Stop Discriminating against Sick People!

Stop Discriminating against Sick People! Jonathon Alter was a guest on "the Ed Show" tonight on MSNBC. In a noisy debate with Ed, he said that the goal of healthcare reform should be "to end discrimination against sick people". He said that the path to reform was largely irrelevant. That whether or not there was a public option was largely irrelevant. That healthcare reform is a civil rights issue, and that reform had nothing to do with the mechanics of that reform. To be clear, Mr Alter stated that he was personally very much for a public option. But he was also very clear that regardless of the public option, this reform needed to pass. I agree with Jonathon. Discrimination against sick people must stop. Discrimination against people with 'pre-conditions' must stop. Discrimination against people, must stop. It's time to act. Call your congressman. Enact healthcare reform.

Continue ReadingStop Discriminating against Sick People!

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?

Police officers have epiphany: time to legalize and regulate street drugs

In the Washington Post, two police officers make the case that it's time to legalize and regulate street drugs. Why? To quit squandering tax dollars, to quit filling prisons with people who don't belong there and to protect neighborhoods and police officers.

Only after years of witnessing the ineffectiveness of drug policies -- and the disproportionate impact the drug war has on young black men -- have we and other police officers begun to question the system . . . Drug manufacturing and distribution is too dangerous to remain in the hands of unregulated criminals. Drug distribution needs to be the combined responsibility of doctors, the government, and a legal and regulated free market. This simple step would quickly eliminate the greatest threat of violence: street-corner drug dealing.

Here's the "money" quote:

Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron estimates that ending the drug war would save $44 billion annually, with taxes bringing in an additional $33 billion.

Continue ReadingPolice officers have epiphany: time to legalize and regulate street drugs

The My Of It

Listening to the harangue over the health care reform squabble, I can't help thinking---even I saw a few episodes of West Wing, I who do not watch television, so of all the Lefties out there who probably hung on every second of that show, why is it so hard to grasp how things don't get accomplished in D.C. ? Yeah, it was fiction, but it was, in my opinion, pretty accurate in terms of the culture. But people complain and wonder why Obama doesn't just "ram his reforms through." Well. The man is a consensus builder. We just got done with a president who wasn't. Obama has not yet been in office a year and already people are ready to jump ship because he's not the second coming of FDR. How thoughtless, ill-informed, and shallow supposedly intelligent people can be. It should not be surprising, yet... First off, instead of presenting his reform package, he handed it to Congress---which is where all the arguing was going to happen anyway. Suppose he had presented a package. What is happening now would have happened anyway, and then he would be directly blamed for having drafted a lame plan. His plan would have been eviscerated and Congress wouold then proceed to draft something possibly worse than what it emerging now since Obama's plan would have been discredited through failure. As it is, the plan being touted is All Congress's. Anything wrong with it, it's on them. Obama has been arguing that regardless what happens, things have to change---which is frightening. With the stimulus package, things were already broken. With health care they are merely on the verge. Secondly, he's got lots of balls in the air just now. A lot. Most of them are disasters he inherited. Now, the metaphor has been used before, but that doesn't make it any less true---this country is a Big Ship and you don't turn it around on a dime. If you do that, you break more than you fix. Maybe that's what needs to happen, and sometimes we've had leaders who did that when there was but one maybe two major things that needed to be tended to. But that's not the case just now. Everything is in a mess. I'm not going to fault the man for failing to meet impossible expectations. Let's assume he did just start "ramming things through" and taking a dump all over Congress in the process, and things would inevitably get worse. For the ideologues who are displeased with what they perceive as half-measures just now, he might be a hero. Maybe, but quite certainly he would be a one-term hero. The Republicans could make good book on a spectacular failure and be right back in power, at least in Congress, and then what? So I think it a stupid thing to start bailing on him this soon into his term when he is possibly the most unifying, certainly the most intelligent and well educated president we've had since...hm. Here's what's going to happen. Congress will put together a lame package. It will pass. Then likely as not it will fail. The system will collapse. On its own. Then the big fix will come in. Congress will be discredited and Obama will be able to present a plan with legs and the public will back it because they will already have seen what happens when the really necessary steps are not taken. Right now, the reality is that health care costs too damn much.

Continue ReadingThe My Of It

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.