Yesterday I explained that I wanted to lay out what I thought were important priorities for the Presidency 2012-2016. This will be the planks of my platform should I decide to stick with the idea of the run (it will have to be a write-in campaign).
In preparation, I looked back at what I said in 2008. I think the same issues apply, so I'm going to steal heavily from my ideas back then. One difference I notice between 2008 and 2012 is the lack of focus on change. In 2008, almost every candidate was talking change (both the D's and the R's). Well, change happened, we went from a Republican in the White House to a Democrat. Some might say too much changed, some might say too little. But change happened.
My focus will be pretty much the same as last time, with some change thrown in for good measure. Here are the areas I see that need to be addressed for the next four years. This post won't tell you my opinion on any one topic, but instead will list topics I intend to cover later. They will be somewhat in priority order, but that's subject to change (there's that word) later on.
In my platform, I intend to address these topics:
1. National Defense - Iraq is over. Afghanistan will be soon. The current budget outlook for defense means major cuts. We're relying less on boots-on-the-ground and more on drones-in-the-air and special ops. Where do we go from here?
2) Foreign affars - Russia, Pakistan, Iran, India, Europe, Africa, South America, China (including trade) and Mexico (including immigration) - My only update to this list is to add the Middle East (Egypt, Libya, Israel, Syria, etc) and North/South Korea
3) Isolationism vs. becoming entangled in the affairs of other nations - it seems one candidate wants us to pull back and focus on US alone, I'll look at my ideas four years ago and update them.
4) National economy - Jobs, training, mortgages, housing, taxes and spending. I know you think this should be higher. When I look at the economy, I'll explain why it's ranked #4.
5) Healthcare, education and abortion, global warming, carbon credits (hopefully, I'll explain why I grouped these)
6) Points of light - This is an old George H Bush idea. I mentioned it yesterday in a phone conversation with a friend and think it needs to be addressed.
What did I leave out? What do you, the voter and my readers, want me to address?
Showing posts with label universal health care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label universal health care. Show all posts
Thursday, January 05, 2012
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
Has President Obama evolved?
I've been wondering for some time that President Obama has changed in several ways since he first took office. His decision to send Navy Seals into Pakistan was actually "predicted" during the debates with Sen. McCain, so that doesn't really reflect a change. But his decision to use intelligence gathered at Guantanamo Bay, most likely as a result of "enhanced techniques" seems contradictory to his prior attitude.
Keeping Guantanamo Bay open was not entirely the President's decision, but he did not fight hard to keep his earlier promises. Troops have stayed in Iraq longer than he ever intended and he supported a surge in Afghanistan. President Obama even supported a new war (Libya) albeit not to the extent of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So my question is, has President Obama evolved in his thinking? Has he come to realize that maybe President Bush wasn't as far off the mark as the current president believed when he was campaigning?
And most importantly, if his attitude on these things have changed, can it be changed in other areas? Might we see a move to less government? Might we see the removal of Obamacare? Might we see a return to his campaign attitude of "it's above my paygrade"?
Keeping Guantanamo Bay open was not entirely the President's decision, but he did not fight hard to keep his earlier promises. Troops have stayed in Iraq longer than he ever intended and he supported a surge in Afghanistan. President Obama even supported a new war (Libya) albeit not to the extent of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So my question is, has President Obama evolved in his thinking? Has he come to realize that maybe President Bush wasn't as far off the mark as the current president believed when he was campaigning?
And most importantly, if his attitude on these things have changed, can it be changed in other areas? Might we see a move to less government? Might we see the removal of Obamacare? Might we see a return to his campaign attitude of "it's above my paygrade"?
Monday, January 24, 2011
State of the Union Preview
About a week ago, I made a joke about a mayor's "State of the City" address. Unfortunately, I'm not sure the humor came through. But it seems like it must be a slow news cycle because all of the internet is buzzing about something that hasn't happened yet, President Obama's third State of the Union speech.
There's discussion on which Supreme Court Justices will show up. Last year, the president took the Constitution-required speech and added political comments criticizing the Supremes. If they don't show up, it won't be the first time, but it's sure to garner a lot of attention.
And there's a lot of talk about what the President will say. So I thought I'd lay out my predictions:
- One of the survivors of the Tucson shooting will be present and the President will early on offer support for Rep. Giffords. The President will talk about civility, words that heal and not hurt, etc. There will be a moment of silence for the Federal Judge and others who lost their lives.
- The President will talk about the Obamacare law, how good it is and how the congress should not repeal it. He'll vow to fight for the law
- The President will talk about jobs & the economy. He'll talk about how he inherited this mess and it's much worse than anyone thought. But he'll say that he's accepting responsibility for fixing it.
- The President will say something about the recent Chinese President Hu Jintao.This will be related to economics and will make the president look good. (I think this will be something that no one expected).
- After 30-45 minutes of applause, etc, the President will spend 1-2 minutes talking about foreign policy, Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea and other countries of the world.
- There will be a Republican presponse to the State of the Union. They will focus on the economy, repealing Obamacare and say some nice things about Rep. Giffords and the Tucson shooting.
- No one will talk about gun control. It's a topic no one wants to touch.
- Republicans may talk about TARP and other past stimulus packages.
So, watch the speeches and give me a score.. If you want to make your own predictions, feel free, I'll score you also...
*Update* I'm also predicting Pres. Obama will speak preemptively about the debt ceiling. By doing so, he will box Republicans in a corner.
There's discussion on which Supreme Court Justices will show up. Last year, the president took the Constitution-required speech and added political comments criticizing the Supremes. If they don't show up, it won't be the first time, but it's sure to garner a lot of attention.
And there's a lot of talk about what the President will say. So I thought I'd lay out my predictions:
- One of the survivors of the Tucson shooting will be present and the President will early on offer support for Rep. Giffords. The President will talk about civility, words that heal and not hurt, etc. There will be a moment of silence for the Federal Judge and others who lost their lives.
- The President will talk about the Obamacare law, how good it is and how the congress should not repeal it. He'll vow to fight for the law
- The President will talk about jobs & the economy. He'll talk about how he inherited this mess and it's much worse than anyone thought. But he'll say that he's accepting responsibility for fixing it.
- The President will say something about the recent Chinese President Hu Jintao.This will be related to economics and will make the president look good. (I think this will be something that no one expected).
- After 30-45 minutes of applause, etc, the President will spend 1-2 minutes talking about foreign policy, Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea and other countries of the world.
- There will be a Republican presponse to the State of the Union. They will focus on the economy, repealing Obamacare and say some nice things about Rep. Giffords and the Tucson shooting.
- No one will talk about gun control. It's a topic no one wants to touch.
- Republicans may talk about TARP and other past stimulus packages.
So, watch the speeches and give me a score.. If you want to make your own predictions, feel free, I'll score you also...
*Update* I'm also predicting Pres. Obama will speak preemptively about the debt ceiling. By doing so, he will box Republicans in a corner.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
House of Representatives votes to repeal Obamacare
Unless you missed the news, you already knew this. No surprise, this was what many representatives ran their campaign on. The vote was 245 to 189, with three Democratic representatives crossing party lines to join all 242 republicans.
Reports I had read called this "bi-partisan", but I'm not convinced. I haven't see all of the details, but sounds like this was almost 100% party line split. That disappoints me.
Reading this report from Comedy Central, I found an interesting line. Read it very carefully:
It's always adorable when the Senate reminds the House, "You're just a ginormous receptacle for Americans who actually believe in the delusion of representative democracy."
Sadly, I think the writer's correct. The Senate doesn't believe we should have the delusion of a representative democracy. I guess in 2 years, we have to show them.
Reports I had read called this "bi-partisan", but I'm not convinced. I haven't see all of the details, but sounds like this was almost 100% party line split. That disappoints me.
Reading this report from Comedy Central, I found an interesting line. Read it very carefully:
It's always adorable when the Senate reminds the House, "You're just a ginormous receptacle for Americans who actually believe in the delusion of representative democracy."
Sadly, I think the writer's correct. The Senate doesn't believe we should have the delusion of a representative democracy. I guess in 2 years, we have to show them.
Monday, January 03, 2011
Wal-Mart
For Christmas, my wife and I gave ourselves a Wii. More about that later, but one of the benefits of the Wii is the ability to stream Netflix to our aging, non-HD, non-digital, non-flat screen TV. So, we also reactivated our Netflix account and watched some movies. I've had some documentaries on my list for a while, so I watched "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices"
Most of you who know me probably are surprised that I would even watch this movie. The trailers at the end give credit to Moveon.org, ACLU, ACORN and AFL-CIO along with a lot of others. Not exactly my top 4 BFF's. But I wanted to see what the anti-Wal-Mart movement is all about.
I initially thought the documentary was well done, however one error blew that away. In showing some newsclips, the video showed a story about a crime committed in a Wal-Mart parking lot in Taylors, SC. The newscaster was from one of the major towns close to Taylors and she accurately pronounced the town name. However, the caption super-imposed on the story said "Taylor, SC". Now a missing "s" might not be noticeable to those outside the upstate, but it stood out to me. My father was born near Taylors and I bought my first car in that area. My sister lives in that zip code and my daughter's in-laws are either in Taylors or Greer depending on the way the wind blows. My advice to Wal-Mart haters is to at least get the names of the towns right, it's important to some people.
The beginning of the video focused on towns laying down the red carpet for Wal-Mart. Later it talked about subsidies, in the form of towns paying for infrastructure: access roads, sewer, water, etc. It also talked about the small family businesses that were run out of business by Wal-Mart. I have to agree with this mantra to a certain extent. Towns and counties need to be very careful when enticing big business into the area. We've had some dispute about bringing a Bass-Pro shop to the area and I don't believe we should do it by giving away tax breaks we don't give to small businesses. The opposite side of this coin is the tax breaks we gave to big manufacturers (notably BMW and Boeing) that bring jobs and other business to the state. If a competitor to these big manufacturers wants to come to SC, we should give them the same tax breaks.
The video gave some stories that seemed to conflict with each other. For example, they would talk about the shortage of workers, forcing people to work longer hours and work on days off. Then they talked about how Wal-Mart doesn't let workers get enough hours and threatening them with replacement.
One part of the story focused on security in Wal-Mart parking lots. It was suggested that Wal-Mart have security patrols ride through the parking lot regularly. I don't know of any store that does this. I've been to malls in several cities, Costco stores, and grocery stores that have parking lots that could also be dangerous: no patrols. When there are patrols, the frequency is so low as to easily be missed. I don't see how this reduces parking-lot crime.
It was pointed out that Wal-Mart has cameras, but it was suggested that these were for anti-union activities. Maybe being anti-union has benefits? The Wal-Marts close to us do have cameras, and SC is far from a union hot-bed (although some manufacturing plants are unionized - a story for another day). One "security expert" said the cameras at Wal-Mart do nothing for security unless someone is watching them, however he completely ignored the deterrent effect. Also, even if someone was watching the camera, I don't believe they could stop a crime in process.
One part of the video focused on the discrimination that it claims is prevalent at Wal-Mart. When I complained about some problems at the local Wal-Mart, I was called back by a manager who was an African-American female. I guess Wal-Mart isn't as discriminatory in the south.
Most of the video focused on the way workers were treated: low pay and low/no benefits. I'm a believer in an employees right to work. If an employee doesn't like his job or feels he deserves more pay and/or benefits, he should get another job. If he doesn't have a degree that would allow him to get a better job, he should go back to school.
One aspect I found interesting was the claim that Wal-Mart encourages workers to seek out government assistance in the form of WIC and medicaid. By paying low-wages and offering no benefits, they are relying on government "subsidies" the video declares. Seems like a simple solution would be for the government to stop these subsidies and force Wal-Mart employees to look for other employment. This same argument would apply to subsidies for infrastructure mentioned above. But this flies in the face of more medicaid, Obamacare and more welfare. Maybe this is one inconsistency Michael Moore doesn't see.
The movie ended with a redeeming quality. It told communities how to fight Wal-Mart. Two communities were noted: Chandler, Az and Inglewood, Ca. These communities didn't want Wal-Mart to come in, so they had community meetings to educate residents. The processes they used were (mostly) above board and legal. The video shots did show one minister mis-quoting the Bible, but most shots seemed very clear. I'm all for communities voicing their issues this way, but I'm opposed to legislating a business out of business the way some anti-Wal-Mart'ers would do.
I did note the list of cities/towns where the video-maker claims Wal-Mart has been stopped. One interesting town listed was Belmont, NC. However, Belmont was also featured in the portion of the video on Wal-Mart's lack of environmental care. Seems that maybe Wal-Mart was not completely stopped. I also noted other cities that were listed that I believe have Wal-Marts (I'll check on these later). Cities determined to stop Wal-Mart need to realize that Wal-Mart may build 5 miles outside city and the area will still have the same problems, with none of the benefits.
Overall, the video was interesting and educational. I'm glad I watched it. I think it requires an open mind when viewing and don't recommend it to everyone. I don't think Wal-Mart is a bad as they are made out to be and will post my personal views on Wal-Mart tomorrow. But for today, I think I'm going to watch another documentary...
Most of you who know me probably are surprised that I would even watch this movie. The trailers at the end give credit to Moveon.org, ACLU, ACORN and AFL-CIO along with a lot of others. Not exactly my top 4 BFF's. But I wanted to see what the anti-Wal-Mart movement is all about.
I initially thought the documentary was well done, however one error blew that away. In showing some newsclips, the video showed a story about a crime committed in a Wal-Mart parking lot in Taylors, SC. The newscaster was from one of the major towns close to Taylors and she accurately pronounced the town name. However, the caption super-imposed on the story said "Taylor, SC". Now a missing "s" might not be noticeable to those outside the upstate, but it stood out to me. My father was born near Taylors and I bought my first car in that area. My sister lives in that zip code and my daughter's in-laws are either in Taylors or Greer depending on the way the wind blows. My advice to Wal-Mart haters is to at least get the names of the towns right, it's important to some people.
The beginning of the video focused on towns laying down the red carpet for Wal-Mart. Later it talked about subsidies, in the form of towns paying for infrastructure: access roads, sewer, water, etc. It also talked about the small family businesses that were run out of business by Wal-Mart. I have to agree with this mantra to a certain extent. Towns and counties need to be very careful when enticing big business into the area. We've had some dispute about bringing a Bass-Pro shop to the area and I don't believe we should do it by giving away tax breaks we don't give to small businesses. The opposite side of this coin is the tax breaks we gave to big manufacturers (notably BMW and Boeing) that bring jobs and other business to the state. If a competitor to these big manufacturers wants to come to SC, we should give them the same tax breaks.
The video gave some stories that seemed to conflict with each other. For example, they would talk about the shortage of workers, forcing people to work longer hours and work on days off. Then they talked about how Wal-Mart doesn't let workers get enough hours and threatening them with replacement.
One part of the story focused on security in Wal-Mart parking lots. It was suggested that Wal-Mart have security patrols ride through the parking lot regularly. I don't know of any store that does this. I've been to malls in several cities, Costco stores, and grocery stores that have parking lots that could also be dangerous: no patrols. When there are patrols, the frequency is so low as to easily be missed. I don't see how this reduces parking-lot crime.
It was pointed out that Wal-Mart has cameras, but it was suggested that these were for anti-union activities. Maybe being anti-union has benefits? The Wal-Marts close to us do have cameras, and SC is far from a union hot-bed (although some manufacturing plants are unionized - a story for another day). One "security expert" said the cameras at Wal-Mart do nothing for security unless someone is watching them, however he completely ignored the deterrent effect. Also, even if someone was watching the camera, I don't believe they could stop a crime in process.
One part of the video focused on the discrimination that it claims is prevalent at Wal-Mart. When I complained about some problems at the local Wal-Mart, I was called back by a manager who was an African-American female. I guess Wal-Mart isn't as discriminatory in the south.
Most of the video focused on the way workers were treated: low pay and low/no benefits. I'm a believer in an employees right to work. If an employee doesn't like his job or feels he deserves more pay and/or benefits, he should get another job. If he doesn't have a degree that would allow him to get a better job, he should go back to school.
One aspect I found interesting was the claim that Wal-Mart encourages workers to seek out government assistance in the form of WIC and medicaid. By paying low-wages and offering no benefits, they are relying on government "subsidies" the video declares. Seems like a simple solution would be for the government to stop these subsidies and force Wal-Mart employees to look for other employment. This same argument would apply to subsidies for infrastructure mentioned above. But this flies in the face of more medicaid, Obamacare and more welfare. Maybe this is one inconsistency Michael Moore doesn't see.
The movie ended with a redeeming quality. It told communities how to fight Wal-Mart. Two communities were noted: Chandler, Az and Inglewood, Ca. These communities didn't want Wal-Mart to come in, so they had community meetings to educate residents. The processes they used were (mostly) above board and legal. The video shots did show one minister mis-quoting the Bible, but most shots seemed very clear. I'm all for communities voicing their issues this way, but I'm opposed to legislating a business out of business the way some anti-Wal-Mart'ers would do.
I did note the list of cities/towns where the video-maker claims Wal-Mart has been stopped. One interesting town listed was Belmont, NC. However, Belmont was also featured in the portion of the video on Wal-Mart's lack of environmental care. Seems that maybe Wal-Mart was not completely stopped. I also noted other cities that were listed that I believe have Wal-Marts (I'll check on these later). Cities determined to stop Wal-Mart need to realize that Wal-Mart may build 5 miles outside city and the area will still have the same problems, with none of the benefits.
Overall, the video was interesting and educational. I'm glad I watched it. I think it requires an open mind when viewing and don't recommend it to everyone. I don't think Wal-Mart is a bad as they are made out to be and will post my personal views on Wal-Mart tomorrow. But for today, I think I'm going to watch another documentary...
Sunday, November 21, 2010
The Constitution and Obamacare
I've just finished reading a book on the making of the Constitution. "Miracle at Philadephia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention" covers the summer of 1787 when a group of men gathered together to create the document we all (in the US) live by now.
I took a lot of notes while I read, but I decided not to post all of them as I did with a previous book. However, I was struck by similarities to the recent health-care package that was passed. While I'm no fan of the health-care package, it turns out some very well known people (e.g. Patrick Henry) were no fan of the Constitution.
The Constitution was written in Philadelphia in secret. The conventioneers were very careful not to leave notes where outsiders could see them and were cautioned not to tell anyone what was going on. The press cooperated with the secrecy, even suggesting that they were better off not knowing. While the health-care package was not crafted in complete secrecy, there certainly were people who thought we were better off not knowing all of the details ahead of time.
I've also been involved in a few discussions with people who think the problem with the package was that it just wasn't "sold" well enough. They feel like the health-care bill needs a good PR story. After the Constitution was created and voted on by Congress, the drafters including James Madison went out to "sell" the document.
One final comparison point is that "we the people" never voted on the Constitution. Representatives of the people voted on the document. Many of these representatives felt like the people weren't capable of understanding the paper. They felt they were more educated and knew what was best.
I'm not trying to imply that the Constitution and Obamacare are of equal importance or that they both fall into the same category. I just couldn't help but notice the similarities...
I took a lot of notes while I read, but I decided not to post all of them as I did with a previous book. However, I was struck by similarities to the recent health-care package that was passed. While I'm no fan of the health-care package, it turns out some very well known people (e.g. Patrick Henry) were no fan of the Constitution.
The Constitution was written in Philadelphia in secret. The conventioneers were very careful not to leave notes where outsiders could see them and were cautioned not to tell anyone what was going on. The press cooperated with the secrecy, even suggesting that they were better off not knowing. While the health-care package was not crafted in complete secrecy, there certainly were people who thought we were better off not knowing all of the details ahead of time.
I've also been involved in a few discussions with people who think the problem with the package was that it just wasn't "sold" well enough. They feel like the health-care bill needs a good PR story. After the Constitution was created and voted on by Congress, the drafters including James Madison went out to "sell" the document.
One final comparison point is that "we the people" never voted on the Constitution. Representatives of the people voted on the document. Many of these representatives felt like the people weren't capable of understanding the paper. They felt they were more educated and knew what was best.
I'm not trying to imply that the Constitution and Obamacare are of equal importance or that they both fall into the same category. I just couldn't help but notice the similarities...
Thursday, October 28, 2010
What does Obamacare mean to me?
I've been relatively quiet on Obamacare and the call by a lot of people to repeal it. A couple of days ago, I received an email that explained the impact to me personally. I have medical insurance through my employer. We are self-insured, that is, the employer ends up paying for all payouts. I pay into the program for family coverage (include medical, dental and vision care) and my employer pays also. All of the money is pooled together to pay out actual costs. The care is managed by one of the big insurance companies.
There are other plans available through my employer, but I've pretty much stuck with the same program over the years. My employer sent the following email (I've edited it to remove personal information):
This year, XYZ Corp had a team working for months to understand health care reform legislation. Some of this work continues, which is one reason we are communicating with you a bit later than we usually do. We understand many of you align your decision-making with that of working spouses or domestic partners, which is why we have worked to keep the actual enrollment for employees on schedule.
You should be aware that health care cost increases for 2011 -- in addition to the normal inflationary trends -- also are affected by health care reform requirements, which affect both XYZ Corp and you. For example, raising the age for dependent coverage from age 23 to 26 contributes somewhat to higher costs for businesses, as we must now all extend coverage to greater numbers of young adults.
There's more to the email, but that pretty much sums it up.
There are other plans available through my employer, but I've pretty much stuck with the same program over the years. My employer sent the following email (I've edited it to remove personal information):
This year, XYZ Corp had a team working for months to understand health care reform legislation. Some of this work continues, which is one reason we are communicating with you a bit later than we usually do. We understand many of you align your decision-making with that of working spouses or domestic partners, which is why we have worked to keep the actual enrollment for employees on schedule.
You should be aware that health care cost increases for 2011 -- in addition to the normal inflationary trends -- also are affected by health care reform requirements, which affect both XYZ Corp and you. For example, raising the age for dependent coverage from age 23 to 26 contributes somewhat to higher costs for businesses, as we must now all extend coverage to greater numbers of young adults.
There's more to the email, but that pretty much sums it up.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
The(se) United States of America
Recently, I read a book that asked the question is it 'THE' United States of America or "THESE" United States of America? On a lark, I asked the quetion on my Facebook page, with absolutely no introduction or explanation. An overwhelming majority of responders to my unscientific poll said "THE". One person picked up on the true meaning of the difference, while a couple debated semantics or grammar. (One person did question where the question was leading and guessed correctly in follow-up emails). One person waffled by saying it depends on who is saying it and one person simply said "these".The statement hit me because I have been reading a lot about states' rights. Are we, as Americans, part of a larger nation - joined together over two centuries, or are we a collection of independent states, a loose confederation of individual geographies, brought together when it fits the current conversation? I've listened at Tea Parties as I tried to understand the movement (or group of movements). The movement reminds me of a feeling I had several years ago, a feeling that individual people count when it comes to the government, that we can make a difference.
As I mulled over this question, I looked at the Constitution. That document written by "We the people" is the foundation of our government and we should always refer to it when we have questions. That document clearly lays out what we should be doing. I discussed this with one person and reminded her that the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776 and the Constitution wasn't written until 1786, ten years later. Now from my memory during the 10 year interim, Americans were governed by the Articles of Confederation. While it provided some unity, "each state retain(ed) its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right."
After ten years, a group of people decided that the loose confederacy of states wasn't working. A new constitution was written to "provide for the common defence, (sic) promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty." The goal was simply to form a more perfect Union.
In a discussion with a self-proclaimed Liberal yesterday, she mentioned the 10th amendment in the same discussion as the tea parties. This amendment basically says that anything not covered in the Constitution is left up to the states. So what is a federal issue and what is a states' issue?
Well, it's clear that national defense is a federal issue. Supposed that after the attacks on the twin towers on 911, SC had decided not to send troops. After all, our state wasn't attacked. (I'm ignoring the issue that some people think we shouldn't have attacked Afghanistan or Iraq - if that bothers you think of Pearl Harbor and 12/7/1941). The problem comes in the general Welfare. Does that mean that some of us in SC have to prop up those on the left coast who may have made some silly laws?
I have to say that I come down on the side of states' rights and that the best thing the federal government can do is to stay out of the way. The current healthcare debate is one example. But I also believe that there are times where the federal government HAS to step in to help all of us.
What is most reassuring to me, is the knowledge that our generation is not the first to face this debate. Over 200 years ago, a group of very smart men gathered together and realized that they could not answer all of the questions in a way that would satisfy all people for all times. Maybe the smartest thing they did was to NOT try to solve all of the problems, to admit they didn't know it all.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
The president on racism and health care
Sometimes, I have a great deal of respect for President Obama. Today he was on NBC's Meet the Press. You can watch the video of his part of the show here. You can also click on "transcript" and read what he had to say. Some quotes below are from that transcript.
Recently, a former president said that some of the negativity around health care were driven by racism. When asked about that in today's interview, President Obama said "Look, I said, during the campaign, are there some people who still think through the prism of race when it comes to evaluating me and my candidacy? Absolutely. Sometimes they vote for me for that reason, sometimes they vote against me for that reason. I'm sure that was true during the campaign, I'm sure that's true now."
The president gets it. True, there are some racists out there. Some vote with him because he's black, some vote against him for the same reason. Pure and simple. But he doesn't fret about it. He can't change other people, so he goes on about his business. He said this during the campaign and I (sadly) think he'll have to say it again.
More importantly, the president gets the real reason for the debate on health care. The president realizes it's "an argument that's gone on for the history of this republic. And that is what's the right role of government? How do we balance freedom with our need to look after one another?"
As my British friend would say, Spot on! He even goes on to tell us some of the history behind the argument - "This is not a new argument. And it always invokes passions. And ... it was a passionate argument between Jefferson and Hamilton about this. You know, Andrew Jackson built a whole political party around this notion that somehow ... a federal government that was over ... intrusive."
Mr. President, I agree. The argument is about the role of government, and I, along with others, think the federal government is intrusive. I think you should have said we need to balance freedom with personal responsibility.
Unfortunately, there are times where I believe the president is somewhat disingenuous (lacking sincerity). When discussing the way the news gets hyped, the president said "that's something that I think has to change. And it starts with me."
I wish he actually took this to heart. The president has had SEVERAL chances to start the change. He could have spoke out quickly when former President Carter made his comments. He could have spoken to the House of Representatives leaders who pushed for reprimand of Rep. Joe Wilson. Anytime the race card is played, the president can speak out and quiet the rumors quickly. Instead the president doesn't speak and lets the fire start burning.
Recently, a former president said that some of the negativity around health care were driven by racism. When asked about that in today's interview, President Obama said "Look, I said, during the campaign, are there some people who still think through the prism of race when it comes to evaluating me and my candidacy? Absolutely. Sometimes they vote for me for that reason, sometimes they vote against me for that reason. I'm sure that was true during the campaign, I'm sure that's true now."
The president gets it. True, there are some racists out there. Some vote with him because he's black, some vote against him for the same reason. Pure and simple. But he doesn't fret about it. He can't change other people, so he goes on about his business. He said this during the campaign and I (sadly) think he'll have to say it again.
More importantly, the president gets the real reason for the debate on health care. The president realizes it's "an argument that's gone on for the history of this republic. And that is what's the right role of government? How do we balance freedom with our need to look after one another?"
As my British friend would say, Spot on! He even goes on to tell us some of the history behind the argument - "This is not a new argument. And it always invokes passions. And ... it was a passionate argument between Jefferson and Hamilton about this. You know, Andrew Jackson built a whole political party around this notion that somehow ... a federal government that was over ... intrusive."
Mr. President, I agree. The argument is about the role of government, and I, along with others, think the federal government is intrusive. I think you should have said we need to balance freedom with personal responsibility.
Unfortunately, there are times where I believe the president is somewhat disingenuous (lacking sincerity). When discussing the way the news gets hyped, the president said "that's something that I think has to change. And it starts with me."
I wish he actually took this to heart. The president has had SEVERAL chances to start the change. He could have spoke out quickly when former President Carter made his comments. He could have spoken to the House of Representatives leaders who pushed for reprimand of Rep. Joe Wilson. Anytime the race card is played, the president can speak out and quiet the rumors quickly. Instead the president doesn't speak and lets the fire start burning.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Waste and fraud and inefficiencies - oh my!
I intend to read the full speech our president gave last night (source is here) later. I watched most of it, and I'll have to say he addressed a lot of questions. I think he was genuinely surprised by the heckler in the audience and I think he didn't intend the comment about there being "some significant details to be ironed out" to be funny.
But one thought kept coming to me -- President Obama said multiple times that there was waste, fraud and inefficiencies in our system. If this is true (and I believe it is), why can't we address them NOW? Yesterday would have been a good day to start, but I'll settle for today.
Along the same lines, if he can identify a man in Illinois who lost coverage in the middle of chemotherapy, why not identify the insurance company, call them out and let us know which companies are good or bad. Same with the lady in Texas and her company.
If insurance companies are so evil, why not address them where they are today?
"Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy," don't you think it's important to do this legislation correctly or not at all? We can't afford to run out of money a few days into the new policies like Cash for Clunkers did. Why not draft the legislation and make it available for EVERYONE to read before passing it? Now that we've "pulled this economy back from the brink", don't we have a little more time to examine it?
Lastly, the olive branch that was extended on "reforming our medical malpractice laws " -- it sure sounded a lot like the olive branch that was extended during the campaign on abortion, where then candidate Obama said understanding issues like that were above his paygrade. Then when he was elected and got a pay raise, he immediately started funding abortions abroad. When is his next pay raise scheduled, we'll know his real feelings on reforming malpractice laws then.
But one thought kept coming to me -- President Obama said multiple times that there was waste, fraud and inefficiencies in our system. If this is true (and I believe it is), why can't we address them NOW? Yesterday would have been a good day to start, but I'll settle for today.
Along the same lines, if he can identify a man in Illinois who lost coverage in the middle of chemotherapy, why not identify the insurance company, call them out and let us know which companies are good or bad. Same with the lady in Texas and her company.
If insurance companies are so evil, why not address them where they are today?
"Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy," don't you think it's important to do this legislation correctly or not at all? We can't afford to run out of money a few days into the new policies like Cash for Clunkers did. Why not draft the legislation and make it available for EVERYONE to read before passing it? Now that we've "pulled this economy back from the brink", don't we have a little more time to examine it?
Lastly, the olive branch that was extended on "reforming our medical malpractice laws " -- it sure sounded a lot like the olive branch that was extended during the campaign on abortion, where then candidate Obama said understanding issues like that were above his paygrade. Then when he was elected and got a pay raise, he immediately started funding abortions abroad. When is his next pay raise scheduled, we'll know his real feelings on reforming malpractice laws then.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Somedays I'm glad I live in SC
We in SC have our political problems. A governor who won't resign. He's being pushed by the Lt. Governor and state legislators and they are in his own party. Some (most?) of the pushing is politically motivated and based on old problems.
But at least I don't live in Massachusetts. With the passing of Sen. Kennedy, there's now an open Senate seat. In most states, the governor would simply appoint someone to fill the seat and everyone would move on. But back in 2004, the now deceased Sen. Kennedy pushed for the state to create new legislation that would require a special election for empty seats.
Back in 2004, Mitt Romney (a Republican) was governor. John Kerry (a Democrat) was running for president and everyone thought he would be elected. This would have left his seat empty and Romney might have appointed a non-Democrat for the seat. So, Kennedy pushed for a change in the law.
Fast forward five years and the table is now reversed. There's a Democratic governor who, if the law allowed, could appoint a Democrat to be Kennedy's replacement. Instead, by current law, a special election must be held and the state will have to go with only one senator for 4-5 months.
Of course, my way of thinking is that this isn't such a bad thing. Sen. Kennedy was very ill most of this year and hasn't been able to do much with the seat. So what will be different? But to alleviate that issue, Sen. Kennedy last week sent a letter, encouraging them to change the law (again).
Isn't it great when politicians change the law to fit their parties needs? It makes me so anxious for the new health care, knowing that they can change things when they feel like it...
But at least I don't live in Massachusetts. With the passing of Sen. Kennedy, there's now an open Senate seat. In most states, the governor would simply appoint someone to fill the seat and everyone would move on. But back in 2004, the now deceased Sen. Kennedy pushed for the state to create new legislation that would require a special election for empty seats.
Back in 2004, Mitt Romney (a Republican) was governor. John Kerry (a Democrat) was running for president and everyone thought he would be elected. This would have left his seat empty and Romney might have appointed a non-Democrat for the seat. So, Kennedy pushed for a change in the law.
Fast forward five years and the table is now reversed. There's a Democratic governor who, if the law allowed, could appoint a Democrat to be Kennedy's replacement. Instead, by current law, a special election must be held and the state will have to go with only one senator for 4-5 months.
Of course, my way of thinking is that this isn't such a bad thing. Sen. Kennedy was very ill most of this year and hasn't been able to do much with the seat. So what will be different? But to alleviate that issue, Sen. Kennedy last week sent a letter, encouraging them to change the law (again).
Isn't it great when politicians change the law to fit their parties needs? It makes me so anxious for the new health care, knowing that they can change things when they feel like it...
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Health care - who needs it?
I was probably 23 before I even thought about health care issues. I can't remember every going to a doctor as a kid, I know I had to have a physical before college. I also know I got my shots, some from the health department. I have a vivid memory of the polio shot, a lot of us were lined up in what might have been an old school (circa 1965). I went to the infirmary at school one time while in college, it was a waste of my time and the doctors' (a story for another day).
After graduating college at the ripe old age of 22, I got married. I had health coverage on my job and my wife had coverage on her job. About a year later, we decided it was time to start planning for a family, but planning didn't include insurance. When our daughter was born, we found that we had to pay her part of the hospital bill ourselves (I think it was around $2,000 -- I still have the bill somewhere).
It turns out a lot of people don't think about insurance until they start having families. And a lot of people don't want to sign up for insurance even if they think about it.
To me, that's freedom of choice. Certainly the bills are higher today than they were in 1983 when my first was born, but if a person decides to pay their own way, they should be allowed.
It concerns me that in one of the drafts of the new health care bills, people will be FORCED to have some form of insurance. They will no longer have the option to choose to pay their own way. Some Americans are all about freedom of choice, as long as you choose their way of dealing with problems.
After graduating college at the ripe old age of 22, I got married. I had health coverage on my job and my wife had coverage on her job. About a year later, we decided it was time to start planning for a family, but planning didn't include insurance. When our daughter was born, we found that we had to pay her part of the hospital bill ourselves (I think it was around $2,000 -- I still have the bill somewhere).
It turns out a lot of people don't think about insurance until they start having families. And a lot of people don't want to sign up for insurance even if they think about it.
To me, that's freedom of choice. Certainly the bills are higher today than they were in 1983 when my first was born, but if a person decides to pay their own way, they should be allowed.
It concerns me that in one of the drafts of the new health care bills, people will be FORCED to have some form of insurance. They will no longer have the option to choose to pay their own way. Some Americans are all about freedom of choice, as long as you choose their way of dealing with problems.
Friday, July 24, 2009
The push for health care - our economy depends on it
I have to give our current administration the credit, they've certainly learned the way to America's pocketbook. "It's the economy stupid!" is what I've been reading between the lines the last few days.
See, President Obama keeps telling us he inherited this mess, it was worse than anyone thought and the stimulus plan is working exactly as planned (was this Plan B or Plan C?). Then he tells us the we have to have health care reform in order to save the economy.
This way, he wins either way. If health-care gets voted in, obviously he's lived up to his campaign promises (until it doesn't work - then he changes his promises). If it doesn't get voted in, well he tried. If the economy continues to go south, it's not his fault, he tried to pass health-care to fix it. Soon, the economy will be the reason we do everything.
It really bothers me the "change" I've seen in the last six months. During the campaign, abortion issues were above his paygrade. Well, he's gotten a payraise and now we are funding abortion in other countries and he's pushing for funding here. The stimulus plan was needed immediately to fix our economy, the money was going to create jobs immediately and now it's working as designed and will take a few years.
Sadly, none of this surprises me, I expected it all along. Now what's next?
See, President Obama keeps telling us he inherited this mess, it was worse than anyone thought and the stimulus plan is working exactly as planned (was this Plan B or Plan C?). Then he tells us the we have to have health care reform in order to save the economy.
This way, he wins either way. If health-care gets voted in, obviously he's lived up to his campaign promises (until it doesn't work - then he changes his promises). If it doesn't get voted in, well he tried. If the economy continues to go south, it's not his fault, he tried to pass health-care to fix it. Soon, the economy will be the reason we do everything.
It really bothers me the "change" I've seen in the last six months. During the campaign, abortion issues were above his paygrade. Well, he's gotten a payraise and now we are funding abortion in other countries and he's pushing for funding here. The stimulus plan was needed immediately to fix our economy, the money was going to create jobs immediately and now it's working as designed and will take a few years.
Sadly, none of this surprises me, I expected it all along. Now what's next?
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Mr. President, what's the rush?
* Forgot to thank Chuck for his link to the LA Times article. Thanks Chuck.
A couple of days ago, my wife asked me what the proposed healthcare bill would do to our medical coverage. The truth is, I don't know. I've heard lots about what it might do. I know that some proposed Medicare legislation will cut the payments for MRIs and "could affect the availability of MRIs and other tests particularly in rural areas." (see here) It's only logical that the same would be true of the proposed overall healthcare legislation.
I also know that the president thinks that sometimes "maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller." He also thinks "that one way to shave medical costs is to stop expensive and ultimately futile procedures performed on people who are about to die and don't stand to gain from the extra care." (see here) While I actually agree with him on both of these fronts, I'm very sure I don't want the government involved in the decision. I also think that might be why some people pay into insurance in the first place, so they can have expensive life saving treatment when they need it.
But what scares me the most about the locomotive pushing its way through congress, is the need for speed. Why is it that this bill must be pushed through? If the health care bill is important (and it is), it's important to do it right. Instead, many in congress have laughed at the idea of actually reading the bill they will be voting on.
Take for example, Congressman Hoyer from Maryland. He said he's "laughing because ...(he doesn't) know how long this bill is going to be, but it’s going to be a very long bill." (see here). I also heard that the leaders of both houses of congress have said they won't read the bills, but I could not confirm those reports.
The last time a bill was pushed this hard, we ended up with the so-called-stimulus package. That bill wasn't read by most members of congress either. There are several organizations that are suggesting congress should actually know what it's voting for - "Let Freedom Ring is a conservative backed site that is attempting to get our representatives to read the bill before they vote on it. Backed by liberal organizations, ReadTheBill.org is pushing the same thing." (reference here)
I also think that we, you and I regular people, should have a chance to read the bill. We should know what our representatives know (or in this case, what they don't know). We should be able to examine the pros and cons and we should advise them on how we feel, so they can make the hopefully-intelligent decisions we have sent them to make.
A couple of days ago, my wife asked me what the proposed healthcare bill would do to our medical coverage. The truth is, I don't know. I've heard lots about what it might do. I know that some proposed Medicare legislation will cut the payments for MRIs and "could affect the availability of MRIs and other tests particularly in rural areas." (see here) It's only logical that the same would be true of the proposed overall healthcare legislation.
I also know that the president thinks that sometimes "maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller." He also thinks "that one way to shave medical costs is to stop expensive and ultimately futile procedures performed on people who are about to die and don't stand to gain from the extra care." (see here) While I actually agree with him on both of these fronts, I'm very sure I don't want the government involved in the decision. I also think that might be why some people pay into insurance in the first place, so they can have expensive life saving treatment when they need it.
But what scares me the most about the locomotive pushing its way through congress, is the need for speed. Why is it that this bill must be pushed through? If the health care bill is important (and it is), it's important to do it right. Instead, many in congress have laughed at the idea of actually reading the bill they will be voting on.
Take for example, Congressman Hoyer from Maryland. He said he's "laughing because ...(he doesn't) know how long this bill is going to be, but it’s going to be a very long bill." (see here). I also heard that the leaders of both houses of congress have said they won't read the bills, but I could not confirm those reports.
The last time a bill was pushed this hard, we ended up with the so-called-stimulus package. That bill wasn't read by most members of congress either. There are several organizations that are suggesting congress should actually know what it's voting for - "Let Freedom Ring is a conservative backed site that is attempting to get our representatives to read the bill before they vote on it. Backed by liberal organizations, ReadTheBill.org is pushing the same thing." (reference here)
I also think that we, you and I regular people, should have a chance to read the bill. We should know what our representatives know (or in this case, what they don't know). We should be able to examine the pros and cons and we should advise them on how we feel, so they can make the hopefully-intelligent decisions we have sent them to make.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Profit in healthcare
You may have heard that the health care industry is stepping up to the newest health care plan working its way through congress. This article says that the drug companies were first to step up by giving up $80Billion and now hospitals are stepping up to accepting $155 in cuts. The reason they are willing to give this up (according to the article) is that "they're trying stave off a much bigger hit if the government sets up a public health insurance plan that pays them according to the relatively stingy fee schedule of Medicare."
So they see this as the least offensive option. But my question is, where will the cuts come from? Now I'm the first to say that hospitals charge very expensive rates. They routinely discount their rates 50% or more for insurance companies and my recent experience with some self-paid bills indicate that an individual can get the same discounts.
So these new cuts must be in addition. But what are they going to cut out? Just the "overhead"? Well, even if that's true, "overhead" results in jobs. In moving all records to electronic records, some paper pusher will lose a job. But my concern isn't just for paper pushers, it's for the other jobs. The person who cleans the rooms, the person who prepares the meals, and (most importantly) the nurses, doctors, aides, etc.
If profits are good (as I stipulated last month here), then profit in health care is good. And cutting that profit means job losses and (more scarily) potentially cuts in service.
Monday, May 04, 2009
Who's your daddy?
When I say this phrase, it comes out "Hoosier daddy?" (which is approved by Wikipedia) or "who's yo daddy". Wikipedia says the phrase "is commonly used as a boastful claim of dominance over the intended listener." I've been thinking about this phrase and how it relates to our present day government. It's been rolling around in my mind for a while and I had the chance to explain it to one of my daughters this weekend while my son was listening.
As I explained to my daughter, "yo daddy" does things for you when you are young. He buys you things like clothes, food, shelter and maybe some things you want as opposed to need. As you get older, you find that "yo daddy" has certain rules. Rules for the way you drive, rules for where you can go and sometimes rules for who you can see.
When you borrow money to buy something like a car or a house, you accept a new daddy. The bank becomes "yo daddy." They make sure you keep insurance on your car, make sure you pay taxes for your house and will probably require you to risk some of your own money. They will likely look over your shoulder to make sure you're getting a good deal and not getting ripped off. FHA loans used to require extra inspections as "yo daddy" was stricter than most.
One of my daughters (who was the one hearing this) decided she didn't like her daddy's rules and decided to move out on her own. She's learned that some of her daddy's rules weren't all that bad after all.
Now, the government wants to step up help people in a lot of new ways. I'm convinced that universal health care is coming, we just don't know the style it will take yet. There is already an expanded health program for children, there's a promise of new medicine from stem cell research, new foreign policy, etc. The question comes up "hoosier daddy?" What rules will "yo daddy" have for you to live by?
As I explained to my daughter, "yo daddy" does things for you when you are young. He buys you things like clothes, food, shelter and maybe some things you want as opposed to need. As you get older, you find that "yo daddy" has certain rules. Rules for the way you drive, rules for where you can go and sometimes rules for who you can see.
When you borrow money to buy something like a car or a house, you accept a new daddy. The bank becomes "yo daddy." They make sure you keep insurance on your car, make sure you pay taxes for your house and will probably require you to risk some of your own money. They will likely look over your shoulder to make sure you're getting a good deal and not getting ripped off. FHA loans used to require extra inspections as "yo daddy" was stricter than most.
One of my daughters (who was the one hearing this) decided she didn't like her daddy's rules and decided to move out on her own. She's learned that some of her daddy's rules weren't all that bad after all.
Now, the government wants to step up help people in a lot of new ways. I'm convinced that universal health care is coming, we just don't know the style it will take yet. There is already an expanded health program for children, there's a promise of new medicine from stem cell research, new foreign policy, etc. The question comes up "hoosier daddy?" What rules will "yo daddy" have for you to live by?
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Hipaa gone wild
In case you've never heard of it, HIPAA stands for Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (I won't make nasty comments about who was co-president in 1996). This law helps in a lot of ways, one of them is in the area of privacy about your medical records.
However, many health care providers have trouble understanding this law. For example, if I call to get information on my wife's health care information, they won't give it to me. That's ok, we learned the way to fix that. We have medical directives, we have power of attorney and every time we see a doctor for any reason, we fill out forms to tell the docs they can share our information with our spouse. This way, I can find out anything on her, she can find out on me. Some couples may choose not to do that and I won't argue the reasons here. It's our choice.
So, I get this call from a health provider who won't share anything with me. She says it's her policy. All she will say is that she wants my wife to call her (it's to set up or reschedule an appointment, I know that - I even know the details of the appointment).
Well, in saying she was with a health provider and leaving a message, she has already violated the HIPAA law (if I wasn't authorized). I think this lady needs an education in HIPAA.
However, many health care providers have trouble understanding this law. For example, if I call to get information on my wife's health care information, they won't give it to me. That's ok, we learned the way to fix that. We have medical directives, we have power of attorney and every time we see a doctor for any reason, we fill out forms to tell the docs they can share our information with our spouse. This way, I can find out anything on her, she can find out on me. Some couples may choose not to do that and I won't argue the reasons here. It's our choice.
So, I get this call from a health provider who won't share anything with me. She says it's her policy. All she will say is that she wants my wife to call her (it's to set up or reschedule an appointment, I know that - I even know the details of the appointment).
Well, in saying she was with a health provider and leaving a message, she has already violated the HIPAA law (if I wasn't authorized). I think this lady needs an education in HIPAA.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Obama's Speech on Racism - part 3
This is probably my last post on this speech. The first post basically summarized the speech. The second post commented on the first part of the speech (on racism). This part will focus on the last part of the speech, where Obama transitions.
It's important to note that I think Obama is highly intelligent and I noticed him at the Democratic Convention in 2004. He's a man with a future, but I am suprised that he as risen to this level this fast.
Obama's speech talked in great detail on Racism. But the actual speech was titled "A More Perfect Union". Many in the press thought this would be his speech to defend Rev. Wright or to distance himself. He did talk about Rev. Wright and to some small degree both defended him and distanced himself. But I believe that this all set the stage for what Obama sees as the way to form "A More Perfect Union."
Roughly 4500 words into his speech, Obama transitions. He says "we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division..." Then he points out "if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction." I agree. Racism and Rev. Wright are a distraction. Focusing on these issues (and others like them) take the focus off the real problems in our nation. Obama (and I) has a better idea "we can come together and say, 'Not this time.'"
So what does Obama think we should focus on? Here's where my opinion and the Senator's diverge. Obama lists 1) "crumbling schools that are stealing the future of (all) children" first. Then he talks about 2) health care, 3) the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life (and offshoring) and 4) "how to bring (soliders) home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged."
Here's my differences: 1) Schools should not be federally run. Nothing in the constitution says that every one has a right to education. Leave the schools up to the states and local authorities. Get the federal government out.
2) Health care is an issue, but more of an economic issue. I've talked about my view on healthcare in another blog post (see it here)
3) Job protection (shuttered mills) and offshoring - Obama doesn't say what he will do here. I haven't studied enough of his platform to figure it out. I see the economy as a second tier issue, my comments are here.
4) Obama says the war in Iraq should not have been waged and we should bring the soldiers home. I disagree on both parts. We (including the UN) told Iraq and the world NUMEROUS times that they should comply with certain resolutions and they did not. We looked like the bully who drew a line in the sand, but backed down when the other guy crossed it. Hussein was a ruthles dictator who ground people up in meat grinders. He wiped out most of the Kurds and let his own people die will he lined his pockets. We watched as other countries skirted the economic blockades and profited at our expense. My only complaint is that we waited too long. Actions should have been taken sooner.
As for withdrawing the troops, if we do that now, Iraq will crumble. We have a moral obligation to protect the people and to help rebuild. We did this in Japan and Germany after WWII. It will not be over soon. There have been problems in the way this has been handled, but we shouldn't penalize the Iraqi people because of our cowardice.
5) Nowhere in Obama's speech does he talk about National Security. I believe this should be the #1 issue in 2008 and beyond. He ignores terrorism and in other speeches says we should sit down with known terrorist leaders.
While Obama only spent about 400 words on what it takes to form "A More Perfect Union", I believe this represents his ideas. While he wants to move the focus off of racism, he wants to move to the wrong items. And the way he focuses on those items is wrong.
It's important to note that I think Obama is highly intelligent and I noticed him at the Democratic Convention in 2004. He's a man with a future, but I am suprised that he as risen to this level this fast.
Obama's speech talked in great detail on Racism. But the actual speech was titled "A More Perfect Union". Many in the press thought this would be his speech to defend Rev. Wright or to distance himself. He did talk about Rev. Wright and to some small degree both defended him and distanced himself. But I believe that this all set the stage for what Obama sees as the way to form "A More Perfect Union."
Roughly 4500 words into his speech, Obama transitions. He says "we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division..." Then he points out "if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction." I agree. Racism and Rev. Wright are a distraction. Focusing on these issues (and others like them) take the focus off the real problems in our nation. Obama (and I) has a better idea "we can come together and say, 'Not this time.'"
So what does Obama think we should focus on? Here's where my opinion and the Senator's diverge. Obama lists 1) "crumbling schools that are stealing the future of (all) children" first. Then he talks about 2) health care, 3) the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life (and offshoring) and 4) "how to bring (soliders) home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged."
Here's my differences: 1) Schools should not be federally run. Nothing in the constitution says that every one has a right to education. Leave the schools up to the states and local authorities. Get the federal government out.
2) Health care is an issue, but more of an economic issue. I've talked about my view on healthcare in another blog post (see it here)
3) Job protection (shuttered mills) and offshoring - Obama doesn't say what he will do here. I haven't studied enough of his platform to figure it out. I see the economy as a second tier issue, my comments are here.
4) Obama says the war in Iraq should not have been waged and we should bring the soldiers home. I disagree on both parts. We (including the UN) told Iraq and the world NUMEROUS times that they should comply with certain resolutions and they did not. We looked like the bully who drew a line in the sand, but backed down when the other guy crossed it. Hussein was a ruthles dictator who ground people up in meat grinders. He wiped out most of the Kurds and let his own people die will he lined his pockets. We watched as other countries skirted the economic blockades and profited at our expense. My only complaint is that we waited too long. Actions should have been taken sooner.
As for withdrawing the troops, if we do that now, Iraq will crumble. We have a moral obligation to protect the people and to help rebuild. We did this in Japan and Germany after WWII. It will not be over soon. There have been problems in the way this has been handled, but we shouldn't penalize the Iraqi people because of our cowardice.
5) Nowhere in Obama's speech does he talk about National Security. I believe this should be the #1 issue in 2008 and beyond. He ignores terrorism and in other speeches says we should sit down with known terrorist leaders.
While Obama only spent about 400 words on what it takes to form "A More Perfect Union", I believe this represents his ideas. While he wants to move the focus off of racism, he wants to move to the wrong items. And the way he focuses on those items is wrong.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Obama's speech on racism
Warning: This entry could surprise my friends on both sides of the political aisle.
If you're like me, you heard tons about Obama's speech on racism. I've heard nothing positive about it. I listen mostly to conservative talk radio and no one expects them to say anything good about Obama. I also listen to the big networks and they had nothing positive to say either. Years ago I tried listening to liberal talk radio and I just couldn't stomach it.
In 1992, Dan Quayle made his famous Murphy Brown speech. This was when Al Gore was still inventing the internet, so I depended on the main-stream media to read the real speech. By the time it came out, most political candidates had changed their tune and were supporting Quayle's ideas, if not his speech. What a turn-around!
I learned from that experience to go to the source. So today, I took time to read Obama's speech. You can find it here. To my surprise, I found very little in Obama's words with which I disagree.
Sen. Obama's speech included lots of words about Rev. Wright, but that was no more the topic than was Quayle's speech about a TV character back in 1992 (it was about a poverty of values, including absent fathers - which Obama mentioned also). Rather, Obama was talking for the first half of the speech about racism in America. I thought he did a good job expaining the situation. Yes, he spent time defending his views on Wright, but that's not all the speech is about.
At this point, I should indentify myself as a white American. Born and raised in the south and proud of it. I have looked back for about 4 generations and all of these ancestors were raised in the south. I don't know if any ever owned slaves, but I know some fought in the civil war (and not for the north). I do know that some of my relatives have harbored racist feelings and for that I am not proud. I'll also apologize to anyone offended by the term "black". I'll use that in this entry: it's what Obama used in his speech and it's shorter than "African American". I should also point out that I will assume that his speech matches the way Obama feels. I have no doubt that he has speech writers who wrote good portions of the speech, but he gets all the credit and all the blame.
Obama's speech was very well written and shows a good bit of intelligence. Four years ago, I realized that this man was going to be somebody. Starting with a quotation from the Constitution and tracing slavery through the halls of the Philadelphia convention, Obama spoke without malice about the process and the realization that "words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage."
Senator Obama gets it. Neither then, nor now, can "words on parchment" solve the problem. He also gets it that racism cuts both ways. He talks about "white racism" and "divisive comments" by Wright.
Then he transitions his speech. "Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze"
In other words, both black and white racism distract us from the real problems. I agree 100%. He says that "to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding." In all, I think he spoke more about reverse racism (anti-white) than he did about racism (anti-black). I haven't counted words and think that that too would "block the path to understanding."
What are the real problems? Obama sites these items: 1) Big Business, 2) Washington politics and 3) economic policies that favor the few over the many.
He identifies some specific actions for blacks: 1) embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past, 2) continuing to insist on justice and 3) binding our particular grievances to the larger aspirations of all Americans. This is also where he talks about absent fathers (where's Quayle when you need him?).
He identifies some specific actions for whites: acknowledge that racism is real with both words and deeds (investing in schools and communities, enforcing civil rights laws, providing "ladders of opportunities).
Then he transitions again by asking us not to focus on racism. Instead he wants us to focus on education, on health care, jobs (and offshoring) and bringing the troops home "from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged".
He also mentioned that Wright sees "the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily (with) ... allies like Israel, instead of (starting with ) radical Islam."
So, that's a condensation of Obama's speech, I'll explore my comments on it in a couple of days. I'd be interested in your comments. I'd be especially interested in any comments on the comparisons between Obama and Quayle.
If you're like me, you heard tons about Obama's speech on racism. I've heard nothing positive about it. I listen mostly to conservative talk radio and no one expects them to say anything good about Obama. I also listen to the big networks and they had nothing positive to say either. Years ago I tried listening to liberal talk radio and I just couldn't stomach it.
In 1992, Dan Quayle made his famous Murphy Brown speech. This was when Al Gore was still inventing the internet, so I depended on the main-stream media to read the real speech. By the time it came out, most political candidates had changed their tune and were supporting Quayle's ideas, if not his speech. What a turn-around!
I learned from that experience to go to the source. So today, I took time to read Obama's speech. You can find it here. To my surprise, I found very little in Obama's words with which I disagree.
Sen. Obama's speech included lots of words about Rev. Wright, but that was no more the topic than was Quayle's speech about a TV character back in 1992 (it was about a poverty of values, including absent fathers - which Obama mentioned also). Rather, Obama was talking for the first half of the speech about racism in America. I thought he did a good job expaining the situation. Yes, he spent time defending his views on Wright, but that's not all the speech is about.
At this point, I should indentify myself as a white American. Born and raised in the south and proud of it. I have looked back for about 4 generations and all of these ancestors were raised in the south. I don't know if any ever owned slaves, but I know some fought in the civil war (and not for the north). I do know that some of my relatives have harbored racist feelings and for that I am not proud. I'll also apologize to anyone offended by the term "black". I'll use that in this entry: it's what Obama used in his speech and it's shorter than "African American". I should also point out that I will assume that his speech matches the way Obama feels. I have no doubt that he has speech writers who wrote good portions of the speech, but he gets all the credit and all the blame.
Obama's speech was very well written and shows a good bit of intelligence. Four years ago, I realized that this man was going to be somebody. Starting with a quotation from the Constitution and tracing slavery through the halls of the Philadelphia convention, Obama spoke without malice about the process and the realization that "words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage."
Senator Obama gets it. Neither then, nor now, can "words on parchment" solve the problem. He also gets it that racism cuts both ways. He talks about "white racism" and "divisive comments" by Wright.
Then he transitions his speech. "Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze"
In other words, both black and white racism distract us from the real problems. I agree 100%. He says that "to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding." In all, I think he spoke more about reverse racism (anti-white) than he did about racism (anti-black). I haven't counted words and think that that too would "block the path to understanding."
What are the real problems? Obama sites these items: 1) Big Business, 2) Washington politics and 3) economic policies that favor the few over the many.
He identifies some specific actions for blacks: 1) embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past, 2) continuing to insist on justice and 3) binding our particular grievances to the larger aspirations of all Americans. This is also where he talks about absent fathers (where's Quayle when you need him?).
He identifies some specific actions for whites: acknowledge that racism is real with both words and deeds (investing in schools and communities, enforcing civil rights laws, providing "ladders of opportunities).
Then he transitions again by asking us not to focus on racism. Instead he wants us to focus on education, on health care, jobs (and offshoring) and bringing the troops home "from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged".
He also mentioned that Wright sees "the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily (with) ... allies like Israel, instead of (starting with ) radical Islam."
So, that's a condensation of Obama's speech, I'll explore my comments on it in a couple of days. I'd be interested in your comments. I'd be especially interested in any comments on the comparisons between Obama and Quayle.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Universal HealtCare - I approved this message part 4.5
I've numbered this message part 4.5 because it comes somewhere between part 4 (the economy) and part 5 (education, abortion, global warming and carbon credits). My regular readers will remember that I'm outlining the policies I would follow if I were elected president. I should point out that not all presidential candidates do this. To my knowledge, only one of the current candidates has done this. Barack Obama has a book that describes his ideas. He also has extensive information on his website. He's accused of giving on lofty ideas in his campaign speeches. It's hard to tell from the sound bites if that's true, but I don't fault him for that. I think he's giving the public what they want, and doing a very good job of it.
Sen. Clinton has also written a book, and I presume it says something about what she would do as president. I don't think McCain has a book and I haven't checked either website.
But back to my platform, and this time it's on healthcare. Originally, I had grouped this in item #5 because I simply didn't think it needed much attention. However, more thought has led me to flip-flops, or at least partially. Let me explain some basic facts.
I know of 2 or 3 situations where someone has gone to the hospital without medical coverage. In one case, bills totaled over $200,00, probably closer to $500,00 when all was complete. In another situation, the person could have gone to a doctor or a doc-in-a-box, but instead went to the ER. They left without paying and count on the state tax refund to pay the bill (the hospital can garnish the state refund). Currently, a hospital must treat someone who can't afford it, and the state pays it. If they can get the money back later, they will try, otherwise the taxpayer foots the bill.
For those of marginal income, but who try to pay their bills, medical care can wipe out their chances for advancement. Costs are out of hand. I had back surgery two years ago, it cost over $20,000 for one night in the hospital. I didn't even see the doctor after the surgery before discharge.
Normally, I'd say this isn't a federal problem, but the states can't handle it and private industry has no incentive. The system has come to the point where we can do more medical care than we can afford. As the baby boom generation ages, this will only get worse.
To begin with, I firmly believe additional competition is required. Ratings for insurance, hospitals and doctors should be established so that the patient can determine the best choices. Rather than create a new agency, the AMA should govern the doctors and hospitals. There is no comparable agency or group for insurance, one will (reluctantly) have to be created.
Insurance should be just that, insurance. Elective surgery or anticpated hospital requirements should not be covered. (Take a deep breath here). That means normal pregnancies should not be covered. Instead families should pay for their own delivery. This will have to be phased in over time as the current cost is way to high. I would appoint a team of doctors and insurance-minded people to determine how to implement this (that means I have no idea).
Something has to be done to reign in the cost of medicines. I am a big believer in profits and I understand the amount of research that goes into creating a new medicine, but the number of medical sales people and the perks they give out goes way too far.
Obviously, I'm short on details. But let me explain some problems I see with other plans. Many focus on the "big business" as the evil, I instead embrace big business. Many would give everyone equal access, I would focus on individual responsibility. If I as a consumer want to purchase additional insurance, or purchas something that will give me better access to health care, I think that should be allowed. The idea that everyone gets the same access is socialist.
We conseervatives have long been seen as being uncaring. I don't want to be that way. I don't know of any real solution to this problem and I've put it low on my priority lst, but I intentionally didn't put it last.
Sen. Clinton has also written a book, and I presume it says something about what she would do as president. I don't think McCain has a book and I haven't checked either website.
But back to my platform, and this time it's on healthcare. Originally, I had grouped this in item #5 because I simply didn't think it needed much attention. However, more thought has led me to flip-flops, or at least partially. Let me explain some basic facts.
I know of 2 or 3 situations where someone has gone to the hospital without medical coverage. In one case, bills totaled over $200,00, probably closer to $500,00 when all was complete. In another situation, the person could have gone to a doctor or a doc-in-a-box, but instead went to the ER. They left without paying and count on the state tax refund to pay the bill (the hospital can garnish the state refund). Currently, a hospital must treat someone who can't afford it, and the state pays it. If they can get the money back later, they will try, otherwise the taxpayer foots the bill.
For those of marginal income, but who try to pay their bills, medical care can wipe out their chances for advancement. Costs are out of hand. I had back surgery two years ago, it cost over $20,000 for one night in the hospital. I didn't even see the doctor after the surgery before discharge.
Normally, I'd say this isn't a federal problem, but the states can't handle it and private industry has no incentive. The system has come to the point where we can do more medical care than we can afford. As the baby boom generation ages, this will only get worse.
To begin with, I firmly believe additional competition is required. Ratings for insurance, hospitals and doctors should be established so that the patient can determine the best choices. Rather than create a new agency, the AMA should govern the doctors and hospitals. There is no comparable agency or group for insurance, one will (reluctantly) have to be created.
Insurance should be just that, insurance. Elective surgery or anticpated hospital requirements should not be covered. (Take a deep breath here). That means normal pregnancies should not be covered. Instead families should pay for their own delivery. This will have to be phased in over time as the current cost is way to high. I would appoint a team of doctors and insurance-minded people to determine how to implement this (that means I have no idea).
Something has to be done to reign in the cost of medicines. I am a big believer in profits and I understand the amount of research that goes into creating a new medicine, but the number of medical sales people and the perks they give out goes way too far.
Obviously, I'm short on details. But let me explain some problems I see with other plans. Many focus on the "big business" as the evil, I instead embrace big business. Many would give everyone equal access, I would focus on individual responsibility. If I as a consumer want to purchase additional insurance, or purchas something that will give me better access to health care, I think that should be allowed. The idea that everyone gets the same access is socialist.
We conseervatives have long been seen as being uncaring. I don't want to be that way. I don't know of any real solution to this problem and I've put it low on my priority lst, but I intentionally didn't put it last.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)