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!