Government-Hating: An American Value

G.O.P. Chairman Michael Steele made a few remarkably in-your-face comments recently about the health care debate. Here, in his own words, is pretty much where he thinks the nation is going, why it shouldn't go there, and what the Republican Party stands for. This morning on NPR he tangled with Steve Inskeep, in particular over this. One quote in particular caught my eye: " Simply put, we believe that health-care reform must be centered on patients, not government." When you listen to the NPR interview it's clear that we're hearing another in the now decades-long tirades against the government which has become the hallmark of Right Wing politics in this country. In this country, in theory, the government is supposed to be us, the people. We elect our representatives, we tell them how we want them to vote, we change our minds, we are supposed to be in charge. In theory. Obviously, the reality is far from that. For one, we are not a full-fledged democracy, we are a republic, and while we elect those who operate the machinery of the republic on our behalf, we do not have a direct say in the running. Nor could we, really. it is simply too complex. We send our representatives to the various points of departure---state capitols, Washington D.C., county seats, city halls---to do that for us because it is a big, complex, often indecipherable melange of conflicting goals, viewpoints, and problems. We do not have the time to pay the necessary attention to do that work ourselves, so we pay people to do it for us. So why do we distrust it so much? Well, because we distrust each other.

Continue ReadingGovernment-Hating: An American Value

An army of 50,000 highly motivated citizens condemning health care reform

Who are all of those outspoken citizens attending the town hall meetings where health care reform is ostensibly being discussed? The Raw Story reports that 50,000 of them are not simply concerned citizens:

A spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry’s trade group, admitted in an article published Monday that as many as 50,000 industry employees are involved in an effort to fight back against aggressive healthcare reform . . . “The health-insurance industry is sending thousands of its employees to town-hall meetings and other forums during Congress’s August recess to try to counter a tide of criticism directed at the insurers . . . Employees of the health insurers have also been given talking points . . .
Question: Who is more motivated to show up and speak up at public meetings concerning health care? A) Ordinary citizens or B) Employees of health care insurers who are being PAID to show up and who are being provided talking points? The obvious answer is B), and they are contaminating discussions from coast to coast. The bottom line is that what is going on is not honest spirited debate out at town halls. Rather, what we are being subjected to is corrupted debate, to match the corrupted debate inside of Congress, where six highly paid health care lobbyists are assigned to each member of Congress, as reported by the LA Times:
Every one of those 534 members of Congress now has six (6!) lobbyists working on them -- and that's just for healthcare. A total of 3,300 lobbyists have registered to drive the sizzling healthcare issue in Washington -- three times the brigade of lobbyists representing the entire defense industry.
It makes you want to throw up your hands (and sometimes, just throw up), thinking that we are sending sheep to the wolves whenever we hope that regular folks would be able to make as much focused noise on the topic of health care reform (and especially health care insurance reform) against financially motivated and highly-trained armies who are not attending these meetings to do anything other than advocate the pre-determined positions of their employer corporations and to prevent any meaningful discussion. Based on what I am reading and hearing, the presence of these highly vocal and highly biased participants is all the worse because they aren't identifying themselves as such at public hearings. In most things, we ask people of bias to identify themselves, because we should downplay the positions of biased people, because they are less trustworthy. They should be impeached for their positions of biased, the way we impeach biased witnesses in courtrooms. But there is no practical way to identify these financially motivated people at town hall meetings. They are presenting themselves are neutral ordinary citizens when they are anything but. For me, this "health care" debate is increasingly turning into a question of how (or whether) we are able to have any meaningful national discussion where one of the sides is financially powerful. This is especially a concern where investigative reporting is disappearing (but thank you, LA Times).

Continue ReadingAn army of 50,000 highly motivated citizens condemning health care reform

George Lakoff offers some framing tips to the Democrats re health care reform

Linguist George Lakoff is asking how a man who did such a marvelous job campaigning for President has stumbled so often on the issue of health care. Lakoff thus wrote an article offering some a list of language/framing advice to the Democrats. Here's the foundational concept:

The list of what needs reform makes sense under one conceptual umbrella. It is a public alternative that unifies the long list of needed reforms: coverage for the uninsured, cost control, no preconditions, no denial of care, keeping care when you change jobs or get sick, equal treatment for women, exorbitant deductibles, no lifetime caps, and on and on. It's a long list. But one idea, properly articulated, takes care of the list: An American Plan guarantees affordable care for all Americans. Simple. But not for policy wonks.

The policymakers focus on the list, not the unifying idea. So, Obama's and Axelrod's statements last Sunday were just the lists without the unifying institution. And without a powerful institution, the insurance companies will just whittle away at enforcement of any such list, and a future Republican administration will just get rid of the regulators, reassigning them or eliminating their jobs.

According to Lakoff, Obama needs to break out of his wonkish way of talking about health care. He is mistakenly operating on the principle of "policy speak":

If you just tell people the policy facts, they will reason to the right conclusion and support the policy wholeheartedly.

Lakoff argues that "policy speak" is a big mistake. Mere facts don't win arguments. Rather, the facts need to make sense to people, resonate with them and inspire them to act. Here's Lakoff's version of what should be Obama's basic message:

Insurance company plans have failed to care for our people. They profit from denying care. Americans care about one another. An American plan is both the moral and practical alternative to provide care for our people.

The insurance companies are doing their worst, spreading lies in an attempt to maintain their profits and keep Americans from getting the care they so desperately need. You, our citizens, must be the heroes. Stand up, and speak up, for an American plan.

Lakoff has lots of specifics. For instance, remind Americans that health care is a patriotic duty. Highlight the phrase "doctor-patient care." Deny that the insurance companies care; rather, they clearly communicate that insurance companies make money by depriving us of care. Hammer the phrase "insurance company bureaucrats." Tell Americans that their health care premiums are "private taxes" levied by insurers. Remind Americans that health insurers "govern our lives." Talk about the "failure" of insurance companies. The "villainizing of real insurance company villains should have begun from the beginning. George Lakoff is asking how a man who did such a marvelous job campaigning for President has stumbled so often on the issue of health care. Lakoff thus wrote an article offering some a list of language/framing advice to the Democrats. Here's the foundational concept:

The list of what needs reform makes sense under one conceptual umbrella. It is a public alternative that unifies the long list of needed reforms: coverage for the uninsured, cost control, no preconditions, no denial of care, keeping care when you change jobs or get sick, equal treatment for women, exorbitant deductibles, no lifetime caps, and on and on. It's a long list. But one idea, properly articulated, takes care of the list: An American Plan guarantees affordable care for all Americans. Simple. But not for policy wonks.

The policymakers focus on the list, not the unifying idea. So, Obama's and Axelrod's statements last Sunday were just the lists without the unifying institution. And without a powerful institution, the insurance companies will just whittle away at enforcement of any such list, and a future Republican administration will just get rid of the regulators, reassigning them or eliminating their jobs.

According to Lakoff, Obama needs to break out of his wonkish way of talking about health care. He is mistakenly operating on the principle of "policy speak":

If you just tell people the policy facts, they will reason to the right conclusion and support the policy wholeheartedly.

Lakoff argues that "policy speak" is a big mistake. Mere facts don't win arguments. Rather, the facts need to make sense to people, resonate with them and inspire them to act. Here's Lakoff's version of what should be Obama's basic message:

Insurance company plans have failed to care for our people. They profit from denying care. Americans care about one another. An American plan is both the moral and practical alternative to provide care for our people.

The insurance companies are doing their worst, spreading lies in an attempt to maintain their profits and keep Americans from getting the care they so desperately need. You, our citizens, must be the heroes. Stand up, and speak up, for an American plan.

Lakoff has lots of specifics. For instance, remind Americans that health care is a patriotic duty. Highlight the phrase "doctor-patient care." Deny that the insurance companies care; rather, they clearly communicate that insurance companies make money by depriving us of care. Hammer the phrase "insurance company bureaucrats." Tell Americans that their health care premiums are "private taxes" levied by insurers. Remind Americans that health insurers "govern our lives." Talk about the "failure" of insurance companies. The "villainizing of real insurance company villains should have begun from the beginning. I recommend reading Lakoff's entire article, which is detailed, and thoughtful."

Continue ReadingGeorge Lakoff offers some framing tips to the Democrats re health care reform

Who needs a public option anyway?

One of my republican friends asked me"who needs a public option, anyway?"over a beer the other evening. He was responding to my shout of dismay over Ms Sibelius statement that the public option was "not really necessary" to health care reform.

So who needs a public option?

People who are currently uninsured, of course. Most of them are not uninsured by their own choice, but by the choice of an insurance company. A few may have elected to remain uninsured even when eligible, due to cost of premiums, etc . Many younger colleagues fall into this latter group, which has the effect of raising insurance rates for everyone else (since the remaining population are older and higher risk)

People who cannot afford to lose their insurance. Many people maintain are locked in to their insurance because of conditions that would be considered 'pre-existing' by a new insurer. Even if able to be covered by a new insurer, their premiums would likely be higher, or their coverage would carry many more restrictions. Health costs are already high - who would choose to voluntarily increase their expenses while reducing benefits?

And people like me. I have a job. I am in reasonably good health, and have decent employer-based health insurance for myself and my family. But I am effectively locked into my current employment. I would love to start my own business, but I cannot afford to be without healthcare. Private healthcare is so expensive, my baseline operating costs would be simply exorbitant. The risk of starting a business is already high. The penurious cost of private healthcare makes a high risk venture, insanely high.

In my travels I meet a great many people - and many people feel equally locked into employment: "I'd love to quit this job and go do X but I can't afford to give up my healthcare".

Lack of a public option is killing America's spirit of entrepreneurship. It's killing the goose that laid the golden egg. The ability of common Americans to start their own ventures without hindrance is central to the spirit of independence and vitality that made this country an economic powerhouse in the 19th and 20th Centuries. The fact that republicans are most viscerally against a public option demonstrates that they are not "for business", but are simply and solely for "big business".

Continue ReadingWho needs a public option anyway?

12 Reasons why the U.S. government should not mandate clean water or clean air.

12 Reasons why the U.S. government should not mandate clean water or clean air.

1. Clean air and clean water are not a right. As such, they not the responsibility of government. 2. Government efforts to mandate clean air and clean water do not in practice guarantee universal access clean air and clean water. Many countries have laws to require clean air and clean water but don’t actually have clean air and clean water. 3. Eliminating the profit motive will decrease the rate of innovation regarding clean air and clean water. 4. When a government mandates clean air and clean water, it slows down innovation and inhibits new technologies from being developed and utilized. This simply means that technologies regarding clean air and clean water are less likely to be researched and manufactured, and technologies that are available are less likely to be used. 5. Publicly-mandated clean air and clean water leads to greater inefficiencies and inequalities. Government agencies promoting clean air and clean water are less efficient due to bureaucracy. Universal clean air and clean water would reduce efficiency because of more bureaucratic oversight and more paperwork. 6. Converting to a national clean air and clean water system could be a radical change, creating administrative chaos.

Continue Reading12 Reasons why the U.S. government should not mandate clean water or clean air.