Fear Tactics for Health Care Reform

a
In Paul Krugman's blog he laments the large quantity of hate mail he's been getting lately. He blames talk radio for the emotional outbursts against health care reform, but I think the hate emanates from far more than just Rush Limbaugh. We also have town hall meetings 'salted' with rabble rousers, and multi-million-dollar ad campaigns touting unreasoned fear. Be warned, such ads have even popped up on my blog. I don't place them. Google 'bots' do that.

An NPR piece a couple days ago described why fear tactics have succeeded for nearly a century in squelching health-care reform. If these tactics work so well, why don't the Dems use them?

Fear tactics arguing for change needn't be a pack of lies. Shouldn't we fear an industry that funds our politicians' election campaigns? Shouldn't we fear an industry that raises our premiums 8.4% when the economy has contracted and inflation is near zero? Shouldn't we fear the prospect of soaring medical costs eating 1/3 of our income a decade hence?

Highlighting those fears just might motivate the populace to support reform.
a
a

Public Option D.O.A.?

a
I'm a conservative Democrat. I believe a free-market economy is the best way for as many people as possible to do well financially. But a free market did not best serve the world in the late 19th century when Standard Oil controlled 90% of the oil reserves. Today's 'free' health-care market is not serving U.S. citizens well, partially because of two oligopolies who exert far too much control: pharmaceutical and health insurance industries. They are controlling the message and, apparently, members of Congress. Without a public option, every version of the bills currently under consideration lose most their power to drive down costs.

My message to all current representatives, Republicans and Democrats alike: Bottom line, no public option, you lose my vote. Period.
a

Denver Post misses the mark on foreclosures

a
In an article posted online today, the Denver Post announces: “Colorado foreclosures filings hit record high” Unfortunately, that’s the wrong headline. The most meaningful number is the completed foreclosures, not initial filings. Completed foreclosures were down, not up, compared to last year's average. And I didn't have to go anywhere else for my information. My calculations are based on the numbers in the article. The headline should have been: "Colorado's foreclosure pace decreases".

But then, my headline doesn't sound like bad news, does it?
a

Investor's Business Daily announces Hawking immigrates to America!

a
You may already know about an editorial in Investor’s Business Daily that read, in part:

“People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.”

Hawking, born, raised and still living in the U.K., has not yet commented on the editorial. But right-wing magazine Human Events did comment, commending the editorial for having "exposed the Achilles' heel of Obamacare."

That’s the battle Americans face. Lies and ignorance make their way into news media. People and organizations who support the status quo swiftly repeat and amplify them. Some significant portion of our populace believes the nonsense, with nary a bit of skepticism, because they want to believe all things Democrat are wrong or evil. But this is not a problem for Democrats only: Republicans (voters, not pols) swallow these bitter pills of deceit and ferociously defend the current health care system—despite an inflation rate that has been triple the inflation pace of the rest of our economy since Hillarycare was proposed 16 years ago. The only segment of our health care that has had a slightly lower inflation rate is Medicare.

“If you like the Post Office and the Department of Motor Vehicles and you think they’re run well, just wait till you see Medicare, Medicaid, and health care done by the government.” – Art Laffer, a member of President Ronald Reagan’s Economic Policy Advisory Board.

With Medicare being the only shining star in health care, I can almost see Laffer’s point. We don’t want government to get in there and take control of Medicare and muck it up. Just one problem: Exactly who does Laffer think is running Medicare?

Apparently, a close relative of mine believes Medicare is a private insurance program: She recently whispered “Obama wants all the old people dead.” I know for a fact she’s not a racist, so I have to assume she fears our president because he’s a Dem. She's a Dittohead (Rush Limbaugh fan). Too many other people follow Rush for me to ignore. So tomorrow I’m going to Colorado Senator Michael Bennett’s office to tell his staff why I support a version of the current bills proposed. For the record, here’s why:

• A system that requires almost all employers to provide health coverage or money compensation, together with


• A system that requires insurance companies to cover everyone for the same price regardless of current health, together with


• A system that forbids insurance providers from dropping clients due to a deterioration in their health, together with


• A system that provides financial aid to people who cannot afford health coverage, together with


• A system that offers a public alternative to private insurance providers, will drive down total costs in three interrelated ways:

1. Healthy people who, under the current system, choose to roll the dice and forgo health insurance will now be covered and paying into the system. These people are least likely to burden the system, which should reduce costs for everyone else;


2. The impoverished and people who become chronically ill and who, under the current system, have no health coverage, will no longer postpone seeking medical attention until they face life-threatening circumstances, which statistics show result in the highest unpaid expenses incurred by hospitals. These expenses will be greatly reduced instead of passed along to the rest of us; and


3. Insurance companies will face direct competition from the federal government—the same government that for 16 years has kept better check on health care costs through Medicare than private industry has managed.

Since Hillarycare was defeated, however, Insurance companies have enjoyed over 500% growth in profits. We should have passed reform then. Instead, we let Republicans (pols, not voters), whose campaigns are financed by Big Pharma and private insurance lobbyists, scare us into taking no action at all.

Please take action now. Support health care change with me. Call, email, or even better, go to your representative’s office and tell them what you think.

a

Welfare for War

One night I was wondering "When did We" -- and by We, I mean We the people of the United States of America, not We Democrats or We Republicans -- "When did We start believing We should be able to wage war -- against anyone, anywhere, any time -- without paying for it?" Then it suddenly hit me so hard I had to slap my forehead, which hurt.

"Aha!" I said. "We've always been opposed to paying for the wars We wage -- even as far back as when the word We referred to a bunch of rag-tag British colonists."

In 1754, to protect interests of Virginia businessmen who had invested in fur trading, We started the French and Indian War. Then, initiating a tradition that has endured, We refused to pay the taxes imposed to pay for the war. That, in turn, led to revolution against Great Britain. Here's how it unfolded:

In 1753 the French built some forts in Ohio country, which belonged to various tribes of the Iroquois Confederation -- not England, not France, and not the colonies. The British Governor of Virginia sent Major George Washington to Ohio country to demand withdrawal of French troops. The French refused, so on May 28, 1754, Washington attacked the French at Fort Duquesne, which was located at present-day Pittsburgh. Thus started a war that would spread to Europe and last until 1763.

Most people know the rest of this history. To pay for the war, British Parliament established the Stamp Act of 1765. The colonists didn't like it. Parliament, at the urging of Benjamin Franklin, repealed the act, but soon replaced it with several Townshend acts. One of these is better known as the Tea Act. The colonists liked this even less and dumped three shiploads of tea into Boston Harbor rather than allow it to be offloaded and taxed. The Brits responded by closing off Boston's commerce. We -- the new We, the rebellious colonists We -- responded by convening the First Continental Congress, starting the revolutionary war, and issuing the Declaration of Independence.

Now don't get me wrong, I love our country. I think our constitution is amazing and was the beginning of a truly extraordinary and wonderful change in the course of human experience. Nevertheless, when you delete the rhetoric and examine root causes, We revolted against Great Britain to avoid paying for a war fought, initially, to protect the investments of a few business people.

We refused to pay for the French and Indian War; We were unable to pay for the Revolutionary War. We accepted -- begged for -- financial support from France, who provided 90% of our gunpowder. Thank you again, Ben Franklin. France also sent troops. The French troops who fought at the Battle of Yorktown, the decisive battle, numbered nearly as many as the Americans. Our revolutionary war so depleted France's treasury that King Louis XVI levied greater and greater taxes on his people. Of course, that led to their revolution.

Now let's get back to the 21st century. We are fighting two wars -- Iraq and Afghanistan. We were running ridiculous deficits long before sub-prime loans eroded bank capital and plunged our economy into the tank. Yet we want tax breaks! Worse, the people who get the biggest tax breaks are the same people benefiting most from the two wars. And We the people have been doing this for 250 years.

When will we stop giving welfare to the military industrial complex?

P.S. Please post a comment. Click on the link below that shows '(a number of) comments'.

P.P.S. Please, please, please watch for my next blog post. I'll be inviting all of you to participate in a discussion, via the comments section, about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the 'War on Terror', and our country's current direction -- which, with regard to war, seems to be the same under Obama as it was under Bush.