Sunday, March 25, 2012

Ryan's Second Budget Swing - Strike Two

Mr. Ryan is trying something that is generaly a compulsive response given his conservative economic views. There is much to be admired by a politician who actually tries to formulate a policy, like his budget proposal, consistent with his beliefs. But the admiration must be diluted since he is creating his budget based on beliefs of how he wants things to work, rather than based on knowledge or informed principles that would directly address the issue and problems that the country is facing. For example, his proposal to cut spending on Medicare is a common simple-minded solution to a long-standing problem that less inspired politicians have been equally able to propose in the past.

But why go with such a simple solution: cut funding so that you will spend less? Isn't this the type of solution that we would expect from those who understand rules like - do the opposite and the opposite will happen. Where is the inspired, innovative ideal(s) that lead to a solution that lessens the costs, improves the benefits, and demonstrates that America's problems can be solved by applying intelligence, insight and informed decision making to such issues.

Now Ryan appears to be intent upon helping America; so if he can't see beyond the trival any more than all the other political hacks, Republican or Democrat, Ryan should seek counsel from people who can explain how to solve the Medicare problem thorugh a forward-looking, reasoned approach. It may be a problem that has been around for a long time, and Congresses past and present may have consistently failed to come even marginally close to seeing an easy solution, but that they failed in no way indicates that it is hard to solve or that there is no solution. It shows only that our politicians are particularly bad at comprehending the problem or the solution.

Give it another try, it is not a difficult problem to solve; and best of all you won't have to cut the program to ill-effect, it will reduce it's own budget by delivering more for less. That should be a sufficient hint, I think.

Thursday, March 1, 2012

You Could Be A Religious, A Political, or A Women’s Health Leader; or You Could Be Smart

The Senate voted today on an amendment to the transportation funding bill to allow employers with a religious or moral objection to a health care procedure the right to be exempted from having to provide that coverage (that is, pay for a health care program providing that benefit). Certainly a transportation funding bill is the appropriate place for such a legislative initiative, but obviously health care is provided via a form of transportation. But that his not the actual problem in which the current political, religious, social and health care debate is mired. The real problem is that the individuals who have attained their respective (or jointly held) positions of authority as religious leaders, elected political office holders, or experts on health care or social values are all obviously unqualified for those positions.

In the case of the religious advocates who are ranting about the threat to their religious freedoms, they appear to be stuck on their view that the rights and values of anyone who works for them fall under their moral judgment. Christian leaders are very clear on their objection to particular health care practices, and that they should not be required to pay for something they are absolutely against. But they are extending their right to choose their own health care needs from being required to provide their employees with the exact same right. Not one religious person is required  to pay for any procedure or treatment that they do not specifically want of their own accord. So where is the infringement on their rights? Besides their Christian teachings  instruct them to not place their judgment on another’s right of conscience.

Political leaders are on one side or the other of this debate, but their failing is not purely along a religious, moral or societal line. After who considers politicians as religious, moral or possessing a societal value? But none the less, they advocate for one constituency or another who are interested in imposing their views upon everyone else. Not one politician on either side of this issue has pointed out the failure of their peers to see a legislative solution to the debate that would satisfy both the religious freedom and the individual rights problems that the less informed have latched onto as a point of contention. It is quite easy to protect religious freedoms, insure individual rights to health care, and keep the government from creating another divisive policy and increase the efforts of the political parties from doing more damage to American values.

The health care experts, providers and insurance industry has also failed to show the religious communities or the political groups the errors of their ways. They have either joined one side of the debate or the other, or have stayed out of the debate all together. This failing must be because they haven’t been able to figure out that they can offer a solution to the issue that religious groups should already have recognized, that politicians should have proposed and legislated , or that any semi-intelligent individual could figure out.

The problem with this issue is that religious, political and health care experts have found an effective way to keep any smart people from showing them a simple solutions.