To the conservatives attending town hall meetings on health care this Summer:
You are hypocrites.
Not all of you, of course, but you know who you are.
As a rule, you rebuke college students that shout down conservative voices visiting their campuses. You reprimand Code Pink for their forays into organized civic functions. Given the opportunity, you reference every American's right to free speech protected in the first amendment.
And there you are, shouting down your fairly elected representative. Yelling and screaming, as though your point will be clearer with greater amplitude. Shame on you. Have you no conscience?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The poor behavior of one does not justify the same in another. Take the high road, people. Let your numbers and the validity of your argument speak for themselves.
I'll be attending Jim Moran's town hall meeting in Virginia's 8th congressional district on August 25th at 7:00 PM at South Lakes High School. Please join me, and let's behave:)
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Friday, July 31, 2009
Doctor, get off my back! That costs too much!
By way of example, I'll tell you the real problem with health care in America. It's got less to do with tort law and access, and more to do with who's name is in the top left corner of the check.
I took a spill about a week ago. It's a miracle that I didn't break any bones. I was in a lot of pain, and needed to see a doctor. I asked friends for recommendations, and found a chiropractor nearby. Now having medical insurance through my employer, I went to the doctor's office without batting an eyelash... "I'll probably have to make a $20 co-pay or something, $50 at the worst", I thought.
Following the initial consultation, I paid $165 out of pocket, expecting that I'd see most of that money again when my insurance provider got the bill. I instructed the receptionist, "Please verify that your services are covered by my insurance provider, or you'll never see me again." "Of course, sir. When you return in the morning, we'll have that answer for you".
Fast forward one day. I show up for my appointment, and against my better judgment, went straight back for treatment without my answer. At the end of the session, I asked the question again. "I'm sorry, sir. We have not been able to confirm that your insurance provider covers our services. That will be $125, please". Ouch! "Okay, I'll pay for the services, but you'll never see me again until you can confirm coverage". "Of course, sir. Accept my apology, and a phone call later this afternoon with confirmation. Have a nice day."
You can probably guess what happened next... you guessed it, "Not covered". So there I was. $290 lighter on the back side, still in pain and needing treatment, but unwilling to fork over $100 a pop (pun intended) for treatment. So what did I do next? I did the same thing we all do for auto insurance, groceries, housing, etc. I shopped around! I entered the marketplace and sought out a merchant that met 2 requirements: quality and price.
The ubiquitous consumer practice of shopping around is absent (or at least compromised) in health care. As things are today, I (the consumer) have no motivation to seek out an ultimately less expensive alternative (as long as the service is "covered", I generally don't care how much my provider is paying).
It gets worse. During an unrelated stream of dialogue, I asked the same doctor where he sends his blood samples for processing. "I use one of the big two - it's totally random. It depends on which form I pull out.", he said. "Are their rates comparable?", I asked. "I don't know. Most of the time, the patient's insurance covers the cost, so it doesn't matter to me", he replied.
So there you have it. A system in which purchasing decisions are made on both ends by individuals with no pecuniary responsibility! It is a run-away train that needs to be derailed, or we're all doomed to spend ourselves into poorer health.
But changed to what? Changed for the sake of change? Changed to something that will exacerbate the problem? "But at least we did something". Are you kidding me?!
Adding a so called public option will not control costs. To the contrary, it seems obvious to me that it will increase costs. It seems obvious that the public option will destabilize the last remnants of market competition, a force that we all know controls costs (though not to a proper degree in this case because it's not a true market).
Is the United States Postal Service (USPS) as efficient as FedEx or UPS? Does the USPS drive down the cost of parcel transfer? Of course not. So if we see that logic, why on earth would we believe that government provided health care could reduce the cost of seeing the doctor, let alone cost less (as is being touted by President Obama and some members of Congress).
I could refute ethical arguments justifying public health care. I could get into the ideology and politics of forced compassion. Here, I have done neither. I've only attempted to demonstrate the lunacy in believing that a public option could or will improve our collective financial position with respect to health care. It's laughable.
I welcome your comments and dialogue.
I took a spill about a week ago. It's a miracle that I didn't break any bones. I was in a lot of pain, and needed to see a doctor. I asked friends for recommendations, and found a chiropractor nearby. Now having medical insurance through my employer, I went to the doctor's office without batting an eyelash... "I'll probably have to make a $20 co-pay or something, $50 at the worst", I thought.
Following the initial consultation, I paid $165 out of pocket, expecting that I'd see most of that money again when my insurance provider got the bill. I instructed the receptionist, "Please verify that your services are covered by my insurance provider, or you'll never see me again." "Of course, sir. When you return in the morning, we'll have that answer for you".
Fast forward one day. I show up for my appointment, and against my better judgment, went straight back for treatment without my answer. At the end of the session, I asked the question again. "I'm sorry, sir. We have not been able to confirm that your insurance provider covers our services. That will be $125, please". Ouch! "Okay, I'll pay for the services, but you'll never see me again until you can confirm coverage". "Of course, sir. Accept my apology, and a phone call later this afternoon with confirmation. Have a nice day."
You can probably guess what happened next... you guessed it, "Not covered". So there I was. $290 lighter on the back side, still in pain and needing treatment, but unwilling to fork over $100 a pop (pun intended) for treatment. So what did I do next? I did the same thing we all do for auto insurance, groceries, housing, etc. I shopped around! I entered the marketplace and sought out a merchant that met 2 requirements: quality and price.
The ubiquitous consumer practice of shopping around is absent (or at least compromised) in health care. As things are today, I (the consumer) have no motivation to seek out an ultimately less expensive alternative (as long as the service is "covered", I generally don't care how much my provider is paying).
It gets worse. During an unrelated stream of dialogue, I asked the same doctor where he sends his blood samples for processing. "I use one of the big two - it's totally random. It depends on which form I pull out.", he said. "Are their rates comparable?", I asked. "I don't know. Most of the time, the patient's insurance covers the cost, so it doesn't matter to me", he replied.
So there you have it. A system in which purchasing decisions are made on both ends by individuals with no pecuniary responsibility! It is a run-away train that needs to be derailed, or we're all doomed to spend ourselves into poorer health.
But changed to what? Changed for the sake of change? Changed to something that will exacerbate the problem? "But at least we did something". Are you kidding me?!
Adding a so called public option will not control costs. To the contrary, it seems obvious to me that it will increase costs. It seems obvious that the public option will destabilize the last remnants of market competition, a force that we all know controls costs (though not to a proper degree in this case because it's not a true market).
Is the United States Postal Service (USPS) as efficient as FedEx or UPS? Does the USPS drive down the cost of parcel transfer? Of course not. So if we see that logic, why on earth would we believe that government provided health care could reduce the cost of seeing the doctor, let alone cost less (as is being touted by President Obama and some members of Congress).
I could refute ethical arguments justifying public health care. I could get into the ideology and politics of forced compassion. Here, I have done neither. I've only attempted to demonstrate the lunacy in believing that a public option could or will improve our collective financial position with respect to health care. It's laughable.
I welcome your comments and dialogue.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
White Oppression, 21st Century Style
Well, it's official. It's okay to impute white men for any malady that befalls us. Feel free to openly state, "what goes around comes around". Fear not as you affirm that selecting a white man in lieu of anyone else is "disgraceful". Say these things and more, and do so without fear of reproach.
As we get our daily updates on the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearings, newspaper op-eds and blog posts abound with this new-found freedom of expression. It's not that white men are for the first time "evil". The difference is now, it's mainstream.
Consider the following:
In Whose Identity Politics?, Washington Post Op-Ed columnist Eugene Robinson wrote,
"Yes, justice is supposed to be blind. But for most of our nation's history, it hasn't been -- and women and minorities are acutely aware of how our view of justice has evolved, or been forced to evolve."
More overtly, The New York Times' Maureen Dowd stated in White Man's Last Stand,
"It was a disgrace that W. appointed two white men to a court stocked with white men."
Why is this kind of rhetoric acceptable? What happened to Dr. King's dream? Does it not include white men?
I'll start by dissecting Mr. Robinson's excerpt. He starts by stating that justice has not been blind for women and minorities (true). I'll assume he's inferring that most of the injustice has been adjudicated by white men (also true). Mr. Robinson is trying to excuse Judge Sotomayor's empathetic approach to Law (my opinion). If I can paraphrase, "Since white men did it to us, we can/should now do it to them, or at least be excused for doing so. What goes around comes around!"
Before I get to my point, let's turn for a moment to Ms. Dowd's comment. So selecting two white men from a pool of mostly white men is a disgrace, huh? Then where on the "disgrace meter" does Bill Clinton fall for appointing Stephen Breyer to the highest court in the land? The last time I checked, justice Beyer is white. And What about Bush 41? He appointed two conservative men - ouch! But Justice Thomas is black, so does he get any points for that? Am I to assume that you agree with Sotomayor, and feel that qualified white men must be overlooked?
All of this is troubling to me. In America, it's racism and sexism. In my native Kenya, it's tribalism. On either continent, the oppressed feel justified in retribution through an "it's our turn to eat" mentality. It's unfair and unwise. It's taking the low road, and it inflicts a condition of inequality across more levels than it heals. If this kind of rhetoric is not challenged at its core, we can never get to an "all are equal" society. I sometimes get the feeling that there are those that benefit from inequality, and they are willing to do anything to maintain it - and they ain't white men (at least not exclusively).
I'm not suggesting we feel sorry for white men. Nor am I about to propose a government program to help oppressed white men all over this land. After all, being white and male are still great commodities. it's just simply not fair to treat anyone like this because of the past (or the present). And this, from people who claim that their political party has moral authority on fairness. Wow.
As we get our daily updates on the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearings, newspaper op-eds and blog posts abound with this new-found freedom of expression. It's not that white men are for the first time "evil". The difference is now, it's mainstream.
Consider the following:
In Whose Identity Politics?, Washington Post Op-Ed columnist Eugene Robinson wrote,
"Yes, justice is supposed to be blind. But for most of our nation's history, it hasn't been -- and women and minorities are acutely aware of how our view of justice has evolved, or been forced to evolve."
More overtly, The New York Times' Maureen Dowd stated in White Man's Last Stand,
"It was a disgrace that W. appointed two white men to a court stocked with white men."
Why is this kind of rhetoric acceptable? What happened to Dr. King's dream? Does it not include white men?
I'll start by dissecting Mr. Robinson's excerpt. He starts by stating that justice has not been blind for women and minorities (true). I'll assume he's inferring that most of the injustice has been adjudicated by white men (also true). Mr. Robinson is trying to excuse Judge Sotomayor's empathetic approach to Law (my opinion). If I can paraphrase, "Since white men did it to us, we can/should now do it to them, or at least be excused for doing so. What goes around comes around!"
Before I get to my point, let's turn for a moment to Ms. Dowd's comment. So selecting two white men from a pool of mostly white men is a disgrace, huh? Then where on the "disgrace meter" does Bill Clinton fall for appointing Stephen Breyer to the highest court in the land? The last time I checked, justice Beyer is white. And What about Bush 41? He appointed two conservative men - ouch! But Justice Thomas is black, so does he get any points for that? Am I to assume that you agree with Sotomayor, and feel that qualified white men must be overlooked?
All of this is troubling to me. In America, it's racism and sexism. In my native Kenya, it's tribalism. On either continent, the oppressed feel justified in retribution through an "it's our turn to eat" mentality. It's unfair and unwise. It's taking the low road, and it inflicts a condition of inequality across more levels than it heals. If this kind of rhetoric is not challenged at its core, we can never get to an "all are equal" society. I sometimes get the feeling that there are those that benefit from inequality, and they are willing to do anything to maintain it - and they ain't white men (at least not exclusively).
I'm not suggesting we feel sorry for white men. Nor am I about to propose a government program to help oppressed white men all over this land. After all, being white and male are still great commodities. it's just simply not fair to treat anyone like this because of the past (or the present). And this, from people who claim that their political party has moral authority on fairness. Wow.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Barack Obama Is Not Black
A few week's ago, I was watching the news with a friend - there was a story about Barack Obama and Oprah Winfrey, and how they're among the most influential African Americans in the United States. I said to my friend, "Barack Obama is not black". Of course, I had to explain.
Virtually everything about Barack Obama's presidency to date has had little or nothing to do with his skin color. His policies, his speeches, praise heaped upon him, ridicule of his decisions... his skin color almost never comes up.
The political right are opposed to him on the basis of his ideology, and the decisions he makes based on it. His supporters are behind him for the same reason. Footnote: a lot of African-Americans and Africans alike favor Obama solely on the basis of his skin color or paternal lineage. These are good reasons to recognize and celebrate a historical achievement, not to blindly support a leader or political agenda (just my opinion). It's also true that the amplitude of his criticism is greater because he's black (I don't think anyone can deny that - economic or social minorities in every society, not just in America, have a higher bar to clear). End footnote.
So what's my point? Here it is, let's get it out. Race matters not! Success or failure are governed more by what an individual says and does, than by his skin color.
If Barack Obama had latched onto race as a political identifier, he would not be President. Instead, he sought a human condition (economic injustice) as the foundation of his philosophy. He has this, not putting race first, in common with other successful minorities (isn't it ironic then, how the left use race and class to divide us?).
Of course there are exceptions. A Chinese restaurant in Iowa must not assimilate to the degree of putting apple pie on the menu. An African-American musician should by all means draw upon generations of experiences and tradition unique to her culture to belt out a ballad. But for most of us, race matters not. Cash registers, Excel spreadsheets, and cement mixers don't care about race. When will we be as blind?
While we're talking about race, let me ask a question. Black people, I'm talking to you... when will it be enough? When will we have enough success and achievement to put Jesse Jackson out of business? This is not a rhetorical question - I'd really like an answer. What degree of equality are we seeking here? At what point will we look in the collective mirror, and take responsibility for our given condition?
Post Script
Many year's ago, I read a short political treatise by Chinua Achebe - The Trouble with Nigeria. Near the beginning of the book, Achebe asserted that the President of Nigeria did not live in Nigeria - a statement that was simply not true. He went on to explain what he meant, but the shock value of the statement had by then succeeded - I was sucked in, and continued reading. So I am in debt. If you stopped to read this post simply because of the weird title, it's owed to the literary genius of Mr. Achebe.
Virtually everything about Barack Obama's presidency to date has had little or nothing to do with his skin color. His policies, his speeches, praise heaped upon him, ridicule of his decisions... his skin color almost never comes up.
The political right are opposed to him on the basis of his ideology, and the decisions he makes based on it. His supporters are behind him for the same reason. Footnote: a lot of African-Americans and Africans alike favor Obama solely on the basis of his skin color or paternal lineage. These are good reasons to recognize and celebrate a historical achievement, not to blindly support a leader or political agenda (just my opinion). It's also true that the amplitude of his criticism is greater because he's black (I don't think anyone can deny that - economic or social minorities in every society, not just in America, have a higher bar to clear). End footnote.
So what's my point? Here it is, let's get it out. Race matters not! Success or failure are governed more by what an individual says and does, than by his skin color.
If Barack Obama had latched onto race as a political identifier, he would not be President. Instead, he sought a human condition (economic injustice) as the foundation of his philosophy. He has this, not putting race first, in common with other successful minorities (isn't it ironic then, how the left use race and class to divide us?).
Of course there are exceptions. A Chinese restaurant in Iowa must not assimilate to the degree of putting apple pie on the menu. An African-American musician should by all means draw upon generations of experiences and tradition unique to her culture to belt out a ballad. But for most of us, race matters not. Cash registers, Excel spreadsheets, and cement mixers don't care about race. When will we be as blind?
While we're talking about race, let me ask a question. Black people, I'm talking to you... when will it be enough? When will we have enough success and achievement to put Jesse Jackson out of business? This is not a rhetorical question - I'd really like an answer. What degree of equality are we seeking here? At what point will we look in the collective mirror, and take responsibility for our given condition?
Post Script
Many year's ago, I read a short political treatise by Chinua Achebe - The Trouble with Nigeria. Near the beginning of the book, Achebe asserted that the President of Nigeria did not live in Nigeria - a statement that was simply not true. He went on to explain what he meant, but the shock value of the statement had by then succeeded - I was sucked in, and continued reading. So I am in debt. If you stopped to read this post simply because of the weird title, it's owed to the literary genius of Mr. Achebe.
Friday, March 27, 2009
We’re a Bunch of Wimps
Driving home from work the other day, I started thinking about my parents. I thought about a huge risk they took many years ago – uprooting a family of five and coming to a foreign land more than an ocean away. There had to be a very good reason. There was - opportunity. It’s an interesting thing, opportunity. It can only exist in an environment where risk is present. To enter willingly into such a dichotomy, my parents must have been pretty dam tough.
So as I thought about my folks, my stream of consciousness led to other Americans that (one way or another) left home for America. The first Americans, the Indians. The Europeans. The Asians. The Africans (I challenge you to find a tougher bunch than those that survived the middle passage and their progeny that endured slavery). All of these people were a hell of a lot tougher than we are now. We are, by comparison, a bunch of wimps. We bitch and moan about things that are in our control. We wait for help and ask for others to ease our pain. We watch the news and see families and businesses, begging as if from a choral song sheet, “all is lost unless the government helps us”. Even our President jumps in and implies that man alone cannot and will not succeed.
When did this happen? How did we get here?
Getting closer to home, I started to think about some state mottos. I knew a few by heart: New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, and others. Man, the people that wrote those mottos were a hearty bunch! What’s up with us now? Did the emasculation of America happen right before my very eyes? Were my parents the last generation with a figurative pair?
What will it take to get this country out of our skirts?
So as I thought about my folks, my stream of consciousness led to other Americans that (one way or another) left home for America. The first Americans, the Indians. The Europeans. The Asians. The Africans (I challenge you to find a tougher bunch than those that survived the middle passage and their progeny that endured slavery). All of these people were a hell of a lot tougher than we are now. We are, by comparison, a bunch of wimps. We bitch and moan about things that are in our control. We wait for help and ask for others to ease our pain. We watch the news and see families and businesses, begging as if from a choral song sheet, “all is lost unless the government helps us”. Even our President jumps in and implies that man alone cannot and will not succeed.
When did this happen? How did we get here?
Getting closer to home, I started to think about some state mottos. I knew a few by heart: New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, and others. Man, the people that wrote those mottos were a hearty bunch! What’s up with us now? Did the emasculation of America happen right before my very eyes? Were my parents the last generation with a figurative pair?
- Virginia: Sic semper tyrannis (Thus always to tyrants)
Thus as in ‘you will lay dead at my feet’. By the way – it’s a woman carrying the sword on my state’s flag. Tougher than me and you? Uhhh, yeah! Now I’m not advocating that we slay tyrannical government officials - we should however vote them the hell out of office! - Alabama: Audemus jura nostra defendere (We dare defend our rights)
I sense an implied “…by any means necessary”! - Massachusetts: Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem (By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty)
Hard to believe how far this state has come. People there once knew that freedom is not free. - New Hampshire: Live Free or Die
My personal favorite. I love its brevity and poignancy. I also concur – our freedom is more valuable than my own life. It’s the reason I disagreed with W on the Patriot Act. - Arkansas: The People Rule
That’s it. Any questions? - Mississippi: By valor and arms
In other words, our bravery and our military are enough to protect our way of life. At least that’s my interpretation.
What will it take to get this country out of our skirts?
Monday, March 16, 2009
Who's to Blame? The Rich or the Stupid?
Everyone (well, almost everyone) wants to be rich. We want the American dream. The catch is, we don't want anyone else to be rich. At least that's the way we're acting.
Recently, there was outrage over bonuses paid to AIG executives in the wake of a federal bail out - outrage over paying all of those fat cats "our money". So we're mad at the AIG executives. Why oh why aren't we mad at the government? Isn't it Congress that approved the loan which gave AIG all that cash? Isn't it Congress that gave them the money without doing ANY homework?
I suspect most of you think that the folks who received those bonuses should have simply said "no". If you were in their shoes, would you say, "no thank you... I haven't exactly earned this cash which is contractually owed to me. Keep my portion and let this poorly run company squander it away. Better yet, give it to the government as a deposit against the money they lent AIG. God knows the government won't waste it!" Would you say that?
Now, back to our government. What in the world were they thinking? You'd think they would at least take the time to examine the salary structure of the personnel on the payroll. Nope... action needs to be swift and bold, before it's too late!
Your outrage is no mistake, by the way. It's all part of a plan to get you angry at the rich. If you're angry at them, it's easier to vilify them and confiscate their wealth. May I even suggest that the current administration knew this was coming, and salivated at the prospect of tarring and feathering those evil rich bastards.
Recently, there was outrage over bonuses paid to AIG executives in the wake of a federal bail out - outrage over paying all of those fat cats "our money". So we're mad at the AIG executives. Why oh why aren't we mad at the government? Isn't it Congress that approved the loan which gave AIG all that cash? Isn't it Congress that gave them the money without doing ANY homework?
I suspect most of you think that the folks who received those bonuses should have simply said "no". If you were in their shoes, would you say, "no thank you... I haven't exactly earned this cash which is contractually owed to me. Keep my portion and let this poorly run company squander it away. Better yet, give it to the government as a deposit against the money they lent AIG. God knows the government won't waste it!" Would you say that?
Now, back to our government. What in the world were they thinking? You'd think they would at least take the time to examine the salary structure of the personnel on the payroll. Nope... action needs to be swift and bold, before it's too late!
Your outrage is no mistake, by the way. It's all part of a plan to get you angry at the rich. If you're angry at them, it's easier to vilify them and confiscate their wealth. May I even suggest that the current administration knew this was coming, and salivated at the prospect of tarring and feathering those evil rich bastards.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Fred Hates Babies
I called it. I told you back on November 5th ( Top Ten Predictions for Obama's First Term) that "baby love" is coming. I predicted liberal talking points and demonstrations about how "republicans hate babies". I was only mistaken in President Obama's delivery. Our President is nothing if not intelligent… he recalls how quickly public debate sent Hilary’s health care plan down in a ball of flames back in the early nineties. So this time, there’s a little sleight of hand going on. All of our attention is on this economic crisis while the best health care system in the world is transformed to socialized medicine.
Earlier this year, President Obama expanded SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program). SCHIP is a decade-old Federal program intended to provide health insurance to children whose parents were too well off to qualify for Medicaid, but too poor to afford private insurance. SCHIP has morphed into a Trojan horse covering 30 year-old dead beats living in their parents’ basements.
I have no problem with kids and jobless Trekies having health insurance. I do have a problem with you and me having to pay for it. Where is it stated that your coverage is my responsibility? How do tax dollars being used to provide coverage make it more “affordable”? That is, how does this address the real problem, the expense of health care?
In an ironic twist, the Obama administration has raised cigarette taxes to pay for the SCHIP expansion. Didn’t they realize that the “economic stimulus” package contained about $200 million to get people to stop smoking? So if the stimulus bill is successful, where will the SCHIP money come from? Obama is on record stating that this SCHIP expansion is a “down payment” on government provided health care for all. I won’t be surprised when he tells us that we’ll pay for universal coverage through higher gasoline taxes, all while trying to get us off of dirty oil :)
Earlier this year, President Obama expanded SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program). SCHIP is a decade-old Federal program intended to provide health insurance to children whose parents were too well off to qualify for Medicaid, but too poor to afford private insurance. SCHIP has morphed into a Trojan horse covering 30 year-old dead beats living in their parents’ basements.
I have no problem with kids and jobless Trekies having health insurance. I do have a problem with you and me having to pay for it. Where is it stated that your coverage is my responsibility? How do tax dollars being used to provide coverage make it more “affordable”? That is, how does this address the real problem, the expense of health care?
In an ironic twist, the Obama administration has raised cigarette taxes to pay for the SCHIP expansion. Didn’t they realize that the “economic stimulus” package contained about $200 million to get people to stop smoking? So if the stimulus bill is successful, where will the SCHIP money come from? Obama is on record stating that this SCHIP expansion is a “down payment” on government provided health care for all. I won’t be surprised when he tells us that we’ll pay for universal coverage through higher gasoline taxes, all while trying to get us off of dirty oil :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
