Many years ago, I swore to myself that in the unlikely event I ever become an entertainer in the public spotlight, I will keep my political views at a lull and my political attacks completely off of the table. But since I am an amateur political blogger, all bets are off until further notice.
There are two reasons for this. The first is clearly selfish. To me, entertainers are meant to be an escape of sorts for the rest of us. If you are singer, sing to me. If you are a comedian, tell me some jokes and make me laugh. I may have just spent my entire day surrounded by jerks and I'd like to put a smile back on my face. The second reason is also selfish but it comes from the philosophy of "be careful of how you treat people on the way up because you will need them on the way back down". Say for example if 100,000 people are gracious enough to refer to themselves as my "fans", what kind of person would I be to tell half of them to "f**k off" because they don't agree with my political leanings? In other words, why should I tell half of my financial backers to go away and never give me money again? Many artists and entertainers seem to think that their support is a source of entitlement and not something they should have to work to earn and to maintain. Instead they feel it is perfectly acceptable to insult half of the people that chose to spend their own money on tickets to hear them speak.
I'm disappointed in comedians like Joel McHale. I enjoy Joel and think he is a talented comedian. My wife and I frequently catch his show "The Soup" on "E". But I am not sure how to take it when he says at the recent appearance at the Correspondents Association Dinner, (a.k.a. "Nerd Prom") that "Republicans are always trying to screw Black people."
I know, I know... "He was kidding, Jeff".
I'm sorry, but there are certain insults, at least when being used in the public forum, that have been tagged as "Politically incorrect no-no's" and thus stricken from the accepted "just kidding" list. "Rapist" and "Racist" are two examples. I don't make these rules, I just accept them. It was even less appropriate this time for having been used to address the President of the United States; a president that visibly laughed on camera at the comment, perhaps with a degree of discomfort. I'll give him benefit of the doubt on this one. That may be nothing more than a case of "being polite to one of your guests", which is an attribute that many entertainers seem to lack.
For a quick review on Black History and the Republicans who apparently like to screw them, allow me to review some noteworthy mentions...
The Republican Party was formed in the mid 19th century with one of its key platforms being the abolition of slavery.
Our first Republican President, Abe Lincoln passed the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery entirely while the Democrats in the South lobbied for Jim Crow laws and built up the Ku Klux Klan.
Just a half century later, FDR had former Klansmen in his administration including his successor, Harry Truman.
The Republican party supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by margins in the eighty percentile range while Democrats were down in the sixties and actually attempted to filibuster.
Ronald Reagan signed Martin Luther King Day into law and promoted our friend "Eugene Allen", a.k.a. "The Butler" at the same time former Klansman, Robert Byrd was Democratic Senate Minority leader.
And lastly, George W. Bush had more Black Americans on his staff than any prior administration.
A list of notable Democrats from the past 2 centuries that were either segregationists, pro-slavery advocates or Klansmen available upon request.
Now, in regards to one of Joel's numerous incorrect references on which he chose to base his entire speech (I'd recommend a new fact-checker, Joel), please count the number of occurrences of the word "black" in the following quote from the March 12th Paul Ryan interview with Bill Bennett, from which Joel was referencing...
"We have got this tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work, and so there is a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with…you need to get involved, you need to get involved yourself, whether through a good mentor program or some religious charity, whatever it is to make a difference. And that’s how we resuscitate our culture.”
Someone with a sense of realism may hear some truth in that statement. An ignorant person may hear nothing. However, unless severely delusional or perhaps not taking your medicine today, you did not see the word "black". The conclusion was pounced on by his political detractors who assumed "You meant black, didn't you?"
No, he meant "Inner City Culture" just as he said. Contrary to popular opinion, there is a difference. If he meant "black", he would have said "race", not "culture".
Paul Ryan (and this is why I would never vote for him) found himself backed into a corner and discovered his fight-or-flight mechanism is faulty and would never allow him to be fit for the presidency. This is an example of a Republican watching a softball glide across the middle of the plate while the bat never leaves his shoulder. A home run would have been if he'd made the correct scathing counterpunch, not an apology. In politics, an apology is admission of guilt. His response should have been "I never said "black", although I noticed you certainly did in a hurry."
Bill Maher, whom I can say I am NOT an avid fan, does on occasion suffer from spontaneous bouts of common sense. A couple weeks after this interview he cited the following...
"Here’s something else Paul Ryan said, ‘when it comes to getting an education too many of our young people just can’t be bothered, they’re sitting on couches for hours, playing video games, watching TV, instead of dreaming about being a teacher or a lawyer or a business leader, they’re fantasizing about being a baller or a rapper,’” Maher said. “Oh wait, that wasn’t him that was Michelle Obama.”
To be blunt, if you are one of those people with your head stuck in the sand and think that we don't have higher rates of high school dropouts, teen pregnancies, violent crimes, substance abuses, and unemployment in the inner city, then I invite you to please come visit my ocean-front vista in Nebraska.
This has nothing to do with race. Inner-city in this country is a highly diverse culture that sees no racial boundary. And for those that refuse to accept it, you are contributors to the increasing crisis and a hindrance to any solutions. Now please step aside.
Monday, May 5, 2014
Thursday, February 27, 2014
The third side of the story....
Ever heard the expression "there are three sides to every story"?
I'm reminded of this with the current news regarding the bill on governor Jan Brewer's desk in AZ that if passed, would allow restaurants to deny service to the LGBT community based simply on his/her religious beliefs.
Side B says "Shoot the bill down because is discriminates against a minority".
Side A says "Pass the bill because it is my business and I can choose to serve whomever I want"
I choose side C (the Truth). This is a loaded and quite nonsensical bill that should never have even been brought to the floor because all it does is point out an inherent contradiction in our Constitution that has been left up for loose interpretation for decades now. You have the right to be a bigot if you choose but you aren't allowed to discriminate. Who penned that legislation? Talk about taking the easy way out!
So to my primary point, which is now moot, I just watched a news clip of Jan Brewer vetoing that same stupid bill in Arizona and I can only say that the leadership in my screwed up party seems to be learning some lessons - finally!
I say this not only because the fact that she shot it down, but also because of the way she explained her reasoning.
My argument since I recently learned about this bill was that it is completely loaded. No matter which direction you choose, you are going to have some people crying that their Constitutional rights have been infringed upon. And she correctly chose to slap down the law that would "create more problems than it would solve".
Her explanation was perfect when she stated in more eloquent terms than my following paraphrase, "With all of the legitimate problems we need to address in our state, this is the best piece of crap you can think of to place upon my desk?"
And here is my favorite part; She scolded both sides with the same logical question I had; Where is this discrimination even taking place and who are these people that need so called "protection" of his/her religious rights??
I would bet that if any restaurant had the gaul to go on the record stating that they will never serve the LGBT community, 99% of people would never set foot in that place, myself included. Their doors would close before the weekend.
I realize that there are still bigoted jackasses out there but last I checked, no restaurant stations its manager nor its owner in the lobby checking people's sexual orientation before allowing them to enter the dining area. And for those that would ever consider such a stupid idea, I wish them well in their inevitable bankruptcy.
Businesses, especially ones such as restaurants with low profits and stiff competition, will happily take anyone's money.
It was a hanging curveball that she was able to hold back on and then hit out of the park.
Welcome to the 21st century, GOP. You're growing up!
I'm reminded of this with the current news regarding the bill on governor Jan Brewer's desk in AZ that if passed, would allow restaurants to deny service to the LGBT community based simply on his/her religious beliefs.
Side B says "Shoot the bill down because is discriminates against a minority".
Side A says "Pass the bill because it is my business and I can choose to serve whomever I want"
I choose side C (the Truth). This is a loaded and quite nonsensical bill that should never have even been brought to the floor because all it does is point out an inherent contradiction in our Constitution that has been left up for loose interpretation for decades now. You have the right to be a bigot if you choose but you aren't allowed to discriminate. Who penned that legislation? Talk about taking the easy way out!
So to my primary point, which is now moot, I just watched a news clip of Jan Brewer vetoing that same stupid bill in Arizona and I can only say that the leadership in my screwed up party seems to be learning some lessons - finally!
I say this not only because the fact that she shot it down, but also because of the way she explained her reasoning.
My argument since I recently learned about this bill was that it is completely loaded. No matter which direction you choose, you are going to have some people crying that their Constitutional rights have been infringed upon. And she correctly chose to slap down the law that would "create more problems than it would solve".
Her explanation was perfect when she stated in more eloquent terms than my following paraphrase, "With all of the legitimate problems we need to address in our state, this is the best piece of crap you can think of to place upon my desk?"
And here is my favorite part; She scolded both sides with the same logical question I had; Where is this discrimination even taking place and who are these people that need so called "protection" of his/her religious rights??
I would bet that if any restaurant had the gaul to go on the record stating that they will never serve the LGBT community, 99% of people would never set foot in that place, myself included. Their doors would close before the weekend.
I realize that there are still bigoted jackasses out there but last I checked, no restaurant stations its manager nor its owner in the lobby checking people's sexual orientation before allowing them to enter the dining area. And for those that would ever consider such a stupid idea, I wish them well in their inevitable bankruptcy.
Businesses, especially ones such as restaurants with low profits and stiff competition, will happily take anyone's money.
It was a hanging curveball that she was able to hold back on and then hit out of the park.
Welcome to the 21st century, GOP. You're growing up!
Saturday, January 4, 2014
Open letter from a "Class B" Buckeyes Fan
First, it is time for the defensive coaching staff to start updating resumes. This is by far and away the most undisciplined and disorganized squad I have ever seen. The regurgitated post game comments of "We need to figure out what is wrong and play better" are falling on deaf ears. (that was paraphrased)
These players are far too talented to be unable to stop so much as a beer belch, let alone a potent offensive attack. The object is to "tackle" the opposition, not sprint past them issuing a glancing blow with the side of your arm in hopes they will surrender. And the technique of covering a deep receiver involves turning to see the incoming pass and perhaps raising your arms and/or jumping from time to time. Wrapping your arms and legs around the intended receiver and practically dry humping them while in mid-sprint will likely only draw penalty flags for interference, holding and illegal use of your mid-section.
Second, drop this silly notion that Miller is a "great QB". A talented athlete and a great ball carrier, absolutely without a doubt. But he still lacks the primary fundamentals of reading defenses and NOT freezing like a deer in the headlights after the D-line breaks through the O-line. And he is not alone out there. This is where I scratch my head and wonder "Why the torrid love affair with bootleg quarterbacks in college?" They have notoriously poor accuracy with game stats that look like the following…
"crappy pass, crappy pass, crappy pass, crappy pass, crappy pass, break away run for a TD, crappy pass, crappy pass, crappy pass, crappy pass, random bomb for a TD", then the cycle begins again.
I see it the same as signing a 6'6" beast to a long term contract who bats only about .150 but clobbers 40 to 50 home runs per year. Do the benefits really outweigh the costs? These players can get you into championship games but rarely past them.
I suppose growing up watching Joe Montana, John Elway, Roger Staubach, Doug Williams and Terry Bradshaw skews my opinion in favor of the traditional QB. But these and others like them could read defenses prior to AND after the snap and react accordingly based on instinct with little hesitation. There is a reason many sports critics agree that the QB position is the single most difficult position to play in all of team sports.
I don't even blame Braxton. He's worked hard and I have seen some improvement in his first three years. But those rare and special quarterbacking tools, if present, are usually realized by this point. I'd love nothing more than to eat these words next year so I am going to cheer for him to prove me wrong. I say these words because I wish for him to succeed, not to fail.
Lastly, this is for the entire program. Work with NCAA schedulers and begin playing REAL teams in the regular season. Even just one game with a strong SEC or ACC team will build both your skills AND credibility. Teams get good by playing (and occasionally losing to) other good teams. Not crappy ones. This is why the SEC is a meat grinder of a conference - because they all play one another every week. You will never be properly prepared for a BCS game by playing Akron, Florida A&M and the El Paso Polytech Fighting Banditos in the regular season, just in hopes to protect your precious undefeated record.
There, I feel better now. Although I actually felt fine about 3 minutes after the game ended. I've made this point before; the great thing about being a sports fan (if properly self-managed) is that you really can have it both ways. You can cheer for your team to win, pump your fists in the air and celebrate when they do. But when they lose, you simply go back to your life exactly the way you left it before the game began. Nothing has changed as a result of the game's outcome. There is always tomorrow, next week or next year.
I should disclose that I am a "Class B" Buckeyes fan. "Class A" are actual alum. I'm just a lifelong Ohioan that grew up a Buckeyes fan. That's how so many of us do it here. "Class C" fans are neither alum nor Ohioans. They just spontaneously latched onto the Scarlet and Gray but something tells me that is an endangered species.
These players are far too talented to be unable to stop so much as a beer belch, let alone a potent offensive attack. The object is to "tackle" the opposition, not sprint past them issuing a glancing blow with the side of your arm in hopes they will surrender. And the technique of covering a deep receiver involves turning to see the incoming pass and perhaps raising your arms and/or jumping from time to time. Wrapping your arms and legs around the intended receiver and practically dry humping them while in mid-sprint will likely only draw penalty flags for interference, holding and illegal use of your mid-section.
Second, drop this silly notion that Miller is a "great QB". A talented athlete and a great ball carrier, absolutely without a doubt. But he still lacks the primary fundamentals of reading defenses and NOT freezing like a deer in the headlights after the D-line breaks through the O-line. And he is not alone out there. This is where I scratch my head and wonder "Why the torrid love affair with bootleg quarterbacks in college?" They have notoriously poor accuracy with game stats that look like the following…
"crappy pass, crappy pass, crappy pass, crappy pass, crappy pass, break away run for a TD, crappy pass, crappy pass, crappy pass, crappy pass, random bomb for a TD", then the cycle begins again.
I see it the same as signing a 6'6" beast to a long term contract who bats only about .150 but clobbers 40 to 50 home runs per year. Do the benefits really outweigh the costs? These players can get you into championship games but rarely past them.
I suppose growing up watching Joe Montana, John Elway, Roger Staubach, Doug Williams and Terry Bradshaw skews my opinion in favor of the traditional QB. But these and others like them could read defenses prior to AND after the snap and react accordingly based on instinct with little hesitation. There is a reason many sports critics agree that the QB position is the single most difficult position to play in all of team sports.
I don't even blame Braxton. He's worked hard and I have seen some improvement in his first three years. But those rare and special quarterbacking tools, if present, are usually realized by this point. I'd love nothing more than to eat these words next year so I am going to cheer for him to prove me wrong. I say these words because I wish for him to succeed, not to fail.
Lastly, this is for the entire program. Work with NCAA schedulers and begin playing REAL teams in the regular season. Even just one game with a strong SEC or ACC team will build both your skills AND credibility. Teams get good by playing (and occasionally losing to) other good teams. Not crappy ones. This is why the SEC is a meat grinder of a conference - because they all play one another every week. You will never be properly prepared for a BCS game by playing Akron, Florida A&M and the El Paso Polytech Fighting Banditos in the regular season, just in hopes to protect your precious undefeated record.
There, I feel better now. Although I actually felt fine about 3 minutes after the game ended. I've made this point before; the great thing about being a sports fan (if properly self-managed) is that you really can have it both ways. You can cheer for your team to win, pump your fists in the air and celebrate when they do. But when they lose, you simply go back to your life exactly the way you left it before the game began. Nothing has changed as a result of the game's outcome. There is always tomorrow, next week or next year.
I should disclose that I am a "Class B" Buckeyes fan. "Class A" are actual alum. I'm just a lifelong Ohioan that grew up a Buckeyes fan. That's how so many of us do it here. "Class C" fans are neither alum nor Ohioans. They just spontaneously latched onto the Scarlet and Gray but something tells me that is an endangered species.
Thursday, December 19, 2013
Sorry, we thought he was George Washington.
For whatever reason, the far right contingent of the GOP seems to have this ongoing fetish for choosing unlikely ideologues like the Duck Dynasty family to be pop-culture champions of their cause. Only to once again realize that their "Ben Franklins" turned out to be more a group of "Mel Gibsons" leaving the party embarrassed and having to step back to allow the more sensible modern conservatives to once again bail them out.
I never found the Duck Dynasty family intriguing for even a moment. Nonetheless their show became a nationwide hit and they became unofficial spokespeople of the religious right wing of the GOP.
The lesson NEVER learned here is that when you surround yourself with people like the Robertsons and their peers, you will find mostly decent people that use the Bible and Christianity as a basis to treat others with equal dignity and respect as was intended. However one must remember that this same culture of God fearing Southern Christians has its own share of detractors in our society that view them as uncivilized rubes. Their daily activities are continuously probed for isolated incidences in order to find justification for their own discriminatory beliefs. (A common practice of all bigots) The very moment they spot a few rotten apples in the mix that manipulate various scripture in order to make some non-mainstream jabs at homosexuality, they pounce.
Why does the GOP never see this coming? Despite the fact that today more than ever, the mainstream beliefs across both parties are predominantly accepting of alternative lifestyles and the remaining bigotry is peppered fairly lightly across both parties, the Republicans will always take the disproportionately larger beating for it.
This is because the Left has better damage control in these situations and also has the full cooperation of the mainstream media, happily driving the get-away car when abandoning their "Alec Baldwins" at the curb. Meanwhile the Republicans are caught with their camouflage pants around their ankles desperately latching on to those they have designated as cultural icons without doing proper background checks first.
Remember GOP, the Democrats are not pointing their fingers at you this time. They are pointed firmly at Phil Robertson. But keep hugging and kissing him in defense of his freedom of speech, and they soon will.
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
I want a pony.....
LIBERAL: "I want a pony"
CONSERVATIVE: "No. We can't afford one"
LIBERAL: "I don't care." "I WANT A PONY!!"
CONSERVATIVE: "Tell you what, if you get a job and save money, maybe we can buy one together next year for you"
LIBERAL: "NO! I want one right now! Put it on your credit card!"
CONSERVATIVE: "That is NOT a smart investment at all! Do you have any idea how long that will take to pay off and then how much interest we'll incur in the interim? Do you even know how to take care of a pony??"
LIBERAL: "I don't care! You are mean and don't love me"
CONSERVATIVE: "Of course I love you. I'm just trying to teach you patience and how to live within your means!"
LIBERAL: "You are a bigot and hate all minorities and gays!"
CONSERVATIVE: "That is the stupidest thing I ever heard"
LIBERAL: "See? You think I'm beneath you and you just want to keep all of your money! You favor the rich and hate the poor!! I am disenfranchised!!"
CONSERVATIVE: "I can't even talk to you anymore!"
LIBERAL: "I'm going to get the Government to buy me a pony then!"
CONSERVATIVE: "No. We can't afford one"
LIBERAL: "I don't care." "I WANT A PONY!!"
CONSERVATIVE: "Tell you what, if you get a job and save money, maybe we can buy one together next year for you"
LIBERAL: "NO! I want one right now! Put it on your credit card!"
CONSERVATIVE: "That is NOT a smart investment at all! Do you have any idea how long that will take to pay off and then how much interest we'll incur in the interim? Do you even know how to take care of a pony??"
LIBERAL: "I don't care! You are mean and don't love me"
CONSERVATIVE: "Of course I love you. I'm just trying to teach you patience and how to live within your means!"
LIBERAL: "You are a bigot and hate all minorities and gays!"
CONSERVATIVE: "That is the stupidest thing I ever heard"
LIBERAL: "See? You think I'm beneath you and you just want to keep all of your money! You favor the rich and hate the poor!! I am disenfranchised!!"
CONSERVATIVE: "I can't even talk to you anymore!"
LIBERAL: "I'm going to get the Government to buy me a pony then!"
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
So what kind of gas mileage does your bandwagon get?
You know, the thing that is really great about being a sports fan is it is one of the few things in life where you truly CAN have it both ways. I can cheer for my team through all of their wins and losses in a given year and if we are lucky enough to make it to a championship game, whether they win or lose, I can still get up the next morning and everything is exactly the way I left it. I didn't lose my job, my fiancé didn't leave me, my dog didn't die, etc. Everything that makes my life wonderful remains a constant despite whether or not my team let me down. My favorite sports teams have no control over that. And I know disappointment because I am from Cleveland. Yes, I know you are sorry about that. Thank you for your condolences.
Now I have to admit, I have "alternate" teams as I call them. I like the Utah Jazz due to my family in that state. I like the Falcons due to my time in Atlanta. I like the Buckeyes because I live in Columbus even though I went to Akron.
My philosophy is you can all support whatever team or teams you choose. You can pick 20 random teams and pull for them all. You can pick the El Paso Polytechnic State Fighting Banditos because you like their helmets for all I care. But when you start emotionally latching on to teams in a championship game which you ordinarily do not support simply because they are in the same conference as your alma mater, you look a little desperate. Especially when you spend the entire regular season loathing them as a conference rival. Now suddenly you want to share in their glory when they earn a title. It wouldn't be so annoying if you didn't pump your fist in everyone's faces telling them how awesome you are because a team in your conference won the title. I mean I suppose I can follow the same logic and just pull for the AFC North all of the time since I am a Browns fan by birth. Or better yet, I'll just pull for the AFC as a whole. Or better yet still, I'll just pull for the entire NFL. That way no matter who wins I can run around the next morning at the office that "my team won another championship" pretending everyone cares.
I mean there is an expression for people that latch on to winning teams at the last second.
They're called "front runners".
I know this will insult a few friends and I apologize for that but I'm not sure why some of you spend quality time thinking that if you went to Georgia or Arkansas or Vanderbilt that you somehow get to celebrate Alabama's title as if it were partly yours. It's not. Do you think LSU was pulling for 'Bama after the Sabian slap-in-the-face? I don't think so. Would the Buckeyes pull for Michigan? Hell no. Nor vice versa.
I mean just about everyone watches these championship games and picks a team for whatever reason they feel. Sometimes they don't even know why. Regardless, you cheer a little when they score and smirk a little when they fail. But when the clock expires on the game, so does our emotional connection to it. I really didn't have a favorite team for the championship game. I have people in my life from both schools and I wish they all could have been happy with the turn out. But I see people all over the SEC shouting "We have another championship!" to people from conferences who were not represented in the game last night. And they really don't care. It's not a contest of conferences but rather individual schools.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Affordable Healthcare and the related search for Aliens, Munchkins and Utopia
I just heard someone on the radio defend the new Healthcare Mandate by citing how efficient the post office is running. Huh???
The USPS is hemorrhaging money these days but to be fair, it wasn't that long ago (early 2000's) that they in fact WERE generating a net gain. That is of course until Congress did something unusually sensible during the Bush Administration (2006). They started requiring the the USPS to pay 5.5 billion per year into an account to fund their future retirees' healthcare 75 years in advance. This quickly converted their net profits into net losses. Actually, they should have been funding them all along. This tells me that the USPS was perhaps fibbing on its books or at least finding creative ways to leave certain things off of the liabilties column on their balance sheet. This is a huge no-no. Even if you can disregard it legally it is highly unethical and self-destructive. Paid employee benefits even if in the future are considered liabilities. Did they not report those in order to allow what would have been the offsetting asset values to be moved over into the revenue pile? If they did report it, how did they offset them on the balance sheet with assets while showing a profit? I thought the government REALLY hating "book-cooking" a la Enron.
Accountant friends, chime in here and help me out if I am incorrect on this.
It must be because of their big, mean CEO that makes $800,000 a year while the average CEO in this country makes about $145,000. Ok that wasn't necessary but it doesn't hurt pointing that out.
Anyway, the comment was in lieu of a debate on the The Affordable Healthcare Act.
The problem I am seeing is I'm not exactly sure what is "affordable" about it.
Admit it - you could care less about making health care more affordable, you just want someone else to pay for it for you. Kids being allowed to stay on their parents policy until they are 26? Sure - that won't drive the price of their parents policy up.
Before your blood pressure spikes, allow me to explain based on tangible reality....
The new Affordable Healthcare Act is going to force both public (Medicaid) and private insurers to cover the costs of preventative health care maintenance such as obesity counseling and smoking cessation programs. When Obama says that investing in preventative health measures will lead to overall lower costs of health care for the masses, in theory, he'd be correct - if the plan would actually work.
Just like a politician, he has discounted the element of Human Nature and how it will ultimately neutralize these efforts. Human nature, which is genetically and evolutionally hard-wired into each and every one of us, brings out the best in some while bringing out the worst in others. Now I believe his intentions of getting American healthy are noble and decent but I can't insult his intelligence by suggesting he actually "believes" this will work.
Here is a scary thought. 1 in 3 Americans are overweight now. That's 100,000,000 of our roughly 300,000,000 citizens. Let's just say only half of them agree to the counseling. Let's also pretend that these counselors don't take advantage of the suddenly bullish job market in their favor created by the government and don't charge anything astronomical for their services. Let's say maybe $1000 for a year's worth of therapy. This equates to $50,000,000,000. And of that number, how many of those people will succeed? If all 100,000,000 people decided to jump on the service and were charged maybe $5000 per year, this is now half of a trillion dollars for ONE YEAR. Where will they get that money? eBay? Oh that's right, China again - the holding bank of the National Credit Card! Then of course there are the other preventative counseling services for other ailments and conditions and there are plenty of unhealthy people that will require more than one.
Keep this in mind; obese people know how to lose weight. Smokers know how to quit smoking. They just don't want to. And quite frankly, if they are happy living this way, I say let them as long as it doesn't cost me any money.
Ah, but wait... it does.
Roughly 18,000,000 more Americans will qualify for Medicaid under this new Act. Medicaid is known for only paying about half of what they owe to healthcare providers. This new windfall of patients with lousy coverage will lead to greater losses by the providers as they get stiffed. This in turn leaves the providers with limited options of which to make up for the lost revenue. They will have to either deny Medicaid patients all together OR start raising what they charge for services in order to compensate for their shortfalls. (Kind of like when you wanted that 1:00 AM curfew so you asked for 4:00 AM and negotiated down.) They will in turn charge the private insurance company more which will in turn cause them to raise their rates. This and of course dropping some people which I still don't see how the government can stop them from doing that. If they force them by law, they are literally forcing a business to sell a service to someone at a tremendous loss. When this goes uncorrected with not enough positive net cash with which to offset it, it can cause insolvency with some insurers which only takes a few years at the most to completely shut some of them down. Then what? Oops!
Adding these extra people to Medicaid is moronic because it doesn't take 18,000,000 poor people that were ineligible for it before, but rather it takes 18,000,000 people that didn't need it in the first place. Some are just irresponsible young people that choose to pocket the $100 per month and party with the money instead. By the way, yes, catastrophic insurance is about $100 a month or less. It's not expensive. Get it with the big deductible and a very basic Rx plan and you can pull it off. I've done it. If you catch a cold you'll have to get some Afrin and wait it out. If you break bones in a car crash, you're covered. You'll get by I promise.
People never seem to look at the big picture and think things through. (Human nature at it again). Once people are happy about how something affects them, they stop caring about everyone else. If the government forced your employer to give everyone a 50% raise, you'd think it is good thing because it benefits you. This despite the added that costs could literally drive them into bankruptcy or at least to the point where you and some others could lose your jobs. Now what?
Remember that health CARE and health COVERAGE are two different things. And people like to say you are entitled to one or the other or both. I say you can declare yourself entitled to anything you'd like provided it doesn't also include you being entitled to someone else's money or making someone pay for your stuff. If you get in a car crash and get rushed to the emergency room, you will get care. That is protected not only by law but a doctor's Hypocratic oath. You will however be stuck with a bill you have to pay if you don't have the insurance coverage to do so. If it was the other driver's fault, he can pay. If it was yours, hey - be grateful that some people came to your rescue, put you back together and you're alive now. You couldn't do it on your own now could you? And don't ask the doctors to do this for free considering they give up about 12 years of their life to education and start working with well over $100,000 in debt. They have to feed, clothe and shelter their families just like you do.
There are two primary reasons our health insurance is so expensive:
1) I say this at the risk of insulting my lawyer friends but LAWYERS (well, some of them). For every lawyer that is doing something frivolous, there is one fighting them and I thank God for their efforts. But the dark-side of the legal profession drives costs up with law suit after law suit keeping doctors, hospitals and drug companies tied up in expensive legal battles and then some of these same lawyers eventually get into public office and continue their assault - only with greater firepower. This is scary. I appreciate a good lawyer but why so many in Washington? What about economists? What about financial experts or accountants or even MBAs?
2) It should be. We abuse it and expect them to pay for everything. You want them to pick up the tab on prescription DKNY glasses. You want to go on prescription anti-depressants because your cat died You want your high blood pressure medication paid for even though you eat fast food every day and smoke a pack of cigarettes. The more they are going to cover, the more you are going to pay for your premiums. When the insurance company pays for something, you add a third-party payer into the mix. When you create a third-party payer, costs go up. People will be frugal with his or her own money but not someone else's.
When you take your dog in for an MRI and pay $250 dollars for it, it is the exact same machine as the one hospitals charge us $3000 to sit in for 30 minutes. Why is this the case? Because it is a single-payer system that comes out-of-pocket. The veterinary industry has has done its price-optimum homework and have calculated that if it is much higher than what they charge, then the out-of-pocket payers won't even bother with the service and they will make nothing. The medical industry knows that with a 3rd party payer, they CAN in fact charge as much as they do. This is THEIR optimum price. And this cost issue is worsened when your insurance refuses to pay for your MRI when you truly need one. I suffered through this personally for almost 20 years before I was finally approved for one.
The only thing that will drive costs down are when people have to pay more out of pocket. Consumer mentality kicks in and people begin to shop around for better deals and make wiser purchasing decisions. Perhaps make some lifestyle choices like eating healthier and exercises and maybe "dealing" with a broken heart sans the medication. This in turns forces the providers to become more competitive with one another. This is not a panacea for everything. Illnesses and accidents will still occur but it will be more manageable if not abused by the consumer driving costs back up. And the greatest part? With some leftover money we can legitimately insure those that really need the help - those that are trying their best but still can't make ends meet and have health issues they are unable to manage on their own. See? I do care. I just don't like being taken advantage of.
This will never happen though. Main reason is because who'd like to go first? Will someone step up and say "I'm not going to use my Rx card to pay for my prescription? No. I challenge Washington to step up and think of creative ways to encourage people to start driving the costs back DOWN. Reward good decisions and let those who do not learn the hard way. THEN we can help them out. People have to be allowed to make mistakes. They don't have to be fatal ones - just harsh enough to drive the lesson home.
Promoting tough-love is not a realistic task for most career politicians though. It may in fact be career suicide trying to promote this behavior. Telling someone you're not going to take care of them anymore nor give them someone else's money is just not in their language. Politicians can't say "no" to anyone.
The USPS is hemorrhaging money these days but to be fair, it wasn't that long ago (early 2000's) that they in fact WERE generating a net gain. That is of course until Congress did something unusually sensible during the Bush Administration (2006). They started requiring the the USPS to pay 5.5 billion per year into an account to fund their future retirees' healthcare 75 years in advance. This quickly converted their net profits into net losses. Actually, they should have been funding them all along. This tells me that the USPS was perhaps fibbing on its books or at least finding creative ways to leave certain things off of the liabilties column on their balance sheet. This is a huge no-no. Even if you can disregard it legally it is highly unethical and self-destructive. Paid employee benefits even if in the future are considered liabilities. Did they not report those in order to allow what would have been the offsetting asset values to be moved over into the revenue pile? If they did report it, how did they offset them on the balance sheet with assets while showing a profit? I thought the government REALLY hating "book-cooking" a la Enron.
It must be because of their big, mean CEO that makes $800,000 a year while the average CEO in this country makes about $145,000. Ok that wasn't necessary but it doesn't hurt pointing that out.
Anyway, the comment was in lieu of a debate on the The Affordable Healthcare Act.
The problem I am seeing is I'm not exactly sure what is "affordable" about it.
Admit it - you could care less about making health care more affordable, you just want someone else to pay for it for you. Kids being allowed to stay on their parents policy until they are 26? Sure - that won't drive the price of their parents policy up.
Before your blood pressure spikes, allow me to explain based on tangible reality....
The new Affordable Healthcare Act is going to force both public (Medicaid) and private insurers to cover the costs of preventative health care maintenance such as obesity counseling and smoking cessation programs. When Obama says that investing in preventative health measures will lead to overall lower costs of health care for the masses, in theory, he'd be correct - if the plan would actually work.
Just like a politician, he has discounted the element of Human Nature and how it will ultimately neutralize these efforts. Human nature, which is genetically and evolutionally hard-wired into each and every one of us, brings out the best in some while bringing out the worst in others. Now I believe his intentions of getting American healthy are noble and decent but I can't insult his intelligence by suggesting he actually "believes" this will work.
Here is a scary thought. 1 in 3 Americans are overweight now. That's 100,000,000 of our roughly 300,000,000 citizens. Let's just say only half of them agree to the counseling. Let's also pretend that these counselors don't take advantage of the suddenly bullish job market in their favor created by the government and don't charge anything astronomical for their services. Let's say maybe $1000 for a year's worth of therapy. This equates to $50,000,000,000. And of that number, how many of those people will succeed? If all 100,000,000 people decided to jump on the service and were charged maybe $5000 per year, this is now half of a trillion dollars for ONE YEAR. Where will they get that money? eBay? Oh that's right, China again - the holding bank of the National Credit Card! Then of course there are the other preventative counseling services for other ailments and conditions and there are plenty of unhealthy people that will require more than one.
Keep this in mind; obese people know how to lose weight. Smokers know how to quit smoking. They just don't want to. And quite frankly, if they are happy living this way, I say let them as long as it doesn't cost me any money.
Ah, but wait... it does.
Roughly 18,000,000 more Americans will qualify for Medicaid under this new Act. Medicaid is known for only paying about half of what they owe to healthcare providers. This new windfall of patients with lousy coverage will lead to greater losses by the providers as they get stiffed. This in turn leaves the providers with limited options of which to make up for the lost revenue. They will have to either deny Medicaid patients all together OR start raising what they charge for services in order to compensate for their shortfalls. (Kind of like when you wanted that 1:00 AM curfew so you asked for 4:00 AM and negotiated down.) They will in turn charge the private insurance company more which will in turn cause them to raise their rates. This and of course dropping some people which I still don't see how the government can stop them from doing that. If they force them by law, they are literally forcing a business to sell a service to someone at a tremendous loss. When this goes uncorrected with not enough positive net cash with which to offset it, it can cause insolvency with some insurers which only takes a few years at the most to completely shut some of them down. Then what? Oops!
Adding these extra people to Medicaid is moronic because it doesn't take 18,000,000 poor people that were ineligible for it before, but rather it takes 18,000,000 people that didn't need it in the first place. Some are just irresponsible young people that choose to pocket the $100 per month and party with the money instead. By the way, yes, catastrophic insurance is about $100 a month or less. It's not expensive. Get it with the big deductible and a very basic Rx plan and you can pull it off. I've done it. If you catch a cold you'll have to get some Afrin and wait it out. If you break bones in a car crash, you're covered. You'll get by I promise.
People never seem to look at the big picture and think things through. (Human nature at it again). Once people are happy about how something affects them, they stop caring about everyone else. If the government forced your employer to give everyone a 50% raise, you'd think it is good thing because it benefits you. This despite the added that costs could literally drive them into bankruptcy or at least to the point where you and some others could lose your jobs. Now what?
Remember that health CARE and health COVERAGE are two different things. And people like to say you are entitled to one or the other or both. I say you can declare yourself entitled to anything you'd like provided it doesn't also include you being entitled to someone else's money or making someone pay for your stuff. If you get in a car crash and get rushed to the emergency room, you will get care. That is protected not only by law but a doctor's Hypocratic oath. You will however be stuck with a bill you have to pay if you don't have the insurance coverage to do so. If it was the other driver's fault, he can pay. If it was yours, hey - be grateful that some people came to your rescue, put you back together and you're alive now. You couldn't do it on your own now could you? And don't ask the doctors to do this for free considering they give up about 12 years of their life to education and start working with well over $100,000 in debt. They have to feed, clothe and shelter their families just like you do.
There are two primary reasons our health insurance is so expensive:
1) I say this at the risk of insulting my lawyer friends but LAWYERS (well, some of them). For every lawyer that is doing something frivolous, there is one fighting them and I thank God for their efforts. But the dark-side of the legal profession drives costs up with law suit after law suit keeping doctors, hospitals and drug companies tied up in expensive legal battles and then some of these same lawyers eventually get into public office and continue their assault - only with greater firepower. This is scary. I appreciate a good lawyer but why so many in Washington? What about economists? What about financial experts or accountants or even MBAs?
2) It should be. We abuse it and expect them to pay for everything. You want them to pick up the tab on prescription DKNY glasses. You want to go on prescription anti-depressants because your cat died You want your high blood pressure medication paid for even though you eat fast food every day and smoke a pack of cigarettes. The more they are going to cover, the more you are going to pay for your premiums. When the insurance company pays for something, you add a third-party payer into the mix. When you create a third-party payer, costs go up. People will be frugal with his or her own money but not someone else's.
When you take your dog in for an MRI and pay $250 dollars for it, it is the exact same machine as the one hospitals charge us $3000 to sit in for 30 minutes. Why is this the case? Because it is a single-payer system that comes out-of-pocket. The veterinary industry has has done its price-optimum homework and have calculated that if it is much higher than what they charge, then the out-of-pocket payers won't even bother with the service and they will make nothing. The medical industry knows that with a 3rd party payer, they CAN in fact charge as much as they do. This is THEIR optimum price. And this cost issue is worsened when your insurance refuses to pay for your MRI when you truly need one. I suffered through this personally for almost 20 years before I was finally approved for one.
The only thing that will drive costs down are when people have to pay more out of pocket. Consumer mentality kicks in and people begin to shop around for better deals and make wiser purchasing decisions. Perhaps make some lifestyle choices like eating healthier and exercises and maybe "dealing" with a broken heart sans the medication. This in turns forces the providers to become more competitive with one another. This is not a panacea for everything. Illnesses and accidents will still occur but it will be more manageable if not abused by the consumer driving costs back up. And the greatest part? With some leftover money we can legitimately insure those that really need the help - those that are trying their best but still can't make ends meet and have health issues they are unable to manage on their own. See? I do care. I just don't like being taken advantage of.
This will never happen though. Main reason is because who'd like to go first? Will someone step up and say "I'm not going to use my Rx card to pay for my prescription? No. I challenge Washington to step up and think of creative ways to encourage people to start driving the costs back DOWN. Reward good decisions and let those who do not learn the hard way. THEN we can help them out. People have to be allowed to make mistakes. They don't have to be fatal ones - just harsh enough to drive the lesson home.
Promoting tough-love is not a realistic task for most career politicians though. It may in fact be career suicide trying to promote this behavior. Telling someone you're not going to take care of them anymore nor give them someone else's money is just not in their language. Politicians can't say "no" to anyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)