The Long and Lonely Road – What Ought To Be Drivers’ Rules

Having spent a notable number of hours, perhaps it was days, on the road this month; I have decided to present the driving rules that ought to be part of every driver’s road awareness and traffic monitoring skill set. These rules are few and simple. They are meant to improve your travel experience, efficiency and safety. You will not find these rules in any state’s driver’s manual because they are not intended to define the control and flow of traffic within the situations that are being regulated by a state. Nor are these rules meant to be enforced by the local or state police forces or to be used to generate revenues for applicable jurisdiction.

These driving rules apply to the active state of driving on multi-lane roads and to how each individual driver should be reacting to the constantly changing situations on the road with the traffic with which they are confronted. If drivers followed these rules, they would find that their travels are faster, safer and less stressful than the experiences that they face today.

The Driver’s Rules:

1. If a car passes you in the lane to your right then you are in the wrong lane and should move to the right as soon as safely possible. This rule applies no matter which lane you are in on a multi-lane highway. It basically indicates that you are not driving at a speed that is sufficient to prevent other cars from approaching you from behind and having to go around you. When a car passes you on the right, your safety is being compromised; and if you had been farther to the right, it appears that your speed would not have been impeded and the other traffic would be proceeding at a better overall speed and with less overall congestion.

2. If you are not in the right-most lane and there is one or more cars behind you, but there are no cars even remotely in front of you then you are in the wrong lane and should move to the right as soon as possible. You could give some consideration to speeding up to pass the car(s) immediately to your right if that is the only way to get into that lane. The fact that you are traveling side-by-side with other cars and not really passing them is another indicator that you are in the wrong lane if those cars are to your right. Traveling side-by-side when actual traffic congestion does not require it increases your vulnerability to any traffic situation or action that could result in an accident.

3. As you drive the best place to be is in the pack-gaps between the groups of cars that are bunched-up together due to drivers that do not follow the above two rules. Your safety is maximized when you take every opportunity to isolate yourself from as many other drivers, and if possible all others, that these traffic pack-gaps provide. You can often see these gaps when you are behind a set of cars that are all driving at basically the same speed, side-by-side and with no discernable indication that the car farthest to the left is actually passing the car immediately to its right. You usually have to watch for the occasional car(s) that this front-group is approaching from behind (a slower than average car) that will force them to break ranks. At that time, if you are able to position yourself to take advantage of the open lane that will often be produced then you can slip into the pack-gap and immediately reduce the safety threat that those cars have created.

4. Whenever possible stay out of the left-most lane. This helps avoid the situations which create the need to react to Rule 1 and 2. This helps improve the flow of traffic around you and improves your safety.

5. Think ahead. Don’t just observe the cars directly in front of you. As you are driving down the road, you will have many opportunities to see the traffic minutes in front of you. Use that information to plan ahead, this information can be used to position yourself to maximize your opportunities to get out of situations that cause you to be in the situations where the above rules would come into play; and the longer you can avoid these rules being operative the safer you are, the faster your travel will be, and the less stress you will have from traffic.

6. Don’t be interested in observing an accident. Your job is driving. As soon as possible, as you pass the accident and the police and emergency vehicles handling it, you should return to the speed that you would have been driving at had then been no accident as rapidly as possible given the other traffic around you. After you are back up to you’re your cruising speed, it should be almost impossible for you to tell anyone anything about the accident other than that there was one.

The important aspect of these rules is that they are not rules that you expect to apply to other drivers. They only apply to you as an individual driver. Thus these rules are within your control and you can use them without any involvement or cooperation of other drivers. The rules when used this way will make small improvement in the traffic around you, and in your safety. If other drivers also use these rules then they also contribute incremental small improvements. And if enough drivers use them then the whole system of cars and drivers benefit from them.

Unfortunately, these rules are not taught or even acknowledged within the agencies that promulgate traffic education and training. So I don’t expect to see the general state of traffic and driving on the highways improve at any time in the near or distant future.

An Immoral Morality: Anti-Abortion or Abortion Rights Legislation Without Responsibility

One of the big, if not the biggest, issues that must be contended with on the Health Care Reform bill is how the bill addresses abortions under the bill. The Pro-Life proponents are pressing to have restrictions on abortions expanded and if possible completely prohibited. To the fullest extent possible, the Pro-Life side is seeking to have abortion coverage completely prohibited from even co-existing with any government funded health coverage plan. The Pro-Choice advocates are obviously against any additional restrictions than current laws entail. Pro-Choice proponents would be eager to see increased availability of abortion coverage, but that is not the direction that the bills are tending toward. Finding an adequate compromise that will placate both sides appears to be an almost insurmountable task. Even holding to a status quo position that federal funds cannot be used to support abortions is not a guaranteed successful strategy.

At the heart of the issue is that moral proposition that Pro-Lifers make that abortion is the murder of a human life from inception. This position is usually linked to the religious orientation of the people taking the Pro-Life stance. In and of itself, there is nothing about their position that is immoral or contrary to the freedoms offered under our democratic government. No law can be made that would infringe upon their right to refuse any imposition of an abortion upon them or a family member over whom they have parental or guardianship responsibility. They may honor their beliefs and moral philosophy within interference from the Government or its agents. But that is not the extent of the Pro-Life position.

Beyond the personal freedom to refuse to avail themselves of an abortion, except under any conditions or circumstances that their own beliefs or moral code would allow, most Pro-Lifers assert that their beliefs are societal in nature and required to be imposed upon every member of society. The right to life that they advocate is required of all citizens, regardless of those citizens’ own religious beliefs or moral philosophies. In this case, Pro-Lifers’ contend that their position supersedes the freedom of anyone who believes that abortion is an individual’s right to choose for their own person. Thus the abortion issue is one of the fundamental dividing lines within our legal system. Abortion rights or prohibitions squarely rest upon the separation of the Government’s scope of authority versus the individual freedoms and rights that each and every individual person has a legitimate claim upon based on the Constitution.

Unfortunately the founding fathers did not clearly or explicitly address the abortion issue within their writings; either the Constitution’s own wording or in extensive writing supporting and defending the text that they had written. And we are not only left with the basic issue of abortion within our current system; but it has now become a pivotal factor in the Health Care Reform effort.

There is no resolution of the question of who is right about abortion, as neither side can even comprehend the basis for the other side to hold a different view. Given this intransigence of position, is it any wonder that politicians cannot find a way to appease both sides?

My problem with the abortion issue is that it is always narrowly focused on a personal belief in the sanctity of life or the absolute right of individual freedom regarding one’s own person. I find this an irresponsible and an immoral view for either side to take. As usual in these situations, I find that the right answer is not the one or ones being espoused by these fervent and self-righteous souls who are willing to tell me what I must believe.

The true issue of abortion is not is it right or wrong; but what responsibilities are associated with the imposition of whatever societal laws are to be made and enforced upon the individuals and the public as a consequence of the chosen laws.

If you prohibit abortions, are you not responsible for the children who are born that would not have been?

If you allow individuals to self-elect an abortion, then who is responsible for the costs of a procedure that is elective and violates core religious beliefs of other segments of a society?

If you are a religious group that opposes abortion should you be exempt from the social costs that will come from this legislative act that your religious activities have help establish?

It is the responsibility that goes along with the consequences of your position that are lost in the discussion. If you do not stand up and accept your share of the consequences of your position, then your claim to a moral basis for your position is abrogated and you are not worthy to have anyone take any heed of your position. Politician should only agree to support your legislative agenda if you agree to accept the corollary legislation that addresses the social and governmental cost and tax burden or the individual monetary obligations that goes hand and hand with what you want.

A Solution Path to Health Care Reform

If Congress wanted to be successful at Health Care Reform then they should look to use an approach that would be foreign to them. I don’t mean foreign as in a system perhaps more typical of international country’s form of health care. I don’t believe that the health care systems of other countries are founded upon a superior operating for funding approach. Those systems are simply structured to obtain their funding through their government’s own preferred forms of taxation.

What I mean by an approach foreign to Congress is one of which they could never conceive. An approach that implements a system and process that is not based on Congress’, or their supporting political staffs’, or lobbyist groups’ knowledge or ability; or more importantly their collective lack thereof. For such an approach Congress would have to pursue a creative solution; one that does not solely rely upon their power to tax, appropriate, or to earmark (graft) funds according to their usual methods.

Consider for example having Congress pass a Health Care Reform act that instead of just finding different groups to tax, or restricting the insurance plans and offers that can be offered in the marketplace, or creating obligations that do not contain future costs; would rather have Congress structure the reform act to motivate competition, reward effectiveness, and control costs. If instead of assuming that Congress is capable of creating a system that will work, why not create a process that will leverage the knowledge, abilities and innovation of the marketplace. Not only would such a creative approach stimulate the marketplace to find better ways to provide health care services than the current proposal. An innovative approach would also avoid having insurance companies, medical service providers and the other health care industry companies from investing their time and efforts in finding ways to leverage the loop-holes in the proposed versions of the bill, the misguided requirements, and the politically-intended abusive provisions to make their products as profitable for themselves as possible.

How would a creative approach differ from the Congressional approach(s)? In either case at the heart of the plan is a taxation funding method. You cannot propose to provide services that are not covered today if you don’t have a funding source, and the Government only has one funding source. But maybe the taxation method could be a reinforcing action rather than a punitive one. If the income tax rate schedule was appropriately calibrated to incorporate a minimal health care cost component then a health care tax-credit could be allowed for tax filers who have paid for an entire year of insurance coverage. This allows the Government to collect health care funding from individuals who would be ‘fined’ under the Congressional plan but would not require the Government to find and collect the funding. A similar tax provision for employers would also allow companies who do provide health care to receive a competitive advantage to companies that do not provide health care. On the corporate tax credit level, the credit would have to be based on number of employees and not total amount of insurance cost incurred; otherwise the gilded insurance packages granted to executives would be subsidized inappropriately.

Another area that a creatively structured act could improve upon the Congressional plan’s approach would be to specifically reward an insurance company that provides either more coverage in a market than their competitors at the same premium rate or who provide the same coverage at a lower rate. The Government could identify upfront the tax credit or exemption levels that a company can earn if they can achieve a superior cost performance than their competitors; and can provide an incentive formula that increases the taxes on insurance companies that generate additional revenues at a higher cost structure. Thus companies earning more but not improving the cost effectiveness of their products relative to their competitors will contribute more of their profits to the health care system. Such a design will make it obvious to insurance company executives where they are failing or succeeding, and their stockholders will be able to view an independent fiduciary evaluation of how well the executives are performing in maximizing their stakeholder value in the companies.

On the medical service providers’ side of the equation, a similar tax incentive can be created. A lower tax rate for low-cost providers and a higher tax rate for excessive-cost providers would incent the providers to find better ways to deliver their services.

The thing that distinguishes the Health Care system that Congress will produce from a better approach is that Congress’ plan does not recognize nor provide for rewarding that which works from that which does not. It does not generate an evolutionary force into the medical and insurance businesses but will stagnate the ineffectiveness that has produced the failed system we are trying to address and correct.

If you want to improve something then you have to change not how it is paid for, but you have to change what causes the providers and competitors to aggressively seek better costs, better services and better quality; and Congress’ plan does none of these.

Congress Versus You: American Intelligence Test # 4

Usually I oppose an unfair fight. Such a contest is after all, well just basically un-American. Not the McCarthy era un-American, but the kind of thing that goes against that deep in your soul John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, Bruce Willis stereotype of American sense of what’s right.

But there are exceptions to every rule, even this one. Besides, it is not empirically clear which side the unfairness statement would be made against. If we are pitting Congress against the rest of Americans, we are faced with the fundamentally question: which group has the greater proportion of idiots, imbeciles and morons in it?

So this test is a variant of the previous ones. Unlike those tests, this one requires you to not only answer the questions for yourself, but to also make a decision about how you think Congress would answer as a collective body. You can choose to expand the basic challenge of the test by adding an additional set(s) of answers that you think your favorite politician or your direct representative would choose.

The basic rules:
1. You have to score the answers yourself and in this case that of your counter-part(s).
2. You have to depend on your own honesty, integrity and honor in regard to your answers and those you make for anyone else, and thus both answers are a vital part of the test. [How intelligent can you be if you lie to yourself or about others?]
3. Passing the test is no indication of valid answers. So agreement between your and Congress’ answers are no assurance of that you are any more correct.
This test generally is on how important a Health Care Reform bill is to the United States.

Question 1: U.S. Health Care reform not required. The existing private and public systems provide adequate support for Americans’ needs, is affordable, and is managed and run effectively for both the industry and consumers.
True or False or FTU (Failed To Understand)?

Being a very broad question you are expected to answer not solely in terms of just your own circumstances but are expected to consider the general state of health care for the populace as a whole. Of course, it is expected that your own situation will influence your decision; so remember that the answer you are providing for your Congress counter-part, who doesn’t know you or doesn’t think about you, may very likely answer differently.

Question 2: The investment of 1 out of every 6 dollars of our economy into Health Care related costs is a reasonable and productive investment for the United States’ economy?
True or False or FTU (Failed To Understand)?

Think about the amount of your income that gets directed toward Health Care. This not only includes any insurance premiums that you pay, it also counts employer contributions if applicable, any deductible amounts that come out of your pocket, medicine not covered by a plan you already pay for; but in addition you are also pay through your income taxes, Social Security, and other various taxes where portions of those funds are used to support Health Care services offered under existing programs.

So given all this, do you think that these dollars are better used for the current Health Care system than could be used in some other public arena that would improve the overall economy and thereby also consequentially make Health Care more affordable?

Question 3: Do you think that religious leaders should be playing a direct role in drafting provisions of the Health Care Reform bill?
Yes or No or FTU (Failed To Understand)?

Your answer on this question will supposedly reflect whether you think that a Health Care bill is an appropriate place for representatives of non-tax paying religious sects to propose how the laws of the United States should be crafted? Laws by the way, that will apply to all members of the society both those belonging to the same or similar religious orientations and to those who are members of very diverse religious groups or not religious at all. Note: Nothing in the bill restricts members of any faith from following their own beliefs as it applies to their own lives; nor does it give anyone else the right to impose their religious practices upon you.

Question 4: Who is responsible for a watered-down, compromised and lobbyist influenced Health Care Reform bill: the endorsing party that contorted the bill to garner sufficient votes to get something rather than nothing, or the party that did nothing but resist and hinder the bill?
Endorsing Party or Resisting Party or FTU (Failed to Understand)?

Assume for the purpose of this question that you agree that a Health Care Reform bill is a vital need for the United States. If you cannot do this, then your answer should be blank and scored as wrong.

Question 5: Which is greater?
A. The cost of providing universal Health Care
B. The cost of allowing between 15% to 30% of the population to not
have Health Care coverage
C. Failed To Understand

Consider in your answer that you have to include all consequential costs to the society and economy from your answer. Granted that this is hard to do, because the experts are not able to do this either. But I cannot exempt you from the responsibility of your decision, so you will just have to man/woman up and be held accountable for your answer, even if you do not understand those consequences. You know how they say “ignorance is no excuse” with respect to the law; well, in life, ignorance absolutely will punish you as surely as death for being wrong.

You’re done! It’s over. You can relax and contemplate your score and that of Congress (or others).

For the voyeuristic among you, here are my answers.

--------- SELF --- CONGRESS
Question 1: F --- FTU
Question 2: F --- FTU
Question 3: N --- FTU
Question 4: R --- FTU
Question 5: B --- FTU

I guess you can all see that I fail to understand the ability of Congress.

Congressional Health Care Reform: A Fragment of a Vision

The Democrats abandoned the pubic option portion of their Health Care plan. They had already backed off of the more global universal health care proposal and were retreating to an expanded access to Medicare for people 55 to 64 years old. But amid concerns that expansion would drastically increase the Medicare costs above any funding increases, the proposal lost support among a number of Democrats. The Republicans were joyously sitting on the sidelines excitedly touting the problems and horrendous dangers that the Democratic Health Care Reform bill would rent upon America. Republican's were eager to join in and support a call by Howard Dean to scrap the current proposal and start afresh. In other words, the Republicans were busy contributing nothing useful to or supportive of a Health Care plan for American despite the dire straits that the populace agrees it is in. In short, the Republicans do not see any urgency to find a means to bring relief to the American public's need for health care reform.

The Democrats, while well intentioned, are apparently insufficient to the task of finding a Health Care plan that can garner the necessary support to either get all the Democrats and Independents to vote for it, or to draw in a very few Republicans who would vote for a bill that servers their constituents and is acceptable to their Republican principles. In other words, the Democrats are unable to think outside the box and to find creative solutions to the Health Care dilemma. The surprising aspect of this dilemma is that it's not just the politicians themselves who are unable to see their way through the fog of 'how things are always done'; it is also their staff and advisors, their experts, and the industry movers and shakers who are doing their utmost to guide Congress toward an acceptable solution.

But what has been proposed that is creative, what is innovative, what is new? And there is the crux of the problem. There are no new ideas, no insightful visions of how to re-shape the Health Care system to bring about a sea-change that will accomplish the goals of universal access and care. To bring economic sanity to the cost structure within the industry, and to provide a motivating force to move the industry to higher levels of quality and advances in treatments.

It would seem that if the American public wants Health Care reform, they will need to pick better Republicans and better Democrats then those they have done to date.

It’s Only a Trillion Dollars, and It’s Just Tax Dollars

Congress passed a $1.1 Trillion spending bill yesterday. It was mostly passed by Democrats but there were a couple Republicans who joined in. The Republicans did not support it because, well they’re Republicans, and since it was not their bill to spend a trillion dollars they put on their self-righteous suits and denounced the bill. Had the situation been reversed, I have no reason to think that the Democrats would have decried the bill against virtual unanimous Republican support. We all know that some of the items covered by the spending would have been on a few different things, but both sides would have found their cause célèbre with which to denigrate the other.

The public will predictably divide into their Republican and Democratic cadre and a few splinter groups all of whom will be taking positions on why it’s too much, too little, being spent on the wrong things and needs to be spent on other things, or is a conspiracy by their favorite scapegoat cartel. What will not be noted or talked about is that the Government doing nothing different than they have been doing forever. They are crafting spending plans, spending commitments, spending objectives and spending pay-offs. The bill is compiled by Congress, for Congress, and of Congress. And therein lies the problem. Congress has willfully deceived itself into believing that the Constitution gave it the right to decide upon how the taxes of the country are to be spent.

What the Constitution really provides for is that the responsibility for all appropriations of the federal government being vested in the legislature. And the salient term that the politicians have for their own convenience left unattended to is that Congress has the “responsibility” vested in their hands. And they do not recognize that they are responsible. Responsible in the sense that they are to held accountable to the public for the proper and appropriate use of these funds for the benefit of the nation and its populace.

How do we know that the politicians are not responsibly spending our tax dollars? If they were acting responsibly then they would be seeking better ways to ensure that every tax dollar that was spent was being used to its utmost value. A responsible Congress would find ways to get more benefit for fewer dollars, not the spend more dollars without any benefit even expected. Where is Congress even employing any of the successful capitalistic processes that have been so powerful in creating the enormous wealth of the nation? Congress has made itself an un-responsible assembly. Congress has neither leaders, members or supporters that understand or even recognize their moral obligation to public service for which they were elected and to which they pledged their lives and honor.

The huge deficit that imperils the United States is and has been dutifully crafted by each successive Congress regardless of party. And the public continues to place the blame on whoever is not their preferred political group. It’s always easier to blame the other side, rather than accept that the responsibility is your own. Kind of makes you wonder where Congress got the idea of abrogating their responsibility.

Let’s Have Another Round of Oversized Bloated Banking Bonuses

The public has generally been outraged over the Government’s bailout of the financial industry. The public’s major issues revolve around the CEOs and other executives of those companies not only keeping their jobs, but also receiving large bonuses after their stellar performance in bringing on the crisis. On top of this is the insult added to that injury, of the Government not providing bailouts for other businesses and industrial areas that were as dramatically impacted by the near financial collapse. Financial companies were assigned surgeons to help repair their life-threatening problems, while the rest of the economy was ask to handle their injuries with some band aids.

Now that the economy is beginning to show viable signs of a sustainable come-back, the executives of the financial companies are rewarding themselves with more super-sized bonuses. And we will hear from them the ever popular refrain about how these bonuses are essential to keeping these highly valued individuals who would go somewhere else if they weren’t paid these huge sums.

The Government’s solution to this is mostly non-existent because they are not allowed to directly interfere with the operation of a public-sector company. At least the Government does not intervene when it involves companies that provide large political contributions and funds very effective and well connected lobbyist groups. For those financial companies that are still holding Government TARP funds the Government has restricted pay and bonus amounts; but I am sure that this will be duly corrected when these companies pay back the bailout funds.

In an effort to ameliorate public discontent, the Government is proposing lots of solution to the problem the public sees. One of the easiest solutions that also offers the most emotionally satisfying reaction is to tax such bonuses. Of course, if we all step back and think about this for a moment we can see the fundamental flaw in this plan. Just as we all Government funds come from taxes, and all taxes come from the public; all bonuses come from the public’s purse also. So when we take some of their bonuses away, we are still the ones who paid the original price. This tax bonuses approach has been adopted by the European Union, so this simultaneous discovery of how to help protect the public and our economies from financial institutions’ abuse and greed will unquestionably work out.

Other Government proposals are to require the bonuses to be in the form of stock awards that have to be held for five years before they can be redeemed. This is really going to protect us, because as everyone knows this financial crisis was the result of things that were done in less than a five year period. And we won’t have to worry about these guys fiddling with the numbers or devising processes that will let them game the system (which they define) all over again. I don’t want to make you feel stupid or anything; but you only have to be of average intelligence and possibly are reasonably proficient with Algebra-level mathematics.

Our real problem is that the Government is still only able to understand and react to economic and societal risks with the same tools and concepts that they have been using for and from the last century. And given the empirical data from the 1900’s we can clearly see how successful these means and methods have been at averting these problems. In fact, since we are going to tackle these problems in the same way as before, they must not have really happened.

And why are we depending on the Government to have the brains and know-how to ensure that we can protect ourselves? Isn’t this another case of the same tool that just failed being the tool that is being recommended to solve the problem this time around? The politicians always talk about it being time for change; and I don’t just mean the present administration. Both parties and every administration says that they are going to change how we do things and make it work this time. It’s not that I don’t believe that they think they are going to fix things; it’s that I don’t think they understand how to comprehend the problems they are trying to solve. A prerequisite to solve a problem is to know the space in which a solution (if you believe that there is one) can be found.

What evidence do we have that politicians have demonstrated even a random chance at getting things right? I would contend that in some non-Las Vegas manner they cannot even win half the time when the odds are fifty-fifty.

The Triple Standard Replaces the Double Standard: The Tiger Woods Example

Most people are familiar with the Double Standard concept. If you are not, then I suppose you are either one of the many successful products of our educational system, or you are oblivious to the world around you. [I won’t slip in the obvious Samuel Clemens’ reference here.] In consideration of the membership rolls that these two groups represent, I feel obligated to provide a scant illumination. A Double Standard is a set of principles establishing different provisions for one group than for another; for example: having different rules for men versus women, native-born versus foreign-born citizens, blacks (or other racial group) versus whites (or other racial group, no redundancy allowed), or the wealthy versus the not-wealthy.

Double Standards seem to be a constant phenomenon in societies. Even where the society espouses views or even laws of equality for individuals regardless of which group someone belongs in, there is often a dissonance between the views/laws and the practices. In our society, we have been struggling with Double Standard problems since even before the founding of our nation. One might say that the Declaration of Independence is the original statement of America’s principle against letting a people be treated by a Government as an under-privileged class in their own society. This is true whether the people constitute the bulk of the population or a smaller group within that population.

I suspect that everyone can recount any number of stories where they see someone(s) being treated differently than they think they would be treated in the same circumstances. Usually, you recall that the person(s) is receiving a significantly better form of treatment than you would receive. On rare occasions, there are a few people who are actually aware that they would have received the better treatment. Let’s think CEOs of Financial or Banking corporations during the current economic catastrophe. You know, where the CEOs got big bonuses after having failed spectacularly in the very arena that these CEOs are the ‘most talented and gifted’ individuals that cannot be easily replaced if we don’t give them big bundles of cash. Although we never seem to have a lack of qualified candidates when someone is replaced, but that is another story.

But it is no longer true that we have Double Standards in America. We have Triple Standards today. The third set of principles have evolved to apply to those individuals who are celebrities, media sensations, and well-known authority figures (think: politician, religious notables, the ‘well connected’, …). The most recent example is Tiger Woods. Tiger is the Bill Gates or Warren Buffet of sports’ celebrities. Anything that happens in Tiger’s life is instantly a media event. And oddly enough the more divorced from Golf the events are, the greater the public interest and media attention. If the incident is personal, and better yet if it is ‘scandalous’, and news and media services will focus on this story as if it is the most salient and vitally important item of the century. And here is where the Third Standard comes in.

Tiger is not engaged in a golf tournament or any related sporting event. He is not participating in any advertising or endorsement activity, nor is he helping in a charitable or public service campaign. Tiger is, well he is just living his life at home with his family. But because he is a celebrity, Tiger is treated to the insane and excessive scrutiny of the media, as if it is critical to everyone else’s life that we know everything about this inane event in lurid details. If we applied the same intensity of attention and interest to world, societal, or our own problems; many of these problems would be resolved or reduced in significance.

Compounding the dysfunctional attention we impart to Tiger’s life, we then fixate upon the really relevant issues of the day: Should Tiger’s sponsors terminate their business relationships with Tiger? The concern is evidently because Tiger has engaged in activities that some judge to be immoral, wrong, unacceptable, or detrimental to those who see him as a role-model. The public divides itself in groups that want Tiger to be treated according to some principle that is not only different than the principle that would be applied to us or to the principle for members of the other Double Standard group.

The Third Standard principles are created by the media, by the public, and by the interest groups that can profit in some manner from these distracting events. We obsess on whether we approve of the punishment the offender is or is not receiving. We compulsively place this issue ahead of our own needs and lives. But we do not choose to treat Tiger or any of the other celebrities du jour in the same way that we would treat others or they would treat us.

And where is the fault? We allow the special Third Standard treatment of such celebrities. We buy products and pay for tickets to support these celebrities. We accept the media’s coverage of these events on an equal basis with news items of greater relevance to our lives. If you don’t like the life-style of one of your celebrities, then you control the one thing that makes them a celebrity: the money you give them. Don’t be irate, don’t demand that others do something to address your issue; do it yourself.

Look Mom No Hands! – The Democrats’ Solution for Revolutionizing US Health Care

Today the Democrats demonstrated their deftness in the political skill of compromise. Not with the Republicans, but with fellow Democrats. The Republicans are staunchly against any action that would contribute to the establishment of a broader health care program for US citizens, so they continued to point out incorrect and irrelevant consequences to the Democratic plan. From the compromise reached among the Democrats, I would think the Republicans would be falling over themselves working to join the effort; since if there is any way to help insure that the Democratic plan will fail is to put this one into place.

What’s wrong with the Democrats’ compromise? The Democrats have discovered that in order to revolutionize and reform the Health Care insurance and medical care systems in the United States that the existing Medicare program and new nationwide private plans will work. The Medicare plan will be extended to folks in the 55 to 64 age range; and new nationwide plans will be created in accord with some Government oversight from the folks who run the insurance plans for lawmakers and their families. So clearly it is obvious why these approaches will succeed, while nothing we have done in the past has been adequate to the task.

If we are going to update and revamp the insurance and medical systems that everyone agrees are out of control and rapidly approach catastrophic failure in terms of meeting the health care needs of the US citizenry, then these two existing programs will surely solve our problems. After all, both Medicare and the Government’s insurance plans have been demonstrably successful in containing the health care costs associated with people under their coverage. I haven’t seen such data or assessments; but given my great trust in politician and government bureaucracies I imagine that this information exists. I don’t know how to reconcile this obvious truth with the fact that the Medicare program has in the past and is projected to be again in the future bankrupt. Well we don’t like to say bankrupt, we prefer the term insolvent. And the Governmental insurance program for the lawmakers, this program must surely be more cost effective than that of the average Americans’, those that have an insurance program at least. And data illustrating the lower cost for their plan should be readily available for the politicians to present as clear and unequivocal evidence of the effectiveness of these programs.

Now if by some chance it’s not true that, or if you don’t believe that, the Medicare and/or the Government’s own medical insurance plan are affordable plans then you probably don’t think these will solve the problems with the current system. And if you have doubts, you should also remember to consider whether you think a sizeable percentage of the uninsured citizenry will be able to afford that costs of these plans. The lawmakers can afford them because there are the taxes that they have around to help pay for them. Can’t remember where those taxes come from, but perhaps we can all get some tax dollars to help us with our insurance. It’s not like taxes are going to cost any of us anything, right?

To further alleviate your concern about this solution, we can step back and examine the evidence of the reduced costs in medical care that has resulted from Medicare and the Governments plans over the last 44 years, since Medicare was established. And given their examples, the private insurance industry has been able to learn how to control costs along similar lines, thus averting the Health Care crisis. Uh! Wait a second, none of that happened. In actuality, didn’t the exact opposite happen? Things have gotten progressively worse over the years, and we are not facing the real dilemma of an unaffordable Health Care system.

Well, I am sure things will work out ok. We have always been able to rely upon our politicians to solve our problems.

Out-smarting Republicans on Their Health Care Political Maneuverings

Republicans put forth an amendment to the Health Care Reform bill that would have eliminated cutting $42 billion in Medicare payments over ten years. Now the Republicans did not do this because they are interested in helping the Democrats or the American people to find a way to find the funding cuts that will make the Reform bill affordable. The Republicans are attempting to show the Democrats as willing to cut health care support for seniors even as they vote for costly programs. They are doing this in preparation for upcoming house elections next year and want to fill their bags of fun facts with such items.

The Democrats react by essentially fulfilling the Republican agenda; they vote the amendment down and look as if they don't want to assist those seniors on Medicare or who will be on Medicare that would be served by home care providers. It seems to me that the Democrats are just not properly thinking through the opportunities that the Republicans are presenting to them. Now while I have no great regard for the intelligence of Democrats overall, and certainly do not assume that the Republicans are any more intelligent than Democrats, I think that these little intramural Congressional power-plays offer the powerful potential to be turned back upon the perpetrators. The supposed craftiness of the Republicans can become a dangerous morass that will bite them in their ponderous backsides.

[Note to the reader: the point of this entry is more generic than just the Republicans. From my perspective you can inter-change the Republicans with the Democrats and there is no difference in the outcome.]

The trick to the troublesome problem that the Republicans are foisting upon the Democrats is that most issues are complex and possess many dimensions. And unless the person presenting the problem thoroughly understands the problem itself, the factors and issues that relate to the problem; and possess adequate or extensive knowledge about the methods and means to apply effective solutions to the problem; they are stepping into the domain of those who can. And just like a lawyer is usually careful not to ask a question that they do not already know the answer to, a politician should not undertake to propose a solution to an issue that they do not understand. The only fortunate circumstance for politicians is that they are almost always competing with other politicians. Thus the risk of running into someone with even an average intelligence is pretty remote.

What should the Democrats do? They should look at the Republican proposal. Determine what the good or favorable aspects of the proposal are, assess the bad implications of the proposal, and assess if the proposal is more advantageous or not than their plan. If it is, then incorporate it into you plan so fast that you can thank the Republicans for helping you to define the most effective plan possible on a bi-partisan basis. If you do it fast enough you can even claim that it is an original part of your proposal since it was incorporated during the initial formative and creative phase of the effort.

If the proposal is not a net beneficial addition, then you can reject it if there are no unfavorable or unacceptable consequences to such a rejection; or you can find a counter-action that will negate the attack, or if it is more desirable to turn the tables on your adversaries then look for ways to show up the Republicans or to have them admit the stupidity and irresponsibility of their action.

Let’s take the amendment to eliminate the cuts to the Medicare home care provider coverage as an example. Now unfortunately, I am not a knowledgeable person about such an issue, and am certainly not a subject-matter expert on health care issues; so this could be a significant challenge for me.

There must be some consequences for retaining the cost of Medicare that are beyond just those related to not eliminated home care provider costs. For instance, what do the seniors on the current home care process do after the home care is removed? Do they wind up visiting or moving into partial or full time care facilities that are provided at a lower net cost? Do they require transportation to and from other health care provider facilities? Do fewer of them suffer more extensive and more costly health care support?

The thing that the Republicans overlooked is that we live in a world of consequences. They thought they understood that; but only because they have a simple minded understanding of the principles of Cause and Effect. They are not even like a novice chess player, they can’t see one or two moves beyond their own. And not be particularly adept at anticipating the consequences of what they cannot see for themselves, they are easy prey to those who can.

Would the Republican be willing to acknowledge their authorship of this amendment and their well-thought out responsibility for it, once the true consequences are understood? Are they willing to stand behind the intellectual might that they bring to their office?

Why is the Afghan War Not Fun Any More? – A Test

With President Obama’s recent decision to deploy more troops to Afghanistan, surprise, surprise! There are lots of people who don’t agree with this decision. There are the folks who think that we have been fighting this war too long already, there are those who think it is too costly in both the lives of our military and in financial terms, some think that we should never have gotten into the war, and then there are surely various groups who have their own particular positions on why this was not the right decision.

Clearly this is another opportunity for an American Intelligence Test.

Let’s all remember the basic rules:

1. You have to score the answers yourself, so we all know who you are deceiving.
2. You have to depend on the honesty, integrity and honor of your answers which are your responsibility and thus are a vital part of the test. [How intelligent can you be if you lie to yourself?]
3. Passing the test is no indication of valid answers

Time to turn on those thinking caps on. Minds, front and center. Let’s do it to it.

Question 1: Did you support and approve of the United States undertaking the Afgan war and forming the coalition of nations engaged in it, when it began under President G.W. Bush?
Remember this was after the World Trade Center Towers, Pentagon, and Pennsylvania plane crash terrorist attacks, and the Taliban were hosting Al Qaida training camps and operations groups. And you should try your best to recall how you felt at that time and not now 8 years later.

Question 2: Did you believe that creating a free democratic Afghan government and society were an essential part of our commitment to the war?
On this item you should consider that in the world community and in accord with United Nations agreements an occupying force is responsible for the administration and proper running of the society during the period of occupation. So the United States/Coalition Alliance had to either continue to govern Afghanistan as the official civil authority, or we had to establish an Afghani civil government that would be vested with that responsibility and authority.

Question 3: Did you understand that the cost of the Afghan war (and then the Iraqi war) were treated as an ‘off the books’ budgeting item for the US’s budget, and did you think that was appropriate and sound fiscal responsibility? Choices: A – understood and yes, B – understood and no, C – not understood and yes, D – not understood and no.

This questions contains two facets of the war that need to be appreciated and tightly linked with one another. One: there was and still is an implicit cost for these wars. If you believe that America had to undertake either or both of these wars then you should have understood that you were accepting the responsibility and obligation to pay for them. There is nothing about a war that is any different than any other effort or task in our society or the real world. This fact is that ‘there is no such thing as a free lunch’.
Two: the cost of the war will come home to roost whether some governmental accounting slight-of-hand manages to make it appear to be invisible. Worse, by allowing the Government to temporarily obscure such financial liabilities, you empower decision makers to commit you to financial obligations that can have severe consequences to your economic security and to weaken the strength and stability of our society and therefore our nation.

Question 4: Given we have being prosecuting the Afghan war for over 8 years now, though we have to admit that we lost focus on the war, the objectives, and the responsibilities that were part of our mission; do you think that we have achieved any of our objectives?
These objectives included:

A. Improving our Civil Defense from the “clear and present danger” that the Taliban
Afghanistan represented.
B. Root out and capture or eliminate the al-Qaida leadership.
C. Establish a free democratic Government in Afghanistan, and help lead the way for democratic governments throughout the region.

Question 5: Which of the following is consistent with American values and is worth of the true American spirit with respect to America’s responsibility to the people of Afghanistan?

A. Pull out our troops as quickly as possible, such that we insure the safety of the troops during this pull-out.
B. Stay in Afghanistan and deploy sufficient troops so that we can establish an Afghanistan civil government that is sound, is an uncorrupt citizen-serving system, and that is able to provide adequate protection to its populace from terrorist and insurgent groups within their country.
Note: I make no assertion that the Afghan government need be a Democratic system styled after the American/Western form.

Extra Credit Question 6: You get a bonus on this one. If you get it right, then you can have messed up on a previous one and your score is restored to the higher level.
Ready?
If the cost of the war is too high, then do you abandon the Afghan people, or change your objectives?

A. Abandon
B. Change Objectives (this is not changing just the approach, it’s changing what you want to accomplish)

Test Over. You can put your minds back to where ever you usually keep them.

And how did you do on this one?

Should you have any interest in my answers, here’s how I did.

Question 1: Y Question 2: N Question 3: B Question 4: N Question 5: B
Bonus Question 6: B

Hope you did well on yours.

You Can Have Anything You Want At Congress’ Restaurant

Ever wonder why the wealthiest nation and economy in the world has a deficit? It’s because the Republicans and Democrats have individually and collectively chosen to be the extreme versions of what they claim they are not. The Republicans claim that they want to protect the American people from Big Government and guarantee states and individual freedom from governmental bureaucracy, and low taxes. The Democrats claim that they want to ensure equal treatment under the law and protect individual rights, and to have affordable government.

The problem with these parties’ objectives is that the politicians of both stripes completely abandon and disregard the fundamental responsibility that is essential to any viable system of government. That is, the parties do not hold themselves responsible to insure that the Government that we have is the Government that we can afford. The parties and politicians are so greedy and self serving that they sacrifice everyone and everything to their view. We establish government programs that commitment the Government and therefore the citizens to fund and pay for ever increasing items. Whether these are social programs to guarantee that members of the society are kept out of poverty, even thought we have poverty that is not addressed by these programs. We have programs committed to keeping the nation secure and strong even as they weaken the economy and the strength of our social system. We feed the insatiable hunger of each little political idea that belongs to some special interest group which is constructed to benefit them not for the sake of the society but for their own benefit at the expense of everyone else.

Can you really say that you don’t understand what it means to fund US war efforts off-the books? Can you not recognize what accepting unfunded mandates will require of you eventually? Do you really think that promising to pay-out pensions and benefits based on future revenues does not require you to understand the price you will pay when (and I don’t mean if) there is an economic in-balance between the revenues coming in and the expenditures required to go out? And do you truly believe that you do not actually understand the ultimate responsibility that you will be called upon to stand up and deliver?

Well, if you haven’t accepted or understood that everything that the Government does is dependent upon you paying for it via your taxes. There is no money but your money. Whether you want the Government to provide security and military capabilities to protect the nation; to provide a social safety net to prevent the elderly, retired and children in our country from falling into crushing poverty; to subsidize one industry or area of the economy or another from some threat or to insure a level of independence to that area; or to provide basic social services such as education there is one fact that you can hide from or refuse to acknowledge but you cannot avoid. The Government is no different than you home. You have to pay for everything you want in your home.

And it is this responsibility that the Democrats and Republicans have purposely chosen to turn a blind eye to. They are afraid of and dumbfounded by the issues that this responsibility presents. These politicians have no courage to confront this issue or the integrity to put this issue before the voters in a clear and honest manner. We are already seeing the consequences of this cowardice.

And at the very heart of this irresponsibility is the public. The politicians’ failure is only possible because the public allows them to be unaccountable. The fault and guilt stands before you each and every time you stand before a mirror. The failure is the populace and its irrational desire to get more out than you have put in, or worse to get something for nothing. America can no more afford to operate as if we were fools or stupid as Congress.

Congress Couldn’t Empty a Boot With Instructions on the Heel

Take something simple. Then ask yourself how you could a way to make it difficult. If you can do this then you too may be qualified to be a member of Congress.

Need an example, then consider the Health Care Reform bill’s provision to require everyone to purchase health insurance. Certainly the intent would seem very simple. If you are an American citizen then you must buy at least a “basic” health care insurance plan (or have one provided by your employer, or be covered by someone else plan – like spouse’s or parent’s). And if you cannot afford even a basic plan, the Government will provide some subsidized packages so that your costs are less burdensome. Of course even here there will be people who fall through the cracks. It’s not that Congress is unaware of the cracks, it’s just that their definition of ‘everyone’ is not, you know, everyone.

So setting that minor point, the Health Care Reform bill is still nearly simple on this item. We can say that the new act will require “the vast majority of” citizens to pay for some health care plan coverage. We could say that Congress has managed to be generally simple on this area; but I don’t mean that in the good way.

But we are not done yet. This requirement that everyone (the sorta kind) have insurance presents an enforcement issue. To have any meaning, Congress realized (I know, it’s unusual that Congress is aware of a connection between their laws and paying for them; but someone screwed up and pointed it out) that there had to be some way to insure that people would actually purchase insurance. Otherwise Congress would have done it usual legislative abracadabra and produced yet another “here’s your next new law”; and could somebody please figure out how to implement it.

However, do not despair. Congress has stepped up to the task and is prepared to decree that they will guarantee enforcement by, now don’t hold your breath, imposing a “fine” on anyone who does not comply with the law. You may think that this sound simple, and let’s get the sense in which you versus I mean simple before we agree. If you mean this is a very simple way to compel people to purchase their insurance, then we do not agree. If you mean that Congress is being simple-minded again, then we do agree.

Creating a ‘fine-based’ motivational arrangement is not simple. It will require adding a responsibility to one or more (more is more likely) Governmental entity to come up with methods and procedures to find people who are not purchasing their insurance. And to make matters worse, these agencies will have to determine that someone is not providing the required coverage not only to themselves, but more difficultly that they are not providing it to their family members. This of course will require additional funding to such Governmental agencies, which will have to be borne by the tax payers. All this will be done of course to make health care less expensive. This is because spending money on things that do not directly fund actual health care activities always makes health care less expensive.

Now there are simple ways to make people actively seek out and purchase their health care insurance. And while we might expect the average American to be prudent enough to recommend one of these approaches; it is out of character for Congress to do something smart. One example of a simpler way to get people to pay for health insurance coverage is to make the purchase of health care insurance a tax deductable item. This approach incorporates both a carrot and stick mechanism within the existing reporting system that Americans engage in every year. By crafting the tax-deduction procedure properly, the Government would be able to make the current tax system directly support the self-same funding requirement that their fine-based approach would attempt to achieve.

If I expect nothing else from Congress, I expect that they do simple things simply; and not do stupidly simple things.

Solve All Our Problems: Say the Magic Words, and Get Elected/Re-Elected

It’s that time of the year again. Actually, it’s always that time of the year in the political arena. Another instance for your respective party leaders and elected office holders to assure you that there is only one way to fix most of our problems. Fortunately, regardless of the problems that are plaguing the nation, the solution is obvious to these forward looking Democratic or Republican luminaries. The solution of course is to reduce taxes. If we reduce taxes, the ship of state will right itself and we can all look forward to smooth sailing on our journey to peace, plenty, and prosperity.

Now, I am as big a proponent of paying as little in taxes as the next person, maybe even more than most; but hearing a politician tell me that they promise to work vigorously to reduce my taxes and thereby fix any number of social and national ills is not inspirational. It does not convince or even motivate me to want to vote for a particular candidate. Actually, it tends to prompt me to question the intellectual soundness of the politician. So what is the advantage to the politician to be constantly stumping the “Reduce Your Taxes” slogan?

It’s the electorate. Both parties have learned that substantial percentages of their bases and of the non-aligned independents are attracted to and respond to this Pavlovian tolling. Ring out that phrase at every opportunity and the party faithful will open their checkbooks, the media will sound-bite the utterance and replay it over and over, and voters will navigate their way through the voting booth for the opportunity to pull that lever to receive their conditioned reward. Add to this that the political pundits will be pointing out how the other side is deceptively planning to, or will have no choice but to, raise your taxes to fund their plans, and we have the perfect storm of positive and negative reinforcement.

If the politicians are unlucky, you might think about their message, and question whether it makes any rational sense. Thinking scares the hell out of politicians, whether it is on the part of the voters or if it is being required of them. This is because it would mean that they actually have to understand the reality of events and issues that affect the people and our society. This is not something that politicians what to have to waste their time on. It does not increase their political power, it does not line their pockets, and it does not require their ideas, proposals and positions to be better than their opponents.

Taxes are not the source of the problems that are the real issues and questions that America has to confront. Taxes may be a consequence of those problems and issues; but our taxes are just part of a cause-effect relationship within our Governmental system with the taxes being the effect, not the cause. The singular and sole purpose of taxes is to fund the function and operation of Government. So if a politician is telling you that your problems will magically vanish if you allow them to reduce your taxes, then why don’t they just tell you what they are really proposing to do? And, by reducing taxes, I mean actually reducing the total amount of your income that the Government takes from you. I don’t mean reducing say an income tax, but adding fees, surcharges, registrations, fines, duties, or other monetary acquisition forms that simply replace the manner in which you are taxed.

The issues that we, the electorate, need to attend to are what the politicians are planning to have the Government responsible for delivering that determines if our taxes are too high or too low. Now don’t go all postal here. There are circumstances and conditions where we should all recognize that our taxes are too low, or that we have demanded that the Government do something that we apparently are too stupid to see that we cannot afford. Taxes are after all nothing more than our collective budget to pay for what we have endorsed via our elected officials.

Our problems are not unsolvable. Our social issues are not beyond our ability to address. And our ability to pay for our aspirations do not exceed our means. We just have to be responsible to ourselves and accept that what you want you must be willing to fund, or you must be willing to go without.

Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, or an Independent, you have bigger problems to deal with than that your taxes to high. In fact you have one really big problem. If you don’t know what the problem is, and don’t try and understand the problem, then you will continue to respond to that Pavlovian bell the politicians have trained you to attend to and to behave has they want you to. Or you can choose to do what a member of a free society needs to do and step up to your responsibility.

Our problem is not that we pay too much. Our problem is that we pay too little attention to what we are asking for and expecting from the Government.

Another Day of Thanks for Democrats and Republicans

As is the custom on this Thanksgiving Day, most Americans throughout the country take s short respite from the trials and challenges in their life to reflect upon the abundance that they actually have. While we are often more aware of and focused upon the difficulties we face and the things that we perceive that we lack or need, Americans can generally acknowledge that we still have more than the vast majority of the world if not actually than everyone else.

And while yes, it is true that Americans still have a host of ills and troubles that plague our nation; we also have a vital and vibrant social structure that enables us to strive for a future that is better than the best that we have accomplished since the founding of our country. So it is in this spirit that I am also aware of and thankful for the privileges and promises that America grants its citizens. I am particularly thankful for the freedom which we offer to each other in our acceptance of a society founded upon the rights possessed by all men to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is in that pledge we make, either explicitly or implicitly, as members of our democratic system to protect and defend our country and form of government that I believe is our best hope of success in assuring future generations of Americans their freedom.

One of the amazing aspects of American democracy is that it manages to thrive and persist despite the political parties that are consistently working to achieve only their vision of a free society. Now this partisan perspective has been, and in some cases probably still manages to be, instrumental in keeping the principles of freedom a basic element in our society; I think we are in urgent need for a “little revolution now and then is a good thing” as Jefferson said. The revolution that I think is necessary, and that I expect to eventually occur, is within the Democratic and Republican parties. This revolution would be one extending the principles of American back to the members of Congress. It’s not that I think that the Senators and Congressmen are deprived of the freedoms that the rest of the public enjoys; it’s that our representatives are increasingly being constrained by and bound to a smaller and smaller view of what is ‘acceptable’ doctrine within these parties.

Whether you are a Republican or Democrat, there seems to be an intolerance within the ‘core’ party faithful to any opinion or position that in any way deviates from their own. Now there is nothing un-American about people choosing to take as hard and rigid a stance on their political beliefs as they want. But the consequences of such rigidity is that it undermines the very dynamism of the American system. We thrive on differences of opinion, on the diversity of mind that brings new and better ways to address the needs of the day. We also depend upon the ability to recognize the error of our ways and to stand up and redress them. To realize the America dream that we were bequeathed, requires a liberty of mind and thought, a freedom of opinion and view, and an ability to compromise in order for us to achieve the happiness we seek in a free society.

Therefore the Democrats and Republican parties will either find their ways to prevent them from fracturing and destroying their selves internally; or a little revolution will have to occur. This would not be the first time that a party has been transformed or replaced because it lost it way. And there is much to be gained by the evolution of either party to something healthier and more dynamic then the dysfunctional collection of power-brokers and autocrats who strive only to retain position and privilege for themselves at any cost.

Let’s be thankful that we still have the privilege of the vote. And if we can accept the responsibility to use it wisely to protect ourselves and each other, then perhaps we can preserve the greatness of America. Let us all be thankful that we still have time to remember the promise. We can be thankful that we do not have to restrict the rights and freedoms of our fellow countrymen, in order protect our own. With just a little of the spirit of the American Revolution, we can make sure that on Government can deprive its citizens of their God given rights. We can be thankful for the blessings that we have received from every American who has stood up and defended the rights of everyone else.

A Public-Private Plan, A Private-Public Plan, or Something Stupid a Congressional Plan

As Congress and the public fight about the ‘public plan’, I would say debate but that would imply even a minimal level of cognitive thought, the American public will continue to be misled by one faction or another. Pathetically, the lack of awareness about the pros or cons of a public option does not originate from different groups which are actively engaged in deceiving or misinforming the public. The failure results from rigid mindsets on all sides that there is only one form of a public option. To help obscure this oversight, the American public is consistently ill-served by political parties that are only capable of seeking positions that support a core constituency’s emotional trigger issue regardless of its relevance to the question at hand. The politicians themselves are functionally useless leaders who are apparently unqualified and untrained in practical problem solving on any topic outside of funding raising, corruption or scandal. This self-imposed political imprisonment that restrains our government from seeking creative ways to address public needs and issues is produced by the ever increasing emphasis on turning every issue into some divisive election issue. Because as I am sure you all agree, there are no areas or issues facing the American people on which the two parties and their current cast of clueless clowns could come to a common cause.

The news media owns a disproportionate share in accountability on this problem. The media has turned more and more into reporting the news as a action only event. No analysis, no evaluation, no critical assessment of what the actions are purported to be about and whether there is a rational and logic connection to the issue. The news media has found that entertaining has become more profitable and less costly than informing the public and confronting the problems of the day.

And let us not pass over ourselves. The most egregious culprit is that the public, the folks who elect the politicians, because we collectively are turning our politics into culture wars. The important factor on any issue is whether it conforms to a party view point or not, or whether there is some way to cast the issue as an ‘us versus them’ issue.

The ‘public’ option is such an issue within the Health Care Reform bill. The word ‘public’ has been transformed into government-controlled, into socialism, and into more welfare. Why, because these are hot-button topics. Who doesn’t know that you can get people outraged and excited about anything if you say that it’s going to give the government control over your ___? So the public option is first characterized as an attempt to give the Government control over the health care system. Once I make that statement I can then extend the argument, and tell you that if this happens then the Government will start making decisions about what medical decisions and treatments you will be allowed to have.

So if this is your “big hot-button” issue with the public option, why not tell your representative that you are only willing to accept a public option if it doesn’t allow the Government to be involved in medical decisions. After all, it the bill explicitly prohibited the Government from that involvement, what would you be afraid of then? And I am sure that there will be another issue that you or someone will be able to raise; but the fact that you can raise the issue doesn’t mean that there is not a solution to your issue.

And that is the great failure of our politicians, media, and ourselves. We are not evoking the tremendous power of the American way of life, the creativity of our Yankee ingenuity, the vast innovative spirit that brought America to its prominence in the world.

Imagine a variant of the public option that would be:

• Sponsored by a Government agency but provided by private companies who compete for that business. An actually profit-motivated system.
  
• Sponsored by private companies and only qualified by and comparatively assessed for premium payments.
  

A minimal public plan incorporated into all private plans, and which can be offered as a stand-alone plan for anyone who elects to or can only afford the minimal offering.

In none of these of these alternatives does the Government control medical treatment decisions by design.

So if we cannot get a Health Care Reform act passed through Congress, it won’t be because there are no ways in which a plan could be crafted to satisfy the expectations of the American public, or the philosophies of the Republican or Democratic parties, or even the profit fixated health care industry. We will fail because the effort has become a political issue and not a health care issue. We will fail because of stupidity. The stupidity by the way, can be assigned to pretty much everyone.

Public Versus Private: A Spectrum Not Quantum States

Who do you think is at fault: the public or the politicians, the Democrats or the Republicans, or is it the current state of our political system or our societal fixation on a sport-like winner/loser mentality?

Alright, the question is too generic; it applies to too many issues. So I suppose it would only be fair for me to be more specific and targeted on the question. Then you would be able to allow yourself a proper amount of time to give yourself your considered judgment on the question. So here goes.

Why has the issue of a public option on the Health Care Reform bill been reduced to basically an either – or decision? Is the great American innovative spirit so diminished that none of the politicians from either party or on either side of the debate are so limited in their understanding that they can only conceive of the Health Care system being structured only with or without an absolute, indivisible, rigid, unimaginative, and bureaucratically operated public option?

I am not asking if you are for or against the public option, if you think that is the question, please follow the steps below:

1. Go back to the beginning of this text.
2. Read a little slower.
3. Pay more attention to the words.
4. Repeat until you understand the question.

OK! Now we are on the rhetorical same page.

The answer is pretty easy, it’s “All of the Above”.

The Health Care issue regarding a public option has been cast as great threat that will do any number of catastrophic things. It will destroy the private insurance industry and cost jobs. It will give the Government control over individuals’ health care. It will require everyone to pay more taxes, or at the least spend more of their money on mandated health insurance. It will use Government funds to pay for abortions. But if these are the issues, then why not create a Health Care Reform act that will not do this horrible things? And why not do it with a public option that is not of the type that those opposed to one assume it must be?

I’m sure that the politicians could find a handful of people that could note their concerns, I would say fears but we all know what courageous types politicians are, and present a number of different ways that a Health Care system could be structured to avoid these pitfalls. The politicians could also be shown how a public option can be offered without producing the dreaded consequences of the insipid approach that they are able to conceive of and that they would create on their own.

It would even be possible to explain to the public, no matter of what stripe, how a properly structured Health Care Reform bill would be better for their health and the purse than the fragile system that we all expect to collapse under its own weight and inertia.

Now there will be winners and losers here. The political parties will not be able to use Health Care as a divisive issue to pit one segment of the electorate against another. The lobbyist organizations will likely need to find other issues on which to raise money to line their pockets and garner influence and control over politicians. And the public would have to find some other issue to distract them from solving problems and doing something of value to the nation.

Separation of Church and Brain; or Principles, Principles, We Ain’t Got No Stinking Principles

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has taken its long standing anti-abortion position in the Health Care Reform effort consistent with its religious and moral position. There is nothing surprising here. This is not exactly a breaking news items, although it is a part of the debate that has been reported in coverage on the Health Care bill. The important aspect of the news reporting is that the Bishops are conveying their opposition to provisions in the Health Care Reform act from including any accommodation to abortion rights in the bill or even a status quo of existing provisions in current law. The Bishops are advocating the Catholic Church’s stance as one would expect, and they are conveying to lawmakers their disapproval of any position at odds with their own.

The dissonance that the Bishops’ involvement in the legislative efforts creates for me comes from two basic principles. One of the principles is a core tenet of our constitutional social agreement; that is the separation of church and state. The second is a Catholic Church principle that has been derived from the American principle. The Catholic Church has established a principle that its clergy are not to be involved in political advocacy and in leading political movements.

I applaud and admire the Catholic Church’s recognition that in a free society which aspires to accept and protect the freedom of religion and religious expression, that the Church has an obligation and responsibility to respect the separation of Church from State. I also acknowledge the thorny predicament that this principle presents to its clergy and its parishioners. Being a person of faith, you are faced with the dilemma that you believe that there are things that you should do and things that you should not do. The Ten Commandments are a small set of rules that exemplify such religious principles.

So the Catholic Church’s position that abortion is immoral and unacceptable and that it needs to be opposed is reasonable and appropriate. And for Catholics, it is their personal decision and responsibility to choose to understand and follow that direction according to their beliefs and understanding of their religious faith. And it cannot be a surprise that many Catholics, both American and those in other countries, do not either agree with the Church’s view or occasionally elect to act against the anti-abortion position. But the question of pro-life versus pro-choice while an difficult reality for Catholics is not a difficult choice for the Church with respect to political activism. At least it should not be. If the Catholic Church acknowledges its responsibility to abstain from political advocacy in the United States, then the U.S. Bishops should practice what they preach. The Bishops and their American clergy should be espousing their reasons why they are pro-life and why they believe that abortions are immoral. But they should not be advocating that the laws or programs of the United States be framed to be consistent with their views, their positions, and according to their faith. As important as their right to religious freedom is, it is less important and completely dependent upon the right to religious freedom of all people, of all faiths, and of all persuasions.

If you believe that your faith requires you to follow particular rules then follow them. But if your faith requires you to mandate others to do as you would dictate them do; then you are not accepting the principles that citizens of America are required to hold above all else. You are excommunicating yourself from membership in the society that has offered you its protection, and which has given you the very freedoms that you want to trample and sacrifice to a belief in your understanding of God’s plan.

Being a person of faith myself, I have to protest the efforts of any group who places their religious beliefs over those of others. And in accordance with my understanding of both my faith and my duty to the American system which provides all the freedoms that I enjoy, I have to resist these groups’ efforts to deprive the American people of their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. And since I am as sure of my God’s teachings as they are of their God’s, I believe that such groups are not only wrong in the context of the American social system, but that they have erred in understanding the teachings of their God. I am comfortable in allowing them to live their own personal lives according to their understanding and belief in their faith, for that is one of the blessings that the God I believe in has bestowed upon our country and contained within the doctrine of freedom that we established in our Constitution.

New Breast Exam Guidelines, or Just Who Are The Boobs Here?

I had one of those precognitive moments that I assume occurs to everyone from time to time. I do not actually know that others experience such moments, but it seems prudent to operate on the premise that in general things that I experience are natural and not unique.

The incident occurred when I heard on the radio that the Government had released a new set of guidelines on breast mammograms. I remember the news report noted that the new guidelines reduced the recommended age at which starting mammograms were effective, the frequency at which repeating mammograms would be beneficial, and a recommendation that there was no significant value in doctors instructing women on the method for self-examination. The new report mentioned that there were no oncologist on the committee and that some doctors and the American Cancer Society did not agree with the recommendations.

The prescient event was a simple thought-based monologue concerning my expectation that this was going to be a highly-charged media frenzy that would take on a life of its own, and would quickly lose any hold on rationality or connection to actual facts. I suspect that the slight mention that there were a number of groups that disagreed with the recommendations was the seminal information.

And I did not have to wait long to have the future thrust into the here and now. I noticed a couple of internet news items, and later in the day driving home I got to listen to “reaction” to the GUIDELINES! And sure enough, the townsfolk had collected their pitchforks and axes, lit the torches, and were descending upon the governmental gates of the ivory tower committee that had created that monstrous report and guideline recommendations. I mean ya gotta ask yourself: “Did you think that poking the bear was a good idea at the time?”. Because let’s face it, they had to know that if they didn’t make it extremely clear and easy for people to understand what the recommendations meant that there was going to be hell to pay.

Well, welcome to hell. And as Dante’s sign says, “All hope abandon ye who enter here.” Once the media momentum started, it was clear that we had a news story that would focus on comments and reactions from experts and the uninformed alike. And we could count on the media to ensure more grist for the mill, as it would be far easier to play up the anger and confusion than to take any time to analyze and assess what the new guidelines and recommendations were advocating, and determining whether people were reacting from a position of substance or just reacting in and to the moment.

The heated debate is still in full volcanic fury, but there seems to be some attempts to bring the clarity and perspective to the recommendations that we would all hope and assume that responsible parties would have taken from the start. Of course when did we last have had or seen government agencies and bureaucracies, media sources, health care groups and associations, and the public behave in a thoughtful and intelligent manner? I can’t really remember myself; but I think my later father once mentioned to me that he had heard from his father it he had seen it happen. But that may just be one of those urban myths.

I haven’t found the report on-line, but I expect that it might require people to read it before they actually know if it says what many are claiming/assuming it says. Unfortunately, I suspect that it is written for professionals in the field; and thus may be ill-suited for clarity of being understood by almost anyone. I also suspect that in their attempt to provide useful information that would be useful for women to be aware of, that they relied upon a rational and unbiased reader. Expecting that the information would be assessed impartially and incorporated into the information that the Health Care system and groups strive to make available to women, physicians, and other individuals involved in the medical professions and industries.

Naa! That’s not going to happen!

‘Poe-Tate-Toe’, ‘Pah-Tot-Toe’ or How To Confuse Americans with Words

Having been raised with English as a First Language (EFL), I have been and probably will continue to be at a distinct disadvantage in understanding why and what Americans understand about anything. This is nowhere more evident than with respect to politics and political issues. So I am asking for your indulgence and request that you will excuse me if I am a little confused about the confusion of other Americans’ comprehension of various issues. You will just have to rack this up to my EFL limitations; and thus please grant me the benefit of the doubt, if I have misunderstood your point. Also, please forgive me if I am about to insult you, should you feel that my comments about the levels of ignorance that are being exhibited on various issues of the day are applicable to or targeted at you.

For those of you unfortunate enough to have experienced a significant number of political or social issues, and are thus mature individuals (old fogies), you have had the opportunity to have lived through a number of significant issues of the day. When you look back on those days and issues; does it seem that people were as completely disoriented, misinformed, unaware, or need we say: stupid as they appear to be about today’s issues?

My first impulse is to decide that yes, today people are even more stupid than people have been in the past. But, if I give myself a little time for reflection and recollection, I suspect that this is mostly the recurring evaluation that mature individuals seem to predictably have with regard to subsequent generations. I remember the remarkable insight on “current society” oft attributed to Socrates by Plato or less frequently to Hesiod (8th Century BC) to the effect: “What’s the matter with kids today, they’re disrespectfully, disobey laws, frivolous, they have a deplorable mode of dress, and exhibit all manner of bad behaviors”. So in retrospect, with this wisdom in mind, I admit that citizenry of today are no more or less intellectually disadvantaged than they have ever been.

For those of you paying attention, you have undoubtedly noted that I have not implied that our American citizenry are at an acceptable or desirable level of intellectual ability or well informed state.

But so as not to mislead you by an act of omission, I don’t just attribute the paucity of intellect, knowledge and understanding to the citizenry of following generations alone. I am absolutely convinced that my own generation and the still surviving member of previous generations are equally as stupid and insipid as any other.

Now finally to the topical point I intended to discuss. The Associated Press released an article today about the impact that the different wordings of questions had in a poll which they conducted on Health Care Reform. Now it has long been known and understood by psychologists, linguist, political strategist, statisticians, lawyers (well some of them), physicians, news editors/reporters, and let’s face it a whole lot of people that people answer questions differently depending on how the question is phrased. So we can now all be amazed and surprised that people polled with differently phrased questions about the Health Care Reform bill give different answers depending on the way the questions was asked.

This differential response to the wordings of questions reveals a facet of confusion in Americans’ understanding of the true/actual issues about which their positions and decisions should be being made. In the context of Health Care Reform, our societal need is to accurately understand the true facts about the issues that will matter and affect us. These issues include the true costs of the plan to both ourselves and to others in the society, the reality and implications of having or not having ‘governmental control/decisions on care’, or whether the system will be truly national or whether states could opt in/out.

Here is where our politicians, our political parties, our news and media sources, and our public and private institutions fail to provide or deliver fair, honest, unbiased, and useful analysis and assessments of the proposed plan or the issues. We have come to expect and accept that our political leaders and their talking heads are lying to us. Well, not ours but surely the other side’s people. And it is true, they are lying to you; except it’s not the other side, it’s both sides. It’s this assurance that if it’s a Democrat, a Republican, or some other third-party affiliate telling you something, that you can be positive that you are being lied to. Fortunately for the politicians, Lincoln was right: “You can fool some of the people, all of the time.” And it’s not totally the fault of the politicians, though they are insatiable in their capacity to say anything that they believe will frighten you away from even thinking about or evaluating what the other side is saying. The fault is that Americans don’t think about what they are hearing, they don’t question the people that they consider on ‘their’ side, and they don’t seem to understand that there are not two or more different sets of facts about an issue.

So here is how you confuse Americans with words. You consider what will either frighten or will anger them; and you then find some words and phrases that will evoke that fear or anger, or both. Then craft your message and speeches and answers to include those words and phrases. It’s also quite effective to ask questions to groups that are keyed to those same fears and hot points. You have all seen or heard politicians doing this, as if they are incapable of telling you anything before they have confirmed that you are already supporting the positions they are getting ready to tell you that you should be concerned, angry, or upset about. If you hear questions like: “Do you want the Government involved in your ____?”, or “Are you already over [taxed / regulated / … ] by the Government?”, or “Do you want your right to/freedom to ___ taken away from you?”.

Then all anyone has to do is state that the issue that they are supporting or opposing will cause what you like or dislike to happen. Fortunately for the politicians and their ilk, the news media is either directly involved in supporting a particular view, or there are no particularly competent people in the media that can figure out that the politicians are full of crap. Nor can the media’s professionals apparently provide a critical assessment of the issue, the facts and report upon and illuminate the disgraceful disparity between the facts and positions that the politicians and partisans present and the reality that pertain to the issues and the public interests.

You confuse Americans with words by just telling them what you know they want to hear and what you want them to believe. This way we can continue to have an America where the citizens are separated from each other by lies, misinformation, hatred, and well stupidity.

Keeping Your Eye Off The Ball, or How Congress Plays

I don’t want to be hard on Congress, but could they possibly be any worse at their job? Let’s pass a Health Care Reform bill that protects Americans and insures that they have access to basic medical care. OK, good idea; now what’s your plan? Oh, the plan is to make everyone have to get insurance and conveniently make it cost less. Sounds like a Plan!

And to support their plan, Congress has worked out estimated costs and figured out how to pay for it, sort’a. There may have to be some extra taxes here and there, and mandated obligations on employers to provide a plan for their employees. But not to worry, Congress has arrived in their shiny armor astride their war chargers, and only need to collect the harvest from us peasants to ensure that they can pay for the war they have decided to wage.

As we all agree that having 30 to 40 million Americans unprotected by some insurance system is bad, and given we have a $420+ Billion annual Medicare and $200+ Billion annual Medicaid programs plus all the private and commercial insurance plans, we are clearly spending a ton of money on health care. To make things more interesting, the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud (a bunch of insurance companies, non-profit groups and agencies, and community organizations) have estimated that these programs provide $60 Billion a year in fraud funding. That’s one dollar out of every ten being wasted, and even worse than wasted, it reduces the support and services that the rest of the funding can effectively deliver through work and effort spent on handling and processing illegitimate claims and supporting non-productive tasks.

That 10% of fraud ($60B) would be close to what the uninsured would need to provide the health care that they need. Interestingly, we are already close to funding the uninsured. Our only problem is that we are spending it on the wrong group of people (well there may be some overlap but only a small one).

Makes you wonder if Congress considered that their biggest problem, how to fund the act, would be virtually solved if they worked on a plan to prevent most of the fraud, waste and abuse that is already being funded. Now don’t worry, there are some initiatives in the Health Care Reform bill to reduce abuse/fraud. And we can expect the same brilliance and expertise from Congress on these efforts that we have always relied upon to solve all our other problems. You can almost taste the victory, can’t you?

Affordable Health Care: Let’s Use Dad’s Credit Card

In a recent AP poll out today, it appears that Americans are confident about two things. First that the Health Care Reform bill will be more expensive than they can afford; and second, that they want someone else to pay for it (preferably all those rich people). I think what we have going on here is the ever popular, but so unfortunately mathematically invalid, the “large number of idiots law”. While I am sure that you are all familiar with the LNOIL, it would be best to state it here for those of you who are new to Government program funding methodologies.

The LNOIL is the political strategy used by your representatives to explain how they are going to deliver on their particular campaign promise or in supporting their party’s initiatives. Our august leaders will explain that they will guarantee that their constituents will not have their taxes increased; and if there is no way to avoid taxes (which there never is) they will either just make it an unfunded mandate, or they will tell you how they are going to only tax a group that you don’t belong to. The only thing that is required to make this legislative approach work is a large number of idiots. Astonishingly we would expect that there must be a significant proportion of the population who are idiots; since it is mathematically very unlikely that we could achieve the numeric representation of idiots in Congress itself, if it were not for there being a statistically large proportion of the population who are in fact idiots.

This political strategy relies on citizens who are foolish enough to think that you can always get something for nothing. A mindset that you and everyone else can actually get more than the average amount of something that is limited by either its natural quantity or by the sum total contributions that everyone has made into the pot. This is the monetary equivalent to the “ Lake Wobegone” of Garrison Keillor fame; “where every child is above average.”

So applying this mentality to the Health Care Reform Act will lead Congress to focusing on only taxing the rich to cover the additional cost of the program that is not within the current budget. Defining who the rich are will be an exercise in covering their asses, but they at least have the real statistical reality on their side as long as they make sure that to be rich you have to earn over the average income level.

But here is where it is really annoying. Congress will never consider or conceive of any alternative to funding the program via any approach other than lets just take the money from everyone like we always do. After all, if we have a Health Care system today that is too expensive and inefficient, fraught with fraud, and built upon a publicly funded methodology; then piling another layer on top will surely be the right medicine to fix the problem.

No thought will be given to tackling the problem with another solution or another way to provide an improved operating environment that will support the American Health Care system into the future at lower costs rather than higher costs. We don’t want those idiots in Congress to be required to challenge the status quo, the tried and true governmental way of doing business, or to actually serve the public.

So get ready America, you are going to get exactly what you can expect from your party leaders. And don’t worry, that hand in your pocket is the one that you shook standing in the political rally where you made the contribution to their election campaign fund.