Acknowledging possible defeat on the health care bill, Obama refuses to take any responsibility for the opposition to his plan. It is not facing failure because the plan is flawed. It is the long, complicated political process and the political machinations of those opposed to it that are making it look flawed. The protracted negotiations that threaten health care reform are being criticized by Obama. He asserts that the possible failure of his plan is because those opposed to it are trying to make his health care plan look like a "monstrosity." His plan is not facing defeat because it is a monstrosity he claims, but because the "legislative process" is making it look like one. Moreover, it is asserted that it is not Obama at risk of losing, but the American people. Obama has conceded that, while he might have made some errors in the handling of his health care plan, it is the maneuvering and machinations of the pharmaceutical companies, the health care industry, and their allies in Congress that are putting his plan in jeopardy.
The lapses in security that led to the near disaster several weeks ago were not his fault. Even though Obama stood up to take the blame for those errors, he was careful to point out that they were not his fault. It was the "system" that failed. Never mind that fact that the "system" is Obama's responsibility. The failure of the economy to rebound under his policies and massive spending is not his fault either. Economic factors beyond his control are to blame.
Obama has become adept at taking the blame in a way that makes him look like he is not to blame. His mea culpas are always presented in a way that, rather than making him look mistaken or negligent, make him look noble and gracious. When things go wrong, Obama's magnanimity and grace absolve him of blame. Obama's skill at taking the blame while avoiding the blame is remarkable to say the least.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
Edward's Shame
Former North Carolina senator John Edwards finally admitted to having an affair with his mistress and fathering a daughter with her. His confession came in advance of a soon to be released book by a former aide where Edward's affair will be chronicled. "It was wrong of me to ever deny she was my daughter" Edwards said solemnly. After denying the affair and his paternity, Edward's confession was finally forced by uncontroversial evidence to the contrary. Edward's previously had attempted to avoid his culpability, even to the point of maneuvering to have one of his aides take responsibility for being the father. Speaking of his daughter, Edwards said "hopefully one day, when she understands, she will forgive me." I am sure he hopes we will forgive him as well once we understand.
Edwards' affair, which occurred while his wife has been struggling with cancer, is reprehensible by every standard of human decency. It is understandable why he would try to conceal it. In his confession, Edwards admitted that he had done "wrong" when he denied the affair and that he could only hope for his wife's forgiveness. What he did was much more than wrong. It was despicable.
Edwards' confession was made in the now popular style of admitting wrong while at the same time seeking understanding, compassion, and forgiveness. It is also a style that seeks to minimize the gravity of the deed. The deed is most often portrayed as an isolated act committed out of frailty and momentary weakness, part of the human condition as it were. Something all of us can understand and appreciate. But having an affair while one's spouse is battling cancer is more than "wrong", or borne from human weakness. Neither is it something most people can, or should understand. It is a reprehensible act, not borne of human weakness, but of lust and selfishness. Weakness can be understood and sympathized with. Lust and selfishness cannot, except by the lustful and the selfish.
The humble and sincere nature of Edward's confession was more a plea for understanding than an admission of guilt. Perhaps worst of all, because his admission was made only in the face of inevitable exposure, it belies the appearance of penitence that no doubt was sought. As if to demonstrate his sincerity and compassion, Edwards made the confession while travelling in Haiti helping those suffering in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake. Given that, and the humility and contriteness of his confession, how bad can he really be? Edwards would like us to believe that maybe he is not such a despicable man after all. Perhaps he is just a man who gave into temptation and acted selfishly. He is not. He is much worse. He is a man who cheated on his dying wife and lied about it. Honesty in the face of inevitability is not a virtue. It is a tactic.
Infidelity on the part of elected officials is something that should be treated with gravity. If a politician is willing to deceive and betray the person closet to him, a person to whom he has made a solemn vow of fidelity, how can he be trusted not to deceive and betray that great group of strangers that is the public?
Edwards' affair, which occurred while his wife has been struggling with cancer, is reprehensible by every standard of human decency. It is understandable why he would try to conceal it. In his confession, Edwards admitted that he had done "wrong" when he denied the affair and that he could only hope for his wife's forgiveness. What he did was much more than wrong. It was despicable.
Edwards' confession was made in the now popular style of admitting wrong while at the same time seeking understanding, compassion, and forgiveness. It is also a style that seeks to minimize the gravity of the deed. The deed is most often portrayed as an isolated act committed out of frailty and momentary weakness, part of the human condition as it were. Something all of us can understand and appreciate. But having an affair while one's spouse is battling cancer is more than "wrong", or borne from human weakness. Neither is it something most people can, or should understand. It is a reprehensible act, not borne of human weakness, but of lust and selfishness. Weakness can be understood and sympathized with. Lust and selfishness cannot, except by the lustful and the selfish.
The humble and sincere nature of Edward's confession was more a plea for understanding than an admission of guilt. Perhaps worst of all, because his admission was made only in the face of inevitable exposure, it belies the appearance of penitence that no doubt was sought. As if to demonstrate his sincerity and compassion, Edwards made the confession while travelling in Haiti helping those suffering in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake. Given that, and the humility and contriteness of his confession, how bad can he really be? Edwards would like us to believe that maybe he is not such a despicable man after all. Perhaps he is just a man who gave into temptation and acted selfishly. He is not. He is much worse. He is a man who cheated on his dying wife and lied about it. Honesty in the face of inevitability is not a virtue. It is a tactic.
Infidelity on the part of elected officials is something that should be treated with gravity. If a politician is willing to deceive and betray the person closet to him, a person to whom he has made a solemn vow of fidelity, how can he be trusted not to deceive and betray that great group of strangers that is the public?
Monday, January 18, 2010
The Puzzle of Obesity.
More news on the obesity front: the U.S. Preventative Service Task Force has concluded that pediatric obesity programs can prove successful. Five years ago, they concluded otherwise. The change of heart was due to the success of pediatric obesity programs. The success was attributed to "intensive behavior programs." Those programs, however are "costly, hard to find and hard to follow." Task force chairman Dr. Ned Colonge stated that "this is a recommendation that says there are things that work." Gyms, exercise, and diet have been eclipsed by "behavior modification." One can expect that it will be only a matter of time before there is pressure to extend health care insurance to cover those behavior programs.
Implicit in the term "behavior modification" is the idea that obese children are unable or unwilling to lose weight by themselves or with the help of their parents and families. This idea is underscored by the increasing tendency to treat obesity as a predominantly medical condition. While obesity certainly has medical ramifications, it has only recently become a medical issue to be treated. In the report is the curious omission of the fact that most children neither buy their own groceries nor cook their own meals. Every obese child has a sponsor.
Triumphantly, Cologne goes on to state that the report, published in the journal Pediatrics, means "insurers will no longer be able to say that they won't provide coverage because treatment works." Which also means that, under national health care, neither will the government. This will certainly be a relief to those unwilling to do what it takes to lose weight but prefer to seek medical treatment for their condition. Insurance will soon cover it.
It is less and less common for obesity to be seen as an issue of character, motivation, and self control. Instead, the inability to forgo that second piece of pie or spur oneself to take a walk in the park is rapidly becoming a psychological condition requiring therapy and treatment. Once again, government studies and scientific reports are supplanting common sense. Says Dr. Cologne, "you don't have to throw your arms up and say you can't do anything...there are things that work." It is as if avoiding weight gain and losing weight have been medical mysteries that science has only recently begun to solve. Undoubtedly, the medical and psychological approach to obesity has its appeal to the overweight. It serves to remove from them the responsibility for their own predicament. In other words, being obese is increasingly being seen as no longer the fault of the obese person. Nor is it necessarily a situation that can be improved by the person on their own. It is becoming a medical condition that requires treatment.
The scientific approach has its appeal to the scientific and medical communities as well. It represents a new frontier; a new facet of human behavior to be brought under the dominion of science. For many, human behavior is a puzzle to be solved. Once it is solved, it can then be understood. Once it is understood, it can be manipulated. The scientific analyses and reports issued concerning obesity rarely pay more than lip service to self discipline and common sense. Obese people know they are obese. They know why they are obese and they know what they have to do to lose weight. It is not a mystery. Where the new studies differ from common sense is that they uniformly give short shrift to human motivation by obscuring it amidst scientific data and technical jargon. Watching TV or playing video games does not make people obese. Eating too much and not exercising do.
Clockwork Orange was a book written many years ago attempting to point out the errors and dangers of an overly scientific approach to human nature. In the book, a violent and sociopathic character, after committing a string of horrors, was not imprisoned, he was "treated". His violence was not seen as due to his character and lack of conscience, but rather due to his flawed psychological make up. The solution was to readjust him. In the end, the "adjustment" failed to stick, and Alex returned to his violent and cruel ways because that is who he was: that was his nature. The point of the story was that people are not clocks: they are not things to be adjusted, manipulated, and corrected.
Neither is society a clock. The scientific approach to human behavior is becoming more and more fashionable. But society is not something to be adjusted, manipulated, or corrected. Neither are the obese. While people may be enticed or discouraged, it is ultimately up to them to evaluate their motivation and decide whether to change their behavior and habits. Government will never succeed in stopping someone from going back for seconds or make them take a walk in the park. Only the person them self can do that. But that does not mean that the government won't try by seeking to "modify" their behavior.
Implicit in the term "behavior modification" is the idea that obese children are unable or unwilling to lose weight by themselves or with the help of their parents and families. This idea is underscored by the increasing tendency to treat obesity as a predominantly medical condition. While obesity certainly has medical ramifications, it has only recently become a medical issue to be treated. In the report is the curious omission of the fact that most children neither buy their own groceries nor cook their own meals. Every obese child has a sponsor.
Triumphantly, Cologne goes on to state that the report, published in the journal Pediatrics, means "insurers will no longer be able to say that they won't provide coverage because treatment works." Which also means that, under national health care, neither will the government. This will certainly be a relief to those unwilling to do what it takes to lose weight but prefer to seek medical treatment for their condition. Insurance will soon cover it.
It is less and less common for obesity to be seen as an issue of character, motivation, and self control. Instead, the inability to forgo that second piece of pie or spur oneself to take a walk in the park is rapidly becoming a psychological condition requiring therapy and treatment. Once again, government studies and scientific reports are supplanting common sense. Says Dr. Cologne, "you don't have to throw your arms up and say you can't do anything...there are things that work." It is as if avoiding weight gain and losing weight have been medical mysteries that science has only recently begun to solve. Undoubtedly, the medical and psychological approach to obesity has its appeal to the overweight. It serves to remove from them the responsibility for their own predicament. In other words, being obese is increasingly being seen as no longer the fault of the obese person. Nor is it necessarily a situation that can be improved by the person on their own. It is becoming a medical condition that requires treatment.
The scientific approach has its appeal to the scientific and medical communities as well. It represents a new frontier; a new facet of human behavior to be brought under the dominion of science. For many, human behavior is a puzzle to be solved. Once it is solved, it can then be understood. Once it is understood, it can be manipulated. The scientific analyses and reports issued concerning obesity rarely pay more than lip service to self discipline and common sense. Obese people know they are obese. They know why they are obese and they know what they have to do to lose weight. It is not a mystery. Where the new studies differ from common sense is that they uniformly give short shrift to human motivation by obscuring it amidst scientific data and technical jargon. Watching TV or playing video games does not make people obese. Eating too much and not exercising do.
Clockwork Orange was a book written many years ago attempting to point out the errors and dangers of an overly scientific approach to human nature. In the book, a violent and sociopathic character, after committing a string of horrors, was not imprisoned, he was "treated". His violence was not seen as due to his character and lack of conscience, but rather due to his flawed psychological make up. The solution was to readjust him. In the end, the "adjustment" failed to stick, and Alex returned to his violent and cruel ways because that is who he was: that was his nature. The point of the story was that people are not clocks: they are not things to be adjusted, manipulated, and corrected.
Neither is society a clock. The scientific approach to human behavior is becoming more and more fashionable. But society is not something to be adjusted, manipulated, or corrected. Neither are the obese. While people may be enticed or discouraged, it is ultimately up to them to evaluate their motivation and decide whether to change their behavior and habits. Government will never succeed in stopping someone from going back for seconds or make them take a walk in the park. Only the person them self can do that. But that does not mean that the government won't try by seeking to "modify" their behavior.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
The Costs of Obesity
Although the rate of obesity in the U.S. did not rise over the last year, (perhaps due the poor economy), it was reported in this morning's Dallas Morning News that in the U.S. more than two thirds of adults, and a third of children remain overweight. The percentage of "extremely obese" children and young adults has risen from 9 percent in 2000 to fifteen percent today. "We haven't turned the corner yet" said Dr. William Dietz, an expert on obesity with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. According to statistics, the majority of Americans are overweight. Sixty four percent of Americans are described as overweight. Thirty four percent of those are considered obese. Seventeen percent of children were reported as obese. Most of those children were "extremely obese" as measured by the body mass index. Ten percent of of babies and toddlers are "precariously heavy." The statistics, if nothing else, indicate that growth does not stop after puberty. The good news is that the rate of obesity, as troubling as it is, has remained steady over the last five years. The bad news is that the obese are getting even more obese.
The health care costs associated with obesity are substantial. The costs include not just the direct costs of treating obesity related illness, but also the loss of productivity and loss of work due to obesity related illness. Diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, and colon cancer are among the plagues that affect the obese at higher rates than those who are not obese. There is also the spectre of premature death hanging over the obese. According to the Department of Medicine, Brigham Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, "the direct costs of lack of physical activity, defined conservatively as absence of leisure-time physical activity, are approximately 24 billion dollars, or 9.4% of the U.S. health expenditures." The CDC reports that in 1998, $78.5 billion was spent on obesity related illness. In a 2006, report, the California Center for Public Health Advocacy estimated that the health related costs of obesity to California was $12.8 billion. The health care costs related to physical inactivity were pegged at $7.9 billion (That is a lot of money in a cash strapped state like California.) Smoking, on the other hand, was estimated to cost the U.S. $157 billion between 1995-1999. It is worth pointing out that while the number of smokers in the U.S. declines every year, the number of obese is rising.
A lot of money is being spent in the U.S. to treat illness caused or exacerbated by overweight and obesity. Once the government becomes involved in health care, a person's health will no longer be their own business. It will be the government's business as well. And you can bet the government will not be content to simply write checks. There will be pressure to use the power and influence gained by the government over health care to manipulate society to achieve health care goals desired by the government and special interests. One goal will almost certainly be to control the health care costs presented by the obese. The only way to control those costs will be to reduce the number of obese. The only way to reduce the number of obese will be to get people eat less and exercise more. This was the conclusion of the California report.
The most likely way to achieve the goal of reducing obesity would be through the usual method: manipulating the tax code. Indeed, the California report concluded that "policies must be established at all levels to promote healthy eating and physical activity." The traditional method of manipulating the behavior of the public is by adjusting the tax code. If this method is adopted, it would open a Pandora's box of legislation and regulation. Might there someday be tax breaks for fitness? Would cheeseburgers be taxed? Would french fries? Will there be tax breaks for vegetables? Will there someday be mandatory exercise? Will people be taxed according to their body fat index?
If manipulation of the tax codes doesn't succeed in getting people to lose weight and get into shape, I suppose the government could try shaming and exhorting them. Maybe every household in America should receive a free subscription to Vogue and GQ. After all, if regulation and taxes aren't enough help to reduce obesity and encourage people to get into shape, maybe vanity and shame will.
Like it or not, when national health care becomes law, we will all have a greater share in bearing the burden of the obese. Each American will have a stake in the health of his or her neighbor. Like with smokers, many will feel that since society must bear the costs of that vice, society has a right to insist that the obese desist in their unhealthy ways. Not only should those who are over weight be concerned, but those with bad posture or who do not eat their vegetables should be uncomfortable. They might be next. The ire of the left is rarely placated for long.
The health care costs associated with obesity are substantial. The costs include not just the direct costs of treating obesity related illness, but also the loss of productivity and loss of work due to obesity related illness. Diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, and colon cancer are among the plagues that affect the obese at higher rates than those who are not obese. There is also the spectre of premature death hanging over the obese. According to the Department of Medicine, Brigham Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, "the direct costs of lack of physical activity, defined conservatively as absence of leisure-time physical activity, are approximately 24 billion dollars, or 9.4% of the U.S. health expenditures." The CDC reports that in 1998, $78.5 billion was spent on obesity related illness. In a 2006, report, the California Center for Public Health Advocacy estimated that the health related costs of obesity to California was $12.8 billion. The health care costs related to physical inactivity were pegged at $7.9 billion (That is a lot of money in a cash strapped state like California.) Smoking, on the other hand, was estimated to cost the U.S. $157 billion between 1995-1999. It is worth pointing out that while the number of smokers in the U.S. declines every year, the number of obese is rising.
A lot of money is being spent in the U.S. to treat illness caused or exacerbated by overweight and obesity. Once the government becomes involved in health care, a person's health will no longer be their own business. It will be the government's business as well. And you can bet the government will not be content to simply write checks. There will be pressure to use the power and influence gained by the government over health care to manipulate society to achieve health care goals desired by the government and special interests. One goal will almost certainly be to control the health care costs presented by the obese. The only way to control those costs will be to reduce the number of obese. The only way to reduce the number of obese will be to get people eat less and exercise more. This was the conclusion of the California report.
The most likely way to achieve the goal of reducing obesity would be through the usual method: manipulating the tax code. Indeed, the California report concluded that "policies must be established at all levels to promote healthy eating and physical activity." The traditional method of manipulating the behavior of the public is by adjusting the tax code. If this method is adopted, it would open a Pandora's box of legislation and regulation. Might there someday be tax breaks for fitness? Would cheeseburgers be taxed? Would french fries? Will there be tax breaks for vegetables? Will there someday be mandatory exercise? Will people be taxed according to their body fat index?
If manipulation of the tax codes doesn't succeed in getting people to lose weight and get into shape, I suppose the government could try shaming and exhorting them. Maybe every household in America should receive a free subscription to Vogue and GQ. After all, if regulation and taxes aren't enough help to reduce obesity and encourage people to get into shape, maybe vanity and shame will.
Like it or not, when national health care becomes law, we will all have a greater share in bearing the burden of the obese. Each American will have a stake in the health of his or her neighbor. Like with smokers, many will feel that since society must bear the costs of that vice, society has a right to insist that the obese desist in their unhealthy ways. Not only should those who are over weight be concerned, but those with bad posture or who do not eat their vegetables should be uncomfortable. They might be next. The ire of the left is rarely placated for long.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Hair in the eyes of Texas
The contest in Mesquite, TX over a young boy's hair is dragging on. Four year old Taylor Pugh attended school Tuesday with his long locks flowing. He was promptly sent to the library. The young Pugh and his parents have been in a contest with the school district for the last three months over the length of Taylor's hair. His hair violates the school's dress code because it covers his eyes and falls to his shoulders. Mesquite school district officials have argued that the dress code is necessary to provide an environment free of distraction. Several appeals courts have upheld the legality of student dress codes.
School officials have tried to accommodate young Taylor's vanity by telling him he could keep his long hair if he tied it in tight braids and wore them above his collar. His parents objected, saying it would not be possible. They said they had tried braiding Taylor's hair but it caused Taylor's scalp to bleed. The school attempted another compromise, albeit a half hearted one, by saying Taylor would be allowed to attend school but in the school office rather than letting him study in the school library with a teacher's aide as had been asked. Taylor's parents disapproved of the idea.
The issue has become a major headache for those involved. All this because a four year old boy does not want his hair cut. Taylor's parents are unhappy that they are being requested to make their son do something that their son doesn't want to do. How his parents get him to eat his vegetables is beyond me. His father declared "there is no reason [Taylor] should have to cut his hair."
Actually, I can think of a good one: so his child can go to school with the rest of the kids. I am sure there are many in Mesquite who can think of some good reasons too. I suspect the only people who cannot think of a reason why Taylor should cut his hair are his parents. And, of course, little Taylor.
School officials have tried to accommodate young Taylor's vanity by telling him he could keep his long hair if he tied it in tight braids and wore them above his collar. His parents objected, saying it would not be possible. They said they had tried braiding Taylor's hair but it caused Taylor's scalp to bleed. The school attempted another compromise, albeit a half hearted one, by saying Taylor would be allowed to attend school but in the school office rather than letting him study in the school library with a teacher's aide as had been asked. Taylor's parents disapproved of the idea.
The issue has become a major headache for those involved. All this because a four year old boy does not want his hair cut. Taylor's parents are unhappy that they are being requested to make their son do something that their son doesn't want to do. How his parents get him to eat his vegetables is beyond me. His father declared "there is no reason [Taylor] should have to cut his hair."
Actually, I can think of a good one: so his child can go to school with the rest of the kids. I am sure there are many in Mesquite who can think of some good reasons too. I suspect the only people who cannot think of a reason why Taylor should cut his hair are his parents. And, of course, little Taylor.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Paying Back the Taxpayers
It was reported this morning that President Obama wants to make sure that the taxpayers are paid back the $700 billion the government provided to troubled financial sector. This is a fine position to take. But I have to wonder, even if the financial sector pays the money back, will the taxpayers really be repaid? Or will it be the government that is repaid?
The $700 billion, if and when it gets paid, undoubtedly will be absorbed by the government and in the end, simply be entered into the ledgers. I suspect it would be a waste of time to stand by the mailbox waiting for a check from the financial sector. I will simply save myself some aggravation and assume it is the government that will be repaid, not the taxpayers. When it comes down to it, "paying back the taxpayers" is little more than a figure of speech. Taxpayers will not see a dime of that $700 billion.
The $700 billion, if and when it gets paid, undoubtedly will be absorbed by the government and in the end, simply be entered into the ledgers. I suspect it would be a waste of time to stand by the mailbox waiting for a check from the financial sector. I will simply save myself some aggravation and assume it is the government that will be repaid, not the taxpayers. When it comes down to it, "paying back the taxpayers" is little more than a figure of speech. Taxpayers will not see a dime of that $700 billion.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Harry Reid's Big Mouth
Republicans are seeking to get some mileage out of Senator Harry Reid's recent comments saying that Obama is "light skinned" and speaks without a "negro dialect." Many republicans relish the opportunity to turn the table on the democrats. Republican National Chairman Michael Steele has called for Reid to resign from the Senate. "There is a standard where Democrats feel that they can say these things and they can apologize when it comes from the mouth of one of their own" said Steele. There is truth in this. Democrats and liberals are far more likely to give the benefit of doubt when one of their own makes an insensitive or insulting comment. They are inclined to understand it as a misstatement or slip of the tongue signifying no sinister or malicious motivation. If a Republican says something insensitive, or just plain foolish, Democrats are quick to perceive the worst.
Curiously, Democratic Party Chairman Tim Cain came to Reid's aid by telling Fox news that Reid's comments were "clearly in the context of praising Obama." If Reid and Cain believe Obama's light complexion is something that merits praise, there might be something to the accusations of racism in the Democratic Party after all.
Senator Reed's comments were insensitive and foolish. But it is difficult to interpret them as racist, that is unless Cain is correct concerning Reid's motivation. Apart from the poor choice of words, and the poorer choice of subject, there was no malice or intent to slight or demean the president or African Americans. At least I assume that from what I have read. I did not hear the tone of his voice or see the look on his face when he made those comments. Reid's comment that President Obama is "light skinned" is simply a description. If one were to try and describe Obama's appearance to a friend, "light skinned" would not be a racist remark. Clumsy and in poor taste perhaps, but not insulting. I am sure Obama has been described by many as "light skinned", just as Sophia Loren was often described as "olive skinned". It is not necessarily a remark made in distaste.
"Negro dialect" is another matter. Again, apart from the poor choice of terms, African American dialect is recognized by many as a distinct manner of speaking. Not all understand it as an insult. It too can simply be a descriptive term. John Baugh, a professor of psychology and the Director of African and African American Studies at Washington University in St. Louis, has asserted that Ebonics is, among other things, "the equivalent of Black English and is considered to be a dialect of English." While there are those who contest this idea, many African American scholars share it. If we accept this understanding of Ebonics as an African American dialect, then it is true that Obama speaks without using it. It is difficult to interpret Sen. Reid's statement as a racist remark: particularly since Obama prides himself on his oratorical abilities. It might be that Sen. Reid intended his comment to be a back handed attempt to demean African Americans. But why would he do that? Is it because Reid is so filled with secret racism that, despite his best efforts to conceal it, some if it just sloshed out? No doubt this is what many Republicans would like us to believe.
If Reid's comments were made in regard to Obama's popularity with the public, this would also be difficult to interpret as racist. If anything, it would indicate an accusation on Reid's part of racism among the American public by implying Obama's popularity is due to his inoffensiveness to white sensibilities. Furthermore, why would Reid see fit to demean the popular leader of his own party? It makes little sense.
It is hard to understand why Reid felt it necessary to make those observations. It is even harder to understand why Reid felt Obama's complexion was relevant and worth praise. It may be that Reid might have been trying to insult Obama's eloquence, bearing, and appearance. But that is hardest to believe of all. After all, Obama was considered attractive enough to adorn a billboard and his eloquence has frequently been commented on. His bearing is near impeccable. It most likely the case that Reid simply said something stupid and regrettable.
Curiously, Democratic Party Chairman Tim Cain came to Reid's aid by telling Fox news that Reid's comments were "clearly in the context of praising Obama." If Reid and Cain believe Obama's light complexion is something that merits praise, there might be something to the accusations of racism in the Democratic Party after all.
Senator Reed's comments were insensitive and foolish. But it is difficult to interpret them as racist, that is unless Cain is correct concerning Reid's motivation. Apart from the poor choice of words, and the poorer choice of subject, there was no malice or intent to slight or demean the president or African Americans. At least I assume that from what I have read. I did not hear the tone of his voice or see the look on his face when he made those comments. Reid's comment that President Obama is "light skinned" is simply a description. If one were to try and describe Obama's appearance to a friend, "light skinned" would not be a racist remark. Clumsy and in poor taste perhaps, but not insulting. I am sure Obama has been described by many as "light skinned", just as Sophia Loren was often described as "olive skinned". It is not necessarily a remark made in distaste.
"Negro dialect" is another matter. Again, apart from the poor choice of terms, African American dialect is recognized by many as a distinct manner of speaking. Not all understand it as an insult. It too can simply be a descriptive term. John Baugh, a professor of psychology and the Director of African and African American Studies at Washington University in St. Louis, has asserted that Ebonics is, among other things, "the equivalent of Black English and is considered to be a dialect of English." While there are those who contest this idea, many African American scholars share it. If we accept this understanding of Ebonics as an African American dialect, then it is true that Obama speaks without using it. It is difficult to interpret Sen. Reid's statement as a racist remark: particularly since Obama prides himself on his oratorical abilities. It might be that Sen. Reid intended his comment to be a back handed attempt to demean African Americans. But why would he do that? Is it because Reid is so filled with secret racism that, despite his best efforts to conceal it, some if it just sloshed out? No doubt this is what many Republicans would like us to believe.
If Reid's comments were made in regard to Obama's popularity with the public, this would also be difficult to interpret as racist. If anything, it would indicate an accusation on Reid's part of racism among the American public by implying Obama's popularity is due to his inoffensiveness to white sensibilities. Furthermore, why would Reid see fit to demean the popular leader of his own party? It makes little sense.
It is hard to understand why Reid felt it necessary to make those observations. It is even harder to understand why Reid felt Obama's complexion was relevant and worth praise. It may be that Reid might have been trying to insult Obama's eloquence, bearing, and appearance. But that is hardest to believe of all. After all, Obama was considered attractive enough to adorn a billboard and his eloquence has frequently been commented on. His bearing is near impeccable. It most likely the case that Reid simply said something stupid and regrettable.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Knowing When to Take the Blame
On Thursday, President Obama stepped up and took responsibility for the security lapses that led to the failed attempt to blow up an airliner Christmas day. He had previously criticized the intelligence agencies responsible for preventing just such attacks. After being careful to point out that he was not to blame - it was the "system" that failed - Obama nevertheless decided to take responsibility. "When the system fails," he stated, "it is my responsibility to take the blame." By taking the blame he showed character and demonstrated his resolve to fix what went wrong. His determination to identify and implement the steps necessary to ensure it never happens again redounds to his credit. It is certain he will get applause for taking the blame.
Today it was reported that the economy was still far from recovering. Over a year into Obama's presidency, the economy is still in a recession. Although there were some encouraging, or at least not depressing statistics, such as a slowdown in the pace of layoffs and the addition of 47,000 new jobs in December, the overall numbers are troubling. The 47,000 new jobs created in December were more than offset by the loss of 85,000 jobs in manufacturing and construction reported by the Department of Labor. The health care industry was one of the few bright spots in the economy. It gained 22,000 jobs. (It is also the industry that is in Obama's cross hairs.) Hourly wages only increased by a meager 2.2% There are many other discouraging statistics.
Despite the best efforts of Obama, the economy is still showing little sign of recovery. The hundreds of billions of dollars spent by Washington at Obama's behest have yet to produce the results anticipated or promised. If Obama's efforts to rescue the economy are not quite a failure, they are certainly not a success. Yet so far, Obama has shown little inclination to take any blame, either for the poor economy or the failure of his policies to resuscitate it.
There are times when taking the blame shows character. There are also times when taking the blame shows failure. Obama clearly knows the difference between the two.
Today it was reported that the economy was still far from recovering. Over a year into Obama's presidency, the economy is still in a recession. Although there were some encouraging, or at least not depressing statistics, such as a slowdown in the pace of layoffs and the addition of 47,000 new jobs in December, the overall numbers are troubling. The 47,000 new jobs created in December were more than offset by the loss of 85,000 jobs in manufacturing and construction reported by the Department of Labor. The health care industry was one of the few bright spots in the economy. It gained 22,000 jobs. (It is also the industry that is in Obama's cross hairs.) Hourly wages only increased by a meager 2.2% There are many other discouraging statistics.
Despite the best efforts of Obama, the economy is still showing little sign of recovery. The hundreds of billions of dollars spent by Washington at Obama's behest have yet to produce the results anticipated or promised. If Obama's efforts to rescue the economy are not quite a failure, they are certainly not a success. Yet so far, Obama has shown little inclination to take any blame, either for the poor economy or the failure of his policies to resuscitate it.
There are times when taking the blame shows character. There are also times when taking the blame shows failure. Obama clearly knows the difference between the two.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Immigration & Health Care
President Obama and Democratic members of Congress have stated that the health insurance plan being proposed will not cover those illegally in the U.S. "We're not going to cover undocumented aliens, undocumented workers. That issue is too politically explosive" said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont. Despite his assertion, the matter is ambiguous. Some plans being proposed to extend coverage to the uninsured contain no method of determining legal residency. Plans that do require proof of eligibility will rely on easily forged documents such as drivers licences and social security cards. The very same documents often used to fraudulently obtain jobs and other public services. Some states even provide drivers licences to illegal immigrants, further complicating the matter. There is little reason to suppose the federal government would be any more thorough in checking those documents, particularly if there is no sincere desire to authenticate those documents. While it may be true that the bill as worded may be interpreted as disallowing coverage to illegal immigrants, the issue is not so clear cut. An amendment put forward by Rep. Dean Heller, R-Nev., that would have prevented illegal aliens from receiving subsidized health care under the bill was defeated, further casting doubt on the government's determination to exclude illegal immigrants from receiving benefits.
Curiously, it is being argued that it is necessary to spend $1 trillion over the next decade to contain, not check, not reduce, but contain the costs of health care. And the costs are substantial. If immigration reform is not coupled with health care reform, the effort to contain costs will be even more futile. In 2004, almost $3 billion was spent providing health care to illegal immigrants in California, Virginia, Florida, and Texas alone. Transferring those costs to Washington does not reduce them. Neither will obscuring them in the details of a massive, trillion dollar, health care bureaucracy.
If and when national health care reform is enacted, is unlikely that Americans, or Congress will sit idly while 12 million illegal immigrants languish without health care. The only decent thing to do will be to extend health care to them. The cost of doing the decent thing will be high. The pressure illegal immigrants will put on the health care system is considerable. Since illegal immigrants bypass health care screening when they enter the country, some bring with them diseases nearly absent in the U.S. Leprosy, Malaria, and Dengue fever are among the diseases making a return to U.S. soil. There were only 900 cases of leprosy in the U.S. between 1962 and 2002. Between 2002 and 2005, there were 9,000 cases, mostly among illegal immigrants. 38 of 61 health districts in California have experienced cases of tuberculosis. Also largely among illegal immigrants. The rate of tuberculosis in Mexico is ten times that in the U.S. Drugs recently developed to combat a new strain of drug resistant TB are expensive, often running into the thousands of dollars. Other diseases that have shown up in immigrant populations are Chagas disease, hepatitis, and whooping cough. In the vast majority of instances, they were found among illegal immigrants. It is doubtful that many immigrants, legal or otherwise, would be able to afford the drugs needed to treat those illnesses, which leaves the states or the federal government to pick up the tab; something Obama and many in Washington are happy to do.
While providing free health care to illegal immigrants will help reduce the occurrence and spread of these diseases, it will not prevent their reintroduction, particularly since the presence of these diseases in illegal immigrants will often only be known when their symptoms become manifest. By then, it will already be too late since those diseases will already be here along with their host. Detecting, treating, and preventing the spread of these diseases, which would be the prudent thing to do, will add to health care costs. But in order to do this we will have to know who is here and where they are. Both are problematic endeavors when it comes to illegal immigrants.
As the number of illegal immigrants grows, and in the absence of immigration reform it will grow, there will be pressure brought to bear to provide them health care. Tales of their suffering and misery will sooner or later ring in the capitol and in the press and there will be an outcry that the plight of illegal immigrants be addressed. And if and when health care is extended to illegal immigrants, it will be yet another incentive for them to enter the U.S. If the situation were reversed, I would certainly try; particularly if I or a loved one were ill.
The demand for health care will only increase in the future. The cost of the plan will only go up. The rear guard actions being fought by Republicans will in time be overwhelmed. It will be morally difficult and politically dangerous to oppose the expansion of health care when it is deemed necessary to "justice" or required by human decency. To oppose an expansion or an increase in coverage would likely be portrayed as miserly or callous; two things politicians will go to great lengths to avoid being accused of.
Curiously, it is being argued that it is necessary to spend $1 trillion over the next decade to contain, not check, not reduce, but contain the costs of health care. And the costs are substantial. If immigration reform is not coupled with health care reform, the effort to contain costs will be even more futile. In 2004, almost $3 billion was spent providing health care to illegal immigrants in California, Virginia, Florida, and Texas alone. Transferring those costs to Washington does not reduce them. Neither will obscuring them in the details of a massive, trillion dollar, health care bureaucracy.
If and when national health care reform is enacted, is unlikely that Americans, or Congress will sit idly while 12 million illegal immigrants languish without health care. The only decent thing to do will be to extend health care to them. The cost of doing the decent thing will be high. The pressure illegal immigrants will put on the health care system is considerable. Since illegal immigrants bypass health care screening when they enter the country, some bring with them diseases nearly absent in the U.S. Leprosy, Malaria, and Dengue fever are among the diseases making a return to U.S. soil. There were only 900 cases of leprosy in the U.S. between 1962 and 2002. Between 2002 and 2005, there were 9,000 cases, mostly among illegal immigrants. 38 of 61 health districts in California have experienced cases of tuberculosis. Also largely among illegal immigrants. The rate of tuberculosis in Mexico is ten times that in the U.S. Drugs recently developed to combat a new strain of drug resistant TB are expensive, often running into the thousands of dollars. Other diseases that have shown up in immigrant populations are Chagas disease, hepatitis, and whooping cough. In the vast majority of instances, they were found among illegal immigrants. It is doubtful that many immigrants, legal or otherwise, would be able to afford the drugs needed to treat those illnesses, which leaves the states or the federal government to pick up the tab; something Obama and many in Washington are happy to do.
While providing free health care to illegal immigrants will help reduce the occurrence and spread of these diseases, it will not prevent their reintroduction, particularly since the presence of these diseases in illegal immigrants will often only be known when their symptoms become manifest. By then, it will already be too late since those diseases will already be here along with their host. Detecting, treating, and preventing the spread of these diseases, which would be the prudent thing to do, will add to health care costs. But in order to do this we will have to know who is here and where they are. Both are problematic endeavors when it comes to illegal immigrants.
As the number of illegal immigrants grows, and in the absence of immigration reform it will grow, there will be pressure brought to bear to provide them health care. Tales of their suffering and misery will sooner or later ring in the capitol and in the press and there will be an outcry that the plight of illegal immigrants be addressed. And if and when health care is extended to illegal immigrants, it will be yet another incentive for them to enter the U.S. If the situation were reversed, I would certainly try; particularly if I or a loved one were ill.
The demand for health care will only increase in the future. The cost of the plan will only go up. The rear guard actions being fought by Republicans will in time be overwhelmed. It will be morally difficult and politically dangerous to oppose the expansion of health care when it is deemed necessary to "justice" or required by human decency. To oppose an expansion or an increase in coverage would likely be portrayed as miserly or callous; two things politicians will go to great lengths to avoid being accused of.
Friday, January 1, 2010
The Joy is in the Details
Amidst the recent tumult over national health care some interesting details were overlooked. According to an article in this mornings Dallas Morning News, only 41 percent of the health goals set by the government in 1990 have been achieved. The results for the goals set in 2000 were even worse, 24 percent. The results forecast for 2010 look to be little, if at all better. The statistics in other areas were equally disappointing. While there were some positive statistics such as a rise in vaccination rates and a reduction in the numbers of strokes and heart attacks, the overall numbers were at best disappointing, especially considering how much money was spent. The poor statistics must certainly have played a role in the government's decision to take things in hand.
It is of no surprise that things did not work out according to plans. They rarely do. It is difficult to make plans and preparations for a nation of over 200 million people. Some eat well, others don't. Some exercise, others don't. Some get their vaccinations, others don't. Some engage in healthy lifestyles, others don't. The list goes on. In order to make a prediction concerning the rate of heart disease 10 years into the future one must have some idea how people are going to conduct their lives over those ten years. Some are content to make observations and extrapolate. Others are less patient and less scientific. They know the results they want and they are determined to do what they can to achieve those results. They are also the ones that make every body's business their business because they sincerely believe that every body's business is their business. The best way to achieve the results you want is to control the variables. Government believes it can control the variables. Indeed, for many, controlling the variables is where the true pleasure of legislation lay. For them, the joy is in the details.
The CDC expects only 20 percent of the health care goals set for 2010 will be achieved. Among other things, people are still not exercising enough, and are still eating too much and too poorly. They are not getting their vaccinations as they should. Tooth decay and blood pressure are up. There was some good news as well. Deaths from stroke, cancer and heart disease all dropped. Health care in the U.S. is not a complete disaster. Perhaps instead of remaking the health care system, we should have first seen what we could have done to fix the one we had. But where is the glory in that?
I suppose we can hope that we do better than achieve 24 percent of the health care goals we have set out to achieve. Perhaps we can even match the 41 percent of the goals that were set in 1990. 41 percent is better than nothing, even if it will be 59 percent less than what we paid for. Perhaps once the government takes over they will be more effective in getting people to eat right and take better care of themselves. You can bet that now that they are paying for it, they will get around to trying. That voice you hear in the morning telling you you need to get out of bed and exercise might one day be the government's.
It is of no surprise that things did not work out according to plans. They rarely do. It is difficult to make plans and preparations for a nation of over 200 million people. Some eat well, others don't. Some exercise, others don't. Some get their vaccinations, others don't. Some engage in healthy lifestyles, others don't. The list goes on. In order to make a prediction concerning the rate of heart disease 10 years into the future one must have some idea how people are going to conduct their lives over those ten years. Some are content to make observations and extrapolate. Others are less patient and less scientific. They know the results they want and they are determined to do what they can to achieve those results. They are also the ones that make every body's business their business because they sincerely believe that every body's business is their business. The best way to achieve the results you want is to control the variables. Government believes it can control the variables. Indeed, for many, controlling the variables is where the true pleasure of legislation lay. For them, the joy is in the details.
The CDC expects only 20 percent of the health care goals set for 2010 will be achieved. Among other things, people are still not exercising enough, and are still eating too much and too poorly. They are not getting their vaccinations as they should. Tooth decay and blood pressure are up. There was some good news as well. Deaths from stroke, cancer and heart disease all dropped. Health care in the U.S. is not a complete disaster. Perhaps instead of remaking the health care system, we should have first seen what we could have done to fix the one we had. But where is the glory in that?
I suppose we can hope that we do better than achieve 24 percent of the health care goals we have set out to achieve. Perhaps we can even match the 41 percent of the goals that were set in 1990. 41 percent is better than nothing, even if it will be 59 percent less than what we paid for. Perhaps once the government takes over they will be more effective in getting people to eat right and take better care of themselves. You can bet that now that they are paying for it, they will get around to trying. That voice you hear in the morning telling you you need to get out of bed and exercise might one day be the government's.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Where is the Help?
The food bank in Plano, Texas was rescued by the donations of many in the community who came to its aid after a water pipe broke and ruined much of the groceries it had stored to help families in need. It was reported that dozens came to the food bank's aid. People gave what they could to help. The food pantry was owned by The Giving Charities Movement, a group that helps families in need. They help about 100 families a month who are having trouble feeding themselves. They expect to reopen soon. The Giving Charities Movement is just one of many charities facing difficulties across the nation.
Even with the wellspring of compassion in Washington, and the hundreds of billions of dollars being spent, money is in short supply at the Giving Movement. "It's hard to get donations but it's not hard to get people who need the food" said Cheryl Jackson of The Giving Movement. Judging by the support the Health Care Reform bill received, there is no lack of compassionate people in this country concerned with social justice and willing to help those who are in need. So why are so many charities struggling?
Perhaps Jackson and others like her are looking on the wrong place. Perhaps instead of looking to the community for help, they should be looking to Washington. There is no shortage of charity in Washington. There is no shortage of money either if the cause is deemed noble enough. If nothing else there should be a few crumbs left lying about for groups like The Giving Charities Movement. No doubt for many individuals across the nation who might feel obliged to help groups like The Giving Movement, the explosion of federal spending provides a whole new meaning to "giving at the office."
There are three small charities just down the street from my apartment. They rent small offices in an abandoned elementary school. Some mornings there is a short line in front of the doors. One charity is for the elderly, another is for the hungry. The third is for teens who are pregnant. They are neglected and ignored by most of the community. They are unknown in Washington. With a few thousand dollars those charities could do more for the town I live in than $1 million spent in Washington. I am sure there are many in my town who support the efforts of Obama and liberals in congress to help those in need. Unfortunately, I doubt that many know those three little charities exist. Less do I believe that if they did, many would write them a check. Less still do I believe that they would visit them to see if they could be of assistance.
There are many noble and saintly souls laboring in Washington on behalf of the poor, the suffering, and the neglected. Most of them insist on being paid for their efforts. Some insist on being paid well. I imagine few would ever seriously consider inconveniencing themselves beyond earning a check to help those they are employed to labor on behalf of. A hard week working at the office is charity enough.
After victory is achieved for health care reform, many who supported and fought for will celebrate. Some of them no doubt will feel that they have earned a vacation. The poor and the hungry will keep. In the mean time, people will line up at the school down the street every morning, and those three little charities will try to scrape by. The community, like the nation, will just go on about its business comfortable in the idea that the government is taking care of those in need.
Even with the wellspring of compassion in Washington, and the hundreds of billions of dollars being spent, money is in short supply at the Giving Movement. "It's hard to get donations but it's not hard to get people who need the food" said Cheryl Jackson of The Giving Movement. Judging by the support the Health Care Reform bill received, there is no lack of compassionate people in this country concerned with social justice and willing to help those who are in need. So why are so many charities struggling?
Perhaps Jackson and others like her are looking on the wrong place. Perhaps instead of looking to the community for help, they should be looking to Washington. There is no shortage of charity in Washington. There is no shortage of money either if the cause is deemed noble enough. If nothing else there should be a few crumbs left lying about for groups like The Giving Charities Movement. No doubt for many individuals across the nation who might feel obliged to help groups like The Giving Movement, the explosion of federal spending provides a whole new meaning to "giving at the office."
There are three small charities just down the street from my apartment. They rent small offices in an abandoned elementary school. Some mornings there is a short line in front of the doors. One charity is for the elderly, another is for the hungry. The third is for teens who are pregnant. They are neglected and ignored by most of the community. They are unknown in Washington. With a few thousand dollars those charities could do more for the town I live in than $1 million spent in Washington. I am sure there are many in my town who support the efforts of Obama and liberals in congress to help those in need. Unfortunately, I doubt that many know those three little charities exist. Less do I believe that if they did, many would write them a check. Less still do I believe that they would visit them to see if they could be of assistance.
There are many noble and saintly souls laboring in Washington on behalf of the poor, the suffering, and the neglected. Most of them insist on being paid for their efforts. Some insist on being paid well. I imagine few would ever seriously consider inconveniencing themselves beyond earning a check to help those they are employed to labor on behalf of. A hard week working at the office is charity enough.
After victory is achieved for health care reform, many who supported and fought for will celebrate. Some of them no doubt will feel that they have earned a vacation. The poor and the hungry will keep. In the mean time, people will line up at the school down the street every morning, and those three little charities will try to scrape by. The community, like the nation, will just go on about its business comfortable in the idea that the government is taking care of those in need.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Welcome to the Future.
The health-care reform bill has not yet become law and trouble is already brewing. The proponents of sexual abstinence programs are fretting that when national health care becomes law they will lose funding necessary to continue running their programs. In many states and schools abstinence programs are unpopular and poorly funded. Sexual abstinence advocates are working to obtain some of the $50 million that is being earmarked for programs to reduce pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease to help fund their operation. Even though there is little question as to the efficacy of abstinence in preventing pregnancy (virgin births are almost unheard of) and sexually transmitted disease, it is not a popular program.
Under the budget signed by President Obama, abstinence programs will no longer be funded. Many groups are hostile to continued funding for abstinence advocacy arguing that there is "clear evidence the approach is unsuccessful." James Wagoner, president of the Washington based Advocates of Youth, decried the effort to obtain funding by abstinence advocates as "a last-ditch attempt by conservatives to resuscitate a program that has proven to be ineffective."
There are many programs in existence to deter teen pregnancy. All of them have been ineffective. So why single out abstinence from among those programs and attempt to cut its funding? There many failed programs to choose from. To pick one failure from among many and single it out for abandonment makes little sense, especially when that method is the only one, when practiced, guaranteed to prevent pregnancy. Clearly there is something about programs that advocate abstinence that irritates James Wagoner.
The politicization of health care has just begun. It will only get worse. The future promises many battles like the one begun over sex ed. Many will be much more contentious and involve much larger issues. Welcome to the future.
Under the budget signed by President Obama, abstinence programs will no longer be funded. Many groups are hostile to continued funding for abstinence advocacy arguing that there is "clear evidence the approach is unsuccessful." James Wagoner, president of the Washington based Advocates of Youth, decried the effort to obtain funding by abstinence advocates as "a last-ditch attempt by conservatives to resuscitate a program that has proven to be ineffective."
There are many programs in existence to deter teen pregnancy. All of them have been ineffective. So why single out abstinence from among those programs and attempt to cut its funding? There many failed programs to choose from. To pick one failure from among many and single it out for abandonment makes little sense, especially when that method is the only one, when practiced, guaranteed to prevent pregnancy. Clearly there is something about programs that advocate abstinence that irritates James Wagoner.
The politicization of health care has just begun. It will only get worse. The future promises many battles like the one begun over sex ed. Many will be much more contentious and involve much larger issues. Welcome to the future.
Friday, December 25, 2009
A Shiny, New Health Care Machine
When President Obama signs the new health care bill into law it will be a historic day for all Americans. The enactment of the Health Care Reform bill will mark the day when another great step was taken to relieve many Americans of the responsibility of providing for themselves, their loved ones, and their neighbors. Because the federal government will take up the task of ensuring access to health care to those unable, and in some cases unwilling to provide it for themselves, many Americans will now be able to go about their business feeling less encumbered by the obligation to help others less fortunate than themselves; or feel burdened by the ill luck of others. Paying one's taxes will be enough to alleviate the conscience of many. Scrooge, no doubt, would be relieved. It will also mark the day when health care ceased to be simply a social, moral, and financial issue, and became an officially political one. The struggle over health care has in many ways only just begun. Many concessions were made and issues ceded. Those issues and concessions will be revisited. Many battles will be fought again. Neither will the dikes erected to contain and limit government control over health care endure for very long. The struggles over health care will outlast us all.
Additionally, many businesses face the new year with trepidation as they try and figure out how the new health care law is going to affect them and their bottom lines. The costs are not clear yet, but for many businesses, those costs will be significant. Many workers employed by those businesses, if they are not apprehensive about their futures, should be. More than a few of them will lose their jobs because their employer will be reluctant, unable, or unwilling to afford the costs of keeping them. Many that don't lose their jobs or suffer a cut in hours, if nothing else, should be pessimistic about their prospects for a raise. Still others will not get a job because businesses will not be able to afford the costs of hiring them. Some businesses will no doubt have to shut their doors.
The costs imposed by the new health care law will be difficult to bear in these hard economic times: a situation now less likely to improve any time soon. More significantly, the expense imposed by the new health care law will have to be borne each month and each year by businesses as long as they are in business. While businesses may be able to plan for the future, they cannot know the future. Whatever the new year brings, their health care costs will not go down, but most likely go up. The easiest way to reduce or control those costs will be to shed workers or cut hours. The second easiest way will be not to hire any new workers.
A shiny new machine now exists in Washington and many are looking forward to seeing what that machine can do. Many on the left believe that the new machine belongs to them. It doesn't. They should start preparing themselves for the day when that machine is no longer under their control.
Additionally, many businesses face the new year with trepidation as they try and figure out how the new health care law is going to affect them and their bottom lines. The costs are not clear yet, but for many businesses, those costs will be significant. Many workers employed by those businesses, if they are not apprehensive about their futures, should be. More than a few of them will lose their jobs because their employer will be reluctant, unable, or unwilling to afford the costs of keeping them. Many that don't lose their jobs or suffer a cut in hours, if nothing else, should be pessimistic about their prospects for a raise. Still others will not get a job because businesses will not be able to afford the costs of hiring them. Some businesses will no doubt have to shut their doors.
The costs imposed by the new health care law will be difficult to bear in these hard economic times: a situation now less likely to improve any time soon. More significantly, the expense imposed by the new health care law will have to be borne each month and each year by businesses as long as they are in business. While businesses may be able to plan for the future, they cannot know the future. Whatever the new year brings, their health care costs will not go down, but most likely go up. The easiest way to reduce or control those costs will be to shed workers or cut hours. The second easiest way will be not to hire any new workers.
A shiny new machine now exists in Washington and many are looking forward to seeing what that machine can do. Many on the left believe that the new machine belongs to them. It doesn't. They should start preparing themselves for the day when that machine is no longer under their control.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
U.S. Inc.
With the passage of the health care legislation all but assured, it must be concluded that it has been a good year for the CEO of the United States. Although the U.S. is in the red, it has made a number of impressive deals and acquisitions. It has acquired controlling interest in a major automobile manufacturer and secured seats on the boards of others. It is also on the boards of several large banks and investment companies. If things go according to plan, it will soon gain partnership in a great number of hospitals and clinics all over the country and establish the largest health insurance company in the nation. The future looks bright for further expansion and acquisitions.
There will be no dividends for stockholders though. The company did not make a profit this year. Not only did it fail to make a profit this year, the company has failed to make a profit for many years. In fact, it has lost much more money than many had expected and is expected to loose even more in the years ahead. The company does not expect to make a profit anytime soon. This is not an issue of particular concern to the board however, or the stockholders, because the CEO was able to secure operating capital from foreign investors to fund the company's operation and expansion. The CEO has assured the stockholders that revenues will increase and many of the expenditures will be recouped through better and more efficient management and streamlined operation. There is also optimism on the board and among shareholders that the investments made will pay for themselves, if not generate substantial profits, in the years to come after the turmoil and dislocation of those acquisitions subside.
Fortunately for the CEO, neither the board of directors nor the shareholders are at all insistent on making a profit. Indeed, they don't seem to mind one bit if they wind up losing money on the deals. For some odd reason, many of the shareholders do not appreciate that it is their money that is being spent. They are satisfied to believe that what the company owns, they own. And if losing money gets them an interest in the company's operation, even if only symbolically, they are happy to lose it. And since in theory what the company owns they own; the more the company owns, the more they own. To many that is a thing worth more than money: certainly worth more than other people's money,
By most measures, it has been a bad year or so for the company. There is concern that the company faces a loss in its global market shares amidst growing competition world wide. Profits have declined, and expenditures have increased. The company's operations are in the red. There is tension on the board of directors and the CFO is apprehensive about the books. The Legal division is preparing itself for what should prove to be a busy and contentious next few years. There is also concern that politics will play a role in the company's management and its operations might become skewed due to political favoritism and company politics. But this is not a major concern among the board or the shareholders at the moment. Even with all the financial and legal liabilities the company has acquired, the growing red ink on the books, the managerial hurdles that still need to be navigated, and the dissension amongst the board and shareholders, it cannot be denied that the CEO of the Unites States has had a very good year, if somewhat bruising. Whether it was a good year for the United States remains to be seen.
There will be no dividends for stockholders though. The company did not make a profit this year. Not only did it fail to make a profit this year, the company has failed to make a profit for many years. In fact, it has lost much more money than many had expected and is expected to loose even more in the years ahead. The company does not expect to make a profit anytime soon. This is not an issue of particular concern to the board however, or the stockholders, because the CEO was able to secure operating capital from foreign investors to fund the company's operation and expansion. The CEO has assured the stockholders that revenues will increase and many of the expenditures will be recouped through better and more efficient management and streamlined operation. There is also optimism on the board and among shareholders that the investments made will pay for themselves, if not generate substantial profits, in the years to come after the turmoil and dislocation of those acquisitions subside.
Fortunately for the CEO, neither the board of directors nor the shareholders are at all insistent on making a profit. Indeed, they don't seem to mind one bit if they wind up losing money on the deals. For some odd reason, many of the shareholders do not appreciate that it is their money that is being spent. They are satisfied to believe that what the company owns, they own. And if losing money gets them an interest in the company's operation, even if only symbolically, they are happy to lose it. And since in theory what the company owns they own; the more the company owns, the more they own. To many that is a thing worth more than money: certainly worth more than other people's money,
By most measures, it has been a bad year or so for the company. There is concern that the company faces a loss in its global market shares amidst growing competition world wide. Profits have declined, and expenditures have increased. The company's operations are in the red. There is tension on the board of directors and the CFO is apprehensive about the books. The Legal division is preparing itself for what should prove to be a busy and contentious next few years. There is also concern that politics will play a role in the company's management and its operations might become skewed due to political favoritism and company politics. But this is not a major concern among the board or the shareholders at the moment. Even with all the financial and legal liabilities the company has acquired, the growing red ink on the books, the managerial hurdles that still need to be navigated, and the dissension amongst the board and shareholders, it cannot be denied that the CEO of the Unites States has had a very good year, if somewhat bruising. Whether it was a good year for the United States remains to be seen.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
National Legal Care Reform
When the Health Care bill is finally passed, and by all accounts it will be soon, it is likely that Obama and Congress will begin a search for a new dragon to slay. Perhaps after bailing out the economy, providing cars, jobs, and quality, affordable, health care to all Americans, (I am still waiting on my government funded girlfriend), they will see fit to embark upon a campaign for legal care reform.
Like health care, the vast majority of Americans have access to at least a minimum of legal service. When someone is ill and cannot afford to see a doctor, or visit their local health care clinic, they can go to the emergency room. There they are assured they will get at least a semblance of medical care. When someone is arrested or accused, they have access to legal care. If they cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for them. A public defender will provide at least a semblance of legal care. Like health care, at least until the Health Care Reform bill becomes law, and most likely even after, the quality of legal care one can obtain is predicated on how much one is able to pay for it.
Just as there are horror stories regarding the slipshod health care sometimes provided to the poor and uninsured, there are horror stories to be told concerning the slipshod legal care received by the poor and those unable to pay. People sometimes die due to the poor health care they receive. People, in Texas at least, sometimes die due to the poor legal care they receive. The wealthy provide themselves legal insurance by keeping attorneys on retainer. Though the vast majority of Americans cannot afford that luxury, they should at least have the right to consult an attorney and have adequate, affordable legal care when they need to, rather than just when they are arrested.
For a long time the quality and availability of health care to the poor and uninsured was deemed adequate. Recently, that care was deemed to be not only inadequate, but unfair. It was decided that it would best for everyone involved if all people had access to the same quality care as that available to the insured when injured and ill. The theory is that providing basic health insurance to those heretofore unable to obtain it would be the responsible and ethical thing to do. More importantly, we would be a better, healthier society due to the care that health insurance would be able to provide. We would also be a wealthier society, if only in a manner of speaking, from all the money that would be saved through the practice of preventive medicine by creating and maintaining a healthier public.
The same logic can be applied to the legal industry. In criminal cases, an attorney will be provided if one is unable to afford one. Little is said about the quality of the legal care a court appointed attorney might provide. Only competency is required, not quality or enthusiasm. In that sense, there is little difference between a court appointed attorney and an emergency room. If anything, the quality of care provided in an emergency room often exceeds the quality of service provided by a court appointed attorney. A doctor will often work harder to keep an uninsured patient alive than a public defender will work to keep an innocent client out of prison. This is a disparity that should not be overlooked. Like health, liberty is one the most important things a person can have and one of the most terrible things to lose.
In civil cases, those unable to pay for legal representation can at times rely upon legal aid or pro bono work by civil lawyers. But in neither does one choose the lawyer he wants to represent him. One takes whomever he is fortunate to get, if one is lucky enough to get anyone at all. The truly lucky ones get a lawyer motivated by the case and interested in achieving justice for his client. The less fortunate may get someone who is merely satisfying his or her state bar requirement.
While even the best of lives can be diminished due to poor health, they can also be diminished by the lack of liberty and poverty. In the mind of a citizen, the choice between illness or injury and bankruptcy or incarceration would be an unpleasant one to make. Just as people have suffered, and even died due to the poor and unenthusiastic care hospitals sometimes provide to those unable to pay, many innocent people have been imprisoned and impoverished due their inability to afford good legal care. Many others have received sentences that could have been significantly reduced if they had received quality legal care. A few in Texas might be alive today if they had had better legal representation.
In regards to civil cases, the disparity between the wealthy and the poor is even more pronounced. While, depending on one's perspective, the stakes in civil court are less than those in criminal court, that does not mean they are not important or even vital to those involved. Many risk houses, children, livelihoods, and more in civil cases. Losers in civil court may not go to jail, at least not immediately, but they risk being impoverished, deprived, and severely burdened. The quality of legal care available to the average individual in civil court by pro bono attorneys and such groups as Legal Aid is dwarfed be the legal care available to the wealthy. Wealthy plaintiffs, if they cannot outright crush their opponents, can chisel them into submission. Moreover, the better the legal representation, the better the odds of victory. The prospects of the poor in a civil suit are slim indeed unless there is the possibility of a settlement large enough to attract a quality attorney. It is true that the wealthy sometimes lose in court. It is also true the wealthy sometimes die in the hospital. But whether one is going to the hospital or going to court, it is indisputably better to be rich.
Another benefit of providing free legal care is that it would greatly mitigate the acrimony, frustration, and bitterness that frequently leads to violence by those who feel they are being strong armed, cheated, and ignored. The possibility of mediating and litigating disputes that free legal care would provide would go a long way towards reducing the baleful temptation to take matters into one's own hands; an act that often leads to crime. Crime in turn costs money. If nothing else, free legal care might reduce traffic in emergency rooms as well as lighten Judge Judy's case load.
Just as the benefits of liberty can be undermined in the presence of ill health, the benefits good health can be undermined in the absence of liberty. Why would a just and compassionate society allow this disparity to exist? Why would a society so sensitive to the travails of the medically uninsured be so indifferent to the suffering and misery that inadequate legal care causes today in the U.S.? Perhaps it is simply too soon to ask the government to address every disparity and injustice in the U.S. It might also have something to do with the fact that there are many more lawyers in the country than there are physicians.
I suspect that if we had fewer lawyers on Capitol Hill and more doctors and health care professionals, we would be having a very different discussion about how to keep health care costs down and extend medical care to those unable to afford it. Who knows, we might even see the issue of tort reform revisited. Malpractice law and the need to carry malpractice insurance are huge burdens on the health care industry; one that is passed along to health care consumers. Because we have so many lawyers in Washington, the chances to reduce health care costs by removing or lightening the myriad of financial and legal burdens the health care industry has to bear is unlikely at best. We can always hope that because we have so many lawyers in Washington, we have a decent chance of getting tort reform or a national legal care bill introduced. But because we have so many lawyers in Washington, it is quite unlikely we will never see any such bill passed or even proposed. If nothing else, it would be fascinating to see the response of the legal profession to a government attempt to coopt it.
Like health care, the vast majority of Americans have access to at least a minimum of legal service. When someone is ill and cannot afford to see a doctor, or visit their local health care clinic, they can go to the emergency room. There they are assured they will get at least a semblance of medical care. When someone is arrested or accused, they have access to legal care. If they cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for them. A public defender will provide at least a semblance of legal care. Like health care, at least until the Health Care Reform bill becomes law, and most likely even after, the quality of legal care one can obtain is predicated on how much one is able to pay for it.
Just as there are horror stories regarding the slipshod health care sometimes provided to the poor and uninsured, there are horror stories to be told concerning the slipshod legal care received by the poor and those unable to pay. People sometimes die due to the poor health care they receive. People, in Texas at least, sometimes die due to the poor legal care they receive. The wealthy provide themselves legal insurance by keeping attorneys on retainer. Though the vast majority of Americans cannot afford that luxury, they should at least have the right to consult an attorney and have adequate, affordable legal care when they need to, rather than just when they are arrested.
For a long time the quality and availability of health care to the poor and uninsured was deemed adequate. Recently, that care was deemed to be not only inadequate, but unfair. It was decided that it would best for everyone involved if all people had access to the same quality care as that available to the insured when injured and ill. The theory is that providing basic health insurance to those heretofore unable to obtain it would be the responsible and ethical thing to do. More importantly, we would be a better, healthier society due to the care that health insurance would be able to provide. We would also be a wealthier society, if only in a manner of speaking, from all the money that would be saved through the practice of preventive medicine by creating and maintaining a healthier public.
The same logic can be applied to the legal industry. In criminal cases, an attorney will be provided if one is unable to afford one. Little is said about the quality of the legal care a court appointed attorney might provide. Only competency is required, not quality or enthusiasm. In that sense, there is little difference between a court appointed attorney and an emergency room. If anything, the quality of care provided in an emergency room often exceeds the quality of service provided by a court appointed attorney. A doctor will often work harder to keep an uninsured patient alive than a public defender will work to keep an innocent client out of prison. This is a disparity that should not be overlooked. Like health, liberty is one the most important things a person can have and one of the most terrible things to lose.
In civil cases, those unable to pay for legal representation can at times rely upon legal aid or pro bono work by civil lawyers. But in neither does one choose the lawyer he wants to represent him. One takes whomever he is fortunate to get, if one is lucky enough to get anyone at all. The truly lucky ones get a lawyer motivated by the case and interested in achieving justice for his client. The less fortunate may get someone who is merely satisfying his or her state bar requirement.
While even the best of lives can be diminished due to poor health, they can also be diminished by the lack of liberty and poverty. In the mind of a citizen, the choice between illness or injury and bankruptcy or incarceration would be an unpleasant one to make. Just as people have suffered, and even died due to the poor and unenthusiastic care hospitals sometimes provide to those unable to pay, many innocent people have been imprisoned and impoverished due their inability to afford good legal care. Many others have received sentences that could have been significantly reduced if they had received quality legal care. A few in Texas might be alive today if they had had better legal representation.
In regards to civil cases, the disparity between the wealthy and the poor is even more pronounced. While, depending on one's perspective, the stakes in civil court are less than those in criminal court, that does not mean they are not important or even vital to those involved. Many risk houses, children, livelihoods, and more in civil cases. Losers in civil court may not go to jail, at least not immediately, but they risk being impoverished, deprived, and severely burdened. The quality of legal care available to the average individual in civil court by pro bono attorneys and such groups as Legal Aid is dwarfed be the legal care available to the wealthy. Wealthy plaintiffs, if they cannot outright crush their opponents, can chisel them into submission. Moreover, the better the legal representation, the better the odds of victory. The prospects of the poor in a civil suit are slim indeed unless there is the possibility of a settlement large enough to attract a quality attorney. It is true that the wealthy sometimes lose in court. It is also true the wealthy sometimes die in the hospital. But whether one is going to the hospital or going to court, it is indisputably better to be rich.
Another benefit of providing free legal care is that it would greatly mitigate the acrimony, frustration, and bitterness that frequently leads to violence by those who feel they are being strong armed, cheated, and ignored. The possibility of mediating and litigating disputes that free legal care would provide would go a long way towards reducing the baleful temptation to take matters into one's own hands; an act that often leads to crime. Crime in turn costs money. If nothing else, free legal care might reduce traffic in emergency rooms as well as lighten Judge Judy's case load.
Just as the benefits of liberty can be undermined in the presence of ill health, the benefits good health can be undermined in the absence of liberty. Why would a just and compassionate society allow this disparity to exist? Why would a society so sensitive to the travails of the medically uninsured be so indifferent to the suffering and misery that inadequate legal care causes today in the U.S.? Perhaps it is simply too soon to ask the government to address every disparity and injustice in the U.S. It might also have something to do with the fact that there are many more lawyers in the country than there are physicians.
I suspect that if we had fewer lawyers on Capitol Hill and more doctors and health care professionals, we would be having a very different discussion about how to keep health care costs down and extend medical care to those unable to afford it. Who knows, we might even see the issue of tort reform revisited. Malpractice law and the need to carry malpractice insurance are huge burdens on the health care industry; one that is passed along to health care consumers. Because we have so many lawyers in Washington, the chances to reduce health care costs by removing or lightening the myriad of financial and legal burdens the health care industry has to bear is unlikely at best. We can always hope that because we have so many lawyers in Washington, we have a decent chance of getting tort reform or a national legal care bill introduced. But because we have so many lawyers in Washington, it is quite unlikely we will never see any such bill passed or even proposed. If nothing else, it would be fascinating to see the response of the legal profession to a government attempt to coopt it.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
The Cost of Favor
As the vote over national health care looms in the Senate, a list of concessions made to secure votes from senators and the support of interest groups and industry was published in this morning's Dallas Morning News. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Nebraska got an exemption from the annual fees proposed in the legislation. Also in Nebraska, a physician owned hospital was exempted from the annual "fees" that will be charged to future hospitals. Senator Baucus, D-Montana, secured exemption for 2,900 residents of Libby, Montana allowing them to sign up for medicare. Senator Dodd, D-Conn. made out better. He was able to obtain $100 million for a new hospital in his state. Senator Mary Landrieu, D-La., made out equally well, securing $100 million in federal money for her state. Senator Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who provided a key vote on the legislation, perhaps made out best of all. He was able to obtain $10 billion for community health centers in his state. The list goes on, and the total goes up.
Interest groups also made out well. Longshoremen were able to obtain protection from new taxes proposed on high risk professions in exchange for their support. Bio tech drug manufacturers won a 12 year exemption from competition, as well as protection from cheaper, generic foreign drugs: an odd concession for a bill that its supporters claim will lower the cost of prescription drugs. Many other exemptions, tax breaks, and loopholes for various industries and professions given to secure their support lay obscured in the Health Care Bill under consideration.
Clearly, votes are not cheap in Washington. Neither is support from industries and professions affected by legislation. It sometimes takes a lot of money to get people to do the right thing. It sometimes takes even more money to get senators to do the right thing; especially if the right thing is a matter of contention. There are many professions where people are paid incentives for their favor: some respectable, some not so respectable. It is disturbing to think Congress is one.
It would be wonderful if someday Congress decided to publish an addendum with each bill after it became law. The addendum would itemize the costs and outlays, if any, of securing the votes of the individual members who supported the bill. It would certainly make for interesting reading as well as help posterity understand the sometimes quixotic behavior of congressmen.
Interest groups also made out well. Longshoremen were able to obtain protection from new taxes proposed on high risk professions in exchange for their support. Bio tech drug manufacturers won a 12 year exemption from competition, as well as protection from cheaper, generic foreign drugs: an odd concession for a bill that its supporters claim will lower the cost of prescription drugs. Many other exemptions, tax breaks, and loopholes for various industries and professions given to secure their support lay obscured in the Health Care Bill under consideration.
Clearly, votes are not cheap in Washington. Neither is support from industries and professions affected by legislation. It sometimes takes a lot of money to get people to do the right thing. It sometimes takes even more money to get senators to do the right thing; especially if the right thing is a matter of contention. There are many professions where people are paid incentives for their favor: some respectable, some not so respectable. It is disturbing to think Congress is one.
It would be wonderful if someday Congress decided to publish an addendum with each bill after it became law. The addendum would itemize the costs and outlays, if any, of securing the votes of the individual members who supported the bill. It would certainly make for interesting reading as well as help posterity understand the sometimes quixotic behavior of congressmen.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Health Care Pyramid
It was reported that health care legislation was advanced in the Senate and that a vote will be held shortly. It is hoped the vote will occur before Christmas. It is anticipated that the bill will pass. Some in the Senate no doubt feel that its passage will be a welcome present to their constituents. If nothing else, it will give them a little time off. A host of last minute amendments and deals have made the final vote possible although they have created a maze of compromises and amendments guaranteed to ensure that the issue will be revisited often in the future.
The House and Senate bills still must be reconciled, so the deal is not quite done yet. Both bills would compel almost everyone to possess or purchase some form of health insurance. The House bill requires coverage individually or through an employer. The Senate bill simply threatens people with increased taxes if they choose not to purchase insurance. Neither bill would deny coverage or increase premiums due to pre-existing conditions. This is because the government has the luxury of not needing to make a profit to stay in business. Private insurance companies do. Requiring them to insure people almost guaranteed to generate a loss essentially amounts to a tax on insurance companies. The House bill would require businesses that employ more than 50 employees to pay $750 per employee if the government opts to subsidize coverage. What the costs would be if the government does not subsidize coverage is unclear. Congress will also squeeze business by collecting fees from those that receive government subsidies. Presumably those that do not receive government contracts or subsidies will be similarly compelled, if not now, then in the future.
The Senate bill would raise income taxes, and coerce $20 billion from medical device manufacturers. It will also compel individuals and small businesses who do not have, or pay insurance, to get it or face fines. Like the Hose bill, small businesses with more than 50 employees will have to pay a "fee" of $750 per employee. They too, face penalties should they choose not to comply. Like feudal lords of old, the government will charge fees from those who would ply their trade on its land. It would be extraordinary if those fees were not passed along to consumers: just the thing for a sagging economy.
Both bills compel individuals to acquire insurance themselves or through their employers or be fined. In the House bill, everyone would be required to obtain insurance or pay a penalty. The penalty proposed is 2.5%. It can be assumed that penalty will go up: taxes and fines always do. The "very poor" can obtain wavers. But, since poverty is a moving target, the costs of providing wavers will shift over the years. For a bill that is claimed to be demanded by the public, it contains an awful lot of compulsion, fines, and threats.
Many other issues and items need to be reconciled, such as coverage for elective procedures, abortion, and illegal immigrants. None of those are issues that will be resolved in any meaningful sense of the word. They will cause headaches for generations to come. If Congress decides to extend coverage to illegal immigrants, it can be expected that it will be an expense that will only increase in cost since it will provide still another incentive for people to sneak into the country. Interestingly, though illegal immigrants will not receive coverage under the health care bill proposed by Congress, they will be not be pursued. As their numbers increase, so will the demands that they receive some kind of coverage. That care will have to be paid for by someone. If nothing else, providing coverage will help the clinics and hospitals that treat them to recoup some of their losses as well help guarantee job security to those who make a living advocating for immigrant rights.
The complexities of both bills is staggering. It is unlikely that there is anyone in Washington who understands them in their entirety. Both bills will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, which makes the fact that so few, if any, understand every thing in them all the more troubling. What is consistent in both bills is the effort to strong arm the private sector into making good on the government's promise to provide health care for everyone. National health care may be portrayed an an issue of justice or fairness, but it is also a political and social liability rife with coercion and opportunism that will be haggled over in perpetuity.
There is a misapprehension by many that the government will provide free, or at least "affordable" health care. The bills under discussion do nothing of the sort. Health care will cost billions. Raising taxes on the "rich", and levying taxes, fees, and penalties on business may obscure the costs in the mind of taxpayers, but it does not reduce them. Trillions will be spent on health care. That money will need to come from somewhere. It would take an economic recovery of near biblical proportion to increase tax revenue enough to compensate for the cost of everything being proposed in Washington. If tax revenue does not increase sufficiently, taxes will have to be raised or the money borrowed. Spending could be reduced, but that is the least likely option. What is certain is that the American public is going to pay for national health care one way or another. If we don't, our children will. The Chinese are not going to pay for it. They might loan us the money, but they are not going to pay for it.
The ardor with which the president and his supporters in Congress are pursuing national health care is alarming. It is almost as if they fear that if American people think too long about it, or examine it too closely, they will change their mind. But if the bills are sound, they should be able to withstand scrutiny and debate. Moreover, if there is a genuine demand for health care reform, as is being claimed by many in Washington, that demand will not ebb over several months, or even a year. The country has persevered for a long time without national health care, it should be able to last a few more months, even a year or two if that is what it takes to produce effective and desirable legislation. The zeal for its quick passage indicates an impatience out of place for so important an issue.
The ancient Pharaohs built magnificent pyramids as monuments to their greatness and to ensure they would not be forgotten. Over the years, many presidents have sought to create monuments of their own. Presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, LBJ, and FDR, have sought to create testimonies to themselves and enshrine their names in history. To simply execute the law and defend the Constitution is no longer enough to satisfy the ambitions of those who would be president. They must have a pyramid. Clinton failed in his effort to build a pyramid. Obama is determined to succeed with his. It is likely he will succeed if only because so many people want a new pyramid. And if one is to be built, many in Congress want their names inscribed on it.
I only hope national health care works as Obama says it will. I am starting to feel ill.
The House and Senate bills still must be reconciled, so the deal is not quite done yet. Both bills would compel almost everyone to possess or purchase some form of health insurance. The House bill requires coverage individually or through an employer. The Senate bill simply threatens people with increased taxes if they choose not to purchase insurance. Neither bill would deny coverage or increase premiums due to pre-existing conditions. This is because the government has the luxury of not needing to make a profit to stay in business. Private insurance companies do. Requiring them to insure people almost guaranteed to generate a loss essentially amounts to a tax on insurance companies. The House bill would require businesses that employ more than 50 employees to pay $750 per employee if the government opts to subsidize coverage. What the costs would be if the government does not subsidize coverage is unclear. Congress will also squeeze business by collecting fees from those that receive government subsidies. Presumably those that do not receive government contracts or subsidies will be similarly compelled, if not now, then in the future.
The Senate bill would raise income taxes, and coerce $20 billion from medical device manufacturers. It will also compel individuals and small businesses who do not have, or pay insurance, to get it or face fines. Like the Hose bill, small businesses with more than 50 employees will have to pay a "fee" of $750 per employee. They too, face penalties should they choose not to comply. Like feudal lords of old, the government will charge fees from those who would ply their trade on its land. It would be extraordinary if those fees were not passed along to consumers: just the thing for a sagging economy.
Both bills compel individuals to acquire insurance themselves or through their employers or be fined. In the House bill, everyone would be required to obtain insurance or pay a penalty. The penalty proposed is 2.5%. It can be assumed that penalty will go up: taxes and fines always do. The "very poor" can obtain wavers. But, since poverty is a moving target, the costs of providing wavers will shift over the years. For a bill that is claimed to be demanded by the public, it contains an awful lot of compulsion, fines, and threats.
Many other issues and items need to be reconciled, such as coverage for elective procedures, abortion, and illegal immigrants. None of those are issues that will be resolved in any meaningful sense of the word. They will cause headaches for generations to come. If Congress decides to extend coverage to illegal immigrants, it can be expected that it will be an expense that will only increase in cost since it will provide still another incentive for people to sneak into the country. Interestingly, though illegal immigrants will not receive coverage under the health care bill proposed by Congress, they will be not be pursued. As their numbers increase, so will the demands that they receive some kind of coverage. That care will have to be paid for by someone. If nothing else, providing coverage will help the clinics and hospitals that treat them to recoup some of their losses as well help guarantee job security to those who make a living advocating for immigrant rights.
The complexities of both bills is staggering. It is unlikely that there is anyone in Washington who understands them in their entirety. Both bills will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, which makes the fact that so few, if any, understand every thing in them all the more troubling. What is consistent in both bills is the effort to strong arm the private sector into making good on the government's promise to provide health care for everyone. National health care may be portrayed an an issue of justice or fairness, but it is also a political and social liability rife with coercion and opportunism that will be haggled over in perpetuity.
There is a misapprehension by many that the government will provide free, or at least "affordable" health care. The bills under discussion do nothing of the sort. Health care will cost billions. Raising taxes on the "rich", and levying taxes, fees, and penalties on business may obscure the costs in the mind of taxpayers, but it does not reduce them. Trillions will be spent on health care. That money will need to come from somewhere. It would take an economic recovery of near biblical proportion to increase tax revenue enough to compensate for the cost of everything being proposed in Washington. If tax revenue does not increase sufficiently, taxes will have to be raised or the money borrowed. Spending could be reduced, but that is the least likely option. What is certain is that the American public is going to pay for national health care one way or another. If we don't, our children will. The Chinese are not going to pay for it. They might loan us the money, but they are not going to pay for it.
The ardor with which the president and his supporters in Congress are pursuing national health care is alarming. It is almost as if they fear that if American people think too long about it, or examine it too closely, they will change their mind. But if the bills are sound, they should be able to withstand scrutiny and debate. Moreover, if there is a genuine demand for health care reform, as is being claimed by many in Washington, that demand will not ebb over several months, or even a year. The country has persevered for a long time without national health care, it should be able to last a few more months, even a year or two if that is what it takes to produce effective and desirable legislation. The zeal for its quick passage indicates an impatience out of place for so important an issue.
The ancient Pharaohs built magnificent pyramids as monuments to their greatness and to ensure they would not be forgotten. Over the years, many presidents have sought to create monuments of their own. Presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, LBJ, and FDR, have sought to create testimonies to themselves and enshrine their names in history. To simply execute the law and defend the Constitution is no longer enough to satisfy the ambitions of those who would be president. They must have a pyramid. Clinton failed in his effort to build a pyramid. Obama is determined to succeed with his. It is likely he will succeed if only because so many people want a new pyramid. And if one is to be built, many in Congress want their names inscribed on it.
I only hope national health care works as Obama says it will. I am starting to feel ill.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Health Care and Charity Redux
In this morning's Dallas Morning News it was reported that Catholic Charities, a national network of charities, stated that three quarters of its agencies nationwide are experiencing an increased demand for food while its budgets have had to be cut due to a decrease in donations. It was also reported that the Bridgespan Group, an advisor to charities, said that 80 to 100 percent of nonprofits responding to a recent survey have had to cut funding. While expenditures by many charities nationwide have had to be cut because of reduced donations during these hard financial times, demands upon these charities have increased: also due to these hard financial times. In Richmond, Virgina, the Central Virgina Food Bank reports demand is up 50 percent from last year. Additionally, it was reported that the national jobless rate remains near 10 percent, meaning that the demand on charities is unlikely to decline anytime soon.
As Congress continues to debate the $850 billion health care bill, charities nationwide dedicated to the poor and the suffering face closing their doors or cutting services due to dwindling funding. Many of those charities provide free health care services to those unable to pay. While they often do not provide significant medical care, they play a crucial role in keeping health care costs down by treating ailments and illnesses that, if left unchecked, very well could lead to the need for hospitalization. As importantly, they reduce the need by the poor and uninsured to use emergency rooms for treatments easily taken care of in clinics and doctor's offices; a not insignificant health care cost. Many Americans are struggling to keep their jobs and pay their bills. The existence of health care charities and services goes a long way to help ensure that those that lose their struggle will at least have access to free health care. That is, unless national health care chokes them out.
The poor are rarely a segment of the electorate that politicians care about other than to pay lip service. The real prize is the middle class. Despite the rhetoric in Washington of helping the poor and the suffering, National Health Care is about helping the middle class. Many in the middle class might need help, especially those who have lost their jobs and face mounting bills. But it would seem that the best way to help those who have lost their jobs or are having difficulty paying their bills and feeding themselves and their families is not to give them free health care, but to help them get a job. The efficacy of the massive spending by the government to stimulate the economy is still a matter of debate.
Spending $1 trillion dollars on health care seems an unlikely way to go about stimulating the economy, unless one aspires to be in public service or is an out of work health care professional. If one is determined to spend a trillion dollars, they should give it back to the taxpayers. $1 trillion in the hands of consumers would go a long way towards fixing the economy. If it did not lead to everyone in the country getting a job or being able to afford health insurance, it at least might help to increase charitable donations. Better funded charities would alleviate a great deal of suffering and hunger. Moreover, charitable giving not only benefits those in need, but provides an intangible benefit by increasing good will among those who give, as well as those who receive.
Charitable groups can do what the government cannot: provide affordable, effective health care to those who need it. They also do what the government will not, provide service with a minimum of bureaucracy, regulation, and politics. Perhaps this is the real reason why Washington is so determined to pass national health care. If Americans are to receive a service they need and want, it is too often felt that the government should provide that service. If government provides that service, they will get the credit, and the control.
If national health care is passed, the government will gain control over a large and growing sector of our economy. Those who supported it will get the satisfaction of believing they have done something noble and selfless. Those that receive the gift of National Health Care will have the burden of relying upon it for their care. Every one else will just have to settle for paying for it.
In the face of suffering and misfortune, many feel that the least they can do is to support the government in its effort to address that suffering and misfortune. Unfortunately, all too many people are content to do the least they can do.
As Congress continues to debate the $850 billion health care bill, charities nationwide dedicated to the poor and the suffering face closing their doors or cutting services due to dwindling funding. Many of those charities provide free health care services to those unable to pay. While they often do not provide significant medical care, they play a crucial role in keeping health care costs down by treating ailments and illnesses that, if left unchecked, very well could lead to the need for hospitalization. As importantly, they reduce the need by the poor and uninsured to use emergency rooms for treatments easily taken care of in clinics and doctor's offices; a not insignificant health care cost. Many Americans are struggling to keep their jobs and pay their bills. The existence of health care charities and services goes a long way to help ensure that those that lose their struggle will at least have access to free health care. That is, unless national health care chokes them out.
The poor are rarely a segment of the electorate that politicians care about other than to pay lip service. The real prize is the middle class. Despite the rhetoric in Washington of helping the poor and the suffering, National Health Care is about helping the middle class. Many in the middle class might need help, especially those who have lost their jobs and face mounting bills. But it would seem that the best way to help those who have lost their jobs or are having difficulty paying their bills and feeding themselves and their families is not to give them free health care, but to help them get a job. The efficacy of the massive spending by the government to stimulate the economy is still a matter of debate.
Spending $1 trillion dollars on health care seems an unlikely way to go about stimulating the economy, unless one aspires to be in public service or is an out of work health care professional. If one is determined to spend a trillion dollars, they should give it back to the taxpayers. $1 trillion in the hands of consumers would go a long way towards fixing the economy. If it did not lead to everyone in the country getting a job or being able to afford health insurance, it at least might help to increase charitable donations. Better funded charities would alleviate a great deal of suffering and hunger. Moreover, charitable giving not only benefits those in need, but provides an intangible benefit by increasing good will among those who give, as well as those who receive.
Charitable groups can do what the government cannot: provide affordable, effective health care to those who need it. They also do what the government will not, provide service with a minimum of bureaucracy, regulation, and politics. Perhaps this is the real reason why Washington is so determined to pass national health care. If Americans are to receive a service they need and want, it is too often felt that the government should provide that service. If government provides that service, they will get the credit, and the control.
If national health care is passed, the government will gain control over a large and growing sector of our economy. Those who supported it will get the satisfaction of believing they have done something noble and selfless. Those that receive the gift of National Health Care will have the burden of relying upon it for their care. Every one else will just have to settle for paying for it.
In the face of suffering and misfortune, many feel that the least they can do is to support the government in its effort to address that suffering and misfortune. Unfortunately, all too many people are content to do the least they can do.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Voting Rights and Representaion
Attorneys in Irving, Texas are hard at work on a lawsuit against the school district there. They have filed suit against the city of Irving claiming that the city's at large election system violates the Voting Rights Act by denying Hispanics adequate representation. It is hoped that by creating single member districts, some with majority Hispanic populations, that not only would more Hispanics be encouraged to vote, (at least those who are eligible to vote), it would help towards getting more Hispanics elected and thereby boost their influence.
It is believed by some that Hispanics will only vote for Hispanic candidates. If this is true, it should be a cause for concern. Americans are frequently told that to prefer one person over another because of race or ethnicity, particularly if one's own race and ethnicity are the measure, is racist. Obama's election was heralded by many as America's (or at least a significant percentage of the America public) transcendence over race. The willingness of Americans to vote across the lines of religion, race, and ethnicity has long been a goal in this country. It used to be the case that the refusal of voters to cross those lines was common. Italians voted for Italian candidates, Irish for Irish candidates, and Catholics for Catholic candidates, etc. While this was once the norm it is no longer so. There are no doubt many who still vote that way, but they are few enough to be considered quaint or nostalgic. This is a tendency that for the most part is not missed.
After so much time and effort has been spent in this country to overcome racial and ethnic bias, why is it being encouraged, and even applauded in the case of Hispanics? Why is it when Hispanics vote for Hispanics because they are Hispanic, they are not censured or criticized as prejudiced?
Hispanics are a rapidly growing minority. There are many cities and regions that have majority Hispanic populations. If Hispanics are encouraged to vote for Hispanic candidates, and applauded when they do, what will it mean to the non-Hispanic residents of those cities and regions? Most likely, they will be told to accommodate themselves to the new reality of their situations. Perhaps in time, after the novelty of political power and representation wears off, Hispanics will no longer feel obliged to support Hispanic candidates. But this is only supposition.
Richard Engstrom, a professor at Duke University, blandly claims that "Latino voters show a clear preference for Latinos." This bias is reported as a simple matter of fact with no implication or inference of prejudice. Moreover, it is being proposed that this prejudice should be encouraged through creating majority Hispanic voting districts. By divvying up political representation according to race and ethnicity we are discouraging assimilation and integration: two ideas that have not always been viewed with disfavor.
If someday we wind up with two distinct communities across the Southwest, one English speaking, the other Spanish speaking, we will have taken a giant step backward from the goal of assimilation. Naturally, this is only a bad thing if assimilation is considered a desirable goal. For many it is not.
It is believed by some that Hispanics will only vote for Hispanic candidates. If this is true, it should be a cause for concern. Americans are frequently told that to prefer one person over another because of race or ethnicity, particularly if one's own race and ethnicity are the measure, is racist. Obama's election was heralded by many as America's (or at least a significant percentage of the America public) transcendence over race. The willingness of Americans to vote across the lines of religion, race, and ethnicity has long been a goal in this country. It used to be the case that the refusal of voters to cross those lines was common. Italians voted for Italian candidates, Irish for Irish candidates, and Catholics for Catholic candidates, etc. While this was once the norm it is no longer so. There are no doubt many who still vote that way, but they are few enough to be considered quaint or nostalgic. This is a tendency that for the most part is not missed.
After so much time and effort has been spent in this country to overcome racial and ethnic bias, why is it being encouraged, and even applauded in the case of Hispanics? Why is it when Hispanics vote for Hispanics because they are Hispanic, they are not censured or criticized as prejudiced?
Hispanics are a rapidly growing minority. There are many cities and regions that have majority Hispanic populations. If Hispanics are encouraged to vote for Hispanic candidates, and applauded when they do, what will it mean to the non-Hispanic residents of those cities and regions? Most likely, they will be told to accommodate themselves to the new reality of their situations. Perhaps in time, after the novelty of political power and representation wears off, Hispanics will no longer feel obliged to support Hispanic candidates. But this is only supposition.
Richard Engstrom, a professor at Duke University, blandly claims that "Latino voters show a clear preference for Latinos." This bias is reported as a simple matter of fact with no implication or inference of prejudice. Moreover, it is being proposed that this prejudice should be encouraged through creating majority Hispanic voting districts. By divvying up political representation according to race and ethnicity we are discouraging assimilation and integration: two ideas that have not always been viewed with disfavor.
If someday we wind up with two distinct communities across the Southwest, one English speaking, the other Spanish speaking, we will have taken a giant step backward from the goal of assimilation. Naturally, this is only a bad thing if assimilation is considered a desirable goal. For many it is not.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
The Virtue of Compelling Virtue
There is a great deal of talk these days about the need for sacrifice. In an editorial in this morning's Dallas Morning News, William McKenzie chides us here in the U.S. for our unwillingness to sacrifice. He writes that "most of us are unwilling to make the changes necessary to resolve big problems." Climate change and health care top his list of those things people are unwilling to sacrifice for.
While McKenzie makes a plausible argument, I believe he has missed the point. Sacrifice exists in abundance in the U.S. There is no shortage of people willing to sacrifice for their children, friends, families, and communities. In the U.S., there is an extraordinary compassion for those who have suffered and are suffering. Disasters and tragedies often bring about a swell of charity from the public. We expect people to make sacrifices in times of war and suffering, and they rarely disappoint. The problem all too often lays in what it is people are being asked to sacrifice and for what purpose.
The further an issue lay from the lives and interests of people, the more problematic it is to expect sacrifice. A hungry, unfortunate, or ill family member can often rely on the beneficence and sacrifice of friends and family to aid them in their time of need. Churches, charities, and local communities can be relied upon as well. The problem arises most often when the government is relied upon. Government services often alleviate for many the sense of obligation to the poor and the suffering. Like Scrooge, many advocate for, and rely upon government programs to relieve them of their obligation to those in need. Often the easiest thing to do for others is to write a check or pay your taxes: or demand that society, i e. the government, take care of them.
Sacrificing for strangers and causes is laudable, even virtuous. But like love or trust, sacrifice and compassion can be asked for, even hoped for, but they should not be demanded. When sacrifice and compassion are demanded, or worse, compelled, they lose whatever virtue or merit they possess. Suffering and misery may be alleviated by compelling others to assist, but there is nothing virtuous, compassionate, or noble about it. Many who support health care reform fancy that they are motivated out of compassion. They often flatter themselves that it is their "values" that compel them to labor for social and economic justice. The reluctance and indifference to the cause they perceive in others only reinforces their determination to persevere. They are determined to conscript others, less virtuous and compassionate than themselves, and, if need be, compel them to participate in their cause through taxes, regulations, and laws.
It is common to hear others speak of the need to compel society to the goal of justice. The health care debate is replete with demands for sacrifice and effort on our parts in behalf of the suffering and unfortunate. Certainly there is nothing wrong with urging people to take action to aid those who are in need. It is right to appeal to the virtue and compassion of others. But it is quite another thing to compel it. Even if we set side the question of what it is people are being asked to sacrifice for, there is nothing virtuous or compassionate in compelling virtue and compassion from people. The virtues of compassion and sacrifice lay in the voluntary choice by people to act in accordance with them.
People in the U.S. have demonstrated great compassion for each other, and on many occasions, for people throughout the world. People in the U.S. have also demonstrated great willingness to sacrifice for each other and those in need. From the compassion of families and loved ones, to the efforts of churches and charities to assist the suffering and mistreated, the willingness of Americans to help each other is an issue that should not be in doubt. The abundance of charitable groups and foundations dedicated to the ill and the poor are a testimony to the compassion of the American public.
Nor have Americans proved indifferent to changes necessary to help the environment. There have been great strides made by the American people over the last few decades to improve the environment. From unleaded gasoline and reduced reliance on coal, to recycling, managed foresting, and efforts to reduce pollution and carbon emissions through alternative energy, Americans have proved to be extraordinarily sympathetic and accommodating to the environment, both here in the U.S. and globally. While it is true that the government participated in cleaning up the environment through laws and regulations, the environmental movement was a bottom up movement and took decades before it became part of our national fabric.
It is possible, as Mckenzie asserts, that many are not willing to make the changes "necessary to resolve big problems." It may also be true that people are not being asked to make reasonable sacrifices for the right things. Ask people to sacrifice for their family, their friends or those suffering in their community, and one will not often be disappointed. Ask them to sacrifice for an abstraction like "nature" or "humanity" and things become more complicated. To compel people to sacrifice is another thing altogether. Compelled virtue is no virtue, even though to those doing the compelling it may feel otherwise.
Persuasion is never a bad thing. Compulsion is almost never a good thing. To claim that Americans are oblivious, or even hostile to changes that need to be made to solve problems, be it social "justice" or the environment, simply reflects the impatience of a crusader. The vehemence and urgency with which change is demanded simply reflects the ardor of a zealot. While compelling virtue and demanding compassion may feel like noble causes, they are anything but.
While McKenzie makes a plausible argument, I believe he has missed the point. Sacrifice exists in abundance in the U.S. There is no shortage of people willing to sacrifice for their children, friends, families, and communities. In the U.S., there is an extraordinary compassion for those who have suffered and are suffering. Disasters and tragedies often bring about a swell of charity from the public. We expect people to make sacrifices in times of war and suffering, and they rarely disappoint. The problem all too often lays in what it is people are being asked to sacrifice and for what purpose.
The further an issue lay from the lives and interests of people, the more problematic it is to expect sacrifice. A hungry, unfortunate, or ill family member can often rely on the beneficence and sacrifice of friends and family to aid them in their time of need. Churches, charities, and local communities can be relied upon as well. The problem arises most often when the government is relied upon. Government services often alleviate for many the sense of obligation to the poor and the suffering. Like Scrooge, many advocate for, and rely upon government programs to relieve them of their obligation to those in need. Often the easiest thing to do for others is to write a check or pay your taxes: or demand that society, i e. the government, take care of them.
Sacrificing for strangers and causes is laudable, even virtuous. But like love or trust, sacrifice and compassion can be asked for, even hoped for, but they should not be demanded. When sacrifice and compassion are demanded, or worse, compelled, they lose whatever virtue or merit they possess. Suffering and misery may be alleviated by compelling others to assist, but there is nothing virtuous, compassionate, or noble about it. Many who support health care reform fancy that they are motivated out of compassion. They often flatter themselves that it is their "values" that compel them to labor for social and economic justice. The reluctance and indifference to the cause they perceive in others only reinforces their determination to persevere. They are determined to conscript others, less virtuous and compassionate than themselves, and, if need be, compel them to participate in their cause through taxes, regulations, and laws.
It is common to hear others speak of the need to compel society to the goal of justice. The health care debate is replete with demands for sacrifice and effort on our parts in behalf of the suffering and unfortunate. Certainly there is nothing wrong with urging people to take action to aid those who are in need. It is right to appeal to the virtue and compassion of others. But it is quite another thing to compel it. Even if we set side the question of what it is people are being asked to sacrifice for, there is nothing virtuous or compassionate in compelling virtue and compassion from people. The virtues of compassion and sacrifice lay in the voluntary choice by people to act in accordance with them.
People in the U.S. have demonstrated great compassion for each other, and on many occasions, for people throughout the world. People in the U.S. have also demonstrated great willingness to sacrifice for each other and those in need. From the compassion of families and loved ones, to the efforts of churches and charities to assist the suffering and mistreated, the willingness of Americans to help each other is an issue that should not be in doubt. The abundance of charitable groups and foundations dedicated to the ill and the poor are a testimony to the compassion of the American public.
Nor have Americans proved indifferent to changes necessary to help the environment. There have been great strides made by the American people over the last few decades to improve the environment. From unleaded gasoline and reduced reliance on coal, to recycling, managed foresting, and efforts to reduce pollution and carbon emissions through alternative energy, Americans have proved to be extraordinarily sympathetic and accommodating to the environment, both here in the U.S. and globally. While it is true that the government participated in cleaning up the environment through laws and regulations, the environmental movement was a bottom up movement and took decades before it became part of our national fabric.
It is possible, as Mckenzie asserts, that many are not willing to make the changes "necessary to resolve big problems." It may also be true that people are not being asked to make reasonable sacrifices for the right things. Ask people to sacrifice for their family, their friends or those suffering in their community, and one will not often be disappointed. Ask them to sacrifice for an abstraction like "nature" or "humanity" and things become more complicated. To compel people to sacrifice is another thing altogether. Compelled virtue is no virtue, even though to those doing the compelling it may feel otherwise.
Persuasion is never a bad thing. Compulsion is almost never a good thing. To claim that Americans are oblivious, or even hostile to changes that need to be made to solve problems, be it social "justice" or the environment, simply reflects the impatience of a crusader. The vehemence and urgency with which change is demanded simply reflects the ardor of a zealot. While compelling virtue and demanding compassion may feel like noble causes, they are anything but.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)