Me, My Thoughts, and I

Missing the crux of the healthcare debate

The most disappointing thing about debating new or expanding government programs is that the question of how well similar programs have worked in the past is rarely discussed or understood.  We can go around and around about the healthcare debate and talk systems, policies, prices, etc.  At the end of the day, the idea of a single-payer/government provided health care system is so that people down on their luck are not condemned to death because they don't have enough money to pay for a given service.  One could argue that there will always be disparity between the rich and poor and the level of healthcare offered to each group.  One would be absolutely right assuming that the more money you have, the better care to which you will have access.  This is a truism.  It is true because it is true.  The same could be said for people in power, particularly our legislative representatives.  The sad irony is that the leaders in Washington, DC are not debating healthcare of the nation as a whole, as they are exempt from all of the rules being discussed.  They are debating what your system will look like, not theirs.

The crux of this whole debate goes missing, though.  I have yet to hear people explain the reason why we are in the situation we have today.  That situation is constantly rising healthcare costs and a system whose transparency is that of a wet bedsheet.  No one knows what is going on.  The patient doesn't know what type of costs he will incur when visiting the doctor.  The doctor doesn't know what a procedure will charge when he orders it done.  The administration of the health care organization only worries about how and whether they will be paid.  In the mean-time, no one gets the entire story - least of whom, the patient. 

Let's talk for a short moment about health insurance.  Why is it so expensive?  Why can't we start to deal with those costs?  Yes... why?

"American health insurance is more expensive because private insurers compete within state markets, not regional or national markets.  The easiest way to encourage competition [and immediately lower costs] is to let the general public choose from competing private plans in a national market, just as federal employees do.  To make this so-called national "Health Insurance Exchange" work, Congress is exploring new rules to increase the reliability and transparency of private insurance plans.
However, many of these new rules are likely to make health inflation worse, not better.  Health-policy analysts call these regulations mandates.  Mandates are the earmarks of the health-policy world.  In the past, state lawmakers added insurance mandates to various laws, forcing plans to cover specific services and providers.
Thanks to mandates, insurers in one state (New Mexico) must cover oriental medicine in every insurance policy.  Two states (Washington and Minnesota) require coverage for "port wine stain elimination."  Three states have mandates for athletic trainers.  Twelve states force insurers to cover acupuncture.  Fifteen states force insurers to cover in vitro fertilization.  In these and hundreds of similar cases, insurance mandates distort prices upward to reward different political agendas - and consumers pay.
Consider Wisconsin and New York.  New Yorkers pay $12,000 for a basic insurance plan that would cost $3,000 in Wisconsin.  The difference?  Wisconsin has 34 mandates.  New York has 51.  By one estimate, mandates and other health regulations drive up the cost of premiums by 20 to 50 percent." (emphasis mine, p. 16 "Why Obama's Government Takeover of Health Care Will Be a Disaster" by David Gratzer)

As I write this, Wisconsin is considering (or may have already voted on) another mandate: coverage of mental health care.  So, if I don't care about the cost of mental health care and want a plan that doesn't offer it (so I can save money)?  Too bad.  I have no choice.  I am forced to pay a premium that I don't value and am not interested in using.  Thank you Wisconsin legislators.

The frustrating element of these debates is a lack of introspection.  There is a perverse lack of understanding as to why costs are what they are.  Instead, we are focused on outcome.  Changing the outcome of a misunderstood problem is like taking a bat to the golf course.  Sure, you'll be able to hit the ball.  I doubt, however, you will do so effectively.

Alice in Wonderland Invites You to the Death Politics

Mr. Sharman describes a train of events that would make Alice dizzy:

"The “Himalyas are melting” claim was taken from a citation in a 2005 World Wildlife Fund report. The 2005 WWF citation was based on a 1998 news story in the New Scientist. The 1998 New Scientist report was based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a scientist at Jawaharlal Nehru University.
Hasnain now says his claim was just “speculation.” The Times reported that other glaciologists say his claim was “inherently ludicrous.”

This this type of slack-jawed reasoning that leads to political policy condemning the poor to greater poverty and higher death rates.  See, when prices in reliable electricity are well above the weekly wages of the workers in the 3rd world, they can't do things that we take for granted - like refrigerate vaccines.

Read the rest of Mr. Sharman's editorial here.

Free Speech, as in Beer

I was so pissed off when I saw this link on John Gruber's site:

"Free Speech for the People" (his actual Post/Entry)

I love reading John's work.  I love the fact that he is known as Gruber.  Gruber is my favorite character in one of my favorite movies, The Ninth Gate, and if you don't know who I'm talking about, see the movie or read the book (The Club Dumas).  Gruber's analysis is well written and often poetic.  He awards Jackass of the Week to people who really have made jackasses of themselves.  It takes cajones to call people to the carpet in such a public forum and I admire his audacity.

But, there are times when I can't wrap my head around his politics.  Then again, another of my heros is Larry Lessig, and for the life of me, I can't wrap my head around his politics, either.  The promotion of Free Speech for the People is one of these times that I wish I at least knew Gruber personally to ask what the hell he is talking about.

Free Speech for the People is aimed at condemning a recent US Supreme Court ruling that nocked down provisions of the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance law that prohibited certain types of speech before an election.  Their complaint:

"On January 21, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations are entitled to spend unlimited funds in our elections."

And?  My question is that simple.  I never supported McCain/Feingold and was extatic to hear that the Supreme Court was disallowing provisions.  My hope is that within the next few years, all remnants of that law are struck down completely.  My belief is also that simple: I do not believe in limiting any form of speech and it does not matter from whom it is coming, nor how much money is behind it.  There are plenty of conspiracy theories around to support big government/big business collusion and coercion.  The fact remains that the only way to overcome this is to un-limit speech and the founders of our country knew this well.  When the post on Gruber's site first came about, there was no actual statement of the 1st Amendment - the Constitutional Amendment that prohibits the federal government from making any laws to limit speech - on Free Speech for the People's website.

Amazing.

The site is claiming:

"The First Amendment was never intended to protect corporations.

This cannot stand. Sign up to protest this decision and protect our democracy! Free speech is for people — not corporations."

Interesting.  You wish to claim the 1st Amendment was never intended to protect corporations and yet you don't explicitly state what the 1st Amendment is (I tried all the major navigation links from the home page and never found it - maybe it is there now, but it wasn't on Feb. 2nd).  Well, I'll help you:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

If you don't believe me, here is the Wikipedia Link.

In our country, corporations are treated like people.  They can have Federal IDs (synonymous with a Social Security Number), have a bank account, own land, own monetary assets, pay taxes, move, be sued, held in contempt, etc.  Corporations are treated like entities on all kinds of levels and yet the claim is that they do not have the right to free speech because they are corporations.  I don't even see the word people in the amendment.

I think it is highly suspect and highly hypocritical of an organization to claim to support free speech and yet not explain what wording was used to define it in the Constitution. 

I don't believe that the Constitution supports selective free speech.  I believe that it is clear from the language that all speech shall remain free, no matter from whom or what it originates.  Remember, it is only through this ultimate freedom that we can stop the spread of disinformation and propaganda.  It is a slippery slope we tread upon when we fight to carve exceptions into this great law - especially when we read content into the language that clearly is not there.

The law does not prevent stupidity, it engenders it

The most frustrating issue I deal with day in and day out is barriers erected by the law.  Many people have been brainwashed into believing that the law, the government, the people who administer the laws, are their friends.  That they actually set up the rules by which progress is made.  I am here to tell you that it isn't.  The law engenders stupidity and hinders progress in many forms.  (No, I'm not an anarchist in the purist sense, but the term law today, is what I am referring to, not law in its liberal, very constrained sense.)

I'm on the zoning commission for the local community in which I reside and tonight we discussed the adoption of two chapters of rules and regulations that lay out a set of responsibilities, rights and ordinances that must be adhered to with relation to building or developing land (and by developing land, I mean anything more than mowing).  I asked our town lawyer what the reason was for all of the detail and specifications and whether the same could be said for the law that it was supposed to replace.

During the conversation we discovered two things: a) the laws we recommended for final vote by the town board were developed over time because as zoning has progressed in our neck of the woods, we needed ways of protecting and clearly defining our authority and b) to keep future property owners from coming back to us and holding us responsible for defects in their property due to the fault of the "developer," etc.  I asked (in different words), "does that actually work?"  In other words, do these rules keep people from doing stupid things?  The end answer is no.

Effectively, the rules we maintain and build upon develop because once upon a time person a wanted person b to do as b pleased.  The elected officials begin to adjudicate.  They develop rules so that each time a disagreement between two parties in their community comes up, they won't have to stick out their necks and say no.  Those rules then grow a life of their own because they now need to be maintained and managed and modified as they are greeted with newer and more clever ways of person a imposing his will on person b.

The problem is, people still do stupid things and blame the rules and the rule-makers.  In one example case brought up before the board tonight, there is a property owner not happy with a neighboring property owner and their operations.  The neighboring operation was in existence before said newcomer bought the property.  Language was part of a land sale that made the new owner aware of the neighboring operation.  The property owner was more than informed and  now is not happy.  The board can comfortably hide behind the law and rules they used to deal with the original transaction, but the fact is, the same board has the power to change the rules.  What the board is effectively saying to the unhappy newcomer (and rightfully so) is to pound salt.

The law does not prevent stupidity, even when it tries to make it obvious.  In the process of doing so, it erects barriers for others to do stupid things.  But, it doesn't stop the stupidity.  So, the law grows to accommodate unforeseen stupidity.  Eventually, without anyone knowing it, the law makes people feel like someone else should be responsible for their actions - and people go out and do more and more stupid things.  All the while, expecting to be protected by the law despite their sheer and obvious stupidity.

I always thought the idea "buyer beware" was negative, as that means people are left to fend for their defenseless selves.  The reality is that it is that we only learn by being aware (be-ware) - otherwise, stupidity evolves.

Rhetoric

I wish more people took classes in it.  That and logic.  This is one of those posts that actually should be a tweet, but I can't shorten it to 140 characters.

Rhetoric wins because it makes us feel good.  Fact is usually cutting, shallow and merciless.  Now if only more people could combine rhetoric with fact.

Earlier today, John Gruber pointed me to 'Get Some Balls' and it is what I'm lamenting above.  It is powerful rhetoric.  Made me laugh, made me mad.  (Although, not for the same reasons the authors probably had hoped.)

The irritating part is the comment on democracy and majority rules.  Well, that's not how the game is played in our lovely land (the US, that is).  We are a Republic and it was the tyranny of the majority (I don't know who coined that phrase) that led our Framers to agree upon a republican system of governance instead of a democracy.  If you don't understand the depth of this genius, my words are lost on you.

Furthermore, the video implies that a majority of Americans are for what is before the Houses of Congress (aka, the crap the Senate passed).  They aren't.  The best rundown of the polls is at Reason.  Thank you Reason for doing the work... 'I Just Love New York Times Headlines Because...'

What was I saying about rhetoric?