by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, September 25, 2009
The uproar over Representative Joe Wilson (R., SC) and his daring accusation shouted during President Obama’s address to Congress indicates a disturbing trend in American politics and the news coverage it generates. It seems that the streets and avenues of our capital city were so greatly shaken by Wilson’s two-word outcry – “You lie!” – that emergency measures had to be taken to prevent wholesale destruction of our society and the defilement of those hallowed halls of Congress.
As if Joe Wilson’s words had somehow represented a huge belly flop upon the glass-like smooth surface of our Congress’ moral and ethical swimming pool, our leaders immediately issued an official rebuke, which was approved, oddly enough, along party lines. It apparently does not break the surface of said pool if one fails to follow the tax codes that they sign into law for all of the other citizens, nor does it seem to matter if you solicit the services of prostitutes or hide thousands of bribery dollars in your refrigerator.
I am aware that all things should be done decently and in order if we are to maintain a modicum of civilized debate. I do not advocate disrespect for authority, nor do I applaud when someone demonstrates a lack of esteem toward others by shouting expletives or derogatory slang terms about a person’s ethnicity.
Therefore, I think that Mr. Wilson’s actions were not helpful to the discussion on health care, and, according to a recent interview, he concurs with that assessment. In fact, he realized his mistake and accepted full responsibility within minutes of leaving the chamber. He took the initiative to call Rahm Emanuel with the intent of having him deliver a heartfelt apology to Obama – an apology that was acknowledged and accepted the following day.
That should have been the end of the matter, right?
Foolish we are if we think that this congress should let this pass between the two men involved. No sir, we must broaden this to encompass our society as a whole. We must take precious time and waste taxpayers’ dollars to issue a statement that carries no weight nor serves any other purpose. It will not make the other members of congress more respectful and it does nothing to clean up the ethical cesspool in which many of its members continue to swim.
What then did it accomplish and why was it so important to get this formal rebuke in the Congressional Record? Well, I believe it accomplished the goal of keeping some vital issues off the front page and leading news stories, and putting trivial matters front and center; rather than addressing the issue that inspired Wilson to question Obama’s veracity, i.e. whether or not there were sufficient firewalls within the proposed bill to prevent illegal aliens from jumping on the “free health care” bandwagon.
One inconvenient truth that is lost in this uproar is that prior to Joe Wilson’s challenge, there was not clear language within the bill that would preclude those who dishonor our laws at the border from drinking at the same trough as those who follow the legal procedures to gain citizenship in this great nation.
Another consequence to this endeavor within the Democrat leadership is to use Joe Wilson as a convenient whipping boy. It is their hope that they can destroy the reputation and political career of a man who served his country with honor; and who raised four sons who also served or are currently serving on the fields of battle. But more than that, they desire to squelch all political speech that runs counter to their ideals.
The other disturbing aspect of this episode is that some self-righteous politicians have taken the opportunity to stand before cameras and microphones and wax poetic about how Wilson somehow represents an undercurrent of racism. They charge that any person whose skin does not contain the same level of melanin as our president’s skin must be racist if they speak critically of his policies. They also claim that the mass demonstration of concerned citizens in our nation’s capital last week, and the ones who stand to speak out at town hall meetings, are all racially motivated.
This is a revived form of McCarthyism in which accusations of racism or even unreasoned opposition (Party of NO) can be thrown about without merit or proof, and the accused is burdened with proving them false. If this policy of hindering speech and questioning the motives of critics continues, our nation will suffer continual division.
Friday, September 25, 2009
The Decline of Civility
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, September 25, 2009
The outburst from Joe Wilson during the president’s address to a joint session of Congress was troubling, but it did not exist in a vacuum.
Recently, the New Yorker magazine printed a story on Robert Frank’s “The Americans,” a photographic collection that criticized many, at the time, for presenting a negative commentary on American society and lifestyle. Frank’s photos, in fact, simply captured moments of truth and reality that can sometimes be painful to those who seek to ignore their own blemishes.
Today, the painful truth is that there is an ugliness that is emerging in our culture. We can choose to ignore it, or deny it, but it is becoming clear that our baser instincts are dominating our social structure. Important and complex issues have been reduced to the equivalent of points in a sporting event, as pundits and talking heads seek the upper hand at any cost.
Many have referred to racism as a potential factor to explain the nature of the current hostility throughout the country. Perhaps people are searching for the impetus that has driven so many of the privileged to the streets with such intensity of emotion.
The fact is that the fiery town hall meetings and raucous rallies have drawn few people of color. And, some of the signs and t-shirts on display have connoted racism and xenophobic hatred of immigrants, even if they don’t explicitly depict slurs.
Some stand up in objection and mock offense at words from people like former President Jimmy Carter. Some argue that in the post-racial Obama era, racism has been officially declared over. However, some of these same detractors project a tone in their criticism of Obama that appears infected with racial prejudice.
Most of us would deny any implication that we have racist inclinations. For instance, I consider myself to be forward-thinking and open-minded. I am sensitive to prejudice and would like to describe myself as colorblind. Yet, if I employ the same honest introspection I spoke of above, the ugliness of racism appears in my reactions to the world around me. As with the other day in Elmira, I saw an Oldsmobile with custom wheel rims and though the windows were too darkly tinted for me to tell, I envisioned the driver as African-American. I am not proud of the presumptions then conjured up by my subconscious about the character of this unknown fellow driver. Again, this past weekend when visiting Erie, Pennsylvania with my son, I found myself making judgments about the neighborhood through which we were walking, based solely on the faces of those we met on the street.
While I don’t believe that racism is entirely behind the protests going on currently, and while I believe the accusations leveled against protesters in some ways muddy the waters even more, I do think we need to accept the truth that we do not live in post-racial times.
But racism only contributes to part of the animosity that is fueling the fire of fury in the U.S. A general decay of decorum has left us rude and crass. The divisiveness that drives us apart has spiraled into a dark tone that has blotted out the light that would otherwise illuminate the facts at issue.
What I see in rallies and town halls is a rage leveled at political parties and their members. I see hatred of certain politicians and blind praise of others. I see the win or lose mentality overshadow discussion of real issues that affect real people.
It is no surprise that society has regressed to this point. We have lost the common sense of respect that my generation grew up with. When I was a kid, the president’s picture was on the wall of every classroom. Our parents would not have even thought of preventing us from listening to a speech given by him.
Today our athletes hurl language and threats at officials that would make the infamous John McEnroe blush. Today, we aren’t outraged that a musical artist rudely interrupts another’s award acceptance speech with an appeal against the results. Today, we accept defamation of character on baseless grounds and hold no one to account for the attacks they wage.
The right to free speech is sacred and vital to democracy. Sports arenas and entertainment venues are immaterial to the real problems that need solving in most of our lives. But as civility perishes, those issues are drowned out by the din of shouted insults and bumper sticker jibes. With the demise of decorum comes the death of hope and change.
We will be left with the status quo, which many of us can ill afford. We will be left with a nation divided into blue and red. We will be left fighting over empty ideals and meaningless ideologies.
From Broader View Weekly, September 25, 2009
The outburst from Joe Wilson during the president’s address to a joint session of Congress was troubling, but it did not exist in a vacuum.
Recently, the New Yorker magazine printed a story on Robert Frank’s “The Americans,” a photographic collection that criticized many, at the time, for presenting a negative commentary on American society and lifestyle. Frank’s photos, in fact, simply captured moments of truth and reality that can sometimes be painful to those who seek to ignore their own blemishes.
Today, the painful truth is that there is an ugliness that is emerging in our culture. We can choose to ignore it, or deny it, but it is becoming clear that our baser instincts are dominating our social structure. Important and complex issues have been reduced to the equivalent of points in a sporting event, as pundits and talking heads seek the upper hand at any cost.
Many have referred to racism as a potential factor to explain the nature of the current hostility throughout the country. Perhaps people are searching for the impetus that has driven so many of the privileged to the streets with such intensity of emotion.
The fact is that the fiery town hall meetings and raucous rallies have drawn few people of color. And, some of the signs and t-shirts on display have connoted racism and xenophobic hatred of immigrants, even if they don’t explicitly depict slurs.
Some stand up in objection and mock offense at words from people like former President Jimmy Carter. Some argue that in the post-racial Obama era, racism has been officially declared over. However, some of these same detractors project a tone in their criticism of Obama that appears infected with racial prejudice.
Most of us would deny any implication that we have racist inclinations. For instance, I consider myself to be forward-thinking and open-minded. I am sensitive to prejudice and would like to describe myself as colorblind. Yet, if I employ the same honest introspection I spoke of above, the ugliness of racism appears in my reactions to the world around me. As with the other day in Elmira, I saw an Oldsmobile with custom wheel rims and though the windows were too darkly tinted for me to tell, I envisioned the driver as African-American. I am not proud of the presumptions then conjured up by my subconscious about the character of this unknown fellow driver. Again, this past weekend when visiting Erie, Pennsylvania with my son, I found myself making judgments about the neighborhood through which we were walking, based solely on the faces of those we met on the street.
While I don’t believe that racism is entirely behind the protests going on currently, and while I believe the accusations leveled against protesters in some ways muddy the waters even more, I do think we need to accept the truth that we do not live in post-racial times.
But racism only contributes to part of the animosity that is fueling the fire of fury in the U.S. A general decay of decorum has left us rude and crass. The divisiveness that drives us apart has spiraled into a dark tone that has blotted out the light that would otherwise illuminate the facts at issue.
What I see in rallies and town halls is a rage leveled at political parties and their members. I see hatred of certain politicians and blind praise of others. I see the win or lose mentality overshadow discussion of real issues that affect real people.
It is no surprise that society has regressed to this point. We have lost the common sense of respect that my generation grew up with. When I was a kid, the president’s picture was on the wall of every classroom. Our parents would not have even thought of preventing us from listening to a speech given by him.
Today our athletes hurl language and threats at officials that would make the infamous John McEnroe blush. Today, we aren’t outraged that a musical artist rudely interrupts another’s award acceptance speech with an appeal against the results. Today, we accept defamation of character on baseless grounds and hold no one to account for the attacks they wage.
The right to free speech is sacred and vital to democracy. Sports arenas and entertainment venues are immaterial to the real problems that need solving in most of our lives. But as civility perishes, those issues are drowned out by the din of shouted insults and bumper sticker jibes. With the demise of decorum comes the death of hope and change.
We will be left with the status quo, which many of us can ill afford. We will be left with a nation divided into blue and red. We will be left fighting over empty ideals and meaningless ideologies.
Aligning Our Interests
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, September 11, 2009
I must begin this week’s column with a confession that I am no expert in the subject of climate change. I don’t have a strong scientific background or credentials that would give me any authority on the topic.
That said, I find it frustrating to hear some pundits ranting about how the cool temperatures of this July and August disprove theories of global warming. “Those silly tree-hugging environmentalists want us to give up our SUVs for this hoax that is plainly untrue,” they more or less say as the polar ice caps melt and storms rage and typhoons engulf entire cities. These talking heads spout their hype as studies are released about dangerously high levels of greenhouse gasses.
While some may choose to ignore the inconvenient truth of climate change (or worse, attempt to disprove it), I feel confident that mankind is continuing to contribute to the atmospheric pollution that will eventually kill millions, lay waste global coastal regions and devastate our planet. The situation reminds me of something the late George Carlin once said. Speaking of climate change, he mentioned that people were always saying “save the planet.” He assured his audience that the planet was going to be just fine, but that we people were all going to eventually go away.
At a recent talk given by author Michael Dowd (Thank God for Evolution), I asked him if he was optimistic that we would be able to avoid self-destruction, he answered in the affirmative but added “if not, my money is on cockroaches.” His point was that “low” forms like bacteria and insects stand a better chance of survival than we advanced humans.
Part of Dowd’s prescription for survival was the realization that interests need to converge. Our survival as a species relies on our ability to accept the fact that we are all in this together and that our fates are intertwined. In order to address the problem of climate change (and other issues that threaten our existence) we must bring corporate interests, political interests, global interests, human interests, and environmental interests in line. This requires giving corporations, governments and individuals incentives to do the right thing. Unfortunately this is not easily done.
One attempt at this may be the cap and trade bill that passed in the House of Representatives and is now before the Senate. Its stated purpose is to provide incentives for businesses to operate greener by setting limits on carbon emissions and allowing heavy polluters to purchase credits from operators that produce smaller carbon footprints.
The problem with this legislation, and the problem with much other legislation that seeks to do the right thing, is that the interests discussed above are not yet aligned. This is further complicated by a systemic imbalance of those interests. Interests of the individual lag far behind political interests and even farther behind those of corporations. Last in line, quite far behind the interest of individuals is the environment. The fact that our current two-party political system is so firmly entangled in a corporate death-grip makes it plain whose interests will win out.
The current debate over health care reform illustrates this imbalance. The GOP has been successful in shifting the narrative to corporate concerns. I remember hearing Senator Chuck Grassley interviewed on Fox News before the August recess. While he discussed the proposal that was before the House at the time for nearly ten minutes, he didn’t once mention the interests of the uninsured or the shortfalls of the current system. What he did mention three times was that the health care industry represented one-third of the economy. The next morning on NPR, Grassley softened his rhetoric a bit but reminded listeners of the potential impact on the economic interests of the corporate medical industry. And many politicians and pundits on both sides of the political spectrum have been reminding Americans that we cannot afford to overhaul health care in the current recession.
Likewise the argument against cap and trade (as well as any other climate-related legislation) is that it will kill jobs and pass an economic burden on to consumers as a virtual energy tax. I believe that legislation can produce green jobs if properly executed; however, I believe it is unlikely that corporate America will provide the brain power or the impetus to bring these jobs to the market. And without corporate support, there is little will within Congress to facilitate change.
Lobbying is an important part of our legislative process as a democratic republic. The question is which lobby wields the greatest influence. Currently, corporate lobbies are an overwhelming force and the loudest voice on the floor. Part of the problem is the broken electoral process that requires so much capital that even well-intentioned public servants find themselves beholden to energy companies and the like. Therefore, the voice of the individual and the concerns of the environment are neglected.
Another part of the problem is a different inconvenient truth. We as citizens fail to see our interests threatened by climate change. Or, if we do recognize the threat we largely choose to defer sacrifice until tomorrow rather than alter our lifestyles. Until we as individuals recognize that we share common interests with nature and the environment, effective and meaningful climate-related legislation will not come.
From Broader View Weekly, September 11, 2009
I must begin this week’s column with a confession that I am no expert in the subject of climate change. I don’t have a strong scientific background or credentials that would give me any authority on the topic.
That said, I find it frustrating to hear some pundits ranting about how the cool temperatures of this July and August disprove theories of global warming. “Those silly tree-hugging environmentalists want us to give up our SUVs for this hoax that is plainly untrue,” they more or less say as the polar ice caps melt and storms rage and typhoons engulf entire cities. These talking heads spout their hype as studies are released about dangerously high levels of greenhouse gasses.
While some may choose to ignore the inconvenient truth of climate change (or worse, attempt to disprove it), I feel confident that mankind is continuing to contribute to the atmospheric pollution that will eventually kill millions, lay waste global coastal regions and devastate our planet. The situation reminds me of something the late George Carlin once said. Speaking of climate change, he mentioned that people were always saying “save the planet.” He assured his audience that the planet was going to be just fine, but that we people were all going to eventually go away.
At a recent talk given by author Michael Dowd (Thank God for Evolution), I asked him if he was optimistic that we would be able to avoid self-destruction, he answered in the affirmative but added “if not, my money is on cockroaches.” His point was that “low” forms like bacteria and insects stand a better chance of survival than we advanced humans.
Part of Dowd’s prescription for survival was the realization that interests need to converge. Our survival as a species relies on our ability to accept the fact that we are all in this together and that our fates are intertwined. In order to address the problem of climate change (and other issues that threaten our existence) we must bring corporate interests, political interests, global interests, human interests, and environmental interests in line. This requires giving corporations, governments and individuals incentives to do the right thing. Unfortunately this is not easily done.
One attempt at this may be the cap and trade bill that passed in the House of Representatives and is now before the Senate. Its stated purpose is to provide incentives for businesses to operate greener by setting limits on carbon emissions and allowing heavy polluters to purchase credits from operators that produce smaller carbon footprints.
The problem with this legislation, and the problem with much other legislation that seeks to do the right thing, is that the interests discussed above are not yet aligned. This is further complicated by a systemic imbalance of those interests. Interests of the individual lag far behind political interests and even farther behind those of corporations. Last in line, quite far behind the interest of individuals is the environment. The fact that our current two-party political system is so firmly entangled in a corporate death-grip makes it plain whose interests will win out.
The current debate over health care reform illustrates this imbalance. The GOP has been successful in shifting the narrative to corporate concerns. I remember hearing Senator Chuck Grassley interviewed on Fox News before the August recess. While he discussed the proposal that was before the House at the time for nearly ten minutes, he didn’t once mention the interests of the uninsured or the shortfalls of the current system. What he did mention three times was that the health care industry represented one-third of the economy. The next morning on NPR, Grassley softened his rhetoric a bit but reminded listeners of the potential impact on the economic interests of the corporate medical industry. And many politicians and pundits on both sides of the political spectrum have been reminding Americans that we cannot afford to overhaul health care in the current recession.
Likewise the argument against cap and trade (as well as any other climate-related legislation) is that it will kill jobs and pass an economic burden on to consumers as a virtual energy tax. I believe that legislation can produce green jobs if properly executed; however, I believe it is unlikely that corporate America will provide the brain power or the impetus to bring these jobs to the market. And without corporate support, there is little will within Congress to facilitate change.
Lobbying is an important part of our legislative process as a democratic republic. The question is which lobby wields the greatest influence. Currently, corporate lobbies are an overwhelming force and the loudest voice on the floor. Part of the problem is the broken electoral process that requires so much capital that even well-intentioned public servants find themselves beholden to energy companies and the like. Therefore, the voice of the individual and the concerns of the environment are neglected.
Another part of the problem is a different inconvenient truth. We as citizens fail to see our interests threatened by climate change. Or, if we do recognize the threat we largely choose to defer sacrifice until tomorrow rather than alter our lifestyles. Until we as individuals recognize that we share common interests with nature and the environment, effective and meaningful climate-related legislation will not come.
The Real Danger Zone
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, September 11, 2009
First of all, let me say that I applaud my fellow columnist’s candor when he states his lack of credentials and his weak scientific background in the area of global climate change. I only wish that our legislators (and even our former vice president) shared his honesty. Sadly though, it seems that they feel as if their position of authority grants them authority to speak on every issue with the same weight of authenticity. That alone would be sad, but it goes from sad to bad when they pass legislation based upon that false sense of authority.
I would love to take the opportunity to debate the validity of the “evidence” used by Gore and others who take on the Chicken Little role, running to and fro, clucking about a falling sky and a shrinking ice cap. However, I feel this is not the place or time for that debate. Suffice it to say that for every expert they hold up, I could find two experts to stand behind me in opposition to them.
Also, before I go on, I must say that I truly love our planet, and I gladly pay the extra fees for my hunting licenses and ammunition to help preserve its natural areas and its wildlife. I believe she is one of the most unique planets created by our benevolent Creator. She is miraculously designed and wonderfully appointed for the purpose of sustaining life. I abhor any who would willfully defile her face or avariciously waste her resources. I am in favor of conservation and I would gladly add my voice in condemnation of those who pollute or destroy our environment.
My intent here is not to fight over who loves our earth more or who is most diligent in its protection. I am writing today to warn you of a very real and verifiable danger to our earth and to our economy.
I am speaking of the legislation passed by the House of Representatives this past June known as HR 2454, the Waxman-Markey Clean Energy Bill. By a narrow 219 – 212 vote, our representatives signed on to a bill that, according to Waxman’s website, would revitalize our economy with the creation of millions of “green” jobs (as opposed to what? Blue or red jobs?), increase our national security, and preserve our planet by reducing the pollution that causes global warming. Okay, sounds good, right? Well, let’s examine this legislation a little more closely.
To begin with, those three short premises listed above required over 1,200 pages of legalese to delineate and once again, as with the other voluminous bills produced by this Congress, few of the signees have taken on the responsibility of reading it before attaching our names, by proxy, to it.
I don’t have the space here to detail all of the dangers in this bill, so I will highlight a couple and hope it encourages a few of you to investigate my claims and to speak to our senators if those claims concern you.
This bill will create another large government bureaucracy that will oversee the daily operations of almost every business in our nation. This alone would stifle job creation and hinder productivity, when our nation needs an increase of both to help us out of this recession. The pages and pages of regulations and incomprehensible procedures would require most corporations to spend valuable employee hours and untold legal fees in an effort to comply with burdens that foreign competitors would not have to carry. This extra cost would be passed on to domestic consumers and, by extension, make foreign products even more attractive. Our economy would suffer and job losses would continue to escalate.
The target levels of CO2 emissions mandated by this bill are unrealistic for two reasons. The aim of the bill is to reduce CO2 emissions from fossil fuels to one billion tons from the 2005 benchmark of six billion. That relates to the level emitted during 1910, when our population was 92 million and per capita income (in 2008 dollars) was less than $7,000.00. Do they intend for us to return to those days?
The second reason this is unrealistic is the fact that even by International Energy Agency projections, the goal of 450 parts per million (ppm) on the global scale would never be reached, even if all participating nations reduced their ppm to zero!
In conclusion, it seems that this congress and administration are rushing this bill through without due research or discussion, just as they did with the stimulus bill, and as they tried to do with the health care bill. There is a tricky reason for this and it has to do with the upcoming Copenhagen climate conference in December. These lawmakers know that when Americans hear China and India refuse to limit their own emissions, we would be left holding the bag full of stifling regulatory limits upon our economy while our global competitors gleefully increase production and increase our corporate bankruptcies.
From Broader View Weekly, September 11, 2009
First of all, let me say that I applaud my fellow columnist’s candor when he states his lack of credentials and his weak scientific background in the area of global climate change. I only wish that our legislators (and even our former vice president) shared his honesty. Sadly though, it seems that they feel as if their position of authority grants them authority to speak on every issue with the same weight of authenticity. That alone would be sad, but it goes from sad to bad when they pass legislation based upon that false sense of authority.
I would love to take the opportunity to debate the validity of the “evidence” used by Gore and others who take on the Chicken Little role, running to and fro, clucking about a falling sky and a shrinking ice cap. However, I feel this is not the place or time for that debate. Suffice it to say that for every expert they hold up, I could find two experts to stand behind me in opposition to them.
Also, before I go on, I must say that I truly love our planet, and I gladly pay the extra fees for my hunting licenses and ammunition to help preserve its natural areas and its wildlife. I believe she is one of the most unique planets created by our benevolent Creator. She is miraculously designed and wonderfully appointed for the purpose of sustaining life. I abhor any who would willfully defile her face or avariciously waste her resources. I am in favor of conservation and I would gladly add my voice in condemnation of those who pollute or destroy our environment.
My intent here is not to fight over who loves our earth more or who is most diligent in its protection. I am writing today to warn you of a very real and verifiable danger to our earth and to our economy.
I am speaking of the legislation passed by the House of Representatives this past June known as HR 2454, the Waxman-Markey Clean Energy Bill. By a narrow 219 – 212 vote, our representatives signed on to a bill that, according to Waxman’s website, would revitalize our economy with the creation of millions of “green” jobs (as opposed to what? Blue or red jobs?), increase our national security, and preserve our planet by reducing the pollution that causes global warming. Okay, sounds good, right? Well, let’s examine this legislation a little more closely.
To begin with, those three short premises listed above required over 1,200 pages of legalese to delineate and once again, as with the other voluminous bills produced by this Congress, few of the signees have taken on the responsibility of reading it before attaching our names, by proxy, to it.
I don’t have the space here to detail all of the dangers in this bill, so I will highlight a couple and hope it encourages a few of you to investigate my claims and to speak to our senators if those claims concern you.
This bill will create another large government bureaucracy that will oversee the daily operations of almost every business in our nation. This alone would stifle job creation and hinder productivity, when our nation needs an increase of both to help us out of this recession. The pages and pages of regulations and incomprehensible procedures would require most corporations to spend valuable employee hours and untold legal fees in an effort to comply with burdens that foreign competitors would not have to carry. This extra cost would be passed on to domestic consumers and, by extension, make foreign products even more attractive. Our economy would suffer and job losses would continue to escalate.
The target levels of CO2 emissions mandated by this bill are unrealistic for two reasons. The aim of the bill is to reduce CO2 emissions from fossil fuels to one billion tons from the 2005 benchmark of six billion. That relates to the level emitted during 1910, when our population was 92 million and per capita income (in 2008 dollars) was less than $7,000.00. Do they intend for us to return to those days?
The second reason this is unrealistic is the fact that even by International Energy Agency projections, the goal of 450 parts per million (ppm) on the global scale would never be reached, even if all participating nations reduced their ppm to zero!
In conclusion, it seems that this congress and administration are rushing this bill through without due research or discussion, just as they did with the stimulus bill, and as they tried to do with the health care bill. There is a tricky reason for this and it has to do with the upcoming Copenhagen climate conference in December. These lawmakers know that when Americans hear China and India refuse to limit their own emissions, we would be left holding the bag full of stifling regulatory limits upon our economy while our global competitors gleefully increase production and increase our corporate bankruptcies.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Separating Fact from Fiction
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, August 28, 2009
As the noise from the Health Care Reform effort continues to drown out almost every other political discussion this summer, it has become increasingly difficult to determine which voices are speaking facts and which are merely spreading fiction. The charges have been flying from both sides and even though we have spent precious newsprint in our two previous columns covering this topic, we decided the importance and relevance of this issue demanded at least one more effort.
At the risk of being redundant, I will fight the urge to echo my earlier objections to this legislation. For those readers who were unable to read my columns or for those who may have forgotten the arguments, I invite you to log on to our blog or email me for copies.
In the fight for facts over fiction, it has been believed by many in the media that the protestors have been the ones spreading misinformation. Obama spent a fortune flying to Montana and New Hampshire for staged Town Hall meetings and gave speeches to civic leaders, church leaders, and anyone else who would listen about why we needed this overhaul and why we needed it now. He claimed this unprecedented sales job by our chief executive was necessary because “so much misinformation was out there”.
I’m sorry to say that he failed to not only stifle the noise of fallacies, but I am suggesting that he actually added more volume to the din. Let me explain.
Obama claims that this bill will pay for itself with two-thirds of the expenses covered by reducing waste, reducing subsidies to insurance companies who augment Medicare coverage, and increasing efficiency. The final third will be supplied by increasing taxes on those earning more than $250k. That is the plan. However, I should remind you here that these are the same planners who were surprised by the depth of the economic morass, and same ones who had to redress the Cash for Clunkers program when it didn’t go exactly as planned.
Even if this bill did not scare me with its provisions for an overreaching and all-intrusive bureaucracy that would monitor and influence every private interaction between physicians and patients, and even if I was not concerned with the loss of privacy and freedom of choice that is contained in the details of this monstrosity, I would still oppose it on economic grounds alone.
Obama is either not being factual in his numbers or he is being naïve. I hereby offer the following factual examples of why this plan will not pay for itself.
Obama bases his numbers on the increased cost of insuring 46 million Americans (and/or anyone who can swim the Rio Grande or squeeze beneath a border guard’s nose) who are currently uninsured, while assuring the rest of us “who like their health care can keep their health care”. The facts are that it will be impossible to squeeze that many people under this umbrella without someone getting pushed out into the rain.
We need only look to our northern neighbor and to the State of Tennessee to see how expensive health care becomes when we get it for free.
In a recent article published on Canada.com by Randall Denley (Tuesday, August, 18, 2009), the author lamented about how costly the Canadian system had become. In fact, he claims that 43% of Ontario’s program spending budget goes to fund health care. He also claims the system is antiquated and inefficient and not patient-friendly, “being driven by government budgets – not patient needs”. I can also quote other Canadian authors who say their current program is unsustainable as it is being run now.
Now, before my critics start yelling about how unfair it is to be comparing Obama’s plan to Canada’s, let me tell you a little secret. One of Obama’s health care architects is Health Czar, Nancy DeParle. She was also instrumental in casting the failed TennCare health policy in Tennessee.
That policy started with the same lofty and altruistic goals as the current House bill. However, reality set in and as employers saw their taxes rise, they shuffled off their employees to the public option and costs skyrocketed. In a few short years the plan was consuming a full third of the state budget and sucked up every penny of new revenue. Before the plan was re-structured, almost half of all TennCare subscribers were people who had migrated from private plans to the free plan. Are you surprised?
To pay the extra costs, taxes were raised, reimbursements to doctors and hospitals were reduced and benefits to patients were slashed. In other words, health care was rationed, and taxes were raised.
Another fact that has not been disclosed by Obama is the fact that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has crunched the numbers and concluded that the new taxes, mandates and bureaucratic sludge that always seems to accompany any government program will increase our obscene deficit by another trillion dollars and cost our economy another 1.6 million jobs.
Again, these are facts, not fiction. Verify them if you wish. I do not dispute the fact that we need reform – but not this reform.
From Broader View Weekly, August 28, 2009
As the noise from the Health Care Reform effort continues to drown out almost every other political discussion this summer, it has become increasingly difficult to determine which voices are speaking facts and which are merely spreading fiction. The charges have been flying from both sides and even though we have spent precious newsprint in our two previous columns covering this topic, we decided the importance and relevance of this issue demanded at least one more effort.
At the risk of being redundant, I will fight the urge to echo my earlier objections to this legislation. For those readers who were unable to read my columns or for those who may have forgotten the arguments, I invite you to log on to our blog or email me for copies.
In the fight for facts over fiction, it has been believed by many in the media that the protestors have been the ones spreading misinformation. Obama spent a fortune flying to Montana and New Hampshire for staged Town Hall meetings and gave speeches to civic leaders, church leaders, and anyone else who would listen about why we needed this overhaul and why we needed it now. He claimed this unprecedented sales job by our chief executive was necessary because “so much misinformation was out there”.
I’m sorry to say that he failed to not only stifle the noise of fallacies, but I am suggesting that he actually added more volume to the din. Let me explain.
Obama claims that this bill will pay for itself with two-thirds of the expenses covered by reducing waste, reducing subsidies to insurance companies who augment Medicare coverage, and increasing efficiency. The final third will be supplied by increasing taxes on those earning more than $250k. That is the plan. However, I should remind you here that these are the same planners who were surprised by the depth of the economic morass, and same ones who had to redress the Cash for Clunkers program when it didn’t go exactly as planned.
Even if this bill did not scare me with its provisions for an overreaching and all-intrusive bureaucracy that would monitor and influence every private interaction between physicians and patients, and even if I was not concerned with the loss of privacy and freedom of choice that is contained in the details of this monstrosity, I would still oppose it on economic grounds alone.
Obama is either not being factual in his numbers or he is being naïve. I hereby offer the following factual examples of why this plan will not pay for itself.
Obama bases his numbers on the increased cost of insuring 46 million Americans (and/or anyone who can swim the Rio Grande or squeeze beneath a border guard’s nose) who are currently uninsured, while assuring the rest of us “who like their health care can keep their health care”. The facts are that it will be impossible to squeeze that many people under this umbrella without someone getting pushed out into the rain.
We need only look to our northern neighbor and to the State of Tennessee to see how expensive health care becomes when we get it for free.
In a recent article published on Canada.com by Randall Denley (Tuesday, August, 18, 2009), the author lamented about how costly the Canadian system had become. In fact, he claims that 43% of Ontario’s program spending budget goes to fund health care. He also claims the system is antiquated and inefficient and not patient-friendly, “being driven by government budgets – not patient needs”. I can also quote other Canadian authors who say their current program is unsustainable as it is being run now.
Now, before my critics start yelling about how unfair it is to be comparing Obama’s plan to Canada’s, let me tell you a little secret. One of Obama’s health care architects is Health Czar, Nancy DeParle. She was also instrumental in casting the failed TennCare health policy in Tennessee.
That policy started with the same lofty and altruistic goals as the current House bill. However, reality set in and as employers saw their taxes rise, they shuffled off their employees to the public option and costs skyrocketed. In a few short years the plan was consuming a full third of the state budget and sucked up every penny of new revenue. Before the plan was re-structured, almost half of all TennCare subscribers were people who had migrated from private plans to the free plan. Are you surprised?
To pay the extra costs, taxes were raised, reimbursements to doctors and hospitals were reduced and benefits to patients were slashed. In other words, health care was rationed, and taxes were raised.
Another fact that has not been disclosed by Obama is the fact that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has crunched the numbers and concluded that the new taxes, mandates and bureaucratic sludge that always seems to accompany any government program will increase our obscene deficit by another trillion dollars and cost our economy another 1.6 million jobs.
Again, these are facts, not fiction. Verify them if you wish. I do not dispute the fact that we need reform – but not this reform.
The Faltering Plan for Reform
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, August 28, 2009
As we near the time Congress will resume its session after its August break, the momentum for real change is slowing. There are several reasons that the plans for health care reform coming from Washington and the White House are losing steam.
One reason is the Democrats’ failure to stay on message and control that message. As organized opposition surfaced at town hall meetings and congressional meet-and-greets, representatives were ill-prepared to answer the tough questions posed and often ill-informed about proposals that were in committee. The result was a lampooning of public officials that seemed like an ambush to the world audience that was observing.
At the same time, Senators and Congressmen from the opposition set out to obstruct any solution that came from the Democratic president or his colleagues in Congress. This is the worst kind of politics because it abandons the interests of constituencies in favor of power brokering and posturing. Instead of addressing problems that have caused struggles for the GOP, and a thumping in the last election, Republicans opted to become a party of “no” and get in the way of any proposal no matter the benefits to the individual.
Another problem is a caving in at several levels of the process. The authoring of the separate proposals in the House and Senate were perverted by the influence of health insurance companies and political pressure. Provisions that stood a chance to trim costs, increase efficiencies or cover greater numbers were struck in order to gain leverage to pass any measure at all.
This is the greatest threat to President Obama’s promise to provide something that comes close to universal health care. Even the White House recently backed away from the idea of a public option until pressure from supporters effectively put it back on the table.
It doesn’t help that there is an organized campaign in some media to oppose any reform at all. Some of the most influential voices in conservative media are now discounting their power (an interesting suggestion coming from some of these inflated egos) and claiming that the opposition to Washington’s efforts is led by the masses. They attempt to convince grassroots America that the charges leveled against the talking heads are insults against American citizens. They feed the line that Obama and the Democrats are elitists that are directing their hatred at the public.
The argument makes no sense to me, especially since those voices shout arguments against health care reform that show their general disdain for anyone who would gain coverage under any new plan that might emerge.
Unfortunately, representatives were unsuccessful in countering that message as well, and began to get beaten-up in the media and public opinion. Representative Eric Massa of New York’s 29th district was blasted for comments he made at in informal gathering of bloggers recently. He mentioned that he would oppose public opinion to vote in ways that would benefit his constituency. Instead of applause for taking a principled stand for the public good, he was showered with daggers of contempt. And he was talking about voting against the current iteration of the legislation.
Supporters of reform have been unable to dispel the myths used to attack the plans and present the proposed benefits in a concise way. This has allowed the same misinformation to be repeated over and over. As a result many of those myths are accepted as truth.
For instance, claims about the high costs of reforming the system are overblown, especially since the details of the legislation are yet to materialize. Critics characterize every government entity as inept and inefficient. They argue that moving health care from a private system would endanger important services. The fact is that the most vital services we rely on are already publicly run. Emergency services, police forces and fire departments are publicly funded and run and operate well in most cases.
Also, the administration’s discussion of cost reduction is often characterized as a reduction of compensation to physicians and care providers and rationing of patient services. In fact, part of the concept is a reform of the bureaucratic waste and excess of the health care system. Faith in American ingenuity should envision the ability to efficiently distribute health benefits under a new streamlined system. Instead, the defeatist opposition turns again to the same tired assertions about the evils of big government.
Comparisons to other public health care systems are often used to undermine the efforts to reform the U.S. system. Canada is a favorite choice as an example of the problems of public health care. Interestingly, Canada is ranked above the United States in the quality of health care. In fact, in an August 12 column on Fox News’ website that was critical of patterning our system after Canada’s, Wendell Goler admitted that:
Canadians have a longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality rates and lower rates of obesity and diabetes than people in the United States. Canadians' primary care doctors get paid more and spend more time with their patients than doctors across the border to the south.
An interesting observation from Obama’s most vocal detractor: Fox News.
The fact is that the most common talking point in the health care debate is a weakness of the current system. The concept, called “death panels” by some, whereby a panel makes judgments about treatments and coverage, is a fabrication of the right. However, that type of decision-making goes on every day. Panels and agents in cold corporate insurance companies make choices to deny services to needy patients (often in life-or-death situations) in order to serve the interests of their bottom line. Even though the legislation imposes no such panel, putting those decisions in the hands of those legally bound to the service of the public is better than leaving it to those legally bound to the service of shareholders.
Like my brother Gordon, I recognize the need for reform. Like him I don’t think the current plan fits the bill. Unfortunately, if this current effort fails, I fear it will become more and more difficult to pursue meaningful change.
From Broader View Weekly, August 28, 2009
As we near the time Congress will resume its session after its August break, the momentum for real change is slowing. There are several reasons that the plans for health care reform coming from Washington and the White House are losing steam.
One reason is the Democrats’ failure to stay on message and control that message. As organized opposition surfaced at town hall meetings and congressional meet-and-greets, representatives were ill-prepared to answer the tough questions posed and often ill-informed about proposals that were in committee. The result was a lampooning of public officials that seemed like an ambush to the world audience that was observing.
At the same time, Senators and Congressmen from the opposition set out to obstruct any solution that came from the Democratic president or his colleagues in Congress. This is the worst kind of politics because it abandons the interests of constituencies in favor of power brokering and posturing. Instead of addressing problems that have caused struggles for the GOP, and a thumping in the last election, Republicans opted to become a party of “no” and get in the way of any proposal no matter the benefits to the individual.
Another problem is a caving in at several levels of the process. The authoring of the separate proposals in the House and Senate were perverted by the influence of health insurance companies and political pressure. Provisions that stood a chance to trim costs, increase efficiencies or cover greater numbers were struck in order to gain leverage to pass any measure at all.
This is the greatest threat to President Obama’s promise to provide something that comes close to universal health care. Even the White House recently backed away from the idea of a public option until pressure from supporters effectively put it back on the table.
It doesn’t help that there is an organized campaign in some media to oppose any reform at all. Some of the most influential voices in conservative media are now discounting their power (an interesting suggestion coming from some of these inflated egos) and claiming that the opposition to Washington’s efforts is led by the masses. They attempt to convince grassroots America that the charges leveled against the talking heads are insults against American citizens. They feed the line that Obama and the Democrats are elitists that are directing their hatred at the public.
The argument makes no sense to me, especially since those voices shout arguments against health care reform that show their general disdain for anyone who would gain coverage under any new plan that might emerge.
Unfortunately, representatives were unsuccessful in countering that message as well, and began to get beaten-up in the media and public opinion. Representative Eric Massa of New York’s 29th district was blasted for comments he made at in informal gathering of bloggers recently. He mentioned that he would oppose public opinion to vote in ways that would benefit his constituency. Instead of applause for taking a principled stand for the public good, he was showered with daggers of contempt. And he was talking about voting against the current iteration of the legislation.
Supporters of reform have been unable to dispel the myths used to attack the plans and present the proposed benefits in a concise way. This has allowed the same misinformation to be repeated over and over. As a result many of those myths are accepted as truth.
For instance, claims about the high costs of reforming the system are overblown, especially since the details of the legislation are yet to materialize. Critics characterize every government entity as inept and inefficient. They argue that moving health care from a private system would endanger important services. The fact is that the most vital services we rely on are already publicly run. Emergency services, police forces and fire departments are publicly funded and run and operate well in most cases.
Also, the administration’s discussion of cost reduction is often characterized as a reduction of compensation to physicians and care providers and rationing of patient services. In fact, part of the concept is a reform of the bureaucratic waste and excess of the health care system. Faith in American ingenuity should envision the ability to efficiently distribute health benefits under a new streamlined system. Instead, the defeatist opposition turns again to the same tired assertions about the evils of big government.
Comparisons to other public health care systems are often used to undermine the efforts to reform the U.S. system. Canada is a favorite choice as an example of the problems of public health care. Interestingly, Canada is ranked above the United States in the quality of health care. In fact, in an August 12 column on Fox News’ website that was critical of patterning our system after Canada’s, Wendell Goler admitted that:
Canadians have a longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality rates and lower rates of obesity and diabetes than people in the United States. Canadians' primary care doctors get paid more and spend more time with their patients than doctors across the border to the south.
An interesting observation from Obama’s most vocal detractor: Fox News.
The fact is that the most common talking point in the health care debate is a weakness of the current system. The concept, called “death panels” by some, whereby a panel makes judgments about treatments and coverage, is a fabrication of the right. However, that type of decision-making goes on every day. Panels and agents in cold corporate insurance companies make choices to deny services to needy patients (often in life-or-death situations) in order to serve the interests of their bottom line. Even though the legislation imposes no such panel, putting those decisions in the hands of those legally bound to the service of the public is better than leaving it to those legally bound to the service of shareholders.
Like my brother Gordon, I recognize the need for reform. Like him I don’t think the current plan fits the bill. Unfortunately, if this current effort fails, I fear it will become more and more difficult to pursue meaningful change.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Cutting through the Fog
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, August 14, 2009
Since members of Congress began their August break recently, there have been efforts on both sides of the debate to present their cases. Democrats have held town hall meetings to allow for discussion of the legislation. Cable news and talk radio have launched campaigns to color public opinion and oppose the reform measures.
Unfortunately, other forces are also at work. Special interest groups and political action committees are organizing folks to disrupt meetings, shout down speakers, and give the impression that a “huge” mob of grass-roots individuals are rising up against the government. Some protests have turned nasty and even violent.
Lost in the fray are the real details of the bill and issues of concern.
The objective of this week’s column is to attempt to cut through the fog and fury of the heated rhetoric and help decode some of the actual bill that is beginning to emerge from Congress.
Unfortunately, it is unrealistic to represent the thousand-plus page document accurately within our limited space. Also, I will admit that I have not read the entire House bill, and that I have read none of the document that the Senate will resume work on when the session returns in September. In fact, wading through the tangle of legalese gave me a greater appreciation for our representatives charged with crafting, amending and even reading the legislative materials that cross their desks. I am not excusing members of Congress who vote on bills without reading them fully, but I found myself wishing for a staff of interns to parse the bill for me.
In the interest of brevity, I will take a look at a few of the criticisms leveled against the bill and discuss them with reference to its actual provisions.
One claim of the opposition (whatever form that opposition takes – be it GOP leadership or conservative media) is that individuals will be forced into a public government-funded health insurance system even if they have existing health insurance with which they are satisfied. There is a provision wherein an employer’s offered health insurance plan is evaluated against certain criteria to ensure that such plan provides sufficient coverage. Any insurance plan that fails to meet these criteria would hardly be worth enrolling in. Employers not currently offering insurance that measures up, have the option to enroll in an appropriate plan or choose the public option. The hope is that employers will be able to provide more inclusive health insurance coverage to their employees by having greater choice of options available.
Opponents also claim that the House plan specifically provides for tax-payer funding for abortions. The Right to Life movement has been loud in its opposition to the bill because it accuses lawmakers of providing funding for abortions in sections of the bill addressing outpatient clinic services and family planning services. In fact, there is no specific reference to abortions at all within the bill from the House of Representatives. There is a portion of the bill that allocates funding to clinic services, but only as a means of defining the breadth of medical coverage under the plan to include entities outside of physician’s office and hospital services.
Some in the movement are pushing for a specific prohibition of public funding for abortions but one of the sections of which they are critical comes close to just that. The section on family planning services denies coverage of those services for women who are already pregnant. While I disagree with this limitation, it should placate abortion opponents. Apparently, though, any public funding of women’s health services is equated with promoting abortion in the minds of some.
The most interesting claim opponents of the bill are making is that it promotes physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia. To be fair, there is a provision that discusses end of life decision and promotes physician-patient consultation that weighs the concerns versus the benefits of certain treatments. This provision does encourage consultation on living wills and sustaining treatments of patients in end-of-life situations. Some conservative talking heads have said that the bills deference to existing state laws regarding these matters implicitly promotes euthanasia since two states (Oregon and Washington) permit physician-assisted suicide. While it is true that the bill suggests physicians discuss a state’s legal requirements regarding the patient’s care, it neither implicitly nor explicitly warrants the practice of euthanasia. The fact is that many ethical doctors already institute a policy of consulting with patients, especially those who are aging, about realistic treatments. Surgeries or treatments that are invasive are often risky and may yield little relief to certain patients, regardless of age. The tendency may be for doctors to recommend treatments to prolong life or minimize symptoms whenever possible, but I believe a realistic approach is morally superior to playing God at the expense and potential peril of the patient.
I am not endorsing the current bill. I had hoped for a real reform of the broken health care system in our country that would provide the neediest among us with the security that vital health services are within reach of us all. I think this bill falls well short of that. However, I feel that the bill should be disputed on its merits and not amid a smokescreen of misinformation.
It is unreasonable for me to claim that this column comes close to educating Broader View Weekly readers on the various components of the health care reform bill. I can only offer this advice: educate yourself. HR 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009 is available for download at www.house.gov. Also, check the rhetoric you hear against the list of fact checking resources provided weekly on page 2 of the Broader View Weekly. Most importantly, don’t rely on any one source for news or information.
From Broader View Weekly, August 14, 2009
Since members of Congress began their August break recently, there have been efforts on both sides of the debate to present their cases. Democrats have held town hall meetings to allow for discussion of the legislation. Cable news and talk radio have launched campaigns to color public opinion and oppose the reform measures.
Unfortunately, other forces are also at work. Special interest groups and political action committees are organizing folks to disrupt meetings, shout down speakers, and give the impression that a “huge” mob of grass-roots individuals are rising up against the government. Some protests have turned nasty and even violent.
Lost in the fray are the real details of the bill and issues of concern.
The objective of this week’s column is to attempt to cut through the fog and fury of the heated rhetoric and help decode some of the actual bill that is beginning to emerge from Congress.
Unfortunately, it is unrealistic to represent the thousand-plus page document accurately within our limited space. Also, I will admit that I have not read the entire House bill, and that I have read none of the document that the Senate will resume work on when the session returns in September. In fact, wading through the tangle of legalese gave me a greater appreciation for our representatives charged with crafting, amending and even reading the legislative materials that cross their desks. I am not excusing members of Congress who vote on bills without reading them fully, but I found myself wishing for a staff of interns to parse the bill for me.
In the interest of brevity, I will take a look at a few of the criticisms leveled against the bill and discuss them with reference to its actual provisions.
One claim of the opposition (whatever form that opposition takes – be it GOP leadership or conservative media) is that individuals will be forced into a public government-funded health insurance system even if they have existing health insurance with which they are satisfied. There is a provision wherein an employer’s offered health insurance plan is evaluated against certain criteria to ensure that such plan provides sufficient coverage. Any insurance plan that fails to meet these criteria would hardly be worth enrolling in. Employers not currently offering insurance that measures up, have the option to enroll in an appropriate plan or choose the public option. The hope is that employers will be able to provide more inclusive health insurance coverage to their employees by having greater choice of options available.
Opponents also claim that the House plan specifically provides for tax-payer funding for abortions. The Right to Life movement has been loud in its opposition to the bill because it accuses lawmakers of providing funding for abortions in sections of the bill addressing outpatient clinic services and family planning services. In fact, there is no specific reference to abortions at all within the bill from the House of Representatives. There is a portion of the bill that allocates funding to clinic services, but only as a means of defining the breadth of medical coverage under the plan to include entities outside of physician’s office and hospital services.
Some in the movement are pushing for a specific prohibition of public funding for abortions but one of the sections of which they are critical comes close to just that. The section on family planning services denies coverage of those services for women who are already pregnant. While I disagree with this limitation, it should placate abortion opponents. Apparently, though, any public funding of women’s health services is equated with promoting abortion in the minds of some.
The most interesting claim opponents of the bill are making is that it promotes physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia. To be fair, there is a provision that discusses end of life decision and promotes physician-patient consultation that weighs the concerns versus the benefits of certain treatments. This provision does encourage consultation on living wills and sustaining treatments of patients in end-of-life situations. Some conservative talking heads have said that the bills deference to existing state laws regarding these matters implicitly promotes euthanasia since two states (Oregon and Washington) permit physician-assisted suicide. While it is true that the bill suggests physicians discuss a state’s legal requirements regarding the patient’s care, it neither implicitly nor explicitly warrants the practice of euthanasia. The fact is that many ethical doctors already institute a policy of consulting with patients, especially those who are aging, about realistic treatments. Surgeries or treatments that are invasive are often risky and may yield little relief to certain patients, regardless of age. The tendency may be for doctors to recommend treatments to prolong life or minimize symptoms whenever possible, but I believe a realistic approach is morally superior to playing God at the expense and potential peril of the patient.
I am not endorsing the current bill. I had hoped for a real reform of the broken health care system in our country that would provide the neediest among us with the security that vital health services are within reach of us all. I think this bill falls well short of that. However, I feel that the bill should be disputed on its merits and not amid a smokescreen of misinformation.
It is unreasonable for me to claim that this column comes close to educating Broader View Weekly readers on the various components of the health care reform bill. I can only offer this advice: educate yourself. HR 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009 is available for download at www.house.gov. Also, check the rhetoric you hear against the list of fact checking resources provided weekly on page 2 of the Broader View Weekly. Most importantly, don’t rely on any one source for news or information.
Get Off The Couch!
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, August 14, 2009
The blessing of living in this technically advanced era is the ability we have to access many sources of information at the mere click of a mouse. We also have news outlets available to us at any time of the day or night. These opportunities were denied all previous generations in our nation’s history. You would think, therefore, that we would have the most informed and well-educated citizenry to have ever lounged on the couches of our fair nation. Sadly, that is not the case. I am sorry to say that we (Note that I am speaking in first-person plural here, I include myself in this indictment) all too often sit back and allow others to do the heavy lifting for us. We sit back in our easy chairs and bovinely chew our cud and burp out the pre-digested “facts” that others have sought out and delivered to us in soft, chewy morsels.
It is my intent today to inspire you to get up off the couch, go to your computer or to your library’s computer, and do some heavy lifting. Exercise your brain and, in so doing, I hope you will be inspired to exercise your DUTY as a citizen to become an informed and active part of the decision-making process within our nation. I will not be telling you what to think, I will not be telling you what questions to ask of your representatives; I will be, however, exposing you to some of the details that I have found in some heavy lifting of my own. But do not expect me to pre-digest these facts for you. That would be an insult to your intelligence and it would deny you the pleasure of chewing these morsels for yourself.
So, it is with the above intent that I bring to you some details about the proposed legislation that our leaders have told us we need.
First of all, the document is available for download at the house website www.house.gov or through other private sites such as www.docstoc.com. I would recommend that each of you take the time to download it – although, for the sake of our forests, I would not recommend printing the whole 1,000-plus pages.
If you take my advice, what facts may you uncover?
Well, you may discover that hidden within this bill that many of our own representatives have still yet to read is the following:
On page 30, line 132 and following, you will read of the establishment of a government committee that will, figuratively, be brought into every exam room of every doctor’s office and hospital. This committee will be active in determining the treatments and benefits available to you and the compensation your doctor or hospital receives.
If you are okay with sharing your private financial information with an unknown and unknowable number of government employees, you will find no problem with the stipulations carried on pages 57-60 where this legislation mandates that the above named committee shall have access to your private (well it used to be private, anyway) bank accounts to determine your ability to pay for medical procedures once you receive a government issued healthcare card. It is cloaked, however, in words that say it is to determine which programs and assistance you may qualify for.
Page 121 lays out in terms that even a weak reader like me can understand that the secretary of this committee shall have the power to set payment rates for all services and procedures. This practice in other nations has led to the emigration of the most qualified doctors from their shores to ours as they realize that price-fixing takes away their incentive and limits their ability to provide the best treatments for their patients. The inevitable result will be a shortage of qualified men and women entering the medical field. This concern was voiced to me personally by an emergency room physician from Arnot Ogden Hospital.
I could go on and on, but that would actually go against the purpose of this column. I want to just pique your interest enough to inspire you to do as I did – read it! I admit that I did not read the whole bill in detail; however, I did do the good work of checking the validity of those who have written about the bill by reading the sections they mentioned.
Remember the Biblical adage that states: “To whom much is given, much shall be required.” (Luke 12:48 paraphrase). We have been given a great amount of freedom in this nation; therefore much vigilance is required of us to maintain that freedom. That maintenance requires us to get off our couches and do some heavy lifting. If you read things in this bill or others that concern you, print up those particular sections of the bill and take your concerns to your elected representative when she or he comes to your town hall. Get off the couch!
From Broader View Weekly, August 14, 2009
The blessing of living in this technically advanced era is the ability we have to access many sources of information at the mere click of a mouse. We also have news outlets available to us at any time of the day or night. These opportunities were denied all previous generations in our nation’s history. You would think, therefore, that we would have the most informed and well-educated citizenry to have ever lounged on the couches of our fair nation. Sadly, that is not the case. I am sorry to say that we (Note that I am speaking in first-person plural here, I include myself in this indictment) all too often sit back and allow others to do the heavy lifting for us. We sit back in our easy chairs and bovinely chew our cud and burp out the pre-digested “facts” that others have sought out and delivered to us in soft, chewy morsels.
It is my intent today to inspire you to get up off the couch, go to your computer or to your library’s computer, and do some heavy lifting. Exercise your brain and, in so doing, I hope you will be inspired to exercise your DUTY as a citizen to become an informed and active part of the decision-making process within our nation. I will not be telling you what to think, I will not be telling you what questions to ask of your representatives; I will be, however, exposing you to some of the details that I have found in some heavy lifting of my own. But do not expect me to pre-digest these facts for you. That would be an insult to your intelligence and it would deny you the pleasure of chewing these morsels for yourself.
So, it is with the above intent that I bring to you some details about the proposed legislation that our leaders have told us we need.
First of all, the document is available for download at the house website www.house.gov or through other private sites such as www.docstoc.com. I would recommend that each of you take the time to download it – although, for the sake of our forests, I would not recommend printing the whole 1,000-plus pages.
If you take my advice, what facts may you uncover?
Well, you may discover that hidden within this bill that many of our own representatives have still yet to read is the following:
On page 30, line 132 and following, you will read of the establishment of a government committee that will, figuratively, be brought into every exam room of every doctor’s office and hospital. This committee will be active in determining the treatments and benefits available to you and the compensation your doctor or hospital receives.
If you are okay with sharing your private financial information with an unknown and unknowable number of government employees, you will find no problem with the stipulations carried on pages 57-60 where this legislation mandates that the above named committee shall have access to your private (well it used to be private, anyway) bank accounts to determine your ability to pay for medical procedures once you receive a government issued healthcare card. It is cloaked, however, in words that say it is to determine which programs and assistance you may qualify for.
Page 121 lays out in terms that even a weak reader like me can understand that the secretary of this committee shall have the power to set payment rates for all services and procedures. This practice in other nations has led to the emigration of the most qualified doctors from their shores to ours as they realize that price-fixing takes away their incentive and limits their ability to provide the best treatments for their patients. The inevitable result will be a shortage of qualified men and women entering the medical field. This concern was voiced to me personally by an emergency room physician from Arnot Ogden Hospital.
I could go on and on, but that would actually go against the purpose of this column. I want to just pique your interest enough to inspire you to do as I did – read it! I admit that I did not read the whole bill in detail; however, I did do the good work of checking the validity of those who have written about the bill by reading the sections they mentioned.
Remember the Biblical adage that states: “To whom much is given, much shall be required.” (Luke 12:48 paraphrase). We have been given a great amount of freedom in this nation; therefore much vigilance is required of us to maintain that freedom. That maintenance requires us to get off our couches and do some heavy lifting. If you read things in this bill or others that concern you, print up those particular sections of the bill and take your concerns to your elected representative when she or he comes to your town hall. Get off the couch!
Caveat Emptor – “Let the Buyer Beware”
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, July 31, 2009
Perhaps you’ve had the same experience with high pressure sales people as I have had. I have sat across the desk or listened on the phone as the commission-driven agent gave me the “You better act now” routine. I was warned of the dire consequences if I did not sign Today. It was only after I had been sucked in by their fear-mongering that I took the time to read the fine print of the commitment I had signed. It was then that I learned the validity of that admonition listed in my title. The responsibility lies with the buyer to be wary, to ask questions, and to be skeptical of those things that sound too good to be true.
After visiting the White House propaganda website about the need for Affordable Health Care and listening to President Obama’s orchestrated press conference/speech, I felt the same feeling of pressure I felt each time I was in the presence of an overachieving salesman. There is no time to lose, this is a limited time offer, you must act now, etc.
Fortunately, it seems that our representatives have succeeded in pushing back Obama’s timeline and have stifled his zeal to get his monstrous health care overhaul on his desk before the August recess. But we cannot breathe easy just yet. This dangerous bill still has a beating heart and until we can stick a stake in that beating heart, our economy and our nation’s healthcare industry is at risk.
I will not deny that many of the postulates on the White House website are true. We do have a costly system. There are inequities in coverage and premiums. There is a need for change. However, I believe the cures proposed within this bill would be worse that the disease.
Essentially, Obama’s proposal for a “public insurer” to compete with private insurers revolves around four arguments. They posit that a public entity would: 1) bring down prices by bringing in increased competition; 2) save more money by lowering administrative costs, and because the public plan would not be profit-driven, the savings would be passed on to consumers; 3) because they would represent a larger body of consumers they would receive better deals from drug companies and medical suppliers; 4) the single buyer would be a greater negotiator and would truly get the best price for the services and products.
Each of the above arguments is refuted by evidence to the contrary from both foreign and domestic experiments. So, let’s examine them, shall we?
First of all, we already have competition in the health insurance field. Hundreds of companies currently negotiate for subscribers and for suppliers. That competition allows employers to bargain for plans and premiums that best fit their employees’ needs and their companies’ budget. To bring in a large buyer who has little direct accountability to its shareholders would stifle true competition.
Secondly, the idea that a not-for-profit institution is somehow able to lower costs has not proven true. According to John E. Calfee’s article in the Wall Street Journal, nonprofit firms already exist, including some Blue Cross-Blue Shield plans. Evidence shows that there is not a discernible difference in efficiency or cost-savings. The idea that a government-run program could ever lower administrative costs is laughable. By its very nature, any bureaucracy is rife with cost overruns and ever-increasing budgets. We need only look across the pond to see other nations abandoning state-run enterprises and returning public airlines, phone companies and energy suppliers back to private corporations.
Thirdly, larger numbers do not always get the best deal. Many of our private companies serve more subscribers than Canada’s state-run healthcare. Once a plan reaches over a million subscribers the extra numbers do not reflect a significant difference in costs.
Fourthly, the idea that a single buyer would represent a superior negotiator does not stand up against real experience in other countries. The common pathway taken by a monopsony (when a single buyer negotiates with several sellers as opposed to a monopoly in which one seller negotiates with many buyers) is one in which they set the price and all suppliers must either take it or lose the market. In other nations, such as New Zealand, drug sellers have no incentive to spend the millions needed for research and development, because they know the profit level is predetermined by the government. It is no surprise then, that American companies lead the world in innovation and development of new technologies and drugs. To take away the profit is to take away the incentive, pure and simple.
My space here is too short to elaborate further on the dangers of Obama’s proposal, but for those interested in learning more about what happens when a state decides to give “free” healthcare to its citizens, I would suggest you check out the short-lived plan called TennCare. It was a good idea that went bad when it met reality.
In conclusion, let me repeat the warning in my title: Caveat Emptor – “Let the
From Broader View Weekly, July 31, 2009
Perhaps you’ve had the same experience with high pressure sales people as I have had. I have sat across the desk or listened on the phone as the commission-driven agent gave me the “You better act now” routine. I was warned of the dire consequences if I did not sign Today. It was only after I had been sucked in by their fear-mongering that I took the time to read the fine print of the commitment I had signed. It was then that I learned the validity of that admonition listed in my title. The responsibility lies with the buyer to be wary, to ask questions, and to be skeptical of those things that sound too good to be true.
After visiting the White House propaganda website about the need for Affordable Health Care and listening to President Obama’s orchestrated press conference/speech, I felt the same feeling of pressure I felt each time I was in the presence of an overachieving salesman. There is no time to lose, this is a limited time offer, you must act now, etc.
Fortunately, it seems that our representatives have succeeded in pushing back Obama’s timeline and have stifled his zeal to get his monstrous health care overhaul on his desk before the August recess. But we cannot breathe easy just yet. This dangerous bill still has a beating heart and until we can stick a stake in that beating heart, our economy and our nation’s healthcare industry is at risk.
I will not deny that many of the postulates on the White House website are true. We do have a costly system. There are inequities in coverage and premiums. There is a need for change. However, I believe the cures proposed within this bill would be worse that the disease.
Essentially, Obama’s proposal for a “public insurer” to compete with private insurers revolves around four arguments. They posit that a public entity would: 1) bring down prices by bringing in increased competition; 2) save more money by lowering administrative costs, and because the public plan would not be profit-driven, the savings would be passed on to consumers; 3) because they would represent a larger body of consumers they would receive better deals from drug companies and medical suppliers; 4) the single buyer would be a greater negotiator and would truly get the best price for the services and products.
Each of the above arguments is refuted by evidence to the contrary from both foreign and domestic experiments. So, let’s examine them, shall we?
First of all, we already have competition in the health insurance field. Hundreds of companies currently negotiate for subscribers and for suppliers. That competition allows employers to bargain for plans and premiums that best fit their employees’ needs and their companies’ budget. To bring in a large buyer who has little direct accountability to its shareholders would stifle true competition.
Secondly, the idea that a not-for-profit institution is somehow able to lower costs has not proven true. According to John E. Calfee’s article in the Wall Street Journal, nonprofit firms already exist, including some Blue Cross-Blue Shield plans. Evidence shows that there is not a discernible difference in efficiency or cost-savings. The idea that a government-run program could ever lower administrative costs is laughable. By its very nature, any bureaucracy is rife with cost overruns and ever-increasing budgets. We need only look across the pond to see other nations abandoning state-run enterprises and returning public airlines, phone companies and energy suppliers back to private corporations.
Thirdly, larger numbers do not always get the best deal. Many of our private companies serve more subscribers than Canada’s state-run healthcare. Once a plan reaches over a million subscribers the extra numbers do not reflect a significant difference in costs.
Fourthly, the idea that a single buyer would represent a superior negotiator does not stand up against real experience in other countries. The common pathway taken by a monopsony (when a single buyer negotiates with several sellers as opposed to a monopoly in which one seller negotiates with many buyers) is one in which they set the price and all suppliers must either take it or lose the market. In other nations, such as New Zealand, drug sellers have no incentive to spend the millions needed for research and development, because they know the profit level is predetermined by the government. It is no surprise then, that American companies lead the world in innovation and development of new technologies and drugs. To take away the profit is to take away the incentive, pure and simple.
My space here is too short to elaborate further on the dangers of Obama’s proposal, but for those interested in learning more about what happens when a state decides to give “free” healthcare to its citizens, I would suggest you check out the short-lived plan called TennCare. It was a good idea that went bad when it met reality.
In conclusion, let me repeat the warning in my title: Caveat Emptor – “Let the
The Hard Sell
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, July 31, 2009
I will agree with my brother Gordon that high-powered salesmen have recently been out in full force.
Anyone who has turned on Fox News or tuned into talk radio has heard the fear-mongering and admonitions. But this hard-sell technique isn’t pitching the healthcare reform measures at debate in Washington. It is drumming up opposition to whatever emerges from the Congressional committees.
And the salesmen aren’t only representatives from the “media”. It has become politically beneficial for GOP leaders in Congress to join other pitchmen in denouncing the measures. An example of the power of politics over policy is the recent statement by Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina that a defeat of healthcare reform would be Obama’s “Waterloo”. I am certain that for millions of Americans who are unable to afford insurance – or who are struggling with mountains of medical debt – “breaking” the president with a failed proposal is of little interest.
Much of the thrust of the propaganda I’m hearing lately tries to minimize any consideration of the plight of the uninsured or underserved in our healthcare system. A favored approach is to mention that large numbers of the 47 million in the United States without health insurance are illegal immigrants. The implication here is that a public healthcare option would bring those uninsured immigrants into the U.S. healthcare fold. The concept appeals to a group of Americans who hold a certain animosity toward immigration that borders on xenophobia. Some conservative commentators also claim a subset of these uninsured choose not to have health insurance. These pundits overstate the size of this subset and misrepresent the reasoning behind this “choice”. Apparently if a young adult decides to pay his rent, buy food, supplies, or college textbooks rather than the security of health insurance, that constitutes a conscious “choice.” There may be a handful of people who believe themselves invincible who are rolling the dice by choosing to live dangerously, but they are certainly not representative of the uninsured among us.
Another favorite claim from the Right is that Obama is dismantling the greatest healthcare system in the world to install one based on the evils of socialism. I found it surprising that this claim and also the words “greatest healthcare system” were so widespread in talk radio, used most notably by the prominent Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. I was surprised because the World Health Organization released a report in 2000 that ranked the United States at 37th among developed nations in quality of healthcare (lagging well behind the “evil” socialized healthcare systems of Canada and the United Kingdom that are so often criticized by these very radio personalities). And it is common knowledge our healthcare comes with the world’s highest price-tag. I guess it shouldn’t surprise me that such misinformation is disseminated by folks who continue to dismiss global warming as a hoax.
Unfortunately, the pitchmen aren’t limited to news networks, talk radio and Congressional leaders. The hardest sell, and perhaps the most ominous, comes from the healthcare industry. Health insurance providers, the corporate pharmaceutical industry, and medical organizations are powerful lobbying forces. Any measure that passes through Congress, regardless of which party has political control, is likely to be one that has garnered the approval of the industry. This force is the reason past attempts at healthcare reform have been perceived as political suicide.
Like my brother, I had concerns that the reforms needed to the current healthcare system would be rushed through process too quickly. I understood the political pressure to push for legislation while approval ratings are high as an effort to achieve real results. Unfortunately, I feel that a rush to bring about change would result in a token placation of a base that seeks universal coverage without any real reform. A few more months is not likely to yield something that much more meaningful, especially if the trend is to appease health insurance companies and reassure conservatives that socialized medicine is not in the offing.
My vision of healthcare reform is unlikely to be realized. I personally advocate a single-payer system that resembles the socialism many would have us fear. A modification of the current system is likely to fail to bring about lasting and meaningful reform. The current system promises choice through market competition, but most individuals (even those with above-average insurance) have little choice when it comes to the type of healthcare they receive. The current system relies on profitability as the driving incentive, not the quality or viability of treatment.
Unfortunately, as long as the focus is on the politics each side is pitching, a healthcare system befitting a nation as advanced and progressive as the United States remains a pipe dream.
From Broader View Weekly, July 31, 2009
I will agree with my brother Gordon that high-powered salesmen have recently been out in full force.
Anyone who has turned on Fox News or tuned into talk radio has heard the fear-mongering and admonitions. But this hard-sell technique isn’t pitching the healthcare reform measures at debate in Washington. It is drumming up opposition to whatever emerges from the Congressional committees.
And the salesmen aren’t only representatives from the “media”. It has become politically beneficial for GOP leaders in Congress to join other pitchmen in denouncing the measures. An example of the power of politics over policy is the recent statement by Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina that a defeat of healthcare reform would be Obama’s “Waterloo”. I am certain that for millions of Americans who are unable to afford insurance – or who are struggling with mountains of medical debt – “breaking” the president with a failed proposal is of little interest.
Much of the thrust of the propaganda I’m hearing lately tries to minimize any consideration of the plight of the uninsured or underserved in our healthcare system. A favored approach is to mention that large numbers of the 47 million in the United States without health insurance are illegal immigrants. The implication here is that a public healthcare option would bring those uninsured immigrants into the U.S. healthcare fold. The concept appeals to a group of Americans who hold a certain animosity toward immigration that borders on xenophobia. Some conservative commentators also claim a subset of these uninsured choose not to have health insurance. These pundits overstate the size of this subset and misrepresent the reasoning behind this “choice”. Apparently if a young adult decides to pay his rent, buy food, supplies, or college textbooks rather than the security of health insurance, that constitutes a conscious “choice.” There may be a handful of people who believe themselves invincible who are rolling the dice by choosing to live dangerously, but they are certainly not representative of the uninsured among us.
Another favorite claim from the Right is that Obama is dismantling the greatest healthcare system in the world to install one based on the evils of socialism. I found it surprising that this claim and also the words “greatest healthcare system” were so widespread in talk radio, used most notably by the prominent Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. I was surprised because the World Health Organization released a report in 2000 that ranked the United States at 37th among developed nations in quality of healthcare (lagging well behind the “evil” socialized healthcare systems of Canada and the United Kingdom that are so often criticized by these very radio personalities). And it is common knowledge our healthcare comes with the world’s highest price-tag. I guess it shouldn’t surprise me that such misinformation is disseminated by folks who continue to dismiss global warming as a hoax.
Unfortunately, the pitchmen aren’t limited to news networks, talk radio and Congressional leaders. The hardest sell, and perhaps the most ominous, comes from the healthcare industry. Health insurance providers, the corporate pharmaceutical industry, and medical organizations are powerful lobbying forces. Any measure that passes through Congress, regardless of which party has political control, is likely to be one that has garnered the approval of the industry. This force is the reason past attempts at healthcare reform have been perceived as political suicide.
Like my brother, I had concerns that the reforms needed to the current healthcare system would be rushed through process too quickly. I understood the political pressure to push for legislation while approval ratings are high as an effort to achieve real results. Unfortunately, I feel that a rush to bring about change would result in a token placation of a base that seeks universal coverage without any real reform. A few more months is not likely to yield something that much more meaningful, especially if the trend is to appease health insurance companies and reassure conservatives that socialized medicine is not in the offing.
My vision of healthcare reform is unlikely to be realized. I personally advocate a single-payer system that resembles the socialism many would have us fear. A modification of the current system is likely to fail to bring about lasting and meaningful reform. The current system promises choice through market competition, but most individuals (even those with above-average insurance) have little choice when it comes to the type of healthcare they receive. The current system relies on profitability as the driving incentive, not the quality or viability of treatment.
Unfortunately, as long as the focus is on the politics each side is pitching, a healthcare system befitting a nation as advanced and progressive as the United States remains a pipe dream.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
