Wednesday's Tale is Full of Woe

 

Today, as the news sinks in, it is truly a tale of woe.

Not for me, personally.  As far as my life goes, I have good health, a loving family, an open and friendly church, theatre if I want to participate, affectionate pets, and plenty of books and streaming apps.  Besides, at least for this immediate ruling, I guess I am part of the dominant patriarchy that this ruling favors.

But for this country - this is not very good news.  I probably should wait for a Saturday Political Soap Box for this, but some things are just too urgent.  So, for those who like my stuff, as long as I don't get too political - too bad, so sad.

My own position has been that I don't like abortion.  I have an early definition of the conception of life - once the DNA is zipped, a unique, one-of-kind entity is formed. This is worth protecting and cherishing.  This is my PERSONAL belief.  It has nothing to do with what I want to impose on other people.

An important fiat to my opinion - I'm a MAN, not a WOMAN.  

It does no good to criminalize or interfere with the decisions made between a woman and her doctor.  No one other than those two has any business in being involved.

Going hard at outlawing abortion does absolutely nothing to make it more rare.  It will continue.  Rich women will seek out states (or countries) where it is permitted. Poor women will find illegal and dangerous methods, maiming or killing both the unborn and the woman.  Yes.  Like everything in America, the poor and women of color will bear its brunt.

It is proven over and over again.  States where abortion is permitted. BUT have greater access to contraception, sex education, and support for mothers and children, see their abortion rates drop dramatically.  States and countries that restrict abortion and do not support young mothers see their abortions stay the same or climb.

It's almost like we've forgotten what being a Christian means.  Kindness, generosity, and support do a hundred times more than force, brutality, and hate.  Jesus says nothing about abortion (nor an even bigger problem of his time - infanticide).  But we know what he preached - love.  

I tell you this not as a pro-choice fanatic who wants to see abortion occurring as a primary form of birth control.  It is not a casual thing.  But it is not my decision to make.  Pro-life, as conducted by the far right in this country, isn't really about life - it's about control of women.  It's about putting them in their place.  It's about pro-birth, even at the cost of life and reason.  These same people are most often the ones who advocate capital punishment, guns unrestricted and everywhere, fossil fuels over renewables, oppose any human infrastructures spending (like health care and child care), oppose increases in the minimum wage, want to suppress the vote, rail against immigration - how is any of this pro-life?

I choose to reflect my opposition to abortion by making circumstances BETTER rather than worse.  The power of the sun and light is infinitely stronger than the power of the dark and hate.  I thought every person of faith knew this.  I guess I am wrong.

The destruction of the right to privacy (which, as currently worded, this opinion will do) will not stop at abortion.  Other rights we have taken for granted could be taken away under this theory - access to contraception, interracial marriage, same-sex marriage, and so much more.  Outlawing abortion is only the tip of the crapberg headed our way.

Those of you who have wished for this - important words of warning; be careful what you wish for.  This will not work out the way you think it will.

You are in for the biggest surprise of your life.

Backlash is a two-way street.

KIssing Health Care Goodbye In the Middle of a Pandemic: Saturday Political Soap Box 253

 

We're going to lose the Affordable Health Care Act.

Yes, this is just one of many things that will be lost under a 6-3 far-right court.  The most discussed is the reversal of Roe v. Wade, which I have addressed in other blog posts.  Suffice to say here that I believe the elimination of Roe v. Wade will NOT accomplish what either side thinks it will, and the result will be a RISING number of abortions in this country.

But the Affordable Care Act?  You can kiss that goodbye.  And the effect will be devastating, especially in a pandemic.

This is ironic* at a time when the Act is growing increasingly popular.  The Republicans initially insisted on calling it Obamacare.  What started out as derision is now a badge of honor.  

Why do Republicans insist on this act of political suicide?  They're not flexible enough to change, especially operating under a racist President who despises everything the black President did and wants to erase all his achievements from history.

Insurance companies could no longer discriminate based on pre-conditions.  You could keep your children on your insurance until they were 26.  People who couldn't rely on employer-based insurance had access to an insurance market, and it was subsidized based on income.  It opened up more to qualify for Medicare. That's just a few of its benefits.

Yes, Obamacare has its flaws.  So what?  All legislation does.  The President and his supporters thought that over time, like Social Security and Medicare and other programs, Obamacare would be corrected and improved in subsequent years.

That didn't happen.  That's because we had a Republican party that had decided it was more important to tear down Democratic achievements than solve problems either on their own or in conjunction with Democrats.  Having no solution was better than having a Democratic solution.

Usually, when legislation like this passes, that benefits so many, it gets accepted as a standard part of life, and it becomes tough to remove. And Obamacare was well on its way to doing this.  That is why there is going to be a huge political cost to Republicans for removing it.  It is why Supreme Court Justice John Roberts switched sides in the last Obamacare health care case and put a stop to its wanton destruction. With the addition of Amy "Aunt Lydia" Barrett, he won't be able to check the far-right justices' worst instincts.

Some things could have passed with the original Affordable Health Care Act that would have made it be accepted faster and thereby harder to remove. The most significant of these would have been a public option, allowing people to buy into a government plan in state marketplaces. Instead of a squirming and squallering private insurer, you could have a competitive public plan to choose from.  Another that almost passed was making an option where people 55 and older could buy into Medicare. Joe Lieberman single-handedly stopped that, even though that proposal was part of his 2004 Presidential-run platform.  People like Joe Lieberman and Joe Manchin are why we can't have nice things, even when Democrats control things.

Speaking of controlling things, when the election is over, and we have Biden as President, and a Senate Democratic majority, they will need to repair what they can of the Affordable Care Act.  They will have to vote through something that addresses whatever challenges the Supreme Court leaves in the wake of its destruction of the Act.  My fondest wish is that they just chuck it and go to Medicare For All (universal health care, single-payer - I don't care what you call it as long as it happens).  Failing that, you absolutely have to have a public option and/or greater buy-in capacity to Medicare. A redo will be worthless without that.  

Unfortunately, we couldn't get a public option or Medicare buy-in when the Democrats had a 60-vote technically veto-proof majority. My most optimistic predictions would be for a Democratic caucus of about 54. Sadly, Joe Manchin and a handful of conservative/corporate Democrats will have more power than ever.  We also will have a President who has stated that he opposes Medicare For All.

So, if we don't want to leave millions without health insurance, if we don't want to see millions excluded from coverage for pre-existing conditions (I'm sorry, Sir, your heart condition was caused by your bout with COVID, so, too bad so sad - here's your bill for $350,000 to cover your heart attack), if you don't want to see uncontrolled insurance costs skyrocket**, then it will be up to us to organize and protest as loudly as we can.  We need to let wavering Democrats know that our support for them depends on their willingness to restore our right to decent, affordable health care.

This is only one of the things we will lose when Aunt Lydia steps onto the Supreme Court.  It's a biggie, though.

Millions will lose health care.  Hundreds of thousands will go bankrupt or be forced to its edge.  Tens of thousands will die.

As Biden told Obama when the passing of the Affordable Care Act was announced, "This is a big f--ing deal."

This time, however, it won't be in a good way.

*am I using ironic in the right way?  I don't know.  Language and its use change all the time. Deal. 

**think Trump's political ploy of an executive order about pre-existing conditions means anything at all?  No, it's unenforceable trash.  Even if private insurers cover pre-existing conditions, it will be without limits on how much they can charge.  "You have diabetes, Sir?  Sure we'll cover it!  That'll be an extra 40 Grand a year, please."

The Power of We: Saturday Political Soap Box 242

It's times like this that often brings out the best of humanity.

Yes, there is bad behavior as well -

     - a President who has been slow to respond, inconsistent in his rhetoric, dismissive and self-centered, and one who seems to be determined to bring back the Articles of Confederation

     - a handful of Governors who hold out in protecting their state, or it has only occurred to them in the last 48 hours that asymptomatic people could spread the disease

    - idiots who party on like they're immortal, and disregard the spread and harm they could do to others

    - preachers who stubbornly hold services, even in the face of reports of how this has helped spread the virus

    - and worst of all, we have the profiteers and gougers who are inflating prices and getting states and other entities who direly need medical supplies to bid against each other.

But we have many more stories of goodness and caring and sacrifice.

    - medical staff who are taking considerable risks in caring for those the rest of us can't even go near

   - police and firefighters who are putting themselves on the line to protect our communities.  In my hometown, the police are delivering meals to the needy and elderly.

   - grocery store clerks and retail workers that expose themselves to make sure our supply of essential supplies is interrupted as little as possible.  There are also fast-food workers staffing drive-thru and curbside service, delivery people, and postal workers bringing what we need to our door, people who work at banks or CPA offices to keep out financial accounts moving.

    -social networking done on the internet or through e-mails, phones, or other outreach.  We show we care by reaching out to others in the ways that are left available to us.

    -the people who are trying to provide us with news, the officials and bureaucrats that are struggling to keep us safe and informed.

Even as we are kept apart from each other, we are re-discovering our greatest power - the power of we.

We, the people.  We, a society that works to take care of each other.

All the things that have been dissed by some in this country have been proven to be absolutely vital.

We need a stronger social safety net.

Healthcare should be a right, tied to our birthright as citizens, not to who our employer is, or our ability to pay.  It is has shown the utter irresponsibility of having a healthcare system tied to who our employer is.  Because when you lose your job in a crisis like this...you have no healthcare coverage at all.

We are networked globally, like it or not.  You can't build walls large enough to keep out everyone, and you shouldn't want to.  We are one people.  One human race.  Self-isolation is a global concept, not an "each nation to themselves" concept.

Our politics have for too long centered on greed and selfishness.  It's too long promoted wealth and power concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.

It's not about buzzwords: capitalism, socialism, Ayn Randian style libertarianism, oligarchy, fascism* ...

It's about the power of we.

It's about building a society that maximizes the good we can do for each other - as individuals, as community members, as participants in our churches and synagogues and temples and mosques, as citizens of a state and a nation, and as part of an increasingly intertwined global network.


I pray we come out of this finally done with Reagan Era politics of greed.  I hope we turn our backs on the narcissism and self-centeredness of the Trump Period. 

It's the disease of ME FIRST versus the power of WE.

Someday, hopefully sooner rather than later, COVID-19 will be defeated, and our social distancing can end.  And with it vanquished, I pray we set permanently aside our ME FIRST politics and move to the power of WE.

I fear that if we don't, then the eventual destruction caused by keeping that kind of politics will be more devastating than even the horrible COVID-19.

Much, much more devastating.

The Trouble With Plans: Saturday Political Soap Box 227

"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans" - John Lennon.

In a time long ago and far away, I was a debate coach for Cass City High School, a small town in the thumb of Michigan.  I helped guide the debate to their highest finish in the school's history, 3rd place in the state (Class C Division).

We had much fewer resources than other schools.  This was long before the days of the internet and google.  The library either carried the magazines and books we needed. Or it didn't.

We had to be smart.  We had to be clever.  Our affirmative team had one case, and they knew it backward and forwards, and they displayed supreme confidence when presenting it. Our negative team had a sneer and disdain that would poke holes in any case presented.  They knew basic arguments, and a similar logic, that they could use to smear any case presented.

The negative team was two people, one male, and one female, who were the brightest kids in school, really two of the brightest kids I ever knew.  Even without being armed with the jillions of quotes of other teams.  In fact, the simplicity and quickness of their strike, the tightness, and cleverness of their language and style, made them almost impossible to beat.

The affirmative was good enough not to drag us down.  The negative team was the reason we achieved our best finish ever.

Maybe it wasn't fair.  It's so much easier to be negative than positive.  That and the fact that I had two of the smartest kids in the state on it made our rise pretty easy.

It's so much easier to be negative.  Ever do family traveling with a kid, who, when asked where he wants to eat, says, "I don't care.  Wherever you want to."  And then when you go by specifics places, the kid trashes it and tells you why that one is not where they want to go?

That's where we're at in the Democratic primary.  Everybody's whining for specific plans, and then when they get them, sniping at them for not being perfect.

I love Elizabeth Warren.  I am a dedicated member of Team Warren.  I believe she represents the very best interests of working people and has the smarts, abilities, persistence, and persuasion to get the job done.  But, both fortunately and unfortunately, she has plans.  Lots of them.

Most of her plans are very, very good.  They represent a blueprint to a better way forward.  Without them, she may not have caught fire and moved up in the polls.

That works until you are perceived as a frontrunner.  Then people will start sniping at your plans. Having detailed plans invites your opponents to stab and stab and stab and, if necessary, misrepresent them, so you have to spend all your time in a defensive posture.

This is why so many times our party nominations are won by the fluffiest, those who are inexact and full of platitudes.  Make America Great Again?  What does that even mean?  Secret plans to end wars?  Replacing Obamacare with something better, but I'm not gonna tell you what that is?  We need to replace Washington insiders because...shiny and new is better?

We say we want substance.  And yet, time and time and time again, WE DON"T VOTE THAT WAY.

It's so easy to say you want to do something better. It's much more difficult to present something to get us there.

Some of the Democrats are bold and decisive in moving us to universal healthcare.  Others have more vague or incremental plans, and they feel free to snipe and undermine those who are more exact.  I won't name any names. Still, there are candidates who have abandoned Medicare For All and decided instead to concentrate on handing Republicans negative talking points about it on a silver platter. And, for at least for one candidate, switching from advocating hope to playing up fears on healthcare, that strategy is actually working.  Huh.  Maybe it's my negative debater all grown up.


The topic that year I was debate coach?

Resolved: that we should adopt a single-payer national health care program.

That was in 1978.

Yep.  When it comes to sniping at plans, health care takes the prize.

Raising the Universe: Saturday Political Soap Box 225

Whether you support him or not, whether you're ok with people left out of our healthcare system or not, Bernie has to be acknowledged as our Moses leading the way out of our broken healthcare system.

I am for universal healthcare.  It is my most rock bed central position.  It is the closest I come to being a single-issue voter.

The system that has been most talked about is Medicare For All.   I like the name.  Medicare is a popular program, and it makes the idea instantly recognizable to almost every American.

But I am not wedded to the name.  I am wedded to the concept.  Everyone must be covered.  Everyone must have access.  People should not go broke trying to get the healthcare and medical procedures they need for the well-being of themselves and their families.  Access should not be determined by wealth or whether your employer has (FOR NOW, EXISTING ONLY AT THE COMPANY'S WHIM) a gold-plated deluxe healthcare policy.

I posted this recently:

Imagine if I pay rent of $800 a month. I pay for my utilities. I pay for any repairs or maintenance. I pay the property tax and insurance. This costs me, on average, another $800 a month. That's a total of $1600, maybe more if things go badly. Now I have an offer to pay rent of $1000 a month, BUT my utilities are included, and the landlord covers repairs, property tax, and insurance. Should I change to the $1.000 a month rent plan?

Note that I am comparing one rental plan to another.  This is not a commentary on homeownership vs. renting.

Given the facts presented, a rational person would select the slightly higher rent that covers more of the other costs. 

Unfortunately, when it comes to healthcare, the American people have shown little rationality.  It's not all their fault.  There are significant forces in the country (private insurance, pharmaceuticals, hospitals, etc.) that have a vested interest in ginning you up to hate universal healthcare.  So they spend beaucoups of time and money (often filling the campaign coffers of politicians) to get you to stress more about taxes than total cost.

The bonus of a universal system is that not only is it morally right, it is also the most cost-effective system.  Administration costs shrink considerably (no multi-million dollar CEOs to keep afloat).  Private insurance is not trying to increase profits by denying care or setting up bureaucratic roadblocks.  Hospitals and doctors don't have to deal with tons of paperwork by multiple insurance companies.

We now have the most expensive per person medical system in the world, almost twice as much as our closest rivals.  Going to Medicare For All is going to close that gap, not increase it.

People have been fussing at Elizabeth Warren for not giving a more decisive answer on how she would fund Medicare For All.  She talks about total costs when the media and other candidates want her to say something about increasing taxes so they can go GOTCHA!

Yesterday, she came out with a plan that structures it so that the Medicare For All program is funded without raising middle-class taxes. I have not read the details, but she is a very meticulous, well-thought person, so I am sure there is a method and rationale behind how she wants to fund it.

Me?  I'm not running, so I don't know why we can't do the common sense thing- if it's Medicare For All, why not increase the payroll tax percentage that comes out for Medicare?  Don't cap it, and extend it to unearned income as well.  Worried about the effect on middle-class taxpayers?  Reduce the amount of income tax they pay - maybe even extend a tax credit to taxpayers with low to moderate-income.

With no premiums, no deductibles, no co-pays, most Americans will come out way, way, ahead.

Some want to stay gripped to the plan that comes from their employer.  You know - the plan you will lose if you are fired, laid off, or just try to get another job.  The plan that the employer can change form year to year.  The plan that leaves most of us fighting to get our bills covered, having to be lawyers/advocates/accountants/Type A personalities just to get things covered.  How exhausting.

I try not to say too much about the Democratic candidates that is negative.  The truth is all of them, even the most conservative and cautious, will be light years ahead of the Republicans.

Nevertheless, I am sick of the moderate Democrats trashing the progressive Democrats over healthcare issues, handing the Republicans talking points on a silver platter.  If they want to say universal healthcare is difficult, fine.  To say that it is impossible and a pipedream, angers me and breaks my heart.

I am an Independent Progressive who votes Democratic because I believe that is the quickest route to covering everybody.  I will always vote in the primaries for the candidate that will most quickly bring us to that.

Do I want to beat Trump or whomever the Republicans nominate?  Hell, yes.  Do I want to abandon my healthcare position to do that?

No, I won't do that.  And I believe it has the extra bonus of being the strategically correct thing to do.  The working class has to once again see the Democrats fighting for them, and things that benefit them, and not as Republican Lite, just as beholden to their high dollar donors as the Republicans.

Unless we become an authoritarian, fascist country (a path many have undeniably started on), we will one day have universal healthcare.  It is inevitable.  Like other great social movements in our country, it looks impossible until it isn't.

It's just a matter of whether it happens slowly or quickly, incrementally or all at once.

I vote for quick.

No more canisters in convenience stores.

No more Go Fund Me healthcare.

No more medical bankruptcies.

No more people dying for lack of access to decent healthcare.

Please join me in supporting candidates who will move our healthcare system into the 21st century, and bring us into the rest of the civilized world that already has universal healthcare.

A Maverick Moment : Saturday Political Soap Box 169

No, he was not alone in stopping the procedural madness and the hurtling towards the loss of health care coverage for millions. Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska deserve a lot of credit for being firm since the the beginning of the voting process.  But I will not dismiss the importance of Senator John McCain from Arizona.

When he first took a more national stage in 2000, running against the son of President George Bush, he shaped himself as a straight talking maverick, someone who would take pragmatic considerations to heart, and not always tout the straight Republican line.  Indeed, he named his political touring bus The Straight Talk Express. I've always thought that if I ran, I could have a Strait Talk Express, and who could argue with that?

In actual practice, in his voting and advocacy, he has much been less bold, and stuck to a consistent Reagan Republican orthodoxy.  Nevertheless, he has often formed bonds with his Democratic colleagues, in a way that many other Republicans have forgotten how to do.  He was even considered as a possible running mate for John Kerry in 2004.

As time passed, the maverick thing seemed more and more distant.  There were many moments that many in the center and on the left, were praying that he would help stop the madness.

It never really happened.  Until now.

His vote didn't really save the Affordable Care Act.  I wish I could tell you that.  As long as Republicans control all the levers of government, it will always be under siege.  But this immediate and most direct threat is now over.

They are now going to have to either go through the correct procedure (committees, public hearings and input, contributions and compromises with Democrats), or abandon it all together and move on to other things.

I think they are going to move on to other things.  At least for now.

If you ask me (not that anyone ever does), the biggest problem is the Hastert rule (Dennis Hastert is a former Republican Speaker of the House, who has since been convicted of child molestation charges), and that rule is that nothing should pass unless it can be passed by Republican votes alone. If enough Republicans object to something, than the vote shouldn't even come up.  This has led to giving tremendous power to the Freedom (Tea Party extremists) Caucus.

We need a Speaker of the House (and Senate Majority Leader) that are willing to put partisanship aside, and are open to building coalitions.  As a Progressive, this may lead to compromises that I find unpleasant, and well short of Progressive goals.  But at least there would be input, and the country could move forward on solving important problems.

No, I don't often agree politically with McCain.  He is a warhawk, and conservative fiscally on matters assisting the poor and those in need.  But I do recognize, unlike the current President, that he is a genuine American military hero, who served this country well under very difficult and personally challenging circumstances.  Other politicians, from both sides. speak out of their well-cushioned posteriors about torture - McCain speaks from experience.  I have never doubted, as much as we may disagree, about his dedication to, and love for, this country.


I had, however, become vastly discouraged.  I thought his maverick moment would never come.

And now it has.

Bless you, John McCain.  Millions of others, who now have their heath care protected (at least for awhile longer), also bless you.  We wish and pray for the best for you and your family, as you face the terrible scourge of cancer, that you are able to avail yourself of the best treatments possible, and that you are able to cherish time with your family and others you hold close.

I pray there are many more chapters to come for you, but for now, I am grateful for this, what I consider your finest moment.

Maverick at last.

Nobody Wants to Get Together Anymore

This is written for the weekly newspaper column I do that some Georgia papers run.  Thus the references to columns as opposed to posts.


I haven't had many columns about politics lately.  I would say that it's because there are many probably tired of hearing about it, and although I respect that, I respect more that we live in a democracy where people are supposed to engage with and discuss the relevant issues of the day. No, what's making it difficult is that there are so many moving targets right now, where events are happening so fast, that it can become outdated by the time it sees print.

The events surrounding Russian influence on our election, and to what degree the Trump campaign was actively involved in that, is one of those topics.  Stories are breaking every day, and by the time this sees print, many more will probably have broken.  I shake my head at everything I hear, but ultimately, I'm hoping that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller will be able to come to a conclusion that helps clear things up for everyone.  So, although I realize how dire it all is, I am holding  my fire for now.

I want to say more about the Republican's efforts to fundamentally alter our health care system, but it's hard to be too definitive when their bill proposals change almost daily, and much of the process of formulating them is done in secret.  By the time this sees print, the Senate may have passed something, or it may have all fallen irrevocably apart.

Even if the Senate passes a bill, it will have to be worked out in conference committee with the House.  That may be more difficult than they're suggesting, as both bill versions will have passed with razor thin margins, and the movement away of just a handful of Republicans could scotch the whole thing.

Whatever the final shape of the bill, this central principle seemed to be hard-wired into all versions - that the taxes built into the Affordable Care Act (ACA) be eliminated, and that this be paid for by massive cuts to Medicaid.  The primary goal of the bill appears not to be health care and improving availability and access, but to remove those taxes, as a preliminary to a tax reform bill to follow, that will further reduce taxes for the top income groups and corporations.

They may damage the ability to be affordably covered with pre-existing conditions (or even being able to get any coverage at all).  They may endorse junk insurance plans that seem cheap, but when crunch time comes, really don't cover much of anything.  If you're young and healthy, you may pay less under their proposals.  If you're older and sicker, you may pay more - a lot more.

I really don't think the vast majority of people, even Republican voters, believe these are great ideas. I'm pretty sure that's not why they had problems with the ACA.  Most polling shows the Republican proposals at record low support, and at the same time, finally and ironically, the ACA increasing in support.

Although there are extremists on both sides, I think the vast majority of people would like to see the two sides come together and actually strengthen and improve the system.  Common sense would show that the best thing to do is to continue with the base framework of the ACA,  and tweak it to correct its flaws.  Some of these solutions may be conservative.  Some may be progressive.  But all should be pragmatic in helping make thing better.

What is centrally important to me, and to many who care about their fellow man, is that the correct number of people who lose health coverage because of any health care bill. should not be 22 million, as determined by the Congressional Budget Office scoring of one version of the bill.  It should not be 18 million.  It should be ZERO.  We should be adding people, not subtracting.

At a minimum, we should be following the lead of  Republican Governor Jon Kasich and other concerned governors throughout the country, who understand how many of their citizens will be hurt by what the national legislators are proposing. and join their efforts to strive to make things better, not worse.

What's It All About? : Saturday Political Soap Box 164

What's it all about?

What was the point of it?

Why did, according to some polls, over four fifths of white evangelicals vote for Donald Trump?

It wasn't because Donald Trump is a moral person.  Clearly, he is not.  Nothing in the way he has conducted his business, in the way he has treated and talked about others, in the narcissistic way he talks about himself, indicates otherwise.  And I don't think white evangelicals were fooled into thinking he was a decent person.  The voters who used to identify as "the moral majority" simply decided not to base their vote on personal morality.

Was it because they wanted to see health care eviscerated, as the Republican House passed on Thursday? Clearly, they did not.  It's not even what Trump campaigned on.  Yes, he said he would replace Obamacare, but that he would give us something better.  That did not happen.  A bill was passed (in the House only - it still has a long way to go to become law) whose basic intent was to eliminate the medicaid surtax on the very wealthy, and to do so by taking away funding for health care to the old, the sick,and the poor.

It's true that many on the right despise the name Obamacare.  However, when individual elements are polled, many components do quite well. People like their children being covered under their plans through age 26.  They like that pre-existing conditions are covered.  It's only when the Affordable Care Act is identified as Obamacare that it's popularity fades.  And even that's changing.  As the Republican alternative comes into sharper focus, Obamacare is now at its height of popularity.

Do they want to see Wall Street back in charge?  Instead of draining the swamp, it is now overflowing it's brackish stink from coast to coast.  I think that this barely registers with white evangelicals.

Is there a racial component to it?  Most definitely, but how conscious they are of it is hard to tell.  It is a vague desire to return America to a golden age that never was.  It is an indeterminate longing for the preservation of white privilege.  The wall becomes a symbol of protecting American values, as seen through the lens of those who see other groups as threat to their dominance.  But the wall is ultimately symbolic.  They won't turn on Trump if he fails to build it.

What is ultimately driving them can be seen not in the frightening destruction of American health care, but in the executive order signed that same day - the "Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty" executive order.  It busts down some of the barriers between church and state, and will allow tax-exempt churches and religious organizations to participate more fully in political discourse and activities, ordering the IRS to relax enforcement of that barrier.  It also will make it easier for religious organizations to deny the contraceptive part of health care.

This is just the beginning of the Faustian bargain they made in putting Trump over the electoral top. It was the promise that if he was elected, he would hand over the keys to the Christian Right in setting their agenda.  They would gain control of the Supreme Court, insuring the eventual reversal of Roe V. Wade.  They would be able to reverse the progress made on LGBTQ rights.  They could move us more to openly religious schools (Christian right denominations only - Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and others need not apply).  Prayer could be restored in school, as long as it was THEIR prayer. Liberals on campuses could be silenced and prosecuted, revised libel laws could go after the press.

Meanwhile, Trump chews up and spits out the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution,  and he and his family make a fortune at our expense.  His cronies dismantle effective government functions and turn them into profit for themselves and their wealthy buddies.   Our tax system is adjusted so that the income inequality we've seen so far looks like chump change.

But they don't care.  Because they'll get what they want. A Christian version of Sharia law.

That is what it is all about.

Questions for my Conservative Friends

I am trying to prepare an important statement about health care, and I really need input from my conservative friends.

This is difficult to do.  Many have unfriended or ufollowed me.  Some refuse to talk politics with me, as they feel that all that has been "done with".

Also, other than my blog posts, I gave up, for Lent,  sharing political memes or commentary on Facebook.

I'm skeptical of  receiving any answers, but if any of you struggle through to this point, I would love to hear from you.

Here goes:

1) Do you believe that everyone, from our poorest to our wealthiest, must have health insurance?  That society and health care is too important, and medical costs far too high, to leave anyone out?

2)  Do you believe that no one should die because of lack of finances, and that preventative medicine should be available to all?

3)  Do you believe that insurance should be affordable, and that no individual should go bankrupt due to health care costs?

The above were derived from an article by Dr. Michael F Weinberg, MD.  They are the first two steps of his "12 Steps to Make America's Health Care Great Again".  The other steps are not important unless we can agree on these first two steps.

4)  CBO (Congressional Budget Office) estimates that 24 million will lose health care as the result of the America Health Care Act.  Are you okay with that, or does it bother you?


5)  So you say you hate Obamacare but you're vague on its replacement?  What is it you really want to do?  If Congress is not proposing what you want, what is it you really want?  Don't just complain!  Be specific as to what YOU think repeal and replace Obamacare means, and what it is you really want to see.

I await your response.

Thank you,

T. M. Strait

The Destruction of Obamacare: Tell Me what You Want, What You Really Really Want

Oy, what a mess.

You want to REPEAL Obamacare?

Really?  Do you understand what that means?

First. poof away any notions that the Republicans have anything "terrific" waiting in the wings.  They don't.  Why?

Because this already IS, essentially, the Republican plan.  The bones of this were birthed in conservative think tanks, and fleshed out in Romneycare, a successful reform done in Massachusetts.

What you give up -

1) Keeping your youngin' on your plan until they're 26, if that is what is needed.

2) Protection against being rejected due to pre-existing conditions.

3) 20 million plus people losing access to the health market place.

4) No more subsidies to help purchase insurance on exchanges that will no longer exist.

5) Increasing medical costs as hospitals and doctors cope with an influx of indigent patients.

6) No more control to costs on insurance companies.  They will no linger be limited as to how much overhead they spend, or on the percentage they are required to spend on actual care.

7) No more control on what basic plans must cover.  This means plans that exploit you in to thinking they're going to cover something they have no intention of covering.

8) Medical bankruptcies increase dramatically again.

9)  Every time you lose a job, you risk losing insurance and your family - for good.  If you want to work for yourself - good luck.  Hope you have a big pocketbook, no pre-conditions, and are able to read fine print.


There are flaws with Obamacare, as with any new piece of legislation, especially is intent on destruction rather than repair.

Flaws:

1)  The subsidies that you get for health insurance - if you haven't figured out your income right, you could get bit with large paybacks come income tax time.  People don't have a good idea what their income is, and often leave out elements of it, or underestimate it, and then wind up having to pay all or part of their subsidies.

2) In some areas, not enough private insurers participate in the state exchange.  It would be nicer if there was more competition.

3) Too many people are still going bankrupt due to medical costs.

4) In states that have not extended medicaid, hospitals and care facilities are having a hard time staying in business, especially in rural areas.

5)  And TRUMPING everything, it's a system that still leaves private insurers in charge.  The profit motive reigns over health care rights and access.


My solution?

Move to the only thing that makes sense - single payer universal health care.

You repealer squealer's solution?

Beats me.  Can't you tell me what you want?  What you really, really want?

Guess what?  I don't think you know.

And that's bad news for all of us.

Mr. Stein's Off Day: Saturday Political Soap Box 120

Yes, class.  Do you see?  Isn't that terrifying?  That someone might not be a citizen and still have their basic human health care needs taken care of through the bureaucratic incompetence of a bloated federal government?  Of course, measures could be put in place that could help minimize this, but that's not the point, is it?  The point is to make people as queasy as possible about the dreaded Obamacare and immigration.  Frighten them with fear of the undeserving other, and the possibility that someone may get a benefit that you worked for and they did not.

So, class, can anyone think of a what to replace that pesky Obamacare with, and still provide basic health care coverage to every true citizen of the United States?  Bueller?  Bueller?  Anyone?  Anyone?

No, Bernie, I didn't say you.  When I said "anyone" I didn't mean to include you.

Yes, Bernie, a single payer system like Medicare For All would cover everyone, but that's socialism.  And as an economics professor, I can tell you that socialism is an unworkable system that will lead to our inevitable destruction.

Yes, Bernie.  I know you are talking about "democratic socialism", which works more as a check and modifier of capitalism than a replacement.  But that's never worked anywhere.

Yes, Bernie.  I know about the Scandinavian countries, and their successes with democratic socialism.  But we're Americans!  We don't want to eat strange fish dishes with eyeballs in them, and drive small cars, and pay exorbitant prices for gasoline. We don't want to pay higher taxes to insure medical care and free college. It is so much better to let the poor flood emergency rooms and for the middle class college students to take out student loans at high interest loans and be saddled with debt for the rest of their lives.

Yes, Bernie. I understand that in most other countries that have universal health care....what?  Don't interrupt me, Bernie!  I realize that virtually all other industrialized countries on Earth have universal health care and we don't.  And I realize that we spend two to three times more per person on health care here than in those other countries.  You have to think of all the jobs created by the layer of private insurance and hospital/doctor healthcare insurance facilitators, not to mention the lawyers and accountants we have to manipulate and game the system.  We take pride in our healthcare con men and profiteers!  After all, Florida elected Rick Scott governor of Florida, didn't they?  He oversaw the largest Medicare fraud in our history while CEO of Columbia/HCA.  Now if that bothered Floridians, why would they have elected him twice?

No, Bernie.  There is a difference between government bureaucrats and private bureaucrats.  Don't you see? We love the private ones - we honor their cleverness.  But we hate government bureaucrats, whose malfeasance would actually be easier to catch if we used the proper oversight instead of letting our Congressman be bought out by the largest corporate and super-rich bidders.

I tell you what, Bernie.  You like government bureaucracy so much?  I want you take this form to the central office, and please, take your time.

Ok, now we can back to the real discussion.  Can anyone think of  ways, not including Bernie's ridiculous idea of Medicare For All, that we can repeal Obamacare and improve our health care system?

Bueller?  Bueller?

Anyone?

Super Chill Weekend and Other Monday Musings

Ellie's got the right idea of what to do with the first post-tax season weekend.

There was a walk planned, as you can see by the leash, but there was nothing like crashing on the pillow and getting forty winks. Ellie did what I should have done with this weekend.  I came close at times, but didn't quite achieve her blessed nirvana.

I had a rehearsal on Thursday night for Dearly Beloved.  It was a good rehearsal, but showed clearly I needed to spend some more time learning lines.  I have done that this weekend, at least enough to be dangerous.  Starting tonight, we cannot call for lines.  This should be interesting.

I got back into the fiction zone, completing a brand new Crowley story.  That felt really good.  I'm going to need to spend some time re-reading and working up a character bible.  Can't have my blonds turning into redheads.

I started a story I put exclusively on Wattpad.  It's called The Awakening: Mail Order Bridezilla, and is my attempt at the genre of Christian Romance.  It should be quite an interesting journey, and if you would like to read it, or many of my other works, long and short, carefully and conveniently laid out, than you should consider joining Wattpad and becoming a follower of  TomStrait.

We took a mini-trip to Brunswick and St. Simons, all of about six hours.  Between the three of us, we spent almost $100 there, but came away with a good haul of books and magazines.  I love trips to the bookstore.  I could spend hours in them, and also libraries.  I just get this overwhelming feeling that I am home, and hat I am where I belong.  I did look up Books-A-Million, the store I visited, on my smarty phone, curious as to who owned them (some group out of Birmingham, Alabama), and found that one survey ranked them the worst employer of 2014 (low pay, crappy hours, high pressure bosses, pay based in part on how many magazine subscriptions you can push on people).  Sigh.  Sometimes it's hard to boycott all the bad businesses because there are so many of them.

Speaking of boycotts, I unfriended and blocked only my second person ever on Facebook.  I don;t regret it, as the person was referring to a day of silent protest in schools over LGBT bullying as "National Sodomite Day".  That was offensive enough, but he had said many other things over time, and it was the last straw I needed to go ahead and pull the exit button.  I have a friend who did not eliminate him right off, to see how he would react.  It wasn't good, attacking me as intolerant, making fun of my name, Strait, in light of my "gay" views, and referring to me as a "Michigan transplant", as if someone who has only lived in Georgia since 1978 and whose children and spouse are native Georgians, has no right to a view in this state.  The most horrible realization about him is that when he spouts his terrible, intolerant views, he actually gets people supporting him.  He is not alone in his unreasoning, vile hatred.  On the other hand, my post saying I was unfriending him and why, received as many likes and support as anything I've ever done.

I tried to ask my Great Unanswered Question* again, this time directing it to specific people, hoping for an answer this time, to no such luck.  Some resented that they had been called out.  Others asked why I thought they hated Obamacare, and then listed reasons why they hated it.  Others complained that it was not their responsibility to solve the problems of the world.  Well, too bad so sad.  If you are going to ask for repeal of Obamacare and rail against it, and then not offer a plan to replace it that insures as many or more people, then you are telling me that you have no moral compass and no ability to participate in the great Democratic experiment.  You have to get informed.  You have to care.  You can't make things worse without any plans to make things better.

So as irritated as my conservative friends get, I will not remove the lamp.  I will keep it hanging out until they tell me they have a plan, or until they concede to me that they simply don't care about anyone's health care access but their own.

Until next time,

T. M. Strait

* What plan do you have to replace Obamacare  that will insure as many or more people?

Party Like It's April 16th

It's official now.  April 15th has now passed. A major tax deadline is now over. As a working CPA whose responsibilities include individual and corporate taxes, it is a relief to be now looking on the other side of this date.

I have had people over the years ask me what in the world I do now that April 15th has come and gone, as if that is what a CPA firm spends most of it's time on.  Fortunately if one values full time employment, or unfortunately if one craves a greater degree of leisure, that is not the case in most firms.

It is true that at my age and my desire to have at least some time to pursue other goals, that I personally take a little bit more time off than I do during tax season.  But that is a voluntary choice, one that my firm accommodates.  I am not a partner or sole practitioner, so I don't put in the hours that those dedicated entrepreneurs do.  There is plenty to do year round.  Tax deadlines actually stagger throughout the year, including the non-profit 990 tax form deadline coming up May 15th.  There are payroll services, financial reports, audits, and various different management reports and special assignments. Work has become so steady that it is nearly impossible to hold to the tradition of closing the office for a day or two after April 15th.

The year was a little bit more difficult than most.  Congress and IRS regulations are always adding layers of complications.  This year added the additional requirements surrounding the Affordable Care Act.  We had to ask more questions than we normally do, and had to fill out up to three more forms, depending on the answer we got.  The tax penalties for non-compliance were fairly minimal this year, but will accelerate in future years.  For 2014, it may have been more economical to pay the additional tax than the cost of insurance.  Of course, that only worked if you and your family remained healthy. an awful gamble to take given the cost of medical services.  A few people who got health insurance from the exchanges wound up in trouble because they underestimated their income and had to return some of the premium subsidy they had gotten throughout the year.  If you go to the exchange, please carefully consider the income level you report, noting that it may be more helpful to err on the side of caution.  If you're unsure, you may want to consult with your tax adviser.

Like many of our laws, the Affordable Care Act is complicated, and some aspects are positively Rube Goldbergian,   Most of our legislation is the result of compromise, and therefore often more complicated than it needs to be, but democracy is rarely a straight line.  Unfortunately, many of the fixes that normally occur in legislation are not happening with the Affordable Care Act, because one of our political parties has decided to go to war with it rather than make it better.

Was it worth it?  In my view, if more people are covered, than yes, it's worth it.  And all statistics show that the number of people covered has increased dramatically.  The rise in healthcare costs has slowed dramatically.  The deficit reducing effects of the law have exceeded even expectations.Young adults can be covered on their parent's policy longer.  Pre-existing conditions are no longer the fearful excluder they used to be. Medical bankruptcies should be on the decline.

Some states have not made the progress of other states.  They are fighting setting up their own state exchanges.  They are refusing to extend medicare benefits.  So in some states the number of uninsured is not dropping as dramatically as it is in other states.  Georgia is one of the states, and the strain of our lack of participation is hurting hospitals and care providers, particularly in rural areas.

On the other hand, given the stress involved in the tax system, I am pleasantly surprised by the level of courtesy and cooperation from all involved.  Revenue agents at both the federal and state level are almost always courteous and kind to me when I am able to contact them.  The IRS, in spite of having increasing regulations to enforce and supervise, has had their staff cut repeatedly by Congress, and are becoming a little bit more difficult to secure contact with (if you call them, be prepared to listen to a lot of Muzak).  At the same time, virtually all taxpayers I deal with do their very best to be helpful and informative.  They are doing their best to cooperate and deal with a very complex system that almost no one completely understands.

I can't speak to places that only do taxes, such as Liberty or H & R Block, but as for public CPA firms like the one I work for, don't be surprised when you pass us by on April 16th as to why we're still working.  We are doing many, many things to help you and others, and to contribute to a growing, vibrant, and healthy economy.

The Great Unanswered Question of the American 2010s: Saturday Political Soap Box 104

So, Tom, you have my curiosity up.  What is the great unanswered question of the American 2010s?

Why, interesting you should ask that.

It is a question that I have been asking since the decade started, and have not gotten one coherent answer.

It is this:

ATTENTION CONSERVATIVES AND OBAMA DERIDERS!

What plan do you have to replace Obamacare that will insure as many or more people?

Do you understand?  I don't care that you want to repeal Obamacare.  I don't care how much you foam at the mouth at it, or our President.  I want to know what you're going to replace it with.

I don't care when you say you're not a politician and you don't have to come up with an alternative.  You just know by God what you hate, and you want it gone.  Well, too bad so sad.  If you're going to strip MILLIONS from access to decent health care, you're not going to leave those people vulnerable.  You've got to demonstrate how your plan takes care of those people and MORE.

I mean, surely, you don't intend for things to go back to the way they were.  Do you want more bankruptcies?  Do you want more people denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions?  Do you want people to be solely dependent on the whims of their employer for decent health care?  Do you want young people to be kicked off their parent's plan too soon and not be able to get coverage on their own?  Do you not like that the arc of cost for health care and insurance has finally started to slow?  Do you not like the fact that Obamacare is reducing the deficit and not increasing it?

It's true that Obamacare has added a layer of complication to an already complicated income tax process.  As a CPA, I can tell you it has been a real pain in the posterior region.  Add it to the list of the strange, quirky things our tax code does.

It's anecdotally  true that some people's health insurance costs have gone up, a few dramatically.  Some had plans that were inadequate, offering little protection, and had to replace them with more comprehensive plans - surprise! - they cost more!  Some private insurance companies steered their insurers to more expensive plans, blamed it on Obamacare, without the insured checking out the exchanges or other options to find if there was a better deal.  Some were hurt by regional price variations in the exchanges - which I feel is the very worst part of Obamacare.

The flaw in Obamacare isn't the government (although far from perfect, it technically can be controlled by a vigilant press and an active, informed, voting citizenry), it's the private insurers and medical providers.  They're in it to maximize profits, even if it's at your expense.

So, for me, the alternative is easy.  Join the rest of the civilized world with a comprehensive universal health care system.  NO ONE SHOULD BE LEFT OUT!  As a CPA and numbers person, I know this is the most fiscally sound way to do it - spread the costs over everyone and minimize the vulturous middlemen.  As a Christian person with a moral conscience, I see it as the only way,

So for me, the alternative to Obamacare is easy.  We already have the system in place.  We just need to expand it - Medicare for All!  Yes, this may mean the contribution rate may have to increase but realize this - NO OTHER INSURANCE COSTS!

But, of course, my conservative friends, if you thought the overly privatized, Republican inspired version of Romneycare, the Affordable Care Act referred to as Obamacare, if you thought that was socialized medicine, I can't imagine what you think of Medicare for All.

So, again, I've been asking this question for FOUR YEARS with zero coherent response....


What plan do you have to replace Obamacare that will insure as many or more people?

Allowing across state competition will only gravitate plans to those states with the least amount of regulation and the worst coverage.  Eliminating medical malpractice will only diminish your rights and worsen medical standards -  I do not believe that studies show that eliminating malpractice suits reduces cost or expands coverage.

And let me blunt about this.  If your philosophy is that you just DON'T CARE who is insured or uninsured, and is only centered on your PERSONAL costs, then I am not interested in your opinion.  If civic and religious reasons are not enough to compel you to care about other people, than you fall outside the realm of this discussion.  You're not a conservative or a Republican.  You are a heartless, Ayn Randian self-centered monster, and I hate to think that it is your type of opinion that is driving the health care debate.


So one more time, my conservative friends....


What plan do you have to replace Obamacare that will insure as many or more people?

I will keep the light on for you.

Vaccination Nation

There was a time, not too long ago, when virtually every child had to suffer through a swath of childhood diseases.  Two of the more prominent that I remember were the mumps and measles.

I had the mumps when the family was on one of Dad's National Science Scholarship summers, and that year we were in Muncie, Indiana (or as my sister and I might call it - Mumpsie, Indiana).  This was back in the early sixties.  I remember it being an unpleasant nuisance, but not all that hard to get through, at least for me and my sister.  You had puffy cheeks and felt bad for a few days.  I even remember playing outside with them.

Not so with measles.  I contracted the hard measles my Kindergarten year, and it wasn't pleasant at all.  I missed over a month of school.  There were some doubts as to whether I would be able to advance to the first grade.  And there were some doubts as to whether I would survive.  The family legend is had the measles raged just slightly longer and slightly harder, I would not have survived.

To me, the value of vaccinations that eliminate these horrible diseases is essential.  I cannot imagine these scourges sweeping the nation again.  And yet, apparently, some parents don't see it that way.  They are willing to play measles roulette with their child, and risk infecting other children as well.

The world of medicine and pharmaceuticals is complicated and sometimes risky.  Many of the corporations are motivated much more by money than in any cure.  But the science on these basic vaccinations to prevent childhood diseases has long since been in.  We have eradicated them, and they can stay eradicated, as long as parents don't get into their head that the diseases are worth the risk.

The measles were certainly not worth the risk for me.  I am lucky to have survived.  Back then, not every child was so lucky.

Please.  Let's not go back to that time.

Ebola Midterm Fever Saturday Political Soap Box 95

It's sweeping the nation.

Infecting virtually every household in the land.

Ebola.  Is it Captain Trips?  Is it the apocalypse? Is it a vast left wing conspiracy to increase the size and scope of government?  Is it just a coincidence that the first outbreak is in the heart of conservative country, Dallas?

Okay. let's step back from the ledge of lunacy just a bit.

Ebola is scary.  It has a high rate of fatalities, particularly in areas with low health care standards.  It kills in a nasty way.  It is not an airborne disease, and it's communicability is relatively low, especially when you use sanitary precautions, keeping your hands washed and not contacting the bodily fluids of victims.

The response of our health care system, although better than most, has not been ideal.  Both the Texas hospital and the CDC have fallen short in some instances. It's something they're struggling with, as we all are. Our overall health system tends to leave the front line staff more vulnerable than they should be.  Doctors are treated sometimes like gods...nurses somewhat less so.  Maybe this in some small part will wake us up to that, and help begin to change how we view nurses, and increase their level of protection.  Like 911, it demonstrates the courage and vital contributions of our front line people.

I'm concerned, but I'm not all that panicked.  I do wonder if the current Ebola strain is not somewhat more virulent and contagious than those in the past.  Viruses do evolve and mutate.  One of the most troubling things is that our overuse of antibiotics are creating superbugs that are resistant.  Eventually, I fear that may be our Captain Trips (for those who are not Stephen King fans, Captain Trips is the superflu that wipes out all but a small number of the human race).

Despite some stumbles by the CDC, I think our government is doing a good job trying to handle this. Our government excluding most of the Republican party, that is.  And our media, of course, has gone way overboard, especially that hotbed of anti-Obamanism, Fox News.  It is the new crisis du jour.

Republicans are making it the new centerpiece of their midterm campaign, as Benghazi has lost its bite except to the rabid, and Obamacare is too successful to make even incoherent attacks on.  It is laughable to see Senator McConnell of Kentucky talk about repealing Obamacare in full, while saying Kentucky's KYNECT (which is the state name for OBAMACARE) will stay intact.

So, since they are making it a major campaign issue, what is it that Republicans want?

I asked that on Facebook, and got very little response from conservatives.  This is the best I can gather -

WE NEED TO HAVE AN EBOLA CZAR.

Yes, the same party that invented calling some government organizational heads czars, in order to demean them and suggest they were undemocratic, are demanding one be placed at the head of this crisis.

So, on Friday, the President appointed an Ebola Response Coordinator.

Satisfied, my Republican friends?

Oh, H to the no!  Now they fuss and fume about who the President appointed.  Why, what's wrong with putting HHS (cabinet head of Health and Human Services)  in charge?  Well, I don't know, other than that's not what you were asking for JUST A DAY AGO!

It's just another example that it has nothing to do with Ebola or czars or anything else.  It is just another verse in their one song, the I HATE OBAMA chorus.

And this is the same party that has refused to approve the nomination of the Surgeon General, a really swell person to have in a crisis like this.  Why?  Because the NRA didn't like them.  To fully explain why is beyond the scope of this post, something to do with the health care aspects of gun control.  Just understand this - a gun lobby group has control over who gets to be Surgeon General.  Absorb that one for a minute.

THE CDC MAKES MISTAKES THEREFORE GOVERNMENT SUCKS

The CDC makes mistakes.  Uncomfortable, yes. But welcome to the human race.  Government makes mistakes. Big corporations make mistakes.  Small businesses make mistakes.  Churches, civic groups, sports teams, on an on, all make mistakes.  Individuals make mistakes (I am practically an industry leader in that regard).  But do you have the capacity to accept your mistakes and learn from them?  Government SHOULD have more transparency than most organizations, and therefore it should be easier to catch mistakes, and assign responsibility and hold the right parties accountable.  At least that's how it works in a democracy.  Of course, we are moving towards an oligarchic form of government, but that is another topic for another Saturday.

When you cut budgets short, it has an effect.  Republicans insisted on cutting the CDC budget by hundreds of millions of dollars.  That has to have an effect on their ability to respond.  They cut the budget to the NIH (National Institute of Health) to the point that, according to the NIH Director, it slowed the development of an Ebola vaccine.  Gee, wouldn't that be swell to have.

WE NEED TO CUT OFF AIR TRAVEL TO WEST AFRICA AND ISOLATE THEM

Ah, yes.  The old 'circle the wagons' mentality.  And I guess we need to throw in Dallas and Cleveland now, as well?

If we're going to beat this, we need to eliminate it where it started.  That means travel.  That means extensive aid and assistance.  That means health care assistance and building facilities and improving sanitation standards. That means nurse and doctors and military and engineers and missionaries and caring and love. You know.  all the stuff Jesus talked about.  Is it a risk?  Maybe.  But this will not just burn itself out.  You cannot just leave it.  If you do, it won't disappear.  It will spread and come to your doorstep.

Use some common sense precautions.  Screen and check temps.  But trying to isolate Ebola patients is just going to drive them underground, and it will spread even faster, as they try to avoid discovery.  They will still travel...they will just be harder to detect as they will not report or disclose their conditions.  Like it or not, we are a global world now.  Thankfully, Ebola is not airborne.  We can monitor this and contain it's growth if we use basic cautions.

But nothing good will come of isolation.  We must help those in greatest need.  We must, for the good of the planet, eliminate it at its source.

And it's the morally correct thing to do.

Just ask Jesus.

Hobby Lobby and Democracy's End Saturday Political Soap Box 88

It's taken me awhile to follow up on this.  This atrocious decision has been forced out of the headlines, by stories both domestic (child refugees from Central America, the Morons for Impeachment drive) and foreign (civilian planes shot down, Gaza, disruption in Iraq).  But just because something isn't driving the current headlines doesn't lessen the damage that it is doing.

Why is this one of the Supreme Court's worse decision ever, ranking up there with Dredd Scott, Bush v. Gore, and Citizen's United?  Let me count the ways -


1) It damages our commitment to each other's health care.


So sorry, my conservative friends.  Health care is a right.  It's our right as an American.  It's our right as a human being.  And this decision stomps on that right by trying to devalue part of the contract we have made with each other to take care of each other.

Insurance systems work best the more inclusive they are.  The greater the pool is, the lower the costs for everyone.  This works in any type of insurance.  You need low risk people to take your policies as well as high risk.

That means when people try to a la carte their services, restrict it to just the ones they believe in, the costs go up for everyone else.

Don't believe in birth control, or you take pride in holding the inaccurate, unscientific view that some of the methods are abortion drugs?  Fine.  DON'T USE THEM.  I'm sure there are parts of the health care system that you will use abundantly that I and my family don't.

Why should I support smoking cessation programs when I don't smoke?  The fact that helping people get off cigarettes reduces ALL our medical costs is not my problem.  Same with drug rehabilitation.

If I'm a Jehovah Witness, why do I have to pay for your drug transfusion?  If I've signed a form for no extraordinary measures to cure or resuscitate someone, why should I help pay for someone else's extraordinary measures?

Because WE'RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER.

You either get that or you don't.

2) It's a disgraceful, demeaning way to treat women.

Why do we constantly insist that we must place our self between a woman and her health care decisions?

Study after study has clearly shown that a society is at it's strongest when women are treated as equals, with full rights.  Democracy and civilization are only enhanced when we do so.  Don't believe it?  Look at the state of countries where women are treated even worse than they are here.  Those countries are dark, brutal, tyrannical places.  Think abortion is the worst problem in the world?  Try infanticide for sex selection, genital mutilation, no right to vote, women covered up and treated like possessions of property.  No, America is not as bad as that.  But we are not what we could be.

The whole focus on birth control reeks of the double standard.  I don't want to shock you but....men like sex.  Women like sex.  Adults have sex.  It's a natural part of things and it SHOULD be included in our health care system.  So stop it with the slut shaming crap.  I'm sick of hearing it.

And yes, there are women who use birth control for other than sexual activity.  You need to come to grips with that reality as well.

3)  We are making the rights of corporations greater than the rights of people.

This is so sad.  An employer can determine your access to parts of the health care program.  We have descended into madness.  Now not only are corporations people, but they are more important people than YOU are.  Insanity.  As George Orwell said in Animal Farm - "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".

If Hobby Lobby wants to only carry Christmas crafts and not Hanukkah, more power to them.  But they have no business picking and choosing what laws they have to follow in regards to their employees.

The Supreme Court has busted through a wall of separation that we will all regret them breaking.  You're afraid of Big Government?  Increasingly in this country, what is Big Government?  As Bill Maher recently said "Big Government IS Big Business."

4)  You really want the Supreme Court picking what is religious or not?

This is so sad.  I have heard so much commentary that this is where it stops.  Really?  Why?  Because a few Supreme Court Justices say so?  That this is the one religious objection worthy of disrupting over 200 years of jurisprudence?  Why in the world do you think it will stop there?

They have already inundated the courts and process with additional changes.  Why cover birth control at all?  Why are conservative right wing Christian's grievances legitimate, but not any other groups?  

What if it's against my religious beliefs to support drones?  Can I opt out of that?  What about blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses), mental health care (Scientologists), Shaira law (Islam), any medicine (Christian Scientist) and on and on and on?

They have opened Pandora's Box, and it will flood us with more and more, and the only way to stop it is if the composition of the Supreme Court changes.

My final recommendation to anyone who is even the slightest sympathetic to what I have stated here, besides boycotting Hobby Lobby?  Vote.  Vote in every election, not just the Presidential years.  We are the majority.

IF we decide to show up.

Defenses of the Hobby Lobby Ruling: Saturday Political Soapbox 87

I've thought about it for days, and I still haven't quite gripped how to approach it.

Oh, I know how I feel about it.  That's not the problem.

The problem is that there are so many bad things about it, and so much spurious nonsense about it, I don't know where to begin.

And I'm having trouble calming down about it.  Never a good sign in trying to have a civil conversation.

So we'll focus this Soapbox with some of the things I have heard in defense of the ruling:

1)  Hobby Lobby is a good company, who pays better than average wages  and gives their employees Sunday off.

            Well, they are to be commended for those things.  Paying better than normal for retail jobs, and giving workers a guaranteed day of rest each week, are laudable things.  They also have retirement funds invested in companies that make the drugs they want to not offer to employees, their management is disproportionately male, and they a great deal of business with China, a country that limits families to one child and is very aggressive in all forms of birth control, including abortion. Ultimately though, Hobby Lobby's ranking of it's overall qualities as a company and employer is irrelevant to the issue at hand.  Should they, as employers, as your boss, control your access to the full range of medical choices?

2) What's the big deal?  16 out of 20 methods are still permitted.


             Because the door has been cracked.  What if it had been 5 out of 20 they wanted out of?  Do you think the ruling would have been different?  I think not.  6 out of 20?  More?  The right wing majority of the Supreme Court that voted for this did not say.  For all we know, the ruling would have been the same if it had been all 20.

3)  The methods excluded are abortion drugs, abortion inducing, abortificants.


              Uhhh, not really, no.  Not according to the scientific and medical opinion I've been able to find.  That does not mean that some might have philosophical or religious objections to them.  Some of the ones banned operate on the same principal as those allowed, including some forms of birth control pills that Hobby Lobby has left in.  The Plan B that is excluded, can be replicated with some degree of success, simply by taking a higher dose of regular birth control pills.

4)  Why should I as a taxpayer or fellow insuree pay for women to have a drug so they can go out and have sex?

                  I am particularly upset about this one, and I'm sick of hearing it.  Yes, I know that some of the methods have other uses and purposes besides just strictly birth control.  There are many reasons that women take the pill, many that have to do with important health issues.  They have been used in the past by people I am close with for those very reasons.  But I have to tell my liberal friends, when we argue solely on those grounds, we are giving in to their point.  Yeah, women use them so they can more easily have sex without unwanted pregnancies.  Because, you know what?  Many women like sex as much as men (who certainly have no problem getting Viagra and vasectomies covered).  And sex and reproductive health is a part of medical reality, whether recreational or not. Enough with the double standard.  Enough with the slut shaming.  I'm sick of it.

5) If these women really want it, let them pay for it themselves.

                 Oh, yowza, that sounds fair.  So just because who their employer is they should have less than the full range of medical coverage the rest of us get (although now that Pandora's Box has been opened - there may be more of us in that boat than we think - for all kinds of exceptions).  And for those who say, just go out and get a different job - shame on you.  You just explained these are better paying entry level jobs for women, and the economy is such that jobs are just growing on trees, aren't they?  No, people shouldn't have to give up their jobs to get decent health care.  That was part of the point of the Affordable Health Care Act.

6) The Supreme Court deliberately limited the decision to just this case, so what is the big deal?


                The big deal is their restriction is meaningless.  It's no more than an opinion that lower courts may or may not follow.  They didn't close the door entirely, and more cases will come through.  My question to supporters of this is why do you think this will be the only one?  Why do you think this is the one exception to over 200 years of jurisprudence?  What is more special about this, than say, eliminating birth control all together?  Do Jehovah Witness owned companies have a right to exclude blood transfusions?  What about discrimination against LGBT people? Do Islamic companies have a right to impose Sharia law?  I have not gotten a real clear answer from my conservative friends.  WHERE DOES IT STOP???????


Those are the major defenses I have heard.  If you have heard of any others, please let me know.  I hope to address, in the near future, why this ruling is so damaging, and I can update this article, or include it my next one with any additional defenses.

THIS IS PART ONE OF TWO.  FOLLOW UP TO COME NEXT WEEK.

Which Healthcare System Do You Choose Saturday Political Soap Box 80

Which health care system do you choose?

Here are the three choices:

1) Single payer.

2) Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act)

3) the Scroogian/Randian/Darwinian system that existed before the ACA.

My best guess is that the majority that answer this, if they answer at all, would say NONE OF THE ABOVE, or some mysteriously vague fourth way.

Well, you don't have that choice.  And you are fooling yourself if you think that you do. None of the above, for the most part, is the default answer leading to number three.

The Republicans have no coherent alternative.  That is partly because there is no incentive to them to offer one.  They get more mileage out of being vague.  But the biggest reason they have no coherent plan is because.......OBAMACARE IS THE REPUBLICAN ALTERNATIVE.

Forged from ideas first proposed by Republicans in the mid-nineties, refined in the fires of the highly conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, successfully put into practice by Governor Romney in Massachusetts, this is in large part a Republican plan.  It preserves the private health insurance industry, creates private marketplace exchanges, and insists on individual responsibility.

The only alternatives are inadequate and nonsensical.  Tort reform?  Been there, done that in over half the states and it has made no difference to health care costs.  Interstate selling of health insurance?  All that creates is a race to the bottom towards the least regulated state and the crappiest plans with the biggest hole and gaps and exclusions in coverage.  If there are any other ideas coming from the right wing, I have not heard them.

Myself?  Single payer, no question about it.  Private insurance companies are the PROBLEM, not the cure.  The profit motive has no place in health care, especially when it comes to middle men.  And single payer is not reinventing the wheel.  It is by far the most common and successfully deployed system in the industrialized world.

As for the third choice, I cannot believe any rational person would want to return to a system where any one can be denied health insurance any time for any flimsy reason that the private insurers can come up with. Where families can go bankrupt because their loved ones coverage gets capped or procedures denied.  Where you have to fear that if you lose your job you lose complete access to the insurance market, or are priced out of being able to handle it.  Where you pay for the flood of people who come into the emergency care system without insurance or the ability to pay. Where you spend hours and days fighting health insurance companies over paper work and whether they're going to cover anything at all.  Where you have to raise money just so sick children can get basic care instead of concentrating your resources on fighting for a cure.  I could go on and on and on and on.

I guess it may come down to what's most important to you.

Is it your OWN policy and its cost?

Is it the tens of millions that are uninsured that you want to get access?

Is it having a policy that will be there when you need it?

What is it that you value?

I prefer single payer, but I am willing to compromise on the Affordable Care Act.  It is a significant step in the right direction, and for whatever flaws it has, has the potential to get better over time IF our politicians work together to improve it.

Please.  I really want your input!  Which of the three do you choose?

I also want to mention the passing of a great local Democrat and wonderful human being, Dave Leach.  I did not know him well, but everything I knew was completely positive.  My condolences to Carolyn Greer, and all those that were close to him.  Even though eventually our bodies fail us, the brightness of our spirit, and the love we have shared with others, lives on.

UPDATE:  After some initial difficulty with the website launch, the Affordable Care Act has been a greater success than even I imagined.  Enrollees exceeding projections, insurance costs have NOT skyrocketed, millions upon millions have gained affordable access, people are not being booted for preconditions, and more children and young adults are being covered than ever before.

Kentucky, home of Rand Paul, Mitch McConnell, and a state full of people who have decisively voted against Obama twice, the Affordable Care Act has been through the roof successful.  The uninsured rate in Kentucky has been cut 40%!!!  And yet, OBAMACARE continues to be wildly unpopular.  They call their VERY popular system KYNECT , which is their state exchange, WHICH IS OBAMACARE.  C'mon, Kentuckians... you can't possibly be that dumb!  MOST CURRENT UPDATE:  I don't know any way else t oexplain this, but yes, Kentuckians were that dumb.  They voted to return Mitch McConnell to the Senate, as he vowed to repaeal Obamacare, and never connected the dots to Kynect.  But I also blame a cowardly Democratic candidate Allison Lunden Grimes for no coming to the defense of Obamacare, and not emphasizing the Kynect WAS Obamacare.

Since I posted this over six months ago, I have as yet received NO Republican/conservative responses to this question.  If you have any plan or idea as to how to cover everyone, please....let's hear it.

I'm waiting.