts' plan, saying they don't like it because they are required to have health insurance, and they don't need it, so why should they have to pay for it?

These same people are the reason why pre-existing limitations exist. If they didn't, if the insurance companies COULDN'T refuse anyone or exclude any condition, then why would any of us pay for insurance until we got sick? Skip the premiums, do something more sexy with that money, and then, when some sort of major illness occurs, run out and buy an insurance policy.

I agree that insurance companies should not be allowed to drop you if you get sick, and I agree that insurance companies should not be allowed to refuse you if you've had continuous coverage and lose it due to loss of job or other legitimate reason.

But it's entirely unworkable to expect anyone insuring anyone to be "medical welfare", standing by taking in no money from some segment of the population and then being forced to donate to those same people when they get older and sick.

Liam.

On Socialism vs Capitalism (with a touch of health care thrown in)

I'm having a debate ostensibly on health care with a friend, and he provided this link:

http://mises.org/story/3613

... as a good starting point for his position.

I read through the first of 5 parts (one of the others of which itself has 8 parts) and recognized some core assumptions the author was making with which I disagreed, and out of that came this, which I decided to also post here.

I should say, by the way, that I do agree with the author's assessment early on that "The status quo with respect to medical care does not deserve to be preserved. It does bear the earmarks of financial lunacy. It does call for reform – for radical reform. The question is, what kind of radical reform?"

At least in that article, the author agrees with me (and with most people, I think) that there IS a problem... he just has a radically different opinion of how to attack it. It appears to me that the Republicans and the Blue Dog coalition of Democrats seem to want to preserve the status quo. They talk about "taking the time to get it right", but "taking time" is nearly always code for "delay until something else takes priority, so the thing dies the slow death of attrition".

Anyway, here's where I think the author's fundamental assumptions are faulty. Note that I fully recognize here that my conclusion doesn't invalidate his opinions, merely suggests that some of his core assumptions are faulty.

I think before we can have a legitimate, honest debate over this or any other topic, we have to first all agree on which playing field we're actually on.

--------------------------

In reading the first section, I believe this author makes a fundamental mistake that is prevalent in our society today: Ignoring the middle.

Liberal / Conservative is not a binary state. Socialist / Capitalist is not a binary state. There is a middle ground.

To me, with respect to regulation and "socialist" policies, the current crop of "liberals" are men who just came in from the desert, thus believing that water is essential and everyone should be provided with thousands of gallons of the stuff to live in, while the current crop of "conservatives" are men who have barely escaped drowning and have thus dedicated their lives to banning all water. The truth is somewhere in between: the "liberal" policy will drown us all, the "conservative" policy will have us all dead of dehydration.

So too of communism vs capitalism. Yes, Communism SOUNDS nice, until you factor in human nature and (for just one example) the fact that once the rewards of personal effort are removed from the equation, there's little advancement that people will make, because there's no personal incentive to do so. Communism works WONDERFULLY in families. It CAN work in a small "clan-like" group of people who all care for and love each other. It doesn't work at all in larger groups, where people no longer recognize "the good of the masses" as sufficient motivation to continue working.

Also, since there's ALWAYS someone in charge making sure the system runs, the theory ignores the tendency of power to corrupt those who have it, leading not to a completely egalitarian society, but to a society with a lot of depressed people under the thumb of "the party".

Turning to capitalism. Again, the Libertarian argument SOUNDS great, set up competition and the need to compete fairly in a free market will make everyone behave nicely, so there won't be any need to artificially force them to.

But this ignores several factors. First off, without anti-trust regulation, pretty soon you don't HAVE a free market, you have a small number of big fish, swallowing up all of the smaller fish and then collaborating to keep prices artificially high. But a totally free market is regulation free, so you can't have anti-trust regulations, so we end up with a number of monopolies and two or three major corporations in other markets, "competing" with each other, but ultimately finding more profit in collaborating rather than fully competing. Sure, they'll pounce if there's blood in the water, but as long as there is mutually assured destruction, they'd rather play nice... with each other.

Also, it's very hard for me to see how anyone can still believe in free market economies when we've been so effectively lied to by all corners in the last decade or more. The basis of the free market leading to proper behavior has at its heart that people know what's best for them.

Now, when it comes to two different barbers, that's true. If one guy gives a good haircut and the other a horrible one, you know where the value is. If one guy charges a lot more than the other, you know where THAT value is. You add up all of the values and determine which barber to go to. If everyone comes to the same conclusion, then the other barber had better either change his ways or go out of business.

But suppose you were blind (a horrible caricature of blindness which serves only for the purpose of this example, but which pretty well sums up the state of humanity in more complex arenas) and everyone else you knew was, too, and the only people in town who could see were the two barbers.

Now one barber tells his or her customers how horrible the other barber's hair cuts look, and since the patron can't see, the barber takes the money directly from the patron's wallet and tells them how lucky they are that he's not over charging them, like the other guy. The other guy is ACTUALLY charging less for a better hair cut, but is humbly letting his work and prices speak for themselves, rather than maligning his competitor.

Now there's a "common knowledge" that the more-expensive, less talented barber is "the guy who gives a good haircut and charges a fair price", and more and more people go to him, while the guy whose actually acting in their better interests loses customers.

In a totally free market economy, where are you going to get the information on which drugs are safe and effective, when there are still people who take Shark Cartilage pills because "sharks don't get cancer", even though both the claim and the claimed benefits of the supplement have been proved false?

Or when you see product after product advertised with "personal testimonials", ignoring the fact that there IS random chance in the world.

If you have a stomach ulcer, and you take a pill for a month and your ulcer goes away, you're going to see a correlation, and you'll be willing to tell people that the pill worked for you.

But if you look at any 10,000 people with ulcers in any month, some number of them will heal spontaneously, in the absence of any treatment at all. Give all 10,000 of them regular sugar pills, then find the ones whose ulcers healed (naturally, not due to any sugar pill), and put each of them in front of a camera, and you have an effective commercial that convinces a significant portion of the world that your sugar pills cure ulcers.

Used in reverse, it's why Dow chemical took such a beating over silicone breast implants, when there's no scientific indication that they were anything but benign vanity items.

In any population of hundreds of thousands of women, some are going to develop all manner of illnesses... because that's how illness works. But by statistical chance, a few of them get the same disease in relative proximity to each other and decide that the implants caused the disease (even though they did not), and so they file a law suit.

An unscrupulous (or unscientific) lawyer goes looking for women with both breast implants and that disease and parades a long stream of them in front of a judge, never noting that they had filtered only the 3% of women with implants who had this disease and ignored the 3% of women WITHOUT implants who ALSO got the disease in the same period, and pretty soon it appears convincing to judge and jury that there's a correlation... and Dow chemical loses. Big time.

So, my conclusion to this rant is where I started: The truth lies somewhere in between. Too much regulation strangles, not enough leaves the powerful free to victimize the weak for their own gain. Too much free market capitalism is just as bad as too much socialism for the average person.

Which, of course, leaves us in the unenviable position of debating over WHERE on the spectrum is the best place to be, but THAT is the debate we need to be having, not looking at the end points and pretending that you have to be in favor of one or the other, and nothing in the middle.

(This very much reminds me of the arguments about the "Laffer curve" and Reaganomics, but I've gone on long enough for this time, so I'll let that one drop, unless someone asks me to continue...)

How to Debate Health Reform with Conservatives, and Not Get Arrested

Do you have polls to back that up? Because most of the polls I'm reading say that the majority of people WANT this reform, so just asserting that it isn't true isn't really good enough, you're going to have to provide some evidence.



YOU may not like it, and your friends may not, and everyone who is listening to Limbaugh or Hannity and swallowing their statements-of-questionable-veracity on the subject don't like the parody of it they've been spoon fed.



But when you look at polls that ask not "Do you like the current bill" but "How do you feel on (issue 1) and (issue 2) and (issue 3)", the answers fairly closely match what the bill is trying to do.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Impressive!

I've got a few thoughts swirling in my head of things I'm not happy about with the current administration, such as their adoption of the same bigoted defense of DOMA, their recent attempts to keep the visitors logs to the White House secret, and one other that's popped out of my head right now.

But today they did something which might just be really clever (or might just be a coincidence), and I wanted to say something now, so that if I turn out to be right, I can say "I told you so" (and if it doesn't, most likely no one will remember I said it. ;-) ).

I think Obama has found a way to make the fiscal conservatives support gay marriage. Really.

So far, Obama has left the political hot-potato of same-sex marriage lying in the coals, not wanting to burn himself, but he did just take the somewhat less politicall charged step of extending benefits to same sex partners of government workers.

Now of course the logical response to that is "But then what keeps the average single guy from claiming his roommate is his 'partner' to gain benefits?". I think that's unlikely to be a large problem, I think the combination of the basic honesty of most people and the "ick factor" for most straight people at claiming to be gay will keep the numbers of swindlers and con artists down (although they will exist). But it is still a possibility.

And so what is the answer? It is "we have no way of restricting it, because same sex couples can't marry, this is the only way we could be fair to them in benefits". Sure, some people will argue that the benefits should never have been offered, or should be rescinded to solve the problem, but having been offered, I suspect that there would be some very successful lawsuits if the benefits were rescinded.

This leaves the only practical result for the fiscal conservatives (those who are primarily fiscal, not social, conservatives) to be to come out for same-sex marriage, so that if Joe wants to get medical benefits for his worthless lazy roommate Steve, they'll have to actually have a ceremony, put Joe at risk of Steve taking half his stuff in a divorce, etc.

Really, if I'm right, over the next few months as we see people coming out against these benefits because of the abuse factor, they're playing right into the hands of the gay marrage folks.

Pretty slick, Mr. Obama!

Not good...

I subscribe to news alerts from several newspapers. One of them is the New York Times, which hit me with this little blurb recently:

* * *

U.S. Could Let Detainees Plead Guilty Without Trials

The Obama administration is considering a change in the law for the military commissions at the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, that would clear the way for detainees facing the death penalty to plead guilty without a full trial.

The provision could permit military prosecutors to avoid airing the details of brutal interrogation techniques. It could also allow the five detainees who have been charged with the Sept. 11 attacks to achieve their stated goal of pleading guilty to gain what they have called martyrdom.

* * *

This seems, to me, to be a really stupid idea, on top of being yet another violation of the core principles which make our country great.

I dislike this on principle. Everyone gets their day in court, even those who want to plead guilty. That's the way our country works, it always has been, and while the court is likely to find someone guilty who is bound and determined to plead that way, there are certainly cases where the court has determined that the person on trial was either not mentally competant to plead guilty, or had reasons political rather than justice on their minds during the pleading.

But on top of this, how stupid is this? These people want to become martyrs, they've stated as much. If we try them in a fair trial, convict them and execute them, then justice is served, even if it does allow them to become martyrs.

But if we kill someone without a trial, even someone who asked to have it happen, we play into the worst stereotypes the Muslim world has about us, that we're "the great satan", that we're "at war with Islam", and that our way of life is not just or pure.

We need to stop this increasing tendency to view our laws as inconveniences and obstacles to be overcome, rather than as vital foundations to the strength and greatness of our nation.

Broadway? How DARE he?

OK, enough of the "how DARE the Obamas go to NY to see a Broadway show" complaints that seem to be everywhere in the last couple of days.

Presidents are human, they have the right to a social life just like everyone else. If it becomes excessive, that's a problem. If it happens during an emergency, that's a problem.

But the complaint seems to be the cost to the taxpayers, so let's think about this...

Why does the President going anywhere cost the taxpayers money? Because we live in a society where high profile people have targets painted on their chests. And if you don't believe that, take a look at the weekend's news about Dr. Tiller, the abortion doctor murdered in cold blood which at church.

Like it or not, with the inflamatory nature of cable news, talk radio and the blogosphere, there are people out there who turn a philosophical difference of opinion into a justification for a holy war.

An abortion doctor is murdered after what could almost be classified as negligent urging on the part of several high profile conservative pundits, the same people who speak of "Obama the Muslim" and "Obama the socialist" and "Obama, who we'd better hope fails or he's going to destroy our country". Add in to that the fact that Obama is of African descent, which makes him a target of the bigoted racist loons in our country, and you have a focal point that some crazy people will convince themselves would be not merely acceptable to assassinate, but actually laudible.

This has been a problem for years, but most prominently in the age of the blog and tv and talk radio.

The tax payers provide security for the President not because he demands it, but because the nature of the job demands it.

I was a big denigrator of the previous President spending record shattering amounts of time "on vacation" at his Crawford, TX ranch, but it never was about the cost to the tax payers (I hope, if it did, I was wrong). The President flies in Air Force One not because he necessarily demands to be treated that way, but because the Secret Service requires it, Air Force One being one of the most technologically secure modes of transportation available.

So what this past weekend comes down to is a man who had promised to take his wife to a show making good on that promise. If I take a day off from work and drive or fly my wife down to Broadway to see a show, it's no big deal. If my job requires high security and my employer decides to pay someone to drive us down there and act as body guard, that doesn't mean I've recklessly chosen to cost my company money, it merely means that I've lived my life and, as a separate matter, it has been determined that my life requires extra protection.

That's it.

If Obama starts spending one week out of four in Hawaii with his family, or back in Chicago, we can certainly call him to task for it. If he starts taking month long vacations every year, or being on vacation while a national emergency is unfolding, absolutely he should be held to task.

But let's not forget that he's still a human being, he's still doing a job, and he still has a right to leisure activities.

Disappointment

Wasn't this the administration that was going to start following American values and American laws?

Am I missing something?

I'm not sure, yet, I'm overtired and having trouble focusing on the news blurb I just heard on TV, so I'm going to have to do some more digging when I'm fresher to make sure I heard/understood correctly, but if what I heard was correct, President Obama is trying to assert the legal right to hold people indefinitely, without charge. People who have not committed any crimes on the belief that they might commit such crimes in the future.

He couched it all in fancy talk about American values, and being subject to judicial review and the like, which is a step better than the last guy, but on just.

I really hope I misunderstood this. Because I'm just getting used to the idea that maybe I can comfortably travel to Europe again and not feel the urge to tell people I'm Canadian, just so they won't look at me in that certain way. I'm really not ready yet for another President, another administration, who feel that the Constitution and the core values of this country are obstacles to be overcome or somehow maleable to the needs of the moment.

Maybe I'm wrong. But I will hold President Obama's feet to the fire (to what limited extent I can here on this blog) just like I did President Bush, if I feel he's violating the law or the spirit of this country.

Liam.

Swine Flu: Don't Panic!

We need to think about some statistics.

As of this morning, there are about a hundred confirmed cases of swine flu in this country, and one death (not a U.S. citizen, but a child brought in from Mexico for treatment). There are no deaths in the U.S. of people who caught the disease in the U.S.

Now, compare that to this: According to the CDC(1), about 36,000 people die in the U.S. each year from influenza (flu) and related complications. That's about 100 deaths per day.

According to the National Institute of Allergy and Infections Diseases (NIAID), estimates range from 35 to 50 million Americans coming down with flu each year during the high flu season (November to March).(2)

Now, assuming 50 million people get some strain of the flu each year, that's about one person in 6. If 36,000 die from flu each year, that's about one death for every 8500 people in the U.S. And it means that one person dies for every 1375 people who catch the flu.

Yes, it pays to be careful, it's always good to avoid people who are visibly sick, and to wash our hands frequently and such. But really, they're closing down schools and people are discussing closing the border, and it's way too early to be discussing either of those. There will have to be over 300,000 cases of swine flu in this country before even 1 person in 100 will have been affected.

Could this become a pandemic? Yes. But statistically, compared with the incidence of other strains of flu, swine flu isn't even a blip on the radar. If it helps you to behave more safely, by all means pay attention.

But don't start panicing until the number of cases reaches the hundreds of thousands, or the number of deaths reaches the 10s of thousands. Any less than that, and it's no different than any other strain of virus that hits on any given year.

Liam.


(1 - http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r030107.htm )
(2 - http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/f/flu/prevalence.htm )

Cliff May Interview

I have to give kudos to a man named Cliff May, he's the first guy in defense of what I believe to be torture who has actually made some sense. I also have to give kudos to Jon Stewart of the Daily Show, who has again proven to have the ability to do the kind of hard-hitting serious interviews you almost never see on TV news any more.

Here are the three parts of the interview. Very thought provoking.

I've only just finished watching them, and will likely need to watch them a few more times before I fully absorb them and can comment, but the initial impression I have is that while May makes some very good points, he misses one extremely important one: While there may be honest debate over what really does constitute torture, the fact is that waterboarding is unambiguous. It has been considered torture historically, it has been tested and found to be torture, it is not ambiguous.

I'm also going to get around to reading the so-called "torture memos" tonight, so there will probably be another post on them if I feel so inclined.

Meanwhile, watch this. Regardless of what your opinion is on torture, it's a pretty good airing of both sides, and hopefully you can come away from it with a better sense of what the other side believes, even if your own mind is not changed.

Liam.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Cliff May Unedited Interview Pt. 1
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis First 100 Days

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Cliff May Unedited Interview Pt. 2
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis First 100 Days

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Cliff May Unedited Interview Pt. 3
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis First 100 Days

Fear Mongering...

Another day, another Administration, another political party's pundits playing the fear card. I'm tired of it.

Last night, I was watching Countdown, and they spent an inordinate amount of time on the fact that Susan Collins and a few other Senators are still "bragging" about having removed pandemic readiness from the stimulus bill.

They did at one point admit that the readiness bill was passed separately, but they spent large amounts of time condemning these Republican Senators for their short-sightedness in light of the current Swine Flu situation.

But let's think about it. First off, Swine Flu is far from a pandemic at this point. It's a little bit scary, but the numbers of cases are not out of line with the numbers of cases of other influenzas, and the fatality numbers aren't that much higher than the other ones.

But secondly, given the fact that the preparedness bill did pass in an alternate form, what this really represents was someone's attempt to remove it from the stimulus bill, so as to make that already huge bill less political and pork-laden.

There are arguments on both sides, of course. Disease preparedness isn't directly related to stimulus, but it can also be said that a pandemic at a time of recession could topple the country into a full fledged depression, so viewed through that lens, perhaps it belonged in the stimulus bill as a "protective measure against further economic down turn".

But really, I'm sick and tired of people with political axes to grind. When you spend a lot of time talking about torture and what this country should do to atone and make right the behaviors of the recent past, that is not necessarily partisan. It certainly may be used for that purpose, but there are those of us who aren't looking for charges based on party affiliation, but on law breaking. If, as some assert, certain high ranking Democrats were briefed on the program and didn't object, they should be prosecuted as well.

But this whole "Lookie lookie at how the Republicans were short sighted, playing politics with this important bill, now that Swine Flu is rearing its ugly head" meme has got to go.

It isn't unreasonable for someone to believe it didn't belong in the stimulus bill, and it clearly passed separately, so any faux-trage is just political partisan posturing.

Enough.

FairTax, another thought...

What about all of those "Roth IRAs" out there? What about the 529 college accounts?

Both of these work by putting away POST tax money, and the benefit is accrued at the time of withdrawal, the money which has grown tax-free continues to be tax-free.

As soon as you enact the "FairTax" you basically invalidate the planning of anyone responsible enough to make use of one of these plans.

Of course, you could always have a "one time pre-bate" payment to people to make up for the loss, but that's one more bit of spent money that would have to be made up, and one more complication thrown into the mix.

Just my thoughts for this morning.

Liam.

More Thoughts on the so-called "FairTax"

I have discussed the so-called "FairTax" in this space before, and everything I've read about it seems to indicate that it is an overly simplistic idea that appeals because of its simplicity, but which would in fact not be nearly as simple or beneficial as its supporters suggest.

I've been reading over the FAQ page on FairTax.org and had a few more thoughts that I thought I'd write down.

The FAQ page says that corporations would not be taxed. The authors were quite incensed about the idea that a corporation was somehow a legal person and should pay taxes. So my question is what prevents me from setting up a personal corporation and doing all of my purchasing that way? What's to prevent retail establishments from offering their better customers deals whereby they'd simply report that the sales went to corporations, and then not charging the tax?

It doesn't even have to be a phony corporation, suppose someone like my wife, who manages several apartment buildings for a living, uses her corporation to purchase things for our home. It's not a phony or sham corporation, but should we be able to avoid paying our "FairTax" income taxation because we did the purchasing through our corporation?

Also, the "FairTax" is assessed on services as well as goods. That means that small business owners such as landlords who have never really been set up to deal with taxation (other than income, of course) from their businesses will now have to collect a 30% higher rent and file the taxes on those rents. Hardly a simplification for those who own rental properties.

The "FairTax" web site says that the interest and principal payments on mortgages would be exempt from taxation, which (it says) means that everyone would gain the full benefits of home ownership, not just those who itemize their deductions, and that even those who do would gain by using non-taxed dollars to pay the principal as well as the interest. This is disingenuous, though, because at purchase time, the price of the house is taxed at the "FairTax" rate of 30%. So let's imagine a home purchased for $100,000. Under today's system, under a 30 year mortgage at a 5% interest rate, the payments would be $536.83, and for the first three years, at least $400 of that is pre-tax interest payment and less than $137 is post-income-tax principal payment. Even assuming income taxation at the highest rate of 39%, that means the principal payment plus tax is around $225 for a total payment of about $625.

Now buy the house with a 30% "FairTax", so the purchase price is now $130,000. The same mortgage now has a payment of $697.87. You have to get almost 16 years into the mortgage in the first case, while earning income in the highest tax bracket, before you break even on that mortgage payment including the tax on the taxable portion. So much for "everyone benefitting". Statistically, few people keep a mortgage for more than 15 years, with moves, refinances and the like, mortgages that see their 15th year are quite rare.

Oh, and for those who say "But wait, you aren't calculating in the savings on Property Taxes", that's right, because Property Taxes are a state tax, not a federal tax, which means they would not be affected by the "FairTax". At best it would be revenue neutral, assuming states continued to tax the value of the house and not the value-plus-FairTax higher price paid. Those taxes would be paid with non-taxed dollars, just as they are today (interest paid is deductible on your federal income taxes).

I'm not a big fan of taxation, I don't know anyone who is, although I do believe that we need to pay for the things we buy, and if we can't reign in our government's spending, then paying taxes to support that spending is really the only reasonable option.

Still, this "FairTax" system really feels scary to me, because the people advocating it are clearly selling it with incomplete information, and whenever I can feel the sales job, the cynical part of my brain starts wondering what they aren't telling me.

By the way, if you want another view of some of what is wrong with the FairTax, check out this link.

Liam.

Bigotry revealed

There’s a storm gathering.

The clouds are dark and the winds are strong and I am afraid.

Some who advocate for interracial marriage have taken the issue far beyond mixed-race couples. They want to bring the issue into my life. My freedom will be taken away.

I’m a California pastor who must choose between my faith and my job.

I’m part of a New Jersey church group punished by the government because we can’t support interracial marriage.

I’m a Massachusetts parent helplessly watching public schools teach my son that blacks marrying whites is okay.

But some who advocate interracial marriage have not been content with interracial couples living as they wish. Those advocates want to change the way I live. I will have no choice. The storm is coming.

But we have hope, a rainbow coalition of people of every creed and color are coming together in love to protect racially pure marriage.

Paid for by National Organization for Marriage which is responsible for the content of this ad.

This is NOT the content of the ad paid for by the National Organization for Marriage, because they are advocating against same sex marriage, rather than different-race marriage.

Nevertheless, the ad I have adulterated above is presented with soft, reasonable sounding voices and soothing music, all designed to make it sound reasonable, and it really requires a change like the one I've made above to truly see how vile this hatred and bigotry is.

Just because you can say something in a reasonable sounding way does not mean that it is inherently reasonable.

If you are homophobic and a bigot and can't support gay marriage, that's fine, but don't try to tell me that your argument is any more reasonable or righteous than the anti-miscegeny arguments of the middle of the last century.

Liam, really peeved on behalf of his gay friends and neighbors.

So Much For 'Change You Can Believe In'

The Obama administration seems to have done a complete 180 on its position regarding executive authority to spy on citizens, and while the cynic in me isn't particularly surprised, the optimist in me really feels let down, and the constitutionalist is just plain pissed off.

Long time readers will recall that I took great exception to some of the extra-Constitutional activities of the previous administration, including:

1. their insane justifications for "interrogation techniques" which when perpetrated upon us by others in past wars we've tried as torture and war crimes
2. their use of semantic tricks such as defining new categories ("enemy combatant") to circumvent the existing laws for treatment of prisoners in war time
3. their use of warrantless wiretaps even on American citizens, in clear violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure, especially without warrants

It is this last one which concerns me today, because the current administration (in the form of Attorney General Eric Holder), rather than backing away from these activities, has asserted not only the right of the government to continue doing these things, but has asserted rights in excess of those claimed by the Bush administration.

To wit: The case of Jewel vs. the NSA deals with people who are suing over AT&T's alleged transmission of their telephone information to the NSA.

Holder has asserted to the judge that defending against these claims would violate "state's secret privileges". In effect, he's telling the judge "You can't let these people sue, because whatever we did, legal or not, would violate state secrets for us to defend against it", which essentially also says "We as the government can do whatever we like, because we refuse to acknowledge anyone's right to hold our feet to the fire if we violate pesky little things like the law, the Constitution or citizens' rights".

But the really heinous part is that not only are they arguing against even the possibility of any findings that laws might have been broken and rights may have been violated, they also argue something called "sovereign immunity", which sounds a whole lot to me like "unitary executive power" in different clothing. Under this, the administration claims that the government can only be sued if the information gathered by such wiretapping is released. As someone on one of the radio shows said this morning, this is kind of like claiming that if I steal money from you, I can only be prosecuted if I actually spend the money I stole.

The administration further asserts that not only can they not be required to defend against this suit because it might require the release of classified information about the NSA, they even assert that being forced to confirm or deny facts which are already publicly confirmed via other sources would violate these state secrets.

Now, I understand national security. I do. And there are times when it can be used legitimately. But it galls me that the federal government has become so large that it now feels justified in acting however it feels because it alone has the right to assert when a case against it can validly be heard.

Imagine a murderer with the power to decide which evidence the police could use against him, or able to successfully get the case against him dismissed on his assertion alone that defending himself against the charges would involve releasing information that must vitally be kept secret.

We have laws. These laws are supposed to apply to everyone. Instead, we have a state government that seizes power from the citizens that it isn't due under the constitution, a federal government which likewise seizes from the states powers which are constitutionally not theirs to grab, and an executive branch which continues to view itself not as one of three co-equal branches of government, but as essentially an elected king. That anyone who craved power enough to run for the office wouldn't likely voluntarily cede any of it is not surprising.

Still, this is one of the promises Obama made to us when he was running, that he would put a stop to flagrant abuse of executive power and restore law and order. To have him continue to assert the same tactics in defense of what was, according to the constitutional scholars I've read, pretty clearly a violation of the Constitution is galling.

(Much of the information for this post came from last night's Countdown with Keith Olbermann).

Hypocrisy and America Hating

Remember how if you didn't support Bush, you were America-hating, how we should all respect the Presidency and how whether we voted for him or not, we had to pull for him?

I recall being asked why I hated America several times, because my disagreement with Bush policies made that clear, apparently.

Apparently, though, that only applies if the President is Republican, at least according to Bobby Jindal. It's been all of a couple of months since Bush left office, and suddenly wanting the President to fail is just peachy keen, and it's just a Democratic "gotcha game" against Republicans to suggest otherwise.

I don't particularly mind people disagreeing with the President, but I'm a little bit miffed that some of the same people who considered me to be the ultimate in traitorous scum for disagreeing with President Bush now think it's perfectly fair and reasonable (perhaps even laudable) to disagree with President Obama.

This is what is wrong with our political system today, and it isn't limited to one party, as you'll note from my other recent posting: hypocrisy.

If we really were just concentrating on the issues, maybe we could get something done. Compromise occasionally. Listen to each other and be open minded enough to be persuaded by a strong argument we hadn't considered before.

But we get so far off into the weeds with moral outrage at behavior that we ourselves perpetrate when the tables are turned. It's so very difficult to get past the hypocrisy and insults when it's time to sit down and work with someone. I have several strongly right-wing people within my friend/family sphere, one in particularly recently who epitomizes this dichotomy.

And the truth is, while I'd like to believe I could learn things from him and listen to his argument for nuggets I hadn't gleaned before, the truth is that his bombast and closed mindedness and the sheer hypocrisy of some of his arguments (and his reactions to my responses when those responses are the mirror image of ones he himself has given on the other side) make it very difficult for me to take him seriously any more.

And that's sad.

Filibuster Cycles

Consider this...

The place: The Senate.

The situation: The minority party using the filibuster law to block the majority party's agenda.

The moral outrage by the majority party: That the use of filibuster is in some way unprecedented, is shutting down government in ways it was never intended to.

The attempt: To use some obscure rule to shut down the filibuster.

The thwarting of the attempt: A small group of moderate members of the majority party refusing to go along with any such shut-downs, rendering the obscure rule usage moot.

The moral outrage by the minority party: That this ran entirely counter to the "check and balance" that the filibuster was exactly intended for.

Sounds a lot like the so-called "nuclear option" proposed by Senate Republicans when those horrible, evil Democrats were using their filibuster powers to keep judges they believed to be too extreme from reaching the federal bench, right? And the Republicans insisted that this was unprecedented and unfair and were going to use the fact that it only takes a simple majority of the Senate to change Senate rules, and thus, by simple majority they could change the 2/3rds majority required for cloture of a filibuster to a simple majority?

And I said it was a horrible idea, because unfettered access to either side's agenda is a horrible idea, and that the filibuster rule was exactly put into place to PREVENT either side in a two-party system from reaching potentially dictatorial power.

But it isn't that "nuclear option". Fast forward just a few years, and now it isn't "the filibuster was never intended to be used against JUDGES" that the majority (Republicans) are saying, but "the filibuster was never intended to hold up just about every important bill or resolution we bring up" that the majority (Democrats) are saying.

And while I'm a little more sympathetic to the second argument than the first, because it feels like a more abusive use of filibuster than the really very limited use it was getting in the former case, the idea of circumventing that filibuster is just as horrible and I'm just as glad that there is a group of moderate Democrats willing to stand up and say they will vote with the Republicans on any bill that filibuster is blocked on.

The details are a little bit simplistic, here, and it's sort of important that they remain so, or else bogged down in the minutiae we could start arguing the minor and pedantic details of how this case is different than the last, and thus, either justified or horribly worse (depending on which party you identify with).

For example, near as I can tell this time the obscure rule being proposed to shut down the filibuster is that it apparently only takes a simple majority to bring up a bill in filibuster-proof way. I haven't found the details, but it's called the "budget reconciliation process", and it apparently only takes a simple majority to implement. So the Republican tactic was to essentially do away with the filibuster entirely, and the Democratic tactic is to just do away with it on a case-by-case basis. A distinction without a difference.

I wish the children could play nicely together, I really do. It's so much better when they all work together to build a snow man, than when the big kids and little kids separate into groups and begin forming sides and pelting each other with snowballs. But when they decide to go the latter route, we have rules in place to prevent the big kids from just demolishing those pesky little kids, and those rules are important.

It is a good thing that the "nuclear option" was never put into play (although I note that if it had been, the current use of filibuster by the Republicans wouldn't be happening, which should be a really good lesson for the Democrats who are currently in charge: you WILL be the minority again one day, and you REALLY don't want to load this weapon and hand it to the Republicans who will be in power on that day, just as I said to Republicans at the time of that older filibuster conflict). It will be a similar good thing if this rule is never put into action.

It's a lot more frustrating when it is legislation you agree with being blocked, but we defend the use of the weapon against us to preserve it for ourselves when we need it to prevent something we find entirely odious.

LEAVE THE FILIBUSTER ALONE.

And by the way, if you (like many liberal commentators) were outraged when the Republicans wanted to use the "nuclear option" and are now cheering this move by the Democrats, or if you (like many conservative commentators) were touting the "nuclear option" as a great and appropriate way to shut down those upstart Democrats but are now ginning up faux moral "outrage" that Republicans could be treated this way, you need to go away for a while and drink a nice steaming cup of SHUT YOUR PIE HOLE.