Over at the Pittsburgh Comet, Bram has had a series of posts on Kevin Acklin’s accusations that John Verbanac has wielded undue influence over the Ravenstahl administration, and Our Mayor’s denials. A glance at the PG indicates some attention is being paid, but even as they notice Verbanac’s connection to Rick Santorum (!) they dismiss the seriousness of the accusations. Apparently what Acklin has released includes, and is possibly limited to, a portion of emails Verbanac has sent to Ravenstahl. Acklin alleges this indicates the degree of influence Verbanac has.
As a general geek, and a geek familiar with Star Wars, I want to see the email from Verbanac that reads: “Luke, I am your father” and Our Mayor’s reply:
“Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo”.
There is another thing I have been thinking about in the last week or so (well, several things, but I am only going to talk about one for now). The authors of Freakonomics (Levitt and Dubner) have written a sequel, Superfreakonomics. As far as I am concerned, they might just as well have borrowed a line from Mel Brooks, and subtitled it “The quest for more money” (or at least “The quest to maintain the lifestyle to which we have become accustomed”). Now, I thoroughly enjoyed the first Freakonomics, although even I had trouble slogging through all of it. I am looking forward to the new one, but I gather in their last chapter they cross some lines that may have been ill considered.
Before I discuss what I know about that, a brief tangent. I knew a guy who was interested in bicycles, and in fact wavered between what would have been a good career in classical music and running a bike shop (I believe the shop may have won). One time, I praised Consumer Reports, the magazine that won’t take advertising to be able to produce unquestionable objective reports to my friend/acquaintance. He responded that the bicycle community did not like Consumer Reports because while they might employ very smart scientists, they only knew a little about a lot of things. As far as he was concerned, the CU guys did not know enough about bikes to produce good recommendations.
The reason I told that story is the last chapter of Superfreakonomics, on how to address climate change. Smart guys Levitt and Dubner reference a scientist named Ken Caldeira, who has suggested injecting sulphate into the atmosphere for the purposes of blocking some of the sun rays. An apparently very smart guy Nathan Myhrvold also weighed in in the book, pointing out that because solar panels are (often) black and also take energy to manufacture, rather like hybrids they take some time to become carbon neutral and then carbon positive. Also Myhrvold calls for at least research into this sulphate injection thing.
And for what it is worth I agree. But apparently Levitt and Dubner suggested people suggesting we need carbon taxes and sacrifice are ignoring, deliberately or otherwise, this sulphate thing. Myhrvold has been taken to task by a climate change person (even though even Myhrvold does advocate using solar power, he just disputes the timing of the payoff), this Calderia says he was mischaracterized (he in fact thinks our carbon footprint needs to be near zero even for his idea to work), and Levitt and Dubner must be delighted by all his publicity.
But someone, I think a conservative, suggested that Levitt in particular is an economist that makes his living by punching holes in conventional wisdom; rather like Consumer Reports makes a living by deflating industry claims. However, sometimes when you try to skewer an accepted wisdom, like the accepted wisdom in climate change that reduction in burning fossil fuels with taxes and switching to new methods of power like solar and wind will have a positive effect on climate, you end up stretching the claims of another person, in this case Calderia, past where that person intended they go.
I am suspicious of any panacea for climate change. I think that a more measured and retrained use of our natural resources (burning carbon more frugally) by driving smaller cars, driving less than we do now, driving slower on the highway than we do now and gradually switching over to electric power provided by solar and wind (perhaps with supplemental nuclear until wind and solar get efficient enough) is a good idea. Future generations will appreciate both having oil, coal and natural gas available, and a cleaner, temperate planet to live on. Now, sulphate injection into the air may be necessary at some point. But I would like to give the reduction thing a chance, even while scientists look at a variety of ideas (sulphate injections, biodiesel using non-food parts of plants like corn, etc) as either factors in reduction or supplements to it. And shame on Levitt and Myhrvold for belittling the efforts of mainstream climate change scientists, and giving aid and comfort to entities like that American Petroleum Institute.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Thursday, October 15, 2009
A complicated world ...
One of the problems I have always had with Democrats is their willingness to embrace ideas that have economic consequences while not wanting to discuss those economic consequences. Probably my favorite example is the minimum wage. An economist will tell you that the minimum wage is pad to any and all types of workers, not only bread winners for a family of four make the minimum, but also teenagers at a summer job. You hope that not many bread winners do make the minimum, but you know some do (and there are things to say about that, that I don’t have space for). Now, if you raise the minimum, the bread winners get that raise, but it is also possible that the summer job teenagers will be put out of work (by their employer instead of him/her paying the teenager the higher wage). How do we evaluate that result? Well, when I try to talk about that with many liberals, they think I am trying to find an excuse not to raise the minimum wage, when in fact I think I am just trying to find a way to help the bread winners without harming the summer job teenagers (an increase in the earned income tax credit perhaps, for example).
My point is that the Democrats have seemed to lack a single, coherent, thought out sort of plan to alleviate poverty for quite some time, so the battles over programs have to be fought internally (before being fought externally) time after time. I think that the reason for that is the Democrats attempt’s to lure Reagan (conservative) Democrats to vote for actual Democrats can’t include a fixed message of helping the poor.
By contrast, Republicans have had it easy, they can use a simple message of lower taxes, fiscal discipline and less government intrusion to reassure their base and lure conservative, rural white voters who in the past might have voted Democratic (as well as luring corporate donors). But there are some problems with that. First of all, the Republicans demonstrated during the last Presidency, especially from 2002 to the end of 2005 (when they controlled Congress as well), that they were unable to actually restrain themselves from spending at least as much or more than Democrats do. A related problem is that Republicans want to reward their districts for voting them into office just like Democrats do, and Republicans also want to reward corporate sponsors. Republicans can reward big business in two ways, by giving them taxpayer money for contracts, and by loosening regulations. Of course, we just had a lesson in what happens when you loosen regulations (in this case on financial markets). Their willingness to indulge their philosophy when it came to regulations and ignore their philosophy when it came to spending brought this country to the brink of disaster.
The thing is, we found out that the Republicans' famous discipline carries the price of tolerating no dissent, which in this case meant there were no ideological purists criticizing the party or Congress or the President for violating their ideology. Glenn Greenwald talks about this in his Wednesday column in Salon, in the context of why Democrats need to not be afraid to criticize Obama. Now, some criticism might have the problem of what I described in the first paragraph, of not at least considering all factors. I think, for example, we probably do have to send more troops to Afghanistan (because I think we do need to try to bring at least temporary stability to the country), although I also think we need to carefully distance ourselves from Karzai, who seems incapable of dealing with the corruption in his administration. And I think advocating simply withdrawing is reckless, although a discussion of those positions would be a good thing. Greenwald’s point, and I would agree, is that the Republicans would not and did not criticize Bush on that or any issue, and simply criticize Obama on all his policies and everything he doesn’t do as well.
So while the Democrats are all over the map, the Republicans pay lip service to their core ideals without trying to actually work towards them, and criticize nothing when they are in charge and everything when they aren’t. It’s hard to defend the current political situation when people say they are tired of it.
My point is that the Democrats have seemed to lack a single, coherent, thought out sort of plan to alleviate poverty for quite some time, so the battles over programs have to be fought internally (before being fought externally) time after time. I think that the reason for that is the Democrats attempt’s to lure Reagan (conservative) Democrats to vote for actual Democrats can’t include a fixed message of helping the poor.
By contrast, Republicans have had it easy, they can use a simple message of lower taxes, fiscal discipline and less government intrusion to reassure their base and lure conservative, rural white voters who in the past might have voted Democratic (as well as luring corporate donors). But there are some problems with that. First of all, the Republicans demonstrated during the last Presidency, especially from 2002 to the end of 2005 (when they controlled Congress as well), that they were unable to actually restrain themselves from spending at least as much or more than Democrats do. A related problem is that Republicans want to reward their districts for voting them into office just like Democrats do, and Republicans also want to reward corporate sponsors. Republicans can reward big business in two ways, by giving them taxpayer money for contracts, and by loosening regulations. Of course, we just had a lesson in what happens when you loosen regulations (in this case on financial markets). Their willingness to indulge their philosophy when it came to regulations and ignore their philosophy when it came to spending brought this country to the brink of disaster.
The thing is, we found out that the Republicans' famous discipline carries the price of tolerating no dissent, which in this case meant there were no ideological purists criticizing the party or Congress or the President for violating their ideology. Glenn Greenwald talks about this in his Wednesday column in Salon, in the context of why Democrats need to not be afraid to criticize Obama. Now, some criticism might have the problem of what I described in the first paragraph, of not at least considering all factors. I think, for example, we probably do have to send more troops to Afghanistan (because I think we do need to try to bring at least temporary stability to the country), although I also think we need to carefully distance ourselves from Karzai, who seems incapable of dealing with the corruption in his administration. And I think advocating simply withdrawing is reckless, although a discussion of those positions would be a good thing. Greenwald’s point, and I would agree, is that the Republicans would not and did not criticize Bush on that or any issue, and simply criticize Obama on all his policies and everything he doesn’t do as well.
So while the Democrats are all over the map, the Republicans pay lip service to their core ideals without trying to actually work towards them, and criticize nothing when they are in charge and everything when they aren’t. It’s hard to defend the current political situation when people say they are tired of it.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
How free a market?
There are a bunch of elements in the health care/insurance reform story. Just the latest piece from a health insurance company association, a report prepared by Price Waterhouse Coopers that says that health insurance premiums will go up by more than they would have anyway if reform is passed. I saw the woman who is the association spokesman or maybe a/the boss on the PBS News Hour last night, and she was claiming that reform did not go far enough, so the health insurance companies that are members of her organization would be forced to raise rates (for example, not everyone would be forced to join, so the health insurance companies wouldn’t have access to young health people to gouge for insurance). Apparently there are holes in the report, which were reported on by the White House and admitted by Price Waterhouse.
Meanwhile, though, just to be clear, health insurance companies right now are benefitting from the current situation. So are pharmaceutical companies and to a lesser extent some doctors, but I am not going to address their situations right now. Health insurance companies are reported to only return 80% of premiums paid in as claims, on average. In Europe/Japan, in those places where they have private health insurance the rates are more like 95%.I don’t know what the levels are here in Pittsburgh, where the two biggest health insurance companies are “not for profit” (UPMC and Highmaek). But I assume we have all heard of “excess revenue”, the money beyond pay outs in claims that both these companies have. Some of that money likely goes into reserves (insurance companies are inventive at creating reasons to have larger reserves), some likely goes into additional purchases of land, buildings and quite frankly probably more lavish of offices. And some probably goes into executive compensation, bonuses for creating the very excess revenues used to pay the bonuses (a nice sort of symmetry).
Now given this sort of situation, Republicans are saying that our problems would be over if people and companies could buy health insurance across state lines. Currently there are state rules that prevent or at least limit that sort of thing. I know that there are other health insurance companies in the Pittsburgh area besides Highmark and UPMC; Aetna provides insurance for Rite Aid employees here. I don’t know if Aetna provides insurance for individuals, but given the lousy service they seem to provide Rite Aid employees, no one might want it. Still, from the point of view of the health insurance companies, right now everything is pretty hunky dory. I assume if the Republicans did mange to tear down state rules for health insurance companies, they might oblige by slowing the rate of increase of the growth in health insurance premiums, to show their gratitude.
Now, there may be some Blue Cross/Blue Shields or other health insurance companies dotted around the landscape that do hold to their original mission of providing health insurance without taking a substantial profit. Everyone might flock to them across state lines for individual and/or corporate health insurance, if permitted. But I have two, really three concerns about that.
First of all, they are not going to know all the physicians all over the country. Health insurance companies work now by negotiating with some physicians to be part of a network, and giving those doctors a lower but guaranteed payment. Maybe that won’t matter because my mythical BC/BS has a lower profit rate, but it makes me wonder.
Second, someone will have a problem sometime with a claim (it is inevitable), and when they go to complain, how difficult will it be to reach across state lines and contact this mythical BC/BS. Often, when you are dealing with a health insurance problem, you are yourself not 100% and may have trouble pursuing this. Of course, with UPMC or Highmark, you can visit offices, and talk to a person. Plus you can contact the state insurance commissioner and/or KDKA, WTAE or WIIC to put pressure on the insurance company. That will be more difficult if the BC/BS is out of state.
Finally, I wonder if lower cost health insurance companies taking business from all across the country might become victims of their own success. First, they would have to hire more staff and expand operations. There is always a danger of finding excuses to increase rates because of that expansion. And also there is a danger the health insurance company might go from being a local oligopy to being a regional or national oligopy, and find it attractive to raise rates in different parts of the country to levels just below the local health insurance companies.
I can’t say for sure these things would happen. But I will say that by capitalist standards health insurance companies are very successful now. They should be able to maintain that level of success even if deregulated, although it is possible that we might see health insurance firms trying to push other firms out of business, and an emergence of only a few national firms (a la oil companies). I am not sure that would be an improvement in our situation.
Meanwhile, though, just to be clear, health insurance companies right now are benefitting from the current situation. So are pharmaceutical companies and to a lesser extent some doctors, but I am not going to address their situations right now. Health insurance companies are reported to only return 80% of premiums paid in as claims, on average. In Europe/Japan, in those places where they have private health insurance the rates are more like 95%.I don’t know what the levels are here in Pittsburgh, where the two biggest health insurance companies are “not for profit” (UPMC and Highmaek). But I assume we have all heard of “excess revenue”, the money beyond pay outs in claims that both these companies have. Some of that money likely goes into reserves (insurance companies are inventive at creating reasons to have larger reserves), some likely goes into additional purchases of land, buildings and quite frankly probably more lavish of offices. And some probably goes into executive compensation, bonuses for creating the very excess revenues used to pay the bonuses (a nice sort of symmetry).
Now given this sort of situation, Republicans are saying that our problems would be over if people and companies could buy health insurance across state lines. Currently there are state rules that prevent or at least limit that sort of thing. I know that there are other health insurance companies in the Pittsburgh area besides Highmark and UPMC; Aetna provides insurance for Rite Aid employees here. I don’t know if Aetna provides insurance for individuals, but given the lousy service they seem to provide Rite Aid employees, no one might want it. Still, from the point of view of the health insurance companies, right now everything is pretty hunky dory. I assume if the Republicans did mange to tear down state rules for health insurance companies, they might oblige by slowing the rate of increase of the growth in health insurance premiums, to show their gratitude.
Now, there may be some Blue Cross/Blue Shields or other health insurance companies dotted around the landscape that do hold to their original mission of providing health insurance without taking a substantial profit. Everyone might flock to them across state lines for individual and/or corporate health insurance, if permitted. But I have two, really three concerns about that.
First of all, they are not going to know all the physicians all over the country. Health insurance companies work now by negotiating with some physicians to be part of a network, and giving those doctors a lower but guaranteed payment. Maybe that won’t matter because my mythical BC/BS has a lower profit rate, but it makes me wonder.
Second, someone will have a problem sometime with a claim (it is inevitable), and when they go to complain, how difficult will it be to reach across state lines and contact this mythical BC/BS. Often, when you are dealing with a health insurance problem, you are yourself not 100% and may have trouble pursuing this. Of course, with UPMC or Highmark, you can visit offices, and talk to a person. Plus you can contact the state insurance commissioner and/or KDKA, WTAE or WIIC to put pressure on the insurance company. That will be more difficult if the BC/BS is out of state.
Finally, I wonder if lower cost health insurance companies taking business from all across the country might become victims of their own success. First, they would have to hire more staff and expand operations. There is always a danger of finding excuses to increase rates because of that expansion. And also there is a danger the health insurance company might go from being a local oligopy to being a regional or national oligopy, and find it attractive to raise rates in different parts of the country to levels just below the local health insurance companies.
I can’t say for sure these things would happen. But I will say that by capitalist standards health insurance companies are very successful now. They should be able to maintain that level of success even if deregulated, although it is possible that we might see health insurance firms trying to push other firms out of business, and an emergence of only a few national firms (a la oil companies). I am not sure that would be an improvement in our situation.
Monday, October 12, 2009
The big story ...
Not the stillers defense. In fact, being at Podcamp this weekend, I missed the game. Speaking of Podcamp (more on that perhaps in the future), one presenter (the person who does “burghbaby”, accessible through “That’s Church”) said never to post just to apologize for not posting. I don’t believe I do that, but I do try to apologize whenever I get back to posting when I haven’t done it in a while. Like now. There are other things going on in my life, and I have been distracted.
Still, how could anyone fail to hear about Obama getting the peace prize? Ross Douthat has a column today that hits all the high notes of the conservative reaction to the news. The title of the column is actually “Heckuva job, Barack”. While he lands the slap in the face, the title is also a reminder of how bankrupt the Republican party is in terms of leadership. I won’t go through the whole column except to say that Douthat hits many of anti-Obama themes of the Republican opposition, without necessarily endorsing them (walking that thin line so as to seem a “reasonable” and “thoughtful” conservative). He managed to inject religion and Marxism into his narrative while seeming to take Obama’s side: “Here was a place to draw a clean line between himself and all the overzealous Obamaphiles, at home and abroad, who poured their post-Christian, post-Marxist yearnings into the vessel of his 2008 campaign.” Douthat calls for Obama to decline the award after Obama has agreed to accept it. Actually, it doesn’t matter whether Obama accepts or declines, this “unearned” award will find its way into statements of most Republican for at least the next three years.
And by the way, I don’t think Obama really does deserve the award myself. I think the Nobel people (apparently there are five Norwegians on the this committee) could have given it to someone else, and waited to see what Obama does for the next three years. But it is a fait accompli, and at least Obama has been humble in talking about it. He is very good at knowing what to say.
I think a more interesting question is why did the five Norwegians give Obama the peace prize? Douthat suggests that world leaders are snickering at Obama for not deserving the award, and no doubt some are. Lech Walesa (remember him?) was particularly ungracious in his reaction. But I suspect the Norwegians were trying themselves to do their part to promote peace, to be the change they want to see (as apparently Gandhi said). I think they were trying to bolster Obama’s support at home by giving him this international accolade. I think the world (by which I mean Europe, which most of us probably think as guys speaking English with funny accents, unlike our clear, unaccented English) is aware of the opposition Obama has faced, and desperately wants Obama to be successful. I believe the rest of the world that was aware of the second President Bush was afraid of him. I mean, Bush invaded countries that had nothing to do with 9/11, we tortured and imprisoned people indefinitely and we let our economy get so bad that it dragged down the rest of the world (again). I think at least the five Norwegians think that by giving Obama the Nobel peace prize, they might persuade us the rest of the world thinks highly of Obama, and we should too.
I can’t see it as a negative that at least five Norwegians, and probably quite a few more Europeans and others, think Obama is pretty important. Who am I to argue?
By the way, Saturday Night had a cute on paper but painful to watch bit with their Obama impersonator. He not only won the Peace Prize, but the Powerball as well. He commented that the staffer carrying the giant novelty check plays the lottery every day (as she went from frozen smile to glower).
Still, how could anyone fail to hear about Obama getting the peace prize? Ross Douthat has a column today that hits all the high notes of the conservative reaction to the news. The title of the column is actually “Heckuva job, Barack”. While he lands the slap in the face, the title is also a reminder of how bankrupt the Republican party is in terms of leadership. I won’t go through the whole column except to say that Douthat hits many of anti-Obama themes of the Republican opposition, without necessarily endorsing them (walking that thin line so as to seem a “reasonable” and “thoughtful” conservative). He managed to inject religion and Marxism into his narrative while seeming to take Obama’s side: “Here was a place to draw a clean line between himself and all the overzealous Obamaphiles, at home and abroad, who poured their post-Christian, post-Marxist yearnings into the vessel of his 2008 campaign.” Douthat calls for Obama to decline the award after Obama has agreed to accept it. Actually, it doesn’t matter whether Obama accepts or declines, this “unearned” award will find its way into statements of most Republican for at least the next three years.
And by the way, I don’t think Obama really does deserve the award myself. I think the Nobel people (apparently there are five Norwegians on the this committee) could have given it to someone else, and waited to see what Obama does for the next three years. But it is a fait accompli, and at least Obama has been humble in talking about it. He is very good at knowing what to say.
I think a more interesting question is why did the five Norwegians give Obama the peace prize? Douthat suggests that world leaders are snickering at Obama for not deserving the award, and no doubt some are. Lech Walesa (remember him?) was particularly ungracious in his reaction. But I suspect the Norwegians were trying themselves to do their part to promote peace, to be the change they want to see (as apparently Gandhi said). I think they were trying to bolster Obama’s support at home by giving him this international accolade. I think the world (by which I mean Europe, which most of us probably think as guys speaking English with funny accents, unlike our clear, unaccented English) is aware of the opposition Obama has faced, and desperately wants Obama to be successful. I believe the rest of the world that was aware of the second President Bush was afraid of him. I mean, Bush invaded countries that had nothing to do with 9/11, we tortured and imprisoned people indefinitely and we let our economy get so bad that it dragged down the rest of the world (again). I think at least the five Norwegians think that by giving Obama the Nobel peace prize, they might persuade us the rest of the world thinks highly of Obama, and we should too.
I can’t see it as a negative that at least five Norwegians, and probably quite a few more Europeans and others, think Obama is pretty important. Who am I to argue?
By the way, Saturday Night had a cute on paper but painful to watch bit with their Obama impersonator. He not only won the Peace Prize, but the Powerball as well. He commented that the staffer carrying the giant novelty check plays the lottery every day (as she went from frozen smile to glower).
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Socialist or conservative
From the September 20th issue of the English newspaper the telegraph, a quote from Obama: “"I can't tell you how many foreign leaders, who are heads of centre-right governments, say to me 'I don't understand why people would call you socialist, in my country you would be considered a conservative'," Mr Obama told CNN.” Of course, consider the source. Obama lies constantly, or so Jack Kelly would (likely) maintain.
Interestingly, for today’s column, Kelly chose not to write about the G20 or the revelation that Iran is building a facility that might make nuclear weapons. Instead Kelly decides to comment on Obama’s support of Manuel Zelaya, who Kelly says the administration “wants to install as president of Honduras over the objections of the overwhelming majority of its people”.
Before examining that statement, lets look at the history of Zelaya. He was elected President in 2005, so I guess the overwhelming majority did not object to him at the time. He apparently decided he wanted to serve another term, but apparently Honduran law or the constitution allow Presidents to serve only one term. Zelaya apparently petitioned the Honduran Congress to hold a referendum to change the law/constitution, the Congress refused and Zelaya apparently had some ballots printed up anyway. If all that is true, and I am wiling to take Kelly’s word for it until/unless I read otherwise (from a reputable source), then Zelaya is an idiot. However, assuming Kelly’s argument that the people don’t support Zelaya is also true, then a referendum would be harmless, and in fact provide support for the system. Now, I will say I don’t know how constitutional change is supposed to work in Honduras, so what Zelaya is trying to do might be underminig the system.
In any event, what happened next is the real issue. The Attorney General petitions the Supreme Court to issue an arrest warrant for Zelaya, which they do, and the President is sent into exile by the army. Now, if Zelaya is not supported by the people (as Kelly says), then why bother? Kelly would have preferred Zelaya be imprisoned and put on trial, but even then, why bother? But from the Obama administration’s point of view, taking these steps is a pretty serious shortcut of political process. I can see the point of issuing sanctions (or having Congress vote on them) and insisting Zelaya be reinstated. If we are serious about democracy, we can’t just support democratically elected leaders we like.
Now, I write all this not knowing the detail of situation in Honduras. Most of what I am writing is based on what Kelly wrote. I am willing to admit that if what Kelly wrote is all the detail of the situation for Zelaya, then Zelaya does sound like an idiot. Still our reaction to a Democratically elected leader being deposed is not surprising. Especially since Kelly makes it sound like if the Honduran opposition to Zelaya had waited a couple of months it would have all been over anyway.
As I said above, the fact that Kelly wrote about this and not Iran or the G20 speaks volumes about Kelly’s attitude towards Obama. Kelly makes a relatively incoherent attack on a minor foreign policy situation while ignoring what is happening in Iran with nuclear weapons and what is happening on the world economic stage. Kelly simply wants to find any mistake, no matter how far fetched, he can pin on Obama. The PG needs to think about that.
Interestingly, for today’s column, Kelly chose not to write about the G20 or the revelation that Iran is building a facility that might make nuclear weapons. Instead Kelly decides to comment on Obama’s support of Manuel Zelaya, who Kelly says the administration “wants to install as president of Honduras over the objections of the overwhelming majority of its people”.
Before examining that statement, lets look at the history of Zelaya. He was elected President in 2005, so I guess the overwhelming majority did not object to him at the time. He apparently decided he wanted to serve another term, but apparently Honduran law or the constitution allow Presidents to serve only one term. Zelaya apparently petitioned the Honduran Congress to hold a referendum to change the law/constitution, the Congress refused and Zelaya apparently had some ballots printed up anyway. If all that is true, and I am wiling to take Kelly’s word for it until/unless I read otherwise (from a reputable source), then Zelaya is an idiot. However, assuming Kelly’s argument that the people don’t support Zelaya is also true, then a referendum would be harmless, and in fact provide support for the system. Now, I will say I don’t know how constitutional change is supposed to work in Honduras, so what Zelaya is trying to do might be underminig the system.
In any event, what happened next is the real issue. The Attorney General petitions the Supreme Court to issue an arrest warrant for Zelaya, which they do, and the President is sent into exile by the army. Now, if Zelaya is not supported by the people (as Kelly says), then why bother? Kelly would have preferred Zelaya be imprisoned and put on trial, but even then, why bother? But from the Obama administration’s point of view, taking these steps is a pretty serious shortcut of political process. I can see the point of issuing sanctions (or having Congress vote on them) and insisting Zelaya be reinstated. If we are serious about democracy, we can’t just support democratically elected leaders we like.
Now, I write all this not knowing the detail of situation in Honduras. Most of what I am writing is based on what Kelly wrote. I am willing to admit that if what Kelly wrote is all the detail of the situation for Zelaya, then Zelaya does sound like an idiot. Still our reaction to a Democratically elected leader being deposed is not surprising. Especially since Kelly makes it sound like if the Honduran opposition to Zelaya had waited a couple of months it would have all been over anyway.
As I said above, the fact that Kelly wrote about this and not Iran or the G20 speaks volumes about Kelly’s attitude towards Obama. Kelly makes a relatively incoherent attack on a minor foreign policy situation while ignoring what is happening in Iran with nuclear weapons and what is happening on the world economic stage. Kelly simply wants to find any mistake, no matter how far fetched, he can pin on Obama. The PG needs to think about that.
Friday, September 25, 2009
So far ...
Just one observation from the G-20 protests. You tell people that they are the people you are protesting and fighting for – Americans of color, working class people, students. You go to their neighborhoods, you talk to them, spend time with them. Then the marches start, the confrontations with police, and then you are breaking windows. In the neighborhood where the march started, the working class neighborhood. The neighborhood where the people you are supposedly fighting for live. You are smashing the windows of their restaurants. And you wonder why Americans of color and/or working class people don’t appreciate your efforts.
On the other hand, P&W Motors, Mercedes of Shadyside (Bobby Raihal), whichever, good job.
On the other hand, P&W Motors, Mercedes of Shadyside (Bobby Raihal), whichever, good job.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Just a wee note on health care/insurance reform ...
Well, I plan to write about the G-20 (apparently now after the fact) and I plan to look at local politics, but I am still somewhat consumed by healthcare/insurance. I want to challenge any opponent of healthcare/insurance reform to read what I have written below and then tell me why we shouldn’t reform the system. When people say the system is broken, I think they are understating the issue.
As I understand it, health insurance came about in World War II, when there was a government imposed wage freeze. Now, lots of people were working, and companies still wanted to produce more … I guess tanks and uniforms, mostly, so they wanted to lure better workers to their plants. Health insurance allowed them to differentiate themselves. I believe early health insurance simply paid the doctor bills. I believe at some point in the next forty years doctors discovered if they raised their prices insurance companies would grumble but still pay.
Fast forward to the 1980’s, where the increase in health care costs and the corresponding increase in health care premiums has caused a crisis. See, the way employer based health insurance worked was that at first, the company paid it all. As premiums increased, companies started tinkering with their employee’s plans, creating and then increasing co-pays and having employees contribute to the premiums of their plan. But by the 1990’s health insurance is becoming a crisis, and Bill Clinton tried to implement universal health care. It was defeated, partially because of tactical errors on Clinton’s part, but also because of the alliance of the health insurance giants and the Republicans. For practical reasons the health insurance industry did try to reform itself (it was in danger of killing the goose that laid the golden eggs) through mechanisms like HMO’s and preferred provider options. In particular, at some point probably in the late seventies, health insurance companies started saying they would 80% of the usual, customary and reasonable costs charged by doctors in that particular geographic area. The doctors would receive less money but be guaranteed payment, and agree not to charge the patient the twenty percent. The insurance companies could enforce this by creating networks (where the doctors agreed to these rules) and only paying out of network doctors fifty percent of their charge (this is usually called blackmail). Now, as I suggested at some point I think doctors (and hospitals) started at some point milking the system when they had previously found insurance companies would pay the whole bill, and this new system reinforced the notion that it made sense for all doctors to find excuses to raise their rates every year, if only to increase that 80%. But you can imagine the effect on the uninsured. Every year, it becomes more and more dangerous financially to go to a doctor or the emergency room. Doctors desperate to maintain their life style and hospitals that want to remain profitable are raising their prices to astronomical levels (one night in the hospital for me according to insurance: 11 grand).
Another piece of this puzzle is that companies are still largely shielding their employees from the bulk of the cost of health insurance premiums. Apparently health insurance can cost 12 grand a year for an employee with a family of four, of which I believe companies might charge the employee three grand (I don’t know for sure, I never priced the family plans at work). To some extent, this used to work out ok because companies take a tax deduction on that part of the employees wages, as do the employees on the part they pay (look at your W2). This gave companies an incentive to offer health insurance (the health insurance companies had to agree not to deny or drop coverage based on pre-existing conditions). But I think the costs are now outstripping the tax advantages and in fact have been for a while. Where does the balance of them money come from? The price of everything. It is a hidden tax, administered by everyone and controlled by no one. So the tuition at CMU is higher than it would be if there was a government paid plan. And make no mistake, yes, with a government run single payer plan your taxes would be higher, but your wages ought to go up and prices for products ought to go down. Plus there would be fewer bankruptcies caused by people with no or inferior health insurance going to the hospital. In fact, many low wage employees would be more productive than before because they would have no fear of going to the doctor and would get health problems treated and would have other problems averted with preventative care. Say what you want about preventative care, if you have a sore throat and go to the doctor and find out it is a staph infection, get it treated and get better, that is a better result than going to the emergency room and still dying, and sticking your family with outrageous bills.
A third piece of this puzzle is that health insurance companies in the US return a smaller amount of their premiums to claims people make than health insurance companies in other countries. Which is to say for every premium dollar US health insurance companies take in, they pay out about 80 cents. In other countries the amount is about 95 cents paid out. The US pay out rate is looked upon favorably by Wall Street, it means the companies are being that much more profitable, and can give that much more to investors (and higher level executives in the company as well). This level of profitability is only sustainable if the insurance companies can continue to deny and drop coverage on people with pre-existing conditions (those not in employer offered health plans).
I didn’t address medical malpractice. I was chatting with a lawyer the other day (a whole ‘nother story I will have to say something about soon) and he was saying that two groups that do a lousy job of “policing” themselves are cops and doctors. I think that malpractice needs to be treated carefully. I think that people who are harmed by doctors through negligence should be recompensed. I think we also need to take steps to make sure that doctors who make more than one serious mistake are dealt with in some manner, whether it is being given the option of giving up their license or taking some huge amount of remedial training or something else, I don’t know. But something does need to happen, and if Republicans want to make a big stink about that, that is one area were I will cheer them on.
There are probably issues I have omitted (pharmaceuticals come to mind), but surely you are getting tired (I am).
So I talked about three of the five participants in the US health care system: health care providers, health insurance companies and private employers. The other two participants are the customers (us the US) and the government. Of those first three, providers and insurance companies have perverse incentives, and private employers are unwilling co-conspirators in making everything more expensive than it really needs to be. Healthcare/insurance reform needs to address the first two issues at the very least, and if we adopted a single payer plan that would address the issue of how much employers are spending on health insurance for their employees.
Meanwhile, we, the customers of health care (all of us) and customers of health insurance (85% of us) are being influenced in interesting ways. I would think that if most people see the issue the way I stated it above, they would be in favor of healthcare reform. In fact, I can see no arguments for maintaining the status quo. Even if you are a well compensated health insurance executive, unless you can pull off living in another country you are still paying more for ordinary goods and services than you should have to.
Yet conservative entertainers have given us outright lies to try to frighten us into thinking that health care/insurance reform is some sort of plot to destroy the country. The effect may be that of the legislative branch of the fifth participant in health snafu, the government, just enough Democrats and all Republicans save maybe one or two will vote against all but the weakest plan for reform (basically a giveaway to health insurance plans) in the Senate. We have the power to do something about that, but we have to act. Anytime anyone says that healthcare/insurance reform is a plot to overthrow democracy, ask them how that is, specifically.
I don’t want to pretend that health care/insurance reform will be easy. It would be difficult to address the current salaries of doctors, for example, they will protest they should have to give anything up. Even if they don’t have to pay as much in malpractice insurance, even if prices come down, doctors will want to make at least as much next year as they did this year. But we do need to do something, and probably more than what is in Max Baucus’ bill.
As I understand it, health insurance came about in World War II, when there was a government imposed wage freeze. Now, lots of people were working, and companies still wanted to produce more … I guess tanks and uniforms, mostly, so they wanted to lure better workers to their plants. Health insurance allowed them to differentiate themselves. I believe early health insurance simply paid the doctor bills. I believe at some point in the next forty years doctors discovered if they raised their prices insurance companies would grumble but still pay.
Fast forward to the 1980’s, where the increase in health care costs and the corresponding increase in health care premiums has caused a crisis. See, the way employer based health insurance worked was that at first, the company paid it all. As premiums increased, companies started tinkering with their employee’s plans, creating and then increasing co-pays and having employees contribute to the premiums of their plan. But by the 1990’s health insurance is becoming a crisis, and Bill Clinton tried to implement universal health care. It was defeated, partially because of tactical errors on Clinton’s part, but also because of the alliance of the health insurance giants and the Republicans. For practical reasons the health insurance industry did try to reform itself (it was in danger of killing the goose that laid the golden eggs) through mechanisms like HMO’s and preferred provider options. In particular, at some point probably in the late seventies, health insurance companies started saying they would 80% of the usual, customary and reasonable costs charged by doctors in that particular geographic area. The doctors would receive less money but be guaranteed payment, and agree not to charge the patient the twenty percent. The insurance companies could enforce this by creating networks (where the doctors agreed to these rules) and only paying out of network doctors fifty percent of their charge (this is usually called blackmail). Now, as I suggested at some point I think doctors (and hospitals) started at some point milking the system when they had previously found insurance companies would pay the whole bill, and this new system reinforced the notion that it made sense for all doctors to find excuses to raise their rates every year, if only to increase that 80%. But you can imagine the effect on the uninsured. Every year, it becomes more and more dangerous financially to go to a doctor or the emergency room. Doctors desperate to maintain their life style and hospitals that want to remain profitable are raising their prices to astronomical levels (one night in the hospital for me according to insurance: 11 grand).
Another piece of this puzzle is that companies are still largely shielding their employees from the bulk of the cost of health insurance premiums. Apparently health insurance can cost 12 grand a year for an employee with a family of four, of which I believe companies might charge the employee three grand (I don’t know for sure, I never priced the family plans at work). To some extent, this used to work out ok because companies take a tax deduction on that part of the employees wages, as do the employees on the part they pay (look at your W2). This gave companies an incentive to offer health insurance (the health insurance companies had to agree not to deny or drop coverage based on pre-existing conditions). But I think the costs are now outstripping the tax advantages and in fact have been for a while. Where does the balance of them money come from? The price of everything. It is a hidden tax, administered by everyone and controlled by no one. So the tuition at CMU is higher than it would be if there was a government paid plan. And make no mistake, yes, with a government run single payer plan your taxes would be higher, but your wages ought to go up and prices for products ought to go down. Plus there would be fewer bankruptcies caused by people with no or inferior health insurance going to the hospital. In fact, many low wage employees would be more productive than before because they would have no fear of going to the doctor and would get health problems treated and would have other problems averted with preventative care. Say what you want about preventative care, if you have a sore throat and go to the doctor and find out it is a staph infection, get it treated and get better, that is a better result than going to the emergency room and still dying, and sticking your family with outrageous bills.
A third piece of this puzzle is that health insurance companies in the US return a smaller amount of their premiums to claims people make than health insurance companies in other countries. Which is to say for every premium dollar US health insurance companies take in, they pay out about 80 cents. In other countries the amount is about 95 cents paid out. The US pay out rate is looked upon favorably by Wall Street, it means the companies are being that much more profitable, and can give that much more to investors (and higher level executives in the company as well). This level of profitability is only sustainable if the insurance companies can continue to deny and drop coverage on people with pre-existing conditions (those not in employer offered health plans).
I didn’t address medical malpractice. I was chatting with a lawyer the other day (a whole ‘nother story I will have to say something about soon) and he was saying that two groups that do a lousy job of “policing” themselves are cops and doctors. I think that malpractice needs to be treated carefully. I think that people who are harmed by doctors through negligence should be recompensed. I think we also need to take steps to make sure that doctors who make more than one serious mistake are dealt with in some manner, whether it is being given the option of giving up their license or taking some huge amount of remedial training or something else, I don’t know. But something does need to happen, and if Republicans want to make a big stink about that, that is one area were I will cheer them on.
There are probably issues I have omitted (pharmaceuticals come to mind), but surely you are getting tired (I am).
So I talked about three of the five participants in the US health care system: health care providers, health insurance companies and private employers. The other two participants are the customers (us the US) and the government. Of those first three, providers and insurance companies have perverse incentives, and private employers are unwilling co-conspirators in making everything more expensive than it really needs to be. Healthcare/insurance reform needs to address the first two issues at the very least, and if we adopted a single payer plan that would address the issue of how much employers are spending on health insurance for their employees.
Meanwhile, we, the customers of health care (all of us) and customers of health insurance (85% of us) are being influenced in interesting ways. I would think that if most people see the issue the way I stated it above, they would be in favor of healthcare reform. In fact, I can see no arguments for maintaining the status quo. Even if you are a well compensated health insurance executive, unless you can pull off living in another country you are still paying more for ordinary goods and services than you should have to.
Yet conservative entertainers have given us outright lies to try to frighten us into thinking that health care/insurance reform is some sort of plot to destroy the country. The effect may be that of the legislative branch of the fifth participant in health snafu, the government, just enough Democrats and all Republicans save maybe one or two will vote against all but the weakest plan for reform (basically a giveaway to health insurance plans) in the Senate. We have the power to do something about that, but we have to act. Anytime anyone says that healthcare/insurance reform is a plot to overthrow democracy, ask them how that is, specifically.
I don’t want to pretend that health care/insurance reform will be easy. It would be difficult to address the current salaries of doctors, for example, they will protest they should have to give anything up. Even if they don’t have to pay as much in malpractice insurance, even if prices come down, doctors will want to make at least as much next year as they did this year. But we do need to do something, and probably more than what is in Max Baucus’ bill.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Sunday unfunnies ...
Jack Kelly wrote a mean little column today, where his main point is that Joe Wilson was right when he yelled “You lie” at Obama during his health care speech to Congress. Forget whether it was rude or unprecedented, it was apparently justified. Although one of the bills working its way through the House does have explicit language saying that illegal aliens are not supposed to benefit from government sponsored health insurance, another part of this bill says that administrators signing people up for health insurance are not supposed to be Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents; they are not supposed to ask for citizenship documents.
I don’t know, I realize Kelly is some sort of former marine, and feels that people who work for the government should be enforcing its laws. But if I apply for a job to sign people up for health insurance, I don’t expect to be arresting people and detaining them so they can be deported. And what kind of society do we want to live in?
Meanwhile, it is not exactly like people will get much just by signing up with government provided health care. It is supposed to be cheaper than private insurance, but it is also supposed to pay for itself. This is not where the tax dollars are supposed to go. There are supposed to be subsidies for low income people, and maybe that is where some attention should be paid.
As for whether your employer could drop your coverage when the government expands healthcare (which Joe Wilson neglected to yell about, guess Republicans don’t care about millions of working Americans), that could happen at any time, for any reason. And sometimes that’s a good thing, if, for example your employer finds a more cost effective plan. Now I think the President or someone said that at lest some of the bills prevent the public option being offered to people who have health insurance already. But I don’t know how that will work out in practice. And actually, it could be a good thing if employers shed them selves of the burden of providing health insurance, if there is a fair alternative available, and if the employees get a ten thousand dollar raise (after all, Europe is coming, Europe is coming).
Meanwhile, I don’t think illegal aliens lead all that nice a life. Many without health insurance doing jobs like working on roofs and ladders, or working all night cleaning offices. They can be mistreated almost at will, because calling the labor department would get them fired, and possibly deported. We need to address the issue of undocumented workers in an adult way. But meanwhile worrying about them in a healthcare bill is simply a distraction, one that the Republicans are shoving down our throat.
I don’t know, I realize Kelly is some sort of former marine, and feels that people who work for the government should be enforcing its laws. But if I apply for a job to sign people up for health insurance, I don’t expect to be arresting people and detaining them so they can be deported. And what kind of society do we want to live in?
Meanwhile, it is not exactly like people will get much just by signing up with government provided health care. It is supposed to be cheaper than private insurance, but it is also supposed to pay for itself. This is not where the tax dollars are supposed to go. There are supposed to be subsidies for low income people, and maybe that is where some attention should be paid.
As for whether your employer could drop your coverage when the government expands healthcare (which Joe Wilson neglected to yell about, guess Republicans don’t care about millions of working Americans), that could happen at any time, for any reason. And sometimes that’s a good thing, if, for example your employer finds a more cost effective plan. Now I think the President or someone said that at lest some of the bills prevent the public option being offered to people who have health insurance already. But I don’t know how that will work out in practice. And actually, it could be a good thing if employers shed them selves of the burden of providing health insurance, if there is a fair alternative available, and if the employees get a ten thousand dollar raise (after all, Europe is coming, Europe is coming).
Meanwhile, I don’t think illegal aliens lead all that nice a life. Many without health insurance doing jobs like working on roofs and ladders, or working all night cleaning offices. They can be mistreated almost at will, because calling the labor department would get them fired, and possibly deported. We need to address the issue of undocumented workers in an adult way. But meanwhile worrying about them in a healthcare bill is simply a distraction, one that the Republicans are shoving down our throat.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
New word
I thought of two funny things yesterday (well, I thought they were funny), but right now I can only remember one. I think we can coin a new word: “Obama’d”. That’s when a Democrat reaches out to Republican legislators by gutting a piece of legislation and trying to give them what they want, and the Republicans, who had previously listed all these things they wanted, refuse to sign on to the bill. And for the first instance of someone being Obama’d: Senator Max Baucus.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Color me bad
Color me particularly stupid, in what is now becoming a bad pun. I had failed to make the connection between Color of Change (the organization that started an advertiser boycott of Glenn Beck’s program after he called President Obama a racist) and Van Jones (a co-founder of Color of Change, now not affiliated with it).
The parenthetical remarks covered it all.
The NYTimes Opinionator had an interesting compilation of various points of view entitled “Is it because he’s black?”, on an obvious topic. The last entry, a comment made by a reader of Andrew Sullivan’s Atlantic column, was, to me, the most interesting. He suggests that the Republican/conservative hatred of Obama is deeper than mere racism. This commenter called it "shadow projection", and he started with one of my favorite themes, that no one thinks of themselves as a bad person. But the US, under the Republicans for the last eight years (yeah, yeah, Congress for four) has done bad things to itself and others. Two wars, at least one justified with lies, the patriot act (wiretapping ourselves), spending, rolling back regulation with predictable results of an economic meltdown… In the past, these sorts of things would have been projected (essentially blamed or at least justified by) on an external opponent, such at the Soviet Union or maybe Iran. But now we have no credible external opponent (China can only threaten us economically, and instead they are buying our T-bills). Instead, the threat has been chosen from within: Obama. So now Obama is accused of financial irresponsibility with the stimulus package despite the spending during the Bush years, Obama is accused of trying to indoctrinate our children with his speech despite the indoctrination during the Bush years of a particular sort of Bush-worshiping patriotism, Obama is accused of trying to destroy the economy with new regulation when the deregulation of the Bush years nearly caused a depression. As Obama tries to move forward with new proposals (that try to address past failings of government), they are cast by Republicans/conservatives as some new evil having some negative consequence As the commenter puts it “The more evil revealed about the right’s excesses on torture, or wars of choice, or nearly destroying the economy, the more evil Obama will look in their eyes, as they cannot tolerate owning responsibility, because in their own minds they are only good.” And the commenter ends with “This will not end well. Now that Obama is carrying their shadow, only a dramatic event from outside could change it. . . . The more those on the right deny their own failings, the more their internal unease will increase, the more the hatred to Obama will grow, and the more the need to do something will increase.”
The parenthetical remarks covered it all.
The NYTimes Opinionator had an interesting compilation of various points of view entitled “Is it because he’s black?”, on an obvious topic. The last entry, a comment made by a reader of Andrew Sullivan’s Atlantic column, was, to me, the most interesting. He suggests that the Republican/conservative hatred of Obama is deeper than mere racism. This commenter called it "shadow projection", and he started with one of my favorite themes, that no one thinks of themselves as a bad person. But the US, under the Republicans for the last eight years (yeah, yeah, Congress for four) has done bad things to itself and others. Two wars, at least one justified with lies, the patriot act (wiretapping ourselves), spending, rolling back regulation with predictable results of an economic meltdown… In the past, these sorts of things would have been projected (essentially blamed or at least justified by) on an external opponent, such at the Soviet Union or maybe Iran. But now we have no credible external opponent (China can only threaten us economically, and instead they are buying our T-bills). Instead, the threat has been chosen from within: Obama. So now Obama is accused of financial irresponsibility with the stimulus package despite the spending during the Bush years, Obama is accused of trying to indoctrinate our children with his speech despite the indoctrination during the Bush years of a particular sort of Bush-worshiping patriotism, Obama is accused of trying to destroy the economy with new regulation when the deregulation of the Bush years nearly caused a depression. As Obama tries to move forward with new proposals (that try to address past failings of government), they are cast by Republicans/conservatives as some new evil having some negative consequence As the commenter puts it “The more evil revealed about the right’s excesses on torture, or wars of choice, or nearly destroying the economy, the more evil Obama will look in their eyes, as they cannot tolerate owning responsibility, because in their own minds they are only good.” And the commenter ends with “This will not end well. Now that Obama is carrying their shadow, only a dramatic event from outside could change it. . . . The more those on the right deny their own failings, the more their internal unease will increase, the more the hatred to Obama will grow, and the more the need to do something will increase.”
Monday, September 14, 2009
Their own public reality ... second point
An addendum to today’s post; Congresspersons who are Democrats are likely to be hesitant to comment negatively on the lies perpetrated by conservative media figures which are picked up by Republican/conservative politicians and party officials. The Democrats are hesitant to push back because they don’t want to be in the position of insulting the beliefs of some of their constituents. Which is too bad, since otherwise people walk around believing these stupid myths and conspiracy theories.
I should mention Glenn Beck’s 9/12 rally in DC, on Friday or Saturday. Apparently one of the organizers simply lied and said that 2 million people were present. I have heard 70,000 from a few (possibly charitable) people like Nate Silver, or as low as 60,000. That’s a lot of people, but for a supposedly nationwide effort? That speaks for itself.
I should mention Glenn Beck’s 9/12 rally in DC, on Friday or Saturday. Apparently one of the organizers simply lied and said that 2 million people were present. I have heard 70,000 from a few (possibly charitable) people like Nate Silver, or as low as 60,000. That’s a lot of people, but for a supposedly nationwide effort? That speaks for itself.
Their own public reality ...
Color me stupid, and maybe (probably, I hope) what I am seeing is more like a marriage of convenience than a conspiracy, but Ross Douthet’s column today in the NYTimes pushed me further toward thinking that Republicans/conservatives really are manufacturing their own reality. Douthet’s column is about how similar this time is to 1994, when the Republicans overturned a Democratic majority in Congress. Then, of course, the Democrats had controlled the Congress for decades, now its been three years, and of those three years the Republicans have done their best to be obstructionist and set records in the Senate for these phantom filibusters (make ‘em actually do it, and pee their pants). Douthet includes lines like “The health care push has opened up arguments about abortion, euthanasia and illegal immigration that the Democrats would rather avoid.” Except that those arguments are flat out Republican lies, spread by the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. Douthet doesn’t mention that. Yes, health care bills in Congress have end of life counseling, something Senior citizens want and until recently, so did Republicans. And the only way health care bill in Congress have anything to do with abortion or illegal Aliens is in describing how they will not be covered.
But the fact that Ross Douthet is talking about this that way in the New York Times made me realize that this is the way things are, at least during Democratic Presidencies. A Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin starts a lie, like abortion, euthanasia or illegal immigration in the “health care bill” (as if there was only one). These lies are aimed at their most gullible followers, the religious right or rural conservatives. These followers go to town hall meetings or protest rallies, and some get their faces on TV for ten seconds. Others want that, and the ranks swell (not by really that much, but enough). Polls are affected negatively for the Democratic President, not by a surprising amount, but in Obama’s case the depth of the support for his candidacy was imagined by the press, so any slide is seen as a major revolt. And so the “legitimate” and “reasonable” conservatives pundits step in and say that a majority of the country now opposes the President’s plan, whatever it is. They would say that while the bill doesn’t have euthanasia in it, the end of life counseling seems like you are pushing grandma towards the light, and anyway there are other signs there is Medicare rationing in “the bill”. I have heard David Brooks accuse the President of telling “whoppers” (lies), without spending one minute discussing the President’s accusers.
So there is a dynamic, where the fringe talk radio (and TV) wackos whip up an uneducated base, who complain loudly and publicly, and in turn the “thoughtful” conservatives identify an important movement in America, and describe it as a majority. The problem is this is having a real impact on policy. The public option is now in real trouble, which of course is what the insurance companies want. In fact, meaningful health care insurance/reform is in real trouble. Of course, some liberals aren’t helping either. Obama gives a tough speech, and Bill Maher acts like he wants Obama to physically beat conservatives. STOP TRYING TO HELP, Mr. Maher. The last thing Obama wants to do is hand the Republicans the gift of becoming “the angry negro”. Or did you miss what happened to Van Jones, and more importantly, why?
But the fact that Ross Douthet is talking about this that way in the New York Times made me realize that this is the way things are, at least during Democratic Presidencies. A Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin starts a lie, like abortion, euthanasia or illegal immigration in the “health care bill” (as if there was only one). These lies are aimed at their most gullible followers, the religious right or rural conservatives. These followers go to town hall meetings or protest rallies, and some get their faces on TV for ten seconds. Others want that, and the ranks swell (not by really that much, but enough). Polls are affected negatively for the Democratic President, not by a surprising amount, but in Obama’s case the depth of the support for his candidacy was imagined by the press, so any slide is seen as a major revolt. And so the “legitimate” and “reasonable” conservatives pundits step in and say that a majority of the country now opposes the President’s plan, whatever it is. They would say that while the bill doesn’t have euthanasia in it, the end of life counseling seems like you are pushing grandma towards the light, and anyway there are other signs there is Medicare rationing in “the bill”. I have heard David Brooks accuse the President of telling “whoppers” (lies), without spending one minute discussing the President’s accusers.
So there is a dynamic, where the fringe talk radio (and TV) wackos whip up an uneducated base, who complain loudly and publicly, and in turn the “thoughtful” conservatives identify an important movement in America, and describe it as a majority. The problem is this is having a real impact on policy. The public option is now in real trouble, which of course is what the insurance companies want. In fact, meaningful health care insurance/reform is in real trouble. Of course, some liberals aren’t helping either. Obama gives a tough speech, and Bill Maher acts like he wants Obama to physically beat conservatives. STOP TRYING TO HELP, Mr. Maher. The last thing Obama wants to do is hand the Republicans the gift of becoming “the angry negro”. Or did you miss what happened to Van Jones, and more importantly, why?
Sunday, September 13, 2009
One way to be political
“From each according to his (or her) ability, to each according to his (or her) need”. A big idea in Marxism, not to say communism. I have always considered Marxism to be an impressive philosophy, particularly in the way it approaches work. It says that we define ourselves by our work, and trading our work for currency (particularly a small amount of currency) degrades us. I guess though if we see our work as directly helping others (in the mythical workers paradise), even as they direct help us, it is more rewarding to our souls.
Of course, anyone who was willing to look with open eyes could see the that the Soviet Union and China were not worker’s paradises. The closest one might come to that would likely be in western Europe, and even in those countries there are plenty of disgruntled workers.
It was maybe a different story in the 1920’s and 1930’s, where the people likely to become communists in the US, the workers, couldn’t really travel to the Soviet Union (and the People’s Republic did not exist yet). Especially during the thirties, Communism must have seemed like an attractive alternative to Capitalism.
I am thinking about this because of Jack Kelly’s column today. My first thought reading it was, so there is only one way to be political in this country. We are the land of the free, yet Kelly suggested that only a few years ago Jones would not have been allowed in the White House (and then you have to say it, does Kelly mean because Jones was briefly a communist, or because Jones is black).
Kelly wants to say (I am extrapolating here) Jones never stopped being a communist, and that automatically should exclude him from any kind of government service, certainly from service in the White House. But I have to say the Van Jones did not behave like a prototypical communist, certainly not one that wanted the workers to rise up and seize the means of production. At this point, in fact, I am not sure what that means (I think the “workers” might need to look like nerds, since I guess they would be seizing netbooks and servers).
But Van Jones was the wussiest Marxist/Communist I have ever seen. He was part of a radical group called STORM (STANDING TOGETHER TO ORGANIZE A REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT), which protested the Rodney King verdict and the anniversary of Christopher Columbus “discovering” America. Jones himself is credited with joining and/or starting groups in the nineties that monitored police brutality, obtained books for convicts and protested the first gulf war. One of these efforts succeeded in getting a policeman accused of brutality fired. Hardly the sort of stuff to topple the US government.
Around the turn of the millennium, Jones figured out that if poor people got better jobs, they would gain more economic and therefore political power, which inspired Jones to look at “green” jobs for poor people. Kelly makes it all sound so sordid, but if you consider the context, Jones has simply pointed out the situation of poor people of color, and worked to change it, or at least keep it from becoming worse, always working within the system, legally. And his reward for doing so was to be hounded from the white House, with unelected “pundits” responsible to no one (like Glenn Beck and Jack Kelly) leading the charge. I guess, despite our “freedoms”, there is only one way to be political in this country.
Of course, anyone who was willing to look with open eyes could see the that the Soviet Union and China were not worker’s paradises. The closest one might come to that would likely be in western Europe, and even in those countries there are plenty of disgruntled workers.
It was maybe a different story in the 1920’s and 1930’s, where the people likely to become communists in the US, the workers, couldn’t really travel to the Soviet Union (and the People’s Republic did not exist yet). Especially during the thirties, Communism must have seemed like an attractive alternative to Capitalism.
I am thinking about this because of Jack Kelly’s column today. My first thought reading it was, so there is only one way to be political in this country. We are the land of the free, yet Kelly suggested that only a few years ago Jones would not have been allowed in the White House (and then you have to say it, does Kelly mean because Jones was briefly a communist, or because Jones is black).
Kelly wants to say (I am extrapolating here) Jones never stopped being a communist, and that automatically should exclude him from any kind of government service, certainly from service in the White House. But I have to say the Van Jones did not behave like a prototypical communist, certainly not one that wanted the workers to rise up and seize the means of production. At this point, in fact, I am not sure what that means (I think the “workers” might need to look like nerds, since I guess they would be seizing netbooks and servers).
But Van Jones was the wussiest Marxist/Communist I have ever seen. He was part of a radical group called STORM (STANDING TOGETHER TO ORGANIZE A REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT), which protested the Rodney King verdict and the anniversary of Christopher Columbus “discovering” America. Jones himself is credited with joining and/or starting groups in the nineties that monitored police brutality, obtained books for convicts and protested the first gulf war. One of these efforts succeeded in getting a policeman accused of brutality fired. Hardly the sort of stuff to topple the US government.
Around the turn of the millennium, Jones figured out that if poor people got better jobs, they would gain more economic and therefore political power, which inspired Jones to look at “green” jobs for poor people. Kelly makes it all sound so sordid, but if you consider the context, Jones has simply pointed out the situation of poor people of color, and worked to change it, or at least keep it from becoming worse, always working within the system, legally. And his reward for doing so was to be hounded from the white House, with unelected “pundits” responsible to no one (like Glenn Beck and Jack Kelly) leading the charge. I guess, despite our “freedoms”, there is only one way to be political in this country.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Ironic times
As I wait at work, waiting to hear from my brother who missed a flight waiting in line at security, I think about today as anniversary, and irony. I remember well where I was 9/11/01, working in the Cathedral of Learning on the 30th floor. Our receptionist told us (me) a plane had crashed near by, and that something seemed to be going on in New York. I was skeptical about all that, but I tried the New York Times website and found it wasn’t loading (which rarely seemed to happen, even in those days). People grew panicky as we realized what had happened. Would the cathedral be the next target, a tall building standing alone in Oakland? No one said, but I assume several people were thinking of Pitt’s considerable foreign student population. Around noon we got word from Nordenberg’ office that we should go home. I waited until most people were off the floor to leave, not willing to trust the Cathedral’s notoriously unreliable elevators would handle one more person crowding on. I bicycled home through the traffic, proving to myself once again the wisdom of that choice of transportation.
But here we are, eight years later, still involved in two wars that were started because of that event, or at least that is what we are told. And just recently, Van Jones, the President’s green jobs advisor (or czar, as some people like to say), resigned in part because it was revealed he was one of the people who signed a petition that called for an investigation into whether the government deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen so it could have an excuse to go to war in Afghanistan and/or Iraq.
Now I have mentioned before and elsewhere that I remember Paul O’Neill had divulged in his book (The Price of Loyalty, I think) that there had been memos in early 2001 talking about a post-Saddam Iraq. By itself that’s not a smoking gun, but it ought to be strong enough evidence to support a call for an investigation. And O’Neill was saying this in 2004, when this petition came out. The petition Jones signed publically was actually circulated to a weird variety of 100 prominent Americans, such as Ed Asner and various types of professors and businessmen. The names have been posted on a website since, for all to see. And apparently Jones has since decided maybe he doesn’t agree with the idea that the Bush administration might have deliberately not acted when it learned of the possible terrorist danger. But when Glenn Beck started foaming at the mouth about this and other things Jones has done (like deciding he was a communist for a while), Jones resigned rather than be a distraction for the Obama administration.
An African American resigns from the administration of the first African American President in part because he called for an impartial investigation into the actions of the government before the terrorists attacks of 9/11. He resigns because calling for this investigation offends a white male television personality. This television personality answers only to his network, he has essentially zero accountability with the American public, yet he is able to twist what should be a free speech issue into a liability. The very freedoms that conservatives claim the terrorists hate us for are the ones conservatives want to take away from us, starting with a minority group that spent the first hundred or so years of this country’s existence in chains.
Then, when the President is speaking to a joint session of Congress about health care and the lack of a civil debate, a Congressman interrupts him to tell the President he is lying (concerning whether undocumented workers will receive subsidized healthcare). Americans, in the form of organizations or individuals, well known or ordinary, line up in public forums to either say the Congressman’s behavior was wrong and/or he was wrong on the facts, or to say the Congressman was bravely standing up to a dangerous President.
That division is emblematic of the state of the country, before and soon after 9/11. I personally blame the conservatives who seemed to develop a standard for being a good American, that started with agreeing with and supporting the President in a time of war. They also used broad stereotypes and misinformation to advance their agendas. Although President Bush has left office, those who in the past disagreed with him are still being judged by this standard. Those who support Barack Obama are being judged by a new standard, that of worshiping a false god. Liberals, incensed and infuriated by these standards and other behaviors of conservatives, have hardened their own positions and condemn those who still wish to work with conservatives, including, ironically, our current President.
It’s possible the Chinese should add a new curse besides “May you live in interesting times”. The new one would be “May you live in ironic times”.
But here we are, eight years later, still involved in two wars that were started because of that event, or at least that is what we are told. And just recently, Van Jones, the President’s green jobs advisor (or czar, as some people like to say), resigned in part because it was revealed he was one of the people who signed a petition that called for an investigation into whether the government deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen so it could have an excuse to go to war in Afghanistan and/or Iraq.
Now I have mentioned before and elsewhere that I remember Paul O’Neill had divulged in his book (The Price of Loyalty, I think) that there had been memos in early 2001 talking about a post-Saddam Iraq. By itself that’s not a smoking gun, but it ought to be strong enough evidence to support a call for an investigation. And O’Neill was saying this in 2004, when this petition came out. The petition Jones signed publically was actually circulated to a weird variety of 100 prominent Americans, such as Ed Asner and various types of professors and businessmen. The names have been posted on a website since, for all to see. And apparently Jones has since decided maybe he doesn’t agree with the idea that the Bush administration might have deliberately not acted when it learned of the possible terrorist danger. But when Glenn Beck started foaming at the mouth about this and other things Jones has done (like deciding he was a communist for a while), Jones resigned rather than be a distraction for the Obama administration.
An African American resigns from the administration of the first African American President in part because he called for an impartial investigation into the actions of the government before the terrorists attacks of 9/11. He resigns because calling for this investigation offends a white male television personality. This television personality answers only to his network, he has essentially zero accountability with the American public, yet he is able to twist what should be a free speech issue into a liability. The very freedoms that conservatives claim the terrorists hate us for are the ones conservatives want to take away from us, starting with a minority group that spent the first hundred or so years of this country’s existence in chains.
Then, when the President is speaking to a joint session of Congress about health care and the lack of a civil debate, a Congressman interrupts him to tell the President he is lying (concerning whether undocumented workers will receive subsidized healthcare). Americans, in the form of organizations or individuals, well known or ordinary, line up in public forums to either say the Congressman’s behavior was wrong and/or he was wrong on the facts, or to say the Congressman was bravely standing up to a dangerous President.
That division is emblematic of the state of the country, before and soon after 9/11. I personally blame the conservatives who seemed to develop a standard for being a good American, that started with agreeing with and supporting the President in a time of war. They also used broad stereotypes and misinformation to advance their agendas. Although President Bush has left office, those who in the past disagreed with him are still being judged by this standard. Those who support Barack Obama are being judged by a new standard, that of worshiping a false god. Liberals, incensed and infuriated by these standards and other behaviors of conservatives, have hardened their own positions and condemn those who still wish to work with conservatives, including, ironically, our current President.
It’s possible the Chinese should add a new curse besides “May you live in interesting times”. The new one would be “May you live in ironic times”.
Brooks and the plan ...
When I graduated from college and came back to Pittsburgh, I registered as a Republican. At the time, I thought I might try to do something in politics, and I had two reasons for choosing the Republicans. First is the small pond thing (I thought I might become a big fish, if I wasn’t one to start with) and then there is the popular stereotype that Republicans know a lot about economics. Now, I had read an academic article in college which said that politicians and staffers of both parties knew the words used by economists, but didn’t understand the concepts. But here I was, with majors in political science and economics, so I could change all that. Except I quickly realized the Republicans are largely a joke in Pittsburgh (particularly in the mid 80’s), and I never looked too hard for meetings or events.
Now I am registered Democrat but I feel they are closer (although not the same as) to my social views. But one reason I read David Brooks in the NYTimes is that he seems to want to embody the stereotype of Republicans/conservatives as smart on economics (the “party of ideas”). So I was interested in his take on Obama’s health care speech. And it did not disappoint.
Before I go on, I think that while Brooks writes as if he is thoughtful and concerned with facts and ideas, he is a conservative. I don’t know exactly what his agenda is, but on healthcare I see him as part of the problem, in a subtle way. I think around mid summer he picked up the theme that a majority of Americans oppose the leading House bill (which Brooks likes to link to the President). I think the truth is much more complicated than that, and not helped by the shallow coverage of those in the media, including Brooks.
So I was interested to see Brooks say that Wednesday’s speech was “the finest speech of his presidency”. However, Brooks quickly made it clear that he thought Obama’s speech was so good because Brooks thought Obama had moved to the center, and, dare I say it, is not following Brooks’ advice. So Brooks praised Obama saying he would not sign a bill that raises the deficit by even one dime. In Brooks mind, that means the House bill is dead, and whatever Max Baucas (sp?) lobs at us is what is likely to be signed. Brooks thought Obama dropped the Public Option (not what I took away at all), and praised Obama arguing for tort reform (which I agree Obama did).
I have to say on the public option I have seen at least a couple of people say that they thought Obama indicated he was willing to drop it. I personally got the sense that Obama was willing to drop it only if the droppers proposed something that would achieve a minimum result equivalent to what the public option would achieve. In other words, Obama doesn’t care so much how it is done, but he wants that credible competition to private insurers. And I believe he indicated he won’t sign a bill without it.
But I dare say that I think Brooks, while wrong in my opinion in several parts of his column, was quite right in calling Obama’s speech the finest of his Presidency. Overtly it had some things for almost every one, between the strong call for reform but also identifying part of that as tort reform, he was like a piñata of treats for both parties. But on a more subtle level, I think Obama succeeded in convincing his audience that no matter who they are, Obama respects their opinion. It certainly seemed to work on David Brooks. Brooks may be in for a nasty shock in a few weeks, but for now he is a big, if unlikely, Obama supporter.
Now I am registered Democrat but I feel they are closer (although not the same as) to my social views. But one reason I read David Brooks in the NYTimes is that he seems to want to embody the stereotype of Republicans/conservatives as smart on economics (the “party of ideas”). So I was interested in his take on Obama’s health care speech. And it did not disappoint.
Before I go on, I think that while Brooks writes as if he is thoughtful and concerned with facts and ideas, he is a conservative. I don’t know exactly what his agenda is, but on healthcare I see him as part of the problem, in a subtle way. I think around mid summer he picked up the theme that a majority of Americans oppose the leading House bill (which Brooks likes to link to the President). I think the truth is much more complicated than that, and not helped by the shallow coverage of those in the media, including Brooks.
So I was interested to see Brooks say that Wednesday’s speech was “the finest speech of his presidency”. However, Brooks quickly made it clear that he thought Obama’s speech was so good because Brooks thought Obama had moved to the center, and, dare I say it, is not following Brooks’ advice. So Brooks praised Obama saying he would not sign a bill that raises the deficit by even one dime. In Brooks mind, that means the House bill is dead, and whatever Max Baucas (sp?) lobs at us is what is likely to be signed. Brooks thought Obama dropped the Public Option (not what I took away at all), and praised Obama arguing for tort reform (which I agree Obama did).
I have to say on the public option I have seen at least a couple of people say that they thought Obama indicated he was willing to drop it. I personally got the sense that Obama was willing to drop it only if the droppers proposed something that would achieve a minimum result equivalent to what the public option would achieve. In other words, Obama doesn’t care so much how it is done, but he wants that credible competition to private insurers. And I believe he indicated he won’t sign a bill without it.
But I dare say that I think Brooks, while wrong in my opinion in several parts of his column, was quite right in calling Obama’s speech the finest of his Presidency. Overtly it had some things for almost every one, between the strong call for reform but also identifying part of that as tort reform, he was like a piñata of treats for both parties. But on a more subtle level, I think Obama succeeded in convincing his audience that no matter who they are, Obama respects their opinion. It certainly seemed to work on David Brooks. Brooks may be in for a nasty shock in a few weeks, but for now he is a big, if unlikely, Obama supporter.
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
So the President spoke ...
And before I read anybody else's analysis, I thought I would venture my own. First I will say I realize that Chad Hermann (and his minions) will pick apart the President’s speech line by line, finding it wanting piece meal and as a whole. And any one who says anything positive about the President’s speech is a dupe in thrall to the mystique of Obama the messiah. But anyone who criticizes him is part of a persecuted minority (of people with common sense), who are being accused of racism by the actual racists, the liberals (actually closet communists) whose arguments are so weak they have to resort to name calling and twisting the facts.
And so you should ignore anything I say here, because it will all be useless drivel.
Anyhoo, I thought the President gave a good speech. He continues to walk a fine line, between reinforcing his base, trying to include the Republicans in on things and actually do something to achieve health care reform. He started by introducing the problem, citing the costs in lives and dollars. He then stated he is going to give Congress a bill (that’s the way I understood it) and he outlined what will be in it, including an insurance exchange for the uninsured. Then he spent some time correcting (attacking?) the misinformation we have had forced on us in the last month. Only then did he mention the public option. He waited so long I thought he had dropped the public option. He did specify the limitation that only people who don’t have insurance now will be able to use it. He said that only 5% of Americans might sign up for it (according to the CBO). But I will say the public option could, in fact, be a powerhouse in health insurance. The private companies keep as much as 20% of premiums for overhead (mostly for profit). The public option might only keep 3%. So they might be able to pay somewhat more for medical claims and still have lower premiums. This cold affect the bottom line of private insurers, and cause them to either keep less of premiums and lower costs to consumers, or to lobby the Republicans hard to block the plan. On the other hand, if the public option really is only for the currently uninsured, well, they weren’t buying private insurance before anyway, so how much have the private companies lost?
Back to the President’s speech, it went on. And on. He said finally at least three times, I think, yet it kept on not being finally. He said we wouldn’t insure illegal aliens, which yielded a yelled “lie” from the Republican side (Nancy Pelosi glared for some time over that way), and some other dubious noises, some I think from Democrats. He pointedly did not mention a tax on those making over $250,000, although Obama did mention the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, as well as the two wars Obama inherited, as adding to the deficit Obama inherited (to enthusiastic Democratic only applause). And Obama did pointedly reassure senior citizens that he was not going to make them suffer any hardship.
He finished with an extended discussion that started with a letter Teddy Kennedy wrote in May but somehow was delivered to Obama only recently (that’s the way I understood what Obama said). He focused on a phrase Kennedy used, the American character. And Obama drew out his analysis, talking about the tension between individual liberty and having government step in when either the free market has failed or maybe when some problem, natural disaster or man made, has occurred. Obama stressed the importance of individual liberty, but came down particularly in this situation on a greater role for government.
Now, if you think about it, bringing up the issue of individual liberty with reference to health insurance is entirely silly. Most of us experience health insurance through our employer, where we are either offered one plan, period, or perhaps a cafeteria of plans. My employer has six or maybe seven or eight plans, each with different costs depending on family size. Despite that fairly impressive variety, I don’t thing there is a true High Deductible/Health Savings Account plan in there (the plan has to meet certain deductible levels to qualify for the tax benefits, which are key). By the way, I have decided now that HD/HAS plans are only good for young people (preferably just out of college) who plan to never have children. That’s means pushing HD/HSA’s means having your country shrink.
Anyway, my point is that even for me, my choices are pretty limited. But I am steered toward those limited choices because my employer will pay some 70% of my premiums. Even if I were to buy my own health insurance, my choices would be pretty limited to what is available around here. And if I try to shop around for doctors, I quickly find I am pushed toward health insurance options where I choose from a limited pool of doctors, ones heavily affiliated with my health insurance company. Plus, for shopping either for health insurance companies or doctors, the rates they charge are largely concealed. So any shopping will be made that much more difficult, and if you (and you spouse if you are married) work, it will be even more difficult since your work would have to tolerate your calling health insurance companies and/or doctors during work hours, and staying on the phone for a pretty long time.
So any sense that the free market of health insurance and health care actually gives you choices is in practice simply wrong. Despite that, Obama is trying to maintain part of the status quo (despite what he says) because it works for a majority of Americans. The majority doesn’t have to think too hard about their health insurance, and doesn’t want to.
I think Obama is taking a wise approach, and I think he made that clear in his (long) speech tonight (clearer than in my long post here). But I think the day is coming when we will decide to take the single payer route. And the longer we delay, the more suffering that will occur along the way.
And so you should ignore anything I say here, because it will all be useless drivel.
Anyhoo, I thought the President gave a good speech. He continues to walk a fine line, between reinforcing his base, trying to include the Republicans in on things and actually do something to achieve health care reform. He started by introducing the problem, citing the costs in lives and dollars. He then stated he is going to give Congress a bill (that’s the way I understood it) and he outlined what will be in it, including an insurance exchange for the uninsured. Then he spent some time correcting (attacking?) the misinformation we have had forced on us in the last month. Only then did he mention the public option. He waited so long I thought he had dropped the public option. He did specify the limitation that only people who don’t have insurance now will be able to use it. He said that only 5% of Americans might sign up for it (according to the CBO). But I will say the public option could, in fact, be a powerhouse in health insurance. The private companies keep as much as 20% of premiums for overhead (mostly for profit). The public option might only keep 3%. So they might be able to pay somewhat more for medical claims and still have lower premiums. This cold affect the bottom line of private insurers, and cause them to either keep less of premiums and lower costs to consumers, or to lobby the Republicans hard to block the plan. On the other hand, if the public option really is only for the currently uninsured, well, they weren’t buying private insurance before anyway, so how much have the private companies lost?
Back to the President’s speech, it went on. And on. He said finally at least three times, I think, yet it kept on not being finally. He said we wouldn’t insure illegal aliens, which yielded a yelled “lie” from the Republican side (Nancy Pelosi glared for some time over that way), and some other dubious noises, some I think from Democrats. He pointedly did not mention a tax on those making over $250,000, although Obama did mention the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, as well as the two wars Obama inherited, as adding to the deficit Obama inherited (to enthusiastic Democratic only applause). And Obama did pointedly reassure senior citizens that he was not going to make them suffer any hardship.
He finished with an extended discussion that started with a letter Teddy Kennedy wrote in May but somehow was delivered to Obama only recently (that’s the way I understood what Obama said). He focused on a phrase Kennedy used, the American character. And Obama drew out his analysis, talking about the tension between individual liberty and having government step in when either the free market has failed or maybe when some problem, natural disaster or man made, has occurred. Obama stressed the importance of individual liberty, but came down particularly in this situation on a greater role for government.
Now, if you think about it, bringing up the issue of individual liberty with reference to health insurance is entirely silly. Most of us experience health insurance through our employer, where we are either offered one plan, period, or perhaps a cafeteria of plans. My employer has six or maybe seven or eight plans, each with different costs depending on family size. Despite that fairly impressive variety, I don’t thing there is a true High Deductible/Health Savings Account plan in there (the plan has to meet certain deductible levels to qualify for the tax benefits, which are key). By the way, I have decided now that HD/HAS plans are only good for young people (preferably just out of college) who plan to never have children. That’s means pushing HD/HSA’s means having your country shrink.
Anyway, my point is that even for me, my choices are pretty limited. But I am steered toward those limited choices because my employer will pay some 70% of my premiums. Even if I were to buy my own health insurance, my choices would be pretty limited to what is available around here. And if I try to shop around for doctors, I quickly find I am pushed toward health insurance options where I choose from a limited pool of doctors, ones heavily affiliated with my health insurance company. Plus, for shopping either for health insurance companies or doctors, the rates they charge are largely concealed. So any shopping will be made that much more difficult, and if you (and you spouse if you are married) work, it will be even more difficult since your work would have to tolerate your calling health insurance companies and/or doctors during work hours, and staying on the phone for a pretty long time.
So any sense that the free market of health insurance and health care actually gives you choices is in practice simply wrong. Despite that, Obama is trying to maintain part of the status quo (despite what he says) because it works for a majority of Americans. The majority doesn’t have to think too hard about their health insurance, and doesn’t want to.
I think Obama is taking a wise approach, and I think he made that clear in his (long) speech tonight (clearer than in my long post here). But I think the day is coming when we will decide to take the single payer route. And the longer we delay, the more suffering that will occur along the way.
Sunday, September 06, 2009
That Franken video and a couple of other things ...
I just watched that Al Franken video on health care, and I was not hugely impressed given the build up, but it was interesting enough to watch. One question stuck with me. Someone asked how we are going to pay for the cost of the bill. Well, my immediate thought was that we are paying for it now. We are paying for the uninsured with the higher costs charged by hospitals and doctors now. If you can't pay, emergency rooms are obliged to treat you anyway. Then, afterwards, assuming you survive, they will send you bills, which you might try to pay until you go bankrupt, or which you might ignore. The collection agencies will destroy your credit rating, and the hospital will write off the costs. That will mean lower taxes if they are a for profit, but the stockholders might replace the hospital CEO for someone less likely to lose money. Non-profits might have a bit more leeway, but still can't afford to give away too much care. And meanwhile for or non profits will raise their prices to cover these kinds of cost in the future. Those higher prices are paid for by health insurance companies now. You employer may shield you from 80 to 90 % of the premium, but your employer has to make up for that with higher prices for their customers (currently employers and you do get a tax deduction for health insurance premiums, but the Republicans want to end that). So we do pay for care for the uninsured now, only very inefficiently, and with lots of death and bankruptcy.
A single payer system would improve health outcomes and lower costs even further. Taxes would go up, but your paycheck should also go up, and the prices for things should go down. Actually, while I thick every one's pay would go up, I think prices would stay the same, just not rising as much for a few years. That even though there would be a spike in demand caused by the higher pay.
A single payer system would improve health outcomes and lower costs even further. Taxes would go up, but your paycheck should also go up, and the prices for things should go down. Actually, while I thick every one's pay would go up, I think prices would stay the same, just not rising as much for a few years. That even though there would be a spike in demand caused by the higher pay.
Saturday, September 05, 2009
Kelly's Hero(s)-in
Well, I had stole Kyle Chandler’s Sunday paper and got the chance to write about Jack Kelly’s column before most other bloggers or whom ever would bother. But I squandered that chance by being busy this afternoon and lazy this evening. Which is a shame because I think the subject matter of Kelly’s column is pretty important. He talked this Sunday about Afghanistan and how Obama should conduct that war.
Kelly starts the column agreeing that in fact Bush did screw up the Afghan war, by not giving it enough attention. That’s probably true, but it is surprising to see Kelly say it. But the big issue is whether Obama should add troops. Kelly does not actually take a stand on that, instead he says things like that adding troops is the only way to win the war, but if Obama does it becomes Obama’s war. He also says that not adding troops might keep the war out of the public eye, but would backfire shortly.
Kelly also at one point snarks that just adding troops won’t win the war by itself, we need to apply the lessons of Iraq to Afghanistan. He also decides at the end of the column to agree with a retired intelligence officer and suggest that we pull most of out troops out, and simply use drones and special forces to kill terrorists.
Columns like this make me think back to the Civil War, when Lincoln kept McClellan on as a general for way too long. Everyone goes into battle planning on winning, but wishing or even ordering your generals to win won’t make it happen. You need to have experienced people who are comfortable in battle, and of course we should have people like that now.
But I keep thinking of the Soviets, who invaded Afghanistan in December of 1979, and left ten years later. They had a 100,000 men there, not as well equipped, well trained or well motivated as our troops, but more willing to be brutal to win the conflict. And they couldn’t.
Honestly I don’t know what the answer for Afghanistan is. We have a vested interest in eliminating the poppy trade, but the Afghans have a bigger interest in continuing the trade. And even though Jack Kelly complains about our treating the Pakistanis as allies and Kharzai (sp?) as a good guy, you have to go with the facts on the ground. Treating Kharzai as a corrupt politician does not help us much, and cutting ourselves off from Pakistan means losing access to the Taliban
I don’t think Kelly advanced the dialogue this week, but he did less than usual to hurt it.
Kelly starts the column agreeing that in fact Bush did screw up the Afghan war, by not giving it enough attention. That’s probably true, but it is surprising to see Kelly say it. But the big issue is whether Obama should add troops. Kelly does not actually take a stand on that, instead he says things like that adding troops is the only way to win the war, but if Obama does it becomes Obama’s war. He also says that not adding troops might keep the war out of the public eye, but would backfire shortly.
Kelly also at one point snarks that just adding troops won’t win the war by itself, we need to apply the lessons of Iraq to Afghanistan. He also decides at the end of the column to agree with a retired intelligence officer and suggest that we pull most of out troops out, and simply use drones and special forces to kill terrorists.
Columns like this make me think back to the Civil War, when Lincoln kept McClellan on as a general for way too long. Everyone goes into battle planning on winning, but wishing or even ordering your generals to win won’t make it happen. You need to have experienced people who are comfortable in battle, and of course we should have people like that now.
But I keep thinking of the Soviets, who invaded Afghanistan in December of 1979, and left ten years later. They had a 100,000 men there, not as well equipped, well trained or well motivated as our troops, but more willing to be brutal to win the conflict. And they couldn’t.
Honestly I don’t know what the answer for Afghanistan is. We have a vested interest in eliminating the poppy trade, but the Afghans have a bigger interest in continuing the trade. And even though Jack Kelly complains about our treating the Pakistanis as allies and Kharzai (sp?) as a good guy, you have to go with the facts on the ground. Treating Kharzai as a corrupt politician does not help us much, and cutting ourselves off from Pakistan means losing access to the Taliban
I don’t think Kelly advanced the dialogue this week, but he did less than usual to hurt it.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Reality?
There are a lot of irritating things about the healthcare/insurance debate, but to me one of the most irritating is how conservatives are creating their own reality, how they are shaping the debate in the way they describe it.
When healthcare/insurance reform (which I am going to just call healthcare from here out) started a few months ago, a majority of Americans were in favor of it. It is easy to see why, right now the 15% of us without health insurance and the millions of us who have lousy health insurance have to pay astronomical bills even for brief emergency room visits. Those of us with employer based coverage get a great deal in paying for only a tiny fraction of our health insurance (and we get a tax break on what we do pay), and our employers also get a tax break, but still the cost of our insurance adds maybe ten grand on average to our employers payroll costs per employee. That factors into the cost of everything we make (including export goods). And of course there are the stories of medical cost driven bankruptcies (apparently about half I think), and the anecdotes of people’s coverage being terminated right before they have an operation or some expensive treatment. All of which is to say there was, as there should be, a fair amount of support for changing the system.
Now, Obama had decided to allow Congress to actually write the healthcare reform bills. He gave them some guidelines he wanted to see, and I guess he thought maybe Congress would get together and produce something bipartisan (this time, as opposed to what happened with the stimulus). That didn’t happen, and in fact when the bills were produced, the Republicans particularly targeted one House bill, and circulated emails with distortions of its various provisions. I suspect (really, believe) that those distortions were also communicated on the conservative talk radio and TV shows. Republicans started to push back, in the Senate, suggesting that because the Democrats did not have 60 votes (with Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd ailing), they would block any legislation with a largely united front and a couple of defecting Democrats. The end of July deadline was missed, and then the townhalls started. At first, only a couple of speakers were screaming and carrying on. But when it happened, it was captured on video and played in an endless loop on the TV news. Conservative pundits seized on these episodes as signs that public support for health care reform was dropping, and as they did, they created that reality. When people heard that other people were no longer supporting health care reform, their own support wavered. When they heard socialism and death panels, they forgot about saving money and started worrying that we would become Nazi Germany.
Last Friday I heard the analysis of Shields and Brooks on the PBS News Hour. Generally I like David Brooks at least some. But on this occasion he leapt out of the gate with the statement that public support for health care reform was below 50%, and it looked like nothing would be done. Naturally Shields backed him up, because nobody wants to tell the News Hour viewers they are too stupid to understand the issues (and to be fair, the people who no longer support health care reform never understand the issues).
There has been some intelligent push back. TR Reid has just published a book comparing health care systems all around the world. The more people hear the nuts and bolts, the down and dirty good and bad of other countries health care systems, the more they may decide we really do want something more like what they have. Up till now, conservatives’ anecdotes of how people have to wait for inferior care in Europe have dominated the news cycle. But if French men and English women are actually heard, they will talk about how waits are not the norm, and how the care is both complete and inexpensive.
Some Congressional Republicans, in their incredible hubris, have actually been upfront that their goal is to hand Obama a defeat. It does not matter to them that millions of people will continue to suffer if health care reform is defeated. And meanwhile they are aided by the legion of conservative pundits; some, like Limbaugh, Beck and Quinn who are so deluded they simply don’t know better, and some, like David Brooks, who ought to be ashamed.
When healthcare/insurance reform (which I am going to just call healthcare from here out) started a few months ago, a majority of Americans were in favor of it. It is easy to see why, right now the 15% of us without health insurance and the millions of us who have lousy health insurance have to pay astronomical bills even for brief emergency room visits. Those of us with employer based coverage get a great deal in paying for only a tiny fraction of our health insurance (and we get a tax break on what we do pay), and our employers also get a tax break, but still the cost of our insurance adds maybe ten grand on average to our employers payroll costs per employee. That factors into the cost of everything we make (including export goods). And of course there are the stories of medical cost driven bankruptcies (apparently about half I think), and the anecdotes of people’s coverage being terminated right before they have an operation or some expensive treatment. All of which is to say there was, as there should be, a fair amount of support for changing the system.
Now, Obama had decided to allow Congress to actually write the healthcare reform bills. He gave them some guidelines he wanted to see, and I guess he thought maybe Congress would get together and produce something bipartisan (this time, as opposed to what happened with the stimulus). That didn’t happen, and in fact when the bills were produced, the Republicans particularly targeted one House bill, and circulated emails with distortions of its various provisions. I suspect (really, believe) that those distortions were also communicated on the conservative talk radio and TV shows. Republicans started to push back, in the Senate, suggesting that because the Democrats did not have 60 votes (with Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd ailing), they would block any legislation with a largely united front and a couple of defecting Democrats. The end of July deadline was missed, and then the townhalls started. At first, only a couple of speakers were screaming and carrying on. But when it happened, it was captured on video and played in an endless loop on the TV news. Conservative pundits seized on these episodes as signs that public support for health care reform was dropping, and as they did, they created that reality. When people heard that other people were no longer supporting health care reform, their own support wavered. When they heard socialism and death panels, they forgot about saving money and started worrying that we would become Nazi Germany.
Last Friday I heard the analysis of Shields and Brooks on the PBS News Hour. Generally I like David Brooks at least some. But on this occasion he leapt out of the gate with the statement that public support for health care reform was below 50%, and it looked like nothing would be done. Naturally Shields backed him up, because nobody wants to tell the News Hour viewers they are too stupid to understand the issues (and to be fair, the people who no longer support health care reform never understand the issues).
There has been some intelligent push back. TR Reid has just published a book comparing health care systems all around the world. The more people hear the nuts and bolts, the down and dirty good and bad of other countries health care systems, the more they may decide we really do want something more like what they have. Up till now, conservatives’ anecdotes of how people have to wait for inferior care in Europe have dominated the news cycle. But if French men and English women are actually heard, they will talk about how waits are not the norm, and how the care is both complete and inexpensive.
Some Congressional Republicans, in their incredible hubris, have actually been upfront that their goal is to hand Obama a defeat. It does not matter to them that millions of people will continue to suffer if health care reform is defeated. And meanwhile they are aided by the legion of conservative pundits; some, like Limbaugh, Beck and Quinn who are so deluded they simply don’t know better, and some, like David Brooks, who ought to be ashamed.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Sunday funnies and not ...
Jack Kelly’s column today is very silly. His central premise is that everybody crapped on the CIA this past week. But the problems he discusses, in particular being a second seat on intelligence gathering (except when it comes to interrogation), would have had to have developed over some time. The CIA didn’t become the embarrassing relative on January 20th, George Bush and his administration had to be pushing them down for some time. In fact, Kelly mentions the CIA’s failure to see 9/11 coming, presumably to shift some blame on Clinton. But in the intervening year, the Bush administration did nothing to make the situation better? Also, Kelly literally seems to imply that other countries will only respect us if we torture terrorists. It is amazing how far we have sunk, pulled down by the likes of Dick Cheney and Jack Kelly.
I think a more important piece in the forum section is the one by TR Reid. Since conservatives have started calling the various plans in Congress “socialist” (actually, they pretend it’s one plan, one conspiracy), they have also made accusations that the systems in other industrialized countries have these awful features, such as forcing you to delay care, and making you take the doctor they want you to have (both basically rationing care). Conservative also say that medicine in other industrialized countries is primitive compared to the US. Of course, there might be something to that, in that at least for Congresspersons, they have absolutely the best care.
Meanwhile, those in favor of health care/insurance should welcome the comparisons to systems in other industrialized countries. In most every aggregate sense, the systems of other countries beat us. They pay less, yet they have better infant mortality rates and longer life spans. There may well be some specific diseases survival rates where we do better, and I have heard conservatives argue we are too fat and that may affect some of the outcomes. But to really argue that we have the best system, the conservatives are reduced to arguing, as did Mitch McConnell, that polls show Americans think their health system is the best. If the French think their system is the best, does that matter? Or if the World Health Organization rates the French system the best, does that matter? (no, the WHO is a bunch of furiner’s)
So first let’s be clear here, the American health insurance system relies on the worst features of capitalism, and suppresses the best features. As far as competition goes, for example, the American system falls down in at least two ways. Although the biggest cities may be different, in many markets, including Pittsburgh, there are one or two insurance giants that dominate the market. UPMC and Highmark could compete, but why bother? Neither has stock holders, both are non-profits who make “excess revenues” they can plow back into executive bonuses. I believe for the Universities, for example, both Highmark and UPMC offer plans, although UPMC has an edge because of its domination of Oakland. And I believe this story is repeated all across the country, albeit some places with for profit companies.
Our administrative costs for health insurance are the highest in the world. Evidently that’s no accident, paying claims, while important in every other country in the world, is considered a mark of failure for US health insurance companies. The fewer claims that are paid out of premium dollars, the more that could be returned to stockholders. Of course, that doesn’t apply to UPMC and Highmark, except that they could claim they need to be competitive with for-profit firms, to maintain their foothold here (they would call it tenuous, I would call it a strangle hold).
Now, I am not going to try to replicate TR Reid’s essay here, or even comment extensively on it. I don’t want to do that partly because other countries use a variety of different systems (a point Reid emphasizes). Some do rely entirely on private health insurance, some have health insurance entirely administered by the government. The one thing all other industrialized countries do is recognize that government has a substantial role to play in health care. It’s not that they see it as a human right. Rather other countries have realized that the free market can not handle health care in industrialized nations. If you leave it up to the free market, you end up looking something like the United States, where a substantial number of people have no health insurance, some number of other people have substandard insurance, and costs rise in part because everyone else pays the health care bills for these people. There are also more bankruptcies than there need to be, as patients (if they survive, or their families) struggle and fail to pay astronomical health care costs. Interestingly, conservatives want to make the situation worse, by removing one of the few government regulations there are and allowing insurance companies to sell health insurance across state lines. While this would seem to address the competition issue, insurance companies would have to try to set up physician networks possibly thousands of miles away, doctors would have to deal with getting reimbursement from a company possibly thousands of miles away, and patients … you get the idea. I suspect insurance companies might all set up in one state with friendly laws and use those laws as a shield. I know from personal experience that state insurance commissioners can sanction out of state companies and yet it does not curb their behavior. At least you can picket and embarrass local companies.
I did major in economics a long time ago, and while I am not saying that makes me Alan Greenspan (or even Andrea Mitchell), I did learn a little bit. Market failure is where the free market doesn’t work. One of the canonical examples is where the local government sets aside a piece of land for people to graze animals on (such as cattle or sheep) and people destroy it with over grazing. But monopolies or oligopolies are generally considered market failure too, and those are the cases where the government needs to step in. I think that the health insurance industry is a series of a ologopolies that feel free to not provide clear information to subscribers and drop coverage on flimsy pretenses, and thus needs regulation.
I haven’t mentioned anything about doctors and hospitals. That’s because I think we need to address health insurance first. I do think that there needs to be reform on the medical side as well. I think addressing rates of infection in hospitals, computerizing health records (which may not eliminate mistakes, but would make records easier to access and would also put more eyes on records) and finding a better way of addressing mistakes when they are made are all very important. But I think addressing health insurance will help the country as a whole more and faster.
Read the TR Reid piece in the Sunday PG, and talk to your friends about it.
I think a more important piece in the forum section is the one by TR Reid. Since conservatives have started calling the various plans in Congress “socialist” (actually, they pretend it’s one plan, one conspiracy), they have also made accusations that the systems in other industrialized countries have these awful features, such as forcing you to delay care, and making you take the doctor they want you to have (both basically rationing care). Conservative also say that medicine in other industrialized countries is primitive compared to the US. Of course, there might be something to that, in that at least for Congresspersons, they have absolutely the best care.
Meanwhile, those in favor of health care/insurance should welcome the comparisons to systems in other industrialized countries. In most every aggregate sense, the systems of other countries beat us. They pay less, yet they have better infant mortality rates and longer life spans. There may well be some specific diseases survival rates where we do better, and I have heard conservatives argue we are too fat and that may affect some of the outcomes. But to really argue that we have the best system, the conservatives are reduced to arguing, as did Mitch McConnell, that polls show Americans think their health system is the best. If the French think their system is the best, does that matter? Or if the World Health Organization rates the French system the best, does that matter? (no, the WHO is a bunch of furiner’s)
So first let’s be clear here, the American health insurance system relies on the worst features of capitalism, and suppresses the best features. As far as competition goes, for example, the American system falls down in at least two ways. Although the biggest cities may be different, in many markets, including Pittsburgh, there are one or two insurance giants that dominate the market. UPMC and Highmark could compete, but why bother? Neither has stock holders, both are non-profits who make “excess revenues” they can plow back into executive bonuses. I believe for the Universities, for example, both Highmark and UPMC offer plans, although UPMC has an edge because of its domination of Oakland. And I believe this story is repeated all across the country, albeit some places with for profit companies.
Our administrative costs for health insurance are the highest in the world. Evidently that’s no accident, paying claims, while important in every other country in the world, is considered a mark of failure for US health insurance companies. The fewer claims that are paid out of premium dollars, the more that could be returned to stockholders. Of course, that doesn’t apply to UPMC and Highmark, except that they could claim they need to be competitive with for-profit firms, to maintain their foothold here (they would call it tenuous, I would call it a strangle hold).
Now, I am not going to try to replicate TR Reid’s essay here, or even comment extensively on it. I don’t want to do that partly because other countries use a variety of different systems (a point Reid emphasizes). Some do rely entirely on private health insurance, some have health insurance entirely administered by the government. The one thing all other industrialized countries do is recognize that government has a substantial role to play in health care. It’s not that they see it as a human right. Rather other countries have realized that the free market can not handle health care in industrialized nations. If you leave it up to the free market, you end up looking something like the United States, where a substantial number of people have no health insurance, some number of other people have substandard insurance, and costs rise in part because everyone else pays the health care bills for these people. There are also more bankruptcies than there need to be, as patients (if they survive, or their families) struggle and fail to pay astronomical health care costs. Interestingly, conservatives want to make the situation worse, by removing one of the few government regulations there are and allowing insurance companies to sell health insurance across state lines. While this would seem to address the competition issue, insurance companies would have to try to set up physician networks possibly thousands of miles away, doctors would have to deal with getting reimbursement from a company possibly thousands of miles away, and patients … you get the idea. I suspect insurance companies might all set up in one state with friendly laws and use those laws as a shield. I know from personal experience that state insurance commissioners can sanction out of state companies and yet it does not curb their behavior. At least you can picket and embarrass local companies.
I did major in economics a long time ago, and while I am not saying that makes me Alan Greenspan (or even Andrea Mitchell), I did learn a little bit. Market failure is where the free market doesn’t work. One of the canonical examples is where the local government sets aside a piece of land for people to graze animals on (such as cattle or sheep) and people destroy it with over grazing. But monopolies or oligopolies are generally considered market failure too, and those are the cases where the government needs to step in. I think that the health insurance industry is a series of a ologopolies that feel free to not provide clear information to subscribers and drop coverage on flimsy pretenses, and thus needs regulation.
I haven’t mentioned anything about doctors and hospitals. That’s because I think we need to address health insurance first. I do think that there needs to be reform on the medical side as well. I think addressing rates of infection in hospitals, computerizing health records (which may not eliminate mistakes, but would make records easier to access and would also put more eyes on records) and finding a better way of addressing mistakes when they are made are all very important. But I think addressing health insurance will help the country as a whole more and faster.
Read the TR Reid piece in the Sunday PG, and talk to your friends about it.
Friday, August 28, 2009
A tale of two ...
I have been ignoring local politics here. Between the pension bill and the stealth assessment issue (can Onorato delay long enough for the State legislature to take over the delaying duties?), there is certainly enough to write about. But not today.
Meanwhile, I was just thinking of Sarah Palin and Mark Sanford. As I recell, people were annoyed and somewhat disappointed that Governor Palin just up and left (and somewhat baffled). Although some imminent scandal was predicted at the time, none has shown up. Since then, she really hasn’t done much that she couldn’t have done as governor; maybe some of her Facebook entries would have been frowned on.
And then there’s Sanford. Caught in a weird scandal, an extra-marital affair he is continuing, his constituents evidently would like him to resign. I mean, I gather people thought he was doing an adequate job, and were ok with his, er, performence up to the minute it turned out he has a mistress. But now his own party has written him off, his lieutenant governor has offered to fall on his own sword for Sanford (take over if Sanford resigns, but not run for the seat when regular elections come up), but still Sanford won’t budge.
Republican Congresspersons may be more disciplined than the Democrats (although also a slight bit nuttier), but the governors are pretty entertaining. Except poor Bobby Jindal.
Meanwhile, I was just thinking of Sarah Palin and Mark Sanford. As I recell, people were annoyed and somewhat disappointed that Governor Palin just up and left (and somewhat baffled). Although some imminent scandal was predicted at the time, none has shown up. Since then, she really hasn’t done much that she couldn’t have done as governor; maybe some of her Facebook entries would have been frowned on.
And then there’s Sanford. Caught in a weird scandal, an extra-marital affair he is continuing, his constituents evidently would like him to resign. I mean, I gather people thought he was doing an adequate job, and were ok with his, er, performence up to the minute it turned out he has a mistress. But now his own party has written him off, his lieutenant governor has offered to fall on his own sword for Sanford (take over if Sanford resigns, but not run for the seat when regular elections come up), but still Sanford won’t budge.
Republican Congresspersons may be more disciplined than the Democrats (although also a slight bit nuttier), but the governors are pretty entertaining. Except poor Bobby Jindal.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Oil peaking out from beneath the ground ...
The NYTimes had a guest opinion piece yesterday from a Michael Lynch, an “energy consultant”. He suggested that we are nowhere near Peak Oil and that the “natural: price of oil is around $30 a barrel. Peak oil is the halfway point in our oil reserves, the point where, among other things, we have gotten the bulk of the easy to get oil and it becomes more and more expensive to take out of the ground (or convert from oily sand to gasoline). Now, I don’t know who Lynch is, I don’t know if he has an agenda; I suspect the oil companies would have preferred he had forecasted a natural price of oil at a somewhat higher level, like $75 a barrel. But I am willing to accept his statement, and yet I am unconvinced that we should not try to alter our behavior in some ways.
One note here about reality. Just saying the natural price of oil is $30 a barrel means basically nothing. Lynch is dismissive of people who complain about the political situation of some of our suppliers, and yet the price of gas shot up to over $4 a gallon last summer, the highest they had ever been, and the run up was cause by … nothing. There is “nothing” to stop that from happening again. In fact, the oil companies would not mind that happening again, or at least gas staying artificially high (as it is at this particular moment).
Now, we have built an economy and a way of life based on cheap oil that we never have to worry about running of. We drive to work in massive SUV’s, we drive to the store (alone) in the same SUV’s, we have food and everything shipped over massive distances. We use oil for plastic, fertilizer, and a bunch of other things (I admit I don’t know what all else). Truly I don’t care about the current crop of SUV’s as long as there is not another generation next year, and the current crop only lives its natural life span and dies out. I still believe that even if oil is actually relatively plentiful now, we should treat it as scarce and use it frugally. That means changing our lifestyles in some ways and encouraging corporate America to change their methods. That means we need to get over our prejudices about using public transportation and even bikes (powered or acoustic, so to speak). That means we need to go to farmers markets (more than we do now), creating a demand for local foods that will draw in more local farmers. Which in turn will hopefully mean we can send a signal to agribusiness that we are going to reduce our consumption of their products until they stop using petroleum based fertilizers, and start using more labor intensive but also more natural methods. Because we don’t want to have dead zones in coastal areas created by runoff from America’s corn fields.
Now Congress can create CAFÉ standards and perhaps (I hope) tax gas at a high level. Maybe diesel used for transporting goods by rail can be exempted from the tax (and maybe trucks can get a partial exemption) and part of the proceeds of the tax can be put into the EIC (and even perhaps in lowered taxes to us more middle class Americans). But we need, as Americans and most importantly as parents/adults, to force ourselves to make changes in our behavior. We need to ask whether trips to the store are necessary, we need to car pool or take the bus (at least part way) or bike or walk to work. We need to do those things explicitly so our children will see that treating oil as a scarce resource to be available for future generations is something important to us. We need to send that signal to agribusiness as well, to both conserve oil and protect the environment. And it doesn’t have to stop there, we can insulate more in our houses, choose compact fluorescent light bulbs and higher efficiency appliances, treating all energy as something to be used frugally, so that we might have it to power our future cars and bicycles. And that’s even if we get it from solar or wind power.
I suppose some people see that as a horrible way to live. I see it as making respectful, thoughtful choices (that actually save you money). And I can’t see how that could ever be a bad thing.
One note here about reality. Just saying the natural price of oil is $30 a barrel means basically nothing. Lynch is dismissive of people who complain about the political situation of some of our suppliers, and yet the price of gas shot up to over $4 a gallon last summer, the highest they had ever been, and the run up was cause by … nothing. There is “nothing” to stop that from happening again. In fact, the oil companies would not mind that happening again, or at least gas staying artificially high (as it is at this particular moment).
Now, we have built an economy and a way of life based on cheap oil that we never have to worry about running of. We drive to work in massive SUV’s, we drive to the store (alone) in the same SUV’s, we have food and everything shipped over massive distances. We use oil for plastic, fertilizer, and a bunch of other things (I admit I don’t know what all else). Truly I don’t care about the current crop of SUV’s as long as there is not another generation next year, and the current crop only lives its natural life span and dies out. I still believe that even if oil is actually relatively plentiful now, we should treat it as scarce and use it frugally. That means changing our lifestyles in some ways and encouraging corporate America to change their methods. That means we need to get over our prejudices about using public transportation and even bikes (powered or acoustic, so to speak). That means we need to go to farmers markets (more than we do now), creating a demand for local foods that will draw in more local farmers. Which in turn will hopefully mean we can send a signal to agribusiness that we are going to reduce our consumption of their products until they stop using petroleum based fertilizers, and start using more labor intensive but also more natural methods. Because we don’t want to have dead zones in coastal areas created by runoff from America’s corn fields.
Now Congress can create CAFÉ standards and perhaps (I hope) tax gas at a high level. Maybe diesel used for transporting goods by rail can be exempted from the tax (and maybe trucks can get a partial exemption) and part of the proceeds of the tax can be put into the EIC (and even perhaps in lowered taxes to us more middle class Americans). But we need, as Americans and most importantly as parents/adults, to force ourselves to make changes in our behavior. We need to ask whether trips to the store are necessary, we need to car pool or take the bus (at least part way) or bike or walk to work. We need to do those things explicitly so our children will see that treating oil as a scarce resource to be available for future generations is something important to us. We need to send that signal to agribusiness as well, to both conserve oil and protect the environment. And it doesn’t have to stop there, we can insulate more in our houses, choose compact fluorescent light bulbs and higher efficiency appliances, treating all energy as something to be used frugally, so that we might have it to power our future cars and bicycles. And that’s even if we get it from solar or wind power.
I suppose some people see that as a horrible way to live. I see it as making respectful, thoughtful choices (that actually save you money). And I can’t see how that could ever be a bad thing.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Fearmongers two, the revenge ...
I was just going to take a fast shot, remark that it must drive former President Bush crazy that Miss Venezuela has won the Miss Universe pageant twice in a row now. Hugo must be cackling.
But I got to thinking some more about the health/insurance care/reform debate. Conservatives are making a transparent effort to throw every possible argument out there and just see what sticks. They know there is almost no hope they can influence the debate, so they are trying to shut it down. Getting rid of the Public Option was fine for them (except I don’t think it is actually dead) but they still want to delay (“let’s take our time and do this right”) and essentially defeat it. Tom Coburn, on the Meet the Press a couple of Sunday’s ago said two opposite things about end of life counseling. First he said it was an intensely private thing, where government had no place (a thing for families only). Then he said doctors would ignore end of life directives and practice defensive medicine because only the family says what the end of life directive is, there is no official authority involved.
But conservatives are really outrageous on Medicare. First, because it will start losing money in eight years, it is held up as an example of why government should stay out of the health insurance business. Then the fact it only pays 80% of a doctors’ charge is held up as a problem. That other 20% must be made up somewhere else, according to conservatives it is passed on to private insurance. So even though Medicare is going to start losing money, it should not be trying to contain costs. Would it be ok to raise taxes to prevent Medicare from going into the red? No, not in this economy! Meanwhile, Republicans portray themselves as the saviors of seniors, only interested in protecting them.
People should realize that private health insurance companies also only pay 80% of what they describe as a Usual, Customary and Reasonable charge for whatever service. Doctors and hospitals often accept that (from private insurers and Medicare) because the payment is guaranteed. But we should know that Medicare is not unique in trying to contain costs.
Still, that people are buying into conservatives arguments is, to me, nothing short of astonishing.
But I got to thinking some more about the health/insurance care/reform debate. Conservatives are making a transparent effort to throw every possible argument out there and just see what sticks. They know there is almost no hope they can influence the debate, so they are trying to shut it down. Getting rid of the Public Option was fine for them (except I don’t think it is actually dead) but they still want to delay (“let’s take our time and do this right”) and essentially defeat it. Tom Coburn, on the Meet the Press a couple of Sunday’s ago said two opposite things about end of life counseling. First he said it was an intensely private thing, where government had no place (a thing for families only). Then he said doctors would ignore end of life directives and practice defensive medicine because only the family says what the end of life directive is, there is no official authority involved.
But conservatives are really outrageous on Medicare. First, because it will start losing money in eight years, it is held up as an example of why government should stay out of the health insurance business. Then the fact it only pays 80% of a doctors’ charge is held up as a problem. That other 20% must be made up somewhere else, according to conservatives it is passed on to private insurance. So even though Medicare is going to start losing money, it should not be trying to contain costs. Would it be ok to raise taxes to prevent Medicare from going into the red? No, not in this economy! Meanwhile, Republicans portray themselves as the saviors of seniors, only interested in protecting them.
People should realize that private health insurance companies also only pay 80% of what they describe as a Usual, Customary and Reasonable charge for whatever service. Doctors and hospitals often accept that (from private insurers and Medicare) because the payment is guaranteed. But we should know that Medicare is not unique in trying to contain costs.
Still, that people are buying into conservatives arguments is, to me, nothing short of astonishing.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Fearmongers ..
I finally watched the political comedy thing that John McIntire (and others) does last night and of course there was Jack Kelly this morning. In Re McIntire, there was comedy including McIntire repeating bits from his blog (with a few wince worthy moments), a perfectly fine and funny Gab Bonesso (except for a questionable Jerry Seinfeld imitation) and then a panel discussion, first with John Steigerwald and Sean Collier, and then also with the two Political Junkies. And that is when it went down hill. Although, I suppose, as Dayvoe said later, it makes for good theatre …
Steigerwald just took the straight line, simplistic conservative position. Which really bothers me. I probably won’t do him justice, but he started with something about how it was interesting that about the death panels part of “the bill” was taken out thirty minutes after the story hit the news (as if there is only one bill, instead of the at least five in congress right now). The conversation followed his accusations that the Public Option would create socialism. I believe someone asked whether he wanted Medicare around (a reference to the Public Option) at which point I believe he said no. I know someone said “Medicare works” at which point he said “It does?” and went on about the 80 percent reimbursement rate and how someone has to make up the twenty percent. It was the sort of thing where I could feel myself getting dumber (and if you don’t understand the 80% thing, go look it up or something). He said that if your insurance company dos something you don’t like, you can
This was not a debate, this was a conservative throwing out inflammatory points and not having them batted down. Which is a real shame, first because I would have enjoyed seeing that bullshit dealt with, but also because there are things conservatives could say that might well make a difference, help the reform we need to have. For example, the issue of pre-existing conditions ought to be treated in shades of gray, not just black ad white. I mean, sure, there are a lot of anecdotes of health insurance companies cancelling policies right before expensive treatments because they found some unrelated issue not reported on initial insurance applications. But I suspect we could find some examples of outright fraud as well. Pre-existing conditions probably needs a more complicated treatment itself, involving maybe a panel of doctors to judge cases and penalties like being transferred to the public plan with higher premiums if the panel rules in favor of the insurance company. And that’s just one example, we could also talk about what to do about physician’s salaries, how much reform will cost under various scenarios, how to maintain innovation in medicine and particularly in pharmaceuticals. Yet none of that receives any attention if people just yell socialism. If you don’t want to talk about the details, then clearly you think you current system is good enough. Can we say ostrich?
As for Jack Kelly, he starts by stating that the country has abandoned Obama, and moved to the right, citing particularly a Gallup poll. But I am told that the ideologies people list (conservative, liberal, what have you) don’t necessarily determine their party ideology. To realize that, one need only think of Reagan Democrats, or the pretty conservative Democrats who run this city and the conservative Democrats who vote for them. Kelly then states (vaguely) “Polls show that -- mostly by large majorities -- independents oppose Mr. Obama's health-care plan, his cap-and-trade energy bill, his nationalization of the auto industry and his $786 billion "stimulus."”. Of course, we aren’t allowed to know which polls.
Kelly complains about a cross section of Congressmen, media people and entertainers all trotting out the “race card”. Which, by the way, is not one allusion, but several. Janeanne Garafolo suggested the Tea Parties were about “hating a black man in the White House” while a Congressman (James Clyburn) said he seen crowds like the ones at the Town Hall’s before, at protests against Civil Rights. He also likened health care/insurance reform to a civil right, which considered the wretched record of health care for African Americans does not seem unreasonable.
Look, conservative commentators whip up conservatives with ridiculous scare tactics, and Kelly gives them a pass. Let the liberals respond, and suddenly the liberals are the unreasonable ones. Meanwhile, the clock ticks on health insurance/care reform, and Mr. Kelly can smile because he’s got his, and what does he care about the uninsured?
Steigerwald just took the straight line, simplistic conservative position. Which really bothers me. I probably won’t do him justice, but he started with something about how it was interesting that about the death panels part of “the bill” was taken out thirty minutes after the story hit the news (as if there is only one bill, instead of the at least five in congress right now). The conversation followed his accusations that the Public Option would create socialism. I believe someone asked whether he wanted Medicare around (a reference to the Public Option) at which point I believe he said no. I know someone said “Medicare works” at which point he said “It does?” and went on about the 80 percent reimbursement rate and how someone has to make up the twenty percent. It was the sort of thing where I could feel myself getting dumber (and if you don’t understand the 80% thing, go look it up or something). He said that if your insurance company dos something you don’t like, you can
This was not a debate, this was a conservative throwing out inflammatory points and not having them batted down. Which is a real shame, first because I would have enjoyed seeing that bullshit dealt with, but also because there are things conservatives could say that might well make a difference, help the reform we need to have. For example, the issue of pre-existing conditions ought to be treated in shades of gray, not just black ad white. I mean, sure, there are a lot of anecdotes of health insurance companies cancelling policies right before expensive treatments because they found some unrelated issue not reported on initial insurance applications. But I suspect we could find some examples of outright fraud as well. Pre-existing conditions probably needs a more complicated treatment itself, involving maybe a panel of doctors to judge cases and penalties like being transferred to the public plan with higher premiums if the panel rules in favor of the insurance company. And that’s just one example, we could also talk about what to do about physician’s salaries, how much reform will cost under various scenarios, how to maintain innovation in medicine and particularly in pharmaceuticals. Yet none of that receives any attention if people just yell socialism. If you don’t want to talk about the details, then clearly you think you current system is good enough. Can we say ostrich?
As for Jack Kelly, he starts by stating that the country has abandoned Obama, and moved to the right, citing particularly a Gallup poll. But I am told that the ideologies people list (conservative, liberal, what have you) don’t necessarily determine their party ideology. To realize that, one need only think of Reagan Democrats, or the pretty conservative Democrats who run this city and the conservative Democrats who vote for them. Kelly then states (vaguely) “Polls show that -- mostly by large majorities -- independents oppose Mr. Obama's health-care plan, his cap-and-trade energy bill, his nationalization of the auto industry and his $786 billion "stimulus."”. Of course, we aren’t allowed to know which polls.
Kelly complains about a cross section of Congressmen, media people and entertainers all trotting out the “race card”. Which, by the way, is not one allusion, but several. Janeanne Garafolo suggested the Tea Parties were about “hating a black man in the White House” while a Congressman (James Clyburn) said he seen crowds like the ones at the Town Hall’s before, at protests against Civil Rights. He also likened health care/insurance reform to a civil right, which considered the wretched record of health care for African Americans does not seem unreasonable.
Look, conservative commentators whip up conservatives with ridiculous scare tactics, and Kelly gives them a pass. Let the liberals respond, and suddenly the liberals are the unreasonable ones. Meanwhile, the clock ticks on health insurance/care reform, and Mr. Kelly can smile because he’s got his, and what does he care about the uninsured?
Friday, August 21, 2009
Cash for Clunkers clunking aht ...
I noticed the Cash for Clunkers program is ending Monday, two months before it was supposed to. I would bet the automakers would prefer it went at least until the end of the month.
I did not watch the PBS News Hour last night (the rest of my family prefers anything else, including perhaps Cash Cab, which I do enjoy). Nor have I read any opinion pieces on it recently. So my perspective has not been guided (not to say co-opted) by pundits. As far as I can see car dealers probably largely brought about the end of this program. They were telling anyone who would listen that they had a very large number of unfiled claims, at least they were back when the government went back to the well and authorized more money for the program a few weeks ago. I suspect that, like how the stimulus has not actually spent that much money yet, the government has not done that many reimbursements yet. So in fact there is no way to know whether the demand for new cars this week is as high as it was last week. Of course, the whole situation is artificial; people may be buying cars they would not have bought for even two years because of the prices. Still even the modest gains in gas mileage will help the over all situation of the country. Plus the anticipation of lower demand may bring the price of oil down.
Still, it is hard to be too optimistic. Car companies may bring back idled workers for a few months to make cars ordered, replenish dealer inventory and so on, but I wonder if they will not soon be back on the street, and if a bunch of dealerships will not still be closed (as I believe they were scheduled to do). So it is hard to see this whole thing as much more than a blip in our current decline, either a brief up tick or even just a slower decline. Plus it is disheartening to see Americans so willing to take on even more debt even if in a good cause and for getting a bargain.
I did not watch the PBS News Hour last night (the rest of my family prefers anything else, including perhaps Cash Cab, which I do enjoy). Nor have I read any opinion pieces on it recently. So my perspective has not been guided (not to say co-opted) by pundits. As far as I can see car dealers probably largely brought about the end of this program. They were telling anyone who would listen that they had a very large number of unfiled claims, at least they were back when the government went back to the well and authorized more money for the program a few weeks ago. I suspect that, like how the stimulus has not actually spent that much money yet, the government has not done that many reimbursements yet. So in fact there is no way to know whether the demand for new cars this week is as high as it was last week. Of course, the whole situation is artificial; people may be buying cars they would not have bought for even two years because of the prices. Still even the modest gains in gas mileage will help the over all situation of the country. Plus the anticipation of lower demand may bring the price of oil down.
Still, it is hard to be too optimistic. Car companies may bring back idled workers for a few months to make cars ordered, replenish dealer inventory and so on, but I wonder if they will not soon be back on the street, and if a bunch of dealerships will not still be closed (as I believe they were scheduled to do). So it is hard to see this whole thing as much more than a blip in our current decline, either a brief up tick or even just a slower decline. Plus it is disheartening to see Americans so willing to take on even more debt even if in a good cause and for getting a bargain.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
A story Grisham would love to write ...
I don’t claim to be a fan of great literature, in fact, I like Robert Parker’s Spenser and legal thrillers. I read, but usually don’t actually enjoy, John Grisham’s books, preferring Scott Turow’s legal thrillers. I don’t feel that Turow’s plots are condescending, for example. In his first book, the big frame-up the main character sees turns out to be a fit of jealous rage (oddly coldly calculated) by his wife. In other words, something we might actually expect to see in the real world. By contrast, Grisham likes to concoct plots with conspiracies involving the mob or corporation and other characters like members of the Supreme Court or (I believe) Presidents.
I bring this up because I think the whole birther thing could be a book plot that Grisham might want to write, although maybe I am being too hard on Grisham. Davoe at Two Political Junkies references some polling carried out by Public Policy Polling that indicates that a quarter of respondents think Obama was not born in the US, while another 14% are not sure. That 14% could include people who never watch the evening news (although they must watch or listen to Limbaugh, Beck or Quinn, at least a little bit), or they are smart asses. A few people polled (4%) thought Hawaii is not part of the US.
The polling apparently indicated what I would call a strong correlation between the level of education you have (or more properly don’t have) and how likely it is that you believe Obama was born in the USA (cue Springsteen). The thing is, if you are interested and are willing to look, all the aspects of this issue can be addressed. What the grandmother said and why, the Hawaiian birth certificate (or Certification of Live Birth, sigh), why the Hawaiian officials have acted the way they have, and so on. The facts of the issue are more interesting (to me) than some silly conspiracy theory. Plus the fact that while I approve of the President being US born, it is hard to see a reason why it would matter in this case, how it would affect anything.
I have noticed some commenters on other blogs supporting the arguments of the birthers. Some even claim to have graduate degrees. I assume that they in fact know better, but just want to provoke liberals. And then people wonder why the country is polarized.
I bring this up because I think the whole birther thing could be a book plot that Grisham might want to write, although maybe I am being too hard on Grisham. Davoe at Two Political Junkies references some polling carried out by Public Policy Polling that indicates that a quarter of respondents think Obama was not born in the US, while another 14% are not sure. That 14% could include people who never watch the evening news (although they must watch or listen to Limbaugh, Beck or Quinn, at least a little bit), or they are smart asses. A few people polled (4%) thought Hawaii is not part of the US.
The polling apparently indicated what I would call a strong correlation between the level of education you have (or more properly don’t have) and how likely it is that you believe Obama was born in the USA (cue Springsteen). The thing is, if you are interested and are willing to look, all the aspects of this issue can be addressed. What the grandmother said and why, the Hawaiian birth certificate (or Certification of Live Birth, sigh), why the Hawaiian officials have acted the way they have, and so on. The facts of the issue are more interesting (to me) than some silly conspiracy theory. Plus the fact that while I approve of the President being US born, it is hard to see a reason why it would matter in this case, how it would affect anything.
I have noticed some commenters on other blogs supporting the arguments of the birthers. Some even claim to have graduate degrees. I assume that they in fact know better, but just want to provoke liberals. And then people wonder why the country is polarized.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
To be Fat in America ...
This is one of those posts where I am not sure where to begin and really not sure where to end.
I read a couple of different things yesterday that got me thinking. First of all, the Chief something or other at the Cleveland Clinic said that if it were up to him, he wouldn’t hire fat staff (he may have used a more precise term, such as obese or overweight). I sort of assume there might be a lead by example sort of thing there.
I also read something from a researcher who denies that obesity is actually a problem. Collectively our BMI has tipped from something like 29 to something like 30. This researcher (can’t remember his name, I am sure you could find it) says that statistically the slightly overweight do better in life expectancy than people with a “normal” BMI, so how could this small change be so negative. Now, he left himself an out, distinguishing between being physically fit or not, but if you are physically fit and yet have a high weight to height ratio, you pretty much have to be Arnold Schwartzenger (sp?).
I read comments on one blog (Shakesville?) about the Cleveland Clinic guy. One women in particular complained that she had a joint disease, exacerbated or caused by being over weight, she was in considerable pain, and yet doctors only told her to los weight (after waiting for hours for an appointment). What’s worse, they made no suggestions for an exercise or dietary program.
Now, I don’t know the circumstances of the woman’s doctor’s visit(s), how she was as a patient. But I believe it is true that many doctors don’t have a clue about how to recommend healthy diets (and by diet I mean regular eating plan, maybe geared to a certain calorie number), and/or may not recommend specific exercise plans either. Plus, we know (*know*) that agribusiness, grocery stores and the restaurant/fast food industries stack the deck against us. Healthy foods in grocery stores are relegated to the edges of the store, and have experienced considerable price inflation while the less healthy processed foods have gone down in price. And restaurant portions have gone down in price.
I do want to take a brief tangential sidetrack right here to say that I realize there can be much more involved here than just health, in fact, health may not be part of the equation when people talk about weight. Women have struggled and continue to struggle with body image issues and diseases that have a strong social component like anorexia and bulimia. I, for one, believe it is perfectly reasonable to bring those issues up in this discussion. I still believe in weight management for purposes of assisting in having good health. But I think that no one, female or male, should be hounded about their weight for purposes of conforming to a social ideal.
Even as I write this, I am sitting at my computer, as I will sit all day at a computer. I did a bit of exercise earlier this morning, and I will walk a mile-ish from where I park to my office. At lunch I will walk a bit, maybe a mile, after I eat. But all that is not enough. Despite what this researcher says about BMI, I am overweight. As a consequence, my blood pressure and blood sugar is up, and I need to get both down.
And that’s really what this is about. You can decide for yourself if you are overweight or not. And if you are reading this, you are smart enough to take some control. I realize that single moms, for example, are somewhat trapped in having no one to watch the kids while they exercise (well, maybe a boyfriend, but not necessarily), and have to eat (to some extent) what the kid(s) want to eat. But in general it should be possible to take some control of your diet, and to go on Craiglist and snap up that twenty five dollar exercycle. This is one of those public policy questions where we could each decide individually to make the change and end the issue. That would be big win for health care reform.
I read a couple of different things yesterday that got me thinking. First of all, the Chief something or other at the Cleveland Clinic said that if it were up to him, he wouldn’t hire fat staff (he may have used a more precise term, such as obese or overweight). I sort of assume there might be a lead by example sort of thing there.
I also read something from a researcher who denies that obesity is actually a problem. Collectively our BMI has tipped from something like 29 to something like 30. This researcher (can’t remember his name, I am sure you could find it) says that statistically the slightly overweight do better in life expectancy than people with a “normal” BMI, so how could this small change be so negative. Now, he left himself an out, distinguishing between being physically fit or not, but if you are physically fit and yet have a high weight to height ratio, you pretty much have to be Arnold Schwartzenger (sp?).
I read comments on one blog (Shakesville?) about the Cleveland Clinic guy. One women in particular complained that she had a joint disease, exacerbated or caused by being over weight, she was in considerable pain, and yet doctors only told her to los weight (after waiting for hours for an appointment). What’s worse, they made no suggestions for an exercise or dietary program.
Now, I don’t know the circumstances of the woman’s doctor’s visit(s), how she was as a patient. But I believe it is true that many doctors don’t have a clue about how to recommend healthy diets (and by diet I mean regular eating plan, maybe geared to a certain calorie number), and/or may not recommend specific exercise plans either. Plus, we know (*know*) that agribusiness, grocery stores and the restaurant/fast food industries stack the deck against us. Healthy foods in grocery stores are relegated to the edges of the store, and have experienced considerable price inflation while the less healthy processed foods have gone down in price. And restaurant portions have gone down in price.
I do want to take a brief tangential sidetrack right here to say that I realize there can be much more involved here than just health, in fact, health may not be part of the equation when people talk about weight. Women have struggled and continue to struggle with body image issues and diseases that have a strong social component like anorexia and bulimia. I, for one, believe it is perfectly reasonable to bring those issues up in this discussion. I still believe in weight management for purposes of assisting in having good health. But I think that no one, female or male, should be hounded about their weight for purposes of conforming to a social ideal.
Even as I write this, I am sitting at my computer, as I will sit all day at a computer. I did a bit of exercise earlier this morning, and I will walk a mile-ish from where I park to my office. At lunch I will walk a bit, maybe a mile, after I eat. But all that is not enough. Despite what this researcher says about BMI, I am overweight. As a consequence, my blood pressure and blood sugar is up, and I need to get both down.
And that’s really what this is about. You can decide for yourself if you are overweight or not. And if you are reading this, you are smart enough to take some control. I realize that single moms, for example, are somewhat trapped in having no one to watch the kids while they exercise (well, maybe a boyfriend, but not necessarily), and have to eat (to some extent) what the kid(s) want to eat. But in general it should be possible to take some control of your diet, and to go on Craiglist and snap up that twenty five dollar exercycle. This is one of those public policy questions where we could each decide individually to make the change and end the issue. That would be big win for health care reform.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Whose healthcare?
I like Meet the Press. OK, under Tim Russert there were times when he tried to ambush politicians and others with zinger questions. Occasionally he managed to seem down right mean, as when he talked to a local official of a Parrish outside New Orleans after Katrina, and essentially suggested he had lied about the danger the official’s grandmother had been in. Dick Gregory, on the other hand, does not seem to be as mean, but has less control over the show.
Which he really needed this week, with a show about the health care/insurance debate. MTP had Rachel Maddow, Dick Armey, Tom Daschle and Tom Coburn on, seated left to right in that order. The liberals defended the efforts of Congress and the President, while the conservatives attacked them. And I learned no new facts.
But I saw a debate where, when the Town Hall protestor images were presented of Obama portrayed as Hitler, Dick Armey was quick to us that Moveon.org had had ads depicting George W Bush as Hitler back in 2004. Well, in fact, the organization had solicited ads from private citizens, and then was going to run the best (as chosen by a panel of entertainers) to run. The submissions were sitting up on the Moveon.org website, but when the organization realized what these ads showed, they yanked them.
Armey didn’t mention any of those circumstances. Maybe Moveon.org brought the offensive images on themselves, but the details do paint a different picture. That Armey was willing to, at the very least, not present the whole truth is an indication of where the healthcare debate has gone.
Despite Jack Kelly’s column today, despite Sarah Palin’s wild exaggerations about the death panels and out of context repeating of Ezekiel Emmanuel’s past writings, the questions are simple. Is the current system good enough? Well, for some Americans, yes. Those with good jobs at large companies don’t pay too much of their paycheck to get coverage that mostly takes care of everything. Because their employer pays the bulk of the premium, taxes do not include that part of health care, although whatever the employer produces is impacted by the cost. And of course we pay taxes for other things, like being the only Superpower, and spending money and lives in Afghanistan and Iraq. Plus there is a fraction of the voting and non-voting public that is either uninsured or underinsured. For them the healthcare system is at best a trap; if they enter it that could be fatal to their finances, their lives or both.
The next question is absolutely tangential to the healthcare/insurance debate, and yet has occupied our attention for at least a week. Will senior citizens be forced to accept voluntary counseling for the end of life options by the government, and is that one of the ways the government is trying to save money. Coburn’s comments on this were interesting and informative. Coburn called it an intensely private affair, mom and/or dad deciding how they want to die, on the government should not have any part of. He also said (I can’t remember if before or after) that because of the pressure of defensive medicine, a senior citizen’s end of life directives might be ignored. Anyone with any sense might point out that if the government has your end of life directive on file, it might be less easy for doctors to ignore it.
I could go on with a painstaking examination of the Meet the Press episode or Jack Kelly’s column, but I think I will try to wrap it up. I want to mention my brother went out with a woman whose daughter had leukemia. She also had a low level job with no health insurance. I guess she had been on her mother’s plan when she got initial treatment for the leukemia and then it went into remission. When she started to feel bad later when she was on her own, she put off going to the emergency room until it was too late. Last night at the Blogfest I talked to a person who, along with his girlfriend/finance(?) work out of their home. They buy insurance, but very often it goes up rapidly. They were looking at an HSA/high deductible plan. But they would have to be lucky, for the next five or ten years they would have to not have any significant costs in order to build up some money in the Health savings Account. And then they would be trapped in the plan, having so much invested in it. These are the real people I have met who suffer under the current system.
But, as David Brooks put it on Friday (on the PBS newshour), it is the President who is telling “whoppers”.
Which he really needed this week, with a show about the health care/insurance debate. MTP had Rachel Maddow, Dick Armey, Tom Daschle and Tom Coburn on, seated left to right in that order. The liberals defended the efforts of Congress and the President, while the conservatives attacked them. And I learned no new facts.
But I saw a debate where, when the Town Hall protestor images were presented of Obama portrayed as Hitler, Dick Armey was quick to us that Moveon.org had had ads depicting George W Bush as Hitler back in 2004. Well, in fact, the organization had solicited ads from private citizens, and then was going to run the best (as chosen by a panel of entertainers) to run. The submissions were sitting up on the Moveon.org website, but when the organization realized what these ads showed, they yanked them.
Armey didn’t mention any of those circumstances. Maybe Moveon.org brought the offensive images on themselves, but the details do paint a different picture. That Armey was willing to, at the very least, not present the whole truth is an indication of where the healthcare debate has gone.
Despite Jack Kelly’s column today, despite Sarah Palin’s wild exaggerations about the death panels and out of context repeating of Ezekiel Emmanuel’s past writings, the questions are simple. Is the current system good enough? Well, for some Americans, yes. Those with good jobs at large companies don’t pay too much of their paycheck to get coverage that mostly takes care of everything. Because their employer pays the bulk of the premium, taxes do not include that part of health care, although whatever the employer produces is impacted by the cost. And of course we pay taxes for other things, like being the only Superpower, and spending money and lives in Afghanistan and Iraq. Plus there is a fraction of the voting and non-voting public that is either uninsured or underinsured. For them the healthcare system is at best a trap; if they enter it that could be fatal to their finances, their lives or both.
The next question is absolutely tangential to the healthcare/insurance debate, and yet has occupied our attention for at least a week. Will senior citizens be forced to accept voluntary counseling for the end of life options by the government, and is that one of the ways the government is trying to save money. Coburn’s comments on this were interesting and informative. Coburn called it an intensely private affair, mom and/or dad deciding how they want to die, on the government should not have any part of. He also said (I can’t remember if before or after) that because of the pressure of defensive medicine, a senior citizen’s end of life directives might be ignored. Anyone with any sense might point out that if the government has your end of life directive on file, it might be less easy for doctors to ignore it.
I could go on with a painstaking examination of the Meet the Press episode or Jack Kelly’s column, but I think I will try to wrap it up. I want to mention my brother went out with a woman whose daughter had leukemia. She also had a low level job with no health insurance. I guess she had been on her mother’s plan when she got initial treatment for the leukemia and then it went into remission. When she started to feel bad later when she was on her own, she put off going to the emergency room until it was too late. Last night at the Blogfest I talked to a person who, along with his girlfriend/finance(?) work out of their home. They buy insurance, but very often it goes up rapidly. They were looking at an HSA/high deductible plan. But they would have to be lucky, for the next five or ten years they would have to not have any significant costs in order to build up some money in the Health savings Account. And then they would be trapped in the plan, having so much invested in it. These are the real people I have met who suffer under the current system.
But, as David Brooks put it on Friday (on the PBS newshour), it is the President who is telling “whoppers”.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Who's Obamacare?
It seems like I have read certain well regarded local bloggers complaining about Presdient Obama outsourcing the detail work of health care/insurance reform off to Congress. Because we know that if Obama had worked on it himself (or, say, given it to Michelle Obama to work on, in secret) and then just sprung it on Congress, nothing bad could possibly happen.
Of course, I should realize that anything Obama does will be wrong. The stimulus plan won’t work, until it starts working, and then people will decide the rest of the stimulus should be cancelled. Obama will be too close to the banks, except when he is too far away and over regulating. Obama won’t be doing enough for minorities, except when he steps into the Skip Gates thing and then is trying to persecute white cops.
The American public should understand that Obama is doing them an incredible favor by putting health care/insurance legislation in the hands of their legislators. It is a lot easier to get my opinion to Mike Doyle than to Barack Obama (although all Doyle will hear is one more person for end of life counseling). Of course, Obama is getting some insulation, a group to share the blame with if people don’t like the way the legislation shakes out. Plus, if Congress is writing the legislation, then the opposition is less likely about the fact that Obama is black. And if you think that every voter is entirely enlightened, and never takes race into account when forming an opinion about someone's policy, I have some beautiful grassy land to sell you (that just happens to be outside Phoenix).
Again, of course, people will say that it is Obama (or myself) who is hyper sensitive, with no reason for being so. I would say in response, I will respect that opinion if you are black in America.
Of course, I should realize that anything Obama does will be wrong. The stimulus plan won’t work, until it starts working, and then people will decide the rest of the stimulus should be cancelled. Obama will be too close to the banks, except when he is too far away and over regulating. Obama won’t be doing enough for minorities, except when he steps into the Skip Gates thing and then is trying to persecute white cops.
The American public should understand that Obama is doing them an incredible favor by putting health care/insurance legislation in the hands of their legislators. It is a lot easier to get my opinion to Mike Doyle than to Barack Obama (although all Doyle will hear is one more person for end of life counseling). Of course, Obama is getting some insulation, a group to share the blame with if people don’t like the way the legislation shakes out. Plus, if Congress is writing the legislation, then the opposition is less likely about the fact that Obama is black. And if you think that every voter is entirely enlightened, and never takes race into account when forming an opinion about someone's policy, I have some beautiful grassy land to sell you (that just happens to be outside Phoenix).
Again, of course, people will say that it is Obama (or myself) who is hyper sensitive, with no reason for being so. I would say in response, I will respect that opinion if you are black in America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
