The Sensible Approach

Getting Rid of Health Insurance Would Improve Healthcare Quality

2010-03-11T05:37:00.002-07:00

While The five largest health Insurance companies’ profits rose by $12.2 billion last year, which represents an increase of 56% over 2008, Americans are paying more money for less coverage. Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius says that the cost of premiums is skyrocketing and profits are soaring. This doesn’t look good to the average American. In fact, it almost looks like piracy. Insurance companies don’t actually provide health care (with the possible exception of Kaiser Permanente). They simply act as a middle man, a broker if you will, often standing directly in the way of our medical coverage under the guise of managing costs.

What they manage is their bottom line, their own cost outlay–their profit margin. Actually they have no choice but to do this. As corporations they and their boards of directors answer to shareholders and are responsible for delivering profits, not health care. They don’t manage health care at all. They simply manage what they are willing to pay in order for us to get our health care while still enabling them to have their profits. And as corporations that must deliver these profits, they have an undeniable conflict of interest.

So let’s look at the $12.2 billion identified as profit in 2009, which incidentally is a $4.4 billion increase over the previous year. And this is only the five largest insurers. One would think that this is the figure that these companies took in above and beyond the actual cost of our health care (or the health care they have actually approved and paid for). It does not. It only represents part of the above and beyond cost. In fact, according to Conservative Patriot HQ, a conservative blog, ”the top five health insurance companies reported a profit margin of 5.2% for 2009. This is but a fraction of the cost of letting insurance companies occupy the broker position for providing health care

This $12.2 billion does not include the cost of all of their employee’s salaries and benefits, which come out of the revenue figure before this profit is even figured out. It also does not include the cost of their multi-story brick buildings in all of the cities where they have buildings. Nor does it include the cost of heating and cooling these massive office enclaves that are often even larger than the very hospitals and medical clinics they have set themselves up to send us to when we need our valuable health care. There is the cost of their computer systems, executive travel and company automobiles and a vast array of costs that the average American cannot even think of that compile normal operating costs. And let’s not forget the cost of lobbying against the current push toward health care reform, which in itself is in the billions of dollars. All of these costs are subtracted from revenue to determine their profits.

These costs are simply the cost of operating a business. But they are not the cost of our actual healthcare. They are, however, compiled on top of the actual cost of our overall healthcare. And they are reflected as part of our healthcare costs. These companies stand firmly between us and our healthcare delivery system. This portion of our healthcare cost comes to a lot more than a mere $12.2 billion. It is a lot more than twice this amount. A typical family health care plan today costs the average American wage earner three times per pay period what they paid per month five years ago.

There are a lot of services we need or use in everyday life that are provided much more efficiently through open competition in the private sector of our economy. But there are many services we need that cannot by the wildest stretch of the imagination be properly provided by complete private enterprise involvement. Police and fire protection would fall into this category. Can you imagine what kind of justice you would receive if you had to pay private policing agencies to solve your burglaries and/or homicides? How would you like to have to negotiate a deal in order to have the murder of your son or the burglary of your family business investigated?

How easy do you think it would be to get your house fire extinguished if you had to get your fire protection from insurance companies when your house caught on fire. Would decisions ultimately be made by insurance companies as to whether or not it would be worth it for them to send fire trucks to put out your burning house? Would it happen any faster if it were an older home? How many rooms are on fire? Are you covered for a fully involved, smoke and fire showing, blazing inferno? Would you have to talk to the insurance switchboard before the fire protection company decided to even dispatch the trucks? If the insurance company denied payment for whatever reason, would the fire trucks simply not come. Do you get my point?

Yet this is the dilemma we are faced with when it comes to our health care. Health insurance companies have set themselves up with contracts to see that we get health care...up to a point. So, does this actually make sense? Of course not. This isn’t the only thing wrong with our health care system, but it certainly qualifies as one of the most expensive.

Congress doesn’t get it. All of the news coverage on this ongoing healthcare debate shows that congress is simply trying to find a way to have everyone covered. Covered? Don’t they mean insured? By sticking with the health insurance method of providing healthcare we don’t stand a ghost of a chance to minimize the cost of our overall healthcare. Killing the public option is the biggest coup the health insurance lobby could possibly pull off. And congress is still thinking inside the box. How can our healthcare problems be solved by simply changing the way we are insured?

Their (the insurance lobby’s) television ads are filled with rhetoric that amounts to nothing more than a list of talking points aimed at keeping health insurance companies intrenched in a broker position in our healthcare system. All that would accomplish would be to filter our healthcare dollars through an extra set of hands that can pull out a profit after having done nothing to further any advancements in medical science or to increase the quality of our healthcare what so ever. In fact, in view of their track record it can be argued that through the practice of denial of coverage they have significantly diminished the quality of our healthcare system while maintaining healthy profits for themselves.

Before you think of rebutting this, let me ask if you are healthy. Because that is the only group of people out there who think our system is the finest in the world. No one who has had serious health care problems ever argues this point for the simple reason that they are the ones who have experienced denied coverage. Healthy people don’t get denied. They are not the ones who cost the insurance companies any serious money.

Not one country on the world stage that has a free enterprise health care delivery system ranks among the top 25 nations for the quality of their citizens’ healthcare. At last measuring, the United States ranked an embarrassing 40. That placed us behind Cuba and the Dominican Republic. Is leaving Health Insurance companies in the middle of our healthcare delivery chain worth it? Hardly.

What Can We Learn from the Ft. Hood Massacre?

2009-11-19T20:39:00.003-07:00

During Word War II we interned many Japanese and German Americans into camps to prevent the effectiveness of however many spies and espionage agents that those two countries may have had in our country at the time. These days, however, we are not doing anything like that. Not that we should be interning Arab Americans in camps while we are involved in this war against radical Islam, but the Ft. Hood incident should at least serve as a warning sign that we are too lax when it comes to acting on warning signs we se in individuals within our Arab American community.

It is widely held that we should welcome diversity and not stoop to such a level anymore. Our society now insists upon political correctness to a fault. We are a nation of people who are walking on eggshells when it comes to how we talk or write about people and things these days. A pox upon us if we offend anyone. We are also way too cautious in how we deal with bonafide threats to our national security.

How many more incidents like the one at Ft. Hood must the American public endure before we get serious about our defense. When citizens take the oath upon enlisting in the military, they swear to protect the country and the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. (I did notice, however, that this particular phrase was missing from the Presidential oath of office during the last inauguration.)

We are dealing with a very different enemy now than we were dealing with during World War II. Our current enemy strives to maximize civilian casualties and uses our diverse societal structure against us. Laugh at Homeland Security if you wish, but it must be taken seriously. Take the massacre at Ft. Hood, for example. The gunman, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, is not only a devout Muslim, he had displayed behavior that raised red flags with his superiors and government officials, yet they failed to act upon this information.

News reports revealed that Hasan had belonged to a radical mosque in Falls Church, VA. According to the Telegraph.co.UK website, the Dar al-Hijrah mosque had also been attended by two of the September 11 highjackers. Also, the FBI knew that Hasan had been in contact with the radical former leader of the mosque, Anwar al-Awlak, whom the Telegraph website identified as an American born Yemeni imam.

In this day and age the American population has Muslims everywhere. Some are in plain sight and openly supportive of Islam and the jihad and others are posing as Mediterranean types or even South Americans. Those just mentioned would be worthy of our hard scrutiny. While it is true that there are many innocents among the American Muslim population, we cannot afford to be less than vigilant just to be politically correct. That Hasan was not only a Psychiatrist but an American army officer in a position of high trust only proves that we must not let our guard down for any reason. However, it does seem quite stupid on our part that we didn’t even bother to profile this killer. All of the signs were there, and they were blatant.

Here again, we are in the political position nationally where we are making serious mistakes with our national security in favor of political correctness. With the profiling tools currently at our disposal we have no one to blame but our own incompetence for overlooking simple facts such as the ones found in the Hasan case. And given what we know about how Islam is preached and what its goal is, we would be foolish not to realize there are people who are serious threats all over the country who are worthy of being placed under the microscope. More to the point, once we have suspects under watch we should know that watching someone to see if they will lead us to al-Qaeda or the Taliban has risks and that those risks need to be tightly managed. At this point it doesn’t matter whether Hasan acted alone or on orders. Thirteen dead and 42 wounded is still 13 dead and 42 wounded.

But rather than play the blame game we should focus on preventing incidents like this one from happening again. We really need to wise up to the fact that our penchant for political correctness and the cries against profiling are creating huge gaping weaknesses in our ability to protect our country from enemies like who we are now at war with. And realizing that war is no game and that we cannot play at it as though it were, we should also consider that there may be very real benefits to changing our rules of engagement for our war against radical Islam.

We should focus on winning and not be as concerned as we are with how we intend to accomplish the victory we need. Sun Tzu once said that the general who is more concerned about his own integrity will lose. America should wake up and realize that we have not won this war. We should also be mindful that pulling out of the Middle East will not necessarily end it. Our troops may be over there–but the enemy is definitely over here. And any refusal to admit this to ourselves is simply naive at best, and dangerous if not fatal at worst.

Major Hasan may have succumbed to the pressure and cracked under stress, but that is unlikely. As a Psychiatrist he should have been above the inability to manage stress to the degree that would result in a shooting spree. He had been in contact with a radical, anti-American Imam. He attended the same mosque as some of the 9-11 highjackers. He was shouting “Allahu Akbar” while remaining calm during a shooting spree that left 13 dead and up to 42 injured. And according to the Telegraph, he stated at the Walter Reed Army Hospital in Washington, D.C., “during an hour-long talk he gave on the Koran in front of dozens of other doctors,” that “infidels should have their throat cut.”

According to the same Telegraph article, published on November 5, “One of Hasan's neighbors described how on the day of the massacre, about 9am, he gave her a Koran and told her: ‘I'm going to do good work for God’ before leaving for the base.”

According to one civilian police officer who was interviewed, Hasan was “hiding behind a telephone pole and shooting fellow soldiers in the back as they were trying to get away. Many writers in the Media have taken the wrong tack by labeling this a hate crime. What this really was, was an act of war. This attack was clearly carried out with intent. This was no mistake on Hasan’s part, and there was clearly premeditation here. With these pieces of information at hand, it certainly does not look like someone who was simply overcome by stress.

The Ft Hood Massacre was preventable. It was also as much the result of our political correctness as it was Milik Hasan’s radical inclinations.

Is The House Bill A Real Answer For Healthcare?

2009-10-29T21:52:00.008-06:00

Although the House has finally come up with a bill for national healthcare it falls short of accomplishing Democrat’s original goal of total healthcare. When the news broke out today it was touted as an $894 billion piece of legislation, but the congressional budget office believes the bill will spend more like $1.05 trillion over the next decade. Republicans fear that the bill will cause a virtual quagmire by creating new bureaucracies that won’t actually fix anything, which would initiate huge administrative costs to eliminate the huge administrative costs that consumers and employers are now paying to merely support the insurance companies.

According to Health Reform Watch, a web log of the Seton Hall University school of law the combined 2009 salaries of the ten top paid Health Insurance CEO’s amounts to more than $4 billion. CNN reported that the health insurance industry posted over $27 billion in profits for 2008. All of that money was coming from employers and consumers and amounts to over $31 billion in costs above and beyond the actual cost of healthcare. Given that this healthcare, paid for in the first place by consumers is being denied to many because of pre-existing conditions and that ABC news reported this week that women are typically charged up to 70% more for a basic healthcare coverage policy than males of the same age—these profits seem unjustified. They are also not accurate.

When the open enrollment period occurred on my day job last November, I faced a steep increase for my own coverage which put my deduction to $75.00 per pay period for single coverage. The cost to ad my wife to the coverage boosted my plan cost to $220.00 per pay period. That is a 190% increase from my portion of the cost of the policy, which is then added to the total, rendering the cost of the whole package 290% higher that it would have been with single coverage. That is hardly 70% more than the cost of insuring a male. This increase did not involve questions concerning her state of health or age. It was a simple grid. But that is enough of this type of explanation. We already know the system is broken.

The bill the Democrats have come up with is different than we are being told it is. The Congressional Budget Office has projected that the $1.05 Trillion bill would eliminate $104 billion of the public deficit in the next decade, but privately it has expressed reservations that this will actually happen. And although Republicans fear that most of the savings will be the result of stopping the growth of Medicare it is a false fear.

As for the Democrats, they don’t view this legislation as the solution. They view this as the first step. According to the Wall Street Journal, “House Democrats said the bill was a historic step toward universal health insurance.” As huge as this bill is, it only increases overall coverage by 13% of the population. They estimate that 96% of the population will be covered, which is up from 83%. And although the bill stops some flagrant abuses—pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied and consumer out of pocket expenses are capped—it is still massive in scope and falls short of the Democrats’ ultimate goal of universal coverage. So even with this bill, you can look forward to more of this to come until that goal is achieved. The good news is that if and when that goal is realized Medicare will no longer be necessary. With true universal coverage everyone will receive healthcare anyway, so Medicare would be redundant.

The health insurance industry does not support this bill because the public option is in it and they believe the public option will put them out of business. Truthfully, with CEO salaries of the top ten companies at a combined cost of over $4 billion annually and with industry profits for these incorporated middlemen at over $27 billion annually—what good are they to the American public when not one dollar of their profits contributes to our national health? In fact, a huge part of the money that does not wind up as profit goes to exorbitant administration costs, much of which supports a concerted effort to deny coverage for many reasons that don’t amount to pre-existing conditions. This money, which by itself is a very significant figure, also doesn’t contribute to our national health. But it does a great deal to insure that the profit line and CEO salaries are as big as they are.

Yes, we have an insurance commission to watch over these companies to insure (poor choice of words, I know) that abuse in this arena is kept to a minimum. But when you are over 40 years old and your annual physical requires a colonoscopy and they find a polyp, just one, your insurance company pays for the colonoscopy as a regularly required procedure. When at 45 you need a second colonoscopy, during which another polyp is found, if your insurance company denies you this coverage because of pre-existing conditions even though you have had continuous coverage—will you feel like the insurance commission is doing its job when you receive a bill for $850 because they refused to pay for the procedure which is a standard part of your annual physical? And how will you feel about the fact that the insurance company didn’t make the decision until three weeks after you had this required procedure?

Clearly, the public can afford not to care at all that the health insurance companies don’t like this bill in its current form. I would be more concerned if they were happy with it. Not giving the insurance companies another dime would go a long way toward covering the cost of this endeavor. Still, fixing our ailing healthcare system is a very large undertaking and it will be a long time before it is over. And sadly, due to the nature of compromise it will probably not get fixed in a way that will truly result in universal healthcare.

Although most things in America are truly best left to the private sector, healthcare is not one of them. With globalization, declining salaries and rising unemployment still changing the face of the American economy we would be much better off if we were not saddled with the cost of our healthcare in the same way we are now. Healthcare should be on the same list as our police and fire protection, road maintenance and other infrastructure items.

Let’s Tell It Like It Is, For A Change!

2009-09-07T12:59:00.010-06:00

The evolution of the health care debate has taken us on a wild ride. At first the goal was to have national health care, which sparked fear into conservatives based on the argument that innovation will be stifled by lack of competition. This led to a compromise between Democrats and Republicans which produced the public option. This way, the insurance companies were not directly cut out of the picture with the first stroke of the pen.

At that point Republicans set out to fight the public option. It is all part of their strategy to protect the insurance companies’ involvement in health care. Their argument being that introducing a government run public option into the insurance picture will make it impossible for insurance companies to compete. This is probably correct. In order for insurance companies to be able to compete with a government run, non-profit they would have to turn themselves into non-profit entities.

Given that among the most serious problems with our current health care system are the outrageous cost of health care and the rampant out of control rate of cost escalation—and further given that the health insurance companies’ billions of dollars in annual profits is a major reason for our high cost of health care—It makes perfect sense that this is the point. Because health insurance companies make their profits by denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions (among other reasons) along with restricting the list of reasons why patients need certain procedures and treatments and because by the very nature of corporations they thrive to cut as many costs as possible and increase as much profits as possible in order to show a favorable financial position to their stock holders and boards of directors—insurance companies have become the cancer that infects our health care industry, thereby threatening it with insolvency.

There is a paradox here. To be an efficient corporation health insurance companies must cut people out. They must deny coverage to some in order to insure their profits. This produces more than one problem. One problem is that we will never achieve universal coverage with insurance companies making our health care decisions. Another problem is that with denial of coverage, the number of people allowed to have expensive tests like an MRI or CAT scan is restricted and because of this fact the cost of these procedures has to increase for the hospitals to be able to continue to offer these services. Without universal coverage, health care is inefficient. With out of control rates of rising costs, health care is inefficient. So we come back to the paradox. There can either be efficient health insurance companies or there can be efficient health care. There cannot be both. By its very nature a health care system controlled by health insurance companies that are mandated to cut expenditures and make profits is producing an inefficient and unacceptable health care system.

T.R. Reid, a former Washington Post journalist and the author of “The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care,” recently wrote an interesting article about how we can compare how other developed countries in the world are providing health care for their people. This article was the result of world travel and research into how health care is done in these countries. The first point he made has been made by many writers so far and that is that the United States is the last of the developed countries in the free world that has not gone to national health care.

Reid compared systems from Germany, France, Switzerland, Britain, Canada, Japan, and Taiwan. He could easily have included other nations but he chose to stick with the industrialized free world. While doing his research he found some interesting facts. While in some countries peoples must deal with long lines for their care, in most countries this is not a problem. As for limited choices, some countries provide multiple choices for care and some provide only one.

He also found that in every country he researched, the costs were less than the cost of care in he U.S. “But in fact all other payment systems are more efficient than ours.” Among other things Reid looked at how cost controls stifle innovation and found this to also be a false fear.

“Any American who has had a hip or knee replacement is standing on French innovation.

“Overseas, strict cost controls actually drive innovation. In the U.S., and MRI scan of the neck region costs about $1,500. In Japan, the identical scan costs $98. (And Japanese labs still make a profit.)”

The Republican fear that competition is critical to provide the innovation needed for the U.S. to be on the cutting edge of state of the art medical care is simply not true. This has not been the case in criminal investigating or firefighting technology and it is not, nor will it be the case in medical care.

So let’s tell it like it is. As U.S. Republican Representative from Colorado, Mike Coffman, stated in his Sunday Op-Ed piece in the Denver Post:

“Although it is debatable whether the creation of a government-run insurance entity will inevitably lead to a single-payer system, it is simply naïve to think that it will not lead to the government dominating the health insurance market place…”

This is not only true, it is the whole point. The only reason the public option surfaced in the debate in the first place is because Republicans, being the pro business party they are, embarked upon a strategy to kill the idea of national health care to protect the businesses which are currently involved in the health care industry. The sad thing is that they actually believe that leaving health care to the free enterprise system will produce better health care in a more efficient manner than any other possible alternative. For them it is case closed, end of story. Free market competition is not only the best answer; it is the only answer. They are not interested in looking into how the rest of the world is handling health care. They don’t believe our health care system is broken in such a way that cannot be fixed by simply changing as little as possible so that the free market system will correct our health care problems on its own.

There have been some who have stated that it would be much more refreshing to see Democrats just admit that they want the single provider system in the first place. Again, initially, they did exactly that. The debate on health care reform began with the Democrats stating that they wanted national health care. The Democrats want everyone insured and everyone covered no matter what. They don’t want anyone denied health care for any reason and they don’t care about pre-existing conditions. This is not a bad goal at all.

Because compromise is how things get done in congress and because the parties are so polarized this has become a battle of strategies. Should health care be incorporated into the basic infrastructure of government responsibility along with highway maintenance, national parks, police, fire, and military protection? Or should health care remain in the hands of gigantic middlemen known as insurance companies?

Yes, the Democrats eventually would like to have the government take over the entire health care system. No, they are not hiding their agenda. During the continental congress of 1776, when John Adams vehemently opposed a constitution that did not make slavery illegal, Ben Franklin told him, “First things first, John. Let’s establish a country first. Then we can handle our problems.”

Rather than try to establish national health care immediately, the Democrats realize that this reform is too abrupt to accomplish so quickly, especially in the face of organized Republican opposition. So they are telling themselves, “First things first.” First they will get the public option which will by default make it impossible for insurance companies to compete and still make a profit. Without profits, insurance companies will bow out of the industry. They will not have to, but they will not willingly stay involved as non-profits. Then, with that accomplished, the Democrats can more realistically move toward an all inclusive national health care system.

Is national health care what America needs? When people on the street are asked this question, healthy people always answer differently than those who have had to face any health issues other than simple health maintenance. Anyone who has either been denied a procedure, treatment or medication or who has a relative who has been denied these things by the insurance companies will give a different answer than someone who needs no medicine or care other than an occasional physical or cold remedy. Those people are not among those who are denied coverage and because they haven’t run into that wall they are reluctant to see the need for major change.

This does not mean there is no need for change. When two of your needed prescriptions cost $125 each for a 30 day supply and when you need these prescriptions at a time in your life when you are living on a fixed income, something needs to change. If you own a small business and you cannot provide health insurance for your 15 employees without either you or your employees having to pay prices that are so high that they are simply unaffordable, something needs to change. If you have lost a limb because of an automobile or industrial accident and your insurance company either denies coverage or your co-pay cost is un-affordably high, something needs to change. If you had an accident at work that required expensive medical care and it was covered, but when you returned to work you only managed to keep your job for less than a year before the company you worked for found enough reasons to fire you, something needs to change. (And don’t think this example is un-related or that it doesn’t happen. It is, and it does, but that is a subject for a different article.)

With health insurance so expensive that major employers must compromise the quality of coverage just to be able to provide insurance at triple the cost of the previous year, something needs to change. So the answer to the question as to whether or not national health care is what America needs is a resounding yes. Must it take on a specific shape? Not necessarily. As Reid pointed out, there are many examples in the world to use as models. Some of these examples have more pronounced weaknesses than others. But all of them are more efficient than our current system, and all of them cost less. With our life expectancy and our infant mortality rate not even reaching the top ten on the world’s list, and with America landing at number 39 in the world list in terms of the quality of our over all health care—not making the switch to national health care would be a serious mistake. How else will we achieve universal coverage? How else will we eliminate from the equation entirely the possibility that we may not get the care we need because we cannot afford it?

It Is Not Reform Without Public Option

2009-08-23T19:26:00.004-06:00

There has been a lot written lately about the possibility of scratching off the public option from the health care proposal now working its way through congress. What, then, can be implemented to control the rampant and out of control cost escalation since the health insurance giants have demonstrated that they are powerless to control these rising costs? We now have an absence of universal coverage and an industry-wide policy of denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions (among other reasons). Both of these factors, plus the health insurance companies’ deep pockets insure that health care costs continue to rise much faster than the current inflation rate.

Health care cost increases have outpaced inflation rates since the insurance companies got involved in health care to begin with. And health care has never been universal during that same time period (not that it was universal before, because it wasn’t). Still, insurance companies have amassed huge profits. And although it is not a bad thing for any company to make a profit, this profit further contributes to our skyrocketing health care costs. Add to this all of those people without insurance who must go to emergency rooms to get medical attention and you begin to get an idea of the disaster we now know of as the American health care system.

Most of us already knew this much. But when you realize that everything in the economy is connected in some way or another you begin to see that this problem has a ripple effect that extends out beyond healthcare into other vital areas of our economy. Everyone in the U.S. knows how uncomfortable it is to have your doctor tell you that you cannot have a treatment, a medical procedure or a prescription because it isn’t covered by the insurance. We also know what it is to have the doctor tell you that the reason for this denial is always the cost. Maybe you work for a small business that cannot afford a very comprehensive policy. And lately, it has become possible that you, the employee cannot afford the policy which provides the kind of coverage you need. It doesn’t really matter what the reason is. Maybe you need more care because you are aging. Maybe a member of your family has developed an expensive health maintenance issue.

Just this last year health insurance doubled for many and many of us were faced with higher costs for less coverage. If you are a small business owner, you may not be able to afford health insurance for your employees. That places your employees in the emergency room set. This has to stop. This is such a blatant problem that the government is stepping in and is working on reform. That’s nice. In the beginning the health insurance companies publicly joined the bandwagon and said, “Yes! We need to reform our health care system.” We aren’t reading statements like that from the health insurance industry anymore. This has turned into an old fashioned political dogfight.

Some argue that if the government enters the health care arena we will wind up with long lines and bureaucratic problems much like we have when we go to the DMV to renew our license plates. While that may conjure up bad images of long waits involving taking a number and waiting forever, Who wouldn’t much prefer that to finding out they have cancer and that they cannot get it treated unless they can find a way to come up with $40,000 because they don’t have health insurance? And who wouldn’t also prefer dealing with bureaucratic nonsense to having to come up with a $2,500 up front cost because of the conditions laid out in their current health insurance policy.

There are also those who are afraid that the public option is simply a way for the government to step in and completely eliminate the insurance companies from health care all together. So what! If the insurance companies want to stay in the health care business they should find a way to help provide universal care without costing the average citizen almost half their family income. American public health figures don’t stack up well on the world scale as it is. Sadly for the insurance companies, the competitive nature of the free enterprise system demands such efficiency that some potential customers will almost certainly be left out. And yes, to the health insurance companies we are customers—not patients.

Nobody wants their health care decisions made by some bureaucrat instead of collaboration between them and their doctor or doctors. The same people, who voice this concern out of fear that the bureaucrat in question might be a government one, forget that they are already in that position, only the bureaucrat they deal with now is working for the insurance company.

This brings us back to the latest development in Washington, which is the news that the public option may be scrapped. If this actually happens can we still call it reform? Which of our health care problems can possibly be fixed if we cut out the public option? Will we get universal coverage? How about affordability? Will the newly reformed system be able to exert any kind of cost control? Will it be possible for small businesses to provide employee health care?

Fixing our ailing health care system without the public option is no where near realistic. Our current system is not producing quality national health care anyway. On the world scale, we are lagging behind in life expectancy, cancer rates and infant mortality rates. What kind of actual reform can we possibly achieve without the public option? It is naive to place stock in any solution that resembles the status quo. If we don’t find a way to address our out of control rate of rising health care costs we will eventually be in the situation where most of us cannot afford health care at all.

Single Payer Healthcare Would Be Better

2009-07-23T19:30:00.004-06:00

Thinking that we can solve our health care problems with one bill is wishful thinking at best, and is no where near realistic. Initially, the bills in the House and Senate are taking the approach that the Government should enter the health insurance business and offer health coverage that would ultimately make it all but impossible for the health insurance companies to compete in the healthcare arena. This is like trying to eliminate criminal behavior by allowing the Government to go into the rackets by creating its own gang with the objective of running the current gangs or mafia organizations out of business by out competing them. One of the biggest problems in our healthcare system is health insurance.

The insurance companies don’t make their money by providing insurance; they make their money by denying it. Insurance companies themselves need to be removed from the healthcare equation all together. They are not in the healthcare business. They are just in business. But they are not the entire problem.

While reading the editorial pages of the Denver Post on July 12, I noticed a letter from a Dr. Patrick Messerli, of Durango, CO, who mentioned that when the Mayo clinic takes on new patients, they regularly perform all lab tests over again so they can bill for them. This is a business model of generating revenue by duplicating all tests and procedures once the patient arrives at the clinic. The tests already performed by the patient’s doctors were good enough to get them into the Mayo clinic in the first place but not good enough for clinic doctors to study and decide upon the proper treatment. While it is understandable that an occasional test may need to be repeated to verify or even clarify what clinic doctors must troubleshoot, it is a wasteful policy that requires repeating them all. The Mayo clinic is not the only clinic our there that practices this way. Health insurance is what makes this all possible.

To make matters worse, Time magazine reported that “research by the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice has found that as much as 30% of our annual $2 trillion–plus medical bill may be wasted on unnecessary care, mostly run-of-the-mill diagnostic tests, office visits, hospital stays, minor procedures and prescriptions for brand-name wonder drugs advertised on TV.” All of this is because they can get reimbursed for these items and procedures by the insurance companies.

Then there is the case of a European physician who was conducting research on human DNA years ago. The CBS news magazine 60 minutes did a feature study on him a few years back and found that this doctor, while his research was admirable and would ultimately result in many good applications and discoveries for mankind, was getting rich by selling all of his DNA data to major health insurance companies. The companies involved were in turn using this information to deny health coverage on procedures for ailments and afflictions that could be predicted by studying this DNA database under the guise of, you guessed it, pre-existing conditions. This is another situation made possible solely from the involvement of insurance companies in the healthcare business.

If you, or your family, decide to have your DNA tested to determine if one or all of you are risk for some hereditary disease with serious ramifications, you should not have to be concerned that your personal data will be used against you by your health insurance company when making your decision. But you now have no choice but to consider that possibility because your health care is not determined by your doctor. Your doctor merely recommends. The ultimate decision on your health care is made by some accountant, actuary scientist (insurance longevity predictor) or some other insurance executive or bureaucrat—and that decision is based upon the cost, not the health benefit.

These decisions that insurance companies make for you have much more far reaching effects on your life than whether or not you get the treatment you need. What if you are the minor bread winner for your family and you work for a small business with less than 100 employees. Maybe you are the one who has employer provided health insurance because, say the major bread winner is self employed or is in sales or some situation where there money is better than your income, but there is no health benefit.

So consider if you will, that you develop an expensive medical issue. You go to the doctor, who then refers you to a specialist. The specialist puts you on a treatment that is effective but extremely expensive. The insurance company covers it because it is not something they can refuse. The owner of the small business where you work is now faced with escalating health insurance costs. The company has no choice but to pay it, but now you are under scrutiny. They cannot just fire you, but they can watch you until you make a mistake. They document it and talk to you about it. It may take them a year or two, but eventually they will get you out of there. Now you are looking for a job.

That’s illegal, you say. True, but unfortunately any company can get rid of anyone for reasons other than what they will actually fire you for. If you watch someone long enough, they will make mistakes. Eventually, these mistakes will ad up to termination. Don’t be naïve enough to think that this does not go on, because it does. If the company where you work is small enough, it could make the difference for them between being able to provide health coverage for their employees or not. They could have very little choice but to take this action. This is more unfortunate collateral damage caused by health insurance.

Under the current system you lose access to healthcare when you lose your job. Yes, you can get cobra, but it costs more than your original healthcare coverage cost you when you were employed. The main difference here is that you no longer have any income with which to pay for it. This is a great system, huh?

A single provider system, like the federal government, is a good solution to this. It won’t fix everything, but it is certainly a great place to start. And before you write in and say socialism, socialism, socialism. I have a question for those of you who believe that gobbledygook. Are you healthy and in no real need of healthcare? Because that is who usually hollers the socialism argument. With the single provider system you will not be sent home without treatment for the cancer you have just been diagnosed with simply because you don’t have health insurance or the $40,000 to pay for the treatment. Under the current system that is exactly what could happen to you.

Healthcare should be part of the national infrastructure of support services, just like police and fire protection, education, highways and protection from our enemies. Detractors will argue that to take healthcare out of the public sector will result in less advancement by removing competition from the system. Competition hasn’t produced an efficient system so far. Besides, this will not remove all competition. There would still be government contracts for everything that goes into any doctor’s office or hospital.

Having government provided Police and fire protection hasn’t resulted in lower quality protection, nor has it removed competition from those endeavors. Healthcare is eventually a life and death scenario for all of us, and we shouldn’t have our healthcare decisions made for us by someone who’s main concern is the profit of his or her company and their secondary concern (if that) is your health and well being.

Why Not Sonia Sonomayor?

2009-05-28T21:56:00.005-06:00

Opponents to Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation as the next appointee to the U.S. Supreme court have chosen to call her a racist based largely upon a single statement she made to the University of California, Berkley, School of Law eight years ago in a 2001 speech. This time it’s the Republicans who are hammering the point home. They are calling her a racist because she used the terms “Latina woman,” and “white male” in the same sentence which drew a comparison between the two stereotypes and offered a hope that a Latina woman would make a better decision than the white male because of how she had lived her life.

She was not discussing a particular, pending issue. What she was actually talking about in that speech was that there is plenty of historical evidence that individuals on the Supreme Court from all walks of life have made very high quality decisions—and there is also ample historical evidence available that members of the court from varied walks of life have made some very biased decisions. There is no Rosetta stone for jurisprudence.

McClatchy Newspapers reports that Sotomayor, herself has spoken for a three judge panel that ruled in support of a George Bush policy “which required foreign groups receiving U.S. funds to pledge that they do not support or promote abortion.” The three-judge panel ruled that this policy was constitutional. Abortion activists don’t like this at all. As a Democrat, it would be expected that she would have a different opinion on this matter. Clearly, she is quite capable of making decisions based solely upon the law without letting her personal opinions or experiences interfere with said law’s interpretation. Isn’t that what we need in a Supreme Court Justice?

But Sotomayor is a democrat, so the Republicans are using the amo they are able to dig up. This time it’s the racist card, and the only reason they are using it is because among everything they were able to find, they believe this item will have the greatest negative effect to her confirmation. If they had anything stronger at their disposal, they would certainly use it. But they don’t, so this is it. As is often the case with racism charges, those yelling the loudest have not checked their own glass house.

Rush Limbaugh would have called any Democrat nominee a party hack. That statement was no surprise. But Limbaugh is in no position to freely call anyone a reverse racist. He has frequently stated on his show that “the women’s movement exists solely to provide ugly women access to the mainstream of society.” Glass house, glass house, glass house.

Truthfully, with the nominee confirmation process as politically charged as it has been in our lifetime neither party can expect to get the type of justice they are looking for confirmed at all. They aren’t even telling the public the truth about what it is they want in a justice. Although the Republicans are saying they want someone who will set their personal feelings aside and just perform their job on the strict basis of the law, what they really want is someone who would willingly commit in advance to having the hidden agenda to vote to strike down Roe vs. Wade and reverse the tide on abortion without any deliberation at all.

And the Democrats would love to have their own type of activists on the court. They would like to eliminate the right to bear arms under the same afore mentioned, predetermined agenda styled conditions. Don’t make the mistake of thinking the Democrats have purer motives for what they want. Take away their points of view and both sides are basically cut from the same mold.

The American public, however, would very much like to have a judge who would argue and vote based upon the law as it is written and not allow his or her decisions to be influenced by their own opinions and beliefs. It is probably a pipe dream.

So what we have here are the makings of a good old cat fight. Right now the Democrats have the sharpest claws, so they will get what they want. I expect a lot of squawking from opponents, though. In a way, it is like watching two high school kids get into a fight over a pack of gum drops.

Although her opponents can make a lot of noise on this issue, there is nothing in her judicial record to indicate that she would be anything other than a prudent and conscientious member of the court.

Insurance Is The Problem

2009-04-21T19:36:00.005-06:00

Many of us have this dream that we could have less government in our lives and a better quality of life at the same time. Seems silly doesn’t it? When you look at it objectively, we give the government a lot of money with our taxes. The only thing we need in life from government is a good, safe life and the ability to exercise our freedom.

To have this we need a proper education, good health, safety and the ability to move freely throughout the country at will. This translates into needs for police and fire protection, good schools, protection from our enemies by the military and good health care. If those things were the only things government concerned itself with there would be no reason why Americans could not enjoy good laws, education, health care, highways, parks and recreation facilities—all paid for by the government via our taxes—and our government would probably have money left over. I realize that this is not what we have.

In the case of our national health care we are way behind the curve and our representatives at both state and federal levels are still thinking inside the box. This is bad, very bad. The U.S. is the last democracy that hasn’t yet gone to national health care and we are nowhere near the top 25 on the list of countries with the best quality of national health. Everyone in congress knows this and both political parties are trying to come up with plans to fix our ailing national health care system. The trouble is that nobody is trying to fix this problem. They are looking at this situation all wrong. What they are trying to do is change our current system so that everyone can have affordable health insurance. Looking at our health care crisis from that point of view will produce no better result than continuing to fix an old, broken down piece of machinery instead of replacing it with a new one.

Changing things around so that everyone can afford health insurance will not address the problem. It will not fix the problems that arise when people lose their job while members of their families are going through complicated or expensive on-going medical treatments. Nor will it fix things so that people can have a needed operation that they cannot pay for. Today, nobody gets health care unless they can pay for it—even if it means they will die if they don’t get the treatment. Under the insurance system many people will have their health care interrupted while a family member who just lost their job scrapes and scrambles to find other employment. No matter what fix congress comes up with that includes insurance, that type of problem will not be addressed because in most cases the health insurance probably comes from having the job in the first place. Once the job is gone, so is the insurance. And don’t even think of Cobra. That is simply a way for you to keep your health coverage at three times the original price while you no longer have an income to pay for it.

Insurance is not the solution, it is the problem. We will not get our health care system fixed by changing the cost of our insurance. What we need to do is take the profit out of the health care industry. As a business, insurance companies have to make a profit. In order for there to be profit people must pay enough for the insurance company to provide the health care and have some funds left over after the health care has been provided. This simply cannot happen if everyone’s health care is provided for. Insurance companies don’t make money by providing for people’s medical needs, they make money by not covering them. Did you notice that statement above? “Enough for the insurance company to provide the health care.” That is just it. The insurance companies are really just middlemen. Medical coverage should come from medical professionals, not insurance companies. Letting insurance companies get involved in individual health care played a significant role in the escalation of health care costs in the first place.

Medical care cost increases have outpaced inflation all along. At no time since the introduction of insurance into our health care system has inflation outpaced rising health care costs. If the government really wants to address our health care problems it should bring about national health care and cut the insurance industry completely out of the picture. The system needs an amputation. Only then will it be possible for families to continue to get health care while one or both of the bread winners are out of work.

National health care would fix a number of problems. It would remove from any business's bottom line the need to provide health insurance for their employees. In a large corporation this would be an enormous savings, but in a small business it could make the difference between surviving the start up period and failing to become a viable concern. And we would no longer need to fund Medicare and Medicaid, since national health care would provide for everyone. (Many doctors don't take Medicare or Medicaid anyway.) It would also reduce the cost of health care by at least as much as whatever the profit is. This means that our national health care would be more affordable for the many, than it now is for the few. Since with national health care everyone would receive care, there would be no uninsured people flocking to emergency rooms for the care they cannot afford, which is another factor that drives costs up in our current system. Yet there are still profits.

Changing our system, not altering it, is the cure. Altering things so that more people can afford health insurance isn’t even humane, really. That type of improvement cannot possibly include everyone; it will simply include more than are included now. There will inevitably be some who are left out. Profit is not maximized unless some are denied coverage, and as businesses all insurance companies are responsible to their shareholders for maximized profits. As long as people can be denied coverage for any reason at all, some will die because of the inadequacies of our system. National health care will have some weaknesses, surely, but it can hardly be worse than what we have now. Sadly, judging by the way things are going in congress this type of change doesn’t look likely in the near future.

You Can't Negotiate With Pirates

2009-04-11T23:21:00.001-06:00

In view of the fact that piracy off the Somali coast has taken on such huge proportions in the number of vessels taken, monetary value of captured cargo, the number of hostages taken and the distance from their own coast the pirates are traveling to commit these acts—it is unfortunately time for the world to take the long view when planning solutions. Trying to negotiate our way through this is being short-sighted. Yes, we are trying to get through this without losing any lives. But that tactic is probably costing us lives in the long run. They are collecting hefty ransoms for their efforts and as a result, they are growing bolder and upgrading their capabilities. This is not making any solution easier to achieve and is in the long run endangering more lives than it is protecting in the short run. At last report, pirates currently have control of at least 12 ships plus a tug boat and have over 200 hostages.

These pirates, who have stated to the world’s press that they are acting as a form of Coast Guard to protect Somali waters, are now venturing over 200 miles from the Somali coast to board and take ships. No country in the world has ever been able to claim that distance away from their land mass as coastal waters. Although these pirates have told the press that they confront all ships be they fishing vessels or merchant ships carrying oil or containers, they are clearly working for profit here. Among the ships taken are a French yacht, tankers, container ships and a ship carrying tanks and military armaments bound for neighboring Kenya.

They have three potential revenue streams from each vessel taken. They can ransom the crew, ransom or sell the freight and ransom or sell the ship itself. The Pirates have made over $35 million in little over three years and have upgraded their technology to include GPS, sophisticated electronics and upgraded armaments such as RPGs and automatic weaponry. This is a growth industry and it is clearly nothing more complicated than organized crime.

During the most recent confrontation with pirates concerning an American ship, an FBI hostage negotiator working with the U.S. Navy on a case involving a ship’s captain who volunteered to be taken hostage, told the press that the pirates’ actions are all about the money. In his opinion they are not motivated by patriotism or ideology and have no ties to terrorist organizations. Regardless of their motivation, they are presenting themselves as a threat to shipping lane stability that affects the entire world.

The patriotic angle professed by these pirates doesn’t wash, since they are reaching out farther than 200 miles off the Somali coast. Eventually the piracy problem will be eliminated. An Indian warship has sunk one pirate ship and French commandos captured a pirate crew and freed all but one hostage on a sailing yacht. The hostage who wasn’t freed was killed during the rescue. If the French are getting into the actual fight, this problem is serious.

However, taking the cautious approach we are currently trying may be costing the world more lives in the long run than the more ruthless, but prudent action in this case. By paying the ransoms, ship owners and shipping companies are perpetuating this situation by making it profitable. Although it will seem ruthless to much of the world, we should consider how many lives will be saved in the long run by refusing to allow this type of action culminate in a payoff of any kind.

In fact, as horrid as this may sound to many people out there and as unfortunate as it would be for any current hostages and their families—it is just possible that the best solution to this particular problem would be a full scale military action that quite possibly could cost the lives of many hostages. The Joint Chiefs probably have a much better plan of action than I am suggesting here, but a U.S. Navy escort on all American merchant ships in the area seems appropriate. Guided missile frigate escorts in full view for every merchant ship and a permanently deployed submarine to patrol the general area, both with rules of engagement orders to treat the zone as a free fire zone in order to protect shipping lanes and prevent further disruption by piracy seems in order here.

This may sound cruel to some, but we have already missed the opportunity to nip this one in the bud and the net result is that we now have a full fledged piracy problem on our hands in waters that are considered by every country of the world to be open sea. If that isn’t a clear and present danger, what is? These pirates have to know that not only is there is no profit in this type of endeavor, but that this type of activity will immediately cost them there very lives.

To them this is a business model. It may be immoral and it may be wrong, but as long as it is profitable it is viable. If the pirates believe they will be blown out of the water by simply being there at the wrong time they will stop. There is no profit in dying. We have to make the risk too high for them to be willing to continue. If we don’t, we will see it continue and it will escalate. The sooner we stop this, the fewer lives and the less shipping freight will be lost. We cannot negotiate our way to the end of this particular problem. It is the negotiation that leads to their profit.

A Farewell To A Friend

2009-04-03T23:11:00.002-06:00

I haven’t written anything for the blog in almost two weeks. During that time I have had two computer crashes and their subsequent recoveries, accompanied by the death of a cherished friend—my Dalmatian, Pepper. I have had a few other dogs in my life, all of them unique and memorable in their own special way, but I will truly miss and remember Pepper more than any other I’ve had so far.

Pepper was my second Dalmatian. I had my first when I got out of the Navy in 1974. His name was Caesar. Since I got Caesar as a new puppy, I was able to train him very well. He was trained in voice commands and hand commands. Every command he responded to by voice, he would also respond to by a silent hand signal. And he was a sharp dog. Sadly, I let the manager of an apartment complex pressure me into getting rid of Caesar under threat of eviction. When I gave Caesar to some friends who lived in the country, Caesar did not want to go anywhere without me.

I will never forget the way he barked and clawed at the rear window of their station wagon when they drove away. He barked until he was out of sight. A year later when I visited the friends Caesar ran to me and ignored his new family until I left. This memory haunted me for a long time.

So 25 years later I had taken up the hobby of hiking fourteeners (mountains with a summit above 14,000 ft.) and I began thinking that I might enjoy a dog to take on the hikes with me. It took no time at all to decide to get a Dalmatian. Since they are inherently hyper-active I figured it would be a good breed to have as a mountain trail dog. I had never forgotten Caesar, and how magnificent a dog he was. Still, I never got over the guilt at having let an apartment manager pressure me into getting rid of the best trained pet I ever had. I found the Dalmatian rescue league and looked at what they had to offer. I thought perhaps I could atone for my previous error in judgment.

There was an adult dog, named Paco who had been abused in some way by a man. The caretaker of house where Paco was staying said that he had been kept outside on a chain for 18 months. This dog shook all over like he was cold—even when he was smiling. I took him home with me. He wouldn’t answer to his name and he had not been trained in any way except that he was house broken. At first I couldn’t get him to go outside and once outside he would not come in. He was afraid of men, but was gentle with women and children. He jumped when ever the fence gate closed because of the sound the latch made as it clacked shut, and I couldn’t even swat a mosquito on my leg without causing him to bolt and run for 50 feet.

My wife, Sherry, and I tossed a few names around the house and he turned his head when I said Pepper. So we re-named him Pepper. I spent three weeks walking him daily on a three-mile long trail in my neighborhood before taking him up a mountain, and in the beginning his tail would stay tucked between his legs when he walked. I took him up Mt. Princeton first, and the next weekend we hiked Mt. Cameron, Mt. Lincoln and Mt. Bross in one hike. During the next four summers Pepper hiked 18 fourteeners with me. He turned out to be the best trail dog anyone could ask for and a fine companion at all times. I was never able to train him to do all the things I wanted, and although Pepper grew accustomed to being around all types of people and became quite gentle around men and women alike—he never completely lost his nervous quiver.

He never learned to heel very well on a leash, but he was outstanding in the open country and in the mountains. We went backpacking in the Mt. Zerkel wilderness area two years in a row and he confronted any and all who would come into our campsite, be they animal or man, until I told him it was OK. And Pepper was once wounded in battle while preventing a large viscous dog, who was charging at me, from getting anywhere close to me. Although Pepper’s leg was bleeding and he was whining when he came over to me, the other dog ran off.

While descending from the summit of one of the mountains we hiked together, Pepper got cliffed out, which is to say he came to a drop off of about five or six feet from a large boulder to ground that wasn’t level. He wouldn’t jump and he couldn’t figure out how to get down to where I was. He whined at me. I was a good third of a football field away by that time. I turned around and saw him shivering on top of a rock configuration while trying to find a way down. I could see the best way for him to come down from where I was so I raised both my trekking poles high in the air so he could see, then lowered my right arm out while fully extended. Pepper saw it and got the signal. He took off in the direction of my dropped arm and went around the rocks to my right and joined me shortly, smiling and quivering when he arrived.

For several days after his death I remembered many endearing things about Pepper. And during the nine years we had him he never quite overcame many of the quirks he acquired while he was in his first home. At first I thought that this quirky dog might be too much trouble. In spite of all of his complications and foibles, he was the best dog I ever had. I miss him very much.

Learn About Stem Cell Research Before Rejecting It

2009-03-15T18:10:00.012-06:00

There has been much in the blogosphere during the last week concerning stem cell research, all of which seemingly triggered by Obama’s reversal of Bush’s policy to deny government funding for stem cell research. Arguments from the right consistently state that stem cell research is morally wrong because the cells being used come from embryos which are destroyed when the cells are taken for the research. From the left, a wave of praise that the research is now being allowed; now we can focus on finding cures for many diseases that have proved difficult, if not impossible to tackle for the last century.

The research has always been allowed, conservatives say, it has merely been denied funding from the government. The only change is where the money comes from. This is like listening to insurance companies say that they are not denying coverage when they refuse to pay for a surgical procedure—they are just denying payment. That argument will only wash if the client being denied has the money for the operation in the first place. The same holds true with stem cell research. Most medical research happens in Universities and most of that research is funded by government grants specifically set forth for said research. Conservatives know this already, so they should can that argument.

If you take a look at how this stem cell research happens it doesn’t seem so outrageous. One would think from listening to arguments against these programs that the laboratories had stables of young women intentionally getting pregnant and aborting their fetuses—or that these labs had harvesting teams camped outside of abortion clinics to collect tissue from freshly aborted fetuses--solely for the purpose of providing the necessary stem cells so the labs can have a steady supply to conduct their research. All of the recent preaching against this research on the grounds that this represents killing, or that it is stopping a potential life is gobbledygook. These stem cells are taken from cultures generated in a laboratory environment and grown in Petri dishes. Yes, they are from a laboratory fertilization process that results in embryos.

To take the moral high ground here would be one thing if these cells were taken from aborted fetuses, but they are not. In fact, the largest religious organization in the United States, The Catholic Church, frowns on using this type of embryo to achieve pregnancy anyway. They don’t approve of in vitro fertilization. So if this type of embryo shouldn’t be used to create life in the first place (according to the Catholic Church), what should be done with them? Why not use them in medical research? But wait; can’t we use other types of cells so we can avoid this dilemma concerning morals and ethics? According to The National Institutes of Health resource for stem cell research informational website, embryonic stem cells have two interesting characteristics:

"First, they are unspecialized cells that renew themselves for long periods through cell division. The second is that under certain physiologic or experimental conditions, they can be induced to become cells with special functions such as the beating cells of the heart muscle or the insulin-producing cells of the pancreas."

Adult stem cells also have an enormous range of research possibilities, but embryonic stem cells are showing more promise because they have a greater flexibility of application. In layman’s terms, these cells can be shaped, or programmed if you will, to morph into any type of cell in the body.

The scientific community is making tremendous progress in finding new ways to further stimulate these cells to achieve many desired end results that ultimately will make life for ailing and aging humans not only more bearable, but possibly bring about a complete return to disease free life. That translates into high quality life for many whom up until now had such low quality of life that they have lost all hope for anything but death. Where is the moral high ground in fighting that?

The President Is Not A Magician

2009-03-12T21:01:00.005-06:00

Although Obama promised all in a televised speech that he would push for a stimulus bill that had no pork, or earmarks, (as senators and representatives like to call them) it is entirely unrealistic to actually expect him to be able to deliver on this promise as long as our President does not have the line item veto. In the absence of the ability to trim the pork from any bill, one item at a time, once it has finally found its way to his desk—our President only has two choices. He can either veto the entire bill, sending a message back to congress and the senate to rework things until they get it right, or he can sign the bill into law and get things into motion so our economy can begin to recover (assuming that the bill will actually trigger said recovery).

By vetoing the entire package he risks alienating everyone in congress; by signing the bill anyway he risks showing weakness or appearing as though he cannot deliver on his promises. What to do, you ask? It is quite the rock & the hard spot situation. There is a big difference between a lone senator not voting for a bill because of a certain clause, or the absence of one—and the President exercising his veto on a package that he has fostered in the first place. Welcome to the White House.

And now congress has sent yet another stimulus bill to the President’s desk for him to sign—or not. The fact that the earmarks alone on this bill amount to more than a billion dollars serves as an example of just how great of a challenge Obama faces as he tries to bring change to Washington. And that is only his congressional challenge. He faces even greater issues out in the private sector from recipients of the stimulus money. Without nailing down how the money is to be spent in clear, strict terms much of the money will ultimately wind up in foreign markets where it won’t even resemble being used to jump start an American economic recovery he intended to cause with this package.

This is exactly what has happened with the banks. When the TARP funds were doled out to the banks and mortgage companies many banks held on to the money and intended to use the funds for mergers and acquisitions instead of putting the money out in the street to consumers as the money was intended for. Just yesterday the Bank of America was in the news as having spent $7 billion, which is over half of the $15 billion they received in TARP funds, in investment in the China Construction bank. They are not the only bank that didn’t use the TARP funds as the government intended them to. The leaders of the banks which received the largest TARP amounts were hauled out on the carpet in front of angry members of congress recently to answer questions geared to find out why they didn’t change their business model when they got the money.

And it isn't just the banks. General Motors went through $14 billion in not much more time than it took to read the check, then it returned to Washington requesting more funds. Many economists would say that it might just be the best solution to let the market cleanse itself and allow businesses that cannot steer a profitable course to simply fold and make room for fresh capital to emerge in the form of new and more resilient companies. The painful truth about this particular company’s possible failure is the enormous number of workers who will lose their jobs if this particular company dies.

To add more to this mix, the Obama administration’s economic philosophy on how to bring the nation back on track seems to run contrary to the beliefs of the investor class, which is evidenced by the steady downward trend in the stock market. American investors have logged over $11 trillion in wiped out assets since Obama has taken office. If this is to be used as a barometer to measure Obama’s success rate so far it doesn’t look good. Today’s upward surge in the Dow Jones Industrial rating is encouraging, but only if it is the beginning of a steady period of growth and not just a blip on the chart.

Also, Obama is having difficulty getting the Treasury Department fully staffed. Challenges to appointments keep hindering efforts to gear up for the fight for economic recovery. So what exactly, one may ask, can the President actually do? And, is he on the right track? It is just possible that the solution to our dilemma lies in trying new methods of combining monetary and fiscal policy. But then again, it looks to many like we are already in experimental mode.

Did We Create Our Own Immigration Problem?

2009-03-07T16:14:00.001-07:00

Whenever people here in Colorado get together and discuss our national problems someone always mentions that we have an immigration problem. At this point the conversation heats up as both sides get excited about our illegal alien issue, or our “Mexican problem” as some will call it. Interestingly, everyone agrees on that point. When discussing illegal aliens we are never talking about Cubans, Chechens, Brazilians, Western Europeans or South Africans who enter the country illegally and try to establish lives here. We are not even talking about Terrorists from the Middle East. Nope, it’s the Mexicans. To say that immigration is not a simple issue doesn’t even begin to describe how complicated this political hotbed of a discussion topic is.

Those who would rather have all illegal aliens deported back to Mexico think this solution will also rid us of many of our other problems associated with undocumented people from Mexico. To those who favor this argument we are spending money on undocumented Mexicans in the welfare system, at our hospital emergency rooms, in our schools and on our unemployment rolls that we shouldn’t be burdened with. They believe that all of the related problems from our over populated prisons to the annoying fact that an average citizen must now press 1 for English when calling their local bank or utility service help line will simply disappear if we just get up the gumption to deport the lot of them back to Mexico and let Mexico deal with it. After all, it is really their problem isn’t it?

To understand the reasons why our immigration problems come from Mexico we have to take a look at our immigration rules, our less than secure southern border and the inefficiently run, largely corrupt Mexican government. Imagine your name is Juan Jose and you cannot make a decent living in Mexico. Although Mexico has laws governing many aspects of life, most of these laws are either ignored or are only enforced to the point that it prompts a healthy bribe from any citizen or businessperson who wants to accomplish something or get away with something. Imagine a little further and visualize a system where the only way life can go smoothly for anyone is if the law is completely ignored until it is necessary to remember it in order to keep out of trouble with the largely corrupt, bribe seeking officials—whoever they may be.

After growing up in a system like that and constantly seeing life from this perspective and in the interest of having a better quality life than this, you will come to the quite natural conclusion that life in the U.S. would be better. After all, they accept the world’s tired, poor and hungry…right? So you find out from a friend or relative who is already in the U.S. that you can start working at the Holiday Inn in El Paso or San Diego on Monday if you can find a way to get there.

You go to the American consulate and apply for a visa to come into the U.S. to work. Fine, we say. We can get you a visa or a green card in approximately…18 weeks, give or take a month or two. This is what you will be told. After a life time of having to work around the system in your own country you will naturally come to the instant conclusion that you need to find a way to get to the El Paso Holiday Inn by Monday so you can start working and get the good life. But once you arrive and begin working (yes, they will let you start working just like your cousin said they would) the U.S. government tells you that you cannot get a green card or a visa because you entered the country illegally. So you stay anyway, which you can find a way to do. It isn’t difficult. Just stay. After a while you have a driver’s license and a social security card (somehow). There is an entire underground network of industries to help you get the proper identification. In fact, there is also an underground network of businesses on the Mexico side of the border that will help you get into the country to begin with if you can afford it.

However, Juan Jose is a productive individual and he works hard. He learns English during his first year here and he even pays taxes on his earnings at the Holiday Inn. Maybe he even gets married and has a family here. Some day he may retire here.

So, let’s get back to the reality of our immigration problem. Wouldn’t it be simpler if we just streamlined the official process so that they could come into the country legally? If Juan could have gotten a green card or a work visa in, say, one or two weeks—do you think he would come in here legally? As expensive as it is to hire a coyote to ferry him into the country just so he can work in the hotel business or pick vegetables (to begin with). My guess is he would.

To go a bit further with this let’s look at the high number of people who have been living productively in the U.S. for 20 years and cannot get official papers because they entered the country illegally. Why not let them become citizens a little easier? Will it damage our national security? I doubt it, but go ahead and let Homeland security verify that they are not some transplanted terrorist sleeper before allowing them to become a citizen. If they haven’t been in trouble with the law, and if they don’t have any citizenship preventing facts in their documentable life, why not streamline their pathway to citizenship? Isn’t that what America is all about?

On the other hand, if they have been in and out of jail for several years and they have an undesirable track record—deport them.

It's Time For The Bitter Truth

2009-02-26T20:18:00.003-07:00

If you want to find an economist who advises that the country should spend more money on education as the best way to solve our economic problems—they are out there. Ross Perot made that argument in the March US News & World Report and many economists agree with him that this would be a sound step to take to prevent slumps as bad as the one we are currently experiencing.

Anyone who looks deeper into our economic sphere of movers and shakers can also find experts who advocate raising taxes as the best solution to our current downturn. Oh, they have their different takes on which taxes to raise and what methods to use to get the money. They say everything from let the Bush tax cuts expire to increasing taxes on social security to taxing special segments of society based upon income level.

There are also experts who recommend focusing on changing our national energy policy in such a way to spur development of new green industries which they say would simultaneously create an entire industry of new jobs and move America away from the energy guzzling, glutinous consumer society that we have been for the last few decades.

But in his speech to congress and the nation last night, Obama stated he wants to address them all. Ah…let us focus on the big picture, please! He made several valid points during his 58 minute speech, not the least of which was the fact that he and his staff are going through the entire budget, line item by line item, looking for frivolous expenditures to slice away from the books in order to get the money to pay for the spending that he believes must occur for the country to get moving on its own again. Surprisingly, they found $2 trillion so far, and they expect to find much more as they plod through the ridiculously long budget list.

Although Obama will undoubtedly meet with resistance from farm belt legislators when he cuts money from certain farm subsidies, he did say in his speech that all members of congress will have to take cuts in things they may consider to be important. And let’s be realistic, please. You can believe there are plenty of non sensible if not outright stupid line items on the current budget list that amount to gaping holes in the economic integrity dike which desperately need to be plugged.

When the system is leaking money and the powers that be don’t even consider fixing the leaks, the system will hobble along like a wounded economy no matter what else is done to make things run smoothly again. Truthfully, it is about time we had a president who tells us the bitter truth about the books. His new budget will have the war costs on the declaration sheet, which until now has been treated as a multi-billion dollar afterthought.

When we have troubles making ends meet at home the first thing we do to get a handle on things is take a good hard look at our own books to see what we can actually afford and what we cannot. Those things we can’t afford we don’t buy. If we have needs that must be met, our only choice is to cut other things to make sure we have the money for those needs—and that is exactly what Obama is telling us our government needs to do. The major difference between what he has to deal with and what we would deal with at home is that the nature of government is to compromise to achieve those goals—we at home don’t have to deal with that so much. We can simply make the cuts. At home there aren’t a dozen people with an opposing philosophy and their own personal agendas arguing against making certain cuts. If we can’t afford it, we can’t afford it.

So whether you agree with his stimulus package or not, his message about how bleak the situation is hits the mark. And his ideas about how to come up with the money to pay for it make sense. He does, however give himself stretch goals. On top of all of this, he wants to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. It is an amiable goal and it would surely be good for the country—now let’s hope he pulls it off.

With Stimulus Here, Let’s Hope The Fix Is In

2009-02-14T19:01:00.005-07:00

Many of us here in the blogosphere know that the banking meltdown was caused by the loosening of lending regulations and the promise of a government guarantee on what has become known as B paper loans. These loans were basically unsound business decisions that never would have been made under the normal lending practices of the time had not the government jumped in and guaranteed the loans. In laymen’s terms, B paper loans were given to people who could not have qualified for the money until the government guarantee changed the formula.

Within a few years interest rates had gone up significantly, the fixed period of the teaser rates on many of the adjustable rate B loans expired and the interest rates on those loans began to escalate. Many of the borrowers on those loans were unable to handle the new adjusted payments and found themselves in default. Suddenly the banks have large portfolios of foreclosed properties and a new position on staff that didn’t exist during better times. Now they have a Vice President in charge of REOs. REOs are “Real Estate Owned” or repossessed properties. These are properties that are just sitting there with no active loan attached to them producing income for the bank, hence they are non-performing assets.

At this point we have our credit crisis, which hit us at roughly the same time that we as a nation were footing the bill for the extended wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Talk about bad timing. So then the plane that is our economy had its proverbial wing shot off by the two bullets of our credit crisis and high war costs and then started hemorrhaging money—big time. This sent the plane on a downward spiral toward crash city, and the dominos began to fall. The next thing we know we are losing jobs right and left and families are going from deciding what to do for fun this weekend to what regularly scheduled costs can they shave off their budget so they can keep the house without drastically cramping their lifestyle.

The entire country began restricting the way they spend money. Small businesses began losing revenue and began to close. Restaurants, contractors, specialty stores and service providers began having troubles staying open. More jobs lost. Car dealers, theatres and mini malls saw dwindling revenue. Again, more jobs down the drain. Families are left with next to nothing after just paying their bills and buying food. Large mainstay companies like Caterpillar, Home Depot, Sprint and the airlines have massive layoffs. National companies like Circuit City begin shutting down. Where, we wonder will it end? The government decides to do something about it and comes up with the stimulus package.

At first Obama proposes a package that will create millions of jobs in the next few years by building bridges, upgrading our highways, fixing our broken healthcare system, injecting money into ailing state government coiffures, retrofitting our government facilities to be green operations and providing incentive for environmentally friendly energy projects aimed at changing our dependence upon foreign oil for our energy needs. At $300 billion, it seemed to Republicans that the package was too ambitious and represented way too much spending on things that ultimately would not create that many jobs.

At one time the package grew to $900 billion but by the time it was on the way to the president’s desk it had been pared down to $789 billion. Democrats are saying the package is too small and Republicans are still saying this will be too much blind spending to do the economy any real good. (It is interesting to note that the Republicans, who only favored tax cuts as a means to turn the economy around ultimately got over $276 billion of this package dedicated to tax cuts which represents over 92% of the size of the original proposed package.) So now Obama has a bill on his desk awaiting his signature, which he will certainly sign. Shortly thereafter, $789 billion will be on its way into the mainstream of American money thought to solve our problems.

In order for things to turn around as intended it will have to spur more activity than just the projects itemized by Obama in his speeches. Yes, activating all of the previously mentioned projects will certainly get many people working who are currently idle. But for the stimulus to have its intended affect the entire economy will have to be jumpstarted into motion again. That means that when the projects financed by the stimulus package are completed the economy will have to be running on its own well enough for the people who are working on those projects to easily be absorbed back into the economy without the nation suffering a huge jump in the unemployment rate. Let’s hope that this huge spending effort will not only be a temporary fix for those out of work today, but will result in growth industries that will foster a vibrant and growing economy again.

Nothing More Necessary Than This Compromise

2009-02-11T19:49:00.002-07:00

So the economic stimulus package keeps getting pared down by the necessary negotiation that has to occur between the Democrats and Republicans in order for things to move forward and for our economy to get its much needed injection of money. The Republicans hold fast to their belief that the entire package is merely an effort to spend more money on useless things that won’t create jobs—and because of that, will not stimulate the economy in the right way needed to cause real growth. Their position, of course, is that only tax cuts for those who really invest will encourage the type of spending that will actually create jobs.

The Democrats, however, are trying to spend money on projects that will result in contracts for small businesses which provide the services needed to upgrade our infrastructure. Both strategies are correct and both will create jobs. Many questions remain, not the least of which is: Where will these jobs be created? Without changes in our tax laws many large corporations with profits made in foreign markets have no incentive to spend those profits in the U.S. because of the tax penalties placed upon returning foreign earned dollars. Tax cuts to those corporations without an accompanying change to the tax code will only result in investment in cheaper foreign labor markets that are not burdened with American styled regulation.

On the other hand, to ignore our crumbling infrastructure and our ailing healthcare system would be folly. With our economy in such a weakened state, now is the perfect time for the government to spend money on those things. Never mind the objections the Republicans have concerning spending money on education and the healthcare system at a time when those sectors are not losing jobs. Our education system needs to be revamped so we can better prepare our next generation. And the healthcare system is broken, and fixing it now would go a long way toward relieving the burden felt by many families who have mounting healthcare costs while at the same time experiencing a shrinking family income.

Still it is wise to recognize that both parties had valid arguments during this recent fight. The Democrats are right to push for money for education and healthcare as part of the overall package. And the Republicans are right to try to rein in the spending somehow. It is after all the largest spending bill to ever grace the floor in either house of congress. Without the clash between parties over the details of this bill the entire project could have taken on such a scope that once initiated, everything in motion in our society would be a government project. In reality, that wouldn’t be a permanent fix. And it is a permanent solution that we really need.

Tax Law Should Not Inhibit Growth

2009-01-28T18:52:00.003-07:00

What a state we have placed ourselves in, when U.S. companies with assets abroad must pay a 35% tax on all foreign-earned profits that are brought back into the country. Further complicating the situation, if profits from U.S. owned foreign subsidiaries are allowed to stay out of the country then that money is taxed at a lower rate.

In today’s Wall Street Journal Allen Sinai, chief global economist and President of Decision Economics wrote that under those conditions our government would do well to take action to reverse this trend by changing the tax penalty for American companies with foreign subsidiaries to provide incentive for those companies to bring foreign earned dollars back into the U.S. Sinai estimates that if that situation were to come about the U.S. would bring $545 billion into our economy without increasing our deficit. This is a novel idea.

If the government were to turn the current state of tax laws around so that instead of penalizing companies for bringing money into the country it would provide incentive for them to do so it could have a reverse domino effect on the contracting economy. Imagine what would happen if that amount of free market money, not government spending stimulus funds, were to get injected into our economy. The companies who brought the money into the country would not need to rely so heavily upon credit for their business operations. With a decreasing credit demand, these companies could be more financially independent than they would be if they had to use credit to move forward and foster their own growth.

Sinai argues that this would make these companies much more able to grow since they would be detached from that aspect of the country’s economic woes. This would help foster real economic growth without the need to repay a giant debt to the government. With this growth would come jobs, with the jobs would come more tax revenue. So the government could gain from this type of stimulus instead of having to foot the bill.

Obama wants to find a way to jump start this economy with a giant stimulus plan that is rapidly approaching $900 billion. With so many losing their jobs the general fund in Washington is shrinking faster than congress can vote on bills. We as a nation have placed a lot of trust in Obama and I am sure he wants to get things back on track as permanently as possible. He has made it clear that he doesn’t just want a quick fix unless it will also be the right one. He doesn’t want this contracting economy to just be forestalled temporarily only to begin contracting again when an ineffectual, temporary fix wears off.

Obama has mentioned that he wants to provide incentives for companies to invest their profits at home instead of elsewhere where there are no penalties placed upon investment. With our cost of living as high as it is, American labor costs are too expensive to compete with the same costs in, say, Mexico, Taiwan, Hong Kong or Sri Lanka. Under the current global economic conditions it is a wonder that our companies still have these tax penalties in place any more.

Obama is right to want to send some form of relief directly to the people who are desperately slugging it out while watching their neighbors get hit by layoffs one by one, all the time hoping that they themselves won’t be hit next. It is also right to try to find a way to stimulate the economy from the other end and change the tax laws in order to provide incentive for companies to bring money back into the U.S. and create jobs here. It could even relieve the government of some of the burden having to pay for all this.

Closing Gitmo Not a Simple Issue

2009-01-26T15:12:00.005-07:00

Obama’s executive order to close Guantanamo in a year probably needed to be issued and he was wise not to close it right away, giving himself a year to come up with a plan for what to do with some of the more dangerous detainees currently held there. The prison at Gitmo could still have viable use in the application of our national security as long as that use doesn’t involve torture. When someone is being tortured they will do or say whatever they think the torturer wants to hear if they think it will cause the torture to stop. Consequently torture is not a reliable method for getting good intelligence from detainees. There are much better methods to get reliable information.

It is good that Obama has his sights set on doing the right thing. America’s foreign policy has not been administered well in the last few decades. We have backed dictators who themselves had total disregard for human rights in their own countries just so we can have allies in strategic places. We have also trained some who have later become our enemies. In doing this we have completely lost track of what is right and what is wrong by American standards. So closing Gitmo would seem to be a step in the right direction.

Still, after decades of having a foreign policy that was either aimed at having allies in certain parts of the world or at providing us with oil or other natural resources as a result of our backing any given nation’s government—we cannot expect to simply straighten the tangled mess we have created with such policies by doing an about face and abruptly deciding to do the right thing. Sudden changes, however right they may be could have drastic consequences. Most of us know what the right thing to do is, by American standards.

We should only be backing movements toward democracy in our foreign relations with other nations. One mistake we have consistently made is that we expect that all democracies should and would take form as the American clone. This is absurd. Democracy takes the shape and personality of the population which embraces it. Our government didn’t start off perfect or great and we should not be surprised to see other fledgling democracies get off to a jagged start. It is folly to expect a democracy in, say, Iraq, to take the same basic fundamental shape as our own. Iraqis have different values, different expectations of themselves and different goals in life than Americans do. Their definition of the difference between right and wrong isn’t even close to ours.

So after backing the Shah of Iran and Noriega of Panama, why do we expect the world to take us seriously when we berate China for human rights abuses? Nevertheless, putting the United States back on the world map as a champion of human rights and what is right over what is wrong is one of the tasks that Obama wants to do. One question is: How do we do that while fighting a war against terrorism sponsored by radical Islam? Do we need places like Gitmo to accomplish all of this? Did the previous administration simply decide to take short cuts in order to provide a winning solution to our war against terrorism? Is this a cut and dried issue? Is the line visible, or is there a large gray area where the difference between right and wrong is not so clear?

It is clear that Obama knows this is a complicated issue at best. Placing a one year deadline on closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay makes a lot of sense, no matter how badly many people believe it should be closed immediately. Stopping torture as a method of obtaining information is the right thing to do, but what should be done about the prisoners, many of whom are the most dangerous people alive today? Whatever we do about all of this we must stay focused about winning this war. (Not the war in Iraq, but the war on terrorism.) However this is handled we must not jeopardize our national security. We have not been revisited by another terrorist attack on American soil since the September 11, 2001 attacks. It is no accident that this is the case.

This security must continue and even get better in spite of the fact that we are closing down Gitmo. Is it doable? Yes. Can it be done without stripping us of our liberties? Yes. Will radical Islam use our liberties and freedoms against us? They have already demonstrated that they will. These are solid challenges and will test our focus as a nation. Our resolve is important here, for we cannot accomplish this shift to doing what is right in spite of our needs unless we stay resolute.

Obama Is In, And Change Is Coming

2009-01-21T21:05:00.002-07:00

In a call center in Denver, Colorado where 400 employees answer help calls when people phone in questions concerning their health insurance coverage, all of the phones went silent at 10:00AM. The call center turned on televisions so the employees could watch the new president take the oath of office and deliver his inaugural address to a crowd of an estimated 1.4 million people. Not one of the 400 phones in the call center rang during the ceremony. After Obama’s address, all of the over 400 call center employees erupted in cheers.

At a traffic light in the north Denver suburban community of Westminster, Colorado a car radio blared out an opened window and into the street, a broadcast of the inaugural address. People went to Washington from all over the country for the privilege of standing out in the cold so they can see the inauguration. Much of America came to a halt while Barak Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. For the first time in decades America elected a president who is not from a wealthy background. The entire nation stood still, dead in their tracks to witness the inauguration of this man who has inspired our trust. We don’t really know why but we don’t simply trust him, we have been awaiting his arrival at the white house as though he were a messiah.

After a long night of celebrations he began very early the next morning and issued executive orders that banned any former white house staff member from lobbying the white house for any reason and froze all staff wages and salaries. He dug right in when no one would have blamed him if he were to have spent the entire day sleeping after having been up almost the entire previous night attending all of his inaugural balls.

An overwhelming majority of the population of this nation has placed their faith in Obama to do something positive to address our weak economy, our damaged way of life and our decaying ability to make ends meet. We have all been stricken by a daunting feeling that we as a nation are in decline. Much of the reason is because we have been fighting a very expensive war and the time has come when we now have to pay the bill. But it’s worse.

We have a health care system that makes money by not taking care of us, a national security system that protects us by stripping us of our rights and freedoms and a banking system that although they have received billions in bailout funds they have no intention of changing their business model. Instead of using these funds to inject life back into our economy as the bailout was intended to produce, they are sitting on the money for future use in mergers and acquisitions.

People’s life savings are dwindling and their ability to be prepared for old age is slipping away. Those of us who have lost jobs cannot even find a good replacement job. What jobs we do find take months to land and pay so little that we have to find a second job just to keep from losing the house. We have slipped from a nation of two job households into a nation of four job households. Husbands and wives are both working two jobs just to be broke all of the time.

We are giving up our gym memberships, our eating out once a week, our Saturday night movies—and for many, even our cable or dish television service just to make ends meet at the end of the month. On top of all of this, we are making progress in the wrong war and losing the one we should be fighting. We are in a dismal fix as a country.

Yet in the shadow of all of this there were people celebrating all over the country when Obama was sworn in. There was elation everywhere. We are so ready for this change and from the looks of things it has begun. It will be good to see America back on its feet again. And like many others, I can hardly wait.

Hamas is No Innocent Victim

2009-01-18T17:39:00.001-07:00

In the wake of the almost three week war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza it looks like for now the two sides are backing off from each other. After reading continuous accounts on Al Jazeera of the relentless Israeli attacks on Hamas and the resulting civilian casualties I am amazed that I see in their coverage no evidence of disgust at the Hamas practice of hiding their weapons and armaments in public schools and hospitals to create as much collateral damage as possible within their own community. Israeli commanders have stated that Hamas first placed themselves in those critical positions; then they launched their missiles into Israeli neighborhoods to provoke the predictable aftermath.

They are either stupid enough to believe they are safe because they are hiding in the schools, hospitals and other places full of civilians and children—or they are cunningly placing Israel in the position of having to take out innocent people in order to hit Hamas. It is quite crafty really. If Israel doesn’t target them it looks weak, which can be exploited by Hamas as a propaganda victory. If Israel targets Hamas in spite of where they are hiding, Hamas can simply let Al Jazeera broadcast all the bloody pictures and films of the dead Palestinian children and wait for the rest of the world to cry out for both sides to stop their conflict.

For the United States to think it can intervene and bring about peace in the Middle East is folly, really. Until Palestinians are willing to admit that Israel has a right to exist, and until Israel is willing to share its territory some how, some way with Palestine in such a way that both sides recognize the need to coexist—this conflict will have no end in sight. And this is not news. How they come up with this solution may not even be something that we in America can envision at this point. In fact it is entirely possible that the United States can only make matters worse over there no matter what we try. But until Israel and Palestine find a way to live together on what is Holy land to both of them this conflict will continue.

According to reports of this war, both sides are resorting to very crafty tactics against each other. Hamas has been trying to bait Israeli forces into entering buildings which have been set to blow up when entered, and Israel, being aware of this is simply blowing up the buildings without entering them at all. When the world cries outrage at either side for violating the rules of war they are forgetting the most basic axioms of warfare. And that is that war is basically the art of deception.

Nevertheless, it was Hamas who fired rockets into Israel which triggered this three week long Israeli attack. And it was Hamas who used their own citizens as sacrifices for this conflict without asking for them to volunteer as martyrs. By western standards this looks bloodthirsty and ruthless. But it was also coldly calculated to take advantage of Al Jazeera’s pre-disposition to slant their coverage in favor of anything that is anti-Israeli. Hamas may not realize it but they are becoming more and more like the western world that they hate. They are manipulating the press and using it to achieve their political goals. It doesn’t get any more western than that.

Trustworthy President Good Candidate for Line Item Veto

2009-01-11T17:53:00.002-07:00

So far it looks like Barack Obama is getting off to exactly the type of a start he promised the American public when he was campaigning. His chosen cabinet is a mixture of Democrats and Republicans who collectively form a body that Obama will be able to rely upon for quality advice about almost anything. Like many Americans I have my reservations about some of his choices for cabinet posts, but it is clear that Obama wants a cross section of ideas coming at him from his advisors.

Contrary to previous newly elected presidents he began working on his plans and programs immediately after the election results came in. It is uplifting to see this at a time when the nation is experiencing such a multitude of problems. Even more refreshing is the sense that Obama is a sincere, honest public servant who has what is best for the nation at heart. Although he hasn’t taken office yet he appears to be working harder as his term approaches than it looked like Bush had worked in the entire time he was president. To be honest, we must admit that this is an illusion. Obama is maintaining a much higher profile than Bush ever attempted. This doesn’t mean Bush didn’t work, but it does reflect Obama’s intent of transparency.

It will be a nice change to have a president who discloses how things get done, especially after having had for the last eight years someone who relied so heavily upon secrecy. This is actually a simple difference in how they operate, but it produces a tremendous amount of trust—and the American public desperately needs to be able to trust its leader today. In fact, having a leader we can trust is the only way some of the things we need to do will get done.

One thing that would greatly help our system would be the line item veto. With this one tool a President can prevent countless pork from being shoe-horned into law by taking a piggy back ride on some bill that doesn’t have anything to do with what that pork issue is about. The line item veto could be just the scalpel the President needs to cut extraneous issues from new law proposals. It would also allow the President to sign into law any bill that makes perfect sense for America which he would normally have to veto because of some non-related rider that has been tacked onto the bill.

Without the line item veto any political party can set the president up to fail by attaching pork barrel projects or extraneous financing issues to a bill that the President had fostered and would normally sign into law, but would be forced to veto because of the riders on the bill. It would also increase the President’s power in government. No congressional body in the past has been willing to pass the line item veto into law because they were afraid he would use it. It is the “let’s regulate ourselves by granting someone more power over us” gambit. But if it were passed, the line item veto would be good for the country.

Before the line item veto can come into play we would have to have a trustworthy President. Not merely a President that America can trust, but one that both parties will trust beyond the party line platforms. We have had them before but it has been a long time. And the cold war of palace politics that our system’s design was supposed to prevent has become so ingrained in each party’s makeup that Senators and Congressmen/Congresswomen have been reduced to little more than warriors for their parties. This takes up so much of their time that they can hardly get any constructive work done.

Part of the change that Obama talked about while campaigning was to change the very nature of how things get done. It takes way too long to get a bill passed now because of backroom deal- making and horse trading for votes for this and that. This amounts to logrolling at its best, or worst, as the case may be. Most economists will tell that you can always trust congress to do the wrong thing. This is why Keynesian economics hasn’t worked well in the past. When it was a good idea for the government to spend money to stimulate the economy, it has always taken so long in committee for congress to produce spending measures that by the time the spending hits the economy, the economic cycle had turned and the need for the injection of money into the system had disappeared. Therefore the spending wound up feeding inflation instead of countering the recession.

In the hands of a conscientious President the line item veto could go a long way toward streamlining this process so that the original intent of the economic stimulus package could be realized. It is still a long shot but if anyone can get the line item veto, it is probably Obama. It will be interesting to see what’s happening with the economy as Obama’s presidency proceeds.

Our Broken Healthcare System

2009-01-01T17:41:00.008-07:00

America’s Healthcare system is perhaps the most corrupt and broken of all advanced societies. Universities and business are allowed to patent the results of research even if that research has been funded by the U.S. Government. This was made possible by the Bayh-Dole act of 1980. Prior to this, all government funded research results were owned by the government and thus part of the public domain. It was available to anyone. Little by little our health care has been delivered directly into the hands of corporations. The only problem with this is that corporations run for profit, and that drives up the cost. And like all corporations, those in the health care industry spend lots of money to insure their profitability.

Health insurance companies and HMOs have full time employees whose only job is to find a way to either deny claims for legitimate and needed care or try to get the money back from those who got the care or operation. Doctors are employed by those same insurance companies for the sole purpose of finding a way to deny claims. The more claim denials they produce, the higher their bonuses are. On May 30, 1996, Dr. Linda Pino testified before congress that as an employee for Humana she denied coverage for a necessary operation that caused a man’s death—and she did not get into any trouble for this act. In fact she was fast tracked to higher income and more responsibility. Insurance companies make money by not covering us and by denying coverage to us, not by providing the protection we thought we had. Because health insurance companies and HMOs have made so much money they now have such deep pockets that doctors and hospitals have been free to charge more, so costs soar.

It is not just the insurance companies. Not only are we scrutinized when we enter a hospital for proof of insurance then prioritized for treatment (or not) based upon our coverage, hospitals are now refusing to provide necessary treatments to patients if the cost of those treatments is greater than what the patient's health insurance will cover. As health costs increase this problem gets worse. As long as our health care is in the hands of corporations we will face this problem. Managers and CEOs of hospitals and insurance companies are no different than leaders of any other type of corporation. They must answer to a board of directors and show significant profits if they wish to keep their position. In fact they must show progressively increasing profit levels and must continuously come up with new and creative revenue streams or they will be replaced by someone who can. As long as profit is part of our healthcare system rising medical costs will continue to outpace inflation.

The problem is even more complex. The FDA has managed to get enacted into law that only a drug can cure disease. If you are a physician and you find that a change in diet combined with exercise can cure a particular disease, you cannot make that claim to the public no matter how many double blind studies you have conducted to find out whether or not your treatment will work. If you do make such a claim you will in all likelihood be sued by the FDA for making this claim. After all, making such a claim is illegal.

Is that how the FDA is protecting our interests? Before a new drug hits the market for consumers it must first be tested and approved by the FDA. Does this new drug have to be tested against the old drug currently being used for the same illness, disease or symptom? Surprisingly it doesn’t. The test only has to prove that the new drug is better than a placebo, which by definition is a fake. So the new drug simply must prove to be better than nothing at all. Any doctor will tell you that this is a very low standard. So now we can add the pharmaceutical companies into the mix. So considering all of these complications it is easy to see some of the reasons why our healthcare system is not working well.

There are those who would argue that without involving private enterprise there would be no impetus to provide progress. They would argue that most progress is a result of competition. In many industries that would be true. But has it proved to be the case in public education? How about with police and fire protection or our military protection? And where do we draw the line? Do we open up our national security to private and competitive armies? How about our police and fire protection? Should we introduce competition into our security infrastructure?

Many people would argue that national health care would be an unrealistic fix to our system. They refer to a national healthcare system as “socialized” medicine. By coining the word “socialized” in their argument they are using the perfect euphemism to fight the onset of national healthcare. What better phrase could they use to provoke national fear of our society evolving toward communism than to call national healthcare socialized medicine? So why isn’t America among the top ten healthiest nations in the world? Why aren’t we even in the top 25? And why is the United States the only remaining western democracy who has yet to absorb healthcare into its infrastructure? I can tell you this. The nation that ranks number one in healthcare for their population does have national healthcare. So does number two and number three.

Would creating a national healthcare system and including it as part of our infrastructure be a perfect solution? Probably not, but it would be better for our collective national health than what we have now. Do the countries that have national healthcare like Canada, France and England have a flawless healthcare system? No they don’t, but at least their citizenry is not falling victim to the never ending push for profits that Americans face. Yes, national health care must be funded from somewhere, and yes, that funding will come from our taxes. But right now many people are paying hundreds of dollars per month on prescriptions alone. Add to that the ever rising cost of health insurance and the diminishing coverage of our policies, coupled with increasing deductibles and growing maximum out of pocket expenses and what is left of the typical paycheck? It is entirely possible that although national healthcare would increase our taxes, it could increase them by less than what we are already paying—for what amounts to less than adequate care.

On The Right Track

2008-12-20T15:06:00.009-07:00

Conservatives are thinking that Barak Obama is making a mistake jumping into the fray so quickly to prepare his economic package. Although I am sure Obama would like to have the entire package in place in time to launch it right after the inauguration, it would be quite a feet indeed to have that much work accomplished in that short of a time span. Clearly, Obama is wasting no time at all in preparing a team so it can hit the ground running as soon as possible after taking office. And much to his credit he is just as clearly considering more than one front, evidenced by his appointment of prominent scientists to deal with the environmental issues that have been neglected for the last eight years by the outgoing administration.

Nonetheless, conservatives still fear his direction will have less effect on economic recovery than what they feel would be the case if he were to take a different tack. What a surprise that the right would take that view. The beltway boys on Fox news discussed their reservations that the proposed tax cuts are going to the wrong people. They follow the conservative philosophy embraced by Republicans which has always favored tax cuts for those who had the ability to use the savings to re-invest in more plant and equipment or ventures which would in turn result in more jobs, thereby fostering a more thorough boost to a lagging economy.

This view was much more realistic during the industrial age than it is now in this age of globalization. A major problem with this outlook now is that the wealthy are not investing in such a way that will foster job growth here in the U.S. With labor costs higher in America than anywhere else in the world, owners of the means of production are not motivated to sink their funds into plants and operations here. As long as their prime motivation is to increase profits and as long as the CEOs and decision makers must answer to boards of directors and stockholders who collectively insist on positive financial performance, they will not sink money into creating costly American jobs when they can build in Mexico, India, Taiwan, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Korea and a host of other locations where the average worker can live high on the hog while making wages that are lower than what we here in America consider to be at poverty level.

As long as globalization is part of the picture and as long as Americans are on the top of the wage and cost of living scale we are going to experience the pain of economic contraction that comes with the world economy’s process of seeking its own form of equilibrium. The smaller economies of the world are experiencing upward pressure on wages and costs of living at the same time we Americans are experiencing downward pressure on the same factors. Until the world’s economy reaches some semblance of economic equilibrium, this process will continue. And as long as these conditions prevail, economic recovery here in America will not be painlessly achieved by blindly giving tax relief only to the wealthy.

Yes, the middle class and the poor will spend the money differently than the wealthy will. But they will spend it here. Yes, they will spend much of it on consumer goods made in China and other places previously mentioned here, just as the wealthy are spending investment dollars in those same places to maximize their profits. Globalization is not going away. Neither can it be ignored by planners of an intended economic recovery.

Obama knows this, and is surrounding himself with a philosophical mix of competent advisors and planners so he can come up with a realistic plan to address the most difficult problems ever faced in American government. All accounts at this point indicate that he wants to hear good advice even though it may be contrary to what his current thinking may be. Were that not the case he wouldn't be placing Republicans in his cabinet over defense and transportation. If this continues he will have a much different persona in the White House than his predecessor. Wouldn’t that be a pleasant change?

Out With the Old, In With the New

2008-12-17T19:58:00.003-07:00

Now that we are to have a new president we are all expecting changes. I expect most of those changes to be for the better, even though I realize that no president can accomplish everything he or she wants to. When Obama gave his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention in Denver he outlined a long list of goals. I wish him the best of luck in accomplishing what he can. He certainly has a full plate of challenges to deal with.

Since I will be spending a lot of time and space writing about how things go for the new administration, I have a thing or two to state going in. I do not like how we have become a polarized nation filled with people who are constantly looking for an excuse to brow beat the president at every chance they get. I like it when I read arguments based on facts and actual content when those arguments are expressing discontent. Shallow arguments make it seem to me that the people making those arguments are simply looking for a nail to hit with a hammer. It actually weakens their argument.

Having said that, let me state a few things about the outgoing president. I am not in his camp. Like many others, I am disappointed in the end result on the home front. Our economy is in sad shape and we are all feeling the pinch. Life for us is not going smooth at all. Bush has also alienated much of the European population with his foreign policy. But it would be folly not to admit that Bush has had some successes. Some of that was necessary and some was not. On the foreign front, he has done a little better. He toppled two evil regimes, and without firing a shot he put nuclear (not nucular) inspectors in Iran, Syria and North Korea. Those are positive accomplishments and deserve to be placed in his win column.

When we went to Afghanistan after 911 the entire country wanted it. When we went to Iraq shortly afterward the whole country believed that Saddam had the weapons of mass destruction. Many people changed their mind very quickly about that. We forget that he had them. It was Bill Clinton who first said Husein was dangerous and no one paid attention to his statements. He was certainly not chastised for saying it.

Time magazine even published a cover story about how dangerous he was. And he was at the time refusing to cooperate with the UN mandate for him to comply with full disclosure of his arsenal by certain deadlines. If the United States had refused to comply with UN deadlines on anything for any reason there would have been a world wide outcry filled with venomous accusations and disgust. But there was no such outcry concerning Iraq. The fact that no WMDs were found doesn't mean they didn't exist. We know he had them--because we sold them to him.

Anyway, we got sidetracked in Iraq and became focused on something other than what is ultimately good for us here in America. That was not good. Maybe Obama will get us back on a productive track, back to what is good for America. I certainly hope and believe he will.

So we should thank George Bush for the things he did that were right, because he did indeed do some things that were right. I am, however, still disappointed in his administration's overall performance. Like so many of us, I feel like the middle class has had to foot the bill for the agenda of the wealthy .

For some reason I trust Obama. How often can you say that about a newly elected president?