Well, I attended my first town hall meeting today. My mom informed me last week that Sen. John McCain was holding a town hall at her church and asked if I would like to attend. I told her I would, but that I wouldn't use her name if asked, since many of my political views differ from her church family. We both chuckled and I started thinking about what I would ask Sen. McCain, who I happen to have a tremendous amount of respect for. I have really been trying to bring to light the need for corporate money to be removed from our political process, so this seemed like the perfect forum to bring that up. Sen. McCain, along with Sen. Russ Feingold, sponsored campaign reform legislation that was passed in 2002, and he had asked then candidate Obama to use public funding only during the last presidential campaign.
As the week went on, my brother and I were talking about legislation we had seen Sen. McCain proposed legislation regarding internet regulation, and this changed my approach completely. If you are not familiar with this legislation, it is S. 1836, commonly referred to as the "Internet Freedom Act". Don't worry, the bill is all of 1 page, and simply asks for regulation of the internet to be taken from the FCC and given to the telecommunication companies that currently provide all of us access to the internet.
The question is how does this mean internet freedom? Currently, you are reading a blog posted by me completely free of charge. I will link this blog on my Twitter page and my Facebook page, also free of charge. If the ISPs (Internet Service Providers) gain control of this, what is to stop them from charging to host blogs such as this, or to develop their own search engine and blog system and slow the access to Google entirely? You may say, "I would switch providers.", but don't you think the others would be doing similar? Next thing you know, our last viable means of totally free communication could be gone. This is completely unacceptable to me, and I would think it would be to those of you whose only interaction on the internet aside from e-mails is the same free services I am referring to.
So now, I have a two part question. Sen. McCain has said in the past election cycle the internet is not one of his strong suits, so why then is he proposing this legislation? Could it be the telecommunication industry lobbyists, who are currently one of the largest contributors to his campaign? This makes a perfect segue into the second part of the question. "Sen. McCain, given your record of campaign reform, do you not think it is time to propose legislation to remove corporate funding entirely from the political process, and return control of our leaders to the American people"?
I enter the town hall about 1/2 hour after the doors open, and about an hour before he is scheduled to arrive. I greet a couple of people I know from the church, a discussion about mandatory health care sparks up, and I begin the process of refuting rhetoric and propaganda with facts and truth. Soon enough, these folks have to go "check on things before we get started". I'm familiar with that evasive maneuver. I take my seat and begin watching people mill around, listening to their dialogue to get a sense of the crowd I am in. A lady walks down the aisle with a "Palin in 2012" T-Shirt on. Another lady is handing out fliers about how our First Lady spends millions on staff, not to count her stylists, etc. It is becoming obvious this is not a very diverse crowd. As the room fills up, I get up and take a look around. The crowd is predominantly senior, almost exclusively white, and they are ready to spread the company line. How will this be an exchange of ideas, if we all think the same? I think of the analogy "preaching to the choir", and it seems appropriate as we are sitting in a church.
Sen. McCain comes in to a resounding applause, and after the formalities of thanking the host and the local Mayors and Representatives in attendance, we begin. Sen. McCain has placed two large boards on wither side of the stage, which is made up of the aforementioned local Mayors and other similar folks, who I guess were too important to sit in the crowd. On one board was bullet points about our current deficit, with the standard right wing attacks on the Stimulus and the current budget. On the other, which is titled "What We Should Do?" (I'm not sure why the question mark on a statement, but I digress) with typical right wing health care reform bullet points. Sen. McCain begins his speech, and for a moment, I had to check and see if the campaign was over, as it sounded like he was still campaigning against his President. Then I remembered the audience, and I realized it was like warming up the crowd at a concert. When the questions finally began, it was "How can we stop this bill from being passed?", "How can we stop this uncontrolled spending?", blah blah blah. Then a young lady (I know, I was surprised to see one too) asked about his position on alternative energy in Arizona, like solar, since we have over 300 days of perfect sunlight a year. He quickly shifted the answer to the need for more nuclear power, and how the other forms of proposed energy would only make up 25-35% of what is needed. He did mention he believed their has been an environmental effect on our climate, and I guess I should be thrilled he even mentioned that.
I had my hand raised after each question, then decided just to leave it raised, but to no avail. There were questions about e-mailing leaders and getting no response, and how can we feel our voices are being heard. The answers to these were essentially keep it up, attend tea parties, and make sure you vote. He even stated at one point that is was the last vote that has us in this position. Now THAT was disappointing, but typical in today's climate of the non-stop campaign, where the end of one election only signals the beginning of the smear campaign that leads to the next election. He mentioned at one point that, in Arizona, voter registration was flat among Republicans and Democrats, but Independents have gone up measurably, and he said Republicans over the last 8 years allowed spending to get out of control, and therefore people are irritated with both parties. He said if neither party starts listening, we will see Independent candidates gain more support. That was the most encouraging point of the whole event. As a lifelong Independent who believes both the left and the right have lost their way, this would thrill me to no end.
There were a couple of people who wanted to state dissenting positions on government run health care, and one on the cost of the wars we are fighting, but each of them really stumbled through their dialogue, making their point fade as soon as the words left their mouths. The anti-war guy, who held up a sign at the end which read "You can't win an occupation", was quoting bad numbers and struggling to stay on one stream of thought, and while I felt bad for him at first, after the first moments, I wished he would just give up, as his ramblings were only fueling the fire, not dousing it. Give him credit for being there, as he had to feel more out of place than I did.
The answers to all of the questions were vague at best, with no specifics given on anything. "I assure you I will fight for that every day", "Make sure you get people out to vote next time" and similar answers were the norm. When it ended, I saw him lingering at the front of the room, shaking hands and such. I thought I would try and go ask him personally my questions, which I felt were not only topical, but relevant, even in this crowd. As I got close, he was ushered out the other way.
It was almost two hours of my time from the time I walked in. Two hours I will never get back, and two hours I could have gathered the same information watching Glenn Beck's rhetoric on Fox News. Is this really a town hall, or a rally? Is it not simply a free campaign event for whatever he is going to run for next? I left realizing if you want your voice to be heard, you can vote, but any dialogue between elections is falling on deaf ears, unless you have a lobbyist or a PAC (Political Action Committee) who is contributing large amounts of money to a campaign. I checked my bank account, and to no surprise, I don't qualify for either. Once again I realize money is the only language they truly hear.
I urge all of you to go to www.change-congress.org and follow the efforts to reform campaign funding of our leaders and restore this country to the people it was founded for. In the meantime, I will continue to use this free internet for as long as I possibly can, and maybe I will see you at the next town hall meeting
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
America's (Un)Healthy Future Act of 2009
I know I am spending a lot of time on Health Care recently, but I have run out of markers and poster board for poorly written, irrelevant signs, so I guess I will stick to actual issues based on actual proposed legislation. I know it's a stretch in this political climate, so try and stay with me.
Yesterday, I finished reading the 220 page proposal that emerged from the Senate Finance Committee's "Bi-Partisan Six", and I feel the need to illustrate some of the frustrations that emerge when you read this proposal, as well as some points that will clearly improve the system we struggle with today. I encourage everyone to read it, so you can actually have an informed opinion, and not just take the words of the media, or me for that matter. You can read the document here
http://www.opencongress.org/baucus_bill_health_care.html
First off, let me tell you that this is simply one of six proposals that have come out of various committees in both the House and the Senate. These proposals will next go to the floor, where they will be debated and shaped into one final bill that will go before the House for a vote. If it passes, the Senate will then have their input, then they will vote on the bill as they have modified it. After that, the two will find a common ground in one final proposal that, if passed, will go to the President for his signature, enacting it into law. So when I talk about the issues in this proposal, I am pointing out issues I believe can be improved, or should be left just as they are, and why. Let me start with some of the positives I found in this proposal.
New Federal Rating Standards
This will help standardize how insurers can set premium rates, eliminating a great deal of the arbitrary way it is done now. It does not eliminate it entirely, but it is a step in the right direction. Here is a breakdown of how they propose to standardize premium rates;
• Tobacco use – 1.5:1
• Age – 5:1
• Family composition:
o Single – 1:1
o Adult with child – 1.8:1
o Two adults – 2:1
o Family – 3:1
There is also a "geographical consideration" that may also be factored in, but the premium ratio is capped at 7.5:1. While this is not a true cost reduction measure, it at least standardizes how rates are determined.
Pre-Existing Condition Exclusions
Finally, it seems we have a common ground on all proposals. Insurance companies would no longer be able to deny someone because of a pre-existing condition. This proposal also states that "Within a year of enactment, any uninsured individual who has been denied health care coverage due to a pre-existing condition can enroll in a high-risk pool." The problem is while you can certainly get coverage, it will most likely be limited and expensive. Good progress, but we can do better.
Personal Responsibility Requirement
This is one of the topics that has generated lots of debate, and rightfully so. As President Obama stated at his joint address to Congress recently, reform will only work if we are all involved. Just as it is important that all people carry some form of minimum coverage on their vehicles, it is also important we carry at least a minimum level of coverage on ourselves. That being said, until health insurance markets can be truly open and competitive, true affordability cannot be achieved, making it unfair and unrealistic to mandate coverage. This proposal does define the possibility of what they call "Minimum Creditable Coverage". The details of what this coverage would entail are still not defined, but it paves the way for a limited scope coverage that could be for catastrophic illness or injury. A good start, but we can do better.
Excise Tax on High Cost Insurance
Here is one of the first serious measures that can contain premium costs. This proposal calls for a tax on any policy that exceeds the threshold amount, to be paid by the insurance company. Just like a Luxury Tax in sports, insurance companies are not going to want to pay a 35% penalty for having premiums exceeding the threshold. Thus, they will more than likely keep premiums at or below the threshold. The downside to this is the threshold is unrealistically high, at $8,000 for an individual, and $21,000 for a family. Once again, a good idea, but we can do better.
Quality Care Payment Incentives
How's this for a concept; instead of rewarding providers for adding more and more procedures, how about rewarding them for the outcomes and the quality? This one should be a slam dunk. The downside is it currently would only apply to Medicare/Medicaid providers. Sounds like an example where the government run system would be ahead of the private industry. I know, blasphemy, right?
Incentives For Cooperative Care
Another novel idea. Instead of having everyone fend for themselves, without regard for what the rest of your providers are doing, what if they all worked together to come up with a truly comprehensive plan of care? Oh man, this is almost logical. What could possibly be the downside? It would only be for Medicare/Medicaid providers. Do I sense a theme here?
Insurance CO-OPS, or Insurance Exchanges
Some people are familiar with CO-OPS, but I will try to explain them anyway. A CO-OP is essentially a business organization owned and operated by a group of individuals for their mutual benefit. A group of people band together to create essentially a purchasing group, enabling them to secure better pricing. They have many different food CO-OPS in my area, and I know varying areas have utility CO-OPS, but the concept is the same. In the insurance market, CO-OPS would allow the formation of new non-profit insurance companies, with no affiliation to any existing insurer. The idea would be that a non-profit insurance program could compete against the private for profit (lots and lots of profit) insurance companies as a viable option. Of course, you could only enroll in one of these if you are not covered by an employee based plan. I may have said this before, but decent idea, but we can do better.
There are more concepts like this addressed in this proposal, and many, many needed revisions and improvements to the Medicare/Medicaid system that are long overdue are also in here. If that was all this proposal was intended to be about, I would be shouting it's success from anywhere I could. But as usual, with this version of health care reform, the bulk of the people in this country will be left saying "Um, what about us?". This proposal is supposed to accomplish 3 major goals. The first is to find an affordable option to insure the 47 million+ people who have no coverage. The second is to stabilize and reverse the trend of growing health care costs to the Medicare/Medicaid program. The third is to reduce the massively expanding premiums the rest of us are facing. Let's break down how we've done on each of these goals.
Coverage For The Uninsured
By establishing CO-OPS and the expansion of Medicaid, followed by a personal mandate to carry minimum coverage and proposed fees to qualified employers who do not offer some form of coverage, the number of uninsured is certain to drop. BUT, and I cap and bold that but for a reason, are the options affordable? As I mentioned above, there is a proposed tax for insurers on policies that exceed the threshold, but many of the insured can't afford a premium that is at the threshold. An $8,000 a year individual plan would cost over $665 per month (Not realistic, which is why I say the thresholds are inflated). That is cheap by comparison to the family coverage at $21,000 a year, which would be $1,750 per month. Cut those numbers in half, then add some contribution that covers 50% of the premiums and you still have individual cost of more than$165 per month, and family coverage at almost $440 a month. I guess affordable is a matter of opinion. Then, if you don't have coverage, you will pay up to $750 for individuals, and up to $3,800 for a family, deducted right from your taxes at the end of the year. Hmmmm, make sense to you?
Medicare/Medicaid Cost Control
I absolutely have to concede that even with an expansion of Medicaid benefits, the current proposal would most definitely help reducing costs for these programs, assisting in ensuring it will be available when people my age (40) reach Medicare age (65). It is extremely interesting to note that MANY of the changes, such as focusing on preventative/wellness care to limit or reduce chronic illness later, paying incentives based on outcomes and on cooperation, and creating care home models that appoints someone as a care leader, coordinating an individual's care are all taken from the same model. What model is that you ask? The National Health Care System in place in other modern nations. I'll give you a second to settle your stomachs before I carry on.
Cost Control For The Rest Of Us
Here's where this proposal just dies, plain and simple. In the proposal, it states that the preference is to have most individuals covered under the existing employer based system, even creating fines and fees for qualifying companies who do not offer health care coverage to their employees. Fines that can reach up to $40,000 A YEAR. Now that's a way to promote small business growth in this country. Here's the bigger catch. If your employer offers a plan, you cannot utilize the CO-OP or other options. So, if your employer is stuck with a horrible provider, with premiums that are many things, but not affordable, and coverage that is a mockery, you are stuck!!!
So, who does this plan benefit the most? The answer is frustrating, but sadly predictable. It is the same insurance companies that are the root of the problem now. All of the benefits that are being gained from the changes in Medicare/Medicaid do not apply to the private sector. Private sector insurers must guarantee coverage, unless they have a predetermined cap on enrollees, then they can decline you because it wouldn't be based on any medical condition. They have to pay a tax on any plan that exceeds thresholds we have already determined to be unrealistic. They have to use standardized rate factors, but can modify those based on "geographic considerations". They will pick up countless new enrollees through the employer based system, as neither the employer nor the individual will want to be fined or taxed, yet have to make virtually no concessions on quality improvement or cost containment. It's a good time to be in the private insurance business for sure.
Now, if the CO-OPS actually become a viable competitor to the conglomerates, and employers are allowed to opt in, we could see a dramatic shift. But if congressional leaders and conservatives don't want a National Health Plan because it would put big insurers out of business, what is the bet they want CO-OPS to do the same thing? Yeah, not likely.
So, what is the answer? I have spent the last few weeks researching health programs of various modern, industrialized nations and found one troubling fact. Ours is the only one whose citizens pay privately for insurance. Now I don't mean that there isn't a co-payment or charge of some kind in other nations, but we are the only ones who pay for our premiums, then pay those co-payments and charges. With that in mind, you would think that our government must have one of the lowest spending rates for health care in the world. I thought so to, but alas, I was wrong. We actually pay more per capita (per person) and more as a percentage of GDP (Gross Domestic Product, the amount our nation costs to exist) than any other modernized nation. So even though 200 million people in this country pay out of pocket for their premiums through private insurers, we spend more as a nation on health care. The reality is it's the private insurance companies that prevent us from truly achieving Universal, Quality Health Care. I know, I know, I struggled to type it, but it is the truth. One proposal for reform called for expansion of Medicare to people ages 55 - 64 on a buy-in basis, along with expansion of Medicaid/CHIP (Children's Health insurance Program). This expansion would have narrowed the gap on "universal" coverage, but still left a huge number of us under insured and over priced. One of the selling points of the buy-in Medicare program was it was budget neutral, as private citizens would pay what the government allots for them each year. A good idea, AND EXACTLY WHAT A PUBLIC OPTION WOULD BE. The reality is simple, a Public Option, "Medicare for all", if you will, is the only way we will see the corporate giants in insurance back down from their positions of unyielding profit mongering. No matter how I look at it, however, I draw one conclusion from the existence of a true Public Option. Private insurers would rather cut their losses and run than do business that doesn't paint the walls with money. In essence, it would mean the beginning of the end of private insurance. Not because it was all part of a socialistic plot for the government to take over and run your health care, but because the greed of the insurance companies simply won't bend.
How long would it take? Hard to say. There is no doubt that we would see legislation to try and limit how many people could take advantage of the Public Option. There would unquestionably be campaigns to show how poor the quality of care is (much like we see all the time regarding National Health Plans), and money would be flying at any lawmaker who stood still long enough in an effort to make the Public Option go away. Eventually, as enrollees dropped and the veil was finally lifted, they would simply take their enormous profits and go home, leaving us with the only cost effective, quality assured universal coverage, A NATIONAL HEALTH PLAN. While I have said before that this country may not be ready for it, reality says it is the only logical solution to this monumental problem.
Yesterday, I finished reading the 220 page proposal that emerged from the Senate Finance Committee's "Bi-Partisan Six", and I feel the need to illustrate some of the frustrations that emerge when you read this proposal, as well as some points that will clearly improve the system we struggle with today. I encourage everyone to read it, so you can actually have an informed opinion, and not just take the words of the media, or me for that matter. You can read the document here
http://www.opencongress.org/baucus_bill_health_care.html
First off, let me tell you that this is simply one of six proposals that have come out of various committees in both the House and the Senate. These proposals will next go to the floor, where they will be debated and shaped into one final bill that will go before the House for a vote. If it passes, the Senate will then have their input, then they will vote on the bill as they have modified it. After that, the two will find a common ground in one final proposal that, if passed, will go to the President for his signature, enacting it into law. So when I talk about the issues in this proposal, I am pointing out issues I believe can be improved, or should be left just as they are, and why. Let me start with some of the positives I found in this proposal.
New Federal Rating Standards
This will help standardize how insurers can set premium rates, eliminating a great deal of the arbitrary way it is done now. It does not eliminate it entirely, but it is a step in the right direction. Here is a breakdown of how they propose to standardize premium rates;
• Tobacco use – 1.5:1
• Age – 5:1
• Family composition:
o Single – 1:1
o Adult with child – 1.8:1
o Two adults – 2:1
o Family – 3:1
There is also a "geographical consideration" that may also be factored in, but the premium ratio is capped at 7.5:1. While this is not a true cost reduction measure, it at least standardizes how rates are determined.
Pre-Existing Condition Exclusions
Finally, it seems we have a common ground on all proposals. Insurance companies would no longer be able to deny someone because of a pre-existing condition. This proposal also states that "Within a year of enactment, any uninsured individual who has been denied health care coverage due to a pre-existing condition can enroll in a high-risk pool." The problem is while you can certainly get coverage, it will most likely be limited and expensive. Good progress, but we can do better.
Personal Responsibility Requirement
This is one of the topics that has generated lots of debate, and rightfully so. As President Obama stated at his joint address to Congress recently, reform will only work if we are all involved. Just as it is important that all people carry some form of minimum coverage on their vehicles, it is also important we carry at least a minimum level of coverage on ourselves. That being said, until health insurance markets can be truly open and competitive, true affordability cannot be achieved, making it unfair and unrealistic to mandate coverage. This proposal does define the possibility of what they call "Minimum Creditable Coverage". The details of what this coverage would entail are still not defined, but it paves the way for a limited scope coverage that could be for catastrophic illness or injury. A good start, but we can do better.
Excise Tax on High Cost Insurance
Here is one of the first serious measures that can contain premium costs. This proposal calls for a tax on any policy that exceeds the threshold amount, to be paid by the insurance company. Just like a Luxury Tax in sports, insurance companies are not going to want to pay a 35% penalty for having premiums exceeding the threshold. Thus, they will more than likely keep premiums at or below the threshold. The downside to this is the threshold is unrealistically high, at $8,000 for an individual, and $21,000 for a family. Once again, a good idea, but we can do better.
Quality Care Payment Incentives
How's this for a concept; instead of rewarding providers for adding more and more procedures, how about rewarding them for the outcomes and the quality? This one should be a slam dunk. The downside is it currently would only apply to Medicare/Medicaid providers. Sounds like an example where the government run system would be ahead of the private industry. I know, blasphemy, right?
Incentives For Cooperative Care
Another novel idea. Instead of having everyone fend for themselves, without regard for what the rest of your providers are doing, what if they all worked together to come up with a truly comprehensive plan of care? Oh man, this is almost logical. What could possibly be the downside? It would only be for Medicare/Medicaid providers. Do I sense a theme here?
Insurance CO-OPS, or Insurance Exchanges
Some people are familiar with CO-OPS, but I will try to explain them anyway. A CO-OP is essentially a business organization owned and operated by a group of individuals for their mutual benefit. A group of people band together to create essentially a purchasing group, enabling them to secure better pricing. They have many different food CO-OPS in my area, and I know varying areas have utility CO-OPS, but the concept is the same. In the insurance market, CO-OPS would allow the formation of new non-profit insurance companies, with no affiliation to any existing insurer. The idea would be that a non-profit insurance program could compete against the private for profit (lots and lots of profit) insurance companies as a viable option. Of course, you could only enroll in one of these if you are not covered by an employee based plan. I may have said this before, but decent idea, but we can do better.
There are more concepts like this addressed in this proposal, and many, many needed revisions and improvements to the Medicare/Medicaid system that are long overdue are also in here. If that was all this proposal was intended to be about, I would be shouting it's success from anywhere I could. But as usual, with this version of health care reform, the bulk of the people in this country will be left saying "Um, what about us?". This proposal is supposed to accomplish 3 major goals. The first is to find an affordable option to insure the 47 million+ people who have no coverage. The second is to stabilize and reverse the trend of growing health care costs to the Medicare/Medicaid program. The third is to reduce the massively expanding premiums the rest of us are facing. Let's break down how we've done on each of these goals.
Coverage For The Uninsured
By establishing CO-OPS and the expansion of Medicaid, followed by a personal mandate to carry minimum coverage and proposed fees to qualified employers who do not offer some form of coverage, the number of uninsured is certain to drop. BUT, and I cap and bold that but for a reason, are the options affordable? As I mentioned above, there is a proposed tax for insurers on policies that exceed the threshold, but many of the insured can't afford a premium that is at the threshold. An $8,000 a year individual plan would cost over $665 per month (Not realistic, which is why I say the thresholds are inflated). That is cheap by comparison to the family coverage at $21,000 a year, which would be $1,750 per month. Cut those numbers in half, then add some contribution that covers 50% of the premiums and you still have individual cost of more than$165 per month, and family coverage at almost $440 a month. I guess affordable is a matter of opinion. Then, if you don't have coverage, you will pay up to $750 for individuals, and up to $3,800 for a family, deducted right from your taxes at the end of the year. Hmmmm, make sense to you?
Medicare/Medicaid Cost Control
I absolutely have to concede that even with an expansion of Medicaid benefits, the current proposal would most definitely help reducing costs for these programs, assisting in ensuring it will be available when people my age (40) reach Medicare age (65). It is extremely interesting to note that MANY of the changes, such as focusing on preventative/wellness care to limit or reduce chronic illness later, paying incentives based on outcomes and on cooperation, and creating care home models that appoints someone as a care leader, coordinating an individual's care are all taken from the same model. What model is that you ask? The National Health Care System in place in other modern nations. I'll give you a second to settle your stomachs before I carry on.
Cost Control For The Rest Of Us
Here's where this proposal just dies, plain and simple. In the proposal, it states that the preference is to have most individuals covered under the existing employer based system, even creating fines and fees for qualifying companies who do not offer health care coverage to their employees. Fines that can reach up to $40,000 A YEAR. Now that's a way to promote small business growth in this country. Here's the bigger catch. If your employer offers a plan, you cannot utilize the CO-OP or other options. So, if your employer is stuck with a horrible provider, with premiums that are many things, but not affordable, and coverage that is a mockery, you are stuck!!!
So, who does this plan benefit the most? The answer is frustrating, but sadly predictable. It is the same insurance companies that are the root of the problem now. All of the benefits that are being gained from the changes in Medicare/Medicaid do not apply to the private sector. Private sector insurers must guarantee coverage, unless they have a predetermined cap on enrollees, then they can decline you because it wouldn't be based on any medical condition. They have to pay a tax on any plan that exceeds thresholds we have already determined to be unrealistic. They have to use standardized rate factors, but can modify those based on "geographic considerations". They will pick up countless new enrollees through the employer based system, as neither the employer nor the individual will want to be fined or taxed, yet have to make virtually no concessions on quality improvement or cost containment. It's a good time to be in the private insurance business for sure.
Now, if the CO-OPS actually become a viable competitor to the conglomerates, and employers are allowed to opt in, we could see a dramatic shift. But if congressional leaders and conservatives don't want a National Health Plan because it would put big insurers out of business, what is the bet they want CO-OPS to do the same thing? Yeah, not likely.
So, what is the answer? I have spent the last few weeks researching health programs of various modern, industrialized nations and found one troubling fact. Ours is the only one whose citizens pay privately for insurance. Now I don't mean that there isn't a co-payment or charge of some kind in other nations, but we are the only ones who pay for our premiums, then pay those co-payments and charges. With that in mind, you would think that our government must have one of the lowest spending rates for health care in the world. I thought so to, but alas, I was wrong. We actually pay more per capita (per person) and more as a percentage of GDP (Gross Domestic Product, the amount our nation costs to exist) than any other modernized nation. So even though 200 million people in this country pay out of pocket for their premiums through private insurers, we spend more as a nation on health care. The reality is it's the private insurance companies that prevent us from truly achieving Universal, Quality Health Care. I know, I know, I struggled to type it, but it is the truth. One proposal for reform called for expansion of Medicare to people ages 55 - 64 on a buy-in basis, along with expansion of Medicaid/CHIP (Children's Health insurance Program). This expansion would have narrowed the gap on "universal" coverage, but still left a huge number of us under insured and over priced. One of the selling points of the buy-in Medicare program was it was budget neutral, as private citizens would pay what the government allots for them each year. A good idea, AND EXACTLY WHAT A PUBLIC OPTION WOULD BE. The reality is simple, a Public Option, "Medicare for all", if you will, is the only way we will see the corporate giants in insurance back down from their positions of unyielding profit mongering. No matter how I look at it, however, I draw one conclusion from the existence of a true Public Option. Private insurers would rather cut their losses and run than do business that doesn't paint the walls with money. In essence, it would mean the beginning of the end of private insurance. Not because it was all part of a socialistic plot for the government to take over and run your health care, but because the greed of the insurance companies simply won't bend.
How long would it take? Hard to say. There is no doubt that we would see legislation to try and limit how many people could take advantage of the Public Option. There would unquestionably be campaigns to show how poor the quality of care is (much like we see all the time regarding National Health Plans), and money would be flying at any lawmaker who stood still long enough in an effort to make the Public Option go away. Eventually, as enrollees dropped and the veil was finally lifted, they would simply take their enormous profits and go home, leaving us with the only cost effective, quality assured universal coverage, A NATIONAL HEALTH PLAN. While I have said before that this country may not be ready for it, reality says it is the only logical solution to this monumental problem.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Role Models
As I have watched the partisan debates over the past 8 months on every issue from the Stimulus Bill to the proposed Health Care Reform Legislation, I have continuously been amazed at the demoralizing efforts to belittle and demean the political leaders of this nation. I heard a talk show host talk about the disappointment to people who believe this nation needs a two party state to productively work through issues and prospective legislation to reach the best end for the people of the country. They argued that we have in essence become a one party state, where the party in control makes decisions, and the minority party simply does what it can to get back control in the next election, even if that process is at the expense of the betterment of the nation at that time. I have always contended that politics should be the process by which we elect or leaders, and not the process by which they lead. This week, I have become officially stumped by this nation's divisiveness.
President Obama is scheduled to deliver a speech to the school children across the country on Tuesday, Spetember 8th, via closed circuit television. This message is designed to support the age old motto that you can be anything you want if you stay in school, study hard and stay focused. A speech that will ultimately include that our kids may even become President of the United States someday. Black or white, boy or girl, the only limit on their potential is the limit they impose by not focusing on their education.
It seems to me this is a message we would all want our children to hear, especially from the first African-American President in our nation's history. But no, somehow we have found a way for this to be political as well. People across this country have protested, called their school districts in a tirade, saying they will not have their kids exposed to President Obama's "liberal agenda". They have accused the President of "conditioning the minds" of our youth to "his socialistic ways".
ARE YOU KIDDING ME????????
I'm absolutely sure the President will take this opportunity, when he is addressing all kids from 1st grade to 12th grade, from ages 6 - 18, to layout his political agenda and ideological beliefs about our nation's future. Let's be honest, if his speech is longer than 15 minutes, 80% of the class will have tuned him out as they scribble in their notebooks. Outlining a progressive liberal agenda for the restoration of our nation would be as useful as a speech on the history of diversity in our country at a klan rally.
I doesn't seem like it was that long ago having the President of the United States address our children would have been not only an honor, but an investment in our future. With all of the moronic images our children are bombarded with on a daily basis, this is what we have chosen to take a stand on???? Perhaps President Obama could get the Octomom or Jon/Kate to come on with him to help balance the potential negative impact of his message. They can preface the message with the airing of Lil' Wayne's PSA about staying in school. Maybe we can interview Lil' Wayne and have him share the impact education has had on his life. Then we can have Jamie Lynn Spears and Bristol Palin do a piece on abstinence.
ARE YOU GETTING MY POINT??????
I understand that for many conservatives and religious right wing people, President Obama is somehow the devil, and his only purpose for being in the White House is to tear down the very fabric of this nation until we can fly a socialist flag at the Capitol and have the Federal Government control every aspect of your lives, but if you could put your own personal agenda aside for a moment, you might realize that our kids wouldn't recognize a conservative from a liberal, a socialist from a communist, or a Democrat from a Republican. They have many more years to be tainted by the stink that has become a divided nation. Right now they see an African-American man, raised by a single mother with help from his grandparents, who has beaten all the odds and broken the highest barrier in our nation to become President of the United States. And he is telling them that if he could do it, they can do it if they will stay in school, work hard and not give up on their dreams, or sell them to what's popular or cool. When did this become something to protest or throw a fit about?
WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!! Our children need as many positive influences and role models as they can get in a world where negativity and stupidity seem to be the fastest path to celebrity. As a final thought, you might also consider this. If your child can be more swayed by a 15 minute speech by the President in a classroom than by you on a daily basis, maybe it's time you examine your role in the lives of your children.
President Obama is scheduled to deliver a speech to the school children across the country on Tuesday, Spetember 8th, via closed circuit television. This message is designed to support the age old motto that you can be anything you want if you stay in school, study hard and stay focused. A speech that will ultimately include that our kids may even become President of the United States someday. Black or white, boy or girl, the only limit on their potential is the limit they impose by not focusing on their education.
It seems to me this is a message we would all want our children to hear, especially from the first African-American President in our nation's history. But no, somehow we have found a way for this to be political as well. People across this country have protested, called their school districts in a tirade, saying they will not have their kids exposed to President Obama's "liberal agenda". They have accused the President of "conditioning the minds" of our youth to "his socialistic ways".
ARE YOU KIDDING ME????????
I'm absolutely sure the President will take this opportunity, when he is addressing all kids from 1st grade to 12th grade, from ages 6 - 18, to layout his political agenda and ideological beliefs about our nation's future. Let's be honest, if his speech is longer than 15 minutes, 80% of the class will have tuned him out as they scribble in their notebooks. Outlining a progressive liberal agenda for the restoration of our nation would be as useful as a speech on the history of diversity in our country at a klan rally.
I doesn't seem like it was that long ago having the President of the United States address our children would have been not only an honor, but an investment in our future. With all of the moronic images our children are bombarded with on a daily basis, this is what we have chosen to take a stand on???? Perhaps President Obama could get the Octomom or Jon/Kate to come on with him to help balance the potential negative impact of his message. They can preface the message with the airing of Lil' Wayne's PSA about staying in school. Maybe we can interview Lil' Wayne and have him share the impact education has had on his life. Then we can have Jamie Lynn Spears and Bristol Palin do a piece on abstinence.
ARE YOU GETTING MY POINT??????
I understand that for many conservatives and religious right wing people, President Obama is somehow the devil, and his only purpose for being in the White House is to tear down the very fabric of this nation until we can fly a socialist flag at the Capitol and have the Federal Government control every aspect of your lives, but if you could put your own personal agenda aside for a moment, you might realize that our kids wouldn't recognize a conservative from a liberal, a socialist from a communist, or a Democrat from a Republican. They have many more years to be tainted by the stink that has become a divided nation. Right now they see an African-American man, raised by a single mother with help from his grandparents, who has beaten all the odds and broken the highest barrier in our nation to become President of the United States. And he is telling them that if he could do it, they can do it if they will stay in school, work hard and not give up on their dreams, or sell them to what's popular or cool. When did this become something to protest or throw a fit about?
WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!! Our children need as many positive influences and role models as they can get in a world where negativity and stupidity seem to be the fastest path to celebrity. As a final thought, you might also consider this. If your child can be more swayed by a 15 minute speech by the President in a classroom than by you on a daily basis, maybe it's time you examine your role in the lives of your children.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Peace And Rest, At Last
Like many people in this country, my parents divorced when I was very young. A few years later, my mom met a guitar pickin', truck drivin' Oklahoman through mutual friends. When they say opposites attract, this is what they mean, as my mom was a refugee from Height/Ashbury and the hippie counterculture. The bond was instant, and not long after, my brother and I had a new family, complete with 2 brothers and a sister. Looking back, it seems appropriate that they married on Valentine's Day, as only cupid would have looked at these two and saw lifelong partners.
Raised on a farm in Oklahoma, hard work and discipline were the foundations of his life. As my brother and I integrated into our new family, the bumps in the road were inevitable. But combined with my mom's tenacity and professionalism, they shaped who I am today. No matter the struggles we encountered as a family, he always worked as hard as he could to provide what we needed, keep a roof over our heads, and food in the kitchen. Not an easy task for our group.
While my father remained a part of my life for years after our new family moved to Arizona, geography and circumstances of life created a disconnect, and my stepdad ultimately became my dad. Raising me through high school was no easy task, as I found rebellion a very comfortable fit, and our stubborn streaks met more than once in confrontation. He had to wonder how he found himself in this situation, but he never wavered in his attempts to raise a responsible, hard working young man, and after years of trial by fire, his efforts ultimately paid off. When I moved into my first apartment, I couldn't wait to leave all the lights on, the cupboard doors open and the air conditioning on with the front door wide open. That is, until I finally understood the financial impact of those things (okay, maybe not the cupboard doors). As with most kids, my dad's fanaticism slowly became wisdom and logic (the first sign of growing up or growing old, I am told).
Burning the candle at both ends, the middle, and all segments in between began to catch up with my dad, and, over the past decade, his health struggles became increasingly difficult, making the things he really loved doing, like riding horses and going on trips to the ranch to work, hard, and ultimately impossible. Diabetes, and the insulin on which he had become dependent, damaged his kidneys. Vascular disease required surgeries and a quadruple by-pass. But it was COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease), that was the monster. He may have lost many of the things he once loved doing, he never lost the love for his family and friends. Through his faith, he restored and enhanced his relationships with his family, and expanded his circle of friends immeasurably. That was never so evident as it was this last week. Hospitalized again with respiratory troubles, the constant stream of people coming to see him or calling to offer support was, while at times challenging, overwhelming to say the least.
This weekend, as he became less and less able to depend on his body to produce the oxygen necessary to continue without assistance, we huddled around him and made the decision we knew he would want. He had a living will, and had shared with all of us through the years of struggles his desire not to be kept alive by artificial means. Yesterday, we met with his doctor, discussed his condition, and decided it was time. At 4:51pm yesterday, surrounded by family and close friends, his struggle ended and he went home to be with his Lord.
Brad Paisley has a song Called "He Didn't Have To Be" that sums it up best. "And then all of a sudden oh it seemed so strange to me, how we went from something's missing to a family. Looking back all I can say about all the things he did for me, is I hope I'm at least half the dad that he didn't have to be."
Rest in peace dad, you've more than earned it.
Raised on a farm in Oklahoma, hard work and discipline were the foundations of his life. As my brother and I integrated into our new family, the bumps in the road were inevitable. But combined with my mom's tenacity and professionalism, they shaped who I am today. No matter the struggles we encountered as a family, he always worked as hard as he could to provide what we needed, keep a roof over our heads, and food in the kitchen. Not an easy task for our group.
While my father remained a part of my life for years after our new family moved to Arizona, geography and circumstances of life created a disconnect, and my stepdad ultimately became my dad. Raising me through high school was no easy task, as I found rebellion a very comfortable fit, and our stubborn streaks met more than once in confrontation. He had to wonder how he found himself in this situation, but he never wavered in his attempts to raise a responsible, hard working young man, and after years of trial by fire, his efforts ultimately paid off. When I moved into my first apartment, I couldn't wait to leave all the lights on, the cupboard doors open and the air conditioning on with the front door wide open. That is, until I finally understood the financial impact of those things (okay, maybe not the cupboard doors). As with most kids, my dad's fanaticism slowly became wisdom and logic (the first sign of growing up or growing old, I am told).
Burning the candle at both ends, the middle, and all segments in between began to catch up with my dad, and, over the past decade, his health struggles became increasingly difficult, making the things he really loved doing, like riding horses and going on trips to the ranch to work, hard, and ultimately impossible. Diabetes, and the insulin on which he had become dependent, damaged his kidneys. Vascular disease required surgeries and a quadruple by-pass. But it was COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease), that was the monster. He may have lost many of the things he once loved doing, he never lost the love for his family and friends. Through his faith, he restored and enhanced his relationships with his family, and expanded his circle of friends immeasurably. That was never so evident as it was this last week. Hospitalized again with respiratory troubles, the constant stream of people coming to see him or calling to offer support was, while at times challenging, overwhelming to say the least.
This weekend, as he became less and less able to depend on his body to produce the oxygen necessary to continue without assistance, we huddled around him and made the decision we knew he would want. He had a living will, and had shared with all of us through the years of struggles his desire not to be kept alive by artificial means. Yesterday, we met with his doctor, discussed his condition, and decided it was time. At 4:51pm yesterday, surrounded by family and close friends, his struggle ended and he went home to be with his Lord.
Brad Paisley has a song Called "He Didn't Have To Be" that sums it up best. "And then all of a sudden oh it seemed so strange to me, how we went from something's missing to a family. Looking back all I can say about all the things he did for me, is I hope I'm at least half the dad that he didn't have to be."
Rest in peace dad, you've more than earned it.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
The Politics Of Fear
I have held off on blogging on the Health Care Reform debate up to this point for a couple of reasons. I have spent the last 17 years of my working life in the health care system, at various levels, so I may be a bit biased in my opinions. I also wanted to wait and read at least a good draft version of the bill proposed before I blogged on the subject. The last week has made that silence impossible.
I thought I had reached some level of acceptance of the scare tactics used to make people believe a certain way about the issues we face in this nation. From terrorism to the stimulus, opponents and lobbyists have tried to scare you into believing that everything just short of your actual death may be the outcome of legislation proposed by the current Administration. But now, they have gone so far as to have you believe, among other senseless items, that passing health care reform could ACTUALLY mean your death if you are a senior on Medicare. This just takes fear mongering to new lows.
HB 3200 is the current legislation proposed by the House, and in regards to this "Death Panel" as some mindless public figures have referred to it, it simply does not exist. What it does indicate is if you or your family are facing end of life issues and need input and consultation in the decision making process, Medicare will reimburse for those services. They do not currently. It also indicates limits on how often you can do this, so costs are not ramped up by an ongoing consultation that results in no decision. It is not reviewing the medical viability of a client and determining if their life continues to justify the costs incurred. These claims are just moronic, and are so counterproductive to a process that has been so badly needed for so long. I clarified this issue with a close friend this weekend who had been fed by the fear machine, and even after clearing up the specifics of it, her response was "Well, that may be what it says now, but they could always change it." Are you kidding me? Is that supposed to be logic on which you base the decision not to support legislation? I have to admit that I found myself speechless for more than a moment before I replied with "Well, I guess we could argue that with any legislation, but shouldn't we save that fight for then, and stick to the real issues now?".
This is just one of many conversations I have had with people close to me about myths in this proposed bill. I am going to try and cover some of the most common ones and try to explain them in as simple a fashion as I possibly can.
"The government wants to take over health care and make all of our decisions for us." This is a pretty standard argument where you fill in the blank after "the government wants to take over _________". If I can't make a valid debate, I'll default to this position. The government already oversees Medicare and Medicaid, along with the VA for veterans. This bill simply addresses significant flaws in the current Medicare/Medicaid system, and introduces the option of a government managed public insurance option. This public option would allow individuals and groups to solicit their insurance needs to a provider that will not discriminate because you are only looking for coverage for your family, or because as an employer, you are only looking to cover 15 employees. If I want to buy a plasma tv, I can shop between stores to see who has the best price on the best set with the best service plan. I can do this for a tv, but if I try the same thing for health care coverage for my employees, I had better clear several months as I get staff to fill out health surveys regarding any pre-existing conditions any of them might have. If you are lucky enough to be accepted, you are then subjected to at least annual increases in premiums and co-pays and reductions in approved services. I can see why we wouldn't want an alternative to that.
"The public option will put the private insurance companies out of business, going against our free market economy.". As of right now, there are approximately 47 million uninsured people in this country. The goal of this bill is to reduce that number to almost zero. That means 47 million more customers. If you believe the government can't run good healthcare, then these customers will sign up with private insurers, adding to their already record profits. The only way private insurance companies will go out of business with the advent of a new public option is if this new option has better service with a better price. That is the very nature of a free market economy. I can see why we wouldn't want that.
"This bill will add trillions to the already staggering deficit.". Any time a new program is implemented at any government level, it will have an initial cost. But the costs it will save will actually reduce not only our current budget deficits, but will begin to chip away at the national debt. How? Well, by creating competition on the market, prices of things like medical equipment and prescription medications will come down, reducing the costs to Medicare and Medicaid. By integrating medical records into a national database, patient information and treatment history will be a click away, eliminating repeat treatments and redundancy in patient care, making care more efficient and less costly. On a completely uncovered point, many people have their insurance premiums taken out in pre-tax plans from their paychecks. As premiums come down, there will be more taxable income, and more revenue for the government. 17 years in healthcare have taught me that many providers count on the inefficiencies to increase what they can bill insurance companies and Medicare for. This is why Medicare introduced their Prospective Payment System (PPS) several years ago. This system identified standard treatment rates for specific procedures, forcing providers to make treatment more efficient and standardized. More systems like this and better standards for treatment will help reduce costs dramatically. I can see why we wouldn't want that.
"This bill will mandate government reviews for patients on Medicare to determine if continuing care is cost effective.". These would be the "Death Panels" I mentioned earlier, and if you have watched the news over the last several days, you have probably seen these rumors played out at town halls across the country. The bill simply provides for reimbursement for end of life consultations regarding things like living wills and hospice care. These are not mandated, and you can still make these decisions without any consultation with anyone. This makes sure that the patient's wishes and care is the top priority when end of life issues arise. My dad has been in and out of the hospital for the past 3 weeks, battling an illness that may ultimately take his life. He has a living will, and we have talked about his wishes, and we have shared that with the doctors and staff at the hospital. Several members of our family work in health care, so we are fortunate enough to be informed on both the disease process and end of life care. Not everyone has this benefit and may need to consult professionals to make an informed decisions. This bill would make sure that service is covered. I can see why we wouldn't want that.
"I'm going to be forced to switch my insurance, and I am completely happy with my coverage.". I'm just not sure how many ways it can be explained that there is absolutely nothing in this bill that mandates people change their coverage for any reason. If you are on an employer's plan and they consider changing, your complaint is with them, not this bill. This bill is designed to give MORE choices, not LESS. I can see why we wouldn't want that.
These are some of the biggest rumors out there that are just simply nonsense, but people just don't want to think logically. Then you add to it the lobbyist organizations who are feeding these myths and rallying people to disrupt these town hall meetings and you have created a perfect environment for violence and stagnation instead of healthy debate and sharing of REAL information.
I mentioned my dad being in the hospital earlier. While my mom and our family are facing end of life issues, we are also facing an unreal co-pay that grows each time he has been re-admitted for the same issue. My dad is on Medicare, and of course has a supplemental insurance provider, as Medicare does not cover everything. They pay hundreds of dollars a month for prescription medications that would be a fraction of that if they could get them shipped from Canada, their primary care physician cannot follow them in the hospital, meaning we get to train a new set of hospital docs most every time he has to go to the hospital, requiring one of us to be at the hospital from 7am-8pm to make sure we see the docs, as you never know when they will come in, and once they do, they are in and out in 2 minutes if you are not there to ask questions. We have battled this for almost a decade now, and it is tiresome. We have always had great nurses and aides, the unsung heroes of this business, but the docs normally follow a mandate from the hospital which is dictated by what insurance companies will cover. This bill seeks to put more control and power in the hands of the patients and the families, as well as letting us keep some more of our hard earned money, and maybe, just maybe, focus all of our attention on the man who needs it the most right now. I can see why we wouldn't want that.
I thought I had reached some level of acceptance of the scare tactics used to make people believe a certain way about the issues we face in this nation. From terrorism to the stimulus, opponents and lobbyists have tried to scare you into believing that everything just short of your actual death may be the outcome of legislation proposed by the current Administration. But now, they have gone so far as to have you believe, among other senseless items, that passing health care reform could ACTUALLY mean your death if you are a senior on Medicare. This just takes fear mongering to new lows.
HB 3200 is the current legislation proposed by the House, and in regards to this "Death Panel" as some mindless public figures have referred to it, it simply does not exist. What it does indicate is if you or your family are facing end of life issues and need input and consultation in the decision making process, Medicare will reimburse for those services. They do not currently. It also indicates limits on how often you can do this, so costs are not ramped up by an ongoing consultation that results in no decision. It is not reviewing the medical viability of a client and determining if their life continues to justify the costs incurred. These claims are just moronic, and are so counterproductive to a process that has been so badly needed for so long. I clarified this issue with a close friend this weekend who had been fed by the fear machine, and even after clearing up the specifics of it, her response was "Well, that may be what it says now, but they could always change it." Are you kidding me? Is that supposed to be logic on which you base the decision not to support legislation? I have to admit that I found myself speechless for more than a moment before I replied with "Well, I guess we could argue that with any legislation, but shouldn't we save that fight for then, and stick to the real issues now?".
This is just one of many conversations I have had with people close to me about myths in this proposed bill. I am going to try and cover some of the most common ones and try to explain them in as simple a fashion as I possibly can.
"The government wants to take over health care and make all of our decisions for us." This is a pretty standard argument where you fill in the blank after "the government wants to take over _________". If I can't make a valid debate, I'll default to this position. The government already oversees Medicare and Medicaid, along with the VA for veterans. This bill simply addresses significant flaws in the current Medicare/Medicaid system, and introduces the option of a government managed public insurance option. This public option would allow individuals and groups to solicit their insurance needs to a provider that will not discriminate because you are only looking for coverage for your family, or because as an employer, you are only looking to cover 15 employees. If I want to buy a plasma tv, I can shop between stores to see who has the best price on the best set with the best service plan. I can do this for a tv, but if I try the same thing for health care coverage for my employees, I had better clear several months as I get staff to fill out health surveys regarding any pre-existing conditions any of them might have. If you are lucky enough to be accepted, you are then subjected to at least annual increases in premiums and co-pays and reductions in approved services. I can see why we wouldn't want an alternative to that.
"The public option will put the private insurance companies out of business, going against our free market economy.". As of right now, there are approximately 47 million uninsured people in this country. The goal of this bill is to reduce that number to almost zero. That means 47 million more customers. If you believe the government can't run good healthcare, then these customers will sign up with private insurers, adding to their already record profits. The only way private insurance companies will go out of business with the advent of a new public option is if this new option has better service with a better price. That is the very nature of a free market economy. I can see why we wouldn't want that.
"This bill will add trillions to the already staggering deficit.". Any time a new program is implemented at any government level, it will have an initial cost. But the costs it will save will actually reduce not only our current budget deficits, but will begin to chip away at the national debt. How? Well, by creating competition on the market, prices of things like medical equipment and prescription medications will come down, reducing the costs to Medicare and Medicaid. By integrating medical records into a national database, patient information and treatment history will be a click away, eliminating repeat treatments and redundancy in patient care, making care more efficient and less costly. On a completely uncovered point, many people have their insurance premiums taken out in pre-tax plans from their paychecks. As premiums come down, there will be more taxable income, and more revenue for the government. 17 years in healthcare have taught me that many providers count on the inefficiencies to increase what they can bill insurance companies and Medicare for. This is why Medicare introduced their Prospective Payment System (PPS) several years ago. This system identified standard treatment rates for specific procedures, forcing providers to make treatment more efficient and standardized. More systems like this and better standards for treatment will help reduce costs dramatically. I can see why we wouldn't want that.
"This bill will mandate government reviews for patients on Medicare to determine if continuing care is cost effective.". These would be the "Death Panels" I mentioned earlier, and if you have watched the news over the last several days, you have probably seen these rumors played out at town halls across the country. The bill simply provides for reimbursement for end of life consultations regarding things like living wills and hospice care. These are not mandated, and you can still make these decisions without any consultation with anyone. This makes sure that the patient's wishes and care is the top priority when end of life issues arise. My dad has been in and out of the hospital for the past 3 weeks, battling an illness that may ultimately take his life. He has a living will, and we have talked about his wishes, and we have shared that with the doctors and staff at the hospital. Several members of our family work in health care, so we are fortunate enough to be informed on both the disease process and end of life care. Not everyone has this benefit and may need to consult professionals to make an informed decisions. This bill would make sure that service is covered. I can see why we wouldn't want that.
"I'm going to be forced to switch my insurance, and I am completely happy with my coverage.". I'm just not sure how many ways it can be explained that there is absolutely nothing in this bill that mandates people change their coverage for any reason. If you are on an employer's plan and they consider changing, your complaint is with them, not this bill. This bill is designed to give MORE choices, not LESS. I can see why we wouldn't want that.
These are some of the biggest rumors out there that are just simply nonsense, but people just don't want to think logically. Then you add to it the lobbyist organizations who are feeding these myths and rallying people to disrupt these town hall meetings and you have created a perfect environment for violence and stagnation instead of healthy debate and sharing of REAL information.
I mentioned my dad being in the hospital earlier. While my mom and our family are facing end of life issues, we are also facing an unreal co-pay that grows each time he has been re-admitted for the same issue. My dad is on Medicare, and of course has a supplemental insurance provider, as Medicare does not cover everything. They pay hundreds of dollars a month for prescription medications that would be a fraction of that if they could get them shipped from Canada, their primary care physician cannot follow them in the hospital, meaning we get to train a new set of hospital docs most every time he has to go to the hospital, requiring one of us to be at the hospital from 7am-8pm to make sure we see the docs, as you never know when they will come in, and once they do, they are in and out in 2 minutes if you are not there to ask questions. We have battled this for almost a decade now, and it is tiresome. We have always had great nurses and aides, the unsung heroes of this business, but the docs normally follow a mandate from the hospital which is dictated by what insurance companies will cover. This bill seeks to put more control and power in the hands of the patients and the families, as well as letting us keep some more of our hard earned money, and maybe, just maybe, focus all of our attention on the man who needs it the most right now. I can see why we wouldn't want that.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Ready, Aim, Not So Fast
Yesterday, by a 58-39 vote, the U.S. Senate rejected SA 1618, a bill designed "To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, if the individual complies with the laws of the State.". This vote sparked the latest round of gun control debate.
Before I get into this specific bill, let me clarify my position on gun control and the Second Amendment to the Constitution. I fully and completely support, and will defend to the end, the right of eligible citizens of this nation to keep and bear arms. Eligible citizens, to me, are citizens first. Not legal foreign nationals, and certainly not illegal immigrants. If you will not take the time to become a citizen of this nation, you forfeit the right to keep and bear arms. Citizenship resolved, I believe you must not have been convicted of a felony, ever. Convicted felons are not allowed to vote in this country, they should not be allowed to keep and bear arms. These are guidelines that I believe should be consistent in all 50 states. After that, I believe each state should be able to determine additional guidelines for gun permits, including requiring training classes prior to obtaining a license, and renewal tests annually to renew licensing. We require drivers to do this, why not require it for firearm owners?
Opponents of this type of position argue that bad people will get guns illegally, regardless of how tough requirements are to legally acquire one. This is true, and it is why I believe illegal possession of a firearm should be a felony and require mandatory jail time, lengths to be determined by each state. No community service, no buying your way around it, no suspended sentence, but jail time. Rule of law, folks. Know the law, obey the law, or pay the price.
Now, my support of the right of eligible citizens to keep and bear arms is not all encompassing. I do believe there should be a limit to what any private citizen needs in their private armory. I understand that this part of by belief is a bit ideological in nature, and, as such, not normal regarding my political positions. But a private citizen simply does not need to buy a rocket launcher. So where is the line drawn on what does and does not constitute a firearm eligible citizens have the right to keep and bear? This is a great debate topic.
The Constitution is a living document, which is why the option to amend it exists. To understand the times we lived in when this document was created, I offer this from Wikipedia;
"In the first couple decades following the adoption of the Second Amendment public opposition to a standing army persisted, a widely held opinion among the minority Anti-Federalists and to a lesser extent among the majority Federalists. This opinion also extended to opposition to a professional armed police force, with the responsibility to carry out local ordinances falling to sheriffs in counties and constables and night watchmen in cities and towns. These officials sometimes received pay and more often served as a civic duty without remuneration. In these early decades with rare exceptions these full time law enforcement officers were not armed with firearms, but rather were armed only with clubs. In large emergencies a call up was issued for the posse comitatus, militia companies, or vigilantes to assume law enforcement duties and these groups were much more likely to be armed with firearms."
The right to keep and bear arms was essential to our core freedoms, even to our very existence. To rise up against our military today, even if it was vital to the existence of our nation, would be pointless and hopeless, even if you possessed a rocket launcher, an ak47 and a duffle bag full of clips. Tanks, Jets, helicopters, drones, and an arsenal of weapons would be on the other side of your position. Renegade survivor movies like "Red Dawn" and the more current "Defiance" paint a picture of a scenario that just could not happen in this country if we were faced with either of those circumstances. It would be like using a fan to fend off a tornado.
Before you start cursing me as a gun control, left wing freak who seeks to abolish our constitutional rights, remember that I started this by saying I would defend the right to keep and bear arms until the end. This is where I like to think that I have blended my ideological stance on limits with logical positions supporting my belief. This blending of the two is something I believe is sorely lacking in the opposition in most of my debates regarding politics and government.
Now that I have laid out my position on that as clearly as I can, let's move on to SA 1618. My brothers in the "Conservative" movement argue that "Liberals", or "Statists", as people like Mark Levin call them, favor Federal rule over the right of individual States, contrary to the founding of our nation. This is a tyrannical approach to them, creating a government that has more authority than was Constitutionally allocated. I completely agree that individual states should have the right to govern according to their population and their need, provided that governance falls in the framework established by the Constitution and the established Federal guidelines. If I drive through California, I am expected to abide by California law, regardless of the fact that I am actually licensed in Arizona. That is fundamentally the freedom of the states to do that. How then, can the same people who throw the stones of Federal oppression attempt to pass a law that supersedes state autonomy on gun permit laws? They do so because they can use it as another stone to throw at the current Administration, demonstrating how they want to take your rights away.
My family and I recently took a trip to Northern California to visit family. If I were a firearm owner, one who believes my very safety is dependent on my constant possession of said firearm, I would have contacted the California agency controlling gun permits, learned what my rights AND MY OBLIGATIONS were, and made sure that I met those obligations. Then I would have loaded my clips and drove off to the wild, wild west, peaceful in knowing that if I were approached by hostiles, I was legally armed and ready to defend my liberties.
I do believe, as I do with most of these situations, that there is a middle ground. If you are licensed in a state like New York, where the requirements are very strict, and you are traveling to South Carolina, where they are not so strict, you should be able to obtain a waiver for that trip. If you are traveling the other way, a South Carolina resident going to New York, you should be allowed to meet the New York requirements and obtain the same level of waiver. This allows the individual states to set their own requirements for their own residents, but allows visitors to come to their state with the peace of mind that comes with carrying a glock.
Forgive my jests at the expense of those who carry firearms. I kid because I care, right? The important thing is not if I choose to walk around strapped like Dirty Harry, but that I think those who wish to can do so without all of this controversy. But I guess that is another debate entirely............
Before I get into this specific bill, let me clarify my position on gun control and the Second Amendment to the Constitution. I fully and completely support, and will defend to the end, the right of eligible citizens of this nation to keep and bear arms. Eligible citizens, to me, are citizens first. Not legal foreign nationals, and certainly not illegal immigrants. If you will not take the time to become a citizen of this nation, you forfeit the right to keep and bear arms. Citizenship resolved, I believe you must not have been convicted of a felony, ever. Convicted felons are not allowed to vote in this country, they should not be allowed to keep and bear arms. These are guidelines that I believe should be consistent in all 50 states. After that, I believe each state should be able to determine additional guidelines for gun permits, including requiring training classes prior to obtaining a license, and renewal tests annually to renew licensing. We require drivers to do this, why not require it for firearm owners?
Opponents of this type of position argue that bad people will get guns illegally, regardless of how tough requirements are to legally acquire one. This is true, and it is why I believe illegal possession of a firearm should be a felony and require mandatory jail time, lengths to be determined by each state. No community service, no buying your way around it, no suspended sentence, but jail time. Rule of law, folks. Know the law, obey the law, or pay the price.
Now, my support of the right of eligible citizens to keep and bear arms is not all encompassing. I do believe there should be a limit to what any private citizen needs in their private armory. I understand that this part of by belief is a bit ideological in nature, and, as such, not normal regarding my political positions. But a private citizen simply does not need to buy a rocket launcher. So where is the line drawn on what does and does not constitute a firearm eligible citizens have the right to keep and bear? This is a great debate topic.
The Constitution is a living document, which is why the option to amend it exists. To understand the times we lived in when this document was created, I offer this from Wikipedia;
"In the first couple decades following the adoption of the Second Amendment public opposition to a standing army persisted, a widely held opinion among the minority Anti-Federalists and to a lesser extent among the majority Federalists. This opinion also extended to opposition to a professional armed police force, with the responsibility to carry out local ordinances falling to sheriffs in counties and constables and night watchmen in cities and towns. These officials sometimes received pay and more often served as a civic duty without remuneration. In these early decades with rare exceptions these full time law enforcement officers were not armed with firearms, but rather were armed only with clubs. In large emergencies a call up was issued for the posse comitatus, militia companies, or vigilantes to assume law enforcement duties and these groups were much more likely to be armed with firearms."
The right to keep and bear arms was essential to our core freedoms, even to our very existence. To rise up against our military today, even if it was vital to the existence of our nation, would be pointless and hopeless, even if you possessed a rocket launcher, an ak47 and a duffle bag full of clips. Tanks, Jets, helicopters, drones, and an arsenal of weapons would be on the other side of your position. Renegade survivor movies like "Red Dawn" and the more current "Defiance" paint a picture of a scenario that just could not happen in this country if we were faced with either of those circumstances. It would be like using a fan to fend off a tornado.
Before you start cursing me as a gun control, left wing freak who seeks to abolish our constitutional rights, remember that I started this by saying I would defend the right to keep and bear arms until the end. This is where I like to think that I have blended my ideological stance on limits with logical positions supporting my belief. This blending of the two is something I believe is sorely lacking in the opposition in most of my debates regarding politics and government.
Now that I have laid out my position on that as clearly as I can, let's move on to SA 1618. My brothers in the "Conservative" movement argue that "Liberals", or "Statists", as people like Mark Levin call them, favor Federal rule over the right of individual States, contrary to the founding of our nation. This is a tyrannical approach to them, creating a government that has more authority than was Constitutionally allocated. I completely agree that individual states should have the right to govern according to their population and their need, provided that governance falls in the framework established by the Constitution and the established Federal guidelines. If I drive through California, I am expected to abide by California law, regardless of the fact that I am actually licensed in Arizona. That is fundamentally the freedom of the states to do that. How then, can the same people who throw the stones of Federal oppression attempt to pass a law that supersedes state autonomy on gun permit laws? They do so because they can use it as another stone to throw at the current Administration, demonstrating how they want to take your rights away.
My family and I recently took a trip to Northern California to visit family. If I were a firearm owner, one who believes my very safety is dependent on my constant possession of said firearm, I would have contacted the California agency controlling gun permits, learned what my rights AND MY OBLIGATIONS were, and made sure that I met those obligations. Then I would have loaded my clips and drove off to the wild, wild west, peaceful in knowing that if I were approached by hostiles, I was legally armed and ready to defend my liberties.
I do believe, as I do with most of these situations, that there is a middle ground. If you are licensed in a state like New York, where the requirements are very strict, and you are traveling to South Carolina, where they are not so strict, you should be able to obtain a waiver for that trip. If you are traveling the other way, a South Carolina resident going to New York, you should be allowed to meet the New York requirements and obtain the same level of waiver. This allows the individual states to set their own requirements for their own residents, but allows visitors to come to their state with the peace of mind that comes with carrying a glock.
Forgive my jests at the expense of those who carry firearms. I kid because I care, right? The important thing is not if I choose to walk around strapped like Dirty Harry, but that I think those who wish to can do so without all of this controversy. But I guess that is another debate entirely............
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Right To Life - Punishable By Death
I receive breaking news alerts on my Blackberry, and when I got one on Sunday that a doctor was killed attending his church, I thought it was odd that somehow that classified as "breaking news." Then later I saw the first news coverage of the story and I understood. This was no ordinary doctor, this was Dr. George Tiller, Medical Director of an abortion clinic in Wichita, KS. But not just an abortion clinic. No this was an abortion clinic that performed "late term abortions".
What defines "late term" seems to vary from 16 weeks to 27 weeks, depending on the publication you read. There are no Federal restrictions on these abortions in the United States, but there is a provision that allows individual states to restrict the point at which an abortion is still allowed. As of 2007, 36 states had bans on late term abortions, and I'm sure their guidelines vary the same as the publications on when "late term" begins. 10 states require a second physician to deem a late term abortion "medically necessary", and 9 states require a second physician to be present for the procedure itself.
Regardless of the restrictions, definitions, or legality of this procedure, it is a lightning rod for "Pro Life" activists and extremists. It also has "Pro Choice" activists questioning it's place in many circles. This is why there are but a handful of doctors in the United States who are even willing to perform this procedure. In fact, the attacks on abortion clinics and care providers have dramatically reduced the number of available clinics or physicians who will maintain an abortion practice at all. It has become obvious that the approach by these extremists is simple, if we can't make it illegal, we'll make it dangerous and impractical until it is ultimately unavailable.
The cable networks on opposite ends of the spectrum took up the battle last night on the airwaves. More than one show host referred to it as "domestic terrorism". When I first heard this term, my immediate reaction was it was a term being used to over dramatize the actions of a lone lunatic, then I looked at the numbers. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms records state that in the last 15 years there have been 167 logged attacks against abortion clinics in this country. In 1984 alone, 18 facilities were victims of bombing attacks. Yet another statistic shows that 1,700 act of violence were committed against abortion providers were committed between 1977 and 1994. The numbers in the last 15 years have dropped dramatically, partially due to the significantly reduced number of clinics and practitioners. If you took these numbers and attached them to attacks on any other institution, it would be classified as terrorism. But for many people, this is simply God's punishment of sinners. And this is where the subject starts to get touchy.
Most people who classify themselves as "Pro Life" also classify themselves as "religious", that is, they regularly attend religious services of their faith. If this is true, these people should understand the concept of sin equality. To God, as explained in the Bible, there are no varying degrees of sin. There is some debate about the "unforgivable sin" of blasphemy, but trying to get someone to pin down what specifically constitutes blasphemy, and how that prevents or removes salvation is a fascinating study, but I digress. So, in God's eyes, according to God's Word, gluttony or sloth are equal to murder. They are all sin, and sin cannot share the presence of God. It has been said that more wars have been fought, more lives been lost in the name of "God" than any other reason. Christians may argue that a muslim extremist Jihad has nothing to do with God, but whether they attribute their hostilities to their God or yours, it is hostility in the name of "God". I guess this is no different. I have looked at message boards and blogs that classify the killer in this case as "a hero", for his "heroic act against the work of the devil." Next stop, the Twilight Zone. This "hero" walked into a church, God's house, and murdered a man in cold blood, while terrifying an entire congregation. I say we name him an Apostle for this wonderful deed. Give me a break.
So, if we have determined that all sin is equal, and all life is sacred, how do we justify the murder of a man whose crime was doing his job, legally and lawfully? And, if you do justify this pathetic act, where does that leave your "Pro Life" stance? Perhaps we should change the name to "Pro Unborn Life"? That's what it really is, isn't it? And that doesn't even begin to cover the hypocrisy of that concept. Roe vs. Wade was decided in 1973, and from that day to this one, and for the foreseeable future, it means that abortion is legal in this country. In fact, it is every bit as legal as your ability to practice your particular religion, regardless of how it may offend others. If the Atheists in this nation set out to make Christianity or Catholicism illegal, and, having failed to do so, decided to launch a campaign of terror to make it dangerous or difficult to attend your services, there would be a huge public outcry. But today, if you support a woman's right to choose, you are immediately labeled a baby killer, or a nazi. If you have been unfortunate enough to have been in a position to have had an abortion, you are sentenced to hell as a murderer.
I know this may be hard to believe, but I am Pro Choice AND against abortion. In my life, I have had opportunity to talk with people who were struggling with the choice and what to do. I was able to share my opinion and preference to other options instead of abortion. But I also shared the fact that their decision would not change my opinion of them as people. It is easy to say "I would NEVER have an abortion, regardless of the situation" when you don't live with an alcoholic parent who tends to be abusive if the rules aren't followed, and you are considering telling them you are pregnant. It's easy to say that if you've never been at a party, had one too many drinks, and found yourself facing the result of a horrible mistake that stands to jeopardize your future, and that of the future child as well. We preach abstinence, and live in denial of the fact that sometimes things happen. Teaching people about safe sex may be enabling more sex, but could it not also prevent more unwanted pregnancies, and thus reduce the number of abortions? What if your daughter or your sister, too ashamed to tell you of their problem because of your narrow minded views, were in one of these clinics when they were attacked or bombed? Do you classify them as justifiable casualties?
Bottom line is this; Dr. George Tiller was assassinated by an extremist who, by declaration or simply by action, represents a group of domestic terrorists who have chosen to carry out their own justice. They do so in the name of God, and in the name of Pro Life. What does it say that Dr. Tiller was wearing a bulletproof vest at the time he was assassinated, as he has every day for years? It says that these "Pro Life" extremists may want to redefine their identity.
Randall Terry, an anti-abortion rights activist, said: "George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God. I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller's killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions. Abortion is still murder. And we still must call abortion by its proper name; murder. Those men and women who slaughter the unborn are murderers according to the Law of God. We must continue to expose them in our communities and peacefully protest them at their offices and homes, and yes, even their churches."
Wiley Drake, vice-presidential candidate for the America's Independent Party ticket in 2008, said on his radio show that "Would you have rejoiced when Adolf Hitler died during the war? ... I would have said, 'Amen, praise the Lord, hallelujah, I'm glad he's dead.' This man, George Tiller, was far greater in his atrocities than Adolf Hitler. So I am happy. I am glad that he is dead." wikipedia
If either of these last 2 statements reflects how you feel your "God" stands on this issue, you can keep him.
What defines "late term" seems to vary from 16 weeks to 27 weeks, depending on the publication you read. There are no Federal restrictions on these abortions in the United States, but there is a provision that allows individual states to restrict the point at which an abortion is still allowed. As of 2007, 36 states had bans on late term abortions, and I'm sure their guidelines vary the same as the publications on when "late term" begins. 10 states require a second physician to deem a late term abortion "medically necessary", and 9 states require a second physician to be present for the procedure itself.
Regardless of the restrictions, definitions, or legality of this procedure, it is a lightning rod for "Pro Life" activists and extremists. It also has "Pro Choice" activists questioning it's place in many circles. This is why there are but a handful of doctors in the United States who are even willing to perform this procedure. In fact, the attacks on abortion clinics and care providers have dramatically reduced the number of available clinics or physicians who will maintain an abortion practice at all. It has become obvious that the approach by these extremists is simple, if we can't make it illegal, we'll make it dangerous and impractical until it is ultimately unavailable.
The cable networks on opposite ends of the spectrum took up the battle last night on the airwaves. More than one show host referred to it as "domestic terrorism". When I first heard this term, my immediate reaction was it was a term being used to over dramatize the actions of a lone lunatic, then I looked at the numbers. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms records state that in the last 15 years there have been 167 logged attacks against abortion clinics in this country. In 1984 alone, 18 facilities were victims of bombing attacks. Yet another statistic shows that 1,700 act of violence were committed against abortion providers were committed between 1977 and 1994. The numbers in the last 15 years have dropped dramatically, partially due to the significantly reduced number of clinics and practitioners. If you took these numbers and attached them to attacks on any other institution, it would be classified as terrorism. But for many people, this is simply God's punishment of sinners. And this is where the subject starts to get touchy.
Most people who classify themselves as "Pro Life" also classify themselves as "religious", that is, they regularly attend religious services of their faith. If this is true, these people should understand the concept of sin equality. To God, as explained in the Bible, there are no varying degrees of sin. There is some debate about the "unforgivable sin" of blasphemy, but trying to get someone to pin down what specifically constitutes blasphemy, and how that prevents or removes salvation is a fascinating study, but I digress. So, in God's eyes, according to God's Word, gluttony or sloth are equal to murder. They are all sin, and sin cannot share the presence of God. It has been said that more wars have been fought, more lives been lost in the name of "God" than any other reason. Christians may argue that a muslim extremist Jihad has nothing to do with God, but whether they attribute their hostilities to their God or yours, it is hostility in the name of "God". I guess this is no different. I have looked at message boards and blogs that classify the killer in this case as "a hero", for his "heroic act against the work of the devil." Next stop, the Twilight Zone. This "hero" walked into a church, God's house, and murdered a man in cold blood, while terrifying an entire congregation. I say we name him an Apostle for this wonderful deed. Give me a break.
So, if we have determined that all sin is equal, and all life is sacred, how do we justify the murder of a man whose crime was doing his job, legally and lawfully? And, if you do justify this pathetic act, where does that leave your "Pro Life" stance? Perhaps we should change the name to "Pro Unborn Life"? That's what it really is, isn't it? And that doesn't even begin to cover the hypocrisy of that concept. Roe vs. Wade was decided in 1973, and from that day to this one, and for the foreseeable future, it means that abortion is legal in this country. In fact, it is every bit as legal as your ability to practice your particular religion, regardless of how it may offend others. If the Atheists in this nation set out to make Christianity or Catholicism illegal, and, having failed to do so, decided to launch a campaign of terror to make it dangerous or difficult to attend your services, there would be a huge public outcry. But today, if you support a woman's right to choose, you are immediately labeled a baby killer, or a nazi. If you have been unfortunate enough to have been in a position to have had an abortion, you are sentenced to hell as a murderer.
I know this may be hard to believe, but I am Pro Choice AND against abortion. In my life, I have had opportunity to talk with people who were struggling with the choice and what to do. I was able to share my opinion and preference to other options instead of abortion. But I also shared the fact that their decision would not change my opinion of them as people. It is easy to say "I would NEVER have an abortion, regardless of the situation" when you don't live with an alcoholic parent who tends to be abusive if the rules aren't followed, and you are considering telling them you are pregnant. It's easy to say that if you've never been at a party, had one too many drinks, and found yourself facing the result of a horrible mistake that stands to jeopardize your future, and that of the future child as well. We preach abstinence, and live in denial of the fact that sometimes things happen. Teaching people about safe sex may be enabling more sex, but could it not also prevent more unwanted pregnancies, and thus reduce the number of abortions? What if your daughter or your sister, too ashamed to tell you of their problem because of your narrow minded views, were in one of these clinics when they were attacked or bombed? Do you classify them as justifiable casualties?
Bottom line is this; Dr. George Tiller was assassinated by an extremist who, by declaration or simply by action, represents a group of domestic terrorists who have chosen to carry out their own justice. They do so in the name of God, and in the name of Pro Life. What does it say that Dr. Tiller was wearing a bulletproof vest at the time he was assassinated, as he has every day for years? It says that these "Pro Life" extremists may want to redefine their identity.
Randall Terry, an anti-abortion rights activist, said: "George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God. I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller's killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions. Abortion is still murder. And we still must call abortion by its proper name; murder. Those men and women who slaughter the unborn are murderers according to the Law of God. We must continue to expose them in our communities and peacefully protest them at their offices and homes, and yes, even their churches."
Wiley Drake, vice-presidential candidate for the America's Independent Party ticket in 2008, said on his radio show that "Would you have rejoiced when Adolf Hitler died during the war? ... I would have said, 'Amen, praise the Lord, hallelujah, I'm glad he's dead.' This man, George Tiller, was far greater in his atrocities than Adolf Hitler. So I am happy. I am glad that he is dead." wikipedia
If either of these last 2 statements reflects how you feel your "God" stands on this issue, you can keep him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
