Despite Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele's insistence to the contrary, Senator Harry Reid should not resign because of his alleged racist comments in analyzing then candidate Barack Obama's chances of winning the presidential election. I don't believe that Sen. Reid needs to apologize and quite frankly, I'm a bit tired of hearing the man continually apologize for a nonexistent offense.
Reid simply expressed that Obama's chances of winning were better because he didn't scare white voters. Reid's supposedly racist offense: he privately told two journalists in 2008 that Obama was more electable because he's "light-skinned" and lacked a "Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."
It's an ugliness that we don't like to talk about but skin color does matter in the minds of a lot of people and not just in the United States. Skin lightening products are large sellers in parts of Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East. In India and China, lighteners are a multi-million dollar industry.
Historically, there have been tangible benefits to having lighter skin. In the U.S., lighter skinned slaves were more likely to be assigned as house slaves, a step above working in the fields all day. I won't digress as to the reason some of the slaves were significantly lighter than others. If you honestly don't know, follow this link.
In many cultures lighter skin is linked to class distinctions. Dark skin is a sign that one works outside; pale skin is an indication that one is of a higher class and not subject to manual labor. Think of the look of Queen Elizabeth I and other European nobility who achieved their pale complexions via lead based powders, some laced with arsenic and if all else failed, the application of leeches to leave one pale and beautiful. In Japan and China, rice powders were applied by the upper class to achieve whiteness. Men and women sought to achieve pale skin as a sign of their elevated class. In the United States, this obsession reached a peak with a fervent need on the part of European Americans to declare their superiority to African Americans and to ensure that children born to a slave mother of a white father were not in line to inherit any of the property of the landowner. Anti-miscegenation laws were still in effect in 16 states when the U.S. Supreme Court declared them unlawful in 1967.
Sen. Reid's comments merely sum up the history of race relations in this country in a few words. Strategically, Obama possessed qualities that made him more likely to become this country's first black president. Reid summed it up well--Obama didn't look too black and he was quite eloquent in his speech. Even the reference to Obama's lack of a Negro dialect except when he wanted to have one was dead on target. If Obama spoke like Snoop Dog he would have had a good chance of success as a rapper but not in becoming President of the United States.
A 1993 study on the effect of skin color on white voter preferences by political scientist Nayda Terkildsen yielded some interesting results. Terkildsen presented a random sample of adults with descriptions of one of three fictional candidates running for governor. The candidates were described in identical terms. The only difference was that one of three photographs were attached to the descriptions--a white male, a light complexion black male, or a dark complexion black male.The report found that there was a statistically significant impact in that black candidates were penalized by white voters based on the candidates's race, skin color, and individual levels of racial prejudice. Or in simple terms, white voters preferred white candidates, but if they had to choose between a dark skin black candidate and a light skin black candidate, they chose the lighter skin black man. (Want to check out your own attitudes towards race, gender, weight and other potential areas of bias? Check out the Harvard's research site, Implicit.)
American culture is schizophrenic when it comes to skin tones and other attributes of people of color. In the early part of the 20th century, pale was still the beauty standard, but somewhere about mid century, tan became the measure of good looks and health for whites. Of course, a lot of black folks had permanent tans, but there were those who could pass for white. I like to imagine that the fixation on tanning came about because of Annette Funicello and all those beach movies. Whatever the reason, in spite of the warnings about the sun and skin cancer connection, tanning salons abound and the beaches are lined with bodies sprawled under the sun. At the same time, quite a few white women are getting collagen injections to make their lips fuller, further mimicking attributes more generally seen in black women.
It's absurd for Michael Steele and his fellow Republicans to attempt to tar Reid with the same brush as Trent Lott, who commended Senator Strom Thurmond's racist policies stating that if the rest of the country had also voted for Thurmond the country would have been better for it. Thurmond supported segregation and was an advocate against the mingling of the races. Lott's remarks and Reid's comments do not arise from the same place. Reid's remarks were in the context of explaining why he was enthusiastic that Obama had a good shot at winning the 2008 presidential election.
Perhaps Steele is trying to divert attention from his own foray into bigotry. Last week, Steele declared that the RNC platform was the best in 25 years,"Honest injun on that." To add further insult, Steele's apology was less than sincere; when host Chris Wallace pointed out that "honest injun" was perceived as a racial slur, Steele answered, "Well, if it is, I apologize for it.” Steele went on to state, “It’s not intended to be a racial slur. I wasn’t intending to say a racial slur at all.”
Evidently, Steele is a believer in the, "I didn't mean to offend" defense.
This tempest in a teapot over Harry Reid's off the cuff observations regarding the potential for success of Obama's campaign for president could have a beneficial aspect if it leads to honest dialogues about race and race relations in this country. However, I'm not holding my breath. Race is the perpetual elephant in the room that most of us pretend not to see.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Health Care Reform: What's In It For Me?
Passage of a health care reform bill is not a done deal, but it's definitely on track to being signed into law. The House has a version and the Senate has its own version. A conference committee consisting of House members and Senators has to resolve the differences between the two versions. In order for the final version that comes out of the conference committee to pass the Senate, it will need 60 votes, so it is likely that the House will honor the lines drawn in the sand by the Senate on the public option and abortion. That's the negative but I'm still certain that the bill will retain enough good to make it count as a step forward towards a responsible, ethical approach to providing affordable health care for all.
The big question in the minds of most people is how will health care reform affect me personally? (A notable exception is Glenn Beck; his big question is, "What new idiocy can I spout to keep my ratings up?") I just received the January 11 issue of Newsweek and it quite conveniently contains a succinct summary as to how the version of health care reform likely to be signed into law will affect us.
Yes, I know that I published some of this information in the past, but I continue to have perfectly reasonable people who aren't certain if there are any price controls likely to be in the bill (yes there are) and those who still think that the loss of the public option is the end of the world. So, once more, for clarity, here is what the health care reform act is likely to mean for us based on the existing House and Senate versions of the bill (with some additional detail that I didn't cover in my last post on this matter).
1) Everyone must purchase health insurance. The way it works is that when you file your income tax return beginning in 2014, you'll have to provide proof of insurance with your return. If you fail to do so in 2014, you will have to pay a $95 fine to the IRS. In 2015 the fine increases to $350, and to $750 in 2016. So if you're really opposed to having health insurance, don't get any and pay your fines each year.
2) A public option is unlikely, so get over it. It was never a panacea to our defunct health care system; it merely provided that the federal government could offer an insurance plan to uninsured individuals and small businesses that in theory would force private insurers to lower their rates in order to compete. Here's what we get instead: individuals and small businesses will be able to buy insurance through government regulated health insurance exchanges. The legislation requires insurers to provide coverage in 2010 that cannot cost more than $5,950 ($496 per month) for an individual and $11,900 ($992 per month) for a family. Individuals earning up to $43,320 annually and up to $88,200 for a family of four will receive credits throughout the year to subsidize insurance premiums. Other costs savings measures include a cap on out of pocket expenses. The cap is based on income. For example, a family of three earning $73,240 in 2009 would pay no more than $7,733 in out of pocket expenses.
3) Currently, insurers can and do charge the elderly, women, and smokers much higher health insurance premiums. The passage of the health care reform act will put an end to astronomical premiums by setting caps on how much more can be charged based on age (a maximum of three times the rate for younger people) or smoking status (no more than 1.5 times more than nonsmokers), and eliminates any consideration of gender as a risk factor in determining health insurance premiums. It's not perfect. As a person approaching being elderly, I'd prefer there be no additional charge allowed based on age. However, this is an improvement over current practices that allow insurers to declare you to be uninsurable and then offer to deign to supply you with insurance if you sell your family into bondage to raise enough money to pay the monthly premiums. Those of you who have been with me for a while know my tale of exploring going into private practice and discovering that the best health insurance package that I could get was $3,700 per month. No, I don't have some rare tropical fever; I am a type 2 diabetic with hypertension and chronic a-fib, conditions with which I've been living for ten years and are managed with medications. However, the diabetes alone makes me uninsurable under current standards and health insurers can charge me exorbitant premiums even though I haven't been hospitalized for any of these conditions in ten years.
4) Which brings me to my favorite provision, health insurers cannot deny you coverage because you have a preexisting condition (na-na-na-na-na to the health care insurers). This regulation doesn't go into effect until 2014 so until then the government will subsidize a high risk pool for people with preexisting conditions who have been uninsured for more than six months. (Under current health insurance practices, if you've been uninsured for a period of time, as little as 90 days, even if you get a job with insurance benefits, the employer's insurance plan does not have to cover your preexisiting conditions for as much as six months after you begin employment.)
5) Medicaid for more people! Anyone under 65 who makes less than $14,440 per year will be eligible for Medicaid. Under the current system, only certain specified categories of people with low incomes are eligible for Medicaid.
6) Drug manufacturers will be required to offer brand name drugs at a discount of 50% for people spending between $2,700 and $8,154 per year on prescriptions (addresses the Medicare coverage gap or doughnut hole).
7) If you have children, you will be able to keep them on your insurance up to age 26 (statistical data indicates that 30% of the uninsured are people in their 20s).
8) To discourage "cadillac plans" with high premiums, health insurers will have to pay a 40% tax on the portion of a premium that is more than $8500 annually for an individual and more than $23,000 annually for a family.
9) If the health care reform act passes, 30 million uninsured people will have health insurance.
Sources: "Back Story," Newsweek, January 11, 2010.
Senate health care reform bill, available online.
P.S. I've become rather annoyed with my progressive brothers and sisters who have elevated the public option to the status of the holy grail. The House bill is 1,018 pages (trying to open the website froze my computer twice) and only 12 pages deal with the public option. The PO is a good idea but it is not the only nor most significant piece of the health care reform bill. I venture a guess that most people don't really have a clue as to the precise details of the public option whose demise they are lamenting. It's not the wailing and gnashing of teeth that disturbs me; it's the irrational response of, "Let's just call the whole thing off, that will show Joe Lieberman and those mean Republicans," that's making me really want to shake some folks like a rag doll.To read a rational and objecive analysis of the failed public option, click here.
The big question in the minds of most people is how will health care reform affect me personally? (A notable exception is Glenn Beck; his big question is, "What new idiocy can I spout to keep my ratings up?") I just received the January 11 issue of Newsweek and it quite conveniently contains a succinct summary as to how the version of health care reform likely to be signed into law will affect us.
Yes, I know that I published some of this information in the past, but I continue to have perfectly reasonable people who aren't certain if there are any price controls likely to be in the bill (yes there are) and those who still think that the loss of the public option is the end of the world. So, once more, for clarity, here is what the health care reform act is likely to mean for us based on the existing House and Senate versions of the bill (with some additional detail that I didn't cover in my last post on this matter).
1) Everyone must purchase health insurance. The way it works is that when you file your income tax return beginning in 2014, you'll have to provide proof of insurance with your return. If you fail to do so in 2014, you will have to pay a $95 fine to the IRS. In 2015 the fine increases to $350, and to $750 in 2016. So if you're really opposed to having health insurance, don't get any and pay your fines each year.
2) A public option is unlikely, so get over it. It was never a panacea to our defunct health care system; it merely provided that the federal government could offer an insurance plan to uninsured individuals and small businesses that in theory would force private insurers to lower their rates in order to compete. Here's what we get instead: individuals and small businesses will be able to buy insurance through government regulated health insurance exchanges. The legislation requires insurers to provide coverage in 2010 that cannot cost more than $5,950 ($496 per month) for an individual and $11,900 ($992 per month) for a family. Individuals earning up to $43,320 annually and up to $88,200 for a family of four will receive credits throughout the year to subsidize insurance premiums. Other costs savings measures include a cap on out of pocket expenses. The cap is based on income. For example, a family of three earning $73,240 in 2009 would pay no more than $7,733 in out of pocket expenses.
3) Currently, insurers can and do charge the elderly, women, and smokers much higher health insurance premiums. The passage of the health care reform act will put an end to astronomical premiums by setting caps on how much more can be charged based on age (a maximum of three times the rate for younger people) or smoking status (no more than 1.5 times more than nonsmokers), and eliminates any consideration of gender as a risk factor in determining health insurance premiums. It's not perfect. As a person approaching being elderly, I'd prefer there be no additional charge allowed based on age. However, this is an improvement over current practices that allow insurers to declare you to be uninsurable and then offer to deign to supply you with insurance if you sell your family into bondage to raise enough money to pay the monthly premiums. Those of you who have been with me for a while know my tale of exploring going into private practice and discovering that the best health insurance package that I could get was $3,700 per month. No, I don't have some rare tropical fever; I am a type 2 diabetic with hypertension and chronic a-fib, conditions with which I've been living for ten years and are managed with medications. However, the diabetes alone makes me uninsurable under current standards and health insurers can charge me exorbitant premiums even though I haven't been hospitalized for any of these conditions in ten years.
4) Which brings me to my favorite provision, health insurers cannot deny you coverage because you have a preexisting condition (na-na-na-na-na to the health care insurers). This regulation doesn't go into effect until 2014 so until then the government will subsidize a high risk pool for people with preexisting conditions who have been uninsured for more than six months. (Under current health insurance practices, if you've been uninsured for a period of time, as little as 90 days, even if you get a job with insurance benefits, the employer's insurance plan does not have to cover your preexisiting conditions for as much as six months after you begin employment.)
5) Medicaid for more people! Anyone under 65 who makes less than $14,440 per year will be eligible for Medicaid. Under the current system, only certain specified categories of people with low incomes are eligible for Medicaid.
6) Drug manufacturers will be required to offer brand name drugs at a discount of 50% for people spending between $2,700 and $8,154 per year on prescriptions (addresses the Medicare coverage gap or doughnut hole).
7) If you have children, you will be able to keep them on your insurance up to age 26 (statistical data indicates that 30% of the uninsured are people in their 20s).
8) To discourage "cadillac plans" with high premiums, health insurers will have to pay a 40% tax on the portion of a premium that is more than $8500 annually for an individual and more than $23,000 annually for a family.
9) If the health care reform act passes, 30 million uninsured people will have health insurance.
Sources: "Back Story," Newsweek, January 11, 2010.
Senate health care reform bill, available online.
P.S. I've become rather annoyed with my progressive brothers and sisters who have elevated the public option to the status of the holy grail. The House bill is 1,018 pages (trying to open the website froze my computer twice) and only 12 pages deal with the public option. The PO is a good idea but it is not the only nor most significant piece of the health care reform bill. I venture a guess that most people don't really have a clue as to the precise details of the public option whose demise they are lamenting. It's not the wailing and gnashing of teeth that disturbs me; it's the irrational response of, "Let's just call the whole thing off, that will show Joe Lieberman and those mean Republicans," that's making me really want to shake some folks like a rag doll.To read a rational and objecive analysis of the failed public option, click here.
Monday, January 4, 2010
The Absence of War Is Not Peace
Sen. Joe Lieberman was on ABC's This Week to announce once again that the sky is falling. Lieberman and some of his fellow senators are distressed that the Obama administration has decided to prosecute the Nigerian bomber who attempted to blow up a Northwest Airlines international flight on Christmas Day in criminal court instead of as an enemy combatant. According to Lieberman:
Hey Joe, according to Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, only Congress can declare war and it has only done so five times with the last time being in 1941, WWII. Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan are police actions authorized by Congress but not by formal declarations of war. This is no small distinction. Lieberman and his ilk label the attacks on the US as acts of war; perhaps they are, but if so, why doesn't Congress declare war on somebody? (Note: I do not support a formal declaration of war; however, I am disgusted that Congress is effectively getting away with playing at war without taking the responsibility for engaging us in war. Declarations of war are serious and not undertaken lightly, that's why this nation has not been quick to declare war. However, the net result of all of these police actions, or engagements of force is the same--devastation, loss of life, PTSD, and all the attendant ills of war.)
Ah ha, you might say, we have declared war on terrorism. Generally speaking wars are declared by one nation against another nation, not against an ideology that fuels behavior. This lack of a fomal declaration of war against a clearly identifiable enemy is an underlying issue when it comes to the Bush administration's decision to label suspected terrorists as enemy combatants. Obama's critics have been quick to climb on the prisoners of war bandwagon yet again, insisting that persons arrested for acts of terrorism should be treated as prisoners of war, and therefore subjected to a military interrogation. Of course, based on past behavior, that may be code speak for waterboarding.
Just like our so called war on drugs, this war on terrorism cannot be won. The definitions applied by the Bush administration have created a hybrid that does not fit the rules of war. There is no nation with whom to negotiate a treaty. The alleged enemy combatants hail from different nations, the flavor of the month is Yemen. How do we even determine when we've won? Who surrenders, who signs the treaty? Who are the parties to a treaty?
I'd like to see Congress show some chutzpah and actually deal with the elephant that has been in the room ever since they sanctioned GWB's invasion of Iraq. (Congress issued an Authorization of the Use of Military Force to attack Iraq). In order to develop a strategy for putting an end to conflict you have to clearly define the nature of the conflict. It appears that President Obama is recognizing that our current engagements of force do not fit the rules of war and that the acts of terrorism are criminal acts, appropriately tried in civilian criminal courts. This quasi war status created by the previous administration lends itself to abuses of power that undermine the very principles of the Bill of Rights. Already, the fourth amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure have been laid on the sacrificial altar of the Patriot Act.
How do we ever end a war that is not a war, against an enemy that is an ideology, and on battlefields that have no clearly defined enemy lines? The United States' longest undeclared war was fought between approximately 1840 and 1886 against the Apache Nation. During that entire 46-year period, there were never more than 90 days of "peace."
That was an act of war. He should be treated as a prisoner of war. He should be held in a military brig...He should be questioned now and should have been ever since he was apprehended for intelligence that could help us stop the next attack or get the people in Yemen who directed him to do what he did. Yes, we should follow the rule of law, but the rule of law that is relevant here is the rule of the law of war.It's business as usual for Lieberman, take any opportunity that you can to attack the actions and policies of the Obama administration. It plays well with a lot of the public, which isn't surprising given that basic civics classes seem to have gone the way of the dinosaur and the only Americans who bother to study the Constitution are the immigrants seeking to pass the citizenship exam.
Hey Joe, according to Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, only Congress can declare war and it has only done so five times with the last time being in 1941, WWII. Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan are police actions authorized by Congress but not by formal declarations of war. This is no small distinction. Lieberman and his ilk label the attacks on the US as acts of war; perhaps they are, but if so, why doesn't Congress declare war on somebody? (Note: I do not support a formal declaration of war; however, I am disgusted that Congress is effectively getting away with playing at war without taking the responsibility for engaging us in war. Declarations of war are serious and not undertaken lightly, that's why this nation has not been quick to declare war. However, the net result of all of these police actions, or engagements of force is the same--devastation, loss of life, PTSD, and all the attendant ills of war.)
Ah ha, you might say, we have declared war on terrorism. Generally speaking wars are declared by one nation against another nation, not against an ideology that fuels behavior. This lack of a fomal declaration of war against a clearly identifiable enemy is an underlying issue when it comes to the Bush administration's decision to label suspected terrorists as enemy combatants. Obama's critics have been quick to climb on the prisoners of war bandwagon yet again, insisting that persons arrested for acts of terrorism should be treated as prisoners of war, and therefore subjected to a military interrogation. Of course, based on past behavior, that may be code speak for waterboarding.
Just like our so called war on drugs, this war on terrorism cannot be won. The definitions applied by the Bush administration have created a hybrid that does not fit the rules of war. There is no nation with whom to negotiate a treaty. The alleged enemy combatants hail from different nations, the flavor of the month is Yemen. How do we even determine when we've won? Who surrenders, who signs the treaty? Who are the parties to a treaty?
I'd like to see Congress show some chutzpah and actually deal with the elephant that has been in the room ever since they sanctioned GWB's invasion of Iraq. (Congress issued an Authorization of the Use of Military Force to attack Iraq). In order to develop a strategy for putting an end to conflict you have to clearly define the nature of the conflict. It appears that President Obama is recognizing that our current engagements of force do not fit the rules of war and that the acts of terrorism are criminal acts, appropriately tried in civilian criminal courts. This quasi war status created by the previous administration lends itself to abuses of power that undermine the very principles of the Bill of Rights. Already, the fourth amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure have been laid on the sacrificial altar of the Patriot Act.
How do we ever end a war that is not a war, against an enemy that is an ideology, and on battlefields that have no clearly defined enemy lines? The United States' longest undeclared war was fought between approximately 1840 and 1886 against the Apache Nation. During that entire 46-year period, there were never more than 90 days of "peace."
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Making Peace With The Senate Health Care Bill
To support the health care reform bill, or not to support it, that is the question being debated across the Internet. Now that Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson (D) has agreed to support the Senate version of the bill, it looks as if the Senate has the 60 votes necessary to pass the legislation. The new question is, "What's in the Senate bill?" I think that this is the 9th edition of the bill and it's been changed more often than Madonna has reinvented her image. After scuttling around on the Internet, I think that I reasonably understand the current content with the most recent amendments that will be voted upon at one a.m. on Monday. Of course, this all may change by the time I finish writing this entry.
Costs
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the legislation, with the proposed changes that are being offered as an amendment to the Senate's version of the health care bill would cost about $871 billion over the first 10 years. Those costs would be offset by $483 billion in spending savings and $498 billion in revenues over the period. Factoring in tax increases and lower payments to doctors, the CBO asserts that the Senate bill would reduce the deficit by about $132 billion between 2010 and 2019.
What's Changed
Elin (Mrs. Tiger Woods) and the government run insurance option (the Public Option) are gone. She may come back but the public option isn't likely to return in time for Monday morning's vote. It has been replaced with a plan to create two national or multi-state health insurance exchanges (exchanges) to be run by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). One of the plans is to be non-profit. The CBO has stated that it is unclear whether insurers would be interested in contracting with the OPM to offer these plans. A move to replace the public option with a plan to expand Medicare to provide coverage for uninsured Americans over 55 was stopped by opposition from Sen. Nelson and other alleged Democrats and the ever present Joe Lieberman.
The Medicare payroll tax increase is 0.9% (was 0.5%) for couples with an income of $250,000 or more and individuals earning $200,000 or more. This is a revenue raising measure. To save money, the Senate proposal cuts federal government reimbursement rates to doctors by 21% effective in 2010.
Funding for abortions has been a lightning rod in the Senate's debate about this legislation. In spite of the legal right to choose to have an abortion within certain medical guidelines and provisions, the anti-choice contingency have latched on to the health care reform legislation as an opportunity to try to make inroads in their ongoing effort to undo Roe v. Wade. The bill now includes more restrictive abortion funding language that strengthens the prohibitions against the use of public money for abortion services. The bill now separates federal funding from private funding for abortion services on the exchanges, and lets states choose not to allow insurance companies to cover abortion on their health exchanges. This change has left both pro-life and pro-choice groups unhappy (I didn't take the time to read all the reasons that both sides are upset with these changes).
Under the proposed changes, more firms would qualify for the small business tax credit for health care coverage. The tax credit would be available in 2010, a year earlier than originally proposed. The income threshold would be increased so that the tax credit will be available on a sliding scale to firms with fewer than 25 workers and an average wages of less than $50,000. Employers with 10 or fewer workers and average wages of less than $25,000 can get the full tax credit.
What Stays the Same
Insurance Reforms to health insurance stay the same as in the first Senate bill. This means that insurers will be prohibited from denying or stopping coverage based on the cost of care or the health of the customer, or in other words, denying coverage based on preexisting conditions.
The requirement that all individuals purchase health insurance by 2014 remains the same, as do penalties for employers who do not offer insurance to their workers; however, businesses with fewer than 50 workers are exempt.
The so-called 40 percent "Cadillac tax" on high-dollar insurance plans does not change and will go into effect in 2013.
The provision remains that provides that the federal government will subsidize the cost of insurance for families who make between 133 percent and 400 percent of the poverty level.
The bill also continues to include provisions offering new federal insurance for Long Term Care.
What's next
According to the knowledgeable pundits, now that Sen. Ben Nelson has agreed to support the bill, the Democrats will have votes from 60 senators and can defeat the Republicans' efforts to filibuster the health reform bill. If all goes as predicted, the Senate will move quickly through a series of procedural votes on the bill, beginning at 1 a.m. Monday morning, and likely finishing at 7 p.m. on Christmas Eve.
However, it isn't over until it's over. Assuming that the Senate passes its bill, Democratic leaders from the House and Senate will negotiate a compromise between their competing versions of health reform. Major differences remain between the House and Senate versions, with the most significant being the creation of a public option (the House does it, the Senate does not), and who will pay higher taxes to pay for the expanded coverage. The House raises taxes on the wealthy with a five-percent income tax increase on people making more than $500,000. The Senate increases the Medicare payroll tax and creates the "Cadillac tax," which could hit middle-class workers by taxing expensive health plans.
If the conference committee reaches a compromise, the House and the Senate will both vote on the new and final version of the bill. The goal of the Democrats is for President Obama to sign the measure before his State of the Union address at the end of January.
Why a watered down bill is better than no legislation
I offer this summary because I think that it's important in this emotionally charged climate to have a clear understanding of the substance of the House and Senate bills. People that I respect and like are split on this issue, with some advocating that progressives should make our displeasure known and withdraw support for any health care legislation that doesn't include a government funded or public option. Others believe that even if the final bill is watered down, including lacking a public option, that it's better to go forward with it than to get nothing. I happen to be in the second camp.
I think that while a lot of good things have been removed in the Senate version, a lot of good things remain, most notably, prohibitions against denying coverage to persons based on preexisting conditions or charging outrageous premiums to insure those people. Even more importantly, politics is a game. It's a pretty disturbing game because the rules aren't written down and they are constantly being amended. The constants in this game are negotiation and compromise. You always ask for the moon, but you know from the outset that you're not going to get it. You leave yourself some room for compromise and negotiation.
Maintaining a facade of civility is of prime importance, unless you have had years to hone your image as an eccentric maverick and you also have acquired power through a system of favors and debts owed to you. Arguably one of the least powerful offices in the federal government is that of the president; the drafters of the Constitution designed it that way in an effort to prevent this new government from ever having the power concentrated in the hands of any single individual.
It's easy enough to call for the president to simply tell the wayward Democrats in the Senate what to do; however, the reality is that he can tell them and if they don't acquiesce, what then? He can't throw them out of the party. He could perhaps refuse to help with their reelection campaign, but chances are that their constituents don't need or want the president's input. However, this issue isn't about the president; it's about beginning the process of reforming our health care system.
That's right, reform is a process. It doesn't happen in the blink of an eye. The Senate bill cuts away far too many pieces of this bill, but the House version isn't dead. The final bill will be a compromise of the elements of both versions of the bill. However, when it comes to legislation, final doesn't mean that it's forever written in stone. More than half of the bills submitted during any legislative session aren't brand new, but rather amended versions of existing law.
If this bill dies, then chances are good that it will be several administrations in the future before the issue even makes it on the table again. The battle will have to start all over from scratch, and there is no guarantee that it will meet with any more success eight or 12 years from now. Now is the time to pass the best bill possible under the reality of the opposition and start working on the drafts of the reauthorization of the health care legislation (federal law is ripe with reauthorizations of major pieces of legislation in every legislative session). The only way that health care reform dies is if we let our righteous indignation kill it.
Costs
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the legislation, with the proposed changes that are being offered as an amendment to the Senate's version of the health care bill would cost about $871 billion over the first 10 years. Those costs would be offset by $483 billion in spending savings and $498 billion in revenues over the period. Factoring in tax increases and lower payments to doctors, the CBO asserts that the Senate bill would reduce the deficit by about $132 billion between 2010 and 2019.
What's Changed
Elin (Mrs. Tiger Woods) and the government run insurance option (the Public Option) are gone. She may come back but the public option isn't likely to return in time for Monday morning's vote. It has been replaced with a plan to create two national or multi-state health insurance exchanges (exchanges) to be run by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). One of the plans is to be non-profit. The CBO has stated that it is unclear whether insurers would be interested in contracting with the OPM to offer these plans. A move to replace the public option with a plan to expand Medicare to provide coverage for uninsured Americans over 55 was stopped by opposition from Sen. Nelson and other alleged Democrats and the ever present Joe Lieberman.
The Medicare payroll tax increase is 0.9% (was 0.5%) for couples with an income of $250,000 or more and individuals earning $200,000 or more. This is a revenue raising measure. To save money, the Senate proposal cuts federal government reimbursement rates to doctors by 21% effective in 2010.
Funding for abortions has been a lightning rod in the Senate's debate about this legislation. In spite of the legal right to choose to have an abortion within certain medical guidelines and provisions, the anti-choice contingency have latched on to the health care reform legislation as an opportunity to try to make inroads in their ongoing effort to undo Roe v. Wade. The bill now includes more restrictive abortion funding language that strengthens the prohibitions against the use of public money for abortion services. The bill now separates federal funding from private funding for abortion services on the exchanges, and lets states choose not to allow insurance companies to cover abortion on their health exchanges. This change has left both pro-life and pro-choice groups unhappy (I didn't take the time to read all the reasons that both sides are upset with these changes).
Under the proposed changes, more firms would qualify for the small business tax credit for health care coverage. The tax credit would be available in 2010, a year earlier than originally proposed. The income threshold would be increased so that the tax credit will be available on a sliding scale to firms with fewer than 25 workers and an average wages of less than $50,000. Employers with 10 or fewer workers and average wages of less than $25,000 can get the full tax credit.
What Stays the Same
Insurance Reforms to health insurance stay the same as in the first Senate bill. This means that insurers will be prohibited from denying or stopping coverage based on the cost of care or the health of the customer, or in other words, denying coverage based on preexisting conditions.
The requirement that all individuals purchase health insurance by 2014 remains the same, as do penalties for employers who do not offer insurance to their workers; however, businesses with fewer than 50 workers are exempt.
The so-called 40 percent "Cadillac tax" on high-dollar insurance plans does not change and will go into effect in 2013.
The provision remains that provides that the federal government will subsidize the cost of insurance for families who make between 133 percent and 400 percent of the poverty level.
The bill also continues to include provisions offering new federal insurance for Long Term Care.
What's next
According to the knowledgeable pundits, now that Sen. Ben Nelson has agreed to support the bill, the Democrats will have votes from 60 senators and can defeat the Republicans' efforts to filibuster the health reform bill. If all goes as predicted, the Senate will move quickly through a series of procedural votes on the bill, beginning at 1 a.m. Monday morning, and likely finishing at 7 p.m. on Christmas Eve.
However, it isn't over until it's over. Assuming that the Senate passes its bill, Democratic leaders from the House and Senate will negotiate a compromise between their competing versions of health reform. Major differences remain between the House and Senate versions, with the most significant being the creation of a public option (the House does it, the Senate does not), and who will pay higher taxes to pay for the expanded coverage. The House raises taxes on the wealthy with a five-percent income tax increase on people making more than $500,000. The Senate increases the Medicare payroll tax and creates the "Cadillac tax," which could hit middle-class workers by taxing expensive health plans.
If the conference committee reaches a compromise, the House and the Senate will both vote on the new and final version of the bill. The goal of the Democrats is for President Obama to sign the measure before his State of the Union address at the end of January.
Why a watered down bill is better than no legislation
I offer this summary because I think that it's important in this emotionally charged climate to have a clear understanding of the substance of the House and Senate bills. People that I respect and like are split on this issue, with some advocating that progressives should make our displeasure known and withdraw support for any health care legislation that doesn't include a government funded or public option. Others believe that even if the final bill is watered down, including lacking a public option, that it's better to go forward with it than to get nothing. I happen to be in the second camp.
I think that while a lot of good things have been removed in the Senate version, a lot of good things remain, most notably, prohibitions against denying coverage to persons based on preexisting conditions or charging outrageous premiums to insure those people. Even more importantly, politics is a game. It's a pretty disturbing game because the rules aren't written down and they are constantly being amended. The constants in this game are negotiation and compromise. You always ask for the moon, but you know from the outset that you're not going to get it. You leave yourself some room for compromise and negotiation.
Maintaining a facade of civility is of prime importance, unless you have had years to hone your image as an eccentric maverick and you also have acquired power through a system of favors and debts owed to you. Arguably one of the least powerful offices in the federal government is that of the president; the drafters of the Constitution designed it that way in an effort to prevent this new government from ever having the power concentrated in the hands of any single individual.
It's easy enough to call for the president to simply tell the wayward Democrats in the Senate what to do; however, the reality is that he can tell them and if they don't acquiesce, what then? He can't throw them out of the party. He could perhaps refuse to help with their reelection campaign, but chances are that their constituents don't need or want the president's input. However, this issue isn't about the president; it's about beginning the process of reforming our health care system.
That's right, reform is a process. It doesn't happen in the blink of an eye. The Senate bill cuts away far too many pieces of this bill, but the House version isn't dead. The final bill will be a compromise of the elements of both versions of the bill. However, when it comes to legislation, final doesn't mean that it's forever written in stone. More than half of the bills submitted during any legislative session aren't brand new, but rather amended versions of existing law.
If this bill dies, then chances are good that it will be several administrations in the future before the issue even makes it on the table again. The battle will have to start all over from scratch, and there is no guarantee that it will meet with any more success eight or 12 years from now. Now is the time to pass the best bill possible under the reality of the opposition and start working on the drafts of the reauthorization of the health care legislation (federal law is ripe with reauthorizations of major pieces of legislation in every legislative session). The only way that health care reform dies is if we let our righteous indignation kill it.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Sex, Lies, and Texting
Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
I've been trying to resist writing a single word about Tiger Woods, but I'm weak. When I was in college, I arranged my class schedule so that I had a midday break that allowed me to watch All My Children. When I began teaching, I purchased a VCR so that I could record AMC, One Life to Live, and General Hopital. My name is Sheria and I'm a soapaholic.
Three years ago, I stopped watching daytime soaps, about the same time that I took up blogging. Alas, I'm still a soapaholic and I've been enmeshed in the Tiger Woods drama, also known as Golf Is A Four Letter Word.
When the story first made the news on the Friday after Thanksgiving, like everyone else I was concerned about Tiger's welfare. However, by the next day, my familiarity with the basic rule of soaps--nothing is at it appears--along with massive inconsistencies in the story that the Woods were presentig to the media, led me to believe that there was a juicy truth hidden behind the public story. Of course, we now know the details: a cheating spouse making a hurried escape in his vehicle and a hurt and angry spouse carrying a golf club. I think that it was my blogami, Mark Olmsted, who first suggested the applicability of the R&B hit, Bust the Windows Out Your Car by Jazmine Sullivan, to the Tiger and Elin saga.
I totally understand the public fascination with the private lives of public figures, where I draw the line is trying to defend our rabid curiosity as being grounded in righteousness. Just because a person is a public figure does not automatically mean that every foible of his or her private life is the business of the public. Don't try to dress up basic nosiness as symbolizing some ethical concern for the sanctity of marriage. The argument about the public's right to know may have some merit when it comes to cheating spouses who are elected officials, but only if the individual has used or abused his or her elected office in the process of engaging in extramarital flings.
I admit that I have no personal stake in Tiger's marital woes but his troubles have provided me with a fix almost as fascinating as Erica's marriages to most of the men in Pine Valley, some of them more than once. It's not a matter of entitlement to know, just my general fascination with bad human behavior.
I am also fascinated as to whether or not Tiger or any of his fellow in-the-public-eye-cheaters have just been so busy with their conquests that they missed the update--it's the cell phone that is now mightier than the sword, or in some cases it's the Blackberry. What is it with all of the texting? Why do these unfaithful types always send sweet vulgar nothings to the objects of their affection in a hundred text messages per day? How do they find the time for all of this texting? Did Tiger miss the 2008 scandal involving former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick who paid a huge settlement, was forced to resign, sentenced to serve time, and disbarred in a legal case that ultimately centered on revelations from thousands of text messages exchanged between Kilpatrick and his mistress who also was Kilpatrick's Chief of Staff?
When they aren't texting, they are leaving voicemail. Just to be certain that there is no doubt when the media eventually latches on to the voicemail, they announce themselves on the message. "Hello, this is Tiger,..." When I call people that I know well and speak to frequently by phone, I figure that they recognize my voice, and I seldom announce myself. If I were having an illicit affair, I certainly wouldn't do so.
Perhaps the larger question is why do the cheaters hook up with women who hoard text messages, voicemails, and dirty dresses (remember Monica Lewinsky)? I wouldn't argue that there is any appropriate way to be an adulterer, but there was a time when one's partner in adultery refrained from sharing all the details with the public. Eisenhower and Kennedy were alleged to have mistresses, but none of them popped up loudly proclaiming, "Yoo hoo, here I am!" Far be it for the modern mistress to show any discretion. While weeping on Good Morning America and proclaiming, "I'm a good girl, I am," she is selling copies of text messages in which her married lover describes in explicit detail what he wants to do to her body when they next meet.
So far, 13 women have identified themselves as Tiger Woods' sex partners; I think that's enough for a coven. Perhaps Tiger should ask them to cast a protection spell.
I've been trying to resist writing a single word about Tiger Woods, but I'm weak. When I was in college, I arranged my class schedule so that I had a midday break that allowed me to watch All My Children. When I began teaching, I purchased a VCR so that I could record AMC, One Life to Live, and General Hopital. My name is Sheria and I'm a soapaholic.
Three years ago, I stopped watching daytime soaps, about the same time that I took up blogging. Alas, I'm still a soapaholic and I've been enmeshed in the Tiger Woods drama, also known as Golf Is A Four Letter Word.
When the story first made the news on the Friday after Thanksgiving, like everyone else I was concerned about Tiger's welfare. However, by the next day, my familiarity with the basic rule of soaps--nothing is at it appears--along with massive inconsistencies in the story that the Woods were presentig to the media, led me to believe that there was a juicy truth hidden behind the public story. Of course, we now know the details: a cheating spouse making a hurried escape in his vehicle and a hurt and angry spouse carrying a golf club. I think that it was my blogami, Mark Olmsted, who first suggested the applicability of the R&B hit, Bust the Windows Out Your Car by Jazmine Sullivan, to the Tiger and Elin saga.
I totally understand the public fascination with the private lives of public figures, where I draw the line is trying to defend our rabid curiosity as being grounded in righteousness. Just because a person is a public figure does not automatically mean that every foible of his or her private life is the business of the public. Don't try to dress up basic nosiness as symbolizing some ethical concern for the sanctity of marriage. The argument about the public's right to know may have some merit when it comes to cheating spouses who are elected officials, but only if the individual has used or abused his or her elected office in the process of engaging in extramarital flings.
I admit that I have no personal stake in Tiger's marital woes but his troubles have provided me with a fix almost as fascinating as Erica's marriages to most of the men in Pine Valley, some of them more than once. It's not a matter of entitlement to know, just my general fascination with bad human behavior.
I am also fascinated as to whether or not Tiger or any of his fellow in-the-public-eye-cheaters have just been so busy with their conquests that they missed the update--it's the cell phone that is now mightier than the sword, or in some cases it's the Blackberry. What is it with all of the texting? Why do these unfaithful types always send sweet vulgar nothings to the objects of their affection in a hundred text messages per day? How do they find the time for all of this texting? Did Tiger miss the 2008 scandal involving former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick who paid a huge settlement, was forced to resign, sentenced to serve time, and disbarred in a legal case that ultimately centered on revelations from thousands of text messages exchanged between Kilpatrick and his mistress who also was Kilpatrick's Chief of Staff?
When they aren't texting, they are leaving voicemail. Just to be certain that there is no doubt when the media eventually latches on to the voicemail, they announce themselves on the message. "Hello, this is Tiger,..." When I call people that I know well and speak to frequently by phone, I figure that they recognize my voice, and I seldom announce myself. If I were having an illicit affair, I certainly wouldn't do so.
Perhaps the larger question is why do the cheaters hook up with women who hoard text messages, voicemails, and dirty dresses (remember Monica Lewinsky)? I wouldn't argue that there is any appropriate way to be an adulterer, but there was a time when one's partner in adultery refrained from sharing all the details with the public. Eisenhower and Kennedy were alleged to have mistresses, but none of them popped up loudly proclaiming, "Yoo hoo, here I am!" Far be it for the modern mistress to show any discretion. While weeping on Good Morning America and proclaiming, "I'm a good girl, I am," she is selling copies of text messages in which her married lover describes in explicit detail what he wants to do to her body when they next meet.
So far, 13 women have identified themselves as Tiger Woods' sex partners; I think that's enough for a coven. Perhaps Tiger should ask them to cast a protection spell.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Hobbes, Rousseau, and the Nature of Humankind
Somehow, two weeks have passed and I haven't written a single blog entry. I think that my brain has been suffering from an overload of "WTFitis." I watch the news, read Newsweek, and scroll through newspapers and news sites on the Internet, and like Evilene in The Wiz, I just want to scream, "Don't nobody bring me no more bad news!"
Of course, not hearing or reading bad news doesn't make it go away. However, it isn't just the bad news that disturbs me, it's the mindlessness of the general populace that makes me want to slap somebody. As engaging in acts of violence could land me in a jail cell, I've been refocusing my disgust on trying to understand what it is about human nature that can move us to engage in great acts of creativity but can also move us to engage in acts of great cruelty and destruction.
I've been rereading two of my favorite political philosophers, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (The Social Contract 1762) and Thomas Hobbes (The Leviathan 1651). Both works focus on an analysis of why government is necessary and the purpose of government. However, they have different takes on why it is that humans spend our time fighting and squabbling among ourselves.
They each speak of the "natural state" [aka state of nature] describing it as humankind without the conventions that we have come to call civilization. Hobbes views humankind in its natural state as focused on individualism to the exclusion of any concern for the well being of others; self-preservation and aggrandizement is the reason for existence. If we occasionally act in an altruistic manner it is motivated by self-interest and not any concern for others. In Hobbesian analysis, we are motivated by self-preservation in all of our actions. We see the possibility of our own misfortune in another's misfortune and offer assistance in anticipation that we may at some point need assistance.
In this natural state, if I want my neighbor's cow, I attempt to take it. Naturally, my neighbor resists. Whichever one of us is stronger or has more friends to help out in the fray, gets the cow. Of course, then the winner has to guard against some stronger person coming along and taking the cow away. It's an ongoing cycle and no one can be truly secure and all our energies are spent on survival. We are therefore in a perpetual state of war. Hobbes defines a state of war as the absence of peace, that is, living in a society where individualism reigns supreme and it's every man and woman for themselves.
Hobbes perceives this natural state as being the essence of human nature and that governments were implemented to save us from our baser impulses. According to Hobbes, without absolute government, life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
Rousseau takes a more positive view of our natural state. He proposes that humankind in its natural state is essentially good. It is the development of society that has corrupted us. The advancements of civilization, while wondrous, have also corrupted us. Often Rousseau's philosophy is defined as promoting the image of the "noble savage." Humans living relatively solitary lives, motivated only by basic needs of food, clothing and shelter. In this state, there is no competition because there is no desire for power. The individualism that Hobbes sees as innate in human nature is an acquired trait in Rousseau's philosophy. For Rousseau, it's the development of society and all its trappings that has turned humankind into greedy, selfish beings focused on self preservation.
Both Hobbes and Rousseau propose that in this natural state, we have unlimited personal freedom, sort of like Cartman, citizen of South Park, who frequently declares, "I can do what I want!" In Hobbes viewpoint, a powerful central government is needed to check that personal freedom which is motivated only by self-interests. Rousseau argues that the people create government in a desire to promote harmonious interaction. The power of the government comes from the people, who voluntarily cede their personal freedoms to the collective group, not a single authoritative power, in order to promote the common good. For Rousseau, the people are the government, while Hobbes arrives at the conclusion that the people must cede their personal liberties to the control of a strong central government, an absolute government, to protect and promote the common good.
I tend to be Hobbesian in my beliefs about the nature of humankind. I think that self-interests are the norm and concern for humankind is the exception. At the heart of the arguments against any type of social welfare program is always a stated belief by the opposition that it is not the responsibility of those who have to provide for the have-nots. People stand in town halls and shout in trembling voices that their tax dollar should not go towards supporting any program for people that they deem to be undeserving. Those of us who express a belief that we are our brothers and our sisters keepers are dismissed as stupid, naive, un-American purveyors of socialism.
We are in such a constant state of war that many of us have come to believe that war is the norm, and there is no need to call for its end. I am so tired of seeing some sad parents or a sweet young woman with an infant bravely facing the television cameras, reciting the oft repeated litany, "He died doing what he loved. He died serving his country." As long as we continue to glorify dying in war, as if it is a noble loss of life, we will do nothing to put an end to war.
Where I part company with Hobbes is that I don't believe that selfish individualism is an innate quality. I think that Rousseau was on to something; perhaps we learn to elevate self-preservation to a religion because so much in society rewards and thereby reinforces selfishness. If that's true, then like Pandora's box, there is still a flame of hope that we have to fan into a fire. We can become better than we are.
If you are intrigued by the theories of government that influenced the development of the governing philosophies of the United States, click this link for a good place to begin with summaries of the political theories of Hobbes, Rousseau, John Locke, and Charles Montesquieu.
Of course, not hearing or reading bad news doesn't make it go away. However, it isn't just the bad news that disturbs me, it's the mindlessness of the general populace that makes me want to slap somebody. As engaging in acts of violence could land me in a jail cell, I've been refocusing my disgust on trying to understand what it is about human nature that can move us to engage in great acts of creativity but can also move us to engage in acts of great cruelty and destruction.
I've been rereading two of my favorite political philosophers, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (The Social Contract 1762) and Thomas Hobbes (The Leviathan 1651). Both works focus on an analysis of why government is necessary and the purpose of government. However, they have different takes on why it is that humans spend our time fighting and squabbling among ourselves.
They each speak of the "natural state" [aka state of nature] describing it as humankind without the conventions that we have come to call civilization. Hobbes views humankind in its natural state as focused on individualism to the exclusion of any concern for the well being of others; self-preservation and aggrandizement is the reason for existence. If we occasionally act in an altruistic manner it is motivated by self-interest and not any concern for others. In Hobbesian analysis, we are motivated by self-preservation in all of our actions. We see the possibility of our own misfortune in another's misfortune and offer assistance in anticipation that we may at some point need assistance.
In this natural state, if I want my neighbor's cow, I attempt to take it. Naturally, my neighbor resists. Whichever one of us is stronger or has more friends to help out in the fray, gets the cow. Of course, then the winner has to guard against some stronger person coming along and taking the cow away. It's an ongoing cycle and no one can be truly secure and all our energies are spent on survival. We are therefore in a perpetual state of war. Hobbes defines a state of war as the absence of peace, that is, living in a society where individualism reigns supreme and it's every man and woman for themselves.
Hobbes perceives this natural state as being the essence of human nature and that governments were implemented to save us from our baser impulses. According to Hobbes, without absolute government, life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
Rousseau takes a more positive view of our natural state. He proposes that humankind in its natural state is essentially good. It is the development of society that has corrupted us. The advancements of civilization, while wondrous, have also corrupted us. Often Rousseau's philosophy is defined as promoting the image of the "noble savage." Humans living relatively solitary lives, motivated only by basic needs of food, clothing and shelter. In this state, there is no competition because there is no desire for power. The individualism that Hobbes sees as innate in human nature is an acquired trait in Rousseau's philosophy. For Rousseau, it's the development of society and all its trappings that has turned humankind into greedy, selfish beings focused on self preservation.
Both Hobbes and Rousseau propose that in this natural state, we have unlimited personal freedom, sort of like Cartman, citizen of South Park, who frequently declares, "I can do what I want!" In Hobbes viewpoint, a powerful central government is needed to check that personal freedom which is motivated only by self-interests. Rousseau argues that the people create government in a desire to promote harmonious interaction. The power of the government comes from the people, who voluntarily cede their personal freedoms to the collective group, not a single authoritative power, in order to promote the common good. For Rousseau, the people are the government, while Hobbes arrives at the conclusion that the people must cede their personal liberties to the control of a strong central government, an absolute government, to protect and promote the common good.
I tend to be Hobbesian in my beliefs about the nature of humankind. I think that self-interests are the norm and concern for humankind is the exception. At the heart of the arguments against any type of social welfare program is always a stated belief by the opposition that it is not the responsibility of those who have to provide for the have-nots. People stand in town halls and shout in trembling voices that their tax dollar should not go towards supporting any program for people that they deem to be undeserving. Those of us who express a belief that we are our brothers and our sisters keepers are dismissed as stupid, naive, un-American purveyors of socialism.
We are in such a constant state of war that many of us have come to believe that war is the norm, and there is no need to call for its end. I am so tired of seeing some sad parents or a sweet young woman with an infant bravely facing the television cameras, reciting the oft repeated litany, "He died doing what he loved. He died serving his country." As long as we continue to glorify dying in war, as if it is a noble loss of life, we will do nothing to put an end to war.
Where I part company with Hobbes is that I don't believe that selfish individualism is an innate quality. I think that Rousseau was on to something; perhaps we learn to elevate self-preservation to a religion because so much in society rewards and thereby reinforces selfishness. If that's true, then like Pandora's box, there is still a flame of hope that we have to fan into a fire. We can become better than we are.
If you are intrigued by the theories of government that influenced the development of the governing philosophies of the United States, click this link for a good place to begin with summaries of the political theories of Hobbes, Rousseau, John Locke, and Charles Montesquieu.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
A Single Step: Making Health Care Reform A Reality
The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
The above line is often attributed to Confucius; I read it in a fortune cookie once. It is such simple logic, but often we become so wrapped up in the obstacles that impede the journey that we become mired in fear of failure and stand still, stuck in our own misgivings. I've been thinking about how important it is to take that single step as I've been reading reactions to the Senate vote to proceed with debate on the Senate's version of the health care reform bill.
I've had misgivings about both the House and Senate bills; I don't think that either of them goes far enough in making the substantive changes that are needed to provide affordable health care to everyone. However, I think that the passage of the House's bill, and the Senate's vote to move to debate and avoid a Republican fueled filibuster are steps forward on what may prove to be a long journey to health care reform on a grand scale.
My friend Beth (Nutwood Junction) observed in a Facebook comment that if health care reform legislation is defeated, it will be perceived as a failure of the Obama administration. I agree, if this reform of health care fails, then everything that Obama attempts after this is likely to be met with such resistance that it fails. A victory, even a flawed one, will give impetus to future change and there is so much more to be done.
Politics has always been a game of compromises. Draw a line in the sand and all you do is lose. (Former President George W. Bush was fond of drawing lines in the sand; he described himself as the Decider. Of course he didn't actually decide anything, he just drifted into one bad policy after the other, but he perceived his no compromise stance as indicative of a position of power.)
So although neither of the health care reform bills goes as far as is needed for real reform, I believe that the hybrid of the two that is likely to be passed (today I'm an optimist) will move the debate forward, laying a foundation for additional reform in the future.
I don't think that I'm dreaming. I was born in 1955, one year after the U.S. Supreme Court declared in Brown v. the Topeka Board of Education that separate but equal was inherently unequal. Yet, I grew up under segregation. The south didn't rush to take down the "colored not allowed" or "white only" signs. I attended segregated schools until I was in tenth grade (1971). It took a seemingly endless stream of legislation to bring to fruition the promise of the Brown decisions of 1954 & 1955: the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, 1964, 1968, 1991, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
The journey towards a health care system that serves the needs of all of the people, that doesn't deny access to health care to the people, and is not motivated by profit margins, is a good thousand miles, maybe more. However, I do believe that a win now will lead to additional changes until we get it right. I've seen it happen before; I have lived change that once seemed impossible. All we have to do is to take the first step. President Obama has already begun the journey; all that we must do is have a little faith and travel with him.
The above line is often attributed to Confucius; I read it in a fortune cookie once. It is such simple logic, but often we become so wrapped up in the obstacles that impede the journey that we become mired in fear of failure and stand still, stuck in our own misgivings. I've been thinking about how important it is to take that single step as I've been reading reactions to the Senate vote to proceed with debate on the Senate's version of the health care reform bill.
I've had misgivings about both the House and Senate bills; I don't think that either of them goes far enough in making the substantive changes that are needed to provide affordable health care to everyone. However, I think that the passage of the House's bill, and the Senate's vote to move to debate and avoid a Republican fueled filibuster are steps forward on what may prove to be a long journey to health care reform on a grand scale.
My friend Beth (Nutwood Junction) observed in a Facebook comment that if health care reform legislation is defeated, it will be perceived as a failure of the Obama administration. I agree, if this reform of health care fails, then everything that Obama attempts after this is likely to be met with such resistance that it fails. A victory, even a flawed one, will give impetus to future change and there is so much more to be done.
Politics has always been a game of compromises. Draw a line in the sand and all you do is lose. (Former President George W. Bush was fond of drawing lines in the sand; he described himself as the Decider. Of course he didn't actually decide anything, he just drifted into one bad policy after the other, but he perceived his no compromise stance as indicative of a position of power.)
So although neither of the health care reform bills goes as far as is needed for real reform, I believe that the hybrid of the two that is likely to be passed (today I'm an optimist) will move the debate forward, laying a foundation for additional reform in the future.
I don't think that I'm dreaming. I was born in 1955, one year after the U.S. Supreme Court declared in Brown v. the Topeka Board of Education that separate but equal was inherently unequal. Yet, I grew up under segregation. The south didn't rush to take down the "colored not allowed" or "white only" signs. I attended segregated schools until I was in tenth grade (1971). It took a seemingly endless stream of legislation to bring to fruition the promise of the Brown decisions of 1954 & 1955: the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, 1964, 1968, 1991, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
The journey towards a health care system that serves the needs of all of the people, that doesn't deny access to health care to the people, and is not motivated by profit margins, is a good thousand miles, maybe more. However, I do believe that a win now will lead to additional changes until we get it right. I've seen it happen before; I have lived change that once seemed impossible. All we have to do is to take the first step. President Obama has already begun the journey; all that we must do is have a little faith and travel with him.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Revelations and Creativity
It's always satisfying to have your work recognized and I am very grateful to Gerry, Daughters of the Shadow Men, for selecting me as one of her recipients of the Kreative Blogger Award. I recommend that you check out Gerry's blog and experience her creative spirit.As a recipient of the Kreative Blogger Award, I'm supposed to reveal seven things about me that you don't know. Having been a blogger for three years, I'm not certain if I have any unrevealed bits of me, but I'll try.
1. Several years ago, when I was still teaching high school English, I literally ran into Maya Angelou. I had joined my friend HR in going to a performance by Ms. Angelou of her poetry. As we were leaving, HR and I were separated in the exiting crowd and I took a shortcut to the car that necessitated walking past the stage exit door. Hurrying along, I nearly bumped into a tall, imposing woman who was coming out of that exit. Looking up, I came face to face with Maya Angelou. I muttered, "Excuse me." She replied, "That's all right, dear." Feeling that I needed to say more, I added, "I'm a teacher." Without missing a beat, she patted me on the cheek and said, "That's nice, dear."
2. When I was a junior in high school, I discovered that I was a poet. My high school had invited Calvin Atwood to be our poet in residence for a two week program in which a small class of students wrote poetry. I liked to write short stories, but I had never written a poem. This is my very first poem:
sometimes I'm good,
sometimes I'm very good,
and sometimes I'm very, very good
but most of the time
sometimes I'm very good,
and sometimes I'm very, very good
but most of the time
i'm just mediocre
I didn't think that the poem was particularly good, but Atwood liked it. I've been writing poetry ever since.
3. I met James Dickey, the author of Deliverance when I was a junior in high school. Calvin Atwood, the poet-in-residence, was friends with James Dickey, who was speaking at the local college, Atlantic Christian College (now known as Barton College). Atwood and Mr. M, the English Coordinator for Wilson County, invited me to accompany them to hear Dickey speak. After Dickey's presentation, they invited me to come back to Mr. M.'s apartment. I was starry eyed, and particularly enchanted by the jacket which Dickey wore. It had been worn by Burt Reynolds in the film, Deliverance.
4. I can play the guitar. When I was 14, guitar masses became popular in progressive Catholic churches. Sister Mary gave me my first guitar, a six string steel guitar. I taught myself to play it. It was the height of the civil rights movement and the peace not war ideology of the 1960s. For mass we played guitar and sang Kumbaya, Blowin' in the Wind, and We Shall Overcome. My favorite song had the lyrics, "Hear O Lord, the sound of my call; Hear O Lord, and have mercy; My soul is longing for the glory of you; O hear O Lord and answer me." I no longer own a guitar but I've decided to buy one, soon.
5. I can tie a knot in a cherry stem using only my teeth and tongue. I discovered my talent when I was in college.
6. My best category in Trivial Pursuit is entertainment. I once won a game because I knew who played the munitions expert in The Guns of Navarone. (David Niven)
7. My favorite flavor of ice cream is vanilla. I'm particularly fond of Ben and Jerry's French Vanilla. I don't like plain chocolate ice cream. I like chocolate fudge ice cream mixed with other flavors, but not straight run of the mill chocolate ice cream.
I think that I'm supposed to pass this award along to a few other bloggers. However, I think that I will pass on doing so. I like so many blogs; each offers something unique and I just can't settle on who deserves an award. So consider yourself awarded for your creativity and copy the Kreative Blogger icon to add to your blog. Then tell us a few new things about yourself. In the end, we are all deserving of appreciation for our creative efforts.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Health Care Plan: Battle Won But Not the War
It's always something. The U.S. Senate is making it perfectly clear that it has no intention of accepting the baton when it comes to running with health care reform. The primary Senate objection is to the government health insurance plan in the House bill passed on this past Saturday.
The party affiliation shape shifter Sen. Joe Lieberman (Independent) has declared , "... as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote." South Carolina's Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) has proclaimed, "The House bill is dead on arrival in the Senate." In addition, a few moderate Democrats said to hold the power in the Senate, are opposed to the government health insurance plan included in the House bill.
The power in the hands of the few moderate Democrats is the power to stop a Republican led filibuster. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) needs 60 votes to start debate and 60 votes to end discussion and call the bill to a final vote. Those few moderate Democrats' votes are very important in the scheme of things.
The primary opposition to the government plan is that it puts the government into competition with private insurers. I feel as if I've missed something. Haven't the conservatives supported capitalism and its system of free market enterprise with cries of competition is good?
Lieberman asserts that his opposition to a public option arises from his belief that it could be a huge and costly entitlement program. Entitlement is a big buzz word, implying that a slew of undeserving persons will benefit from the public option. How do you deserve medical care? How can you be undeserving of medical care? In one of the most affluent nations in the world, how can it possibly be acceptable that some people don't receive health care because of exorbitant costs for medical care and/or health insurance?
I smell more compromise in the air. Already, Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, who voted for a version of the Senate bill in committee, has provided the Democrats with a fallback position. She's proposing the "trigger" option which would allow a government plan as a last resort, if after a few years premiums keep escalating and local health insurance markets remain in the grip of a few big companies. Frankly, I think that the trigger has already been pulled, over and over again. Exactly how costly do premiums have to get and how extensive does the monopoly of the health insurance market by a few major players have to be before the need for a government plan is triggered?
There are other major differences between the House and Senate bills:
The party affiliation shape shifter Sen. Joe Lieberman (Independent) has declared , "... as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote." South Carolina's Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) has proclaimed, "The House bill is dead on arrival in the Senate." In addition, a few moderate Democrats said to hold the power in the Senate, are opposed to the government health insurance plan included in the House bill.
The power in the hands of the few moderate Democrats is the power to stop a Republican led filibuster. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) needs 60 votes to start debate and 60 votes to end discussion and call the bill to a final vote. Those few moderate Democrats' votes are very important in the scheme of things.
The primary opposition to the government plan is that it puts the government into competition with private insurers. I feel as if I've missed something. Haven't the conservatives supported capitalism and its system of free market enterprise with cries of competition is good?
Lieberman asserts that his opposition to a public option arises from his belief that it could be a huge and costly entitlement program. Entitlement is a big buzz word, implying that a slew of undeserving persons will benefit from the public option. How do you deserve medical care? How can you be undeserving of medical care? In one of the most affluent nations in the world, how can it possibly be acceptable that some people don't receive health care because of exorbitant costs for medical care and/or health insurance?
I smell more compromise in the air. Already, Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, who voted for a version of the Senate bill in committee, has provided the Democrats with a fallback position. She's proposing the "trigger" option which would allow a government plan as a last resort, if after a few years premiums keep escalating and local health insurance markets remain in the grip of a few big companies. Frankly, I think that the trigger has already been pulled, over and over again. Exactly how costly do premiums have to get and how extensive does the monopoly of the health insurance market by a few major players have to be before the need for a government plan is triggered?
There are other major differences between the House and Senate bills:
- The House would require employers to provide coverage; the Senate would not.
- The House would pay for the coverage expansion by raising taxes on upper-income earners; the Senate would use a variety of taxes and fees, including a levy on high-cost insurance plans.
- The House plan would cost about $1.2 trillion over 10 years; the Senate version would cost under $900 billion.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Health Care Reform: One Step Closer to Reality
My favorite Dickens' novel, A Tale of Two Cities, begins with the line, "It was the best of times; it was the worst of times..." It's a seemingly contradictory statement, but I think that Dickens got it right. Darkness and light, good and evil, joy and sadness, everything comes in pairs. Thus it is that landmark health care legislation passed in the Democratic controlled House on Saturday night, legislation that proposes to provide health care coverage for 96% of Americans; however, women who are receiving a federal subsidy to aid in securing insurance under a private plan will be denied coverage for abortions.The vote in favor of the health care legislation was close, 220 to 215, with one lone Republican, Rep. Joseph Cao (Louisiana) joining 219 Democrats in favor of the legislation, with 176 Republicans and 39 Democrats opposed. The vote on restricting access to a legal abortion for certain individuals and small groups was passed by a vote of 240 to 194.
However, as I read the news about the House vote, I am nonetheless encouraged by the overall victory, even though it was by a slim margin. The House's vote was historic, approving the broadest overhaul of US health care in 50 years and providing President Obama with a significant victory on his top domestic priority. To all the naysayers who said that he couldn't do it, I say a very adult, "Na, na, na, na, na!"
I am reminded why I voted for President Obama. He has the patience and tenacity that most of us lack. This was a hard fought battle, not at all an easy victory. The Senate will also be a difficult vote and I expect the victory to be by a narrow margin but I do expect there to be a victory.
Following is a summary of the key provisions of the legislation passed by the House:
1. Requires most Americans to carry health insurance;
2. Provides federal subsidies to those who cannot otherwise afford health insurance;
3. Requires large companies to offer coverage to their employees;
4. Imposes penalties on consumers and employers who do not comply with the government's mandates regarding coverage;
5. Prohibits insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions;
6. Prohibits insurers from charging higher premiums on the basis of gender or medical history;
7. Removes exemptions from federal anti-trust restrictions on price fixing and market allocation that have been held by the insurance industry; and
8. Creates a federally regulated marketplace where consumers may shop for insurance and allows the government to sell health insurance.
My personal favorite is #7. It means that the insurance companies will have to be competitive in attracting consumers. This should make everyone happy who believes in free market enterprise.
What's missing from this legislation is a robust public option; what's left of the public option has been watered down considerably. It also does nothing to alter health insurance as a for profit industry. I don't believe that this legislation is what is needed to provided health care to all. My dream is a single payer, not for profit, health care system. In the midst of celebrating this step forward, I wonder if perhaps now is the time to fight for more meaningful reform. However, I can't help but think of the protesters and elected officials shouting about socialism and I wonder if perhaps I expect too much, and that this is an incremental step towards broader reform. The best articulation that I've read on the weakness of the passed legislation is by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who explains why he didn't vote for the bill. He's either got chutzpah or he's an idealistic dreamer, or maybe he's both.
According to news reports, Speaker Nancy Pelosi compared the passage of the health care legislation in the House to the passage of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare 30 years later. This is huge step forward and I like to think that all of our telephone calls and emails made a difference. However, there's no time to rest. The Senate has to pass this legislation before a final version ends up on the President's desk, awaiting his signature. The good news is, you only have two state senators to contact.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)