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.

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.

Is it the fool or the fool who follows him?

I have long been a believer that those getting their news exclusively from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck and other such places are not getting the whole story.

I also know that those who only watch MSNBC and Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are doing themselves a similar disservice.

These are all people who make money by delivering ratings. The commentators, in particular, deliver ratings by spouting extreme opinions on subjects. Rush does so from the right and Keith does the same thing from the left. To those that lean left or right, those opinions are entertaining, but they should not be mistaken for news.

You cannot realistically stand up in support or opposition to something unless you do your own research. To take someone else's opinion as fact is dangerous and helps no one. One side is hurt because you propagate misinformation. The other side is hurt because you do not truly understand what your position is so you cannot answer questions to support it.

As you might expect, I am currently referring to the ongoing 'debate' over Health Care Reform. I put debate in quotes because debates are generally civil and based on facts. At a minimum the facts in question are grey areas that can be interpreted differently. That is not the case here.

What we have seen over the past couple months are instead arguments with no (or little) factual basis and, in some cases, little relation to the topic in question. For the most part we have attempts by people and groups to prevent debate by occupying the microphone as long as possible. In congress this is called a filibuster.

A filibuster is when a member of congress holds the floor endlessly so that an item cannot be debated or voted on. As long as they keep talking, and they can talk about anything they want, then they hold the floor and nothing else can be done. Here we have the general public engaging in the mother of all filibusters.


This past weekend there was a heavily attended march on Washington with people protesting the Obama Administration. The march was not specifically aimed at the health care issue, but was more a protest against all things Obama. There were numerous signs claiming Obama is both a Fascist and a Socialist -- a contradiction in itself.

I found this video which had me swinging between being sad and mad.


To be fair, I am sure that the person assembling this video used only those people that would help make their video better. My problem is that the people in this video are the people that are getting the most attention and are also the ones that seem to be the least informed.

Don't just claim Obama is a Fascist. Learn what Fascism actually is and explain what, specifically, you think he has done to demonstrate Fascist tendencies. How do those actions compare to things that other Presidents have done? Would you consider them to be Fascist as well?

If you think the country is moving towards Socialism, then put together an argument listing out the specific programs that appear Socialist in nature and why you think they are wrong. Be prepared to explain why other programs that could be considered Socialist are okay -- such as Medicare, Social Security, Education, etc. Of course if you think all of these programs should be abolished as well, then be prepared to discuss how you would prefer to solve the problems that they solve.

If you are upset about all of these 'Czars' that exist in the government, then do some research into who these people are. What responsibilities and powers do they have? Who created that position? How long are they in office? Who do they report to? What is their actual title? (hint: there is no government office with an official title of 'xxxxxxx Czar')

If you cannot answer even the most basic questions about your position, then you really do not have a position.


In the above video I am particularly concerned about the people holding signs comparing Obama to Hitler and stating how he was a great speaker too. Hitler was a great speaker and people followed him blindly in part because he was so eloquent. The implication is that Obama is doing the same thing. That is called a scare tactic.

Isn't every politician at least a decent speaker? Doesn't everyone seeking office need to convince people that what they say is true and that you should support them instead of their opponent? Every President has to convince tens of millions of people to vote for them. Making the jump from great speaker who rallies support to Hitler is pretty substantial, but it looks good on video.

The interesting thing to me is that the world is full of great speakers. But a great speaker is nothing more than that, unless he has people that support him. People that will echo what he says. People that believe what he says without any regard for whether or not it is true. Then the question becomes, who is to be feared more, the person speaking or the people that listen and follow that person without questioning what they are saying?

Should we fear Obama for being a great speaker? If all he has are great speeches but cannot actually do anything, then do we really have much to be afraid of?

We do if people blissfully follow him and believe everything he says and raise him to the point of a supreme authority, then he will have the clout to implement changes that perhaps no one wants. I would say our government is strong enough to resist such ambitions, but the point is that nothing will happen if you cannot rally support to your cause.

Now let's consider this.

What about Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann or Glenn Beck or Rachel Maddow or Bill O'Reilly? They are all great speakers. They have large numbers of people that listen. They have a lot of people that take what they say as fact without questioning it. I saw more than a few Glenn Beck for President signs at the rally. I am sure they were sarcastic, but it demostrates that the person believes and trusts Glenn Beck more than they do President Obama. Should we fear these people?

Should we fear the people that listen to them and do not question what they say? Maybe we should worry that so many people are content to have information spoon fed to them without gathering the information themselves.

Maybe we should be afraid that so many people will go to a rally in Washington DC armed only with a talking point and use that as justification for overthrowing the government.


I will end with this.

If you have an opinion on a topic and have researched it to where it is your own and you truly believe it, then I will respect that even if I disagree. But if you simply take what someone else tells you as fact and do not question it or investigate it, then do not bother me with your thoughts because they are not yours anyway so what does it matter.

If you want to see what actually happens in the government, then I recommend going to cspan.org and watching it unfold in real time or even taped. Form your own opinions about what is going on. Then, when the time comes, you can shout 'You lie' at Rush or Keith or Bill or Rachel or Sean.