Health Care and The Deathstar

Tonight we were once again addressed by the President of the United States in what can be seen as the end of the month long intermission that we have had from the healthcare reform debate. For months now we have heard about death panels and never ending lines in Japan as people wait to see a doctor. What the President wanted to do was to get his message to the people in a softer light than has been cast by so many in the last few months.

While there is no argument that the President is great at giving a speech, there are a few different points that need to be addressed. First off, there are some things that everyone agrees about. Those things include access for everyone to affordable health care, the right for people to group together to get better prices on insurance, including those who pay for their own insurance, the need for the people to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves and that insurance companies should be able to provide incentives for those who participate in wellness programs. While these all are very good thing that we need to see in the near future, it is more important to work on the things that there is so much disagreement on. The President tried to correct what he referred to as "misconceptions" in the healthcare reform bill, but there are flaws in what the President feels is solid health care reform.

First, the dreaded "Death Panels" that have been the source of so much debate. This come from the idea that there will be a panel that seniors will have to go before where the panel will decided if paying for health care for these individuals is worth the cost, or should they no longer provide coverage. The President firmly denies these allegations in a very Animal Farm type statement. I believe that the President and members of Congress believe with all of their hearts that these panels will not happen, but what they fail to realize is that the possibility of these panels is there. It will not come in the next 5 or even 10 years, but one day down the road, the bureaucracy of the US Government will start to work its wonders as the need for a set system of rules will bring the likelihood of the denial of benefits creeping closer and closer simply because they do not met a set standard of criteria. While this may not be the problem that it has been made out to be, it will be very important down the road when for the individual that is sitting before the board praying that the government will continue to pay for their treatment.

Second, in what is bound to be the most talked about moment from the speech, the President stated that the program would not cover any illegal aliens, to which Rep. Joe Wilson shouted out "You Lie!" This moment(above), which was clearly disrespectful and should be apologized for, only shows a small hint of a much larger argument of illegal immigration. The questions is who will pay for the hundreds and thousands of illegal aliens who cross the border simply because they are sick and know that they will receive health care free of charge because the people of America cannot stand to see a person in need turned away. Will the border hospitals be forced to continue the current practice of paying for the service of those who get help in their hospitals who cannot pay for themselves? This is a question that needs to be address and not simply brushed off, unless of course we can manage to build a fence that is 1000 feet tall and 1000 feet deep and extends the entire length of the border, and since we don't foresee that happening, we need to address the real problems of this health care that will be provided, coverage or not.

Last, the President wants this coverage to be mandatory for every American. He referred to auto insurance as a successful example of how it will work. Let us look at the problems with this. For one, there is an option with auto insurance. If you don't want to pay for the insurance, you can choose not to drive. That is a real option for some. The ability to remove oneself from the system is a right that we hold dear in America. Forcing everyone to have insurance is just not possible in the current system. How do we do this? We need to have the insurance eligibility based on taxes.

What do you mean taxes? Well simply, to get coverage you must file a valid tax return for the prior 3 to 5 years. This will do two things; first, it will make sure that the American taxpayers are the ones that are receiving the benefits from their taxes. The second, it will encourage a substantial increase in the paying of taxes in the United States. If you provide a benefit for paying taxes, as well as a punishment for the lack of doing such, the tax revenue would jump substantially. This would help pay for the program as well as encourage responsible government participation on the part of the people.

To make this work, there would need to be a punishment for the lack of participation. How can we do that? It is clear that we cannot deny emergency care for those who need it, regardless if they pay taxes or not. What we can do however, is to deny other government benefits to those who do not file tax returns for the last several years. What can these be? No student grants, no subsidies for businesses, and no benefit that helps someone in situations that do not risk the health of the individual. By doing this, the government would be able to encourage the payment of taxes, as well as the healthcare coverage for most of America.

It should be noted that even the President of the United States can see that there are healthcare systems that work, for example he noted the Intermountain Health Care Systems in Utah. It "provides above average healthcare, at below average prices" stated President Obama. It is clear that low cost healthcare is possible. The President was referring to the non-profit organization (including the insurance arm under the name of Select Health) that was started by the LDS Church that now provides some of the best medical care in the world, let alone the mid-west. They recently opened what has been come to be called the Deathstar, as it was believed the new state of the art hospital built in Salt Lake City would kill off any other hospital in the area. Yet this single organization now provides better coverage at lower cost, while always keeping the need and rights of the patients as their main concern and not how much money they can make for their share holders. Now if only the government could figure that out.

There are many other things that need to be address, and we will continue with the discussion in the next post.

A Photo Too Far

Many people as well as news sources often get their world news from one place, The Associated Press. While for years the AP has been considered one of the most reliable sources of news in the world, it seems that they have now gone too far. In August the AP made the decision to publish a photo of a Marine who had been struck by a rocket propelled grenade and died shortly after the photo was taken. This was done after the family of the Marine, Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard, requested that the AP not release the photo to the public. After the AP received the request from the family, they made the decision to run the photo despite the request saying that the photo was needed to show the harsh realities of war.

Now Defense Secretary Robert Gates has joined the conversation. In a letter that he sent to the AP, Gates called the action "Appling" and that the action was a breach of "Common Decency". The letter, which Gates states is one of the first public opinions that he has made after taking his new position, forcefully beseeches the AP to reconsider the decision. He states:

"Out of respect for his family's wishes, I ask you in the strongest of terms to reconsider your decision. I do not make this request lightly. In one of my first public statements as Secretary of Defense, I stated that the media should not be treated as the enemy, and made it a point to thank journalists for revealing problems that need to be fixed – as was the case with Walter Reed."

"I cannot imagine the pain and suffering Lance Corporal Bernard's death has caused his family. Why your organization would purposefully defy the family's wishes knowing full well that it will lead to yet more anguish is beyond me. Your lack of compassion and common sense in choosing to put this image of their maimed and stricken child on the front page of multiple American newspapers is appalling. The issue here is not law, policy or constitutional right – but judgment and common decency."

It is often that the media uncovers things that need attention. In that sense, the media is a needed part of society. They have to power to expose the abuse of the week by those in power. They can draw attention to things that would otherwise be ignored by the people and the leaders of our communities. However, it is clear that there is a line that can be crossed.

There are times where we forget the pain and devastation of war. It is an important role of the media to remind us of what can happen because of the actions of politicians, but in this case, the AP went from keeping an important issue at the forefront of our attention, to showing a sensationalized photo to sell papers. The disrespect that the AP has shown to a fallen member of the military is despicable. The fact that they were able to sit down and come to a decision to print a photo of a man about to die should remind us of the frenzy to get the last picture of Michael Jackson as they rushed his lifeless body to the hospital. That tabloid mentality that the AP used is something that should hurt their reputation as a leader in world news.

I made the decision not to look at the picture, and the lack of image above is not an error, it is a sign of respect for the sacrifice that was give for the freedoms of others. While the damage has been done, the lesson can still be learned, there is a line, and it is easy to cross.

Road Texters

It seems that the ever expanding digital age has fundamentally changed the way that we interact with one another. First we moved to the cell phones and email, suddenly we were able to speak to each other no matter where we were. We had the ability to send messages to someone across the country and it was there in seconds as opposed to days. It was as this time that we began to see the arguments for the safe use of these new means of communication while doing everything from flying to driving. Bans on speaking on a phone while in the car were reviewed in every state and report after report came out about how deadly talking on a cell phone can be while driving. We never did come together and agree on what was and was not appropriate use of phones while driving. But it appears that we are trying to avoid that same problem with texting.

Texting has become the primary source of communication for so many Americans, particularly young Americans. More and more the ability to speak to multiple individuals, all without saying a word, is becoming the preferred means for interpersonal relationships leading to thousand dollar phone bills and some very cramped thumbs. In the last few years, the same arguments that arose during the beginning of the cell phone age have begun to arise in the texting era. This time, however, the legislative bodies are trying to avoid the same disorganized effort that prevented all cell phones being banned from use on American roads.

While currently less than 20 states have banned texting while driving, a bill is being pushed forward that is moving the country to laws in every state that would ban texting while operating a vehicle. The bill was not free from running into its own potholes. One of the largest came when the Governors Highway Safety Association came out in opposition to the bill claiming that such a ban would be too difficult to enforce, that was, until the president of the organization actually went and spoke to the members of the association which comprises of the government officials that are responsible for highway safety in each state. Earlier this week, the group reversed its position stating the various studies from places like Virginia Tech Transportation Institute. Now the bill, which will require that each and every state passes a law to ban texting while driving, is expected to make it through the legislative process and passed into law.

Is the federal government going too far? No, the need to protect drivers is the responsibility of federal government as well as the local governments. It has been ever since Eisenhower built the Interstate Highway system. For those who think that the ban may simply be over reacting to scare tactics used by supporters of the bill, think again. According to the University of Utah, drivers who are intoxicated are 4 times more likely to get into an accident than a sober individual while those who are texting while driving are 8 time more likely to get into an accident than a sober attentive driver. Why is texting so bad? Texting requires that the driver removes his eyes from his surrounding and focus on their cell phone, some times as long as 10 or 20 seconds.

We should be happy that the government is trying to protect us for others who fail to realize the severity of their actions until after the damage has been done. Those individuals like the bus driver in the video above often care more about their personal lives than they do about the safety of those around them on the road. This is when legislation is necessary. It protects those of us who know how dangerous it can be to drive while distracted. Most of us have see the car that is swerving to stay in their lane because the driver was looking down at their phone, and then 20 seconds later they have to swerve again because they just had to tell Stacy what Sue said.

We should also point out that the GHSA was right in seeing that they made a mistake and correcting it. Yes it might be inconvenient for someone to have to actually wait to send a message, but what is so hard about making a call instead. Keep your eyes on the road. We all want to get home safe. Lets help each other do that.

A Crime for Prayer

It is clear that times continue to change. I have been able to see the changes that we face in my short lifetime. Perhaps I am beginning to understand the phrase "back when". This was especially true this week when I laid down at night and turned on the TV only to see the changes we see happen from day to day. The story that I saw on the news, two school officials are facing charges for blessing their food.

This last week two Florida school district officials are facing contempt charges for offering a prayer at a luncheon to dedicate a new athletics building for the high school. All employees in the entire district had been banned from promoting any religion to students by a court order, and when the administrators offered a blessing on the food, they where apparently in contempt of court and face charges for their actions.

I recall as a 5^th grader in my elementary school in TX, we had a prayer offered every morning as we started our day. We would hear the morning announcements, recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and a student would offer a prayer. I offered the prayer myself on several occasions, not out of malice, rather I wanted to show the respect I had for my classmates by offering a prayer of gratitude for the fortune we had of getting an education.

Are we not taking the separation of church and state a little too far? When is it that the state can prevent a group of adults from offering a prayer? The luncheon was for adults only. There were not student present. The ACLU claims that there were students present, but what they fail to mention was that the students were members of the culinary arts class who were responsible for preparing the food and were completely separated from the event preparing the food.

We should all be concerned with our right not to have another's beliefs forced upon us. Should that not, however, also apply to those of us who do have religious beliefs? Why is it that we are forced to have the beliefs of those who do not believe in a higher power forced upon us? Many believe that we offer blessings on the food that we eat. It is a religious principle that has existed for thousands of years. Those who have the belief that it does not matter, and yes it is a religious view, are considered agnostic. Why is the agnostic community allowed to force their non-belief on those around them? If a teacher wants to offer a prayer, let them offer a prayer. If a teacher fails a student because he will not pray with the teacher, arrest the teacher. Why are we so scared of being sued by the ACLU that we are allowing this idea that to be a government worker or to attend a school that we must have no religion?

We should offer prayer in school. It does not always have to be a Christen prayer. It should be Jewish, and Christen and Muslim. Diversity is not removing what makes us different, but embracing it. We are different. We always will be different, and trying to keep us from that is not helping. It only leads to well meaning school officials being brought up on criminal charges and facing jail time. It seems it is a pat on the back to believe nothing, and a crime from prayer.

A Downsized Education

It has been clear for some time now that the bubble has burst. No longer is "flipping" a house considered a secure way to make a living. So many that passed up the steady career choice out of college are now struggling to get by as the companies that prospered in the time of abundant growth are now forced to cut the people that were hired hoping for the chance to become the next millionaire CEO. No one argues that the sub-prime lending extravaganza led directly to the current economic state. But how far are we willing to let the cash strapped government bodies take their spending cuts?

For years, hordes of people flocked to California as the gold rush of the exploding housing market promised to make a man rich in a year. As long as the people were continuing to make good money, they let the state government create government program after government program that were paid for by the seemingly unimportant taxes that were taken out of every workers paycheck. Programs were created that funded schools, employed workers, provided healthcare for many and others that did everything imaginable to provide for those who could not do so for themselves. Soon there was a second rush of people as those who counted on the government for support flocked to the coast in search of the never ending source of government help.

Things then took a turn for the worst. The housing market collapsed, bringing with it one of the largest banks in the world, starting a chain reaction that saw thousands lose everything and millions more lose close to it. As the dominos fell, incomes were slashed and with them, the tax revenue that so many states count on, in particular California. Face with a budget short fall that rivals the GDP of many small countries, California is now faced with finding a way to fund hundreds of government sponsored programs with no money to do such. They are unable to even pay their current obligations, being forced to send out "IOU" Checks that cannot be cashed until the next fiscal year. Being forced to trim the fat from the various programs, where does the state turn? Education.

With cuts to the Education budget, the California State University system is being forced to find way to save a buck. They started with tuition increases, which are to be expected. Almost every university raises their tuition a small percentage to keep up with inflation. There are few, however, that find it necessary to raise their cost of an education by 30% in less than three months. Even with this steep increase in tuition, teaches will be forced to take a 10% cut in pay by taking two day furloughs every month, resulting in two days of classroom education missed by the students enrolled.

Why is it that so often the immediate effects outweigh the long term results? We know that the only way for a society to grow is through the education of the people. It does not matter in what the people receive an education, be it a degree in marketing or a course in car repair, all that matters is that the people are given a chance to reliably provide for themselves. Californian has always seemed to understand this as they have made higher education in there state more affordable than almost any other place in the country providing a chance at an education to thousands more that may have had the opportunity otherwise. Why is it then that one of the very first things they cut funding too is the education system.

Times are hard. There is no room for waste of resources, but the only way to overcome the current situation is to educate the people in a way that will allow them to provide for their families for years to come. A taxpaying worker is far more helpful to a society as a whole then is the man who still uses government programs to get by because the state cut funding for his education. Yes we need to feed the children, and yes we need to care for those who are physically unable to care for themselves, but close behind is our responsibility to help others provide for themselves. You can give a man a fish, or you can teach him how to work. Downsizing education will only make it more difficult to learn how to cast a line.

Safety Second

President Obama seems to be showing the people that he is not the level headed man that can focus on running the government and not the problems that surround race. When asked about the arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr., a black Harvard professor who was taken from his home in handcuffs, the president responded that the Cambridge Police Dept had "acted stupidly" in choosing to arrest the man. The President then went on to say that quote…

"…there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latino being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately"

It is clear that the President is more concerned with the feelings of the professor, who Obama freely admits is a personal friend, than that of the safety of the Cambridge Police Officers, or any police officer for that matter. If he was to take to time to study the situation and standard police procedures, the President would realize that the initial confrontation did not involve any wrong doing on the part of the officer.

A report was made that a break-in was in progress at the professor's home. When the officer arrived, he was alone and began to address the report. Not knowing what the situation was, the officer asked the person inside the home to identify themselves. When Gates refused, the officer informed Gates that he was investigating a report of a break-in. Gates response was to open the door and state… "Why, because I'm a black man in America?". Gates then went on to refuse to identify himself to the officer, according to the report. It was not till later that he chose to identify himself and provide a Harvard faculty ID.

I find nothing wrong with the actions of the officer involved, Sgt. James Crowley. It is standard that a law enforcement officer asks an individual to identify themselves when they arrive at the scene of an alleged crime. Only through this information can an officer assess the situation and act appropriately. Far too often, when someone is in the middle of committing a crime, they will flatly refuse to identify themselves in the hope of being able to avoid prosecution. This is why it is a common law in most states that you must identify yourself when ask to do so by a law enforcement officer in the performance of his duties. Failure to do such is considered probable cause for arrest until you can be identified. By failing to do such, Gates was not only creating a problem where one did not exist, but was implying to the officer that he had something to hide. Personally, if a police officer arrived at my home, after confirming that he was an officer, I would gladly identify myself and thank the officer for trying to protect my home.

We should be concerned that Gates, a professor at one of the most prestigious universities in the world, would immediately turn a simple attempt to provide service by a civil servant into a racially motivated attempt to persecute another being. We should be even more concerned that the champion of "Change" would not find it prudent to abstain from comment on the arrest of his friend, when there are much more pressing matter that he is responsible. It is clear that the President was not showing sound judgment when he chose to use the word "stupidly" rather than something that showed he was acting more from a position of concern and not of emotion.

Race relationships are something that we need to continue to work on, but we cannot expect for things to get better when the director of the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research does not seem to be able to avoid attacking the very men that are trying to protect his safety, or even worse, when the President of the United States of America does not find it prudent to avoid getting involved in a conflict in which there is so clearly a conflict of interest.

What will happen then next time that an officer is confronted with a man that is claiming racism when the officer asks the man to identify himself? Who will be responsible when that officer makes the decision not to place a man in handcuffs because he is concerned that the President of the United States may become involved, and then that officer is injured by the same individual in the commission of a crime.

If what the officer did was racially motivated, that the act is reprehensible, but it is not the true issue. We need to overcome our racial stereotypes, regardless of who we are: a police officer, a construction worker, and student, and stay at home mother or president of a country. Only then will we be able to fulfill the potential that we have as a people.

Summer Vacation

Anyone who makes it a point to keep himself informed about what is happening in the world of US politics is aware that the biggest issue that faces lawmakers today is that of health care reform. We heard about it during the election season as every candidate laid out a plan for the best way to overhaul the system that we know will not survive longer than a few more years. There has been arguments for years about what will happen when the Social Security Fund runs dry and no longer will those of us who have been paying into the system our whole lives be able to receive any of the benefits that have been promised us when we reach the ripe old age of 65. Now, after years of complaints that the government is not doing anything to help, the time has come to start making some decisions, or at least think about making a decision.

President Obama is pushing his healthcare overhaul onto not only congress, but also the American People as he goes from press conference to town hall meeting trying to persuade us with his charm and his never ending slogan, "Change". This program is meeting resistance as people are beginning to understand just how much of a change Obama's plan really is. Democrats in congress have even decided that they are going to wait until after their month long break in August before they call for a vote on the bill. Is this a mistake? Absolutely not.

There are two reasons while Congress should wait to vote on the current healthcare reform bill. First, as has been discussed before, it is important that each side have an opportunity to argue their case. A month long break gives not only the GOP the opportunity to come out against the bill, arguing that it is a socialist program that would only move us farther from the democracy that we cherish, but also give the Democratic Party the opportunity to get their message out to the people. A break will only give the American People the chance to become informed and make a decision based on a better understanding of the issue. They can then relate their feelings back to their representatives in congress, and hopefully, the members of congress will take the desires of their constituents into consideration when they then cast their votes on the issue.

Second, the cost of any major overhaul of Government policy has effects that can last for decades. Take the New Deal that came around as a result of the Great Depression. It had some good effects and some that did not go over quite so well. We now have a highway system that allows not only for travel, but growth, expansion and commerce in ways that were not possible 75 years ago. We also got Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and several other government programs that, while they have done some good for people in need, have always been a broken system, and have placed us in the predicament we now face.

Would it not be prudent then, too take the time to think about what the long term effects will be of any major change. How are we going to pay for these systems? Will the systems hold up under government control? Or will this new, and rather costly, universal coverage only be a temporary patch for a problem that could fill the hole in the ozone.

For Congress, they should enjoy their summer vacation, but they must remember that the choice they make when they come back will have consequences that last long after they leave office. Maybe between the parties and the cabins they can take some time and think about the problem placed before them. Who knows? We might just end up with a better system than we started with.