Has the jury reached a verdict?

There is apparently a trial going on right now in this country. Some might call it the trial of the young century. It is broadcast everyday, though not on as many channels as O.J. Those representing the different sides spend each day speaking well or ill of the accused depending on where they sit. The accused has been charged with everything from causing the premature death of the elderly, to driving small businesses to file for bankruptcy, to bringing about the end of this great nation through a deficit that can never be overcome.

The accused goes by the street name of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The victim is, apparently, the American people. The odd thing about the the trial of People v Healthcare is that it has a sort of Minority Report feel to it. The PPACA (I am not typing that name over and over again) has not actually done anything yet, but it is spoken of as though it is the end of western civilization.

I was watching C-SPAN 2 today, as I am wont to do when looking for the straight skinny on what is happening in the bowels of our government, and found the tone of the debate familiar. I checked my browser to make sure I had not accidentally clicked on Court-TV -- not really, but it makes for good prose.

The Republicans and Democrats were each taking turns addressing the jury, who in this case was actually themselves since they are who will be casting votes. The prosecution...I mean, Republicans, would spend 60 minutes speaking of all the horrible and inexcusable things this bill was going to do. Grandmothers finding that Medicare would no longer cover their ailments. Small businesses going under because they could not afford healthcare for their employees. The federal government collapsing under the weight of $2 trillion in debt over the next 10 years.

After they were done, the defense, oops Democrats, would get 60 minutes to sing the praises of their client. How it had fine moral character by covering millions of people that could not otherwise afford it. How the public option would ensure true competition in the industry. How no one could be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. How their client was here to save this country if only it could have the chance.

The thing I found disturbing was the misdirection. The Republicans had printed out the bill. It sat on a desk beside the podium and they made several references to its bulk. I think they actually had printed several copies because it seemed every Republican that spoke had a copy of it next to them. The stacks were easily a couple feet high. They spoke of how wordy it was and bloated and included things that made no sense and such. No mention of the environmental cost of printing so many pages.

The Democrats then got up and pointed out that the Republicans had only printed the bill on one side of each sheet of paper and had enlarged the font to the point where the bill took up much more space than it should. Not wanting to take either side's opinion at face value, I downloaded the bill myself to see how large it was. It is 2074 pages. This is 1037 pages when printed front and back. I will say the font is quite large anyway, but even if you left the font size alone, 1037 pages is the size of a couple Dan Brown or J.K. Rowling hard cover novels. That would be, at most, 6-8 inches tall. Not the two feet as implied by the Republicans.

And I challenge any Republican to show me a bill that is not filled with the legal-speak they derided this one for.

The Republicans then got up and discussed the cost of the bill. The Democrats claimed it was deficit neutral. That is, it would not add to the deficit and any costs would be accounted for through cost cuts in other areas and such. The Republicans point out how the $800 billion cost (over 10 years) arrived at by the independent Congressional Budget Office, was actually more than $2 trillion when added up. I am not sure if I should believe the independent Congressional Budget Office or the Republicans. Hmmm. Who has the most to gain by fudging the numbers?

Again, not wanting to take anyone's word on the matter, I checked the CBOs findings and saw that they did conclude that the PPACA (HR3590) will actually cut the budget deficit by $130 billion over 10 years. You can read it yourself here. Not that this proves anything, but making such determinations is what the CBO does. Whereas the Republicans are trying to win case. I lean toward the CBO in this situation.

As the trial..er..debate wore on, I did not know who to trust. Each side presented their arguments and the other side tried to shoot holes in the arguments. For my part, I found the Democrats positions to be more believable than the Republicans.

The Republicans seemed to sing the praises of private insurers and small business in one breath, but in the next they talked about how businesses would chose not to cover their employees because the fine for not providing insurance was cheaper than the cost of the insurance. And that because the cost of the private insurance was so expensive, this would drive people to a public option. But isn't that the point the Democrats were making? Private insurance companies are charging so much and making so much profit, no one can afford it. The only way to keep it competitive is to have a non-profit option to compete with them.

I took some time and read through some snippets of the bill -- which can be found here.

One interesting thing I saw is that the fines for not having insurance do not kick in until 2014. And that year those fines amount to $8 for each month that person does not have insurance. The fines jump the next year to $30 per month and then to $63 per month in 2016 and each year after. There are exemptions for people that cannot afford it and for people that should be covered under someone else's plan such as a parent's or spouse's. In those cases, the person responsible for providing the coverage, would be fined if they do not do so.

There is even an exemption for people who do not have health coverage because they belong to a recognized religious organization that does not use the healthcare system.

So. The trial (debate) goes on. Unfortunately, instead of the case being a presentation of the facts, as would be required in a court of law, this is simply two groups presenting their distorted view of the situation in an attempt to further their own ends.

I will tell you that I have listened to the arguments and I have probably read more of the bill than most and while it is not entirely what I would like to see in healthcare reform, it has many merits and is nowhere near the angel of death that Republicans would have you believe it is.

I end with this. If you intend to take a position on this bill, or any other, do not get your information from the talking heads on TV. Read the bill yourself, or at least skim through it. Watch the debate on C-SPAN2. Form your own opinion. If you still have a position to one side or the other, then by all means voice it to your Senator and the world. Otherwise, do not muddy the already cloudy waters with hearsay, speculation, and lies.

It's all about choice!!!

One of my previous posts talked about how Republicans have started to refer to Pro-Choice as Pro-Abortion, implying that we want people to have more abortions.

I revisit this briefly today because of something I saw in Sarah Palin's interview with Barbara Walters.

I think most people know that Sarah Palin has a baby with Down Syndrome. She knew the baby had this condition and decided to have the baby anyway. Good for her. I have no issue with that. I in no way feel that because I would make a different choice that everyone needs to make the same choice as me.

Here is what bugs me. In the interview with Barbara Walters, Barbara asks Sarah if she considered abortion when she found out that Trig had Down Syndrome. Sarah began her response by saying, 'I knew that the option was there.'

She knew the option was there. This tells me the thought crossed her mind if even for a second. Yet she would still throw her lot in with those that would take away that choice completely.

I have said it before and I will repeat it now. Being Pro-Choice is about just that. Choice!! We would love for there to be no abortions. But we will never support removing the option. An option that crossed even the mind of far right wing Republican Sarah Palin.

What? I mean...What?

I just do not get it. I know the Republican party is dying for someone to step up and be their Barack Obama, but is Sarah Palin really it?

I watched a news report where they showed her rock star like following at a book signing. People screaming and waiting in line for hours to get their book signed. There was even an overflow area where people just waited to catch a glimpse of her as she stepped off the bus.

She is not the first politician to have such a following. We all know that Barack Obama had similar turnouts at his events. My only question is, 'Why Sarah Palin?'

I have no doubt that she is a decent enough person. I also recognize that I completely disagree with all of her politics. But my concern is that when she talks it is clear that she does not really have any politics of her own. She is just spouting what other people are saying because that is popular right now. It is like an author writing a vampire or boy wizard book because that is what is popular right now. That doesn't make them a great author. It just makes them opportunistic. As the buying public, we have to know how to tell the difference.

Consider this. In her interview with Barbara Walters she used the word 'dithering' to describe the time it is taking for Obama to announce his plan for Afghanistan. That is not a common word. Yet, it is the same word that Dick Cheney used to describe the same thing a couple weeks ago. It is one thing to share an opinion with someone else, but to use the same unusual word demonstrates that you may not actually have your own opinion on the matter.

She was asked if she still thought that being near Russia constituted foreign policy experience. She said, 'Yes.' I still do not understand how someone can claim meaningful foreign policy experience just by being near a foreign country. There is a big difference between governing a state that maintains entry points to the US and negotiating treaties and such. I am not saying Obama had any substantial foreign policy experience himself when he was elected, but he had no less than George W. Bush and Sarah Palin and Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan either. Just don't claim to have something you don't. That is like embellishing your resume and no one likes that.

She is very keen on blaming the media for making her look bad. Okay. But exactly what are they doing? She never provides specifics. If something was twisted or taken out of context, then set the record straight. Say what it was that they did wrong and correct it. Don't just make a sweeping generalization.

For example, during the Barbara Walters interview, Palin was shown the Newsweek cover. She made a comment about how she expected more from Newsweek and that the picture was sexist. As though the picture was the problem and not the headline 'How do you solve a problem like Sarah?' By the way, just because someone is critical of you in an editorial, does not mean the media is biased. That is someone's opinion. If you cannot recognize the difference between a news report and an editorial, then that is your problem, not the media's.

One more thing about biased media. I know things can easily be taken out of context for the purposes of editorializing. I know that news reports can often show the most unflattering pictures and sound bites. But, if you watch an interview from start to finish. Just questions and answers. And you reach the conclusion that the person is not someone you want running the country, that is not the media distorting the truth.

Now do not get me wrong. I have no issue with the Republican party trying to find a voice. I would love to see honest debate in this country rather than party line bickering. But just supporting Palin because she is popular is ludicrous.

There were some teenage girls at the rally I saw and one made the comment that Palin certainly has more experience than Obama. What??? Is that what people really think? You can debate whether serving a partial term and resigning to go on a book tour is more experience than serving a partial term as US Senator and resigning to become President. But to act as though Obama's experience can't even hold a candle to Palin's is ludicrous.

Please Republican party, find someone worthy of your support. Find someone that will speak for themselves and bring their own ideas to the table. Not someone who will just rehash what they heard on Limbaugh or O'Reilly. Not someone who was thrust into the spotlight and is just riding the wave. Eventually that wave will break and you will have nothing.

One last thing for Sarah. The phrase is 'Ass Backward' or 'Bass Ackward'. Not 'Back Assward'. The idea behind euphemisms is to avoid swearing. If you say 'Back Assward' you have still said the naughty word.

You Cannot Have it Both Ways

This week I have heard a couple things regarding the Health Care Bill that I find interesting.

A poll shows that the majority of Americans do not want any government money being used to fund abortions. I think the number is around 60% that support the amendment to the bill that prevents federal money being used for abortions, either through a public option or through subsidies for other plans.

Okay. That's fine. My personal stance is that the government pays for a lot of stuff that I don't think it should pay for (Blackwater contractors comes to mind) but you take the good with the bad. I am not going to prevent the government from building an army because I don't like how they spent some of the money.

The problem I have is that people complaining that they do not want their money being used to fund abortions don't realize that they are most likely funding abortions today. Their private insurance company that they are so keen on keeping is using their money to pay for all kinds of things for other people.

Do they think that the premiums they pay go into a special box and are only used for their maladies? Of course that is not the case. The money from premiums goes into a pool and everyone in the program gets money from that pool. You have no idea what your specific dollars are going towards and it is really none of your business. Would you want everyone else in your plan looking over your records and deciding if you should get that Viagra you have been wanting or if your child can get braces? Then stay out of other people's business!

If people want no part of any insurance plan that covers abortion, then they should take a close look at their own private plan and they best opt out if they disagree with it.


The other issue has to do with this whole notion of people not wanting the government to control healthcare because they do not want it rationed or risk 'Death Panels'. As a result, people are indicating that they want to make sure they can still keep their current private health insurance.

Again, the logic is flawed. They believe that their private insurance company is not rationing healthcare. Um. How many restrictions are there in your plan regarding what treatments they will cover and how often you can get them? Any restrictions fall into the category of rationed healthcare. And I would argue that a private, for-profit, company is much more likely to ration your healthcare in the interest of their own profits than the government or a non-profit provider.

Let's take for example the recent news about the new United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines stating that women between 40 and 49 no longer need to get annual mammogram screenings. This news has met with harsh criticism from doctors, patients, and the American Cancer Society. People are concerned that their healthcare provider will use these guidelines as an excuse to no longer cover annual mammograms for women under 50.

But wait. Aren't these the same private insurers that you do not want to lose? Aren't these the same companies that you are defending against a government takeover of healthcare? How can you argue in support of keeping your private insurance provider while at the same time worrying that they will use this new report to start rationing your coverage?

I ask this. Who is more likely to jump on a report like this and stop covering such exams?

The government or non-profit provider is already paying for the exams. Since they are not seeking profits, it does not hurt them to continue to pay for the exams.

The private insurance provider needs to bring in as much profit as possible for their stake-holders. If they can save expenses by cutting coverage, then they have every reason to do so. In fact, according to Dodge v Ford Motor Company the board of directors are under an obligation to maximize profits at the expense of their employees and customers. Do not think for a minute that they have your best interests at heart.