The history of western civilization is a story of the struggle by liberals against conservatives for the political liberation of mankind and the expansion of political and civil rights. It is a story of the struggle of common people against aristocracy and wealth for basic rights and freedoms. It is a story that continues today.
In 1832, at the instigation of Lord Grey and the Whig Party (later called the Liberal Party), the English Parliament passed the first great Reform Bill under which it began the process of making Great Britain a true democracy. Up until then, the parliament was controlled by the nobility and wealthy landowners who decided who was going to represent the various counties and boroughs. Big cities often had only one or two representatives while tiny little (rotten) boroughs were able to send two representatives to Parliament. Only men were allowed to vote, and they were required to own a certain amount of land or have a certain amount of wealth. The vast majority of people had no voting rights. The First Reform Bill abolished many rotten boroughs, enfranchised new boroughs, and expanded the qualifications for voters.
In 1867, the English Parliament passed the Second Reform Act which enfranchised the urban working class of England and Wales. Once again the act was pressed by the Liberal Party, although it was allowed to pass by the Conservative Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli. Subsequent reform bills in 1884 and 1885 further expanded the British electorate and set that nation on the course of democracy as it exists today. All of these bills were fiercely opposed by conservatives, particularly the nobility who saw them as diluting their power and influence.
In 1964, at the powerful insistence of President Lyndon Johnson, the United States Senate passed the Civil Rights Act. Here, almost 100 years after the end of the Civil War, the Act extended voting rights of African Americans and outlawed racial segregation in schools, at the workplace, and in public accommodations. The bill was filibustered by the same backward, right-wing forces that filibustered today’s health care reform bill (only today those forces call themselves Republicans, not Democrats as they did back then). The leader of the Southern Senators who filibustered the Civil Rights bill was Senator Richard Russell, who said: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."
In 1965, the Democrats under Lyndon Johnson were able to pass the Medicare bill over the opposition of conservative Republicans. Ronald Reagan said: “[I]f you don’t [stop Medicare], and if I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.” George H.W. Bush described Medicare as “Socialized Medicine.” Barry Goldwater said: “Having given our pensioners their medical care in kind, why not food baskets, why not public housing accommodations, why not vacation resorts, why not a ration of cigarettes for those who smoke and of beer for those who drink.” Doesn’t this all sound a little bit like the arguments of Republicans against health care reform today?
On December 24, 2009, the United States Senate took a step in the reform of our health care system. The Democrats in that body based their support for the bill on the belief that decent health care is a right of all people, and not just a privilege. For millions of Americans who have no health insurance, for the over 12,000 who lose their insurance every day, for the 45,000 a year who die from lack of health insurance, that right is a matter of life or death.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Friday, December 25, 2009
Health Care Reform Right Away
In their fanatical efforts to stop the American people from getting low-cost, readily available health insurance, the Senate Republicans have resorted to many distortions of fact. One of them is that although the new taxes for wealthy people envisioned by the bill will take effect immediately, the benefits of health care reform will not begin until 2013. While it is true that some reforms will not take hold until 2013, there are a number of important benefits that will begin immediately when the bill that was supported by Senate is signed into law by President Obama
Senior citizens who are beneficiaries of the Medicare Part D drug program should be aware that the bill will immediately begin closing the “donut hole.” That is the period during which seniors have to pay the full cost of their prescriptions after they amass $2,700 in drug costs. After $2,700, Medicare does not resume paying for drug expenses until seniors reach $4,350 in out-of-pocket payments, a figure most seniors never reach in one year. The health care reform bill will immediately cut the donut hole by $500 and institute a 50 percent discount in brand-name drugs. It will eventually abolish the donut hole. For many seniors who simply cannot afford to buy their essential medications during the donut hole, that will be life saving.
The health care reform bill creates an insurance Exchange that begins in 2013 and will enable purchasers to search for the best and lowest-cost insurance. Until the Exchange is put in place, however, the bill will immediately create a temporary insurance program to help uninsured people or people who have been denied policies because of preexisting conditions.
The bill will immediately ban companies from placing lifetime caps on coverage, or (except in cases of fraud) rescinding a patient’s policy when he or she files a claim for benefits.
The bill will immediately allow displaced workers to keep their COBRA coverage until the Exchange is in place and they can access affordable coverage.
The bill immediately creates a long-term-care insurance program, financed by voluntary payroll deductions, to provide benefits to adults who become functionally disabled.
One of the problems that may arise when you add millions of new patients to the rolls of people who are covered by health insurance is that there will be insufficient numbers of doctors and health care workers to handle them. The health care reform bill provides immediate new massive investment in training programs to increase the number of primary care doctors, nurses, and public health professionals.
The bill will immediately require that health plans allow young people up to age 27 to remain on their parents’ insurance policies if their parents so choose.
The bill will immediately eliminate co-payments for preventative services and will exempt preventative services from deductibles under the Medicare program.
The bill will immediately provide protection in Medicare for low-income people in order to assure that more individuals are able to access Medicare assistance.
The bill will immediately prohibit Medicare Advantage (the private Medicare insurance program subsidized by the federal government) from charging enrollees higher cost-sharing for services in their private plan than is charged in traditional Medicare.
Insurance companies have threatened to raise premiums if the health care reform bill is passed. The bill will immediately take steps to discourage excessive price increases, including review and disclosure of insurance rates.
There are a number of other provisions of the bill that will take effect immediately. Perhaps that is the problem the Senate Republicans have with the bill. Their despicable masters in the health insurance industry are terrified that despite all of the millions they spent to grease the palms of Republican senators, this bill will begin to adversely affect their profits now. I hope it does.
Senior citizens who are beneficiaries of the Medicare Part D drug program should be aware that the bill will immediately begin closing the “donut hole.” That is the period during which seniors have to pay the full cost of their prescriptions after they amass $2,700 in drug costs. After $2,700, Medicare does not resume paying for drug expenses until seniors reach $4,350 in out-of-pocket payments, a figure most seniors never reach in one year. The health care reform bill will immediately cut the donut hole by $500 and institute a 50 percent discount in brand-name drugs. It will eventually abolish the donut hole. For many seniors who simply cannot afford to buy their essential medications during the donut hole, that will be life saving.
The health care reform bill creates an insurance Exchange that begins in 2013 and will enable purchasers to search for the best and lowest-cost insurance. Until the Exchange is put in place, however, the bill will immediately create a temporary insurance program to help uninsured people or people who have been denied policies because of preexisting conditions.
The bill will immediately ban companies from placing lifetime caps on coverage, or (except in cases of fraud) rescinding a patient’s policy when he or she files a claim for benefits.
The bill will immediately allow displaced workers to keep their COBRA coverage until the Exchange is in place and they can access affordable coverage.
The bill immediately creates a long-term-care insurance program, financed by voluntary payroll deductions, to provide benefits to adults who become functionally disabled.
One of the problems that may arise when you add millions of new patients to the rolls of people who are covered by health insurance is that there will be insufficient numbers of doctors and health care workers to handle them. The health care reform bill provides immediate new massive investment in training programs to increase the number of primary care doctors, nurses, and public health professionals.
The bill will immediately require that health plans allow young people up to age 27 to remain on their parents’ insurance policies if their parents so choose.
The bill will immediately eliminate co-payments for preventative services and will exempt preventative services from deductibles under the Medicare program.
The bill will immediately provide protection in Medicare for low-income people in order to assure that more individuals are able to access Medicare assistance.
The bill will immediately prohibit Medicare Advantage (the private Medicare insurance program subsidized by the federal government) from charging enrollees higher cost-sharing for services in their private plan than is charged in traditional Medicare.
Insurance companies have threatened to raise premiums if the health care reform bill is passed. The bill will immediately take steps to discourage excessive price increases, including review and disclosure of insurance rates.
There are a number of other provisions of the bill that will take effect immediately. Perhaps that is the problem the Senate Republicans have with the bill. Their despicable masters in the health insurance industry are terrified that despite all of the millions they spent to grease the palms of Republican senators, this bill will begin to adversely affect their profits now. I hope it does.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Populism and the Republicans
It has become customary for right-wing Republicans to assume the mantel of populism in their public pronouncements. Such people as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin have tapped-into the traditional resentment of less affluent, less educated, lower income people against those whom they perceive to be the elite, Eastern, intellectual liberals. The Republican senators in Congress are exploiting this anger in their opposition to the health care reform and other bills. Unfortunately for the rank-and-file Americans, this populist rhetoric is a cruel deception, and the Republicans are actually working against the interests of regular Joes.
The health care reform bill would dramatically lower the cost of health care for middle-class Americans, make it far more available to everybody, and guarantee them coverage no matter what their previous condition, current illness, or financial problems might be. It would immediately cut in-half the amount of the doughnut-hole for seniors on Medicare Part D and make medications far more affordable. It would cover all kinds of screening tests for a wide range of medical conditions. Despite this, and many other advantages for ordinary Americans, right-wing news people and Republican politicians have succeeded in encouraging many middle class Americans to cry-out against health care reform and against their own best interests.
The Republicans in Congress are not acting on behalf of ordinary Americans. They are acting on behalf of the fabulously wealthy health insurance industry which has contributed lavishly to their coffers, and on behalf of the fabulously wealthy American fat-cats who do not want to pay even the small amount of additional taxes they will incur for health care reform.
This pandering to working class resentment has been the program of the congressional Republicans for some time now. They complain loudly about the increases in taxes that health care reform will cause even though they know that the only rise in taxes will be for the wealthiest Americans. There will be no increase in taxes for middle class Americans. Congressional Republicans complain because their real constituency is not ordinary people, but rich people. It is wealthy companies and rich people that supply them with huge amounts of money, not ordinary people.
The Republicans scream about our country incurring deficits and burdening our children with debt even though the Congressional Budget Office says that the health care reform bill will actually lower the deficit. Republicans denounce the fact that the Democrats plan to allow the Bush tax cuts for the rich to expire. The additional taxes to be paid by the wealthiest Americans will help defray the deficits.
One particularly obnoxious bit of populist rhetoric has been the hypocritical claim of senate Republicans that the health care reform bill will be taking money away from Medicare. These politicians care nothing about Medicare. They have tried to abolish it and replace it with private insurance. They know that under the health care reform bill there will be no reduction in Medicare benefits. What they have tried to rescue is the extremely wasteful Medicare Advantage (MA) program, a private insurance program subsidized by the federal government. MA is very profitable for the private health insurance industry, and that is why the Republican senators sought to preserve the government subsidies. It had nothing to do with helping Medicare recipients. Those on MA will lose nothing if it folds. They will be able to go on regular Medicare and obtain the additional services provided by MA for less money than they are now paying for MA.
Republican politicians always clothe their hypocrisies in the garb of populism, but when they oppose climate legislation, unions, minimum wages, unemployment benefits, stock market regulation, and health care reform, it is not because of concern for ordinary people. It is, rather, solicitude for big business, oil companies, big Wall Street brokerages, and health insurance companies.
The health care reform bill would dramatically lower the cost of health care for middle-class Americans, make it far more available to everybody, and guarantee them coverage no matter what their previous condition, current illness, or financial problems might be. It would immediately cut in-half the amount of the doughnut-hole for seniors on Medicare Part D and make medications far more affordable. It would cover all kinds of screening tests for a wide range of medical conditions. Despite this, and many other advantages for ordinary Americans, right-wing news people and Republican politicians have succeeded in encouraging many middle class Americans to cry-out against health care reform and against their own best interests.
The Republicans in Congress are not acting on behalf of ordinary Americans. They are acting on behalf of the fabulously wealthy health insurance industry which has contributed lavishly to their coffers, and on behalf of the fabulously wealthy American fat-cats who do not want to pay even the small amount of additional taxes they will incur for health care reform.
This pandering to working class resentment has been the program of the congressional Republicans for some time now. They complain loudly about the increases in taxes that health care reform will cause even though they know that the only rise in taxes will be for the wealthiest Americans. There will be no increase in taxes for middle class Americans. Congressional Republicans complain because their real constituency is not ordinary people, but rich people. It is wealthy companies and rich people that supply them with huge amounts of money, not ordinary people.
The Republicans scream about our country incurring deficits and burdening our children with debt even though the Congressional Budget Office says that the health care reform bill will actually lower the deficit. Republicans denounce the fact that the Democrats plan to allow the Bush tax cuts for the rich to expire. The additional taxes to be paid by the wealthiest Americans will help defray the deficits.
One particularly obnoxious bit of populist rhetoric has been the hypocritical claim of senate Republicans that the health care reform bill will be taking money away from Medicare. These politicians care nothing about Medicare. They have tried to abolish it and replace it with private insurance. They know that under the health care reform bill there will be no reduction in Medicare benefits. What they have tried to rescue is the extremely wasteful Medicare Advantage (MA) program, a private insurance program subsidized by the federal government. MA is very profitable for the private health insurance industry, and that is why the Republican senators sought to preserve the government subsidies. It had nothing to do with helping Medicare recipients. Those on MA will lose nothing if it folds. They will be able to go on regular Medicare and obtain the additional services provided by MA for less money than they are now paying for MA.
Republican politicians always clothe their hypocrisies in the garb of populism, but when they oppose climate legislation, unions, minimum wages, unemployment benefits, stock market regulation, and health care reform, it is not because of concern for ordinary people. It is, rather, solicitude for big business, oil companies, big Wall Street brokerages, and health insurance companies.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Afghanistan
After dithering in Afghanistan for over eight years, during which Dick Cheney and his assistant, George W. Bush, denied the necessary forces to achieve progress there, and during which they negligently let Osama bin Laden escape capture in Tora Bora, Cheney had the effrontery to criticize President Obama for carefully reviewing the strategic situation before ordering 30,000 additional troops to the area.
Instead of concentrating on Afghanistan where al Qaeda and the Taliban were located, the Cheney/Bush Administration attacked Iraq, where there were no al Qaeda, no Taliban, no Osama bin Laden, and no weapons of mass destruction. It was like the embarrassment of a police drug squad that mistakenly raids the wrong house only to find nothing there and to learn that the actual drug house is next door.
During the 2008 election campaign, Barack Obama claimed that we should get out of Iraq and concentrate on our real enemies in Afghanistan. His decision to augment troop levels in that country is consistent with his campaign rhetoric. Any delay in making a decision pales in comparison with the eight-year delay of the Cheney/Bush ditherers.
Contrary to the whining of Dick Cheney, President Obama acted within the framework of time suggested by the commanders on the ground. On December 1, 2009, in his speech at West Point, the President said: “Let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war.” The President assured the nation that “The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 — the fastest pace possible — so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers.”
The President also responded to the claims that we are escalating the fight in the same manner as was done in Viet Nam. He said: “Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border.”
The President could have added that this war in Afghanistan is completely unlike the Cheney/Bush war in Iraq. America was not attacked by Iraq. In fact, even under the vicious dictator Saddam Hussein, America was never in danger of attack by Iraq. Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. The only reason we attacked Iraq was the bellicosity of Dick Cheney, the thirst for Iraqi oil, and the embarrassment of George W. Bush at his father’s failure to eliminate Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War.
President Obama has described an exit strategy for this nasty conflict in Afghanistan, something that was not done by Cheney and Bush in Iraq for over seven years. He will come under criticism by the Republicans for doing so. He has made clear, however, that getting our forces out of Afghanistan by 2011 will not be an abrupt abandonment of the people of Afghanistan: “Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground.”
The political Left will oppose the President’s plan, but I feel that his steps are necessary to protect America. I hate war of any kind. It is a monument to humanity’s failure to evolve from the instincts of lower animals. But we do not live in an ideal world. Some barbaric people in this world think that God wants them to fly airplanes into large structures and slaughter thousands of people. We must resist and fight such people, or surrender our civilization to the forces of chaos.
Instead of concentrating on Afghanistan where al Qaeda and the Taliban were located, the Cheney/Bush Administration attacked Iraq, where there were no al Qaeda, no Taliban, no Osama bin Laden, and no weapons of mass destruction. It was like the embarrassment of a police drug squad that mistakenly raids the wrong house only to find nothing there and to learn that the actual drug house is next door.
During the 2008 election campaign, Barack Obama claimed that we should get out of Iraq and concentrate on our real enemies in Afghanistan. His decision to augment troop levels in that country is consistent with his campaign rhetoric. Any delay in making a decision pales in comparison with the eight-year delay of the Cheney/Bush ditherers.
Contrary to the whining of Dick Cheney, President Obama acted within the framework of time suggested by the commanders on the ground. On December 1, 2009, in his speech at West Point, the President said: “Let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war.” The President assured the nation that “The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 — the fastest pace possible — so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers.”
The President also responded to the claims that we are escalating the fight in the same manner as was done in Viet Nam. He said: “Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border.”
The President could have added that this war in Afghanistan is completely unlike the Cheney/Bush war in Iraq. America was not attacked by Iraq. In fact, even under the vicious dictator Saddam Hussein, America was never in danger of attack by Iraq. Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. The only reason we attacked Iraq was the bellicosity of Dick Cheney, the thirst for Iraqi oil, and the embarrassment of George W. Bush at his father’s failure to eliminate Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War.
President Obama has described an exit strategy for this nasty conflict in Afghanistan, something that was not done by Cheney and Bush in Iraq for over seven years. He will come under criticism by the Republicans for doing so. He has made clear, however, that getting our forces out of Afghanistan by 2011 will not be an abrupt abandonment of the people of Afghanistan: “Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground.”
The political Left will oppose the President’s plan, but I feel that his steps are necessary to protect America. I hate war of any kind. It is a monument to humanity’s failure to evolve from the instincts of lower animals. But we do not live in an ideal world. Some barbaric people in this world think that God wants them to fly airplanes into large structures and slaughter thousands of people. We must resist and fight such people, or surrender our civilization to the forces of chaos.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Libertarianism
The phenomenon of Libertarianism is gaining some currency among right-wing conservatives due in part to the 2008 candidacy for president of Ron Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas. Paul was a candidate for president on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1988. The official candidate of the Libertarian Party in 2008 was the battered and discredited old hypocritical hack, Bob Barr, former congressman from Georgia.
In spite of fact that some libertarians oppose drug laws, right-to-life laws, and laws banning same-sex marriage, one should not confuse libertarianism with liberalism or with the ideology of the American Civil Liberties Union. Libertarians also oppose gun control, social programs, and most regulation of business. Their philosophy is widely embraced by elements of the tax resister movement, militias, the NRA, and motorcycle gangs.
It is difficult to describe the philosophy of Libertarianism because there are a number of different types of libertarians. Most libertarians believe that any restraint of liberty by government is improper, illegal, and unconstitutional. Libertarians believe in an absolute right to private property and that the owner of private property cannot be forced by government to in any way relinquish total control over that property.
That idea of economic liberty is reflected in the Libertarian Party Platform which states: “We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade.”
Unlike conservative Republicans who would reduce taxes, the Libertarian Party Platform says: “We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution.”
Although Ronald Reagan made libertarian noises when he declared that “Government is the problem, not the solution,” he did nothing to dismantle the elaborate structure of the federal government that had grown-up over the decades. Conservative Republicans like to proclaim the virtues of smaller government, but during the eight years of Bush rule they did nothing to advance that idea. Republican conservatism is something very different from Libertarianism.
One source of libertarian ideas is the philosophy of the late novelist, playwright, and screen-writer, Ayn Rand (pronounced ‘ain ‘raend), born in Russia under the name Alisa Rosenbaum. She wrote several novels, including “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.” I read her books many years ago and found them to be mediocre literature and sophomoric philosophy--a judgment shared by most literary critics. Nevertheless, many college students are impressed by her political views which emphasize independence (from parents?), individual rights, limited government, and laissez-faire capitalism. One biographer recently dubbed her books: “part of the underground curriculum of American adolescence.” In her novels, the heroes, such as John Galt and Howard Roark, are independent-minded capitalists fighting against insipid, weak-kneed do-gooders.
To Ayn Rand, the cause of much of the evil in the world is “Altruism.” Rand said: “Even though altruism declares that ‘it is more blessed to give than to receive,’ it does not work that way in practice. The givers are never blessed; the more they give, the more is demanded of them.” Rand’s philosophy leaned toward that of the German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, even though she later repudiated him. Like Nietzsche, she was an atheist who rejected Judeo-Christian ethics which hold charity and altruism as the highest virtues. Rand held that the only moral social system is laissez-faire capitalism.
Unfortunately for Libertarians, Ayn Rand was not a very profound thinker. I found her to be shallow and, at times, silly. Western civilization has long recognized altruism, selflessness, and charity as noble qualities that enrich society and separate us from the animals.
When the Congress passed a law giving the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority to regulate the tobacco industry, Libertarian/Republican Congressman Ron Paul was the leading critic denouncing the law. That kind of law is abhorrent to Libertarians. To them, if people want to smoke and contract cancer, that is their right, and government has no business deciding what is best for people’s health.
On the theory that government is the problem and not the solution, Libertarians would abolish many of the programs that define American civilization. They would eradicate Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. They would block our current efforts to reduce global warming, reform health care, and regulate the food, pharmaceutical, energy, and other industries. They seem to be saying that government has no role in the advancement of human welfare or the alleviation of human suffering.
They oppose laws regulating the usury of payday loan and credit card companies. They oppose laws against false advertising. They oppose antitrust laws and laws controlling the prices that may be charged by public utilities. They oppose federal regulation of commerce, agriculture, labor, energy, housing, urban development, the environment, trade, health, transportation, and the airways.
They would, no doubt, abolish the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve Bank, the Federal Trade Commission, and all other governmental agencies that control the marketplace. They believe, as Michael Douglas said in the movie “Wall Street,” that “Greed is good.” They think that by doing away with all governmental regulatory agencies, they would free superior men to act creatively in the marketplace. Perhaps so, but they would also free the likes of Bernard Madoff, Michael Milkin, Ivan Boesky, Kenneth Kozlowski, Charles Keating, Bernard Ebbers, and R. Allen Stanford to engage in massive fraud, Ponzi schemes, pyramid schemes, and insider trading. To the Libertarian laissez faire capitalists, it is buyer beware no matter how crooked the seller.
There is an essential and dangerous error at the core of Libertarian philosophy.
They assume that if brilliant men are left alone to pursue their goals, they will accomplish great things and, in the process, benefit mankind. Now I recognize that great men have produced great advances in industry, and that they have often produced great wealth and jobs. However, there is a downside to the strivings of powerful men. Such men have often used their power to aggrandize themselves at the expense of their fellow men. They have promoted their commerce at the expense of slave labor, exploitation of workers, devastation of the environment, destruction of competition, and the promotion of dangerous, unsafe, and poisonous products.
I suppose that if you do not believe in altruism, you would have had no problem operating the IG Farben plant at Auschwitz concentration camp. IG Farben built a factory (named Buna Chemical Plant) for producing synthetic oil and rubber (from coal) in Auschwitz during the Nazi Holocaust. At its peak in 1944, this factory made use of 83,000 slave laborers. Many thousands of those laborers were annihilated in the gas chambers and ovens of Auschwitz. Someone with altruism, like Oskar Schindler, might have tried to ameliorate the conditions of those murdered masses, but not some laissez faire capitalist seeking only profit.
There are two sides to mankind. We are capable of great goodness and generosity as well as great evil. Government exists to promote civilization. Without government, we would have no civilization. Life would be as it was before civilization, when the condition of man was, as Thomas Hobbs described it: “a condition of war of everyone against everyone” and life was “nasty, brutish, and short.”
In spite of fact that some libertarians oppose drug laws, right-to-life laws, and laws banning same-sex marriage, one should not confuse libertarianism with liberalism or with the ideology of the American Civil Liberties Union. Libertarians also oppose gun control, social programs, and most regulation of business. Their philosophy is widely embraced by elements of the tax resister movement, militias, the NRA, and motorcycle gangs.
It is difficult to describe the philosophy of Libertarianism because there are a number of different types of libertarians. Most libertarians believe that any restraint of liberty by government is improper, illegal, and unconstitutional. Libertarians believe in an absolute right to private property and that the owner of private property cannot be forced by government to in any way relinquish total control over that property.
That idea of economic liberty is reflected in the Libertarian Party Platform which states: “We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade.”
Unlike conservative Republicans who would reduce taxes, the Libertarian Party Platform says: “We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution.”
Although Ronald Reagan made libertarian noises when he declared that “Government is the problem, not the solution,” he did nothing to dismantle the elaborate structure of the federal government that had grown-up over the decades. Conservative Republicans like to proclaim the virtues of smaller government, but during the eight years of Bush rule they did nothing to advance that idea. Republican conservatism is something very different from Libertarianism.
One source of libertarian ideas is the philosophy of the late novelist, playwright, and screen-writer, Ayn Rand (pronounced ‘ain ‘raend), born in Russia under the name Alisa Rosenbaum. She wrote several novels, including “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.” I read her books many years ago and found them to be mediocre literature and sophomoric philosophy--a judgment shared by most literary critics. Nevertheless, many college students are impressed by her political views which emphasize independence (from parents?), individual rights, limited government, and laissez-faire capitalism. One biographer recently dubbed her books: “part of the underground curriculum of American adolescence.” In her novels, the heroes, such as John Galt and Howard Roark, are independent-minded capitalists fighting against insipid, weak-kneed do-gooders.
To Ayn Rand, the cause of much of the evil in the world is “Altruism.” Rand said: “Even though altruism declares that ‘it is more blessed to give than to receive,’ it does not work that way in practice. The givers are never blessed; the more they give, the more is demanded of them.” Rand’s philosophy leaned toward that of the German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, even though she later repudiated him. Like Nietzsche, she was an atheist who rejected Judeo-Christian ethics which hold charity and altruism as the highest virtues. Rand held that the only moral social system is laissez-faire capitalism.
Unfortunately for Libertarians, Ayn Rand was not a very profound thinker. I found her to be shallow and, at times, silly. Western civilization has long recognized altruism, selflessness, and charity as noble qualities that enrich society and separate us from the animals.
When the Congress passed a law giving the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority to regulate the tobacco industry, Libertarian/Republican Congressman Ron Paul was the leading critic denouncing the law. That kind of law is abhorrent to Libertarians. To them, if people want to smoke and contract cancer, that is their right, and government has no business deciding what is best for people’s health.
On the theory that government is the problem and not the solution, Libertarians would abolish many of the programs that define American civilization. They would eradicate Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. They would block our current efforts to reduce global warming, reform health care, and regulate the food, pharmaceutical, energy, and other industries. They seem to be saying that government has no role in the advancement of human welfare or the alleviation of human suffering.
They oppose laws regulating the usury of payday loan and credit card companies. They oppose laws against false advertising. They oppose antitrust laws and laws controlling the prices that may be charged by public utilities. They oppose federal regulation of commerce, agriculture, labor, energy, housing, urban development, the environment, trade, health, transportation, and the airways.
They would, no doubt, abolish the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve Bank, the Federal Trade Commission, and all other governmental agencies that control the marketplace. They believe, as Michael Douglas said in the movie “Wall Street,” that “Greed is good.” They think that by doing away with all governmental regulatory agencies, they would free superior men to act creatively in the marketplace. Perhaps so, but they would also free the likes of Bernard Madoff, Michael Milkin, Ivan Boesky, Kenneth Kozlowski, Charles Keating, Bernard Ebbers, and R. Allen Stanford to engage in massive fraud, Ponzi schemes, pyramid schemes, and insider trading. To the Libertarian laissez faire capitalists, it is buyer beware no matter how crooked the seller.
There is an essential and dangerous error at the core of Libertarian philosophy.
They assume that if brilliant men are left alone to pursue their goals, they will accomplish great things and, in the process, benefit mankind. Now I recognize that great men have produced great advances in industry, and that they have often produced great wealth and jobs. However, there is a downside to the strivings of powerful men. Such men have often used their power to aggrandize themselves at the expense of their fellow men. They have promoted their commerce at the expense of slave labor, exploitation of workers, devastation of the environment, destruction of competition, and the promotion of dangerous, unsafe, and poisonous products.
I suppose that if you do not believe in altruism, you would have had no problem operating the IG Farben plant at Auschwitz concentration camp. IG Farben built a factory (named Buna Chemical Plant) for producing synthetic oil and rubber (from coal) in Auschwitz during the Nazi Holocaust. At its peak in 1944, this factory made use of 83,000 slave laborers. Many thousands of those laborers were annihilated in the gas chambers and ovens of Auschwitz. Someone with altruism, like Oskar Schindler, might have tried to ameliorate the conditions of those murdered masses, but not some laissez faire capitalist seeking only profit.
There are two sides to mankind. We are capable of great goodness and generosity as well as great evil. Government exists to promote civilization. Without government, we would have no civilization. Life would be as it was before civilization, when the condition of man was, as Thomas Hobbs described it: “a condition of war of everyone against everyone” and life was “nasty, brutish, and short.”
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Accomplishments of the Obama Administration
There was a funny skit on Saturday Night Live in which a performer who resembles President Obama recited programs promised during the election campaign and then, one-by-one, said something like “that hasn’t happened.” Republicans have been making the same point, but, of course, without any humor. It is with ill grace that a party that has filibustered almost every initiative introduced by the President in Congress, now complains that many of the initiatives have not been enacted.
The Obama Administration has, as I said in my last commentary, saved this country from total financial collapse. The Republicans in Congress could not care less. Their aim is not the economic recovery of their country, but rather, regaining control of Congress and the White House. Some right-wing Republicans, like that buffoon Rush Limbaugh, would actually welcome the failure of our economy.
Many people who do not understand the financial basis of the American Economy are critical of the large amounts of money spent to bail-out the banks and Wall Street financial institutions. Those bail-outs were actually begun under the Bush Administration, which deserves credit for creating the TARP program and supplying needed funds to keep the financial institutions going. This effort was furthered by the Obama Administration with the approval of all major economic experts in America. If it had not been done, American would be an economic wasteland today.
Promptly after his inauguration, President Obama secured enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, better known as the “Stimulus Bill.” It is thanks in part to this bill, and its effect of creating or saving over 640,000 jobs, that the recession is now ending and our economy is returning to robust activity.
There have been many other accomplishments. On January 29, 2009, the President signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act which reversed an obnoxious Supreme Court decision and made it possible for working women to bring suit for long-standing pay discrimination.
On February 4, 2009, the President signed the Children’s Health Reauthorization Act which reinstituted a program providing health insurance for millions of children from lower-income families.
On May 20, 2009, the President signed the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act and the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery act, two pieces of legislation intended to ameliorate the effect of massive foreclosures around the country. The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act gives the federal government tools to crack-down on the kind of fraud that put thousands of hardworking families at risk of losing their homes despite doing everything right to live within their means.
On May 22, 2009, the President signed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act of 2009. Congress has taken action to move-up the effective date of this law due to the fact that the banks have tried to avoid it by hastily raising interest charges.
Among other major legislative accomplishments of the Obama Administration there are the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act, the Cash for Clunkers Act, extensions of the Unemployment Insurance Program, The Hate Crimes Bill, and the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010 (in which the President was able to cancel a number of programs and weapons systems unwanted by the Pentagon).
Aside from these and many other items of legislation, the President has accomplished a great deal by means of executive orders, including the outlaw of torture, the requirement that the federal government invest in energy efficiency, reversal of the Mexico City Policy, and reversal of many of Bush’s executive orders including one permitting a claim after an administration ends of executive privilege for presidential records. President Obama’s initiatives in foreign affairs have improved the standing of America throughout the world and earned him the Nobel Peace Prize.
If you think that the Obama Administration has no important accomplishments, think again.
The Obama Administration has, as I said in my last commentary, saved this country from total financial collapse. The Republicans in Congress could not care less. Their aim is not the economic recovery of their country, but rather, regaining control of Congress and the White House. Some right-wing Republicans, like that buffoon Rush Limbaugh, would actually welcome the failure of our economy.
Many people who do not understand the financial basis of the American Economy are critical of the large amounts of money spent to bail-out the banks and Wall Street financial institutions. Those bail-outs were actually begun under the Bush Administration, which deserves credit for creating the TARP program and supplying needed funds to keep the financial institutions going. This effort was furthered by the Obama Administration with the approval of all major economic experts in America. If it had not been done, American would be an economic wasteland today.
Promptly after his inauguration, President Obama secured enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, better known as the “Stimulus Bill.” It is thanks in part to this bill, and its effect of creating or saving over 640,000 jobs, that the recession is now ending and our economy is returning to robust activity.
There have been many other accomplishments. On January 29, 2009, the President signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act which reversed an obnoxious Supreme Court decision and made it possible for working women to bring suit for long-standing pay discrimination.
On February 4, 2009, the President signed the Children’s Health Reauthorization Act which reinstituted a program providing health insurance for millions of children from lower-income families.
On May 20, 2009, the President signed the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act and the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery act, two pieces of legislation intended to ameliorate the effect of massive foreclosures around the country. The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act gives the federal government tools to crack-down on the kind of fraud that put thousands of hardworking families at risk of losing their homes despite doing everything right to live within their means.
On May 22, 2009, the President signed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act of 2009. Congress has taken action to move-up the effective date of this law due to the fact that the banks have tried to avoid it by hastily raising interest charges.
Among other major legislative accomplishments of the Obama Administration there are the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act, the Cash for Clunkers Act, extensions of the Unemployment Insurance Program, The Hate Crimes Bill, and the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010 (in which the President was able to cancel a number of programs and weapons systems unwanted by the Pentagon).
Aside from these and many other items of legislation, the President has accomplished a great deal by means of executive orders, including the outlaw of torture, the requirement that the federal government invest in energy efficiency, reversal of the Mexico City Policy, and reversal of many of Bush’s executive orders including one permitting a claim after an administration ends of executive privilege for presidential records. President Obama’s initiatives in foreign affairs have improved the standing of America throughout the world and earned him the Nobel Peace Prize.
If you think that the Obama Administration has no important accomplishments, think again.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
The Economy?
To my astonishment, one of the factors given for the Democratic losses in the November 3rd election of Republicans to the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey was the poor state of the economy. In surveys taken at polling places, 85 percent of voters in Virginia and 89 percent of voters in New Jersey said that they were worried about the economy. Apparently the high rate of unemployment is being blamed by some on President Obama, who has been in office for 10 months. It seems that people, egged-on by Republican leaders, blame the incumbents in office for the state of the economy even if it is not their fault. Moreover, Republican spin-doctors have tried to make the governors races a referendum, in part, on President Obama’s handling of the economy.
Let’s get a few things straight. President Obama inherited a disastrous recession from George W. Bush and the Republicans. The recession was largely the result of the Republican repeal of laws and regulations that would have prevented much of the predatory lending and Wall Street manipulation of derivatives that led to a national financial meltdown. The recession began in December, 2007, and by the time Obama was inaugurated in January, 2009, it was in full-swing. At its low point, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 6347. As of November 6, 2009, it stood at over 10,000. In January, 2009, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was down -6.2 percent. As of September, 2009, it was up +3.6 percent. That’s a 9.8 percent improvement in the GDP in just 9 months.
When President Obama took-over the government, America’s major banks and financial institutions were on the verge of total collapse. Such a collapse would have plunged this nation into depression and chaos. Over the objections of congressional Republicans, the President and his economic team were able to rescue the financial segment of our economy with TARP and other funds and were able to stem the tide of economic disaster with a major stimulus bill.
Those who accuse the Obama Administration of doing nothing should stop and think. All they have done to date is save this country from utter financial devastation. If you think we have high unemployment now, imagine what it would be like in a real depression. During the great depression of the 1930’s it was as much as 25 percent.
As of October, 2009, the stimulus had created or saved over 640,000 jobs. The U.S. manufacturing sector grew in August for the first time in 19 months. It continued to grow in September and October. According The Institute for Supply Management in its monthly Report on Business, the US manufacturing industry is hiring more aggressively than at any time since 2006. The Institute’s index for employment increased by 6.9 percentage points in October, 2009.
On November 2, 2009, The National Association of Realtors said pending home sales rose again, marking eight consecutive monthly gains – the longest streak since measurement began in 2001.
October, 2009, was far and away the best month American retailers have had since consumers put the brakes on spending last autumn. Major categories had robust sales growth for the first time in more than a year. In October, 2009, apparel sales increased 3.4 percent compared with the same period a year ago, luxury goods rose 6.5 percent, and jewelry increased 7.2 percent.
Despite the fact that there is still high unemployment, most leading economists have declared the recession to be over. It will take time to get back the jobs that were lost during the Bush recession, but they will come back—perhaps slowly. The absence of a genuine depression and the continued improvement in the economy is thanks to the steps taken by the Obama Administration and opposed by the Republicans.
Let’s get a few things straight. President Obama inherited a disastrous recession from George W. Bush and the Republicans. The recession was largely the result of the Republican repeal of laws and regulations that would have prevented much of the predatory lending and Wall Street manipulation of derivatives that led to a national financial meltdown. The recession began in December, 2007, and by the time Obama was inaugurated in January, 2009, it was in full-swing. At its low point, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 6347. As of November 6, 2009, it stood at over 10,000. In January, 2009, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was down -6.2 percent. As of September, 2009, it was up +3.6 percent. That’s a 9.8 percent improvement in the GDP in just 9 months.
When President Obama took-over the government, America’s major banks and financial institutions were on the verge of total collapse. Such a collapse would have plunged this nation into depression and chaos. Over the objections of congressional Republicans, the President and his economic team were able to rescue the financial segment of our economy with TARP and other funds and were able to stem the tide of economic disaster with a major stimulus bill.
Those who accuse the Obama Administration of doing nothing should stop and think. All they have done to date is save this country from utter financial devastation. If you think we have high unemployment now, imagine what it would be like in a real depression. During the great depression of the 1930’s it was as much as 25 percent.
As of October, 2009, the stimulus had created or saved over 640,000 jobs. The U.S. manufacturing sector grew in August for the first time in 19 months. It continued to grow in September and October. According The Institute for Supply Management in its monthly Report on Business, the US manufacturing industry is hiring more aggressively than at any time since 2006. The Institute’s index for employment increased by 6.9 percentage points in October, 2009.
On November 2, 2009, The National Association of Realtors said pending home sales rose again, marking eight consecutive monthly gains – the longest streak since measurement began in 2001.
October, 2009, was far and away the best month American retailers have had since consumers put the brakes on spending last autumn. Major categories had robust sales growth for the first time in more than a year. In October, 2009, apparel sales increased 3.4 percent compared with the same period a year ago, luxury goods rose 6.5 percent, and jewelry increased 7.2 percent.
Despite the fact that there is still high unemployment, most leading economists have declared the recession to be over. It will take time to get back the jobs that were lost during the Bush recession, but they will come back—perhaps slowly. The absence of a genuine depression and the continued improvement in the economy is thanks to the steps taken by the Obama Administration and opposed by the Republicans.
Monday, November 9, 2009
More on Intelligence, Education, and Elitism
A recent letter to the editor reminded me that there are still morons out there writing letters to the editor. Some letters are so illiterate you would think that the writers would be ashamed to send them in. This one was full of grammatical errors, but I will not repeat them all. The writer referred to my column as being filled with "miss-information," which I assume is information for unmarried women. The writer has no clue as to how to punctuate, constantly leaving his commas outside the quotation marks, and referring to me as "one of the 'State Controlled Media' wannabe's'." This moron has written many letters to the editor, and each one is filled with grammatical errors. He displays his ignorance without realizing that educated people are aware of his inability to write in the english language.
When I wrote a column discussing the lack of education found in conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck, and compared it with the educational accomplishments of liberal news people, the letters poured in calling me an “elitist.” I also contrasted the low educational achievements of Bush Administration officials with the extraordinary accomplishments of President Obama and his team. This seemed to outrage the right-wing people who responded to my column by saying that we would be far better-off in Washington with less educated people.
It seems that there is a kind of class hatred by conservatives toward liberals and toward the generally higher level of liberals’ education. Conservatives feel that they are looked down upon by more intellectual liberals. It is not unlike the deep resentment felt by lower class people toward wealthy and sophisticated people. That kind of resentment has fueled violent revolutions.
I probably am an elitist. I believe that when it comes to news commentators, the truth is more likely to be heard from highly educated people than from uneducated people. I believe that the best people to run a government are the most highly educated and intelligent people. I simply cannot understand people’s claim that we need uneducated people running this country. When G. Harrold Carswell was nominated by President Nixon to the Supreme Court, Democrats charged that he was a mediocre judge. In defense, Senator Hruska of Nebraska said: "Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance.” I don’t know if he was kidding or not.
The last thing you want on the Supreme Court is a mediocre judge. The most important attribute of any Supreme Court justice must be intelligence. If I am an elitist because I want my Supreme Court justices to be highly educated intellectuals, so be it. The same applies to the President and his Administration. I want the very brightest people running the country. If this is discrimination against not-so-bright people, so be it. I realize that highly educated people can make major mistakes. A good example would be the list of mistakes involving Viet Nam described in "The Best and The Brightest" by David Halberstam. I realize that all governments make mistakes, but I want those decisions being made by educated and intelligent people, not dunderheads.
I am firmly convinced that there is a wide gap in education and intelligence between liberals and conservatives. This is proven not only by the difference between liberal and conservative media commentators and the difference between liberal and conservative governmental officials, but also by the people one meets everyday. I realize that many poor minority people can be considered liberal, and that many of them do not have extensive education, but when I speak of liberals and conservatives, I am speaking of the middle and upper-class people of all races who do not suffer from the obstacles that confront the poor people.
My thesis is proven by the letters to the editor opposing my columns. It is surprising that people writing to the editor are willing to have such illiterate letters published for all the public to see. The letters are not only substantively stupid, but are filled with grammatical and spelling errors. In some cases it is almost as if the writer was a secret liberal trying to make conservative letter-writers look foolish.
The same letter-writer that I referred to above was incensed that I dared to criticize the far right-wing organizations like the Ku Klux Klan. He started a sentence, “The vitrol language you have used…” The remainder of his letter is long, ungrammatical, and unintelligible. His other letters are equally dumb. Another letter-writer penned the following brilliant remark about me: “It’s not hard to see nor read he truly doesn’t know what he is talking about nor does he speak for Americans.” The same writer recently wrote, and repeated, that President Barack Obama is a “Muslin.” I suggested to the editor of the paper that perhaps we should call President Obama the “Commander in sheets.”
I also notice that even the letters that are not illiterate show a high degree of stupidity. It is as if such writers did not actually read my column and are responding to some other commentary. I wrote a column carefully examining why some female voters who had supported Hillary Clinton refused to vote for Barack Obama, and suggested that some, not all, might be doing so because of racism. One writer complained that I was painting all people who switched from Clinton to John McCain as racists. In my column I had gone out of my way to say the opposite. In another column I expressed concern that vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin had once called the head librarian in town to inquire about censoring some books. I was careful to note that no books were actually removed. Nevertheless, one writer complained that I had accused Palin of book-burning. This kind of thing has happened repeatedly.
I recently wrote a column describing the stupidity of ultra right-wing organizations like the Ku Klux Klan. I did so hoping to draw some Klan sympathizers out of the woodwork. One of my frequent critics took the bait and wrote a letter to the editor in which he accused me of “defiling” myself. I assume that, unless he is a secret liberal trying to make conservatives look like idiots, he is a Klan or militia sympathizer. He has now walked into my trap and exposed his true beliefs for everybody to see.
I have noticed that southwest Ohio is heavily populated by far right-wing types. I assume that somehow, large numbers of Southern rednecks came up from the South and settled in this area. These are the least educated Americans. They are the most conservative, and in many cases, their conservatism spills over into extremism. When I use the term “redneck,” they complain because they identify with that term. They are proud to be gun-toting, rebel-flag-waving, Klan sympathizing, bigoted, uneducated, ignorant, repulsive rednecks. They know that they can never be intellectuals, so they wallow in their own ignorance.
When I wrote a column discussing the lack of education found in conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck, and compared it with the educational accomplishments of liberal news people, the letters poured in calling me an “elitist.” I also contrasted the low educational achievements of Bush Administration officials with the extraordinary accomplishments of President Obama and his team. This seemed to outrage the right-wing people who responded to my column by saying that we would be far better-off in Washington with less educated people.
It seems that there is a kind of class hatred by conservatives toward liberals and toward the generally higher level of liberals’ education. Conservatives feel that they are looked down upon by more intellectual liberals. It is not unlike the deep resentment felt by lower class people toward wealthy and sophisticated people. That kind of resentment has fueled violent revolutions.
I probably am an elitist. I believe that when it comes to news commentators, the truth is more likely to be heard from highly educated people than from uneducated people. I believe that the best people to run a government are the most highly educated and intelligent people. I simply cannot understand people’s claim that we need uneducated people running this country. When G. Harrold Carswell was nominated by President Nixon to the Supreme Court, Democrats charged that he was a mediocre judge. In defense, Senator Hruska of Nebraska said: "Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance.” I don’t know if he was kidding or not.
The last thing you want on the Supreme Court is a mediocre judge. The most important attribute of any Supreme Court justice must be intelligence. If I am an elitist because I want my Supreme Court justices to be highly educated intellectuals, so be it. The same applies to the President and his Administration. I want the very brightest people running the country. If this is discrimination against not-so-bright people, so be it. I realize that highly educated people can make major mistakes. A good example would be the list of mistakes involving Viet Nam described in "The Best and The Brightest" by David Halberstam. I realize that all governments make mistakes, but I want those decisions being made by educated and intelligent people, not dunderheads.
I am firmly convinced that there is a wide gap in education and intelligence between liberals and conservatives. This is proven not only by the difference between liberal and conservative media commentators and the difference between liberal and conservative governmental officials, but also by the people one meets everyday. I realize that many poor minority people can be considered liberal, and that many of them do not have extensive education, but when I speak of liberals and conservatives, I am speaking of the middle and upper-class people of all races who do not suffer from the obstacles that confront the poor people.
My thesis is proven by the letters to the editor opposing my columns. It is surprising that people writing to the editor are willing to have such illiterate letters published for all the public to see. The letters are not only substantively stupid, but are filled with grammatical and spelling errors. In some cases it is almost as if the writer was a secret liberal trying to make conservative letter-writers look foolish.
The same letter-writer that I referred to above was incensed that I dared to criticize the far right-wing organizations like the Ku Klux Klan. He started a sentence, “The vitrol language you have used…” The remainder of his letter is long, ungrammatical, and unintelligible. His other letters are equally dumb. Another letter-writer penned the following brilliant remark about me: “It’s not hard to see nor read he truly doesn’t know what he is talking about nor does he speak for Americans.” The same writer recently wrote, and repeated, that President Barack Obama is a “Muslin.” I suggested to the editor of the paper that perhaps we should call President Obama the “Commander in sheets.”
I also notice that even the letters that are not illiterate show a high degree of stupidity. It is as if such writers did not actually read my column and are responding to some other commentary. I wrote a column carefully examining why some female voters who had supported Hillary Clinton refused to vote for Barack Obama, and suggested that some, not all, might be doing so because of racism. One writer complained that I was painting all people who switched from Clinton to John McCain as racists. In my column I had gone out of my way to say the opposite. In another column I expressed concern that vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin had once called the head librarian in town to inquire about censoring some books. I was careful to note that no books were actually removed. Nevertheless, one writer complained that I had accused Palin of book-burning. This kind of thing has happened repeatedly.
I recently wrote a column describing the stupidity of ultra right-wing organizations like the Ku Klux Klan. I did so hoping to draw some Klan sympathizers out of the woodwork. One of my frequent critics took the bait and wrote a letter to the editor in which he accused me of “defiling” myself. I assume that, unless he is a secret liberal trying to make conservatives look like idiots, he is a Klan or militia sympathizer. He has now walked into my trap and exposed his true beliefs for everybody to see.
I have noticed that southwest Ohio is heavily populated by far right-wing types. I assume that somehow, large numbers of Southern rednecks came up from the South and settled in this area. These are the least educated Americans. They are the most conservative, and in many cases, their conservatism spills over into extremism. When I use the term “redneck,” they complain because they identify with that term. They are proud to be gun-toting, rebel-flag-waving, Klan sympathizing, bigoted, uneducated, ignorant, repulsive rednecks. They know that they can never be intellectuals, so they wallow in their own ignorance.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
The Hate Crimes Bill
On October 28, 2009, President Obama signed into law the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The Act expands the 1969 United States federal hate-crimes law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. This was the law that was so forcefully opposed by James Dobson and Focus on the Family. It has long been opposed by Republicans and supported by Democrats. Now, by tying it to a Defense appropriation bill, the Democrats were able to get it passed.
In signing the bill the President pointed-out why this law was a necessary addition to regular laws against violent attacks: “You understood that we must stand against crimes that are meant not only to break bones, but to break spirits -- not only to inflict harm, but to instill fear. You understand that the rights afforded every citizen under our Constitution mean nothing if we do not protect those rights -- both from unjust laws and violent acts. And you understand how necessary this law continues to be....we sense where such cruelty begins: the moment we fail to see in another our common humanity -- the very moment when we fail to recognize in a person the same fears and hopes, the same passions and imperfections, the same dreams that we all share.”
Thirty-five Senate Republicans voted against passage of the defense authorization bill because it also contained this hate crimes legislation. Only Senators George Voinovich, Dick Lugar, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins voted with Democrats to move the legislation to a final vote.
House Minority Leader, John Boehner, opposed the bill saying: "All violent crimes should be prosecuted vigorously, no matter what the circumstance. The Democrats' 'thought crimes' legislation, however, places a higher value on some lives than others.” The bill, however, does not prosecute “thought crimes.” It explicitly states that "Nothing in this Act...shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution."
Boehner and the right-wingers have not given the real reason for their opposition. The real reason is that they hate homosexuals and do not want to have laws protecting them from the army of homophobic bigots out there who would gladly attack and kill them. They think that gays are evil. They stupidly believe that gays have chosen their sexual orientation, and that such choice should be punished.
Boehner claims that the hate-crimes bill singles out one group and provides it with special protection. I wonder how he and his cohorts would feel if the law singled-out combat veterans and provided them with special protection against attack. They would be falling all-over each-other to support such a bill. But we all know that criminals do not attack veterans just because they are veterans. On the other hand, thousands of gays and transgender people have been deliberately attacked, injured, and murdered because of their sexual identity.
Matthew Shepard was tortured, tied to a fence, and murdered in 1998 near Laramie, Wyoming, because he was perceived to be gay. James Byrd, Jr. was an African-American man who was tied to a truck by two known white supremacists, dragged by it, and decapitated in Jasper, Texas in 1998. There were no applicable hate crime laws in Wyoming and Texas at the time of the murders.
Right-wingers like John Boehner use mealy-mouthed excuses for their prejudice against gays. All hatred of gays is unpardonable bigotry. All bigotry is ignorance. Organizations that claim to be religious, but cry-out against the rights of homosexuals, should be denounced. And the right-wingers in Congress, by catering to this barbarian segment of the populace, deserve to be condemned.
In signing the bill the President pointed-out why this law was a necessary addition to regular laws against violent attacks: “You understood that we must stand against crimes that are meant not only to break bones, but to break spirits -- not only to inflict harm, but to instill fear. You understand that the rights afforded every citizen under our Constitution mean nothing if we do not protect those rights -- both from unjust laws and violent acts. And you understand how necessary this law continues to be....we sense where such cruelty begins: the moment we fail to see in another our common humanity -- the very moment when we fail to recognize in a person the same fears and hopes, the same passions and imperfections, the same dreams that we all share.”
Thirty-five Senate Republicans voted against passage of the defense authorization bill because it also contained this hate crimes legislation. Only Senators George Voinovich, Dick Lugar, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins voted with Democrats to move the legislation to a final vote.
House Minority Leader, John Boehner, opposed the bill saying: "All violent crimes should be prosecuted vigorously, no matter what the circumstance. The Democrats' 'thought crimes' legislation, however, places a higher value on some lives than others.” The bill, however, does not prosecute “thought crimes.” It explicitly states that "Nothing in this Act...shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution."
Boehner and the right-wingers have not given the real reason for their opposition. The real reason is that they hate homosexuals and do not want to have laws protecting them from the army of homophobic bigots out there who would gladly attack and kill them. They think that gays are evil. They stupidly believe that gays have chosen their sexual orientation, and that such choice should be punished.
Boehner claims that the hate-crimes bill singles out one group and provides it with special protection. I wonder how he and his cohorts would feel if the law singled-out combat veterans and provided them with special protection against attack. They would be falling all-over each-other to support such a bill. But we all know that criminals do not attack veterans just because they are veterans. On the other hand, thousands of gays and transgender people have been deliberately attacked, injured, and murdered because of their sexual identity.
Matthew Shepard was tortured, tied to a fence, and murdered in 1998 near Laramie, Wyoming, because he was perceived to be gay. James Byrd, Jr. was an African-American man who was tied to a truck by two known white supremacists, dragged by it, and decapitated in Jasper, Texas in 1998. There were no applicable hate crime laws in Wyoming and Texas at the time of the murders.
Right-wingers like John Boehner use mealy-mouthed excuses for their prejudice against gays. All hatred of gays is unpardonable bigotry. All bigotry is ignorance. Organizations that claim to be religious, but cry-out against the rights of homosexuals, should be denounced. And the right-wingers in Congress, by catering to this barbarian segment of the populace, deserve to be condemned.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Sweat Lodges and Our Aching Need for Answers
That was not a bunch of snake-handling hillbillies in the sweat lodge in Sedona Arizona. That was a group of well-heeled business and professional people seeking spiritual rebirth from a charismatic new-age guru named James Arthur Ray. They had paid over $9,600 each to be packed into an unlit tent-like structure covered with blankets and plastic and heated with fiery rocks in the hot Arizona desert.
A spiritual ceremony was conducted. Ray sat by the tent-flap door, which remained sealed except for pauses when additional rocks, which had been heated in an outdoor fire, were brought in. The heat became overwhelming. About 90 minutes into the ceremony, someone yelled in the darkness that a woman had passed-out. Dr. Beverley Bunn, 43, an orthodontist from Texas, who struggled to remain conscious in the sweat lodge, said that “there were people throwing-up everywhere.” Some of the people throwing-up had just completed a 36-hour “vision quest” in which they fasted alone in the desert.
By the end of the ordeal, emergency crews had taken 21 people to hospitals. Three died.
Mr. Ray’s company, James Ray International, made $9.4 million in 2008 from weekend seminars, videos, and books, including the 2008 best-seller: “Harmonic Wealth: The Secret of Attracting the Life You Want.”
Participants at the sweat lodge retreats described a game in which Mr. Ray wore white robes and played God, ordering some participants to commit mock suicide. It reminded me of the late protestant minister Jim Jones who took his congregation to Guyana and had them commit mass suicide by drinking Kool-Aid laced with cyanide.
What is it about these charismatic spiritual leaders that they are able to motivate people to acts of insanity? Marshall Applewhite was able to convince 39 members of the Heaven's Gate cult to commit suicide in order to join-up with a spacecraft which he said was trailing the Hale-Bopp comet. David Koresh suceeded in persuading members of the Branch Davidian sect that he was the Son of God and that they should allow their wives and daughters to have sex with him. What is it?
Many if not most people are fragile and insecure, seeking answers to the big questions about how to be happy, assertive, serene, and successful. They are easy prey for the brash, daring few people who attract followers through the strength of their magnetic personalities. I do not know what it is that makes so many people self-doubting while a small number of others are supremely self-assured.
It is likely that those highly attractive, self-confident people learn as they grow-up that they have the power to influence people. I have known a few such people in my life, and have seen that many of them use their powerful personalities to manipulate others. They are often good public speakers and are drawn to occupations such as religious leaders or self-help gurus. Their gift for oratory is mistaken as knowledge of the truth. Many televangelists are great speakers, but if you listen closely, much of what they say is gibberish.
These charismatic types also learn early-on that they can parlay their personalities into wealth and power. James Arthur Ray has been able to earn millions of dollars encouraging people to do bizarre acts like suffer in packed, unlit furnaces in the desert. Televangelists, whose sole claim to spiritual prominence is the ability to glibly string words and sentences together, are able to gain fabulous wealth by encouraging watchers to contribute “seed” money which they assure their sheep-like listeners will be repaid a hundredfold by God. You can be sure it never is.
We have an aching need for answers, but too often the people who are most willing to supply those answers are smooth-talking, charismatic, money-hungry con-men whose answers empty our wallets and our souls.
A spiritual ceremony was conducted. Ray sat by the tent-flap door, which remained sealed except for pauses when additional rocks, which had been heated in an outdoor fire, were brought in. The heat became overwhelming. About 90 minutes into the ceremony, someone yelled in the darkness that a woman had passed-out. Dr. Beverley Bunn, 43, an orthodontist from Texas, who struggled to remain conscious in the sweat lodge, said that “there were people throwing-up everywhere.” Some of the people throwing-up had just completed a 36-hour “vision quest” in which they fasted alone in the desert.
By the end of the ordeal, emergency crews had taken 21 people to hospitals. Three died.
Mr. Ray’s company, James Ray International, made $9.4 million in 2008 from weekend seminars, videos, and books, including the 2008 best-seller: “Harmonic Wealth: The Secret of Attracting the Life You Want.”
Participants at the sweat lodge retreats described a game in which Mr. Ray wore white robes and played God, ordering some participants to commit mock suicide. It reminded me of the late protestant minister Jim Jones who took his congregation to Guyana and had them commit mass suicide by drinking Kool-Aid laced with cyanide.
What is it about these charismatic spiritual leaders that they are able to motivate people to acts of insanity? Marshall Applewhite was able to convince 39 members of the Heaven's Gate cult to commit suicide in order to join-up with a spacecraft which he said was trailing the Hale-Bopp comet. David Koresh suceeded in persuading members of the Branch Davidian sect that he was the Son of God and that they should allow their wives and daughters to have sex with him. What is it?
Many if not most people are fragile and insecure, seeking answers to the big questions about how to be happy, assertive, serene, and successful. They are easy prey for the brash, daring few people who attract followers through the strength of their magnetic personalities. I do not know what it is that makes so many people self-doubting while a small number of others are supremely self-assured.
It is likely that those highly attractive, self-confident people learn as they grow-up that they have the power to influence people. I have known a few such people in my life, and have seen that many of them use their powerful personalities to manipulate others. They are often good public speakers and are drawn to occupations such as religious leaders or self-help gurus. Their gift for oratory is mistaken as knowledge of the truth. Many televangelists are great speakers, but if you listen closely, much of what they say is gibberish.
These charismatic types also learn early-on that they can parlay their personalities into wealth and power. James Arthur Ray has been able to earn millions of dollars encouraging people to do bizarre acts like suffer in packed, unlit furnaces in the desert. Televangelists, whose sole claim to spiritual prominence is the ability to glibly string words and sentences together, are able to gain fabulous wealth by encouraging watchers to contribute “seed” money which they assure their sheep-like listeners will be repaid a hundredfold by God. You can be sure it never is.
We have an aching need for answers, but too often the people who are most willing to supply those answers are smooth-talking, charismatic, money-hungry con-men whose answers empty our wallets and our souls.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
The Health Insurance Industry Report
When the health insurance executives met with President Obama earlier this year to assure him that they were going to take steps to lower health care costs, I warned that they were lying. Shortly after the meeting, they backed-out of their commitments and began preparing television ads attacking health care reform. Now they have come-out with a report prepared by flunkies which claims that health care reform as envisioned by the Senate Finance Committee bill will actually raise premiums for most Americans. Richard Kirsch of Health Care for America Now responded to the report, saying: "The idea that the insurance industry would complain about high premiums is like the Yankees complaining that they're hitting too many home runs. It's totally preposterous."
Senate Finance Committee spokesman Scott Mulhauser called the report "a health insurance company hatchet job -- plain and simple." The report has been ripped to shreds by experts. It deliberately ignores all of the provisions of the bill that will bring large savings to health care recipients. It ignores the proposed subsidies that would help millions of people to buy their own insurance. Jonathan Gruber, professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and director of the health care program at the National Bureau of Economic Research, says that the Finance Committee plan will not raise premiums but will substantially lower the cost of health insurance.
The obvious purpose of the report is for the insurance industry to make a nasty threat to raise premiums if Congress reduces Medicare payments to hospitals and compels insurance companies to cover people who are ill or who have prior medical conditions. The answer to such a threat is to enact a public option.
The behavior of the health insurance industry during this fight over reform has been an example of American business at its most reprehensible. It is worse even than the behavior of the oil, pharmaceutical, and other miscreant industries. I previously quoted the figure of 18,000 people who die each year due to lack of health insurance. Now, because of the policies of the health insurance industry, the figure for those who die each year because of lack of health insurance has risen to 45,000. That is a national disgrace. The argument is no longer political. It is moral.
Wendell Potter, a former insurance company executive turned whistle-blower, said the report is aimed to shape reform "for their (insurance companies’) benefit and the benefit of Wall Street shareholders, more than Americans. This is a desperation move on the part of the insurance industry, because analysts are now somewhat concerned ... that the bill may not be absolutely everything that the industry wants”
The bill passed by the Senate Finance Committee is designed to lower, not raise, health insurance premiums. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office analysis shows that the bill will reduce the national deficit by more than $80 billion over the next decade, provide insurance to an additional 29 million people, and extend coverage to 94 percent of the country's non-elderly population.
The Senate Finance Committee bill is highly imperfect. It does not contain a public option. It weakens the mandate that individuals carry health insurance. That is not the end of the matter, however. That bill is likely to be combined with a bill that does have a public option. The individual mandate will probably be strengthened in a combined bill. If the public option is not in the final Senate bill, it will be in the final bill coming out of the Senate-House Conference. It will then be voted on by both the Senate and the House. If the Senate Republicans filibuster the final vote, the Democrats have the option of treating the legislation as budget reconciliation legislation requiring only 51 votes for passage.
Senate Finance Committee spokesman Scott Mulhauser called the report "a health insurance company hatchet job -- plain and simple." The report has been ripped to shreds by experts. It deliberately ignores all of the provisions of the bill that will bring large savings to health care recipients. It ignores the proposed subsidies that would help millions of people to buy their own insurance. Jonathan Gruber, professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and director of the health care program at the National Bureau of Economic Research, says that the Finance Committee plan will not raise premiums but will substantially lower the cost of health insurance.
The obvious purpose of the report is for the insurance industry to make a nasty threat to raise premiums if Congress reduces Medicare payments to hospitals and compels insurance companies to cover people who are ill or who have prior medical conditions. The answer to such a threat is to enact a public option.
The behavior of the health insurance industry during this fight over reform has been an example of American business at its most reprehensible. It is worse even than the behavior of the oil, pharmaceutical, and other miscreant industries. I previously quoted the figure of 18,000 people who die each year due to lack of health insurance. Now, because of the policies of the health insurance industry, the figure for those who die each year because of lack of health insurance has risen to 45,000. That is a national disgrace. The argument is no longer political. It is moral.
Wendell Potter, a former insurance company executive turned whistle-blower, said the report is aimed to shape reform "for their (insurance companies’) benefit and the benefit of Wall Street shareholders, more than Americans. This is a desperation move on the part of the insurance industry, because analysts are now somewhat concerned ... that the bill may not be absolutely everything that the industry wants”
The bill passed by the Senate Finance Committee is designed to lower, not raise, health insurance premiums. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office analysis shows that the bill will reduce the national deficit by more than $80 billion over the next decade, provide insurance to an additional 29 million people, and extend coverage to 94 percent of the country's non-elderly population.
The Senate Finance Committee bill is highly imperfect. It does not contain a public option. It weakens the mandate that individuals carry health insurance. That is not the end of the matter, however. That bill is likely to be combined with a bill that does have a public option. The individual mandate will probably be strengthened in a combined bill. If the public option is not in the final Senate bill, it will be in the final bill coming out of the Senate-House Conference. It will then be voted on by both the Senate and the House. If the Senate Republicans filibuster the final vote, the Democrats have the option of treating the legislation as budget reconciliation legislation requiring only 51 votes for passage.
Monday, October 19, 2009
The Life of the Mind
People have often told me that I should not just sit around reading books. I should get out. My former wife used to criticize me for not having any outside activities. She said that I needed to get a life. I told her that I had a life of the mind. She would stare at me in mute incomprehension.
When you immerse yourself in books, you go through a door into a different world. It not only gives a kind of pleasure, it gives life. I cannot say that reading has brought me great happiness. By chemistry and disposition I am a less than cheerful person. I would like to be happier, but I would not give up reading to gain that end. Perhaps reading has deepened my melancholy. Profound research into the absence of God and the meaninglessness of life has not cheered my soul. But knowledge is its own reward.
Stanley Fish, a college professor, literary critic, and columnist for the New York Times, recently wrote a column on the question of whether the humanities do anything to help humanity. His conclusion was--no. He said: “To the question ‘of what use are the humanities?’ the only honest answer is none whatsoever. And it is an answer that brings honor to its subject. Justification, after all, confers value on an activity from a perspective outside its performance. An activity that cannot be justified is an activity that refuses to regard itself as instrumental to some larger good. The humanities are their own good. There is nothing more to say, and anything that is said ….diminishes the object of its supposed praise.”
I agree.
I have spent much of my life reading. It has given me knowledge of literature, history, philosophy, theology, psychology and other fields of learning. I do not have a brilliant mind. What I have that the average person does not have is a passion for learning. Since I graduated from college I have never stopped reading books. I am not a fast reader, but I am a constant reader. I am an autodidact, a self-educated person. I spent most of my high school years studying the parabolas of girls’ chests and most of my college education studying the trajectories of basketballs. When I graduated, I realized that I did not know very much. For some reason, I wanted to learn, so that is when I started reading in earnest.
Many years ago I wanted to understand the reason why civilizations, nations, and cultures developed the way they did. I decided to read history and other subjects in the humanities. I read many multi-volume books on the history of civilization. After a lifetime of reading, I still do not have the answers. But I do have some ideas, and I can converse about them. I have tried to learn about subjects beyond literature, history, philosophy, and theology; subjects like music, art, and science. I have only a layman’s knowledge of these fields, but I probably know far more than most people. As I’ve gotten older I find that I love listening to beautiful classical music. I also love reading books about art and looking up artists’ works on the computer. Almost every day I choose an artist and search for him or her online.
I discovered early in my marriage that my wife did not appreciate it if I went into the bedroom in the evening and started reading. She wanted me to watch television with her. This bothered me and probably contributed to the eventual downfall of our marriage. I looked upon the watching of television as a waste of time and a non-social event. We sat and stared blankly at the screen without engaging in any conversation. The material on television was pathetic. I hated watching, but felt that it was the only way to appease my wife. When children came along, they wanted their daddy to play with them. I loved playing with my children but it was impossible to read after coming home from work. In addition, my work was demanding and I often did not get home until later. By the time I got home I would be tired, too tired to read.
I started getting up very early in the morning. I discovered that if I arose around 5:30 a.m. I would be able to read for several hours without interference. Moreover, I would be awake and alert. I could read and understand the more difficult books without developing that sleepiness that accompanies most attempts to read recondite material.
Each morning I would get up and go make coffee. I would sit and luxuriate over the coffee while I began reading some book of history, philosophy, theology, literature or such. Sometimes I could not understand a word of what I was reading, but I did not give up. I would read and reread pages until I began to comprehend what the writer was saying. As I read more and more books, I understood more and more.
Sometimes I would be struck by what I was reading. Some writer would connect with my mind so deeply that chills would run down my spine. I have had the same experience with music and art. When I first saw Velazquez’s “Waterseller of Seville,” I was deeply moved and tears came to my eyes. I couldn’t comprehend the genius it must have taken to paint such a masterpiece! I have had the same experience when hearing some pieces of music. I felt a deep thrill when I first heard the slow movement of Beethoven’s Emperor Concerto. This has happened many times.
I would have liked to have had a consistently happy life. But I realize that for some people, like me, happiness consists of fleeting moments. Sometimes it is just time with my children and grandchildren, time with my sweet Julie, a great book, a beautiful day, beautiful scenery, magnificent music, wonderful art, a glorious poem, or a penetrating thought. It is through such things that I have experienced much of the happiness in my life.
When you immerse yourself in books, you go through a door into a different world. It not only gives a kind of pleasure, it gives life. I cannot say that reading has brought me great happiness. By chemistry and disposition I am a less than cheerful person. I would like to be happier, but I would not give up reading to gain that end. Perhaps reading has deepened my melancholy. Profound research into the absence of God and the meaninglessness of life has not cheered my soul. But knowledge is its own reward.
Stanley Fish, a college professor, literary critic, and columnist for the New York Times, recently wrote a column on the question of whether the humanities do anything to help humanity. His conclusion was--no. He said: “To the question ‘of what use are the humanities?’ the only honest answer is none whatsoever. And it is an answer that brings honor to its subject. Justification, after all, confers value on an activity from a perspective outside its performance. An activity that cannot be justified is an activity that refuses to regard itself as instrumental to some larger good. The humanities are their own good. There is nothing more to say, and anything that is said ….diminishes the object of its supposed praise.”
I agree.
I have spent much of my life reading. It has given me knowledge of literature, history, philosophy, theology, psychology and other fields of learning. I do not have a brilliant mind. What I have that the average person does not have is a passion for learning. Since I graduated from college I have never stopped reading books. I am not a fast reader, but I am a constant reader. I am an autodidact, a self-educated person. I spent most of my high school years studying the parabolas of girls’ chests and most of my college education studying the trajectories of basketballs. When I graduated, I realized that I did not know very much. For some reason, I wanted to learn, so that is when I started reading in earnest.
Many years ago I wanted to understand the reason why civilizations, nations, and cultures developed the way they did. I decided to read history and other subjects in the humanities. I read many multi-volume books on the history of civilization. After a lifetime of reading, I still do not have the answers. But I do have some ideas, and I can converse about them. I have tried to learn about subjects beyond literature, history, philosophy, and theology; subjects like music, art, and science. I have only a layman’s knowledge of these fields, but I probably know far more than most people. As I’ve gotten older I find that I love listening to beautiful classical music. I also love reading books about art and looking up artists’ works on the computer. Almost every day I choose an artist and search for him or her online.
I discovered early in my marriage that my wife did not appreciate it if I went into the bedroom in the evening and started reading. She wanted me to watch television with her. This bothered me and probably contributed to the eventual downfall of our marriage. I looked upon the watching of television as a waste of time and a non-social event. We sat and stared blankly at the screen without engaging in any conversation. The material on television was pathetic. I hated watching, but felt that it was the only way to appease my wife. When children came along, they wanted their daddy to play with them. I loved playing with my children but it was impossible to read after coming home from work. In addition, my work was demanding and I often did not get home until later. By the time I got home I would be tired, too tired to read.
I started getting up very early in the morning. I discovered that if I arose around 5:30 a.m. I would be able to read for several hours without interference. Moreover, I would be awake and alert. I could read and understand the more difficult books without developing that sleepiness that accompanies most attempts to read recondite material.
Each morning I would get up and go make coffee. I would sit and luxuriate over the coffee while I began reading some book of history, philosophy, theology, literature or such. Sometimes I could not understand a word of what I was reading, but I did not give up. I would read and reread pages until I began to comprehend what the writer was saying. As I read more and more books, I understood more and more.
Sometimes I would be struck by what I was reading. Some writer would connect with my mind so deeply that chills would run down my spine. I have had the same experience with music and art. When I first saw Velazquez’s “Waterseller of Seville,” I was deeply moved and tears came to my eyes. I couldn’t comprehend the genius it must have taken to paint such a masterpiece! I have had the same experience when hearing some pieces of music. I felt a deep thrill when I first heard the slow movement of Beethoven’s Emperor Concerto. This has happened many times.
I would have liked to have had a consistently happy life. But I realize that for some people, like me, happiness consists of fleeting moments. Sometimes it is just time with my children and grandchildren, time with my sweet Julie, a great book, a beautiful day, beautiful scenery, magnificent music, wonderful art, a glorious poem, or a penetrating thought. It is through such things that I have experienced much of the happiness in my life.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Phony Ads Against the Public Option
The television ads show a Canadian woman who claims to have had a brain tumor. She was told she would have to wait six months for treatment in Canada. She says that if she had waited for treatment in Canada she would have died. She mortgaged her home to pay for surgery at the Mayo Clinic in the United States. She then goes on to condemn the Canadian health care system, and implies that the Obama health care reform will lead to a Canadian style health care system. This ad is pure dishonest garbage. It is an example of the depths to which the despicable American health insurance industry is willing to stoop to try and defeat health care reform and a public option. Doesn’t is bother anybody that the whole case of the health insurance industry against health care reform has been built on lies?
The truth is that the woman, Shona Holmes, did not have a brain tumor. There was no emergency that required prompt surgery to save her life. According to the Mayo Clinic, the woman had a “Rathke's Cleft Cyst on her pituitary gland." Rathke's Cleft Cysts are not tumors; they are slow-growing benign cysts. The chair of neurosurgery at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., stated that such a cyst "is not typically life-threatening." Neurosurgeons in Montreal and Toronto described Holmes’ claims as exaggerated and stated that her condition was not a medical emergency. She certainly could have waited six months to have the cyst removed. I do not know why she came to the U.S. for treatment or if she was paid to make the fraudulent commercial.
People throughout Canada are outraged by this phony commercial criticizing Canadian health care. The Toronto Star published a letter to the editor from an Ontario resident who had a real brain tumor and who described the care she received in the Canadian health care system as being of "exceptional quality." Her letter concluded with the comment: "I know our health care system works and if Holmes didn't have a problem with her physician what exactly are her motives for taking part in this media spectacle?"
Aside from being untruthful and misleading, the commercial by Shona Holmes is irrelevant. President Obama’s health care reform plan does not envision a Canadian health care system. While many of us would prefer a single-payer system such as they have in Canada, that is not what the President and the Democrats in Congress are offering. They are proposing a plan which, along with a number of major reforms in the current system, offers a governmental form of health insurance as just one option among many. There will still be plenty of private insurance plans to choose from. If the public option drives private insurance options out of business, it will be because they have failed to offer something better.
One of the most disgusting things about the effort by the health insurance industry to defeat health care reform is their constant false claim that health care in Canada is slow, inefficient, and ineffective. In fact, health care in Canada is outstanding, and the people of Canada are very pleased with it. It is significantly better than health care in The United States.
A recent Canadian Press Harris-Decima Survey shows that 82 percent of Canadians are quite pleased with their health care and believe that their system is far better than American health care. The same is true of European countries with universal health care. According to an August 2009 Gallup Survey, 79 percent of people in European countries with universal health care are very satisfied with their high quality health care. The claim that Europeans are dissatisfied with their systems because of long waits for treatment is a lot of baloney.
The truth is that the woman, Shona Holmes, did not have a brain tumor. There was no emergency that required prompt surgery to save her life. According to the Mayo Clinic, the woman had a “Rathke's Cleft Cyst on her pituitary gland." Rathke's Cleft Cysts are not tumors; they are slow-growing benign cysts. The chair of neurosurgery at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., stated that such a cyst "is not typically life-threatening." Neurosurgeons in Montreal and Toronto described Holmes’ claims as exaggerated and stated that her condition was not a medical emergency. She certainly could have waited six months to have the cyst removed. I do not know why she came to the U.S. for treatment or if she was paid to make the fraudulent commercial.
People throughout Canada are outraged by this phony commercial criticizing Canadian health care. The Toronto Star published a letter to the editor from an Ontario resident who had a real brain tumor and who described the care she received in the Canadian health care system as being of "exceptional quality." Her letter concluded with the comment: "I know our health care system works and if Holmes didn't have a problem with her physician what exactly are her motives for taking part in this media spectacle?"
Aside from being untruthful and misleading, the commercial by Shona Holmes is irrelevant. President Obama’s health care reform plan does not envision a Canadian health care system. While many of us would prefer a single-payer system such as they have in Canada, that is not what the President and the Democrats in Congress are offering. They are proposing a plan which, along with a number of major reforms in the current system, offers a governmental form of health insurance as just one option among many. There will still be plenty of private insurance plans to choose from. If the public option drives private insurance options out of business, it will be because they have failed to offer something better.
One of the most disgusting things about the effort by the health insurance industry to defeat health care reform is their constant false claim that health care in Canada is slow, inefficient, and ineffective. In fact, health care in Canada is outstanding, and the people of Canada are very pleased with it. It is significantly better than health care in The United States.
A recent Canadian Press Harris-Decima Survey shows that 82 percent of Canadians are quite pleased with their health care and believe that their system is far better than American health care. The same is true of European countries with universal health care. According to an August 2009 Gallup Survey, 79 percent of people in European countries with universal health care are very satisfied with their high quality health care. The claim that Europeans are dissatisfied with their systems because of long waits for treatment is a lot of baloney.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Happy With Health Insurance?
One hears repeatedly that 85 percent of Americans are “happy” with their health insurance. So why do we need health insurance reform? Well, the 85 percent figure is a phony, misleading statistic. It does not mean that 85 percent of all Americans are delighted with their health insurance and that a disgruntled 15 percent of the American people are the only ones who want to change our health insurance laws; far from it.
In the first place, the pollsters questioned only people covered by health insurance. The 85 percent of people who are happy does not include the 47 million people who have no health insurance. Those people certainly are not “happy” with their health insurance. Moreover, 15 percent of the people who have health insurance are not “happy” with their coverage. In addition, all of the polls giving the 85 percent figure include people on Medicare, Medicaid, and other government-run plans. According to Gallup, approximately 22-33 percent of the respondents in the polls are on Medicare or Medicaid. Of course those people are satisfied with their health insurance. The Census Bureau tells us that in 2008, only 66.7 percent of the people polled had private health insurance--and that number is going down rapidly because thousands of businesses are dropping it as a benefit of employment.
So it is not 85 percent of all Americans that are happy with their private health insurance. Do the math. When you subtract all of the people who are unhappy with their private health insurance, all of the people who have no insurance, and all of the people on Medicare etc., you come out with about 18 percent of Americans who are happy with their private health insurance. That is a long way from the dishonest figure of 85 percent.
If 85 percent of Americans were “happy” with health insurance, you can be sure that there would be no support for enactment of health insurance reform with a public option. But a new study by SurveyUSA finds that the public supports enactment of a public option by 77 percent. In a June 2009 survey, the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that 76 percent of those questioned favored a public option. Why such high percentages if 85 percent are happy with their health insurance? Why such high percentages if the controversy over health care reform has supposedly destroyed President Obama’s approval ratings?
According to a new CBS News/New York Times poll out September 24, 2009, President Obama’s approval rating is 56 percent. An October 1, 2009, Gallup Poll gives the President a 54 percent approval rating. By my arithmetic, that is a majority. When you consider the fact that he was elected with only 52 percent, and when you consider the hammering he has taken from the health insurance industry, the Republicans in Congress, Fox News fanatics, talk radio morons, town hall screamers, and tea party lunatics, he is still doing pretty well.
Compare the President’s approval rating to the ratings given to House Minority Gasbag John Boehner, Senate Minority Claghorn, Mitch McConnell, and the Republicans in Congress. According to a September Harris Poll, Boehner and McConnell each received an 18 percent approval rating. The Republicans in Congress got a 27 percent approval rating, while 70 percent disapproved. In a September CBS News/New York Times Poll, the Republicans in Congress received a 30 percent approval rating.
It is, of course, no surprise that the vast majority of Americans disapprove of the Republicans in Congress. The Republicans are fighting on the side of health insurance companies to deny Americans any health care reform at all. The public knows that President Obama is trying to do something to improve health insurance and health care in America. They know that the Republicans are doing nothing.
In the first place, the pollsters questioned only people covered by health insurance. The 85 percent of people who are happy does not include the 47 million people who have no health insurance. Those people certainly are not “happy” with their health insurance. Moreover, 15 percent of the people who have health insurance are not “happy” with their coverage. In addition, all of the polls giving the 85 percent figure include people on Medicare, Medicaid, and other government-run plans. According to Gallup, approximately 22-33 percent of the respondents in the polls are on Medicare or Medicaid. Of course those people are satisfied with their health insurance. The Census Bureau tells us that in 2008, only 66.7 percent of the people polled had private health insurance--and that number is going down rapidly because thousands of businesses are dropping it as a benefit of employment.
So it is not 85 percent of all Americans that are happy with their private health insurance. Do the math. When you subtract all of the people who are unhappy with their private health insurance, all of the people who have no insurance, and all of the people on Medicare etc., you come out with about 18 percent of Americans who are happy with their private health insurance. That is a long way from the dishonest figure of 85 percent.
If 85 percent of Americans were “happy” with health insurance, you can be sure that there would be no support for enactment of health insurance reform with a public option. But a new study by SurveyUSA finds that the public supports enactment of a public option by 77 percent. In a June 2009 survey, the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that 76 percent of those questioned favored a public option. Why such high percentages if 85 percent are happy with their health insurance? Why such high percentages if the controversy over health care reform has supposedly destroyed President Obama’s approval ratings?
According to a new CBS News/New York Times poll out September 24, 2009, President Obama’s approval rating is 56 percent. An October 1, 2009, Gallup Poll gives the President a 54 percent approval rating. By my arithmetic, that is a majority. When you consider the fact that he was elected with only 52 percent, and when you consider the hammering he has taken from the health insurance industry, the Republicans in Congress, Fox News fanatics, talk radio morons, town hall screamers, and tea party lunatics, he is still doing pretty well.
Compare the President’s approval rating to the ratings given to House Minority Gasbag John Boehner, Senate Minority Claghorn, Mitch McConnell, and the Republicans in Congress. According to a September Harris Poll, Boehner and McConnell each received an 18 percent approval rating. The Republicans in Congress got a 27 percent approval rating, while 70 percent disapproved. In a September CBS News/New York Times Poll, the Republicans in Congress received a 30 percent approval rating.
It is, of course, no surprise that the vast majority of Americans disapprove of the Republicans in Congress. The Republicans are fighting on the side of health insurance companies to deny Americans any health care reform at all. The public knows that President Obama is trying to do something to improve health insurance and health care in America. They know that the Republicans are doing nothing.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Why Tax The Rich?
Conservatives such as George Will complain that it is a reflex action by liberals in Congress to soak the rich in order to pay for health care reform. They point-out that the top 1 percent of income earners in America pays 45 percent of the income taxes. Conservatives claim that Congress is engaged in a Robin Hood form of class warfare which was never authorized by the constitution. They want to retain the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and prevent surcharges on the rich to pay for health care reform.
If I were making the tax laws, I would not simply repeal the Bush tax cuts. I would greatly increase taxes on the rich. Why? Because there is too much poverty, too much hunger, too much sickness, too much disparity between rich and poor here in America, the land of wealth and opportunity. I doubt that most people are aware of the enormous gap between the wealth of the top 1 percent of people in America and the rest of us. Those very wealthy people have excellent health insurance and health care. Perhaps that is why we hear so much drivel about how America has the best health care in the world. We don’t, but very wealthy Americans probably do.
What George Will and the right-wingers fail to mention is that according to the Census Bureau and a study by the Sociology Department of the University of California, as of 2004, the top 1 percent of Americans owned 42.2 percent of all privately held financial wealth in America, and the next 19 percent owned 50.3 percent, which means that just 20 percent of the people owned 85 percent of the wealth in America! Their wealth was 190 times greater than that of the median U.S. household. The top 10 percent had 85 to 90 percent of stock, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75 percent of non-home real estate.
Conservatives have been trying to eliminate inheritance taxes, which they call “death taxes.” According to a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, only 1.6 percent of Americans inherit more than $100,000. Another 1.1 percent inherit $50,000 to $100,000. On the other hand, 91.9 percent of the people in America inherit nothing.
Of all the new financial wealth created by the American economy in the 21-year-period between 1983 and 2004, 42 percent of it went to the top 1 percent. A whopping 94 percent went to the top 20 percent, which of course means that the bottom 80 percent received only 6 percent of all the new financial wealth generated in the United States during the '80s, '90s, and early 2000s.
A 2007 study by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that the top 1 percent of income earners in America nearly quadrupled their share of the nation's income between 1979 and 2005, while their effective income tax rate dropped by 15 percent.
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, income growth in America Between 1979 and 2006 was starkly uneven. Real after-tax incomes for the top 1 percent of households rose by 256 percent, or $863,000, compared to 21 percent, or $9,200, for households in the middle fifth, and 11 percent, or $1,600, for households in the bottom fifth. In 2006, the average household in the top 1 percent had an annual income of $1.2 million, up $63,000 just from the prior year.
Yes, the wealthy people in America suffered losses during the recession, but percentage-wise those losses were nothing compared to what the middle and lower income people suffered. Now that the stock market is rebounding, the rich are recouping their losses. Middle and lower income people will never recoup their losses from foreclosed homes, lost jobs, lost health insurance, and bankruptcies.
If I were making the tax laws, I would not simply repeal the Bush tax cuts. I would greatly increase taxes on the rich. Why? Because there is too much poverty, too much hunger, too much sickness, too much disparity between rich and poor here in America, the land of wealth and opportunity. I doubt that most people are aware of the enormous gap between the wealth of the top 1 percent of people in America and the rest of us. Those very wealthy people have excellent health insurance and health care. Perhaps that is why we hear so much drivel about how America has the best health care in the world. We don’t, but very wealthy Americans probably do.
What George Will and the right-wingers fail to mention is that according to the Census Bureau and a study by the Sociology Department of the University of California, as of 2004, the top 1 percent of Americans owned 42.2 percent of all privately held financial wealth in America, and the next 19 percent owned 50.3 percent, which means that just 20 percent of the people owned 85 percent of the wealth in America! Their wealth was 190 times greater than that of the median U.S. household. The top 10 percent had 85 to 90 percent of stock, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75 percent of non-home real estate.
Conservatives have been trying to eliminate inheritance taxes, which they call “death taxes.” According to a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, only 1.6 percent of Americans inherit more than $100,000. Another 1.1 percent inherit $50,000 to $100,000. On the other hand, 91.9 percent of the people in America inherit nothing.
Of all the new financial wealth created by the American economy in the 21-year-period between 1983 and 2004, 42 percent of it went to the top 1 percent. A whopping 94 percent went to the top 20 percent, which of course means that the bottom 80 percent received only 6 percent of all the new financial wealth generated in the United States during the '80s, '90s, and early 2000s.
A 2007 study by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that the top 1 percent of income earners in America nearly quadrupled their share of the nation's income between 1979 and 2005, while their effective income tax rate dropped by 15 percent.
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, income growth in America Between 1979 and 2006 was starkly uneven. Real after-tax incomes for the top 1 percent of households rose by 256 percent, or $863,000, compared to 21 percent, or $9,200, for households in the middle fifth, and 11 percent, or $1,600, for households in the bottom fifth. In 2006, the average household in the top 1 percent had an annual income of $1.2 million, up $63,000 just from the prior year.
Yes, the wealthy people in America suffered losses during the recession, but percentage-wise those losses were nothing compared to what the middle and lower income people suffered. Now that the stock market is rebounding, the rich are recouping their losses. Middle and lower income people will never recoup their losses from foreclosed homes, lost jobs, lost health insurance, and bankruptcies.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Deficit Neutral Health Care Reform
I suspect that many of the people who oppose President Obama’s health care reform plan do so because the CBO has projected that the plan will cost $1 trillion over ten years. They see reform as bankrupting this nation. What they fail to realize is that there will be no bankrupting deficits from health care reform because reform is designed to be deficit neutral. That means that savings in other areas will pay for the cost of health care reform.
President Obama has pointed-out that failure to pass health care reform will be far more costly to America than any reform bill. Speaking before the American Medical Association's annual meeting, President Obama said: "(Failing) to reform our healthcare system in a way that genuinely reduces cost growth will cost us trillions of dollars more in lost economic growth and lower wages."
A study by the Urban Institute, a Washington D.C. think-tank that conducts policy research, has shown that if we fail to enact health care reform it will cause catastrophic financial devastation in America over the next decade and cost the government far more than anything caused by health care reform. There will be an increasing strain on business owners and their employees due to the rising cost of health care and health insurance. Businesses by the thousands will drop health insurance for their employees and tens of millions more people will become uninsured. There will be dramatic growth in Medicaid/CHIP enrollment and spending, and increased spending on uncompensated health care. There will be a tremendous increase in bankruptcies due to health care costs.
President Obama stressed that health care reform would be deficit-neutral over the next decade, explaining how the price tag would be covered. In his budget for fiscal year 2010 the President has already obtained $635 billion for the Health Reserve Fund to pay for health care reform over the next ten years. Most of that amount will come from revenue-raising efforts such as limiting tax deductions for the wealthiest Americans.
The President also explained other means by which the price tag for health care reform would be covered. Estimated savings over 10 years include: Removing subsidies and introducing competitive bidding into the Medical Advantage program, $177 billion; Using Medicare reimbursements to help reduce preventable re-admissions, $25 billion; Introducing generic drugs into the marketplace, $30 billion; more efficient purchasing of prescription drugs, $75 billion; "rooting out waste, abuse and fraud" throughout the healthcare system, $1 billion; adjusting Medicare payments to reflect advances and productivity gains in the economy, $109 billion.
The House health care reform bill provides that any public option will have to be self-sustaining through participants’ payment of premiums. This will be possible even if the premiums are substantially lower than those for private health insurance because a public option will not incur the gigantic administrative costs incurred by private insurance.
One huge benefit of cost savings built into the health care reform bill will be reduction and eventual elimination of the “doughnut hole” in the Medicare Part D drug benefit program. The “doughnut hole” was demanded by the health insurance industry when the Republicans in Congress knuckled-under and enacted Part D. Today, most seniors find that after six or more months their Part D benefits run-out and they have to pay the full cost of their medications. Those costs can be cruelly high, and for some, too high to pay. Now it will be possible for all medications to be covered by the program.
If you are worried about the cost of health care reform, you should be terrified at the prospect of no reform. I can assure you that without reform, you will eventually either lose your health insurance or wind-up paying far far more for less and less coverage.
President Obama has pointed-out that failure to pass health care reform will be far more costly to America than any reform bill. Speaking before the American Medical Association's annual meeting, President Obama said: "(Failing) to reform our healthcare system in a way that genuinely reduces cost growth will cost us trillions of dollars more in lost economic growth and lower wages."
A study by the Urban Institute, a Washington D.C. think-tank that conducts policy research, has shown that if we fail to enact health care reform it will cause catastrophic financial devastation in America over the next decade and cost the government far more than anything caused by health care reform. There will be an increasing strain on business owners and their employees due to the rising cost of health care and health insurance. Businesses by the thousands will drop health insurance for their employees and tens of millions more people will become uninsured. There will be dramatic growth in Medicaid/CHIP enrollment and spending, and increased spending on uncompensated health care. There will be a tremendous increase in bankruptcies due to health care costs.
President Obama stressed that health care reform would be deficit-neutral over the next decade, explaining how the price tag would be covered. In his budget for fiscal year 2010 the President has already obtained $635 billion for the Health Reserve Fund to pay for health care reform over the next ten years. Most of that amount will come from revenue-raising efforts such as limiting tax deductions for the wealthiest Americans.
The President also explained other means by which the price tag for health care reform would be covered. Estimated savings over 10 years include: Removing subsidies and introducing competitive bidding into the Medical Advantage program, $177 billion; Using Medicare reimbursements to help reduce preventable re-admissions, $25 billion; Introducing generic drugs into the marketplace, $30 billion; more efficient purchasing of prescription drugs, $75 billion; "rooting out waste, abuse and fraud" throughout the healthcare system, $1 billion; adjusting Medicare payments to reflect advances and productivity gains in the economy, $109 billion.
The House health care reform bill provides that any public option will have to be self-sustaining through participants’ payment of premiums. This will be possible even if the premiums are substantially lower than those for private health insurance because a public option will not incur the gigantic administrative costs incurred by private insurance.
One huge benefit of cost savings built into the health care reform bill will be reduction and eventual elimination of the “doughnut hole” in the Medicare Part D drug benefit program. The “doughnut hole” was demanded by the health insurance industry when the Republicans in Congress knuckled-under and enacted Part D. Today, most seniors find that after six or more months their Part D benefits run-out and they have to pay the full cost of their medications. Those costs can be cruelly high, and for some, too high to pay. Now it will be possible for all medications to be covered by the program.
If you are worried about the cost of health care reform, you should be terrified at the prospect of no reform. I can assure you that without reform, you will eventually either lose your health insurance or wind-up paying far far more for less and less coverage.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
What They Deserve
All of those people who have been showing-up at town halls and tea parties in order to protest President Obama’s plan for health care reform deserve one thing—to win. I wish it was possible to enact health care reform with a public option and exclude from its benefits all of those screaming right-wingers who so vociferously oppose it.
I wish such people could be required to go on as before with higher and higher premiums, co-pays, and deductibles for private health insurance; continued rationing and denial of coverage for prior health conditions; continued withdrawal of coverage in the middle of serious medical emergencies; continued annual and lifetime limits on benefits; continued high costs for medication; and continuation of the huge “doughnut holes” for elderly Medicare recipients. Yes—it would be nice to let them continue in the morass we presently have, while the rest of us got decent coverage under a new national health care plan.
Unfortunately, it will not work that way. If health care reform goes down to defeat all of us, not just the screamers, will lose.
If health care reform with a public option is passed, the screamers will say: “We fought the good fight, but now that it is possible to get health insurance at lower cost, with coverage for prior conditions, no annual or lifetime limits, and preventive medical coverage for things like pap smears, colonoscopies, mammograms, chest X-Rays, PSA tests, and blood tests, why not take advantage of it”? They will break their necks signing-up for the public option, and a few years down the road they will fight to keep their new governmental health coverage from being diminished.
But sadly, if health care reform is defeated, thousands of people will continue to die from lack of health insurance. It is estimated that at least 18,000 people die every year because of lack of health insurance. Millions of people who have lost their jobs during the Bush recession will not be able to get health insurance coverage. Millions of seniors will continue to empty their little savings accounts to pay for medications during the “doughnut holes.” Millions of people who have prior medical conditions will be unable to get coverage.
On Wednesday, September 9, President Obama gave a ringing call to America to move ahead with health care reform. He noted that the same kind of people who oppose this reform also opposed Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. He demolished some of the outrageous distortions being put-out not only by talk radio and Fox News hosts, but also by Republican politicians.
While the President spoke, the Republicans sat stonily. Our local guy, House Minority Gasbag John Boehner, looked like a well-tanned corpse. The crude and ill mannered outburst by Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina represented not only the people of that state and its leaders, Senator DeMint and Governor Sanford, but also the attitude of the Republicans in Congress who have allowed their party to be seized by ultra conservatives
Meanwhile the Republican senators and congressmen who plan to vote against health care reform will go on living under the umbrella of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP); the finest health insurance benefits available anywhere. During President Obama’s speech on health care reform, he called for compromise, but those Republicans are not the least bit interested in compromise.
For the ordinary citizens who opposed health care reform because of their concern with other issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, guns, immigration, gay rights, and the president’s race, it is a case of biting off your nose to spite your face. They will get what they deserve if health care reform goes down to defeat. For the senators and congressmen who vote against health care reform, their health insurance should be taken away.
I wish such people could be required to go on as before with higher and higher premiums, co-pays, and deductibles for private health insurance; continued rationing and denial of coverage for prior health conditions; continued withdrawal of coverage in the middle of serious medical emergencies; continued annual and lifetime limits on benefits; continued high costs for medication; and continuation of the huge “doughnut holes” for elderly Medicare recipients. Yes—it would be nice to let them continue in the morass we presently have, while the rest of us got decent coverage under a new national health care plan.
Unfortunately, it will not work that way. If health care reform goes down to defeat all of us, not just the screamers, will lose.
If health care reform with a public option is passed, the screamers will say: “We fought the good fight, but now that it is possible to get health insurance at lower cost, with coverage for prior conditions, no annual or lifetime limits, and preventive medical coverage for things like pap smears, colonoscopies, mammograms, chest X-Rays, PSA tests, and blood tests, why not take advantage of it”? They will break their necks signing-up for the public option, and a few years down the road they will fight to keep their new governmental health coverage from being diminished.
But sadly, if health care reform is defeated, thousands of people will continue to die from lack of health insurance. It is estimated that at least 18,000 people die every year because of lack of health insurance. Millions of people who have lost their jobs during the Bush recession will not be able to get health insurance coverage. Millions of seniors will continue to empty their little savings accounts to pay for medications during the “doughnut holes.” Millions of people who have prior medical conditions will be unable to get coverage.
On Wednesday, September 9, President Obama gave a ringing call to America to move ahead with health care reform. He noted that the same kind of people who oppose this reform also opposed Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. He demolished some of the outrageous distortions being put-out not only by talk radio and Fox News hosts, but also by Republican politicians.
While the President spoke, the Republicans sat stonily. Our local guy, House Minority Gasbag John Boehner, looked like a well-tanned corpse. The crude and ill mannered outburst by Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina represented not only the people of that state and its leaders, Senator DeMint and Governor Sanford, but also the attitude of the Republicans in Congress who have allowed their party to be seized by ultra conservatives
Meanwhile the Republican senators and congressmen who plan to vote against health care reform will go on living under the umbrella of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP); the finest health insurance benefits available anywhere. During President Obama’s speech on health care reform, he called for compromise, but those Republicans are not the least bit interested in compromise.
For the ordinary citizens who opposed health care reform because of their concern with other issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, guns, immigration, gay rights, and the president’s race, it is a case of biting off your nose to spite your face. They will get what they deserve if health care reform goes down to defeat. For the senators and congressmen who vote against health care reform, their health insurance should be taken away.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
No Cuts in Medicare Benefits
Mitch McConnell and the other Republican allies of the health insurance industry have been arguing that President Obama’s health care reform bill will cut benefits from Medicare in order to pay for reform. This lie is seriously scaring senior citizens. It is regrettable that politics drives these politicians to engage in such distortions. Why can’t they oppose health care reforms without lying?
The truth is that under the President’s plan for health care reform there will be no reduction in Medicare benefits and people will continue to have the same coverage that they have always had. The President has been repeatedly questioned about this at forums he has held around the country. People want to know how he is going to cut the cost of Medicare without cutting benefits. "Nobody is talking about trying to change Medicare benefits," he said. "What we do want is to eliminate some of the waste that is being paid for out of the Medicare trust fund." He cited $177 billion of government subsidies paid to insurance companies participating in Medicare Advantage, a Medicare benefits program run by private insurance companies.
Medicare Advantage is a hugely wasteful Medicare-type program of private insurance that is, for some reason, subsidized by the federal government. It was installed when the Republicans controlled congress. They did it in the belief that private enterprise could run Medicare better than the government. They turned-out to be dead wrong. It costs 17 percent more, on average, to cover a beneficiary under Medicare Advantage than under regular Medicare. Because the program is run by private insurance companies, nearly half of its excess payments go to administrative costs, marketing, and profits, rather than to additional health benefits to enrollees
If Medicare Advantage was eliminated, participants would lose nothing. They would simply go on regular Medicare which provides the same coverage for billions less in taxpayer funds. With an extra $177 billion, the government will be able to strengthen Medicare and its benefits, not cut it.
The House health care reform bill actually gives Medicare an additional $340 billion over the next decade to provide improved care so that seniors do not have to be readmitted to the hospital to correct mistakes. To save money, the bill lowers the amount of subsidies to hospitals for such readmissions and lowers the automatic annual increases to hospitals. None of this will result in cuts in benefits, and readmitted seniors will still receive full coverage, but it will provide better care to seniors while saving the Medicare Trust Fund billions of dollars.
Although the AARP has not specifically endorsed any of the health reform bills in Congress, one of AARP’s new print ads reads: “Special interest groups are trying to block progress on health care reform using myths and scare tactics. The opponents of reform will stop at nothing to derail the process and protect their own vested interests—even if it means misleading older Americans”
In a recent press release, the AARP said: “AARP’s advertising campaign will bust the myths some are spreading to frighten Americans, including false assertions that fixing the health care system will lead to rationed health care, a government takeover, or even euthanasia. We won’t stand idle when opponents of health care reform attempt to scare or mislead the American people—and older Americans in particular—about what fixing the system really means. The truth is we need to fix health care, whether it’s ensuring affordable coverage for Americans age 50 to 64 or improving benefits for people in Medicare. It’s time for the public to get the real facts.”
Shame on the insurance companies and congressional Republicans for trying to scare senior citizens! Shame on them for claiming that under health care reform there will be cuts in Medicare benefits.
The truth is that under the President’s plan for health care reform there will be no reduction in Medicare benefits and people will continue to have the same coverage that they have always had. The President has been repeatedly questioned about this at forums he has held around the country. People want to know how he is going to cut the cost of Medicare without cutting benefits. "Nobody is talking about trying to change Medicare benefits," he said. "What we do want is to eliminate some of the waste that is being paid for out of the Medicare trust fund." He cited $177 billion of government subsidies paid to insurance companies participating in Medicare Advantage, a Medicare benefits program run by private insurance companies.
Medicare Advantage is a hugely wasteful Medicare-type program of private insurance that is, for some reason, subsidized by the federal government. It was installed when the Republicans controlled congress. They did it in the belief that private enterprise could run Medicare better than the government. They turned-out to be dead wrong. It costs 17 percent more, on average, to cover a beneficiary under Medicare Advantage than under regular Medicare. Because the program is run by private insurance companies, nearly half of its excess payments go to administrative costs, marketing, and profits, rather than to additional health benefits to enrollees
If Medicare Advantage was eliminated, participants would lose nothing. They would simply go on regular Medicare which provides the same coverage for billions less in taxpayer funds. With an extra $177 billion, the government will be able to strengthen Medicare and its benefits, not cut it.
The House health care reform bill actually gives Medicare an additional $340 billion over the next decade to provide improved care so that seniors do not have to be readmitted to the hospital to correct mistakes. To save money, the bill lowers the amount of subsidies to hospitals for such readmissions and lowers the automatic annual increases to hospitals. None of this will result in cuts in benefits, and readmitted seniors will still receive full coverage, but it will provide better care to seniors while saving the Medicare Trust Fund billions of dollars.
Although the AARP has not specifically endorsed any of the health reform bills in Congress, one of AARP’s new print ads reads: “Special interest groups are trying to block progress on health care reform using myths and scare tactics. The opponents of reform will stop at nothing to derail the process and protect their own vested interests—even if it means misleading older Americans”
In a recent press release, the AARP said: “AARP’s advertising campaign will bust the myths some are spreading to frighten Americans, including false assertions that fixing the health care system will lead to rationed health care, a government takeover, or even euthanasia. We won’t stand idle when opponents of health care reform attempt to scare or mislead the American people—and older Americans in particular—about what fixing the system really means. The truth is we need to fix health care, whether it’s ensuring affordable coverage for Americans age 50 to 64 or improving benefits for people in Medicare. It’s time for the public to get the real facts.”
Shame on the insurance companies and congressional Republicans for trying to scare senior citizens! Shame on them for claiming that under health care reform there will be cuts in Medicare benefits.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Armed Idiots
There is a new and growing tactic by right-wing thugs opposed to the policies of President Obama. They show-up at forums where the President is speaking and have guns strapped to their sides or slung over their shoulders. One idiot, with a 9 mm pistol strapped to his leg, held up a sign outside President Obama's health-care town hall in Portsmouth, N.H. The sign read, "It's time to water the tree of liberty." That's a reference to Thomas Jefferson’s declaration that the tree "must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." That was also a favorite slogan of Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber.
Although one’s first instinct might be to have Congress pass a law forbidding such display of guns in the vicinity of the President, it has been pointed out that the Secret Service has the power to expand the perimeter around the President in order to insure his safety. Moreover, although these pitiful exhibitionists may be intent on intimidating the President and those who come out to see him, they are actually exposing their own vulnerabilities, insecurities, and ignorance. If they ever tried to use their little guns to attack the President or his supporters, the Secret Service would squash them like annoying insects.
It seems to be popular among right-wing loonies to cite the language of Jefferson about “time to water the tree of liberty.” It would be somewhat more serious if these people knew anything about the ideas of Jefferson or the history of our nation. They are, however, a group of dunderheads who wouldn’t know a history book if it fell out of a library and hit them on the head.
People who show-up at Presidential forums with guns strapped to their legs may wish to intimidate, but they face an insurmountable problem. They are poorly armed. They are armed only with their little pop-guns, and not with ideas. Ideas are far more powerful than guns.
The neo-fascist militia types, who are threatening armed revolution because they do not like the policies of our democratically-elected president, are not to be feared. They are to be pitied. If they ever actually started an armed revolt, which is highly unlikely, they would be confronting a President who commands the most powerful armed forces in the world. They would be snuffed-out in a moment, most likely by local and state police. For some reason, the obviousness of this does not seem to stop them from mouthing some of the dumbest rhetoric imaginable.
If these people had some ideas, any ideas, they would be far more dangerous. Ideas have power. Democracy is an idea. It has enabled modern man to avoid the violence and bloodshed of usurpations to overthrow tyrants. It recognizes the inalienable right of people to decide their own fate by means of elections. It insures the right of the majority to rule. It grants to mankind dignity, power, and freedom. Mankind can rid the world of tyrants by going to local polling places and casting ballots. In a democracy there is no need to take-up arms against a tyrant.
President Barack Obama is a duly elected chief executive. He stands for the liberal doctrines long pursued by the Democratic Party, including civil rights, workers rights, minimum wages, protecting the environment, and universal health care. He is an idealistic and visionary individual. He does not seek tyranny. He does not seek a communistic takeover of our lives by government. He seeks justice, charity, and decency. He reflects a brilliant mind, a warm and compassionate personality, leadership, and a remarkably fine character. I realize that I am too partisan to see any defects in him, but for the life of me I cannot understand the reasoning of those who hate him.
Although one’s first instinct might be to have Congress pass a law forbidding such display of guns in the vicinity of the President, it has been pointed out that the Secret Service has the power to expand the perimeter around the President in order to insure his safety. Moreover, although these pitiful exhibitionists may be intent on intimidating the President and those who come out to see him, they are actually exposing their own vulnerabilities, insecurities, and ignorance. If they ever tried to use their little guns to attack the President or his supporters, the Secret Service would squash them like annoying insects.
It seems to be popular among right-wing loonies to cite the language of Jefferson about “time to water the tree of liberty.” It would be somewhat more serious if these people knew anything about the ideas of Jefferson or the history of our nation. They are, however, a group of dunderheads who wouldn’t know a history book if it fell out of a library and hit them on the head.
People who show-up at Presidential forums with guns strapped to their legs may wish to intimidate, but they face an insurmountable problem. They are poorly armed. They are armed only with their little pop-guns, and not with ideas. Ideas are far more powerful than guns.
The neo-fascist militia types, who are threatening armed revolution because they do not like the policies of our democratically-elected president, are not to be feared. They are to be pitied. If they ever actually started an armed revolt, which is highly unlikely, they would be confronting a President who commands the most powerful armed forces in the world. They would be snuffed-out in a moment, most likely by local and state police. For some reason, the obviousness of this does not seem to stop them from mouthing some of the dumbest rhetoric imaginable.
If these people had some ideas, any ideas, they would be far more dangerous. Ideas have power. Democracy is an idea. It has enabled modern man to avoid the violence and bloodshed of usurpations to overthrow tyrants. It recognizes the inalienable right of people to decide their own fate by means of elections. It insures the right of the majority to rule. It grants to mankind dignity, power, and freedom. Mankind can rid the world of tyrants by going to local polling places and casting ballots. In a democracy there is no need to take-up arms against a tyrant.
President Barack Obama is a duly elected chief executive. He stands for the liberal doctrines long pursued by the Democratic Party, including civil rights, workers rights, minimum wages, protecting the environment, and universal health care. He is an idealistic and visionary individual. He does not seek tyranny. He does not seek a communistic takeover of our lives by government. He seeks justice, charity, and decency. He reflects a brilliant mind, a warm and compassionate personality, leadership, and a remarkably fine character. I realize that I am too partisan to see any defects in him, but for the life of me I cannot understand the reasoning of those who hate him.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Ted Kennedy
I feel deep sadness about the death of Ted Kennedy.I have always admired Senator Kennedy. This news, though not unexpected, is a heavy blow.
I was not always a liberal. I grew up in a conservative Republican family. I rooted for Richard Nixon to be elected president in his campaign against John Kennedy. I was in Republican headquarters in Cincinnati on election night when Nixon won Ohio but lost the presidency.
When John Kennedy became president, the world changed.
It is hard to explain what John Kennedy meant to my generation. We suddenly had a feeling that there would be a new politics, a new type of government, a new America. Before John Kennedy, I had felt that the only party opposing racial segregation was the Republican Party. The Democrats in the South were all segregationists. Then John Kennedy and his brother Robert came along and declared that the government would fight against segregation. They changed the Democratic Party and they changed the direction of this country. I became a Democrat. The redneck Democrats of the South became Republicans.
The assassination of President Kennedy was one of the most stunningly terrible days in my life. I had invested all of my political hopes and dreams in this man, and now, through the forces of grim, meaningless misfortune, he was gone. I invested no hope in Lyndon Johnson. I was on the brink of surrendering to apathy and cynicism.
I soon found myself transferring my hopes to John’s younger brother, Robert Kennedy. Although Lyndon Johnson had pushed the Civil Rights Laws through Congress, he had also escalated the Vietnam insurgency into a full-blown war with thousands of American casualties. Robert Kennedy took up the mantel of his late brother and called for progressive politics and cessation of the war. He announced that he was running for president and I became one of his campaign managers for New York City. I organized meetings and canvassing on his behalf. One morning, as I got out of bed, I turned on the television and the announcer said that Robert Kennedy had been shot and killed. I sat on the bed in numb disbelief. For the second time I felt that a bullet had been shot through my heart.
There was still one brother left. I attended the funeral of Robert Kennedy in St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York, and was very moved by the eulogy delivered by Ted Kennedy. I thought that perhaps Ted could become president and accomplish the unfinished work of John and Robert. There was still a faint glimmer of hope that Camelot could be brought back, that we could return to the idealism and promise inaugurated by the first Kennedy.
But it did not take another assassin to shoot Ted Kennedy. He shot himself at Chappaquiddick, driving my hopes and the hopes of millions of Americans off a bridge in a car with an attractive young woman not his wife. He lost the luster of Kennedy brilliance, and when he did run for president he was still weighted down in the murky waters of a channel between Chappaquiddick Island and Martha's Vineyard. He lost to a mediocrity named Jimmy Carter.
In the 1980 Democratic convention, Senator Kennedy gave the finest speech I have ever heard at a political convention. He called for Democratic idealists to keep the faith, to stand up for liberal values, to fight against the reactionary tide that was sweeping across the nation. He concluded his speech in a thundering voice: “For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.”
For 29 more years the work went on for Ted Kennedy. With all of his wealth, he could have retired to Hyannisport and lived a life of pure luxury. Instead he fought indefatigably for the ideals of his brothers and for all that is best in America. He pushed through legislation that embodied the great liberal causes dear to the Kennedys. He overcame all of the things in his life that had held him back and had caused questioning and scandal. He became the "Lion of the Senate," and in that role he stood for everything that I admire. Because of his work, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream has never died.
I was not always a liberal. I grew up in a conservative Republican family. I rooted for Richard Nixon to be elected president in his campaign against John Kennedy. I was in Republican headquarters in Cincinnati on election night when Nixon won Ohio but lost the presidency.
When John Kennedy became president, the world changed.
It is hard to explain what John Kennedy meant to my generation. We suddenly had a feeling that there would be a new politics, a new type of government, a new America. Before John Kennedy, I had felt that the only party opposing racial segregation was the Republican Party. The Democrats in the South were all segregationists. Then John Kennedy and his brother Robert came along and declared that the government would fight against segregation. They changed the Democratic Party and they changed the direction of this country. I became a Democrat. The redneck Democrats of the South became Republicans.
The assassination of President Kennedy was one of the most stunningly terrible days in my life. I had invested all of my political hopes and dreams in this man, and now, through the forces of grim, meaningless misfortune, he was gone. I invested no hope in Lyndon Johnson. I was on the brink of surrendering to apathy and cynicism.
I soon found myself transferring my hopes to John’s younger brother, Robert Kennedy. Although Lyndon Johnson had pushed the Civil Rights Laws through Congress, he had also escalated the Vietnam insurgency into a full-blown war with thousands of American casualties. Robert Kennedy took up the mantel of his late brother and called for progressive politics and cessation of the war. He announced that he was running for president and I became one of his campaign managers for New York City. I organized meetings and canvassing on his behalf. One morning, as I got out of bed, I turned on the television and the announcer said that Robert Kennedy had been shot and killed. I sat on the bed in numb disbelief. For the second time I felt that a bullet had been shot through my heart.
There was still one brother left. I attended the funeral of Robert Kennedy in St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York, and was very moved by the eulogy delivered by Ted Kennedy. I thought that perhaps Ted could become president and accomplish the unfinished work of John and Robert. There was still a faint glimmer of hope that Camelot could be brought back, that we could return to the idealism and promise inaugurated by the first Kennedy.
But it did not take another assassin to shoot Ted Kennedy. He shot himself at Chappaquiddick, driving my hopes and the hopes of millions of Americans off a bridge in a car with an attractive young woman not his wife. He lost the luster of Kennedy brilliance, and when he did run for president he was still weighted down in the murky waters of a channel between Chappaquiddick Island and Martha's Vineyard. He lost to a mediocrity named Jimmy Carter.
In the 1980 Democratic convention, Senator Kennedy gave the finest speech I have ever heard at a political convention. He called for Democratic idealists to keep the faith, to stand up for liberal values, to fight against the reactionary tide that was sweeping across the nation. He concluded his speech in a thundering voice: “For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.”
For 29 more years the work went on for Ted Kennedy. With all of his wealth, he could have retired to Hyannisport and lived a life of pure luxury. Instead he fought indefatigably for the ideals of his brothers and for all that is best in America. He pushed through legislation that embodied the great liberal causes dear to the Kennedys. He overcame all of the things in his life that had held him back and had caused questioning and scandal. He became the "Lion of the Senate," and in that role he stood for everything that I admire. Because of his work, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream has never died.
Misperceptions About Health Care Reform
It is a tribute to the power and wealth of the health insurance lobby and its Republican friends in Congress that they have been able to influence many people by spreading misinformation about the President’s health care reform plan. It is discouraging to see that in a desperate effort to defeat and destroy President Obama and the Democrats the Republicans have abandoned a critical moral value called “truth.”
One of the main reasons why so many people oppose health care reform is because of glaring misperceptions about the President’s plan. Large numbers of misinformed people believe the plan would cut Medicare benefits, give health insurance coverage to illegal immigrants, lead to a government takeover of the health care system, and use taxpayer dollars to pay for women to have abortions — all claims that have proven to be false.
One false rumor spread by congressional Republicans is that the government is going to require old people to have “mandatory” counseling sessions that will tell them how to end their lives sooner. This lie was promoted by our local hero and House Minority Gasbag, John Boehner, who said that the bill would encourage “euthanasia.” Even that quitter, Sarah Palin, whose rambling and grammatically challenged farewell speech became the laughingstock of late-night comedians, said on Facebook that she didn’t want to have her parents and down-syndrome baby face President Obama’s “death panel.” Death panel?
It is self-evident that dimwit Sarah, like most other right-wing opponents of health care reform, has no clue as to what is in the bills in Congress. There is nothing in the plan that could even remotely constitute a requirement of “mandatory” end-of-life counseling sessions, not to mention euthanasia or a death panel. I don’t expect people to read the over 1017 recondite pages of the proposed bills, but there are good summaries on the internet.
One claim made by Republicans is that health care reform will hurt small businessmen and make it impossible for them to cover their employees with health insurance. On the contrary, it will greatly help small businessmen. Small firms will be able to buy health insurance at substantially lower rates. Those that currently offer coverage often pay significantly more per worker than larger employers. Under the current bills, the smallest employers will gain quick access to new insurance exchanges — where plans will compete for their business with rates comparable to those enjoyed by large employers.
Another claim frequently heard is that the government will institute rationing. The truth is just the opposite. The health care reform bills will eliminate all forms of health insurance rationing, especially those now being used by private health insurance companies. The bills will forbid insurance companies from denying coverage for people who have had a previous medical condition. They will forbid dropping patients who have current medical problems. No American will ever again be subject to annual or lifetime limits on their coverage.
The health care bills will not cover illegal immigrants. Under the President’s plan, only citizens and legal residents will be covered.
The health care bills will not cover government funding of abortion. There will be no repeal of the Hyde Amendment which prohibits the government from funding abortion.
Republican senators have declared that the bills will cut benefits from Medicare. That is a deliberate lie. The bills will not cut any benefits from Medicare. (This will be the subject of a later commentary).
There will be no governmental take-over of the health care system. We will still have private doctors, hospitals, and health insurance.
It is unfortunate that people have swallowed so many lies put-out by the health insurance industry and Republican leaders. If you really care, now is the time to actually read the summaries of the bills on the internet.
One of the main reasons why so many people oppose health care reform is because of glaring misperceptions about the President’s plan. Large numbers of misinformed people believe the plan would cut Medicare benefits, give health insurance coverage to illegal immigrants, lead to a government takeover of the health care system, and use taxpayer dollars to pay for women to have abortions — all claims that have proven to be false.
One false rumor spread by congressional Republicans is that the government is going to require old people to have “mandatory” counseling sessions that will tell them how to end their lives sooner. This lie was promoted by our local hero and House Minority Gasbag, John Boehner, who said that the bill would encourage “euthanasia.” Even that quitter, Sarah Palin, whose rambling and grammatically challenged farewell speech became the laughingstock of late-night comedians, said on Facebook that she didn’t want to have her parents and down-syndrome baby face President Obama’s “death panel.” Death panel?
It is self-evident that dimwit Sarah, like most other right-wing opponents of health care reform, has no clue as to what is in the bills in Congress. There is nothing in the plan that could even remotely constitute a requirement of “mandatory” end-of-life counseling sessions, not to mention euthanasia or a death panel. I don’t expect people to read the over 1017 recondite pages of the proposed bills, but there are good summaries on the internet.
One claim made by Republicans is that health care reform will hurt small businessmen and make it impossible for them to cover their employees with health insurance. On the contrary, it will greatly help small businessmen. Small firms will be able to buy health insurance at substantially lower rates. Those that currently offer coverage often pay significantly more per worker than larger employers. Under the current bills, the smallest employers will gain quick access to new insurance exchanges — where plans will compete for their business with rates comparable to those enjoyed by large employers.
Another claim frequently heard is that the government will institute rationing. The truth is just the opposite. The health care reform bills will eliminate all forms of health insurance rationing, especially those now being used by private health insurance companies. The bills will forbid insurance companies from denying coverage for people who have had a previous medical condition. They will forbid dropping patients who have current medical problems. No American will ever again be subject to annual or lifetime limits on their coverage.
The health care bills will not cover illegal immigrants. Under the President’s plan, only citizens and legal residents will be covered.
The health care bills will not cover government funding of abortion. There will be no repeal of the Hyde Amendment which prohibits the government from funding abortion.
Republican senators have declared that the bills will cut benefits from Medicare. That is a deliberate lie. The bills will not cut any benefits from Medicare. (This will be the subject of a later commentary).
There will be no governmental take-over of the health care system. We will still have private doctors, hospitals, and health insurance.
It is unfortunate that people have swallowed so many lies put-out by the health insurance industry and Republican leaders. If you really care, now is the time to actually read the summaries of the bills on the internet.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
The Public Option
There are reports that as of the time I write this commentary the White House is ready to abandon the idea of a public option by which the public could buy health insurance from the government at prices competitive with those of private insurance companies. Apparently, the public option is a deal breaker with many of those Blue Dog Democrats who have taken so much money from the health insurance industry. Senator Kent Conrad says that there are not enough votes in Congress to pass health care with the public option.
Now is the time for the President and the Democrats in Congress to stand-up to the insurance companies and their congressional lackeys, the Republicans, and forge ahead with plans for a public option. If there are not enough votes to pass it, so be it, but don’t surrender before the battle begins. The public option is crucial to hopes of providing health insurance to the 47 million uninsured people in America.
One mindless remark frequently repeated by opponents of health care reform is that we do not want government running our health care because government makes a mess of everything it touches. The statement is simply not true. One need only look at Medicare, TRICARE, and The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). Far from being poorly run, these governmental health programs are models of efficiency and provide excellent health service to millions of Americans. As a Medicare beneficiary I can testify to the excellence of this program. The truth is that for-profit insurance companies, because of their high administrative costs and their mission to make a profit, are the inefficient providers.
Medicare spends only 3 percent of its budget on administrative costs compared with up to 25 percent spent by private health insurers. The only reason Medicare is running low on money is that doctors and hospitals have for many years been gaming the system by making enormously wasteful charges for unnecessary tests, procedures, and even surgeries (I will cover that problem in a separate column).
At one raucous town hall meeting, a protestor got up and asked the crowd: “how many people are against having the federal government run their health care?” Most of the people raised their hands. The Congressman then asked: “How many people here are on Medicare?” Most of the same people raised their hands. Somehow, these people did not realize that Medicare is a federal government health care program. In one forum a woman said to President Obama: “I don’t want the government interfering with my Medicare.” Millions of obtuse people do not realize that the government runs Medicare, and does it quite well.
Another governmental health care program is TRICARE, the program that covers all military service personnel and veterans. TRICARE is a vitally important part of the national healthcare infrastructure. TRICARE provides world class health care to over 9.4 million beneficiaries who currently serve or have served this nation. In 2008, TRICARE was rated the best health care insurer in the nation according to the Wilson Health Information survey of customer satisfaction.
The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), which currently covers 8 million active and retired federal employees and their dependents, is the nation’s largest employer-sponsored health insurance plan. The program is routinely held up as a model for national health care reform.
The enormously profitable, wasteful, inefficient, deceitful health insurance industry wants people to think that enactment of a public option would mean a complete governmental take-over of health care in America. It would mean no such thing. It would just be another health insurance option. People would be able to keep their previous health insurance, private doctors, and private hospitals. Nothing would change except that there would be one more highly attractive alternative for health insurance.
Now is the time for the President and the Democrats in Congress to stand-up to the insurance companies and their congressional lackeys, the Republicans, and forge ahead with plans for a public option. If there are not enough votes to pass it, so be it, but don’t surrender before the battle begins. The public option is crucial to hopes of providing health insurance to the 47 million uninsured people in America.
One mindless remark frequently repeated by opponents of health care reform is that we do not want government running our health care because government makes a mess of everything it touches. The statement is simply not true. One need only look at Medicare, TRICARE, and The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). Far from being poorly run, these governmental health programs are models of efficiency and provide excellent health service to millions of Americans. As a Medicare beneficiary I can testify to the excellence of this program. The truth is that for-profit insurance companies, because of their high administrative costs and their mission to make a profit, are the inefficient providers.
Medicare spends only 3 percent of its budget on administrative costs compared with up to 25 percent spent by private health insurers. The only reason Medicare is running low on money is that doctors and hospitals have for many years been gaming the system by making enormously wasteful charges for unnecessary tests, procedures, and even surgeries (I will cover that problem in a separate column).
At one raucous town hall meeting, a protestor got up and asked the crowd: “how many people are against having the federal government run their health care?” Most of the people raised their hands. The Congressman then asked: “How many people here are on Medicare?” Most of the same people raised their hands. Somehow, these people did not realize that Medicare is a federal government health care program. In one forum a woman said to President Obama: “I don’t want the government interfering with my Medicare.” Millions of obtuse people do not realize that the government runs Medicare, and does it quite well.
Another governmental health care program is TRICARE, the program that covers all military service personnel and veterans. TRICARE is a vitally important part of the national healthcare infrastructure. TRICARE provides world class health care to over 9.4 million beneficiaries who currently serve or have served this nation. In 2008, TRICARE was rated the best health care insurer in the nation according to the Wilson Health Information survey of customer satisfaction.
The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), which currently covers 8 million active and retired federal employees and their dependents, is the nation’s largest employer-sponsored health insurance plan. The program is routinely held up as a model for national health care reform.
The enormously profitable, wasteful, inefficient, deceitful health insurance industry wants people to think that enactment of a public option would mean a complete governmental take-over of health care in America. It would mean no such thing. It would just be another health insurance option. People would be able to keep their previous health insurance, private doctors, and private hospitals. Nothing would change except that there would be one more highly attractive alternative for health insurance.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
What It's Really All About
"If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him." Sen. Jim DeMint
It is not really about health care reform. It never has been. If the current health care reform bills had been presented by the Republicans in Congress instead of the Democrats, conservative Republicans would have greeted them enthusiastically. Everybody knows that we need health care reform. Everybody knows that the cost of health insurance is soaring out of reach for most people and businesses. Everybody knows that millions of people cannot get health insurance because of prior conditions, current conditions, or inability to pay. No, it’s not health care reform that has conservatives up in arms.
There are other issues that motivate the anger of right-wing conservatives against President Obama’s health care reform. Those people are fanatical about issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, gay rights, guns, and immigration. I am also convinced that for many of those people the issue is the President’s race. To them it is simply unbelievable that a biracial individual has taken-over in the White House. They read news stories saying that by 2042 white people will be a minority in the United States, and it makes them crazy. They don’t seem to realize that they do not have to wait until 2042. They already are a small minority.
The stone-cold businessmen who run the health insurance companies do not care about these issues. They just want to keep-on making billions of dollars by soaking the public. They are in a survival mode. It reminds me of the movie “The China Syndrome” where ordinary businessmen were willing to do anything, even kill, to keep people from revealing the facts about their malfeasance. I believe that the insurance companies are willing to do anything, ethical or unethical, legal or illegal, to destroy health care reform.
One thing they are willing and happy to do is tap into the ugly mood and anger of right-wingers against President Obama and the Democrats. Aside from the spreading of lies in all available media about the bills in Congress, they are organizing and paying for demonstrations against congressmen who favor reform.
Now that federal lawmakers are home for their summer recess, right-wing opponents are disrupting town-hall meetings about the health care reform. Screaming protesters have turned normally respectful meetings between representatives and their constituents into unruly scenes of chaos and violence. These demonstrations are not spontaneous. They are not grassroots. Democratic leaders have described them as “Astroturf”--the opposite of real grass. They have been carefully organized by health insurance companies and far-right organizations. People outside the congressional districts are being brought-in to demonstrate. Those demonstrators have no idea what is in the health care bills. They know only that they hate President Obama.
A strategy memo circulated by the Web site “Tea Party Patriots” instructed demonstrators to “Pack the hall” and “Yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early.” “Get him off his prepared script and agenda.” The memo continued: “Stand up and shout and sit right back down.”
Congressmen have been receiving hundreds of calls demanding town-hall meetings on the health care proposal. They are becoming wary of such meetings because they now realize that the callers want to show-up and disrupt. A North Carolina congressman who supports health care reform had his life threatened by a caller upset that he was not holding a public forum on the proposal.
President Obama has said that this is not about him. This is about reforming the health care system. But for Senator DeMint and other right-wing extremists it is all about the President. They care nothing about health care. They want only to hobble this President and his party which have reduced them to a small, squealing minority.
It is not really about health care reform. It never has been. If the current health care reform bills had been presented by the Republicans in Congress instead of the Democrats, conservative Republicans would have greeted them enthusiastically. Everybody knows that we need health care reform. Everybody knows that the cost of health insurance is soaring out of reach for most people and businesses. Everybody knows that millions of people cannot get health insurance because of prior conditions, current conditions, or inability to pay. No, it’s not health care reform that has conservatives up in arms.
There are other issues that motivate the anger of right-wing conservatives against President Obama’s health care reform. Those people are fanatical about issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, gay rights, guns, and immigration. I am also convinced that for many of those people the issue is the President’s race. To them it is simply unbelievable that a biracial individual has taken-over in the White House. They read news stories saying that by 2042 white people will be a minority in the United States, and it makes them crazy. They don’t seem to realize that they do not have to wait until 2042. They already are a small minority.
The stone-cold businessmen who run the health insurance companies do not care about these issues. They just want to keep-on making billions of dollars by soaking the public. They are in a survival mode. It reminds me of the movie “The China Syndrome” where ordinary businessmen were willing to do anything, even kill, to keep people from revealing the facts about their malfeasance. I believe that the insurance companies are willing to do anything, ethical or unethical, legal or illegal, to destroy health care reform.
One thing they are willing and happy to do is tap into the ugly mood and anger of right-wingers against President Obama and the Democrats. Aside from the spreading of lies in all available media about the bills in Congress, they are organizing and paying for demonstrations against congressmen who favor reform.
Now that federal lawmakers are home for their summer recess, right-wing opponents are disrupting town-hall meetings about the health care reform. Screaming protesters have turned normally respectful meetings between representatives and their constituents into unruly scenes of chaos and violence. These demonstrations are not spontaneous. They are not grassroots. Democratic leaders have described them as “Astroturf”--the opposite of real grass. They have been carefully organized by health insurance companies and far-right organizations. People outside the congressional districts are being brought-in to demonstrate. Those demonstrators have no idea what is in the health care bills. They know only that they hate President Obama.
A strategy memo circulated by the Web site “Tea Party Patriots” instructed demonstrators to “Pack the hall” and “Yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early.” “Get him off his prepared script and agenda.” The memo continued: “Stand up and shout and sit right back down.”
Congressmen have been receiving hundreds of calls demanding town-hall meetings on the health care proposal. They are becoming wary of such meetings because they now realize that the callers want to show-up and disrupt. A North Carolina congressman who supports health care reform had his life threatened by a caller upset that he was not holding a public forum on the proposal.
President Obama has said that this is not about him. This is about reforming the health care system. But for Senator DeMint and other right-wing extremists it is all about the President. They care nothing about health care. They want only to hobble this President and his party which have reduced them to a small, squealing minority.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Buying-Off the Blue Dogs
For many years now it has been one of the primary goals of genuine Democrats to obtain broad health care reform through a governmental health insurance program. I do not understand how anybody can call himself a Democrat and not be in favor of a “public option” under which the government would provide health insurance for all Americans regardless of their financial situation, employment, current health, or prior condition. This has never been a desire for socialism or government take-over of the entire health-care system. It has been, rather, a yearning for fairness and equity. Many of us would have the Congress go much further and enact a single-payer system.
I realize that conservative Republicans do not want this to happen. Conservatives prefer to live with market economics even if poorer people have to suffer under such a system. It has always been at the core of disagreements between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans. Republicans say: “If you want something, you have to work hard and earn it. The government should not be in the business of helping-out the needy.” Liberals say: “Helping the unfortunate should be one of the basic goals of government.”
Today, millions of people are suffering terribly because of the Recession. Many of those people are out of work and they or their children have terrible diseases and medical conditions. They cannot afford health insurance and they cannot afford to go to the doctor. They cannot afford necessary surgeries and treatments. Bush said that they can always go to the ER. That’s how thoughtless and numb some Republicans are to the problem. Many of those people are going to die as a result of their conditions. I believe that it is right and proper and moral for the government to help those people. A health care bill with governmental health insurance is what is needed.
Suddenly, one hears that it is not only conservative Republicans standing in the way of universal health coverage. One hears that there is a little club called “Blue Dog Democrats” who style themselves “Moderates.” I dislike such use of the term “moderate.” It implies that there is something immoderate about people fighting for humane, liberal values.
When you look at where these Blue Dog Democrats come from, it is mostly those backwaters of benightedness called “Red (neck?) States.” One would assume, therefore, that it is the local conservatism of their districts that govern their politics, but perhaps there is more to the story. Perhaps they are being bought by the health insurance and health care industries.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the health insurance industry and the health sector have, since 1989, given $62,650 more to the typical Blue Dog House Democrat than to the typical non-Blue Dog Democrat. A number of Blue Dog Democrats in the House have received close to $1 million from the insurance and health sector since 1989. Ohio Blue Dog Representatives Zachary T. Space and Charlie Wilson got $165,444 and $143,224 respectively.
Democracy for America says that Blue Dog Senator Max Baucus received over $3.9 million from the health and health insurance industries. Blue Dog Senators Kent Conrad ($2.54 million) and Ben Nelson ($2.21 million) were also well paid. What chance do legitimate Democrats have against such obscene spreading of wealth by the health industry?
The health insurance industry is engaged in a heavily financed campaign to stop the enactment of health care reform. It is much more sophisticated than the old “Harry and Louise” ads from the Clinton years. Today it includes phony, misleading news stories, columns, letters to the editor, e-mails and other items planted in the news media and internet. If health care reform goes down to defeat, it will be because of the raw power of health insurance company money.
I realize that conservative Republicans do not want this to happen. Conservatives prefer to live with market economics even if poorer people have to suffer under such a system. It has always been at the core of disagreements between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans. Republicans say: “If you want something, you have to work hard and earn it. The government should not be in the business of helping-out the needy.” Liberals say: “Helping the unfortunate should be one of the basic goals of government.”
Today, millions of people are suffering terribly because of the Recession. Many of those people are out of work and they or their children have terrible diseases and medical conditions. They cannot afford health insurance and they cannot afford to go to the doctor. They cannot afford necessary surgeries and treatments. Bush said that they can always go to the ER. That’s how thoughtless and numb some Republicans are to the problem. Many of those people are going to die as a result of their conditions. I believe that it is right and proper and moral for the government to help those people. A health care bill with governmental health insurance is what is needed.
Suddenly, one hears that it is not only conservative Republicans standing in the way of universal health coverage. One hears that there is a little club called “Blue Dog Democrats” who style themselves “Moderates.” I dislike such use of the term “moderate.” It implies that there is something immoderate about people fighting for humane, liberal values.
When you look at where these Blue Dog Democrats come from, it is mostly those backwaters of benightedness called “Red (neck?) States.” One would assume, therefore, that it is the local conservatism of their districts that govern their politics, but perhaps there is more to the story. Perhaps they are being bought by the health insurance and health care industries.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the health insurance industry and the health sector have, since 1989, given $62,650 more to the typical Blue Dog House Democrat than to the typical non-Blue Dog Democrat. A number of Blue Dog Democrats in the House have received close to $1 million from the insurance and health sector since 1989. Ohio Blue Dog Representatives Zachary T. Space and Charlie Wilson got $165,444 and $143,224 respectively.
Democracy for America says that Blue Dog Senator Max Baucus received over $3.9 million from the health and health insurance industries. Blue Dog Senators Kent Conrad ($2.54 million) and Ben Nelson ($2.21 million) were also well paid. What chance do legitimate Democrats have against such obscene spreading of wealth by the health industry?
The health insurance industry is engaged in a heavily financed campaign to stop the enactment of health care reform. It is much more sophisticated than the old “Harry and Louise” ads from the Clinton years. Today it includes phony, misleading news stories, columns, letters to the editor, e-mails and other items planted in the news media and internet. If health care reform goes down to defeat, it will be because of the raw power of health insurance company money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
