One of the great ironies attached to our national health care debate is the avid support that individuals over the age of 65 (seniors) have for the status quo. I don’t mean to suggest that all seniors think alike, even on national issues, but as a group they fall pretty solidly with the Conservative message on health care - that things are better left unchanged instead of embarking onto something as demonic as Government supported health care. Anecdotally, it has been my experience in talking with many seniors that the vast majority do abhor the idea of change, even as many criticize their personal experience within our current system (interestingly, they don’t necessarily fault the System; rather they’re more likely to blame the insensitivities of subsequent generations). The irony, of course, is that they are already active and satisfied recipients of what they argue so vehemently against expanding– Medicare.
Why should they support change? I can’t think of any good reason - even the truth - as long as self interest prevails. They are one of two sets of beneficiaries in our flawed system (the other beneficiaries are those on the receiving end of the $1.7 trillion transfer that takes place every year in the United States). How did this happen? What makes Americans over 65 so special, that their health and well being is somehow more important than say children 16 and under, or pregnant women, or perhaps young adults with multiple sclerosis? Like most things, you have to go back to the beginning:
What we fondly and simply know as Social Security began as our nation was just rising in 1935 out of the first major dip in the Great Depression. After experiencing the inhumanity caused by failed financial systems, the concept was simple; provide a base line of income to a class of citizens who, as a result of age, no longer had the capacity to earn income. Like insurance, the cost would be borne by all working people in order to contain cost, but unlike free market insurance (as with annuities) participation could not be an option. However, in order to pass the legislation with the votes of those who raised the specter of Socialism, the taxes and benefits would be restricted to working Americans. Of course, as it gained in popularity and, therefore, became politically attractive, it began to grow in complexity and benefits. Even as the projected benefits began to outweigh the projected “assets”, and even as the “assets” were in the form of purchased US Debt (Treasuries) during periods of overall deficits (a bit like an individual who puts $1 into savings for every $3 he puts on his credit card), the reality of Social Security became sacrosanct to Conservative politicians (Republican or Democrat). None…I repeat none would openly argue against it today. Why? Because, even with it's flaws, the nation sees it's value. Enter Medicare.
The Social Security Act of 1965 was the first (and really the last) attempt in dealing with the problem of health care in the US. Other major laws since, such as the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 which included Medicare Advantage, or the Medicare Prescription Drug (et al) Act of 2006 were attempts at fine tuning (often for votes) and whose primary beneficiaries ended up being the Medical Insurance Industry and the Pharmaceutical Industry. The idea of the Medicare law of 1965 (which included state controlled Medicaid for the indigent) was to address the growing need to provide nationally guaranteed health care beginning with those most vulnerable to the costs (those with fixed incomes), and it had a vehicle to use – the Social Security System. It was fought vigorously by Conservatives. Ronald Reagan claimed it would rob us of our freedom, George H.W. Bush, while running for the Senate in 1964, echoed it as “Socialized Medicine”. Those who supported it openly saw it as a first step toward bringing health care to the US in line with what had already happened throughout the world.
In the post WW2 years, the developed democracies, other than the US, figured out that in a new free world, where there was a desperate overall need for health care by people rising from devastation, the overall cost had to be borne by everyone in order to make it work. Universal Health Care, or as often described now as a Single Payer System, either through direct payment or manditory public insurance, became the law of the land in these democracies. This was especially (and interestingly) true of the two nations for which the United States took the primary role in rebuilding, namely Japan and Germany. Only Canada, the other major Western ally whose homeland was physically untouched by war, did not adopt a true single payer system, but they offered public health insurance immediately after the War, which evolved into full universal coverage in 1984. The United States, the great engine of free enterprise, alone chose the road of a for-profit health care system, a system that now costs multiples of what the rest of the world pays and is rife with gross and tragic inequities, discouraging patients and medical providers alike.
Even so, going back to the beginning of that post-war period, such “radical liberals” as Harry Truman saw the need to create the means by which all citizens could have access to health care and that the key to access was cost. They and others understood the obvious, that health care is a commodity that does not fit ordinary economic models. In economic terms, the demand is inelastic; it does not decline when the price increases. Therefore, in the absence of a system which includes everyone, and with an exponentially rising population, they saw that the Government (Federal, State, and Local) would become the de facto payer of last resort, and there was absolutely nothing to restrain costs from rising by those benefiting from that revenue.
The need for Universal Health Coverage was advocated during the Roosevelt administration, but attempting to create law really started during the Truman administration. Truman, for his efforts, was given the honor to sign up as the first participant in the new Medicare program in 1965. The widespread belief at that time was that an expanded version of Medicare provided to the entire American populous was only a matter of time. Of course, few foresaw the huge industry that would balloon as a result of stratospheric revenues, and how that industry would fight to keep that cash flowing. It was aided by tax law which allowed companies providing health insurance benefits to bury the costs (borne by their employees) out of their worker’s sight.
Still, Medicare/Medicaid made it under the wire, and although it is an imperfect public insurance program it pretty much accomplishes what the supporters wanted – universal health coverage for the participants funded through general payroll taxation. What it never did nor could ever do was impact general health care costs, because it controlled less than 15% of all Americans (albeit a larger percentage of cost). Which is why Medicare is now essentially funded through debt. The participants don’t care, they’re not paying, and all in all they’ve been pretty happy with the result; ergo you won’t hear a Republican advocate the dissolution of Medicare - even as they deride the idea of Medicare expanded to the rest of the population as socialistic mania.
There is nothing special about the 36 million Americans over age 65 (74 million by 2050), at least not when it comes to health care. In less than 5 years I will be 65 and be invited under that protective umbrella. If the Republicans, Conservative Democrats, and the financial recipients of the largest transfer of wealth any nation has ever seen succeed in thwarting any changes, then I will be forced to watch my children and grandchildren suffer under this system, even as I benefit. I can’t call that a benefit.
My gut winces a little each time I hear a Republican or Conservative Democratic politician announce that we have “the best health care (system) in the world” as I heard Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) recently said at the March 2010 “Health Summit”, shrouding his obstructionism in patriotism. I feel that way because I know many believe him, just as they believe the rhetorical lie that describes attempts to reform health care as a “government takeover”.
We do not have the best health care system in the world, or even the best health care for that matter (by published international standards), although we pay many times what everyone else does. If we just reduced our per capital spending on health care to that of Germany’s, the second most expensive nation, we would save enough money in ONE YEAR to pay the current health care costs for the 3 billion people in China, India, Russia, and Indonesia for the NEXT FIVE YEARS!!! We do not have the best health care system in the world, but we may have the worst. Why? Because it is a system in which the above statement on cost does not resonate at all with those who, contrary to their own best interest, have been manipulated to oppose health reform, including those contented senior beneficiaries who already enjoy guaranteed health care. In a world where access is inextricably and inversely depended on cost, what kind of vile system is that?
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Thursday, March 4, 2010
The Most Evil Man in America
I know I know…I write a title like that and most everyone can conjure up a quick image of the individual they believe fits the bill - and then may read on with curiosity to see why their choice isn’t the same as mine. Besides, the word evil itself is more closely aligned with comics or soap operas than real life. If I were to let my first image surface it would, of course, be Dick Cheney, the Darth Vader of American politics. With the news of Cheney’s most recent coronary I had an immediate picture in my head of Lucifer sitting in his fiery office, leaning back in a smoking overstuffed desk chair, and on the phone saying “…okay Dick, this is the fifth one I’ve bailed you out on. Now you either start a new war or I’ll be out of town when the Man hits you with the sixth.” But to really determine who most exemplifies the personification of villainy in America one must really define what evil is.
If evil were merely a relative concept, then for those who see Dick Cheney as a John Wayne understudy, he is hardly evil. They are right…but then, is anyone wrong? Despite the distain I harbor for Cheney (by the boatload), I actually think he is no more evil than most anyone else’s oxen you feel deserves to be gored. That’s because evil is not relative. Cheney participates in our national drama through his own self interest and lust for recognition in a manner which reflects his constituency. If he wasn’t feeding off public attitude Cheney would fall off our collective radar like a bronze medal winner. But is that evil? I think not. Maybe one might find what he does appalling, perhaps maniacal, or maybe even criminal…but not evil. He really doesn’t create opinion, he merely uses it.
Evil should not be misconstrued with its fruit. When one is told to think of an apple tree they naturally envision the apple itself and not the nature or description of the tree which bears it. There is a pervasive evil which has been growing in our country for long enough now that I, for one, have to concentrate back a while to realize that it didn’t always exist in my lifetime. It is an imbalance in the collective identity of our nation, which has permitted us to hate ourselves.
So who do I believe is the most evil man in America, and why? I give that honor to Rush Limbaugh III. Seriously…I consider the master of Conservative talk radio to be the dean, the linchpin, the standard by which a considerable handful of mostly conservative and some liberal commentators/entertainers/writers have watered the tree of divisiveness in our country, without which its fruit might not have found itself on practically every kitchen table in America. His influence has been extraordinary, or even greater than extraordinary based on Limbaugh’s own swagger. You have to go back to when it started, which some might find was not so long ago.
To say Limbaugh is smart would be a debate unto itself. I for one give the word “smart” a colloquial meaning which includes positive ethics. However, there is no doubt that Limbaugh has innate abilities that make him uniquely qualified for the roll he fell upon. His intelligence is validated by his pedigree. Father, siblings, grandfather, uncle, cousins are all jurists of note. A giggle of irony escapes me when I think that they are now all known primarily as the relative of Rush the radio guy. Rush III was an anomaly to the group. He was a bad student, his mother quoted to say “he flunked everything”. He managed his way into a lesser know state university in time to drop out almost immediately. He had to have been a black spot on the family refrigerator.
To his credit he focused early on a career in radio working a standard circuit of DJ jobs around the country and apparently, along the way, discovered his talent for glibness. I suspect that Limbaugh, a man with an ego the size of Montana, also discovered that in his chosen venue he could compete with his accomplished and certified family members at their own conservative game. Good luck, Rush. I’d guess that ultimately all his money, his influence, and his buffoonery never allowed him into the inner circle of Conservative lawyers and judges that is his family tree - just a guess, consistent with prescription drug abuse, and lawyers generally.
By the late 80’s his style of commentary had hit a cord. Freed by the repeal of the FCC Fairness Doctrine in 1987 (after being law for 38 years) he was one of the first to exploit bias as a form of entertainment. However, the use of a target as a means of gathering listenership had not yet gelled. During the administration of George HW Bush the Republicans had their problems even as they still rode the Reagan tsunami. His attraction was more his style and comedy which he intermixed with home spun commentary, a counter to the likes of Howard Stern. Although his reach through the number of participating stations was significant, his market was still not that large and actually pulled from a wider political segment which enjoyed his antics and clowning.
It was the election of Bill Clinton that changed everything. It was the 9/11 for Rush and the true beginning of his crafting the vilification of anyone not Conservative. As his listeners, comprised primarily of disappointed Conservative Republicans, began to expand exponentially, he saw the writing on the wall (and bank statement). The tone of his commentary notably changed. He was now selling fear wrapped in patriotism and he sold it well. So well in fact that for many today he has made the Clinton years of prosperity, surpluses, growth, and security a time of national shame, and the Bush years of preemptive war, terror, lost civil rights, political stagnation, colossal deficits, and near economic collapse a period of national pride. Can it get any more bizarre?
In the process of making himself a household name he also made a couple hundred million dollars, by some accounts. He certainly became in less than 15 years one of the richest men in America, simply by talking on a microphone. Incredibly, polling after the last presidential election also had him named as the Conservative Republican standard bearer, over everyone else…in America!!
His financial and influential success did not go unnoticed by others in the field. Such “commentators” as Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, and Sean Hannity jumped aboard the H&F (Hate & Fear) Gravy Train. They saw that by making “Liberals” the true enemies of “patriotic” America they could tap the kind of enthusiasm usually engendered by invasions. No wonder Sarah Palin recently got on board. Mark Levin, who renamed Liberals “Statists” because he thought the word “liberal” sounded too much like “liberty”, wrote the following in his best selling ($$) book Liberty and Tyranny:
"The Conservative must accept that the Statist does not share his passion for liberty and all the good that flows from it. The Statist does not acknowledge the tremendous benefits to society from the individual pursuits of tens of millions of others. The Statist rejects the Founder's idea of the dignity of the individual, who can flourish through ordered liberty, for one rooted in unpredictability, irrationality and, ultimately, tyranny." pp15
That kind of wholesale categorizing of people is the kind of dehumanization that can be found in Hitler’s Mein Kampf and his description of the Jews. That was a best seller too.
So just what is the Evil that I associate so closely with Rush Limbaugh and his disciples? It is what now pervades our nation, but more importantly our individual neighborhoods and even families. It is the new distain that we have for each other without the necessity of recognizing our humanity.
I remember hearing a Catholic priest once say in a lecture that if Satin could do only one thing to solidify his malevolence throughout mankind he would make us hate our bodies. He was suggesting that self deprecation of that which is the most basic and natural to us in this life was the surest way to abandon that which we revere in God. Rush has given this a socialogical twist.
As a nation and a society we have, since inception, had ideological conflict which has manifested itself into periods of tragedy and suffering. Students of the Civil War could successfully argue that period as the most obvious and poignant. At each such time there has been an imbalance caused by the demands of ideology requiring a dehumanization of those who don’t agree, essentially managing to get us to hate ourselves. Within the current health care debate there is so much hate that people virtually cannot see the problem to the point that they will actively work against their own self interest. Could anything make the devil smile more?
We are experiencing a civil war right now…and it is obvious. It began with people like Rush Limbaugh and has spread to the far left end of the spectrum in a vain attempt to create balance. It is aggravated by the nature of our political system which has currently become a manic struggle for power without substance and job security for its participants. This chapter in our history was made possible by a new age of communication, a new message of hate and fear, and was brought to you by the embodiment of the most evil man in America – Rush Limbaugh.
If evil were merely a relative concept, then for those who see Dick Cheney as a John Wayne understudy, he is hardly evil. They are right…but then, is anyone wrong? Despite the distain I harbor for Cheney (by the boatload), I actually think he is no more evil than most anyone else’s oxen you feel deserves to be gored. That’s because evil is not relative. Cheney participates in our national drama through his own self interest and lust for recognition in a manner which reflects his constituency. If he wasn’t feeding off public attitude Cheney would fall off our collective radar like a bronze medal winner. But is that evil? I think not. Maybe one might find what he does appalling, perhaps maniacal, or maybe even criminal…but not evil. He really doesn’t create opinion, he merely uses it.
Evil should not be misconstrued with its fruit. When one is told to think of an apple tree they naturally envision the apple itself and not the nature or description of the tree which bears it. There is a pervasive evil which has been growing in our country for long enough now that I, for one, have to concentrate back a while to realize that it didn’t always exist in my lifetime. It is an imbalance in the collective identity of our nation, which has permitted us to hate ourselves.
So who do I believe is the most evil man in America, and why? I give that honor to Rush Limbaugh III. Seriously…I consider the master of Conservative talk radio to be the dean, the linchpin, the standard by which a considerable handful of mostly conservative and some liberal commentators/entertainers/writers have watered the tree of divisiveness in our country, without which its fruit might not have found itself on practically every kitchen table in America. His influence has been extraordinary, or even greater than extraordinary based on Limbaugh’s own swagger. You have to go back to when it started, which some might find was not so long ago.
To say Limbaugh is smart would be a debate unto itself. I for one give the word “smart” a colloquial meaning which includes positive ethics. However, there is no doubt that Limbaugh has innate abilities that make him uniquely qualified for the roll he fell upon. His intelligence is validated by his pedigree. Father, siblings, grandfather, uncle, cousins are all jurists of note. A giggle of irony escapes me when I think that they are now all known primarily as the relative of Rush the radio guy. Rush III was an anomaly to the group. He was a bad student, his mother quoted to say “he flunked everything”. He managed his way into a lesser know state university in time to drop out almost immediately. He had to have been a black spot on the family refrigerator.
To his credit he focused early on a career in radio working a standard circuit of DJ jobs around the country and apparently, along the way, discovered his talent for glibness. I suspect that Limbaugh, a man with an ego the size of Montana, also discovered that in his chosen venue he could compete with his accomplished and certified family members at their own conservative game. Good luck, Rush. I’d guess that ultimately all his money, his influence, and his buffoonery never allowed him into the inner circle of Conservative lawyers and judges that is his family tree - just a guess, consistent with prescription drug abuse, and lawyers generally.
By the late 80’s his style of commentary had hit a cord. Freed by the repeal of the FCC Fairness Doctrine in 1987 (after being law for 38 years) he was one of the first to exploit bias as a form of entertainment. However, the use of a target as a means of gathering listenership had not yet gelled. During the administration of George HW Bush the Republicans had their problems even as they still rode the Reagan tsunami. His attraction was more his style and comedy which he intermixed with home spun commentary, a counter to the likes of Howard Stern. Although his reach through the number of participating stations was significant, his market was still not that large and actually pulled from a wider political segment which enjoyed his antics and clowning.
It was the election of Bill Clinton that changed everything. It was the 9/11 for Rush and the true beginning of his crafting the vilification of anyone not Conservative. As his listeners, comprised primarily of disappointed Conservative Republicans, began to expand exponentially, he saw the writing on the wall (and bank statement). The tone of his commentary notably changed. He was now selling fear wrapped in patriotism and he sold it well. So well in fact that for many today he has made the Clinton years of prosperity, surpluses, growth, and security a time of national shame, and the Bush years of preemptive war, terror, lost civil rights, political stagnation, colossal deficits, and near economic collapse a period of national pride. Can it get any more bizarre?
In the process of making himself a household name he also made a couple hundred million dollars, by some accounts. He certainly became in less than 15 years one of the richest men in America, simply by talking on a microphone. Incredibly, polling after the last presidential election also had him named as the Conservative Republican standard bearer, over everyone else…in America!!
His financial and influential success did not go unnoticed by others in the field. Such “commentators” as Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, and Sean Hannity jumped aboard the H&F (Hate & Fear) Gravy Train. They saw that by making “Liberals” the true enemies of “patriotic” America they could tap the kind of enthusiasm usually engendered by invasions. No wonder Sarah Palin recently got on board. Mark Levin, who renamed Liberals “Statists” because he thought the word “liberal” sounded too much like “liberty”, wrote the following in his best selling ($$) book Liberty and Tyranny:
"The Conservative must accept that the Statist does not share his passion for liberty and all the good that flows from it. The Statist does not acknowledge the tremendous benefits to society from the individual pursuits of tens of millions of others. The Statist rejects the Founder's idea of the dignity of the individual, who can flourish through ordered liberty, for one rooted in unpredictability, irrationality and, ultimately, tyranny." pp15
That kind of wholesale categorizing of people is the kind of dehumanization that can be found in Hitler’s Mein Kampf and his description of the Jews. That was a best seller too.
So just what is the Evil that I associate so closely with Rush Limbaugh and his disciples? It is what now pervades our nation, but more importantly our individual neighborhoods and even families. It is the new distain that we have for each other without the necessity of recognizing our humanity.
I remember hearing a Catholic priest once say in a lecture that if Satin could do only one thing to solidify his malevolence throughout mankind he would make us hate our bodies. He was suggesting that self deprecation of that which is the most basic and natural to us in this life was the surest way to abandon that which we revere in God. Rush has given this a socialogical twist.
As a nation and a society we have, since inception, had ideological conflict which has manifested itself into periods of tragedy and suffering. Students of the Civil War could successfully argue that period as the most obvious and poignant. At each such time there has been an imbalance caused by the demands of ideology requiring a dehumanization of those who don’t agree, essentially managing to get us to hate ourselves. Within the current health care debate there is so much hate that people virtually cannot see the problem to the point that they will actively work against their own self interest. Could anything make the devil smile more?
We are experiencing a civil war right now…and it is obvious. It began with people like Rush Limbaugh and has spread to the far left end of the spectrum in a vain attempt to create balance. It is aggravated by the nature of our political system which has currently become a manic struggle for power without substance and job security for its participants. This chapter in our history was made possible by a new age of communication, a new message of hate and fear, and was brought to you by the embodiment of the most evil man in America – Rush Limbaugh.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Healthcare: No Relief in Sight
Please see my article of August 26, 2008 written during the Presidential election. It's just as relevant with today's debate...perhaps more.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Ignoring the Obvious
I am appalled, astounded, and generally peeved at the recent coverage over the latest Palin pronouncement; her resigning as Alaska’s governor. It’s as if stating the obvious was somehow too risky for primetime. The endless babble over whether or not Sarah Palin ruined her chances to run for the Presidency is below the accuracy of lunatic repartee, let alone intellectual discourse. I guess that means it’s just perfect for national news.
Sarah Palin was a small town mayor who parlayed a couple of smart political moves and an attractive presentation into winning the governorship of a state that’s hardly known for conventional judgment. She was picked out of obscurity by John McCain in an insane and inane move to bolster his candidacy, a move that failed badly. She never was, is not, and never will be an even remotely viable candidate for national office. To include her name in the same context as "national office" is disinformation for marketing purposes that only belongs with the other entertainment celebrity news at the grocery store checkout counter.
However, to steal a phrase from A Coal Miner’s Daughter; the lady may be dumb…but she’s not stupid. I think she knows she’s not Vice-Presidential (let alone Presidential) timber, and to her credit she’s seems to have figured out she’s not Governor material either. She knows that remaining in office as the Governor of Alaska carries risks with it that could easily undermine her maximizing her potential, much like a football star might realize that spending two more years at the college gridiron might forever end his chances for making it big in the pros with one crushing tackle. Whether it is some bonehead scandal or an incompetent administration, she runs the potential of undermining the unique credibility she has with her fans. At the very least, finishing out her term as governor could use up precious time, and possibly leave her as an historical (and hysterical) blip in the American past.
In all likelihood she has seen how Rush Limbaugh has a reported worth of $400 million and is often described as the number one influence of what remains of the Republican Party. This former beauty contestant, turned local sportscaster, turned media starlet has probably seen that niche and fashions herself nestling into it. She couldn’t be more correct. She may want to sell the idea that she is in it for God, truth, justice, and the American way (good grief, even Rush Limbaugh touts that as his objective) and she may be delusional enough to believe that such is a half-truth, but the reality is that she wants what many of national fame have tasted: money and power. You can't fault her much for that. The beauty is that she’ll be able to do it right from her broadcast booth in Wasilla. She may end up owning more of Alaska than anyone other than Exxon-Mobil.
Sarah Palin was a small town mayor who parlayed a couple of smart political moves and an attractive presentation into winning the governorship of a state that’s hardly known for conventional judgment. She was picked out of obscurity by John McCain in an insane and inane move to bolster his candidacy, a move that failed badly. She never was, is not, and never will be an even remotely viable candidate for national office. To include her name in the same context as "national office" is disinformation for marketing purposes that only belongs with the other entertainment celebrity news at the grocery store checkout counter.
However, to steal a phrase from A Coal Miner’s Daughter; the lady may be dumb…but she’s not stupid. I think she knows she’s not Vice-Presidential (let alone Presidential) timber, and to her credit she’s seems to have figured out she’s not Governor material either. She knows that remaining in office as the Governor of Alaska carries risks with it that could easily undermine her maximizing her potential, much like a football star might realize that spending two more years at the college gridiron might forever end his chances for making it big in the pros with one crushing tackle. Whether it is some bonehead scandal or an incompetent administration, she runs the potential of undermining the unique credibility she has with her fans. At the very least, finishing out her term as governor could use up precious time, and possibly leave her as an historical (and hysterical) blip in the American past.
In all likelihood she has seen how Rush Limbaugh has a reported worth of $400 million and is often described as the number one influence of what remains of the Republican Party. This former beauty contestant, turned local sportscaster, turned media starlet has probably seen that niche and fashions herself nestling into it. She couldn’t be more correct. She may want to sell the idea that she is in it for God, truth, justice, and the American way (good grief, even Rush Limbaugh touts that as his objective) and she may be delusional enough to believe that such is a half-truth, but the reality is that she wants what many of national fame have tasted: money and power. You can't fault her much for that. The beauty is that she’ll be able to do it right from her broadcast booth in Wasilla. She may end up owning more of Alaska than anyone other than Exxon-Mobil.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Exchange on Healthcare
Below is an email exchange with a friend on the topic of Healthcare. I had asked him to give me his thoughts on the topic, since I suspected they differed from mine. They did, and perhaps that provides some balance:
Friend:
Well, I'm not going to be much help there. I'm not very medical. I've never really been sick, never had surgery, well oral surgery but I don't think that counts. But anecdotally I can give you some of my experiences.
In 1988 my daughter had bacterial pneumonia and spent 3 days at Children's Hospital ICU. Children's treated us like royalty. Gave us a place to stay next door and full access anytime we wanted it. I think we had Pilgrim Health Care through work which cost me $17 a paycheck. When the bill came from Children's it was around $3000 and it was marked paid in full. No deductible, no questions. And I never looked at it in any detail. Then in the 90's Hillary Clinton got on the healthcare bandwagon. It didn't last long but when she finally gave it up after a couple of years I was paying $34 a paycheck, had a deductible and the system was all screwed up. Thanks Hillary, good job.
In the late 90's Oliver North was running for senate I think. During the campaign he floated a brand new idea of the Health Saving Account. It was then that I got my first explanation of what an HSA was and how it worked. Instead of one Federal watchdog on medical costs, waste, and fraud, HSA's create 300 million watchdogs of the costs charged to their own accounts. Pretty neat idea I thought. Well, Ollie didn't get elected [whew, he was kind of a crazy] but I remembered the HSA. When I retired without any insurance, that was one of the first things we did. Now when we go to the doctor we ask. What is this test for? Why do you need these blood tests? I just had xrays last year, why again this year? Isn't it true that xrays are no longer considered an effective tool for detecting lung cancer? Ok, so why do you order the xrays? etc., etc. etc. I never did that before, And when I look back and compare my attitude before, it's no wonder that all kinds of fraud and abuse takes place. People don't ask. If somebody else is paying, let THEM ask. Well the HSA is your money in your account. The money you put into it is tax deductible and the premiums you pay for catastrophic insurance is also tax deductible.
You want a solution? In my view, there's your solution. Make everyone manage their own health care through their own account. 300 million watch dogs. Can't beat it.
OK, now having said that, I don't want to stop innovation, discovery, invention, etc. You make a strong case against profit, but it is a terrific motivator. The only reason the human gnome was mapped and currently in use by everyone is because they originally thought there was some money to be made from it. Little did they know all the possible applications that would come from it. But pure research is an essential part of a thriving society. Thousands of discoveries have come from it. Pennicillin was discovered without any idea what it's uses might be. Pure research however, is very expensive. Can we really chance not discovering the cure for AIDS, cancer, alzheimers, parkinsons, and dozens of other diseases because we somehow can't afford pure research? Can we really afford to halt the experiments of the supercollider just because no one knows what the results will be used for?
One last idea. Our founding father's did a great job.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establishJustice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote thegeneral Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.They could have added "provide for the common education" and/or "provide for the common health care" but they didn't. They only "provide for the common defense" so as to ensure an environment where you as individuals can provide for yourselves.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.That all men are created equal. Not that all men are equal, but when they are born they are created and begin their lives "equal". After that [by design] you're on your own. And clearly all men are not even close to being equal. And so, by design those of you who are better than the median can provide for yourselves better than those below the median. We are the ones with this wonderful system.
This system that attracts waiting lists of immigrants from all the other countries. Many other countries have nationalized health care. They pay a 40% tax for it. We are a nation of individuals whose individual liberties are ahead of all other concerns. While this quote is a bit out of context, They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety... Franklin It occurs to me that the nationalization of the health care industry would constitute just such a forfiture of liberty. I would advocate an increase in responsibility to the individual for his own well being. I believe nationalization would relieve the individual of all responsibility for their own well being, and as such, violate what Jefferson and his bussies had in mind.
My Reply:
Good morning - funny that you started your last email with "...not going to be much help" then proceeded to pump out a thousand words (997 to be exact). We truly do have some things in common. But plenty not in common too, as I read through your message. That's a good thing.
I'll take issue with your points this way (not sure where it will end):
Many of the arguments you presented are familiar and, for me, quite frustrating when I get into discussions on the subject. I think you set the tone correctly in your first paragraph when you implied that your experience defined your view. Perfectly reasonable. However, I believe the anecdotal approach to defining healthcare is precisely what creates the inertia we find ourselves in, much to the benefit of a select sector of our society.
In those discussions, personal experiences, good and bad, expound ad nausium. Further, people quote the personal experience of other people (as in other countries) with virtually no recollection of the source for that information. I find it frustrating that I can't (in a polite and un-aggressive way) get those individuals to look at the bigger picture. I feel it is the same, almost lemming mentality that viewed the dot.com companies in the late 90s and real estate in the mid 2000s on the other side of the balance sheet. You can make opposing lists of stories about how each system (profit/single payer) works and doesn't work that could stretch to the moon. The winner in that kind of analysis is always the status quo. People have just got to ask the question: who doesn't want things to change?
It's all about cost. Not about your cost or his cost or my cost, but the total cost. You read the piece I wrote last year, so I shouldn't need to repeat. But I just don't understand why one of the verifiable facts about healthcare doesn't resonate - total cost. People hear healthcare in Britain is great, others hear horror stories, it can all be suspect, but the fact is as a nation they care for 2.4 people for every one we take care of here (and their system is expensive by world wide standards). Why doesn't that make people here spin in their seats? Every other quantitative fact regarding healthcare (death rates, infant mortality, per capita hospital beds - US#27, per capita Drs US#52, etc) the US is either on par or below other countries. What are we getting for this huge transfer of wealth, and who's getting the money? Why is it so difficult for people to see that the (dis)information they receive about how (anecdotally) we have such a great medical system is most likely being provided by those who stand to lose if we converted to a single payer system.
Take your research argument, a popular one. Still, most medical research in this country today is done through our University system and it is mostly (if not nearly entirely) publicly funded (which includes charity - bolstered by tax policy as you described). The private (multi-national) pharmaceutical industry operating in this country has become so focused on profits and ROE that they've become counter-productive as expeditures directly relate to healthcare research. Did you read my piece on drug advertising? That aspect is like a metaphor for the entire industry. There are very few other countries that allow such to exist - for very good reason. To make the assumption that very smart dedicated people will stop pursuing careers in medical research because they won't make mega dollars at some corporation is unreasonable and doesn't reflect human behavior accurately. I would venture many if not most of those kinds of people hate working for such companies (simply because of the pressures for profits and ROE), are less productive, and work shorter careers because they can't wait to get out of that atmosphere (I clearly and personally empathize with that).
I don't even think the tax debate is relevant. We pay it one way or the other. For myself alone I pay (with my company subsidized insurance) about $8500 a year in insurance and deductibles. My tax could skyrocket and I'd be no worse off. Although with our system I am also given (at no extra cost) the added anxiety of never knowing if my own insurance costs will eventually outpace my resources or if medical illness or accident to anyone in my family will wipe out my assets. Of course, that may oddly help medical costs, since that kind of stress probably cuts years off of people's lives.
You provide a good Libertarian approach to managing cost, but I really believe that ideal ended in this country a hundred and fifty million people ago, at a time when technology was less complex and the profit aspect of medicine (by comparison to today) didn't really exist. Remember profit is defined as that in excess of fixed and variable expenditures (which includes labor). The healthcare industry in this country today (as I wrote) is almost totally inelastic. The demand side of the equation is currently unaffected by price increase. We either pay, exhaust our resources and have government pay, or decline services and die. There is virtually no impetus in the private sector for efficiency in medical care, because to do so would reduce profits, dollar for dollar. You may wisely refuse an x-ray today, but try doing it when your 85 and drooling in your wheel chair. Besides, you still pay the cost whether it's you getting the x-ray or the crack addict who bumbles into the emergency room. There has to be oversight in an industry which must meet the needs of every human in the country.
Despite what you say, I don't sense you're an 'everyone for himself' kind of guy, where healthcare is only for those smart, clever, and resourceful (or lucky) enough to properly work the system. However, you are correct that if access to adequate healthcare is not considered one of those basic "all men are created equal" inalienable rights (maybe under the “Life” right), then nationalized healthcare has no place in this country. Then you would also need to start advocating the elimination of the publicly supported healthcare already in this country (which is huge - Medicare being the biggest piece - and supplies much of the profit to the private sector) and get ready to start looking like most other third world countries with deformed children begging in the streets with their inalienable right for the pursuit of happiness.
Friend:
Well, I'm not going to be much help there. I'm not very medical. I've never really been sick, never had surgery, well oral surgery but I don't think that counts. But anecdotally I can give you some of my experiences.
In 1988 my daughter had bacterial pneumonia and spent 3 days at Children's Hospital ICU. Children's treated us like royalty. Gave us a place to stay next door and full access anytime we wanted it. I think we had Pilgrim Health Care through work which cost me $17 a paycheck. When the bill came from Children's it was around $3000 and it was marked paid in full. No deductible, no questions. And I never looked at it in any detail. Then in the 90's Hillary Clinton got on the healthcare bandwagon. It didn't last long but when she finally gave it up after a couple of years I was paying $34 a paycheck, had a deductible and the system was all screwed up. Thanks Hillary, good job.
In the late 90's Oliver North was running for senate I think. During the campaign he floated a brand new idea of the Health Saving Account. It was then that I got my first explanation of what an HSA was and how it worked. Instead of one Federal watchdog on medical costs, waste, and fraud, HSA's create 300 million watchdogs of the costs charged to their own accounts. Pretty neat idea I thought. Well, Ollie didn't get elected [whew, he was kind of a crazy] but I remembered the HSA. When I retired without any insurance, that was one of the first things we did. Now when we go to the doctor we ask. What is this test for? Why do you need these blood tests? I just had xrays last year, why again this year? Isn't it true that xrays are no longer considered an effective tool for detecting lung cancer? Ok, so why do you order the xrays? etc., etc. etc. I never did that before, And when I look back and compare my attitude before, it's no wonder that all kinds of fraud and abuse takes place. People don't ask. If somebody else is paying, let THEM ask. Well the HSA is your money in your account. The money you put into it is tax deductible and the premiums you pay for catastrophic insurance is also tax deductible.
You want a solution? In my view, there's your solution. Make everyone manage their own health care through their own account. 300 million watch dogs. Can't beat it.
OK, now having said that, I don't want to stop innovation, discovery, invention, etc. You make a strong case against profit, but it is a terrific motivator. The only reason the human gnome was mapped and currently in use by everyone is because they originally thought there was some money to be made from it. Little did they know all the possible applications that would come from it. But pure research is an essential part of a thriving society. Thousands of discoveries have come from it. Pennicillin was discovered without any idea what it's uses might be. Pure research however, is very expensive. Can we really chance not discovering the cure for AIDS, cancer, alzheimers, parkinsons, and dozens of other diseases because we somehow can't afford pure research? Can we really afford to halt the experiments of the supercollider just because no one knows what the results will be used for?
One last idea. Our founding father's did a great job.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establishJustice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote thegeneral Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.They could have added "provide for the common education" and/or "provide for the common health care" but they didn't. They only "provide for the common defense" so as to ensure an environment where you as individuals can provide for yourselves.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.That all men are created equal. Not that all men are equal, but when they are born they are created and begin their lives "equal". After that [by design] you're on your own. And clearly all men are not even close to being equal. And so, by design those of you who are better than the median can provide for yourselves better than those below the median. We are the ones with this wonderful system.
This system that attracts waiting lists of immigrants from all the other countries. Many other countries have nationalized health care. They pay a 40% tax for it. We are a nation of individuals whose individual liberties are ahead of all other concerns. While this quote is a bit out of context, They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety... Franklin It occurs to me that the nationalization of the health care industry would constitute just such a forfiture of liberty. I would advocate an increase in responsibility to the individual for his own well being. I believe nationalization would relieve the individual of all responsibility for their own well being, and as such, violate what Jefferson and his bussies had in mind.
My Reply:
Good morning - funny that you started your last email with "...not going to be much help" then proceeded to pump out a thousand words (997 to be exact). We truly do have some things in common. But plenty not in common too, as I read through your message. That's a good thing.
I'll take issue with your points this way (not sure where it will end):
Many of the arguments you presented are familiar and, for me, quite frustrating when I get into discussions on the subject. I think you set the tone correctly in your first paragraph when you implied that your experience defined your view. Perfectly reasonable. However, I believe the anecdotal approach to defining healthcare is precisely what creates the inertia we find ourselves in, much to the benefit of a select sector of our society.
In those discussions, personal experiences, good and bad, expound ad nausium. Further, people quote the personal experience of other people (as in other countries) with virtually no recollection of the source for that information. I find it frustrating that I can't (in a polite and un-aggressive way) get those individuals to look at the bigger picture. I feel it is the same, almost lemming mentality that viewed the dot.com companies in the late 90s and real estate in the mid 2000s on the other side of the balance sheet. You can make opposing lists of stories about how each system (profit/single payer) works and doesn't work that could stretch to the moon. The winner in that kind of analysis is always the status quo. People have just got to ask the question: who doesn't want things to change?
It's all about cost. Not about your cost or his cost or my cost, but the total cost. You read the piece I wrote last year, so I shouldn't need to repeat. But I just don't understand why one of the verifiable facts about healthcare doesn't resonate - total cost. People hear healthcare in Britain is great, others hear horror stories, it can all be suspect, but the fact is as a nation they care for 2.4 people for every one we take care of here (and their system is expensive by world wide standards). Why doesn't that make people here spin in their seats? Every other quantitative fact regarding healthcare (death rates, infant mortality, per capita hospital beds - US#27, per capita Drs US#52, etc) the US is either on par or below other countries. What are we getting for this huge transfer of wealth, and who's getting the money? Why is it so difficult for people to see that the (dis)information they receive about how (anecdotally) we have such a great medical system is most likely being provided by those who stand to lose if we converted to a single payer system.
Take your research argument, a popular one. Still, most medical research in this country today is done through our University system and it is mostly (if not nearly entirely) publicly funded (which includes charity - bolstered by tax policy as you described). The private (multi-national) pharmaceutical industry operating in this country has become so focused on profits and ROE that they've become counter-productive as expeditures directly relate to healthcare research. Did you read my piece on drug advertising? That aspect is like a metaphor for the entire industry. There are very few other countries that allow such to exist - for very good reason. To make the assumption that very smart dedicated people will stop pursuing careers in medical research because they won't make mega dollars at some corporation is unreasonable and doesn't reflect human behavior accurately. I would venture many if not most of those kinds of people hate working for such companies (simply because of the pressures for profits and ROE), are less productive, and work shorter careers because they can't wait to get out of that atmosphere (I clearly and personally empathize with that).
I don't even think the tax debate is relevant. We pay it one way or the other. For myself alone I pay (with my company subsidized insurance) about $8500 a year in insurance and deductibles. My tax could skyrocket and I'd be no worse off. Although with our system I am also given (at no extra cost) the added anxiety of never knowing if my own insurance costs will eventually outpace my resources or if medical illness or accident to anyone in my family will wipe out my assets. Of course, that may oddly help medical costs, since that kind of stress probably cuts years off of people's lives.
You provide a good Libertarian approach to managing cost, but I really believe that ideal ended in this country a hundred and fifty million people ago, at a time when technology was less complex and the profit aspect of medicine (by comparison to today) didn't really exist. Remember profit is defined as that in excess of fixed and variable expenditures (which includes labor). The healthcare industry in this country today (as I wrote) is almost totally inelastic. The demand side of the equation is currently unaffected by price increase. We either pay, exhaust our resources and have government pay, or decline services and die. There is virtually no impetus in the private sector for efficiency in medical care, because to do so would reduce profits, dollar for dollar. You may wisely refuse an x-ray today, but try doing it when your 85 and drooling in your wheel chair. Besides, you still pay the cost whether it's you getting the x-ray or the crack addict who bumbles into the emergency room. There has to be oversight in an industry which must meet the needs of every human in the country.
Despite what you say, I don't sense you're an 'everyone for himself' kind of guy, where healthcare is only for those smart, clever, and resourceful (or lucky) enough to properly work the system. However, you are correct that if access to adequate healthcare is not considered one of those basic "all men are created equal" inalienable rights (maybe under the “Life” right), then nationalized healthcare has no place in this country. Then you would also need to start advocating the elimination of the publicly supported healthcare already in this country (which is huge - Medicare being the biggest piece - and supplies much of the profit to the private sector) and get ready to start looking like most other third world countries with deformed children begging in the streets with their inalienable right for the pursuit of happiness.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Marriage
With my son's engagement, it got me thinking about what makes a marriage (really a relationship) last.
I think a good marriage is built on a foundation of 3 ‘Cs’ – Commitment, Compromise, and Compassion…and probably in that order. I’m guessing being engaged has all the same factors, only instead of Commitment you have Commit without the (ce)ment.
I use the term foundation since the complexities of a relationship are so immense that to simplify the totality of a relationship is both futile and foolhardy. Therefore, you find simple axioms to act as a base on which one can deal with the minutia. If we accept that certain basic things remain constant, anchors if you will, we just might keep the boat from running adrift when the currents and individual waves begin splashing over the gunnels. Like all axioms these 3 ‘Cs’ are not subject to analysis, just as one keeps a faith. By agreeing to them, however, doesn’t mean they don’t require work, but it does mean they are not up for debate…they are not ‘gray’.
Commitment is the most important and most difficult. It is what takes you through the inevitable periods of questioning, second guessing, and (for lack of a better term) the bad times. Frankly, it is also relatively rare, but it is as necessary as yeast is to risen bread for those relationships that actually go the distance. Somewhere in the development of a relationship it must be overtly and clearly confessed to each other and then it requires periodic reinforcement, neither of which is easy to do. As difficult as it is, I feel one cannot over emphasize the importance of making the effort. The attempt, or lack thereof, will be as telling to the relationship as the Sun, or lack of it, is to vacation weather.
Compromise is the grease that allows the Commitment gears to mesh with less friction. Like Commitment, you enter into Compromise without analysis or other great truckloads of personal garbage. The point of compromise is the basic understanding that there can be no winner in a contest without a loser. Of course, I’m not talking about Scrabble or arm wrestling, but rather in the judgments we make in viewing the actions of someone else. What we compromise is our judgment itself. Outside a marriage to do so may be foolish or even dishonorable. However, in a marriage it is Romance without equal, because it accepts and confesses the understanding that there is someone in your life without which life would have little meaning. Like all Romances it is something to strive for, but unlike Commitment there can be real day to day evidence of the attempt. It is like money in the Bank. You may not know the balance of your account, but you’ll feel mighty rich with each deposit.
Compassion is the great reward. It should be obvious, but let me clarify anyway; Compassion is not the romance, sex, churning stomach, longing, or other treats of a new relationship. Compassion exists when you realize (not easily) that your lust for life is intrinsically bound with your chosen partner. It’s the source of such sappy (but meaningful) movie lines as “…you complete me”. It is different from simple passion because at its root it demands that it be a shared experience. But just like passion it provides the palette of colors we all search for, to paint our lives as we’d like to think they should look. Like Compromise, it should be communicated often and overtly, giving credit where credit is due. Compassion is what makes confessions like “I love you” have real meaning.
There it is, 3 'Cs'. How simpler could it be? Of course, that's like saying growing vegetables is just seed, dirt, and water. Think that and don't count on tomatoes in July.
I think a good marriage is built on a foundation of 3 ‘Cs’ – Commitment, Compromise, and Compassion…and probably in that order. I’m guessing being engaged has all the same factors, only instead of Commitment you have Commit without the (ce)ment.
I use the term foundation since the complexities of a relationship are so immense that to simplify the totality of a relationship is both futile and foolhardy. Therefore, you find simple axioms to act as a base on which one can deal with the minutia. If we accept that certain basic things remain constant, anchors if you will, we just might keep the boat from running adrift when the currents and individual waves begin splashing over the gunnels. Like all axioms these 3 ‘Cs’ are not subject to analysis, just as one keeps a faith. By agreeing to them, however, doesn’t mean they don’t require work, but it does mean they are not up for debate…they are not ‘gray’.
Commitment is the most important and most difficult. It is what takes you through the inevitable periods of questioning, second guessing, and (for lack of a better term) the bad times. Frankly, it is also relatively rare, but it is as necessary as yeast is to risen bread for those relationships that actually go the distance. Somewhere in the development of a relationship it must be overtly and clearly confessed to each other and then it requires periodic reinforcement, neither of which is easy to do. As difficult as it is, I feel one cannot over emphasize the importance of making the effort. The attempt, or lack thereof, will be as telling to the relationship as the Sun, or lack of it, is to vacation weather.
Compromise is the grease that allows the Commitment gears to mesh with less friction. Like Commitment, you enter into Compromise without analysis or other great truckloads of personal garbage. The point of compromise is the basic understanding that there can be no winner in a contest without a loser. Of course, I’m not talking about Scrabble or arm wrestling, but rather in the judgments we make in viewing the actions of someone else. What we compromise is our judgment itself. Outside a marriage to do so may be foolish or even dishonorable. However, in a marriage it is Romance without equal, because it accepts and confesses the understanding that there is someone in your life without which life would have little meaning. Like all Romances it is something to strive for, but unlike Commitment there can be real day to day evidence of the attempt. It is like money in the Bank. You may not know the balance of your account, but you’ll feel mighty rich with each deposit.
Compassion is the great reward. It should be obvious, but let me clarify anyway; Compassion is not the romance, sex, churning stomach, longing, or other treats of a new relationship. Compassion exists when you realize (not easily) that your lust for life is intrinsically bound with your chosen partner. It’s the source of such sappy (but meaningful) movie lines as “…you complete me”. It is different from simple passion because at its root it demands that it be a shared experience. But just like passion it provides the palette of colors we all search for, to paint our lives as we’d like to think they should look. Like Compromise, it should be communicated often and overtly, giving credit where credit is due. Compassion is what makes confessions like “I love you” have real meaning.
There it is, 3 'Cs'. How simpler could it be? Of course, that's like saying growing vegetables is just seed, dirt, and water. Think that and don't count on tomatoes in July.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Obamanomics?
When I majored in Economics the discipline was quite a bit different…and not. It makes me recall the old saying; everything is different…nothing has changed. Back then, we were on the waning cusp of the Keynesian Revolution, and the Monetarists, led by (the later Nobel Lauriat) Milton Friedman were happily waxing. The theories were different than what we see today, but the fundamental approach has remained unchanged. That lack of change continues to be the bane of most economists, politicians, and financial soothsayers of every description.
After 35 years since graduation, and even with my attempts to remain well-read, I would probably be challenged to get a respectable grade in an Econ 101 course. Nevertheless, the fundamental I took from my education remains fresh and, I believe, timeless. It is this simple fact: Economics is a behavioral science, not an exact science. That fact would not receive much debate in academic circles, yet the practical application of it seems to be lost in the practical application of economics in the real world.
The unchanging part of formal Economics is the insatiable desire to apply formula to human behavior. Our politicians are currently struggling to do just that and with resources (in the form of debt) that have no precedent (that I can think of), certainly on a scale never before imagined. Our leaders, including Obama, are tapping into their favorite economists to give them direction, probably based on what economists are currently in favor. Yet economists are like stabled horses; you check out their papers, look at their teeth, examine their gate, admire their confidence, but when you get on to ride you can’t be sure what’s going to happen. In all likelihood the economists or economic theorists chosen are the ones with the latest successes, but those successes might have been on a dry track and perhaps now the raceway is inches deep in mud. That may explain why I occasionally hear that some politicians (and academics) want to saddle up Maynard Keynes again to see if he’s good for another spirited ride.
I do believe that certain economic assumptions have value if they are consistent with the understanding that human behavior is inherently inconsistent (or erratic, to be less gentile) and it begs for the application of common sense. Human behavior, economic behavior included, reacts to two opposing stimuli: risk and certainty (more accurately predictability since certainty doesn’t exist except perhaps in natural science). In the real world, individuals (of varying numbers) get rich in an environment of risk, but societies economically flourish in an environment of predictability. What the Bush and (it appears) the Obama administrations are trying to do is create growth by heaving great loads of cash into the system, which Monetarist theories tell them will accelerate the economy. Several other nations are doing the same. What they fail to understand is that these attempts very likely will have no effect on growth since they don’t address the major underlying problem: the perceived lack of predictability by the people who comprise the Economy.
Take what most people, including me, feel is the major stumbling block to economic stability: the housing market.
Why the housing market as opposed to say, the job market (another good choice)? Housing is, I believe, one of the great fundamentals of human behavioral stability, along with food and safety. More importantly we have matured as a specie to think of the stability of our habitat as a precursor to much of the rest of our decision making (maybe we always did – leave that to the anthropologists). Of course this doesn’t include all people, but certainly a vast majority enough to drive economies. As we have come to rely on the certainty of our dwellings, and more over the value of those dwellings, we are freed to approach many other economic adventures with a sense of predictability. Now many are uncertain of the viability of remaining in their homes and most everyone feels uncertain as to the value, present and future. Restoring predictability to the housing market is what is needed, not attempting to restore value, or keep people in homes they never should have owned in the first place.
If I had the opportunity to lobby Mr. Obama, I would push him in the one direction everyone seems to be running from; underwriting prospective homebuyers who do not qualify under our current standards. Basically, go back to what many think got us (and the financial markets) into this problem in the first place, sub-prime lending. However, I would trim the fat in three ways; it would be publically funded (eliminating the greed that drove that last perfect storm), direct it only to buyers who do not currently own a home, and not eliminate the income or equity (appraisal) portion of the mortgage qualification.
The underwriting would be to lower the threshold on credit score. This would all be geared to starting the domino effect that has always been part of the modern real estate housing market, the movement of individuals from one home to another. Many renting individuals who may have defaulted on a sub-prime mortgage due to the size of the mortgage relative to the value of their home (a home they should never have been in) would be able to get the opportunity for finance to a smaller home, provided their income supports it. Just the smell of inflation in the housing market, however slight, due to movement of homeowners, would help jumpstart the entire process.
It’s impossible to predict what level housing values may evolve to in such a process or even how long it would take. However, I’m comfortable with one forecast: once the housing market has achieve a level of predictability where individuals can feel comfortable about what their home is worth and that the opportunity to leave that home or stay in it is a matter of simple choice and not necessity, then the rest of our economy (in the absence of catastrophe or conflict) will begin to show its own renewed sense of predictability and growth. The economists will rewrite their new formulas and we’ll just get on with the next crisis. I’m concerned, nonetheless, that if our leaders, especially Obama and his advisors, continue to widen this tsunami of debt in the attempt to buy confidence, then we will be left with simply a widened crisis…and some very, very rich people.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Obama and the Next Black Revolution
As the media began to transition from the prospect of a President Obama to the reality of it, I was struck by the emphasis given to his race and the historic nature of it. For me, though the election of an African-American had been a wonderful achievement, it nevertheless was a sidebar to the man himself, who I had early pinned my hopes of true leadership for this Country. Still the attention to race gave me pause and got me thinking about what it meant. I don’t believe Obama’s race will have any immediate effect on the underlying problems associated with the darker side of America’s cultural evolution, but I’m hopeful that it will mark the beginning of changes in race relations that will bring us closer to being a colorless nation.
Real changes in race relations in the United States are not marked by events or people; they’re marked by decades and generations. Being part of the baby boom generation I can anecdotally see the changes that have taken place over that last 70 years by looking back at my parents and their contemporaries and then looking ahead at my children and their friends. Without even analyzing myself and my own generation, I can surmise that the baby boomers are likely the mean between that of my parents and children. It’s not hard to imagine the future mindset of my grandchildren and great-grandchildren in a very positive way. But I am not African-American and my experience is quite different from the Black experience. I don’t believe the change in my grandchildren will come from me, although I’d like to think it. The major changes that will take place over the next generations will come from America’s black culture, just as the prior changes have done, and the Obama election may historically be seen as the beginning of that period.
I believe the Black experience and White prejudice in American can, to date, be divided up into 3 distinct periods. In each the changes in the general prevailing attitude of White America has lagged behind the changes in Black culture. Of course the first period is obvious, early America was a nation that either tolerated or actively engaged in black slavery. Non-black slavery was essentially called indentured servitude, but the philosophical and ethical difference between the two was enormous since the difference between black and white was deemed biological and not just a difference of social class.
By 1870 and the end of the Reconstruction period after the Civil War, the Nation began the 2nd period of race relations which lasted for another 70 years, ending with World War II. It was a period of black acceptance of political freedom but social inequality. It many ways African-Americans were only elevated to the level of indentured servitude. They retained the economic shackles which denied them access to the means of becoming part of the economic mainstream, primarily education, but they also retained the stigma of being deemed biologically inferior. Except for the brief period of Reconstruction, Black history between the Civil War and WWII has minimal historical significance as African-Americans were not invited to the table where power and innovation were being served. Again, it took those 7 decades for Blacks to refuse acceptance of political and cultural inequality. Non-black America eventually followed with changes both in law and attitude, but only so far.
The 3rd period began with the close of WWII and perhaps ended with the election of Barack Obama. The civil rights movement was the natural end of the post-Civil War Jim Crow era which by the 60’s had ended statutory inequality between the races (and, in theory, all social sub-sets, such as women, religions, and gays). However, this third period was that in which the biological and cultural inferiority of African-Americans was attacked. Its beginning was marked by the efforts made during the 50s and 60s, not by such as Martin Luther King and his contemporaries, who finished the inequalities that began in 1870. Rather it began with what was seen at the time as radical behavior by Black America, with such movements as Black Power and Black is Beautiful, and spread to every corner of American culture such as politics, media, art, music, or athletics. These were the young people, primarily black but also many whites, who sought to elevate the black culture to a level of equality by emphasizing the uniqueness of the culture with a sense of pride. It evolved from the obvious need to overcome the philosophical and psychological chains that remained from the antebellum period.
The changes that have taken place over the 63 years since WWII have been as dramatic as the earlier changes that set the stage for the elimination of Jim Crow and the separate but equal myth. The contribution by Blacks to the American culture has been extraordinary over the past 6 decades and, as opposed to the post-Civil War period; recent history cannot be recorded without the significant impact of the African-American influence. I believe it can be argued that the election of Barack Obama is evidence of the success of cultural equality. But still, what have we got left?
The racial barriers that remain in the United States are still profound. The last 63 years may have eliminated the sense of cultural and biological inequality between races, personified by Barack Obama, but we still have a huge cultural divide created in great part by the efforts meant to achieve cultural equality; specifically the desire to be unique and separate from a perceived white culture. These barriers, complimented by the acceptance by both black and white cultures as being inherently separate, result in (among other things) depressed economics and the dilemma of Black poverty and social turmoil. As a consequence, most Americans, but primarily Black Americans, see the cultures of the races still distinctly black and white. Young Black men in particular view the assimilation into the greater economy as a conflict, or even denial of their own cultural heritage, which they may feel has been so recently vindicated.
Education is the key and the most important tools will be the English language and the family unit. It is my hope that the next revolution that may begin to take shape over the subsequent 10 years will be acceptance by the African-American community that there is but one Western economy in which they, as Americans, have an individual role to play. Not as Black Americans, but simply as Americans. White America will follow willingly. Maybe the next black President elected will get but 55% of both the white and black vote and no one will think anything of it. Then perhaps the racial differences of wealth, neighborhoods, languages, ethics, families, fears, or even skin color will be something my great-grandchildren will only read about, as they ponder their own generational challenges.
Real changes in race relations in the United States are not marked by events or people; they’re marked by decades and generations. Being part of the baby boom generation I can anecdotally see the changes that have taken place over that last 70 years by looking back at my parents and their contemporaries and then looking ahead at my children and their friends. Without even analyzing myself and my own generation, I can surmise that the baby boomers are likely the mean between that of my parents and children. It’s not hard to imagine the future mindset of my grandchildren and great-grandchildren in a very positive way. But I am not African-American and my experience is quite different from the Black experience. I don’t believe the change in my grandchildren will come from me, although I’d like to think it. The major changes that will take place over the next generations will come from America’s black culture, just as the prior changes have done, and the Obama election may historically be seen as the beginning of that period.
I believe the Black experience and White prejudice in American can, to date, be divided up into 3 distinct periods. In each the changes in the general prevailing attitude of White America has lagged behind the changes in Black culture. Of course the first period is obvious, early America was a nation that either tolerated or actively engaged in black slavery. Non-black slavery was essentially called indentured servitude, but the philosophical and ethical difference between the two was enormous since the difference between black and white was deemed biological and not just a difference of social class.
By 1870 and the end of the Reconstruction period after the Civil War, the Nation began the 2nd period of race relations which lasted for another 70 years, ending with World War II. It was a period of black acceptance of political freedom but social inequality. It many ways African-Americans were only elevated to the level of indentured servitude. They retained the economic shackles which denied them access to the means of becoming part of the economic mainstream, primarily education, but they also retained the stigma of being deemed biologically inferior. Except for the brief period of Reconstruction, Black history between the Civil War and WWII has minimal historical significance as African-Americans were not invited to the table where power and innovation were being served. Again, it took those 7 decades for Blacks to refuse acceptance of political and cultural inequality. Non-black America eventually followed with changes both in law and attitude, but only so far.
The 3rd period began with the close of WWII and perhaps ended with the election of Barack Obama. The civil rights movement was the natural end of the post-Civil War Jim Crow era which by the 60’s had ended statutory inequality between the races (and, in theory, all social sub-sets, such as women, religions, and gays). However, this third period was that in which the biological and cultural inferiority of African-Americans was attacked. Its beginning was marked by the efforts made during the 50s and 60s, not by such as Martin Luther King and his contemporaries, who finished the inequalities that began in 1870. Rather it began with what was seen at the time as radical behavior by Black America, with such movements as Black Power and Black is Beautiful, and spread to every corner of American culture such as politics, media, art, music, or athletics. These were the young people, primarily black but also many whites, who sought to elevate the black culture to a level of equality by emphasizing the uniqueness of the culture with a sense of pride. It evolved from the obvious need to overcome the philosophical and psychological chains that remained from the antebellum period.
The changes that have taken place over the 63 years since WWII have been as dramatic as the earlier changes that set the stage for the elimination of Jim Crow and the separate but equal myth. The contribution by Blacks to the American culture has been extraordinary over the past 6 decades and, as opposed to the post-Civil War period; recent history cannot be recorded without the significant impact of the African-American influence. I believe it can be argued that the election of Barack Obama is evidence of the success of cultural equality. But still, what have we got left?
The racial barriers that remain in the United States are still profound. The last 63 years may have eliminated the sense of cultural and biological inequality between races, personified by Barack Obama, but we still have a huge cultural divide created in great part by the efforts meant to achieve cultural equality; specifically the desire to be unique and separate from a perceived white culture. These barriers, complimented by the acceptance by both black and white cultures as being inherently separate, result in (among other things) depressed economics and the dilemma of Black poverty and social turmoil. As a consequence, most Americans, but primarily Black Americans, see the cultures of the races still distinctly black and white. Young Black men in particular view the assimilation into the greater economy as a conflict, or even denial of their own cultural heritage, which they may feel has been so recently vindicated.
Education is the key and the most important tools will be the English language and the family unit. It is my hope that the next revolution that may begin to take shape over the subsequent 10 years will be acceptance by the African-American community that there is but one Western economy in which they, as Americans, have an individual role to play. Not as Black Americans, but simply as Americans. White America will follow willingly. Maybe the next black President elected will get but 55% of both the white and black vote and no one will think anything of it. Then perhaps the racial differences of wealth, neighborhoods, languages, ethics, families, fears, or even skin color will be something my great-grandchildren will only read about, as they ponder their own generational challenges.
Friday, October 10, 2008
The Case Against Prescription Drug (Rx) Advertising
(This article is also found on the blog www.CAPDA.blogspot.com . Please visit that blog and lend your support for the legislative elimination of Rx advertising, thank you)
In 1987, under the banner of deregulated free markets holding sway during the Reagan/Bush years, Congress lifted the restriction on pharmaceutical companies to advertise on television and radio. Since that time the Nation’s drug suppliers have spent amounts approaching (or exceeding) $200 billion on “direct to consumer” advertising of prescription drugs (Rx). In 2005 the annual outlay was $29.9 billion (see New England Journal of Medicine). I suspect the 2008 expenditure will greatly exceed that.
There has little controversy to this practice surfacing from time to time, but mostly there has been a passive acceptance. The affect of advertising is normally positive in a free market, even necessary, but it is also potentially insidious. We view advertising submissively, rarely thinking about it. Its very purpose is to create recall only at the time of or decision to purchase.
The limited debate over Rx advertising has mostly focused on the affect advertising has on the decision making of the doctor, to what extent does the motivated patient adversely sways the doctor's decision making on which drug to use. I believe that debate is useless. It requires second guessing physicians and that cannot be determined in any practical way even if we intuitively know it’s true. The debate should be centered on the economics of Rx advertising, what is really happening and what the obvious consequences are.
Advertising by definition is targeted toward the consumer who might be interested in purchasing the product advertised, or to the individual who might influence the purchaser (such as advertising to small children). Rx falls loosely into that second category. The identity of the Rx consumer, however, is the first misnomer.
The patient is not the consumer when it comes to Rx, rather the purchaser is the physician. It is important to understand that the patient doesn’t buy Rx for himself, rather he/she buys it for the physician. Prior to the development of retail drug establishments, doctors disseminated Rx when the patient was seen and the patient would pay or reimburse the doctor as part of the overall cost of treatment, just as it’s currently often done in hospitals. As the number of Rx expanded it became impractical for doctors to maintain the inventory and so Drug Stores became a centralized point from which doctors could disperse medications.
Therefore, Rx advertising is directed toward individuals who can’t buy the product, any more than a three year old can buy that box of Cocoa Puffs she’s seen on TV. The difference is, of course, the Rx purchaser is an adult who actually thinks they are the one buying the Rx. At least the 3 year old intuitively knows their Cocoa Puffs are coming from mommy. I believe it is this fundamental misunderstanding by adult patients which maintained the restrictions of Rx advertising up to eleven years ago, and why most of the rest of the world still retains that restriction. However, it is far from the only reason why mass marketing in the form of television and radio advertising should be eliminated.
Cost of Health care and Prescription Drug Advertising: The cost of health care in the United States has reached the kind of insanity level that real estate values did in the second half of this decade (see http://www.pennyfound.blogspot.com/ article Health care…No Relief in Sight). The health care consumer must constantly be remembering that the cost of healthcare for him/her is revenue for someone else. There is a transfer of wealth in the US of over $1.7 Trillion annually (see current World Health Report). Over $30 billion of that amount goes to those involved with the marketing of Rx (advertisers, media, and the marketing overhead of the pharmaceutical companies). It matters not what health care plan our current or prospective political leaders espouse, none will work unless the cost of health care in the US is reversed. The billions spent on Rx advertising are perhaps the most wasteful dollars spent in our pending health care catastrophe as they do not directly benefit the health care recipient or the system generally. In fact, as implied above, there is no benefit, direct or indirect, to the patient.
Prescription Drug Advertising as a Disincentive for Drug Research: The argument frequently heard from drug companies is that the price of a drug is often very high due to the large investment that took place prior to the drug being released to the public. It is a good argument as those costs must be recovered, as well as the costs of research on failed drugs that ultimately are not released. However, once the drugs are released the revenues can be used for further research on new and improved Rx, but what happens? The Pharmaceutical Companies continue to invest in these drugs, in the billions of dollars, through mass marketing. Not only are those billions not being used for further research, but they drive up the cost. Further, with the Pharmaceutical Companies continuing to invest billions in a drug to make it more profitable, where is there incentive to develop new drugs that might not have the same profit margin or may even replace the highly marketed drug? It is simple human nature (and therefore business nature) that they will continue to support these marketed drugs rather than new ones due to the continued investment from which they have calculated an expected financial return. None of this equates to any benefit for the patient…past, present, or future.
Prescription Drug Advertising Adversely Impacting the Quality of Rx: As the Pharmaceutical Companies continue to invest in a prescription drug they become less likely to continue critical review of that drug, or maintain even a practical semblance of objectivity in any critical review. Again, why would they? Not only have they invested in the development of the drug, but after its release they continue that investment and now have projected levels of profits to defend. There is a further element, however.
With mass marketing the pharmaceutical companies have exposed themselves to more liability; both on a retail level which can affect shareholder equity, and on a tort level with possible injured parties. This has already been made obvious by several highly public drug failures such as with Vioxx and several statin drugs. The heavily marketed drug increases public awareness, which is what mass marketing is supposed to do. With that visibility, however, comes equally visible news worthiness should a drug fail. The declining affect on stock value for the owning pharmaceutical company can be huge. Further, the pharmaceutical companies know that a problem with a highly marketed drug could well disseminate to the public in such a way that a higher percentage of unaffected users may seek legal action against the company. In both those cases there is a built in incentive for the company to be defensive and disinclined to police the quality of the drug - in the legal world knowledge is poison. As an aside one should note those increased defensive costs are already factored in and increase the cost of the Rx, even as the company seeks to avoid them.
There are other less critical reasons why Rx advertising should once again be banned from radio and television.
The information regarding the prescription drug that is supposed to be provided with the advertisements is laughable and completely ignored by the FCC. It is the audible and visual equivalent of an 80 year old trying to read minuscule type on a label without glasses, she knows it’s there but it has no meaning. In fact, it is a practical impossibility further strengthening the point that drugs are marketed to the wrong people.
Unregulated mass marketing of Rx forces pharmaceutical companies to compete in the practice, even if internally they might prefer to do otherwise.
We know the uninformed influence of the patient adversely affects the doctor’s best decision making, we only don’t know how much, and we never will. We also will never know to what extent mass Rx advertising contributes to defensive medicine, although it surely does, putting both the patient at some additional risk and driving up cost.
The last point I’d like to make, although certainly not the last of the negatives, is that these ads, television commercials particularly, are incredibly annoying and often the television equivalent of fingernails on a backboard. They are either a painful manipulation or an insult to our intelligence…and they are constant (not surprising for $30 billion being spent). I know that’s true for me, but when ever I’ve broached the topic the response I get is the same. Generally speaking, nobody likes them, even as they are manipulated by them.
Mass marketing of prescription drugs exists because, for the most part, it accomplishes what it seeks to do. It gets the patient to influence the consumer (the doctor) to buy the Rx thus increasing sales and profit. However, in a world where healthcare should be an available standard commodity to all people, like clean water, then prescription mass marketing takes us in the wrong direction. It is far from an answer to the overall healthcare problem, but its elimination would take us one step further in the direction we need to go, and at $30 billion a year it would be no small step.
In 1987, under the banner of deregulated free markets holding sway during the Reagan/Bush years, Congress lifted the restriction on pharmaceutical companies to advertise on television and radio. Since that time the Nation’s drug suppliers have spent amounts approaching (or exceeding) $200 billion on “direct to consumer” advertising of prescription drugs (Rx). In 2005 the annual outlay was $29.9 billion (see New England Journal of Medicine). I suspect the 2008 expenditure will greatly exceed that.
There has little controversy to this practice surfacing from time to time, but mostly there has been a passive acceptance. The affect of advertising is normally positive in a free market, even necessary, but it is also potentially insidious. We view advertising submissively, rarely thinking about it. Its very purpose is to create recall only at the time of or decision to purchase.
The limited debate over Rx advertising has mostly focused on the affect advertising has on the decision making of the doctor, to what extent does the motivated patient adversely sways the doctor's decision making on which drug to use. I believe that debate is useless. It requires second guessing physicians and that cannot be determined in any practical way even if we intuitively know it’s true. The debate should be centered on the economics of Rx advertising, what is really happening and what the obvious consequences are.
Advertising by definition is targeted toward the consumer who might be interested in purchasing the product advertised, or to the individual who might influence the purchaser (such as advertising to small children). Rx falls loosely into that second category. The identity of the Rx consumer, however, is the first misnomer.
The patient is not the consumer when it comes to Rx, rather the purchaser is the physician. It is important to understand that the patient doesn’t buy Rx for himself, rather he/she buys it for the physician. Prior to the development of retail drug establishments, doctors disseminated Rx when the patient was seen and the patient would pay or reimburse the doctor as part of the overall cost of treatment, just as it’s currently often done in hospitals. As the number of Rx expanded it became impractical for doctors to maintain the inventory and so Drug Stores became a centralized point from which doctors could disperse medications.
Therefore, Rx advertising is directed toward individuals who can’t buy the product, any more than a three year old can buy that box of Cocoa Puffs she’s seen on TV. The difference is, of course, the Rx purchaser is an adult who actually thinks they are the one buying the Rx. At least the 3 year old intuitively knows their Cocoa Puffs are coming from mommy. I believe it is this fundamental misunderstanding by adult patients which maintained the restrictions of Rx advertising up to eleven years ago, and why most of the rest of the world still retains that restriction. However, it is far from the only reason why mass marketing in the form of television and radio advertising should be eliminated.
Cost of Health care and Prescription Drug Advertising: The cost of health care in the United States has reached the kind of insanity level that real estate values did in the second half of this decade (see http://www.pennyfound.blogspot.com/ article Health care…No Relief in Sight). The health care consumer must constantly be remembering that the cost of healthcare for him/her is revenue for someone else. There is a transfer of wealth in the US of over $1.7 Trillion annually (see current World Health Report). Over $30 billion of that amount goes to those involved with the marketing of Rx (advertisers, media, and the marketing overhead of the pharmaceutical companies). It matters not what health care plan our current or prospective political leaders espouse, none will work unless the cost of health care in the US is reversed. The billions spent on Rx advertising are perhaps the most wasteful dollars spent in our pending health care catastrophe as they do not directly benefit the health care recipient or the system generally. In fact, as implied above, there is no benefit, direct or indirect, to the patient.
Prescription Drug Advertising as a Disincentive for Drug Research: The argument frequently heard from drug companies is that the price of a drug is often very high due to the large investment that took place prior to the drug being released to the public. It is a good argument as those costs must be recovered, as well as the costs of research on failed drugs that ultimately are not released. However, once the drugs are released the revenues can be used for further research on new and improved Rx, but what happens? The Pharmaceutical Companies continue to invest in these drugs, in the billions of dollars, through mass marketing. Not only are those billions not being used for further research, but they drive up the cost. Further, with the Pharmaceutical Companies continuing to invest billions in a drug to make it more profitable, where is there incentive to develop new drugs that might not have the same profit margin or may even replace the highly marketed drug? It is simple human nature (and therefore business nature) that they will continue to support these marketed drugs rather than new ones due to the continued investment from which they have calculated an expected financial return. None of this equates to any benefit for the patient…past, present, or future.
Prescription Drug Advertising Adversely Impacting the Quality of Rx: As the Pharmaceutical Companies continue to invest in a prescription drug they become less likely to continue critical review of that drug, or maintain even a practical semblance of objectivity in any critical review. Again, why would they? Not only have they invested in the development of the drug, but after its release they continue that investment and now have projected levels of profits to defend. There is a further element, however.
With mass marketing the pharmaceutical companies have exposed themselves to more liability; both on a retail level which can affect shareholder equity, and on a tort level with possible injured parties. This has already been made obvious by several highly public drug failures such as with Vioxx and several statin drugs. The heavily marketed drug increases public awareness, which is what mass marketing is supposed to do. With that visibility, however, comes equally visible news worthiness should a drug fail. The declining affect on stock value for the owning pharmaceutical company can be huge. Further, the pharmaceutical companies know that a problem with a highly marketed drug could well disseminate to the public in such a way that a higher percentage of unaffected users may seek legal action against the company. In both those cases there is a built in incentive for the company to be defensive and disinclined to police the quality of the drug - in the legal world knowledge is poison. As an aside one should note those increased defensive costs are already factored in and increase the cost of the Rx, even as the company seeks to avoid them.
There are other less critical reasons why Rx advertising should once again be banned from radio and television.
The information regarding the prescription drug that is supposed to be provided with the advertisements is laughable and completely ignored by the FCC. It is the audible and visual equivalent of an 80 year old trying to read minuscule type on a label without glasses, she knows it’s there but it has no meaning. In fact, it is a practical impossibility further strengthening the point that drugs are marketed to the wrong people.
Unregulated mass marketing of Rx forces pharmaceutical companies to compete in the practice, even if internally they might prefer to do otherwise.
We know the uninformed influence of the patient adversely affects the doctor’s best decision making, we only don’t know how much, and we never will. We also will never know to what extent mass Rx advertising contributes to defensive medicine, although it surely does, putting both the patient at some additional risk and driving up cost.
The last point I’d like to make, although certainly not the last of the negatives, is that these ads, television commercials particularly, are incredibly annoying and often the television equivalent of fingernails on a backboard. They are either a painful manipulation or an insult to our intelligence…and they are constant (not surprising for $30 billion being spent). I know that’s true for me, but when ever I’ve broached the topic the response I get is the same. Generally speaking, nobody likes them, even as they are manipulated by them.
Mass marketing of prescription drugs exists because, for the most part, it accomplishes what it seeks to do. It gets the patient to influence the consumer (the doctor) to buy the Rx thus increasing sales and profit. However, in a world where healthcare should be an available standard commodity to all people, like clean water, then prescription mass marketing takes us in the wrong direction. It is far from an answer to the overall healthcare problem, but its elimination would take us one step further in the direction we need to go, and at $30 billion a year it would be no small step.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
The Alien Liberal
The Richmond, Virginia radio market is a tough one for someone like me. I like talk radio, but in Richmond one is limited to the Rush Limbaugh storm troopers, with its assorted cadre of hypersensitive Christians, conspiracy nuts, second amendment fanatics, peach pie philosophers, and Alien enthusiasts (to name a few) calling in. I try to listen as long as I can, as if letting water drip on my forehead might prepare me for more challenging things, but it’s no use. I start to get angry, then incredulous, then resigned, and finally feeling very alone.
As a Liberal I’ve come to understand from Conservative broadcasters that my very existence has unleashed a horde of illegal, benefit laden Latinos, promiscuous women on welfare, mentally unstable college professors, and union lemmings (among others) to claw away at real patriotic American’s automatic weapons, steal their earnings, or perhaps leave their children unattended at bus stops. I always thought I was a nice liberal, but from what I listen to, that distinction is an oxymoron.
I’d like to think of myself as a Reagan Liberal. That would be a Liberal who ends his speaking points with an aw-shucks chuckle (well…gosh, Senator McCain…maybe that’s why mavericks never lead the herd). Mostly however, I’m just run of the mill. I don’t understand when we find ourselves in a world economy honeycombed with multi-national corporations, complex energy distribution, lightening fast communication, terrifying weapons (large and small), and unprecedented population growth why so many in this country are opposed to considering collective solutions to free market failures. Oh hell…of course I know… it’s the money, or more accurately those who stand to lose money and their extraordinary ability to scam people (usually through fear) that any restriction to the free market is like letting Lucifer in the front door.
I don’t like the “new” Liberal that calls him/herself a Progressive. I guess I just don’t like the term… it’s a copout, or at best confusing. The Liberal position is important and doesn’t need re-titling. It has been underrepresented in both government and our culture at large for over 30 years, yet it’s critical because the path that leads to the successful evolution of the American culture is laid between the Liberal and Conservative ideologies. Without the counterbalance we end up in the ditch and as of late we’ve been in the ditch that bears to the Right.
I’m really hoping that President Obama is a consensus builder and that the Conservative side of the highway retains enough ideologically sound champions to keep him in the road. Perhaps then we might actually create a single payer healthcare system which compliments business growth, or international cooperation which enhances American influence, or debt control which can be viewed as patriotic.
I will say this about the Conservative talk shows though…I think they may be on to something regarding UFOs and Aliens. If they’re right, the Aliens have to be widespread among us and totally stealth. I think I may have figured it out…it’s the squirrels. Think about it...we know they’re everywhere even though we only see them in random flashes. They’re always looking and examining, they’re obviously communicating in a fashion we can’t figure out, they’re very nervous, and isn’t it possible that the occasional squirrel one sees dangling from a power line suffered his fate for attempting to go to “the other side”? I think President Obama might consider trying to make contact. It would be the gracious thing for a Liberal to do.
As a Liberal I’ve come to understand from Conservative broadcasters that my very existence has unleashed a horde of illegal, benefit laden Latinos, promiscuous women on welfare, mentally unstable college professors, and union lemmings (among others) to claw away at real patriotic American’s automatic weapons, steal their earnings, or perhaps leave their children unattended at bus stops. I always thought I was a nice liberal, but from what I listen to, that distinction is an oxymoron.
I’d like to think of myself as a Reagan Liberal. That would be a Liberal who ends his speaking points with an aw-shucks chuckle (well…gosh, Senator McCain…maybe that’s why mavericks never lead the herd). Mostly however, I’m just run of the mill. I don’t understand when we find ourselves in a world economy honeycombed with multi-national corporations, complex energy distribution, lightening fast communication, terrifying weapons (large and small), and unprecedented population growth why so many in this country are opposed to considering collective solutions to free market failures. Oh hell…of course I know… it’s the money, or more accurately those who stand to lose money and their extraordinary ability to scam people (usually through fear) that any restriction to the free market is like letting Lucifer in the front door.
I don’t like the “new” Liberal that calls him/herself a Progressive. I guess I just don’t like the term… it’s a copout, or at best confusing. The Liberal position is important and doesn’t need re-titling. It has been underrepresented in both government and our culture at large for over 30 years, yet it’s critical because the path that leads to the successful evolution of the American culture is laid between the Liberal and Conservative ideologies. Without the counterbalance we end up in the ditch and as of late we’ve been in the ditch that bears to the Right.
I’m really hoping that President Obama is a consensus builder and that the Conservative side of the highway retains enough ideologically sound champions to keep him in the road. Perhaps then we might actually create a single payer healthcare system which compliments business growth, or international cooperation which enhances American influence, or debt control which can be viewed as patriotic.
I will say this about the Conservative talk shows though…I think they may be on to something regarding UFOs and Aliens. If they’re right, the Aliens have to be widespread among us and totally stealth. I think I may have figured it out…it’s the squirrels. Think about it...we know they’re everywhere even though we only see them in random flashes. They’re always looking and examining, they’re obviously communicating in a fashion we can’t figure out, they’re very nervous, and isn’t it possible that the occasional squirrel one sees dangling from a power line suffered his fate for attempting to go to “the other side”? I think President Obama might consider trying to make contact. It would be the gracious thing for a Liberal to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
