An Unnatural Marriage in Congress over Medicare

Paul Ryan (R) and Ron Wyden (D) have formed an unholy alliance to corrupt American health care. I am surprised that a Republican would engage in such immoral anti-family value policies or that a Democrat would embrace a corporate subsidy program to the detriment of the public. I suppose these two men were tempted by the extreme liberal and the radical conservative views that they could fix the system that Congress created and have modified periodically to repair the defects that began to way it down. They have deceived themselves into thinking that they are proposing an innovative approach that will address all the concerns that permeate the political spectrum. Having succumb to this evil and misguided belief they are now out proselytizing to turn other upstanding and morally righteous members of Congress (or some close approximation thereof) to their debased lifestyle position.

This pseudo-fix for the Medicare system is of course a compromise which speaks well for both men as it demonstrates that they possess enough flexibility in their philosophical views to comprehend the merit of understanding a view other than one’s own. Further it shows that they are able to find the greater value in a common solution serving both views’ needs. But strive as they might, they came up with just another weak-minded approach based on a simplistic understanding of the issue. The solution is the old “let’s do both” and somehow this will fix it plan.
Why not step back and you know do something never done by Congress before: actually understand the problem, and design a solution that will correct the flawed aspects of the current Medicare system and include new features that will improve the American health care system? Now I wouldn’t actually expect them to do this, come up with the solution itself. They would have to have someone put together the new American health care policy for them, and then let them present it as their solution. If they don’t know where to find someone who can do this, some advice; don’t turn to special interest groups. They are blinded by their motivation to insure that they secure a large share of the budget. It’s not that the special interest groups can’t be involved, they should be used by the plan crafters to play one interest off against the other; but they cannot be in the lead.
Also, politicians should be excluded from providing the framework, the details or any aspect of the plan. Their role is more aligned with their capabilities. They would vote for or against it, but nothing more.

If this couple would pursue this life-style choice instead of the unnatural union they are practicing, they could save themselves from being that abomination to the nation: being nothing more than just another member of Congress.

The Front-Runner Reduction

The, or maybe a, front-runner in the Republican Party has come forth with the “solution” to Medicare and Social Security. Well, at least yet another regurgitation of a solution re-packaged and re-advertised as the path to salvation. Is it a solution? There is really only one way to tell, and let’s be serious it is not by listening to the politicians. Neither group appears to have a clue nor more pointedly neither side has demonstrated that they understand the cause-effect of the system they created, fund, manage, and (God, I hate to say this) are responsible for finding a way to secure. Our front-runner is going to use his business acumen to save us all from the folly of the past.

How does this comparatively (relative to his competition) mental giant propose to perform this miraculous feat? He is going to reduce the cost of the system of course. Is this just his easy solutions to incredibly complex problems; or just a good sounding ‘sound-bite’ for a catastrophically stupid plan? Given he is a politician the statistical bet would surely have to go to the less desirable option. Now don’t get me wrong, none of his compatriots have any better idea, and none from the Democratic party has shown any more insight or comprehension of the problems than he has. But really, the solution that we are going to be asked to vote for and then swallow is another idiotic and ill-conceived approach to addressing the problem.

The merits of the plan, more the faults actually, are: he is going to gradually raise the age of retirement. He is going to let participants choose to stay with Medicare or use a government-support voucher to purchase a plan from the market. Medicaid funding responsibility would transfer from the federal government to state governments. Federal spending would be capped at 20% of GDP, and he would cut spending by some amount. Well these certainly solve the problems, right? I mean you can judge the quality and level of intelligence represented by his and most Republicans reading from their nationally approved play-book. The Democrats are no better being equally incapable of seeing and taking the eight-lane freeway out of the disaster area and instead insisting that the steep ascent through the mountain path at the start of winter is a safe route.

Raising the age of retirement on Social Security – this eliminates more recipients so that will lower costs. The elimination is obvious right; nothing more needs to be said on that. This is similar to paying more if you retire later, which we do today. We could stop COLA that would work also. These are the same old methods that have been used over and over. Takes a real brainy type to think of these now doesn’t it. “Same old, same old.”

Now using Government supported vouchers (or any marketing researched advertising terms that polls well with the public) will certainly reduce the costs of the Medicare. Because instead of running a big government bureaucracy, the plan that solves the problem will be to have the government run just a large bureaucracy and also pay insurance companies to make up the difference. Once again, let’s not see the obvious solution that Americans have been taught over each generation will solve the problem; let’s go with a politician’s approach to diddling the public.

And think how much less it will cost when we transfer the cost of and responsibility for Medicaid from the federal government to state governments. The states will have two basic choices, the same ones the federal government has, pay the bills for what is covered or cut what is covered/delivered. It’s not likely the states will see the efficient approach that reduces costs, improves coverage, and help the economy.

And capping federal expenditures to 20% of GDP is just another way to say, I don’t know how to solve the real problem but surely if we reduce the value delivered and the benefits provided and cut more and more the problem will be solved. The consequences of the approach are not reflected in this approach, but yes it is true that if you spend less money you will in fact spend less money. I think I learned that in some elementary school math class, probably around third or fourth grade or even earlier. Why cap it as the method, why not have it reduce itself as the consequence of a smart plan? I guess he/they haven’t thought of that.

If you want to solve the health-care and safety-net problems in America, you should look to someone who can present a plan that doesn’t just do less, shift costs, pretend to provide a difference, and more importantly addresses the underlying dynamics of the cost causing principles that the currently flawed policies and plans are based upon.

Have you seen any politician who has shown even the slightest indication that are even modestly intelligent, let alone smart enough to trust with setting the direction for the nation on any of these issues?  Perhaps what we need here is another ‘stupor’ committee to produce a bipartisan plan.

A Treatment Plan for Healthcare

Both Republicans and Democrats want to fix America’s healthcare system. Both want to reduce the rapidly rising cost of health care, particularly Medicare and Medicaid. And both want to use their view of how healthcare should be provided to defeat their opponents in their election campaigns. But neither has shown any ability to actually provide a plan that actually provides a plan for accomplishing it that would serve the public. How is this possible, if healthcare is an important issue to the public?

The easy answer is that politicians are as woefully ill-equipped to grapple with the healthcare system as they are with pretty much anything else. Yes, our politicians are an incapable lot. But while it’s an easy answer, and it is true that the politicians are in no position to develop or craft a viable healthcare plan; they are unfortunately in the position of having to agree to whatever plan would ultimately be adopted. So they are a player at the table, we just need to find a way to put them at the kiddy-table and remind them that they should be quiet while the adults are discussing serious matters. Once the adults are done, they will be allowed to go play in the family room (Congress), but will have to do what they’re told.

The more important part of the answer is that the public is once again caught in their wishful thinking mode about healthcare. Most people are satisfied with their medical care. This satisfaction is of course disconnected from an appreciation of what they are paying for. Either they are covered by a medical play that covers all or most of the costs, or their deductable is not outrageously bad and the co-pays are relatively small. What they are not accounting for is that they are paying for other medical costs that are not part of what they think of as their expense. Local, state and federal taxes that go to support medical systems like hospitals; the Medicare and Medicaid programs that are not adequately funded and which are increasingly consuming more and more in public funding. The public doesn’t see the increasing medical costs that are outstripping any salary increases or inflation rates anywhere else in the economy as part of their medical expense problem. The public thinks that an unsustainable healthcare system doesn’t mean they will be affected in the future. I am not saying that they’re stupid, but Forrest Gump had a philosophy about intelligence that comes to mind.

What the public needs to do is not delude themselves into thinking that things are generally ok with healthcare, they are not. The public must reject the notion that the political parties or factions within a party are even more clueless then they are about how to fix healthcare. The first step as with most problems is to admit that you have a problem and then to find someone who can help you find your way. The problem is that as the healthcare system collapses under the weight of unaffordable costs, your personal healthcare will suffer through either increased costs, reduced available providers, or altogether unavailable healthcare services.

The solution is for the politicians to remove themselves from being the agents that design the healthcare system, they must be restricted to only agree that whatever is funded under a government budget is paid for with non-borrowed revenues. If the public cannot pay for it, then they cannot get it.

Now while neither the Democrats nor Republicans can design a governmental healthcare system that will provide more care at lower costs then the mess we have today, it can be done by people who know how to solve problems that are constrained by the requirements that define what is to be delivered as the end product.

Only Three Ways to Fix Medicaid

I was listening to a newscast discussing Medicaid and the ‘reality’ that politicians must confront in dealing with the situation that it is on critical life support. Without the proper corrective action, the prognosis for Medicaid is it will be economically terminal if it isn’t already. The topic under discussion was how an out-of-pocket cap would impact Medicaid. In addressing the situation the interviewee indicated that there were only three options available to politicians:

1. Cut back on who is eligible
2. Cut back on what is covered
3. Cut back on how much doctors/facilities are paid

The assessment was that changing eligibility is a non-starter because it doesn’t sell well for politicians when they say they’re going to prevent poor people from receiving health care. Not to mention that what will happen anyway is that you will drive more people to emergency rooms which will cost even more and degrade service for those who really need an emergency room. You know those people who might include you. This does come close to being labeled with a ‘death panel’ like tag.

 

The option of cutting back on what is covered is used a little, but it’s really hard to stand-up and say that you want to restrict, limit and prevent the needy; particularly the sick needy from getting the care that they require. It won’t be called a restriction, limit or barring of access; it will be called rationing. And for most politicians the prospect of being the one who wants to ‘ration’ health care is not a banner they want to carry; particularly those who spoke out against any other plan that they insisted was going to ration health care. When you erect a building, you sometimes have to live it its shadow.

 

So this leaves the punting option. If you are to cowardly to step up to either of the first two, you must go with the make someone else do it. It won’t work of course, because it’s the typical solution that politicians come up with. It’s simple: that means that they don’t know what they’re doing. It’s easy: that means that they haven’t considered or figured out the consequences, again they don’t know what they are doing. And, it’s cheap: which means they haven’t added the costs that will be generated because …, you know the rest.

 

But wait! Are there just these three options? Perhaps the politicians and their advisors and policy wonks have missed something. This may seem impossible for the ‘best and brightest’, after all the problems of Medicaid are well understood and have been around for quite a while. They’ve had the time to examine it, to analyze it, and to create any number of solutions to the issue. So these must be the only options; but they’re not.

 

A number of State Governors say they could fix the Medicaid problem in their state if they were given the funding but relieved of the federal restrictions. So they must know the solution. But do you really think they have a solution, or they are just going to mix and match the original three? They’ll do it discreetly of course.

 

But why has no one proposed the competitive option, or the reward option, or the evolutionary option?

 

The answer is that they don’t understand how to solve a problem by using the health care system, they are fixated on the same old “we’re in charge, and we have decided how to fix the problem we caused to start with”. Maybe if the politicians just accepted that they don’t know what to do, how to do it, and why it work then they could turn to solving the one problem that they might, just might, be able to handle. Find someone who can.

 

Well, since it’s not their money; why should they care?

Democrats and Republicans: Ranking Parties

The House passed a bill today to prevent funding of the health insurance exchanges, the part of the 2009 Health Care reform bill that would enable states to establish insurance exchanges that offer health care coverage to individuals and small businesses. This provides an opportunity to assay the intelligence exhibited by our legislative liabilities. As with most analytic procedures you only need a small sample to determine the quantity and quality of substance in the specimen. This is significant because we would not want to risk extracting any more from the Congressional population than absolutely necessary to avoid depleting whatever amount of valuable resource might exist at all, given its extreme scarcity in that environment.

So rather than pose the question crudely as: Which party is more stupid than the other? Let’s approach the topic in a civil manner and ask: Is there a level of intelligence distinguishing between the Democrats and Republicans?

The Democrats shoehorned the 2010 Health Care reform bill through Congress last year, much to the chagrin of the Republican minority. Within the reform bill was a provision to have insurance exchanges set up by states to provide access to affordable health care insurance. Under the reform act most tax-payers would receive a government subsidy. The Republicans viewed this as just another government take-over of health care. Their position was that it was impractical and unaffordable.

In a major Republican proposal by Paul Ryan, chairman House Budget Committee, which most Republicans tout as a significant forward looking proposal claim that it will provide for affordable national health care. Under this plan most individuals would receive a government premium subsidy to assist paying the insurance companies for an approved health care plan.

One can see instantly the obvious and clear radical distinctions between these two approaches.

My problem is that neither does anything productive to address the real problem with affordable health care. Neither plan is substantively different than the other, other than who is paying whom campaign contributions, and who is appointing the “death-panels”. Ryan reformulated an approach that changes how insurance companies will get their piece of the pie, but he also came close to envisioning a new approach that would actually help America’s health care system, reduce government spending, and present a bill that would be capable of garnering bi-partisan support. Unfortunately, close does not assay as there.

So how do the two parties measure out on distinguishable levels of intelligence? Fortunately for all of us, neither party is completely devoid of intelligence. This of course was a foregone conclusion since I cannot prove the absence of any intelligence. But neither does either party show enough intelligence to be evaluated as having any value and thus non-differentiating.

The inability of Congress to serve the American people is almost inconceivable.

Ryan The Republican – Another Comic? You Wish.

We can all relax now. The 7th term Paul Ryan (R-Rep. from Wisconsin) has seen the way to fix the health care system. Well, not really fix the system, but to get rid of the unsustainable Medicare program. Ryan proposes that the Government limit Medicare to people who are now 55 and older, and to create a new system that will provide subsidizes to future retirees who will select from private companies’ insurance plans. Not government vouchers, which Ryan the Republican knows is an unacceptable concept/term; but government subsidizes for insurance premiums. Because we all know that a voucher is a designated amount of money collected from our taxes, whereas a subsidy is a designated amount of money from our …? Well, anyway a subsidy which will solve our Medicare problem.

Ryan’s plan solves the Medicare problem because after about 40 or 50 years, the Medicare problem will be uhh! ... dead. And because Medicare is over, there is no government funding problem and no Medicare entitlement program. I am not sure Ryan has thought about it in detail yet, but there will be a new Government program and bureaucracy for administering the Ryan Economic Administration and Management Entitlement Department (REAMED) to collect the taxes required for the vouchers (sorry, subsidies), to maintain records of payments by individual, determine eligibility and allocation of payment amounts to individual retirees, and to engage in all the other governmental, legislative, bureaucratic, and budgetary activities that are necessary to have a government program, particularly an entitlement program. So that is one way the Ryan’s plan is different than Medicare.

But surely when we examine his plan in greater detail, we will see that there are many ways that it will reduce health care costs for the American public. For example, instead of using the leverage that the Government has under Medicare with health care providers, it will rely upon the insurance companies to not really care about the cost of services rendered. Fortunately, the additional cost that private insurers will impose on the health care industry segment, the providers will spontaneously and wit a self-sacrificing spirit reduce their costs. This is not to even mention the additional costs for insurance and health care that will be funneled into political contributions to support even more legislative efforts to reduce any leverage that a tax payer would have against the health care industry.

I also suspect that unlike Medicare, which collects taxes from current wage earners and spends these funds immediately for those retirees needing payouts to cover their incurred health care expenditures. The new Ryan plan would collect taxes for a number of years and then after you retire return those funds back to you. Oops! Who pays for the Medicare costs incurred during this transition period? Oh, yes. You do. Those funds collected will I suspect be spent and then Ryan’s plan will be spending it’s incoming taxes on the out-going subsidies (vouchers) just like Medicare.

Al least we won’t have the same issues with the current system. Ryan’s plan doesn’t involve creating the dreaded ‘death panels’ the Republicans’ terrorize those ill-equipped to relate to reality. His plan employs two paths simultaneously. First, those who can’t afford a private plan can just expire, the self-directed death panel so to speak. Second, the pre-existing private health insurance companies’ claims review/approval boards, the corporate death panels who are eager to kill grandma to insure a good bottom line, will execute their profit-motivated approaches as they do today.

There are going to be many similar superior differences just like those mentioned above that will make the Ryan Plan clearly different from the Medicare system. I am overjoyed with the prospects of such a wondrous plan. Fortunately or unfortunately, I am already too old to have such governmental largess granted to me.

What does annoy me is that Rep. Ryan, just as ineptly as any Democrat, does not understand the problem. He has the answer though, a feat that cannot be matched by the best minds in any other field or area of life. What a remarkable individual he must be to be able to solve a problem without a clue as to what the problem itself actually is. It never amazes me to see politicians take an important issue and turn it into a political platform without any notion of what they are doing or what its consequences are. The short-view of the small minded to address the complexity of a problem that has eluded his peers for generations, and which cannot seek a solution that would be more profitable for the private sector, more effective for the medically in need, and far cheaper for the American people.

It’s Not A Debate, It’s The Sin Of Congress

We are witnesses to the recurring sin of Congress. While today it is the Republicans and Democrats, this demented ritual has been performed by previous incantations of the political parties. The Republicans and the Democrats are simply the current evolutionary variants of the failed members of the species. With the passage and signing of the Health Care Reform bill and its signing into law, the Republicans are rallying the troops around the battle standards to both delay and detract from any effort to address problems with the Senate version, and to establish a goal to campaign on and to then repeal the law. In automatic and predictable response to the Republicans strategy, the Democrats are marshalling their forces; so that like the Republicans, they to can fight the glorious pitched battles before the rapacious party loyalist and the pandering media eager to serve the myopic public the latest in meaningless Congressional bloviating.

So after contending over the bill for a year, without any serious or dutiful effort to work on a collaborative approach to Health Care Reform, both parties will continue their bickering and harping about the misguided intentions of the other. Thus instead of fulfilling their oath and duty to serve the country and the public, neither party will focus on significant issues of substance or purpose. Rather, these partisan party stalwarts will seek to play to the ideologically petrified concepts of their “bases”. Do the politicians have no comprehension that these self-proclaimed sacrosanct positions are the root-causes of the disastrous circumstances that Congress has created over the years to deliver the country to the unstable state in which the rest of us have to struggle to survive?

Shouldn’t members of Congress and the Administration of either stripe be held responsible for their actions? Congress should not be able to just create laws and programs that promise to provide those governmental services that they see as necessary and appropriate to their views without regard to consequences. They should be courageous and honorable enough to place the burdens of cost and sacrifice onto the populace that expects to receive the benefits. Perhaps most or all members of Congress and the Administration were poorly served by the American educational system. Did they never learned the basic concepts of cause and effect, nor grasped the fundamental and simple reality of the three laws of thermodynamics that apply to every endeavor whether governmental or private? If they did, they behave as irresponsibly as if they had been home sick when it was taught.

So we will watch the politicians ‘debate’ their positions, without rhyme or reason and without any understanding of how to affectively achieve whatever goal and objective that they have. No matter who wins the day, each party will direct the country toward their vision of the American dream. But since they don’t understand what the problems actually are, and don’t know how to create a rational and intelligent approach to addressing problems in practical terms; the politicians will produce bigger catastrophes and more destructive social institutions than they could were they actually trying to harm America.

And this is the sin of Congress. In their partisan blindness, their sins are visited upon the country.

Congress: The Inept Versus The Incompetent

Tonight, the Democratic House passed the Health Care Reform bill and its corrective counter-part against every political maneuver and effort that the Republican party could rear in its opposition. After over a year of political constipation, the two parties conceived a bill that not only does not benefit from what a collaborative effort could have achieved; but which is and will be continuously beaten and whipped into an even more ineffective approach to correcting the Health Care system. This is because both sides will struggle to find ways to either interject additional requirements that pervert the overarching objective, or they will seek to remove or constrain the reach of the bill from areas that well funded groups and industries want eliminated. And with their lobbyist armies at their beck and call, they will coerce and tempt the Democratic and Republican members of Congress into serving their will.

And the American people will rally behind the rhetoric of whichever side they have chosen as their team, with the same passion and enthusiasm that they grant their favorite sports team. In fact, their allegiance and support of their party is as unimportant and irrelevant as their loyalty to their sports team. Many are members of their party because it’s a family tradition, and doesn’t require any thought or insight whatsoever. Others are one-issue fanatics, they are addicted to some idea or topic which they are fervently convinced is only supported or supportable by one party or the other. Then there are party affiliates who have bought into the ideologies that are presented as the underlying themes of the individual parties; not that these themes and principles mean anything to the party itself. And lastly, there are the unaffiliated and unaligned; you know the independents, and these folks are fundamentally orphans of the system. They cannot find a political family that will either accept them or more often that they can find any value or confidence in. But in their dissatisfaction with the Democrats and Republicans, they cannot find any other affiliation with which they can align themselves and through that collaboration achieve the goals that they seek for our society. Thus we have the political leadership that the Democratic and Republican parties have delivered.

What is the nature of that leadership? We have Democrats, who have hammered together an assembly of ideas and approaches that reflect vested interests and compromises that changes the Health Care system but does not move the system toward anything that will improve it. Expanding coverage requires that the system will have to handle more of the population, but does not impose on the system that it be better, affordable, or beneficial. We have Republicans, who work to thwart the efforts to change the system, not by offering superior approaches or improvements in the mechanisms that will deliver Health Care to the public; but by resisting the bill to only achieve their political goal of defeating their opponents with no consideration of their service to the American public.

If either of these parties had even a couple of true public servants, they would have stood up to their respective party leadership and refused to allow the American people to be abandoned and offered up on the political altar of these parties. An altar upon which the public is rendered for the benefit of ideology without regard to justice, domestic tranquility, the common defense, the general welfare, or in securing our liberty.

Are these politicians compelled to act in these heinous ways? No, they are not. They are not trying to harm the American public, but they are unable to understand that they have demonstrated that they are incompetent in dealing with the issue. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have shown that they are able to come forward with proposals and plans that will address the very core factors that have produced the problems in the Health Care system today. I am sure that they would all love to come forward with ways to fix the problems with Health Care, but since they do not they demonstrate only their ineptness.

So lets vote these folks back in office again, or lets kick out everyone of them and replace them with members of their respective opposing party. Because that will clearly fix the problem, like it has every time before.

If the Democratic and Republican politicians are incompetent and inept, what must we say about the American public who persistently put them in these positions of power and responsibility?

Everything Has Been Asked and Discussed

President Obama today said that the Health Care Reform topic has been fully questions, discussed and debated; and that there is nothing more to be discussed. Where have I heard this intellectual logic before?

If I recall there have been several renowned and illustrious personages in the past who have rendered this equivalent assessment about a variety of areas of human endeavor. And as we all know, things have not worked out well for their declarations of completeness. In this case, President Obama may be right, because he did refer to everything in the context of the Republicans and Democrats, and he was in fact referring to the members of Congress and the two parties. And in terms of the knowledge base available to this group of people, they have probably discussed everything that is within their collective scope of understanding and ability. But let’s face it, these are not folks who possess a wealth of knowledge; and they certainly don’t have a clue about how to solve a problem. So yes, Obama is right; the Democrats and Republicans have discussed everything that they could think of with respect to addressing the Health Care problems and ways to solve it.

But, he is also wrong in the context of having every question or most certainly every solution to the Health Care dilemma facing the country.

And in typical politician manner (independent of party) he is going to move forward to accomplish his objective. This is mostly because absent any notion that there are far better ways to address the Health Care issues, he cannot conceive of any other means to fulfill a political promise. Likewise, his Republican opponents have rallied around their in-depth assessment that exclusively centered on how to say: No!; regardless of facts, values or benefits to the public. As for innovative ideas or approaches that would actually significantly contribute to addressing the very problems that the Republicans are most rabid about, they don’t have a clue.

One can only hope that at some point, one of these political parties or both will figure out that they may actually have to find someone who can tell them how to solve these problems. But that is not their style nor their nature. They are more likely to pursue their “visions” of the “right” way to do this. They will turn to the failed methods that have let us down time and time again. Not to worry, Congress always has a back-up plan when their plan fails. After they have wasted billions, if not trillions, on their solutions; Congress will come and require the American public to fork over more money to pursue some other scatter-brained solution that will be doomed to fail from the start.

Fortunately, whichever party puts forth the particular plan that is passed; they will blame the other side for being responsible for the failure and get their party supports to believe them. Let it never be said that Congress cannot get more money from your wallets.

Open Letter to Elected U.S. Congressional and Executive Officials:

Dear [Insert proper form of address for attendee of President Obama's Health Care Summit],

Today as one of our select elected leaders from either the executive or legislative branches of Government, including both houses of Congress and both political parties who meet for a full-day discussion on the state of Health Care and legislative action to address this national need; you once again contributed to the political farce that is our Government. Given the breadth and depth of political power that was represented in the meeting the public could expect to see the typical insight, understanding and intellectual might that such leadership has consistently demonstrated in the past. Yes, once again you enabled nothing of substance to happen. Everyone participating universally replayed sound-bites, made meaningless points, and delivered nothing informed or innovative to the discussion.

This outcome is not surprising, because it is the modus operandi for politicians when they have only one objective driving their actions: re-election; otherwise known as the retention of their privileged positions of power. This objective appears to drain all reason, responsibility and integrity from your character. But even given that, why are you individually and collectively so unperceptive and incapable of recognizing the one underlying fact that would release you from your self-imposed grid-lock of dis-service to America. What stupefying catatonic cause can you offer to explain your complete and utter failure to fulfill your duty, your oath, your promise to the country, state, district that placed their trust in you?

All you needed to do to serve you office faithfully was to present a position and proposal that identified the reason that the Executive and Legislative branches are unable to succeed with this issue is that it is beyond their skills and abilities. Solving the Health Care System’s problems is obviously not something that you, your staff, your lobbyists, or bureaucratic organizations are capable of accomplishing. Your solution then is to offer a solution that overcomes this fundamental flaw. You should proffer the following declaration:

Therefore, let it be resolved that the remedies for the failed or faltering Health Care System are to be undertaken by individuals who possess the talents and abilities to formulate innovate and sound approaches to first arrest the rapidly increasing cost of Health Care, and then to reduce the cost of Health Care as a percentage of the US economy. Further; these solutions will retain high-quality care, extend reasonable coverage to all citizens, and prevent fraud and abuse as key components to the operating principles of the system. Lastly, the plan created to achieve this goal will be presented to the legislative and executive branches for approval without amendment or alteration, and adopted or rejected by those bodies as they deem the proposals acceptable to fulfilling the above objectives.

Then the problems that you have to face are finding the individuals who have the requisite skills and abilities to creating the plan or plans that will provide a path to a sound and secure Health Care System for the United States, and who are not compromised by political or vested interests beyond serving the interests of the people of the United States. This will be a significant challenge, as it is unlikely that you will know of or be willing to find such individuals. But this approach has a better chance of success than the one you are on, since you have not even stumbled upon a single idea that will help solve the problem even though they are not at all difficult to find.

Sincerely, a consistently disappointed citizen.

Making Health Care Illegal, Well At Least Un-Constitutional

Apparently the political forces aligned against the Health Care Reform bill are seeking to pursue defeating the bill on yet another front. This does not mean that they have given up on opposing the bill in the legislative process. That effort is still under full throttle and is still trying to defeat and/or limit the bill in any number of ways. But the Constitutionality front is an interesting approach that offers some unusual dimensions, along with both high risks and rewards depending upon how the question plays out in that area.

On the high reward side of the approach is the possibility to get the Supreme Court to render a ruling that affirms their contention that the Health Care Reform bill violates one or more Constitutional requirement or limitation upon the Federal government’s right to impose some or all of the provisions in the legislation. This would undoubtedly put the whole Health Care Reform effort in jeopardy of ever succeeding since it would create sufficient additional barriers to the proponents of the reform bill that they could never get enough members of Congress to agree to terms and conditions that would have to be overcome and compromised upon. If they can just barely get enough Senators to pass the bill when they are only required to protect their own special interest groups and campaign contributors’ needs; what chance do they have when on top of that that they have to find solutions and approaches that comfortably fit within the constraints that the Supreme Court could inject into such a bill’s requirements. The problem here is that Congress would no longer be free to write the reform bill without having appropriate language that covers the objections and requirements imposed by the Court. And this assumes that the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule at such a broad level that they fundamentally stated that the Federal Government had not Constitutional basis for ever requiring citizens to have health care insurance coverage. So under an optimal outcome, the opponents could get a Court sanctioned prohibition against a core component that any Health Care Reform bill would depend upon.

Of course there is the high risk side to this approach, where the same Court would rule that the legislation is completely within the purview of Congress’ Constitutional authority; and that Congress has not exceeded it’s responsibilities in any regard. Such a ruling would not only thwart the bill’s opponents, but would add weight to their efforts as being intended by the founding fathers as their responsibility in support of promoting the general Welfare. This could imply that the opponents were not only wrong in their appreciation and understanding of their responsibilities; but that they were in fact failing to carry out such responsibilities that they had taken their oath of office to perform.

The question of course is: How will the current Supreme Court rule on this question? Assuming that is that the Court will even elect to bring the case up for question. They could decide that this not a question that they should weigh into, and reject the question at this time.

But let’s assume the Court did decide to make a declaration on the question then the table could be set for an historic decision as long as the breath of the issue that is brought before the High Court is sufficiently broad and will allow the Justices to apply their authority to the full extent of the matter. Then we will have a whole new public dialogue brought into the fray. Factions on every side will proclaim their views and point out the errors of any decision made no matter what the decision is, if it’s not exactly the one that they wanted.

So at the end of the day, the Supreme Court will be deciding what the current collective view is for the country regarding this issue. The Court will decide and explain to the country what they see the responsibility that the Constitution both grants to and requires of the government in handling the issue of Health Care for its citizens. The Court will be divining the will of the people in terms that they can explain from the context of the Constitution and all the interpretations that have preceded this one. Whether they are right or wrong will depend upon their reading of America’s zeitgeist. If they support the effort to reform Health Care in their decision then the people will be more convinced that they are entitled to a guaranteed Health Care system and that it is a right that must be supported by the society.

If they rule against it, then the people will have to find another way to provide for the basic human necessity of health care.

Regardless of the Court, Congress or especially the vested interest groups there will always be a fundamental fact. The society will always pay the price for the Health Care system that they provide. This is simply because there is no avoidance of reality, and if you provide universal care then you pay the costs that that requires; and if you don’t then you pay the costs that come from the consequences of not providing universal care. Reality is a world of consequences to your choices, not just a world of choices. You always have consequences to what you do, and you always pay for them.

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.

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?

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.

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.