The Best of Both Worlds:

10 November 2013

The Best Way to buy ACA insurance is the best way to buy an airline ticket on Kayak or Expedia: do your comparison shopping on the website, and then contact your chosen provider directly.

You can create an account on healthcare.gov, log on, and shop for the policy you want.

Once you’ve narrowed down your options, call the insurer or insurers directly. These are helpful, sales-motivated people who will give you all the information you need, and then walk you through the application process. 

____________________

Just as When Working with any “sales-motivated people,” it’s best to know ahead of time what you plan to choose. 

On the other hand, one great thing about Obamacare: 

If you don’t like what you end up with this first go-around, you are free to change it a year from now. Such an easy way of comparison shopping and of changing policies never used to be available. 

 But now there’s better policies and the convenience of Obamacare.

 “Priceless.” 

Regards,
(($; -)}
Gozo!

@GozoTweets

TIME-TRAVELERS DENIED ACA COVERAGE:

31 October 2013

Raise Your Hand if you are a time-traveler. If so, your 2014 insurance may have been delayed by website “glitches.” 

Otherwise, your complaints are premature. Or maybe you’re only complaining because you want Obamacare to fail. 

A key element in the ACA planning is that we still have until December 15th. 

____________________  

There’s Still Plenty of time to get on board the ACA wagon. Time travelers not included.... 

Regards,  

(($; -)} 

Gozo!

@GozoTweets

When Ideology Meets Morality, Morality Usually Wins:

Two objects, even if they are just two philosophical constructs, 

cannot occupy the same space at the same time.†

It Is Not Just a Moot, Ideological Point, this argument that the Nation has been having between a presumed moral need for universal health care of some sort, and the clear constitutional mandate for individual liberties. Now the argument has reared its ugly head once again, and it appears yet again in relation to a battle fought 45 years ago, over the Civil Rights Act of 1965.

The Latest Related News out of Kentucky is that Republican United State Senate candidate Rand Paul has articulated his opinion that the Federal Government has no right to impose its moral values on private businesses and individual citizens. Even when it comes to the civil rights of other American citizens.

In Ideological Terms, this view seems factually correct: the United States Constitution is designed to prevent government from taking liberties away from private citizens. 

But the Constitution Also Mandates that there shall be no second-class citizenship.

And for the 100 Years from the Civil War until the 1965 Civil Rights Act, what America had was de facto second-class citizenship.

In the Pre-Civil Rights Act Days, African-Americans constituted “second-class citizens,” for all intents and purposes.

Even Though Federal Facilities might empower people of all origins to use them, so long as private companies, and even local and state governments, presented obstacles to passage and to nourishment and to accommodations, it could be practically impossible for persons of some origins to reach full access to government. (One needs only read the stories of Jackie Robinson and other African-Americans who helped break the “color barrier” in American sports, to see the truth of this.)

What Is Most-Striking about the Civil Rights Act issue is how it puts two opposing aspects of American ideology into conflict: where do the rights of some citizens, to equal rights, resolve in relation to the rights of other citizens, to run their lives and their businesses how they choose?

In Retrospect, Forty-Five Years Later, it is hard to imagine skin color ever again becoming the controlling factor in any American’s right to avoid second-class citizenship status.

So Now One Might Make a Stronger Argument for the return to the pre-Civil Rights Act rights for businesses to “reserve the right to refuse service to anybody.” Forty-five years later, it is hard to imagine that private “law” being much-imposed against people of color. But the continual presence of “white supremacists”in our society argues against this.

And If it Were True, it would only be so as a result of our 45-year history of racial and ethnic equality since the Civil Rights Act was passed.

Reconciling Conflicting Rights

It Takes Some Mental Finesse in one’s thinking, to see how essential such an overreaching action on the part of the Federal government was on behalf of the conflicting rights of all Americans. The short description of that “finesse” is this:

Without the Overreaching Civil Rights Act and its enforcement, those few who were determined to keep the African-American citizen “in his place” had the power to do so. (As I say, it only takes a few “No Coloreds Allowed” blockades to restrict access everywhere else.)

This Situation, Restored to Life by Rand Paul yesterday, has great applicability to the health-care-reform debate. It is the same kind of situation:

Within the United States, millions and millions of American citizens want some kind of universal health-insurance coverage. And millions and millions of American citizens want their rights against government imposition to remain at or below its current level.

The Two Opposing Groups Are in Direct Conflict.

Now, Those on the Limited-government Side will argue that nothing stops the pro-reform side from setting up their own system. And in law, this is true.

But in Practice, it Is a Lie. Because the only entity that the pro-reform side can use for such a person is their shared entity. The United States government.

If You Look at Both of These Issue—universal civil rights and universal health care—what you see is that both sides of both arguments have equal standing before the law.

Both Sides Involve the Rights of Some Citizens, which rights are unattainable over the impedance  of the rights of some other citizens.

The Adolescent View or the Adult’s?

The Adolescent View, of course, is to argue relentlessly for your own view. But the adult view has to be, must be, that some sort of compromise or yielding must occur.

In the Ongoing Health-Care Debate, the pro-coverage side has consistently demonstrated its willingness to yield and to yield and to yield. If one looks at the recently passed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, one sees a hodgepodge of a bill, filled with all sorts of different kinds of provisions, designed to move the Nation as much as possible toward that universal coverage that millions of Americans desire, while resisting as much as possible the imposition of Government powers on those millions and millions of Americans who desire their personal liberties.

What Makes it Seem So Despicable is that in any head-to-head controversy, it is always possible for one or both sides to dig in their heels and never give an inch. But that decision in itself makes a statement about the inclusive attitudes of those who will not yield.

“Those Who Would Deny Freedom to Others”

And Thus (ironically enough in the health-care debate), it is those who—by their obstinacy, “would deny freedom to others”—will lose out in the end. When it comes to obtaining rights versus denying rights, eminent domain dictates which side ultimately wins.

Just as Those “States Rights” and “White Supremacists” advocates, by the enactment of the 1965 Civil Rights Act, both lost out in the end.

The Rights of the Many versus the Rights of the Few

So Those Who Oppose the Government imposition of health-care coverage and the taking away of their constitutional rights to die in the gutter will also lose out eventually. And maybe we will end up having another Civil War to enforce it.

Will the American Tea Party Movement end up destroying the country they claim to love, in order to save the resolution of its values in conflict? It’s hard to imagine things getting to that extreme point. But when rights are in direct conflict with one another, and one or neither side will budge, eventually the issue will be resolved.

According to Pauli’s Exclusion Principle, two competing objects—even when the objects are merely the philosophical constructs of “individual rights”—cannot occupy the same space at the same time. Unless that law, too, is subject to disputation and to obstruction and to repeal.

Regards,
(($;-)}
Gozo!

______________
†Pauli’s exclusion principle, modified.

For Some People, the Past Only Began Yesterday

If America Already Faces a potential shortfall of 16,000 doctors within the next fifteen years, how can that possibly have been caused by last-month’s passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act? This shortage was reported this morning on Pajamas Media, on XM-Satellite Radio’s  P.O.T.U.S. station.*

I Understand That President Barack Obama reportedly can walk on water and part the loaves and the fishes. But it’s hard to believe that even the Anointed One could sign a law on 23 March 2010, and the downward spiral toward medical armageddon has already begun, just three and a half weeks later.

Something Must Have Gone Wrong a While Ago. And coming off three decades of a Republican agenda, it’s a little hard to believe that it’s not the Republicans’ fault. Unless you use the kind of Republican reasoning that the Republicans use.

How Long Will We, the People, have our reasoning faculties beclouded by the slings and arrows of outrageous, mis-informed opinion? At least with adults back in the White House, we get some facts with our opinions these days.

If Doctors Are Being Chased out of medical practice by bureaucracy, the red tape comes not so much from the Federal government, as it comes from the confusion and contusions imposed by the multiplicity of insurance companies:

• Each insurance company has its own forms. Your doctor pays special personnel to handle these.
• Each insurance company has its own ideas about what procedures a patient (you) needs, and how long a  patient (you) should be allowed to spend in the hospital for the surgery your doctor prescribes, and what medicines you should take in recovery. Your hospital has special “case managers” just to handle these rationing ideas.
• Each insurance company has its own “disallows.” You yourself will likely have to pay for these.
• Each insurance company has its own structure of fees negotiated for the payment of services you provide. You will either pay more or less than your neighbors because of these.

Now That’s a Lot of Red Tape. All in the name of illogical opinion and an ideology that has persistently failed the American people for much of recent history. Anything but “single-payer.” Anything but “socialism.” Anything but “health-care reform.” Anywhere else but here.

The Origin of Much of the Standardization of these terms of insurance coverage comes from coding by the Federal government, through Medicare. If anything in American medicine has worked to standardize the relationship between medical providers and medical insurers, it is the Medicare system

That Codification Is a Benefit of Government, not a curse. Without even just this little bit of standardization, every single transaction throughout American medicine would be subject not only to the preceding list of items, but also to different forms of terminology, and to different computer codes for different medical procedures, drugs, and routines.

“Different Strokes for Different Folks” may work for individual freedoms. But it does not work for medicine. It does not change the facts, no matter what the underlying opinions would have us believe.

The Laws of Cause and Effect are often subject to interpretation. And the connection between what comes first and what comes later is not always cause and effect.

But You Don’t Get to Just Make Up your own reality. If the United States will suffer a substantial shortage of doctors in the next decade and a half, and the new reform law was just passed three and a half weeks ago, the opposition to the bill was not only lame, but was also contraindicated by those who oppose the reform law now.

We All Heard  the Republican Leadership in Congress repeat, over and over, through the long year of debate, “Go slow.”

We All Heard the Same Leaders Say, “We need to start over.”

We All Heard the Same Leaders Say, “We need to scrap this bill.”

If the System in Place before the three-week-old reform was already steering us toward a 16,000-doctor shortfall by 2025,* it was surely broken to start with. So how could America possibly afford to scrap this bill, start over, and go slow?

Someone Is Not Being Entirely Honest about This.

But at Least While the Republicans and the angry Tea Party Movement folks keep debating it, the Obama administration and the Democratic Party will be working on getting more Americans insured, encouraging more Americans to go into medical practice, and keeping more Americans healthy.

Outrage Is Easy.™

Talk Is Cheap.

Pajamas Media Has an Agenda that defies logic.

But We Finally Have a Few Adults Back in the White House.

At Least For Now.....

Regards,
(($;-)}
Gozo!

_______________

*Pajamas Media broadcast on P.O.T.U.S. XM Satellite Radio (04/17/2010)

The Constitutionality of Health-Care Reform Is Clear

Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution legitimizes the Federal Government’s authority to enact the new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Here are relevant passages of the Constitution. (The highlighing in bold italics is mine):

“The Congress Shall Have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;”

(This means that Congress has the power, as exercised under the PPACA, to collect taxes on those who fail to provide for their own health care, for the “general welfare of the United States.”)

“To Regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,”

(We know this clause as the catch-all clause of the Federal Government, which clause continues toirritate those who believe that the South should have won the War of Northern Aggression.)

“To Make All Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

What’s to Argue with That?

Regards,
(($;-)}
Gozo!

Advancing America to the Rear

Only by Turning Around and marching toward the rear can we Americans sustain an illusion of ourselves as the most-advanced nation. For some people, an illusion of leading is more important than progress. As of this today, with the signing of healthcare reform, into law, those Americans are momentarily held at bay.

Let the Republican Party keep putting all of its creative energy into derailing and repealing this important change. The rest of us don’t have that luxury: we need to keep moving forward.

Back in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan defined government as the problem, not the solution. That’s like complaining that air is often polluted, so we shouldn’t breathe it. We have no real choice about whether to breathe the air, or whether to have government.

And So While the Republicans prefer to keep fighting against government rather than improving it for all of the people government serves, the Democratic Party keeps working at making the government “of the people” and “by the people” do a better job of serving the necessities “of the people.”

Throughout the Course of the healthcare-reform debate, the Republicans have insisted that they believe in reform, yes, too, but: We need to take it slow. We need to start over. We need to go step-by-step. Etc.

Now, the Majority in Congress has managed to pass reform—through the ugly political process by which all difficult change is made. And the best thing for the Republican Party to do, to be true to its word throughout the process, would be to get to work with the majority in Congress, making healthcare-reform work better for all of us.

Instead, State Attorneys General—Republican attorneys general—are initiating a lawsuit to block the bill. Republicans in Congress say that they will fight to repeal the bill.

Was There Ever Any Truth behind their “we believe in healthcare reform, too” and.....whatever else they said in their festival of denial? Show us some evidence.

Government Is an Inefficient and messy process of compromise. Nobody really likes it. But some of us have to be more mature about how we deal with it. Just as in any family, the adults of the American populace cannot afford to spend their time throwing tantrums. There is much more work to be done.

The Republicans Continue to assert that compromise is not an option for them. Fortunately for us, they have some good ideas that have been included in the new law. Fortunately for us, the Democrats seem to take it all seriously, trying to make the best law they can get for the American people.

Meanwhile, the Republicans moan and shout. They initiate law suits and vow to repeal. The new law moves us forward. While the Republicans throughout government insist on turning around and marching backwards. Continuing a thirty-year effort to lead the United States as “the most advanced nation” in the world—marching loudly and proudly to the rear.

Regards,
(($;-)}
Gozo!

What Is a “Right”? Is the Left “Wrong” about Healthcare?

Every Time We Hear That “Healthcare Is a Right,” it pushes our buttons. But then we remind ourselves to review this “rights” concept. The real question—which we Americans have never fully addressed—is “What constitutes a ‘right’?”

Here’s How Rousseau Poses the Question in the opening passages of his book, The Social Contract:

“The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before.”

—The Social Contract Or Principles of Political Right, by Jean Jacques Rousseau.

Rousseau’s Definition of the Problem divides the concept of “right” into two parts. The latter part—described as permitting each person to “still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before”—is what the Founding Fathers intended by their term, “unalienable rights.”

These Are Rights Which Cannot Be Granted; they can only be withheld or denied.

But Rousseau’s Former Part—“to defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate”“—is what James Madison labeled a “social right.”

When People Make the Entitlement-sounding Claim that “healthcare is a right,” this is the sort of a “right” that they mean.

The Most-striking Facet of the Right/left Political Divide in the U.S. is between (R) those who believe that our nation’s greatness rests on defending the “unalienable rights” while minimizing the “social rights” and (L) those who believe that our nation’s greatness combines the best of both kinds of rights.

The Left Wants to Expand the American Social Contract so as to include as many citizens as possible within the level playing field of opportunity.

The Right, Believing That America Inherently Provides a level playing field, wants merely to keep government small, and to limit the complications of the social contract.

Both Sides Have Validity. The discussion on “rights,” here in America, is long-overdue.

The Reason for the “Coffee Party” Approach—rather than the “Tea Party” approach—is that one side would rather work together to solve our problems, while the other side is prepared to use force (Louder voices. Financial advantage. Fear tactics. Foreign invasions, if necessary. Etc.) in order to prevail.

May the Best Nation Win!

Here Are Two Relevant Links:

Coffee Party USA 

Tea Party Patriots.org 

Regards,
(($;-)}
Gozo!

Newton's Fourth Law

If We Are Controlled Entirely by Our Fears, we will never do anything. Because every action is subject to Newton’s Third Law of “equal-and-opposite-reaction,” and every major change to a complex system is subject to the so-called “Law of Unintended Consequences.”

Because Every Liberal or Progressive Move Forward generates a Conservative or Republican reaction, the political Right are generally considered “reactionary.” This concept comes from Newton’s law.

The Human Urge to Do Nothing reflects the fears of these two, unrelated laws. And yet, sometimes we can’t afford to do nothing. Sometimes, we just have to do something.

Despite the Flaws and Unintended Consequences that will surely come from the current bill, these things can be fixed. American ingenuity and invention knows no bounds, and we will be able to make this better. We will be able to limit the ways that government controls our healthcare—but we are virtually powerless to limit the way that our insurance company controls our care.

If the Bill Is Scrapped, the determination and drive to get it done will have been wasted.

If the Bill Is Passed, Newton’s First Law will kick in: a healthcare reform law in motion will tend to remain in motion.

The Determination and Drive of the American People to fix the thing will give us no choice but to move quickly and earnestly to make it right.

America Has No Constructive Choice but to Pass the Bill, get it started, and then get to work on making it better and better. When an object can’t go back and can’t stay put, it has not choice but to go forward.

Regards,
(($;-)}
Gozo!

Unalienable Rights or Social Rights?

Those of Us Who Oppose Government Benefits as “rights” believe that only “unalienable rights” should be the provenance of government.

Because Services Such as “National Defense” and “universal healthcare” can be taken away or withheld by government, these cannot be unalienable “rights” in the sense that those of us—generally considered “conservative”—think of rights. Thus, Conservatives oppose any form of national healthcare.

Founding Father James Madison Believed in what he called “social rights.” Many of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights constitute social rights.

Those of Us Who Support a Social “Right” to universal healthcare and national defense—generally considered “liberal”—use the term in the Madisonian sense. Liberals believe that the social contract includes national healthcare. This is what they mean when they say that national healthcare is a right.

Both of These Positions Have Validity. Our national discussion—including the healthcare debate—might go better, and the government might get more done, if we addressed the topic directly, instead of trying to redefine “rights” on a continual ad hoc basis—to suit our various political agendas.

But Then, “Outrage Is Easy,” as the saying goes. It’s easier to shout out our anger and frustration, while learning little about economics and politics, than to study it directly ourselves, or to trust our elected representatives to get the job done well.

Regards,
(($;-)}
Gozo!

Americans Who Like Their Current Health Insurance....

....Haven’t Really Needed to Use It Yet.

This Is the Dirty Little Secret of your health insurance:

When the Hospital Charges You $X Amount for an IV medicine, and $X amount for the solution that carries it, and $X amount for the tubing, and $X amount for the needle, and $X amount for the nurse to stick you, and $X amount for the next nurse to change out the medicine, and $X amount to change out the glucose solution—a “disallow” is the part that the insurance company says, “Unh-uh. No way. We’re not going to pay that.”

These Are the Real Death Panels. They exist right now. We have them today. They are in the hand of the for-profit insurance companies. And there’s not much you can do about it.

Your Doctor Prescribes Your Hospital Drugs, the insurance company later “disallows” them, the hospital tries getting you to pay, but also raises prices elsewhere to cover these costs that it can’t collect from you.

Tens of Thousands of Dollars can be written off your bill by your insurance company this way. This is the hidden part of the broken system that you don’t know about until it happens to you.

Regards,
(($;-)}
Gozo!

When Your Shack Is on Fire....

....You Don’t Hold Back the Water Because Your 
Neighbor’s Mansion Might Catch Fire Later....

Fears about the Mushrooming National Debt should concern every American. But a corollary factor looms equally large on the balance sheet of the U.S.A. financial statement:

This Factor, not surprisingly, is:

Healthcare Reform

The Broken Insurance System only affects those of us in the bottom 95% or so of the wealth class.

People Are Dying out Here, needlessly, and can’t really worry about the budget deficit right now.

Our Focused Efforts to Fix the System aim to unite concerns of the wealthy—about the debt—with concerns by the rest of us–over the bankrupting features of healthcare.

So Long as the Debt-related Fears of the Wealthy act at the expense of the bottom 95%, all the Republican shouting about the national debt will continue falling on deaf ears.

When Those Worried Only about National Debt join those of us who also must worry about personal, healthcare debt, then the United States of America will unite in restoring fiscal sanity to the country.

Regards,
(($;-)}
Gozo!

It’s Too Late to Turn Back Now

When You Spend 30 Years taking your neighbors’ water to feed your cattle, you can’t expect the same neighbors to save more for you during the drought.

Times Are Hard All Around—and harder in the middle than at the top. The national debt is unconscionable. The budget deficits are terrifying.

But We’ll Only Get Through This—as one nation, united and indivisible—if we move forward now. While we finally have the chance.

Those Who Think of Themselves First will continue to do so. But it falls to the rest of us—the mainstream of the American people—to make the hard choices and do what must be done.

It’s Too Late to Turn Back Now. The hard process has begun. Congress needs to pass healthcare reform before any more of our middle-income neighbors suffer from the wasteful measures of our wealthier neighbors in the past.

Regards,
(($;-)}
Gozo!

A Healthcare Reform Opportunity

After Months of Wrangling, the hard-wrought House and Senate bills are stalled, but America needs healthcare reform. Meanwhile, the Democratic majority balks at moving the current reform bills into law using reconciliation. Passing reform “provisionally” could get around the gridlock.

Under Such a Plan, Democrats could finalize healthcare-reform now,  through the reconciliation process, but pass it with the stipulation that it becomes law only if Congress doesn’t replace it with a better bill within a year. This way, only continued failure of the two political parties to create a bipartisan bill would move the reconciled bill into law.

We Need Healthcare Reform Too Badly for Congress just to throw the current bills away. America cannot afford this kind of government waste. And yet, when it comes to ending gridlock in Congress, nothing has worked.

Using Such a “Provisional” Law, Congress can pass healthcare reform now and end gridlock, one way or another, on behalf of the American people.

Regards,
(($;-)}
Gozo!

If the Democrats Can’t Deliver on HealthCare Reform....

.....Why in the World Should We Vote for Them?

Republicans Govern by “Win/Lose”

When Republicans win, the “haves” keep  what they have. Those who don’t already have....lose. Tax cuts fail to stimulate the economy. “Trickle-down” turns out to be “trickle up.” We enter the Great Depression (1929). Homeless people appear on the streets for the first time (1982). We enter the Great Recession (2007).

It’s the “Spend and Spend” Republicans who gave us all those years of lower taxes for the wealthy, wars not paid for, and a “trickle-down” economy that makes no sense.

History Proves  Republicans Wrong. But that does not deter them. Being wrong never weakens Republican resolve.

Republicans Govern by Winning, regardless of the cost to the American people, and to our children and to grandchildren. The record on budget deficits over the past 30 years is clear. The record on who brings on great depressions and great recessions is clear. But the “spend and spend” Republicans keep on rolling along. The Republicans keep blaming the Democrats for  messes that Republicans create. They argue  conservatism and fiscal responsibility, while driving the economy and the American people into the ground.

Republicans Govern by “Win/Lose.” And they do “Win/Lose” very, very well.

Democrats Govern by “Win/Win”

To Democrats, if Everybody Just Agrees, Everyone Wins. Democrats don’t like to stick their necks out, so they constantly seek a consensus....no matter how horrible a mess the predecessor administrations have made out of things. The Democrats just need that little bit of agreement....such as a filibuster-proof Congress or a few Republicans to go along. Or else one vote shy of a filibuster-proof majority, so that they have someone else to blame their failures on.

Take the “Dare” of the Filibuster

No Wonder the Republicans Accuse Democrats of not being tough-enough: the Republicans, you will remember, would not let Bernie Sanders introduce an amendment to the healthcare bill without making him read the entire document on the Senate floor. Sen. Sanders read a few hundred pages and then threw in the towel. The amendment did not move forward.

When Was the Last Time the Democrats Made a Republican carry through on a filibuster threat? Did you see it on C-Span? 

The Democrats Have Good Policies for America, but Democrats are spineless. Democrats are more afraid of making enemies—whether with the American electorate or within the halls of Congress—than they are of letting America fall deeper and deeper into the Great Recession. Farther and farther behind in the technology race for alternative energy. Smaller and smaller as a force for good on the global stage in this new, twenty-first century.

Republican Policies Are Disastrous for America. But Republicans will see their policies through. Republicans will win. No matter the cost to America and the Americans.

The American People Want 
Leadership that “Wins”

Come November, if the Democrats have added a cowardly failure at passing healthcare reform, to the arguably unpopular effort of promoting healthcare reform, then the Democrats are sunk. The Republicans will win enough seats in Congress, so that the Democrats can wring their hands and say, “See? It’s not our fault? What can we do?”

America Will Be Back in the Hands of the tough, hardened, ideologically driven and wrong, “Just Say No!” Republicans.

No “Filibuster.”

No “Just Say Yes! for America.”

People Will Continue to Die from the Failure of Healthcare.

And That’s Just “Lose/Lose/Lose” for America:

Any Way You Look at It.

Regards,
(($;-)}
Gozo!

Where the Democrats Went Wrong

If It Weren’t for the Mistake of trying to compromise with Republicans before the time was right, the Democrats would not be in the lamentable position that they find themselves in today.

If They Had Simply Started with a Universal Healthcare Plan—such as “Medicare for All”—then at worst case, the Republicans in Congress would have forced a compromise in the form that we’re arguing over today: the so-called “Public Option.”

Instead, the Republicans Were Met Halfway before the deliberations even began. The Democrats, generously considerate fools as always, started out at the halfway line. And now we’re all stuck with a collection of congressional plans, none of which makes nearly so much sense as the ultimate—universal healthcare—eventually will achieve. Thus, in the short term, we’re most-likely going to end up with a mess.

Can Congress Fix the Mess That It’s About to Make? Of course, it can. This is the United States of America, and making things work is what we do best.

But Sometimes, It Just Takes Time. Slavery and racial integration and universal education and global defense during two world wars—to say nothing of the 44¢ stamped letter (where the private competitors FedEx and UPS charge more than $6.00 and $12.00, respectively, for the same service)—are some stunning examples of what we Americans do when we put our philosophical differences aside and reach for the brass ring.

The Insurance Companies Have Stepped Forward, confessing that they can’t provide healthcare for all Americans while keeping their hundreds of billions of dollars in profits, under the proposed “Baucus Plan.”

It Was Honorable of the  Insurance Industry to step forward and admit this. Now it is up to Congress to get the job done.

Like National Defense, Paid for out of American Taxes, national healthcare can only be managed on a universal basis. Not one of us knows in advance how much healthcare he or she will use in the course of a lifetime. That’s why we all need insurance. That’s also why none of us (except for the very wealthy, such as the CEOs of America’s insurance companies) can possibly set aside enough money to protect the defense or health of ourselves and our families. Only the national government can budget to do this.

The Proper Role of Government is to provide for its citizens what they cannot reasonably provide for themselves. Defense is one such provision. Postal delivery to every address in America is another. Disaster relief. Pensions when the insurance companies fail. Banks and auto industries when those fail. What’s left?

Healthcare Is What's Left. Most of us can’t possibly afford the fullest range of medical care—which often goes into the millions of dollars—on our own. Over the past century or so, the health-insurance industry has shown that it can’t afford to insure our health fully, either. And now this industry has stepped forward to throw in the towel.

That Leaves the Federal Government—of the people, by the people, and for the people. Once universal healthcare is on the budget along with military defense and Social Security and other programs deemed essential to the public welfare—Only then will America begin to behave responsibly in regard to all our national programs.

Only Then Will We Fiscal Conservatives get the kind of control on government spending that is necessary for keeping America great.


Regards,
(($;-)}
Gozo!

Keeping Insurance Workers Employed in Tough Times

Universal Healthcare Is the Way of the Future, but the Democrats want to transition in a way that will save hundreds of thousands of insurance-worker jobs. Leave it to President Obama and the Democratic members of Congress to think of more than just the tremendous damage done to the country under our longstanding, for-profit system of excessive costs for mediocre access to the world's best healthcare.

Today, the Austin American-Statesman Reports that Iowa Republican Senator Charles “Chuck” Grassley called the public option a “slow walk towards government-controlled, single-payer health care.”

Well, At Least Senator Grassley Finally Gets It:

Universal Healthcare Coverage Is the Way of the Future. But the Democrats want to transition in a way that will save hundreds of thousands of insurance-worker jobs.

One Thing America Doesn’t Need is another industry going belly up. We’ve already bailed out the investment banks and the debt insurers and the automakers. We can’t afford to put all of the insurance companies out of business, too.

(Read the Story Here: “Senate panel rejects government-run health plan" )

Fortunately the “Public Option” of the Post Office has shown that the government-run plan and the private competitors such as FedEX and UPS can both survive. We have a road map before us, for putting a government-run unit in competition with the private sector, so that both sides win. The millions of Americans who want to get their insurance where they work, and pay $6.00 or $12.00 to send a letter, can do so. The millons of Americans who want to get their healthcare coverage through the government’s public option, and pay just 44¢ to mail a letter, can do it that way.

It’s Time to Apply the Post Office/FedEX Model to Keeping Americans Alive. And we can do it at a “slow walk” that doesn’t put more Americans on the unemployment lines. It’s a win/win/win situation where everybody gets what they want—at a cost that all of America can afford.

But the Republicans Will Have None of It. After all those years of hidden health-insurance taxes to pay for prisoners, Senior Citizens, illegal immigrants, the military, and the poor, the Republicans would rather fight for the status quo.

You Might Think That Republicans Would Rather Not Put Any More Americans out of Work. Despite the economic damage of the past years, you would think that all of America—Republicans and Democrats alike—would want to keep more Americans working.

So What Does Senator Grassley Really Have against a job-saving, cost-saving healthcare reform plan—that stops the hemorrhaging of the insurance industry—with a “public option” that keeps the insurance industry in business for as long as possible? Is it the same thing as the way that Senator Grassley disdains the Post Office for charging just 44¢ to mail a $12.00 letter?

Go Figure....

Regards,

(($;-)}
Gozo!

If the “Public Option” Post Office....

.... Was Good Enough for the Founding Fathers, how come “public option” healthcare coverage isn’t good enough for us?

Do Today’s Conservative Democrats and Republicans in Congress really think that they can do better for America than Benjamin Franklin did? (Franklin, you may remember, became America’s first Postmaster General back in 1775.)

Previously, I took Iowa’s U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley to task for preferring that Americans pay $6.87, or even $12.16, to mail a letter anywhere in the country, when USPS—the United States Postal Service—will deliver the same piece of mail for just 44¢.

(Read the full post here: What Did the Post Office Ever Do to Senator Grassley?)

The Original Public Option, the United States Postal System, did eventually give way to something else—something that clearly serves a valuable role. In the wake of government domination of the postal delivery system, changes were made that spawned UPS and FedEX. And if these companies did not exist and thrive now, then the vital purposes of free-market Capitalism might go unserved.

So Why Not Test This Process Again? How about if Congress once again gives America what it gave us with the establishment of the Post Office? How about another “public option,” to give those of us who want it, the healthcare coverage that we want this way, while the rest of America can continue to freely support the private-sector insurance?

Many Americans Currently Use FedEX and UPS in addition to, or instead of, the United States Post Office. And that is as it should be. Free-market enterprise is the backbone of the American economic system. But we still rely on that Post Office “public option,” too.

It’s Not Clear Why So Many in Congress believe that they know better for us, than we do ourselves. Why so many in Congress feel compelled to protect us from the kind of healthcare protection we believe we need, is a real mystery. Why so many in Congress might even fight old Ben Franklin, if he were pushing his government post-office option today.

Many Americans Believe That Government can’t do anything right—whether it’s to Medicare, the VA, the Post Office, or the Internet.

But the Rest of Us Have Faith that a government—of the people, by the people, and for the people—has the best chance on the planet of making things work for everybody.

Americans Want Congress to Put These Theories to the Test. If the public sector wastes too much money, and can’t get it right, the private sector will prevail and thrive.

All Americans Should Be Allowed to Test this Out. The private sector can continue using the free-market system to provide millions of Americans the valuable doctor/patient interface that they have given us for decades. While the “public option” demonstrates whether it can offer something better.

It’s a Fair Test. It’s a True Test. It’s FedEX and UPS versus the United States Government, all over again. In the original version, the private sector and the public sector both have survived. Let’s see what happens this time around.

It’s Time for Conservative America to Prove that the kite-flying inventor of bifocals was wrong. It’s time to let the rest of America access the healtcare coverage that we want.

Regards,
(($;-)}
Gozo!

What Healthcare “Reform” Is Really About.....

Sometimes It’s Hard to Know Who’s Really Smarter: The leaders or the followers. Take the biggest current political issue, for example:

It’s Not About Healthcare Reform at all. It’s about reforming healthcare insurance.

The Whole Purpose of the Debate is to find a way to remove the rationing, the bureaucratic rationing that stands between us and our doctors. At the same time, we don’t want to put the tens of thousands of insurance company employees out of work.

The Last Thing America Needs Right Now is to kill off another industry—or to make taxpayers foot the bill for another bailout. And so Congress and the White House are working  to see if we can’t find a middle way.

The Thing Is, We No Longer Have a “Middle” Way in America. It’s right or left, blue or red, “my way or the highway,” with not much agreement on anything between.

Meanwhile, the “Tea-Bag” Party-Goers are out there, complaining that our government can’t seem to get much of anything right. On the one hand, it’s hard to argue with the evidence of congressional and presidential failure. On the other hand, this business of government is clearly a lot harder than it looks....

We’d All Like Somebody to Take Charge—like a CEO, a dictator, or a king. If only we could do it without giving up our “inalienable rights.” Such as the right to more services and entitlements, with lower and lower taxes.

But When Government Tries to Transition from the inefficient insurance mess that we have now, to something that puts capitalism’s “profit motive” back in the medical industry where it belongs, and people throw tantrums about it all—

What Can We Expect?

Do Any of Us Really Want Our Insurance Company deciding that our doctors’ care costs too much? Do we really believe that insurance companies should decide when to pull the plug on the medical care that’s keeping our loved ones alive?

But What’s the Alternative? How many of us have any real idea about the universal coverage programs that the rest of the developed world has? All I hear about is Canadians crossing the border to get cosmetic surgery without having to wait three months. And how good Japan's healthcare is, and how bad England's is. And how they all cost too much.

Thinking in terms that Adam Smith, the founder of capitalism through The Wealth of Nations might use:

• Doctors provide the labor, in exchange for wages.
  
• Investors provide the capital stock, for the development of new drugs and equipment, as well as for hospitals and clinics.
  
• Patients provide the profit through their self-interest in purchasing the medical-care products.
• Insurance companies provide.......What?

Call Me an Old-Fashioned Capitalist Without His Tea Bag. But I don’t see what insurance companies add to the mix. I do see the profit that they remove from our ability to pay for needed medical care. And I see the government insuring our costliest, least-profitable patients—through Medicare and the VA and the prison systems—and doing a fine job.

So Go Ahead and Have the Tea Parties. Go ahead and protest to defend the current rationing of medical care that is killing millions of Americans, with stress and with denied coverage, because you can’t tell the difference between the world’s finest “healthcare system,” and the worst “healthcare delivery-system” currently dysfunctioning in the developed world.

Pride in America Ought to Be Based on Something besides the belief that my ability to be angry makes me better and more-right than you.

It’s Time to Reform Health Insurance. After that, we can wave signs and complain about government in Washington all we want. Maybe we’ll shake up Congress a little bit after all. Lord knows they can use it.

But Come On, Citizens!

At Least Let’s Try Not to Be Too-Stupid about It....

Regards,
(($;-)}
Gozo!

Fiscal Conservative Challenges Obama to a “Big Government” Bet

As an Unwavering Fiscal Conservative, I want America’s fiscal house put back in order. The question seems to be how we do it. For some good reasons, free-market competition in the health-insurance industry actually interferes with competition in the medical field. Our access to medical treatment continues to get worse, as the price continues to skyrocket, and our private insurance companies, despite their best efforts to squeeze down the cost of our dollars going to doctors and hospitals, instead just get in the middle and keep the profits for themselves.

The "Bet" in the Old Life Insurance Joke goes something like this:

Life insurance is where the insurance company bets you that you’ll live forever.
You bet them that you’ll die first.
You put up the money in advance.
Somebody else collects when you die.

Either way—you lose!

Competition Makes Our Free-Market System Work. But for too long in the world of catastrophic-health insurance, competition has gone missing. Texas, where I live, has a population of about 24-million swaggering cowboys and cowgirls, but that's clearly not a big-enough market for insurance competition to flourish. And tort reform—which was passed here quite a few years ago—hasn't done the trick of stopping unnecessary tests or high medical costs.

Insurance Companies Earn the Profits that they need to stay in business, while everyday Americans suffer from exorbitant premiums that keep salaries low, from policies that are withdrawn or used up just when they are needed most, and from policies that ration the care that the medical profession delivers—by demanding too little care in many cases, and encouraging too much waste in others. The medical profession gets shorted, the American people get shorted, and the insurance companies manage to eke out an immodest, but necessary profit.

Since Competition Is What We Want, let’s put health-care insurance to the free-market test of capitalism. President Barack Obama has proposed a tiny bubble of an insurance product, expected to cover less than 5% of the population. This “public option” will receive no tax dollars and will add not a dime to the national budget, but give those Americans who believe that government does some things best a chance to have their ideology tested.

Can Government Deliver Healthcare? Affordable healthcare? Without going broke? Or is this another foolish Liberal fantasy? 

Let’s Let the Free Markets Decide:

President Obama, America Issues You a Challenge. Either your “public option” can do the job of insuring Americans directly or of stimulating better competition throughout the country, or else you shut it down.

America Can Give You Five Years. We can afford this test, when the lives of so many Americans are at stake, but we can only afford so much. Whether the question is an ideology of entitlement or an ideology of greed, you’ve got five years from Day One of the passage of the healthcare reform bill.

But Then When This “Public Option” Fails, or blows through its budget, you owe it to the American people to shut it down.

The Clock on the “Public Option” Starts Ticking Soon.

You Have Five Years.....

Regards,
(($;-)}
Gozo!

What Did the Post Office Ever Do to Senator Grassley?

In a Phone-in Town Hall Meeting about healthcare reform yesterday on C-SPAN, Iowa Republican Senator  Charles “Chuck” Grassley made an odd comment about Democratic efforts at instituting some form of “Public Option” as part of the reform bills pending before Congress. Said Senator Grassley:

 “[T]heir goal is to have the government run everything. And I don’t think the government does a very good job of running the post office, for instance. So should they be running healthcare?”

Some Quick Research on the United Parcel Service (UPS) Web Site shows that you can mail a letter by UPS, from one American residence to another, for $12.16. And UPS's biggest competitor, FedEX, will pick up and deliver the same letter for about half that: just $6.87.

I’m Embarrassed to Tell You what Senator Grassley's whipping boy, the United States Postal Service—the government-run program that has delivered mail to every address in the United States since 1775—charges:

44¢

Given the Incomparable Differences between the government rates and those of the private sector, Senator Grassley’s comment is highly suspect. To say nothing of the denigration it delivered to your neighborhood USPS delivery person. 

The Government-run USPS will deliver your letter for about 
6.5% of the FedEX® cost. and about 3.62% of the UPS® cost.

If Opponents of Government-Insured Health Care want higher standards than those of the United States Postal Service, it’s fair to say that their demands are unreasonable. One might say that their perspective is ideologically blinded.

Senator Grassley Is the Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee. But his understanding of the role that the Federal Government plays in the daily lives of the American people raises some concerns. One wonders if the senator has any idea what it costs these days to mail a letter.

It’s a Mystery Why So Many Americans are convinced that we need private industry such as FedEX® and UPS® to make profits, while the Postal Service delivers everybody’s mail, with outstanding service, at a cheap price—and America gets to keep the profits....

Medicare and the Veterans Administration both deliver low-cost, affordable insurance to many of America's most-expensive citizens. And we don't hear the kind of complaints about Medicare that Senator Grassley just leveled at the Post Office.

I Bet You That Neither UPS® nor FedEX® Could Deliver all your letters for 44¢ a piece and come anywhere close to doing it as cheaply as the USPS does.

It’s All in How You Look at It. And ideology clearly plays a tremendous role in clouding many people's judgment.

But When It Comes to My Own Health Insurance, I’d rather go the 44¢ route—for United States Postal Service quality, at a United States Postal Service cost.

Ideology Aside, of course.....

[For a video recording of Senator Grassley's call-in Town Hall meeting on C-Span, go to this link:

Senator Grassley on Congressional Agenda: 09/08/2009 (Product ID #288770-3)]

Regards,
(($;-)}
Gozo!