President Obama's Summit on Health Care

President Obama made a great point about the fear of government regulation of health care (which the Republicans don't want at all). The president just pointed out that the federal government already regulates the inspection of food and drugs and that that costs the taxpayer money but is necessary because of safety benefit to the consumer. 


His point is that the federal government needs to also protect the citizens against private health insurance companies with regard to purchasing and affording adequate and dependable health care; that is also an issue of the safety of the public and needs federal regulation. Obviously, with no regulation now, the private insurance companies can charge whatever they want and change prices whenever they want and it's making everyone suffer because when people are uninsured all the prices balloons exponentially. So just like food and drug protection by the federal government, so does the federal government have to be part of the answer in protecting the citizens from the abuses of the private health providers. The Republicans object to the federal government protecting people's health care, because they feel that federal government regulation is intrusive at all and too much “big government.” But it's inconsistent thinking. The problem is that the bigger the problem the more the federal government has to be involved. The Republicans are not realizing that we are already using the federal government for food inspection and drug inspection, so we need it for health care too. And, mandating heath coverage purchase by the federal government is for purchasing any type of health coverage, not only the kind the government decides. The only thing that the federal government is in control of is mandating its citizens have some kind of health coverage so that they are protected and so that the system is healthy as a whole. 


The Obama administration is proposing that there be a system set up where there are many options of coverage to choose from, where the individual can choose which kind of health coverage they buy. If they like the coverage they already have they do nothing and are unaffected. But everyone must buy some type of health insurance. If someone doesn't buy health insurance and they get sick they are a drain on the system because they are uninsured. That’s the extent of the federal government intrusion into the public sector. The individual must buy some coverage for the stability of the nation. The Republicans are objecting to the government having anything to do with regulating the system at all because they are afraid that any federal government control at all would limit individual choices by its very involvement at all. That's too extreme in my opinion. It's verging on paranoid. The federal government needs to step in because the insurance companies are not being responsible. They are taking advantage of consumers because they don't have to answer to anyone. They are unregulated. So some regulation is needed. The Republicans want the states to offer their own versions and keep the federal government out of it. (That is an old fear of the federal government becoming socialist or communist or like a dictatorship. That is old, antiquated thinking.) The Democrats fear is that if left to the states that the states will not regulate the insurance companies enough. It is a legitimate concern because the insurance companies are not regulating themselves enough and the system is suffering. The Republican ideal is too much toward free market and less government control and regulation. But then businesses, like insurance companies, can do what they want. The Democrats don't trust that the individual states would regulate the insurance companies enough. This is perhaps where the Democrats are too extreme. Maybe a compromise between federal control and state control is needed with health care more than with food and drugs. 


I personally think that the bigger the problem the more the role of the federal government will be. States are more local. Health care is a national problem, not only a state problem. The fear of the federal government taking control of even a portion of the health care system is too extreme and a myth as I've written about before.

We Want It Both Ways

The above phrase is clearly an unrealistic and  selfish position. We would say to a child or adolescent who uttered this that they can't have it both ways. It's akin to "wanting their cake and eating it too." 

We elected Barrack Obama to help steer the country out of the recession, help create jobs, reform the health care system, help defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and help move our energy consumption to cleaner forms, among other important issues. And yet at the same time we want him to take care of these issues, we also fear our federal government too much to let him do any of the more major work or pass any of the more important legislation necessary to right the damage. It is a dysfunctional paradox. We want the system to be fixed, but we're too afraid to let the person we hired take the steps to fix it.

President Obama has unveiled his own proposal for reforming the health care system. It is thorough, well conceived, sensible, and realistic. He is also clearly open to other ideas because, in addition to saying so repeatedly (and already having spoken to the Republican members of the House), he has scheduled a bipartisan meeting for tomorrow, February 25 to discuss alternative ideas. Clearly too, the unveiling of his proposal is an indication that he prepared for that meeting. Congress needs to be prepared to and accept his invitation. In short, we need to stop obstructing and agree to cooperate in light of this overture from president, on this issue and all others.

I have said it before in other blogs I’ve written. Those of us in the United States who are in support of blocking almost anything that President Obama proposes are in my opinion responding and acting from paranoia and not from constructive intelligent thinking. President Obama has made many excellent proposals and has already passed some key important legislation. He is doing a good job. But too many of us in the country are not letting him do what is necessary and what he is capable of doing. We are just getting in his way simply because we don’t want him to succeed and we fear our federal government too much. It is a greatly exaggerated and unwarranted fear.

True, we don’t want a dictatorship and government that allows its leaders to do what they please without its citizenry questioning (the reason for the Bill of Rights) their leaders. But we do not have a dictator in President Obama. His presidency is so far one of the most transparent in history—not to mention that this president is one of the smartest in history—and those who oppose him are doing so with such a zeal and fervor that you would think that the White House had barricaded their doors and threatened to shoot anyone on the spot who disagreed with them. In fact what we have now is exactly the opposite. We have an administration that is being very honest, very transparent, that knows what it’s doing, is trying to implement ideas, is attempting to actually do something about all the problems the country is facing, but is being ridiculously stymied by too much mass paranoia.

I understand that in extremely difficult times (such as we are still in now) it is not easy to trust a centralized government. But we as a nation have forgotten whom we elected as president of United States. We have a brilliant, caring, and compassionate man at the helm, and though we need to exercise our individual and collective rights, we also need to relax more and let him and his administration do their job. In fact, they have been trying to do their job ever since they took office. It is “we the people” of the United States who are getting in his and their wa

We The People...are not using our heads.

We Americans are really living in preposterous times, both with the economy but also with ourselves as a citizenry. This country elected a new president in November 2008 to help rebuild this country. Rebuilding is not free. Even in times of serious financial hardship, spending money to repair damage is an unfortunate necessity. In any financial crisis or temporary emergency, it would be understood that the expenses needed to repair any damage previously incurred would soon level off. As the health of the structures that were damaged regain their momentum, that initial expenditure of money would cease or be redirected and used for other things, say for lowering, and then eliminating, the temporary and former debt. 

Our national economy was nearly bankrupt. The solution at first has to be a solution at the federal level and with federal money. The country asked Obama to help by electing him as our next president. The Obama administration took their job seriously and took necessary steps to save that bankruptcy from happening. That assistance was not going to happen with little-to-no expenditure by the federal government. The economy is now healthier than it was a year ago. However, the public is still being critical now, but for a different reason. President Obama is being criticized for spending the money that was necessary to rebuild simply because federal money was spent. We are only seeing that more money is being spent and added to the already bulging deficit, but we are not understanding the importance of how and why the money is being spent. It is necessary and it has been effective. The recession that we were facing has diminished. Not all the problems facing the country are over of course, but they have been lessened and improved. But the public is only seeing the temporary necessary spending as more federal government wasteful spending in the face of an enormous deficit. However, in this case it is not wasteful spending. The spending of the Bush administration that created the enormous deficit (after Bill Clinton’s surplus) was wasteful. What the public at large does not see is that even in the face of a deficit, some money needs to be spent in repairs in the short term to ensure that the economy regains its footing and rebuilds for the health of the country for the long term. Once again, this is an example of many of the citizens of this country being much too short-sighted and wanting results too quickly. But it is simply not possible to correct eight years of disastrous policy in only one year. The preceding year needs to be looked at in terms of money necessarily spent in order to begin to rebuild.

Jacob Weisberg wrote a very direct and astute article in Newsweek (“Down With the People: Who’s to blame for the political mess? You.” Newsweek, February 15, 2010, p. 20) asserting that the American public wants in both ways. We want the federal government to solve the problems facing the country, but we don’t want the federal government to use any of our tax dollars to do it. As Weisberg points out, this is utterly unrealistic. It is also unreasonable and uneducated. You have to continue to spend some money to rectify a serious mistake, no matter who is to blame. To think that the Obama administration can implement any successful recovery from the recession (that we’re still in though less severe now) without a largish temporary price tag is just not using our collective heads.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/233158 

We need to wise up as a country, take a deep breath, swallow hard, and face the fact that we are going to have to spend some money (probably by increasing the federal deficit, plus revenue from some higher taxes (yes, mostly on the wealthy because they can afford it, and because some of them got us into this mess in the first place) ) temporarily so that we can curb spending more later. This is just common sense, mature thinking, and the mindset that the nation had (even if only subliminally) on Election Day, November 2008.

  

The Continued Saga of Sarah Palin

 

The speech that Sarah Palin gave at the Tea Party Convention was once again evidence of her strong personality but lack of skill and knowledge. She has a commanding presence on stage and has a projecting voice, but her scope of world knowledge and her concept of government is much too narrow and limited. So though she is touting limiting government, her mantra of “less” or “limited” government is in itself too narrow a concept and position. Curiously, and ironically, though her main point is limiting the role of the federal government, what has been more conspicuously limited from the moment she stepped into the public spotlight as John McCain's running mate is her vocabulary and knowledge of national and international issues. This is evident not only in the frequent reference to a single issue (less government), but also, in this speech, by the notes she had scribbled on her hand during the speech and that she awkwardly referred to during the question and answer portion of her appearance. 

She is also limited in her ability to make substantial points. She resorted to making derisive comments about President Obama more than once. (Incidentally, making derisive comments about her is something that the Obamas completely refrained from doing in their campaign, and are continuing to refrain from. It’s a petty form of making your points which the Obamas have the grace and dignity to avoid.) Palin referred to President Obama as a, “charismatic guy with a teleprompter.” This when she had notes written on the palm of her hand, which is silly, elementary, and even tacky. It’s grade-school preparation. She should have had her talking points memorized. But then I find Sarah Palin’s complete persona and presentation grade-school and almost elementary. 

Also referring President Obama she said, “We need a commander in chief, not a professor of law standing at the lectern.” The fact that President Obama was a professor of law is an enormous asset to the presidency, not a detriment. It doesn’t take much observational intelligence to notice that. Like Joe Wilson’s outburst during President Obama’s speech on health care, Sarah Palin’s comments reveal much more about her own ignorance and lack of qualifications than those of President Obama. And finally, she said mimicking addressing the president, “How is that ‘hopey, changey’ thing workin’ for ya?” This is childishly ridiculous. Even if she had had a legitimate point (which I don’t think she does), the way she chose to phrase it is mocking and juvenile, even if only somewhat playfully. This lack of skill with mature oratory is not a quality becoming of a serious adult, much less a potential candidate for president.

The plain truth in my view is that this country was smart enough to recognize Barrack Obama’s smarts to elect him president of the United States, but that when it comes to accepting the work that needs to be done (and that he has demonstrated that he is prepared to and can do) that some of the same people who elected him have become prematurely fearful of the actual reality of the work that is necessary. They have begun to lose trust in the qualities of the very person in whom they put their trust on election day, November, 2009. Conservative Republicans did not trust him already, so there is no surprise in that portion of the drop in his poll numbers. But some liberal Democrats have begun to distrust him because they are allowing themselves to feel their short-term fear more than his and their long-term thought process. President Obama is essentially doing an excellent job. But partly because there are still so many dire issues in the country, and partly because the solutions to the problems will take much more time, the country is feeling impatient and wants results too quickly. Many of the problems the United States faces right now are large, national problems and therefore the responsibility of the federal government, not state governments. The Republicans (the new “Tea Party”) are encouraging a distrust and paranoia with the federal government, promoting the view that most of the serious problems should be handled by the states, even if the problems are too large to be handled effectively by the states, such as health care, transportation, unemployment, and the crippled Wall St.. Limiting the size of the federal government is not always the solution. But again, focusing only on limiting the degree of involvement (size) of the federal government is too narrow and incomplete a point of view. It is clearly no coincidence that this new “party” calls itself the Tea Party after the “Boston Tea Party” which was an excessive reaction to federal government taxation, and a revolution on a small scale. The reaction by the Republicans (and the “Tea Party”) to the federal government now was referred to by Sarah Palin as a “revolution” and

is also excessive.

Palin is no more qualified now to be considered as a candidate for president or vice-president than she was when she ran with John McCain. The truth is she never will be. Her education and skill is not in that league. Add to that that her comments about President Obama are derogatory and disrespectful and not exemplary of a serious political candidate. They indication of lack of substance of her part and proof that she has to revert to “cutesy” insults to make her speech and arguments strong. It is in fact the opposite. Her oratory is juvenile. She is a strong personality, but that is all. She is ignorant, immature, mediocre, paranoid of the federal government, and not in the least qualified to run for federal public office.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7gVp3diPbI

President Obama's open discussion with House Republicans, January 29, 2010

In a word, this was fabulous! President Obama was invited to this discussion by the Republican House members which is very much to their credit. I’m very glad he accepted and even more glad that everyone present was civil and respectful. (Clearly the Republicans had learned from Joe Wilson’s ridiculous and juvenile outburst at the president's speech on health care to the joint session of Congress last September.)

In addition to the civility of the entire discussion, what particularly struck me was how well prepared President Obama was with some of their proposals. He had read many of the copies he had been given in advance so was able to talk about some of the specifics of their plans and how they might be incorporated into his own proposals.

Furthermore, not only did President Obama attempt to answer all the questions thoroughly and with care, but he also respectfully contested a couple of the questions when he thought they were either incomplete or plainly false.

President Obama did a splendid job with this discussion and it only confirms what I have always thought since he took office: that the United States has one of the best presidents at present that it has had in its entire history. 


http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/01/29/president-holds-open-discussion-across-aisle 

President Obama's request to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

I am in complete agreement with President Obama and Michael Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (as well as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Michigan Senator, Carl Levin), that the law “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” needs to be repealed. In fact it should never have been instituted in the first place. I also think it was extremely noble and courageous of President Obama to include it as a request and challenge to the military in his first State of the Union address. 


President Bill Clinton was the first president to attempt to lift the ban on gays in the military in his first month in office. But he received such a backlash from the military and General, Colin Powell, that Clinton and his administration had to “compromise” with the flimsy policy of allowing gays to serve in the military as long as they kept their sexuality to themselves. This is only a small step removed from denial and was a sadly uncourageous solution to the problem. The solution is to allow people to be themselves without prejudice of any sort. Like any other personal or genetic characteristic, one’s sexuality should have no bearing on the performance of one’s duty, and that includes the military, even in time of war. It is not surprising that the military is still resisting this initiative. Even though the military is to be greatly admired for the service and sacrifice of its personnel in uniform, it has also been guilty of machismo attitudes and behavior. This continued resistance to openly gay men and women within its ranks is yet another example of that prejudice and suppression (Senator John McCain's position of support to continue the policy (until and unless it is repealed by congress) is an example of that.). 


The general resistance to allowing gays to openly serve in the military is also an example of another civil right that society as a whole is too slow to embrace.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/27/obama.gays.military/index.html 

http://www.keyc.com/node/33262

President Obama's 2010 Budget

If you have not already seen this, I encourage you to to check out this video. President Obama has clearly thought the budget through well, as have his advisors. He dispels the notion that this budget is just more unnecessary spending on top of an already staggering national deficit. It is necessary temporary spending to help correct an extreme deficit (following an extreme surplus) caused by the last ten years of irresponsible spending by the federal government. Part of the president's point is that in order to repair a system that has overspent itself into serious debt, that same government will need to add to the national debt temporarily in order to implement repair measures before being able to bring down the overall debt. It is not possible to make repairs to a house in utter shambles and disrepair by spending no money at all for the needed repairs. This, as the president explains here, is the situation that was facing him and his administration when they "walked in the door" last year. So we as citizens of the United States need to exercise much more patience and understanding before we respond with irritation that the government is spending more money for necessary repairs in the short term in order to ensure the overall health of the country in the long term. 

Link to the video:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/budgeting-a-new-era-responsibility

Andre Bauer

 

We have some true winners for representatives from South Carolina. First Mark Sanford, then Joe Wilson, and now Andre Bauer.

I only have one word for Mr. Bauer's colossaly insensitive comparison of the risk of subsidizing welfare recipients to avoiding feeding stray animals: Despicable. His meager apology was at least an apology, but it does not negate the fact that he had the contemptuous stupidity to utter the words in the first place. His words were hateful, without compassion, and grossly unjust, and they say much more about him than any welfare recipient.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_lt_gov_don_t_help_the_poor

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/01/26/video-rachel-maddow 

http://www.thestate.com/local/story/1125111.html