To Everyone
When Is Fraud Not Fraud?
September 2009
Post 11
by Kay Street
Did you know that it's illegal for an advertiser to make false, deceptive or unfair claims when trying to sell you toothpaste? Did you know that's it's not illegal to make false, deceptive or unfair claims when trying to sell you a political message?
I'll use this ad, First Maine Yes On 1 Ad, to analyze how the truth in advertising laws might pertain to the claims made.
If Stand for Marriage Maine was selling you toothpaste with this degree of deceptive practice, there's a good chance they could face charges of fraud, and you could always change toothpastes. However, when selling politics that could affect the lives of thousands who have no other recourse under the law, it is perfectly legal.
According to the FTC, advertisers are to follow three rules under the Federal Trade Commission Act.
- Advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive.
- Advertisers must have evidence to back up their claims.
- Advertisers cannot be unfair.
What makes an Ad deceptive?
According to the FTC's Deception Policy Statement, an ad is deceptive if it contains or omits any information that:
- is likely to mislead a person acting in a reasonable manner.
- is "material." meaning information important to the decision making process.
The FTC determines an ad is deceptive using a few steps and tests. First, addressing the "reasonable consumer" clause by looking at the ad in context. All words, phrases and pictures are taken to together to determine what is being conveyed to the consumer.
The FTC considers both "express" and "implied" claims to be pertinent. And under the law, advertisers must have evidence to support any claims made, whether they are express or implied.
The FTC considers what the ad does not say. Any failure to include information that leaves a consumer with a misimpression is deemed deceptive.
The FTC considers whether any such claims are "material" - meaning that they are important to the decision making process.
The FTC looks at whether there is sufficient evidence to support claims made in the ad.
Political speech is not held to these standards. It is deemed to be necessary to a healthy democracy that the broadest interpretation of the right to free speech should be applied to political speech. I agree, but I'd prefer that the allowed latitude stop short of perpetrating fraud.
So how does our sample ad fare under these rules?
Taken in context as applied to ballot question 1 and LD 1020, I find the following claims to be "material" in the ad's attempt sell a "yes vote" on ballot question 1 to Maine voters:
1. Special interests got the Maine legislature to approve homosexual marriage.
2. Special interests tried to prevent Mainers from voting.
3. Unless question one passes there will be real consequences for Mainers
4. A no vote would cause "a flood of lawsuits" against law abiding citizens who conscientiously object to same sex marriage on religious grounds.
5. A no vote could cause Church organizations could lose their tax exemptions.
6. A no vote would allow homosexual marriage to be taught in schools whether parents like it or not.
First Claim: "special interests got the Maine legislature to approve homosexual marriage."
To be as liberal in our interpretation as possible, let's say "special interests" is defined "as any individual or organization with a an interest in passing the bill." So the term "special interests" can mean anyone who is/was for the law's passage. This supports this portion of the ad's claim.
Now we look at the claim that these special interests "got" the legislature "to approve" the law.
The evidence offered within the ad is a claim that grassroots lobbying efforts, by such groups as the National Center for Lesbian Rights, urged Mainers to "Please call or email your state representative's office now to urge them to vote in favor of the bill."
They made this plea via email and other medium.
Video text and imagery concerning the claim is as follows:
Screen shows a news clip reading:
"Please call or email your state representative's office now to urge them to vote in favor of the bill."
- National Center for Lesbian Rights
Underlying the clip is two sheets of paper, one with a masthead reading NCLR, and on the other there can be seen only a blue State of Maine shape at the top right, and a blue and yellow logo at the top left.
he claim states that this lobbying effort is the primary reason the legislature voted "to approve" the bill.
This claim could be true, assuming the majority of the legislature voted as it did in response these campaigns.
In this case, the evidence does not support this portion of the claim. As the evidence in the ad stands, the cause and effect relationship between the special interests' efforts and the legislature's vote cannot be definitively established. It could range anywhere from no influence to an amount of influence that supports the ad's claim.
Evidence that a grassroots lobby effort exists, and a favorable outcome was attained, is not, in itself, evidence of it's success to the degree claimed in the ad. A survey of those in the legislature who voted for the bill asking why they voted for the bill, and if they were influenced by these lobbying efforts would constitute sufficient evidence, if the result backed up the claim. To my knowledge, no such evidence was stated or cited in the ad.
Now for the phrase "homosexual marriage." What the claim says, however, is that the legislature voted "to approve homosexual marriage." The evidence consists of text on the screen saying:
"LD 1020
Homosexual
Marriage Debate"
The text overlay video footage that appears to be the state capital building exterior fading to interior footage of what appears to be the legislature at work. The text and images successfully make a connection to LD 1020, so far so good.
There is, however, no evidence to support the use of the phrase "homosexual marriage." The title of LD 1020 is "An Act To End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom," and this is what it does. There is no reference to homosexual marriage in the bill.
It could be argued, however, that Sec. 650-A, Codification of marriage, which is, under LD 1020, amended to define marriage as a "legally recognized union of 2 people," and the specification that marital and familial terms be gender neutral under the law, constitutes approval of "homosexual marriage." Being as this a logical implication of the law, I agree there is sufficient evidence to support this portion of the claim.
In summary, both in context and out of context, this claim lacks sufficient evidence to make it credible. Therefore it is deceptive.
Second Claim: "tried to prevent Mainers from voting, but question 1 gives us our vote."
That claim that "question 1 gives us our vote" is self-evidentially true, but the phrase "tried to prevent Mainers from voting" I confess I don't understand. I find this claim confusing, and lacking in any evidence to support or even explain it. The one possible meaning I see, that the intent was to claim that a vote was denied by some sort of "end-run" around voters by going through the Maine Legislature to pass this law.
If such was the intent of the claim, it is self-evidentially false. Mainers vote for state representatives, and they make the laws. The so-called "People's Veto" cannot be applied to a law that has not been first passed by the legislature and signed by the governor.
This claim is inherently deceptive by the virtue of it's vague phrasing. It makes a definitive claim without saying how Mainers were prevented from voting, or by what mechanism. Was there a relevant vote that Mainers were barred participating in? Was there a procedural maneuver that by-passed the Maine Legislature? Exactly what form did this prevention from voting take? We don't know and we can't know based on the ad's content.
Third Claim: "Unless question one passes there will be real consequences for Mainers."
Prof. Scott T. Fitzgibbon of Boston College Law School, makes a short speech making four separate claims. Beginning with: "Unless question one passes there will be real consequences for Mainers."
Hard to argue with that logic, as it is self-evidentially true that there will be real consequences for Mainers in any case - if the question passes, or if it doesn't pass. Just time passing results in real consequences - even if the only real consequence is that the time has passed.
Fourth Claim" "Legal experts predict a flood of law suits against individuals, small businesses, and religious groups."
Evidence for the claim includes:
Fitzgibbon makes the claim verbally.
A "Letter from legal scholars, May 1, 2009" sent to Gov. Baldacci. The letter was sent over the signatures of four legal scholars: Thomas C. Berg of the University of St. Thomas School of Law, Carl H. Esbeck of the Law University of Missouri, Robin Fretwell Wilson of Washington and Lee University School of Law, and Richard W. Grant of the University of Notre Dame Law School. The purpose of the letter appears to be to advocate the addition to the bill of "adequate religious-conscience protections" as proposed by the authors.
Additional evidence cited includes the civil case of Elane Photography v. Willock (N.M. 2d Jud. Dist. Ct).
The letter uses 11 scenarios that the authors see as problematic should the bill become law without "adequate religious-conscience protections". These scenarios cover essentially the full array of current non-discrimination laws on the basis of sexual orientation already codified both in the U.S. Code and the Revised Maine Statutes. These include non-discrimination in: housing, public accommodations, employment, charitable use of government facilities and funding, state and federal licensing laws, professional and medical licensing laws, school accreditation, and tax exempt status for religious organizations.
n each of the 11 scenarios, the authors are asking that the State of Maine modify each of it's non-discrimination laws, these are mostly found under Title 5, Chapter 337: Human Rights Act of the Revised Maine Statues, that protect the rights of persons against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. They contend that the concept of marriage between man and woman is so fundamental a religious belief that upholding that tradition is vital to religious freedom, and should take precedence over anti-discrimination laws where two are in conflict, but only as it applies to married couples, not individuals.
The authors include in this definition, in addition to religious organizations; any individuals, small businesses, or professional associations as so-called religious "conscientious objectors." They contend that Maine should do this because, if we don't, those violating the rights of same sex married couples on religious grounds could be sued unfairly simply for adhering to deeply held religious beliefs. However, the basis for these suits originates not under LD 1020, but under the anti-discrimination laws mentioned above that have been on the books for years.
Whether this perceived conflict in civil rights will result in the predicted "flood of lawsuits," no one can know in advance. This by itself, is evidence that the claim may be invalid.
I don't pretend to know the legal implications of a conflict of rights, but fortunately, I don't have to. The fact is, the anti-discrimination laws concerning the legal scholars' various scenarios have nothing to do with LD 1020. If these legal scholars have problems with Title 5, Chapter 337 of the Revised Maine Statutes they need to take their argument there. It has no bearing on LD 1020, and therefore, the scenarios outlined in the letter have no evidential value for predicting the likelihood of lawsuits under LD 1020.
Elane Photography v. Willock illustrates an example of the conflict between the right to religious beliefs and anti-discrimination laws. This case concerned alleged discrimination in the denial of public access to services. The closest approximation of the New Mexico law is found under Title 5, Subchapter 5: Public Accommodations, 5 sec. 4591 of the Revised Maine Statutes. Once again, it has no bearing on LD 1020, and therefore has this case has no evidential value concerning the prediction of LD 1020 based lawsuits.
This claim is deceptive in that it implies that LD 1020 would be responsible for the prediction of a flood of lawsuits. This assertion is made Prof. Fitzgibbon, and four other legal scholars in the cited letter, lending credibility to the implication to any reasonable viewer. When in fact, the predicted lawsuits are all based on a perceived, but unproven, assertion that a conflict of rights exists, and that the conflict would lead to lawsuits based on current anti-discrimination laws.
Fifth Claim: "Church organizations could lose their tax exemptions."
The evidence in support of this claim:
Prof. Fitzgibbon makes the claim verbally.
The Ad depicts the following imagery:
A sheet of paper where the masthead reads: AP Associated Press. and the headline reads: Homosexual Advocacy Group accuses Maine Diocese of Violating Tax Law.
An animated clip quote crosses the screen bottom to top reading: "its challenge was filed... at an Internal Revenue Service office"
There is a nugget of truth in this claim. Title 26 of the U.S. Code, the Internal Revenue Code does contain rules restricting the political activities of tax-exempt, non-profit organizations; such as churches.
However, LD 1020 has no provision, and the State of Maine has no authority to make laws that either alter the content or enforce the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. If a church breaks the IRS rules for tax-exempt organizations, they can lose tax-exempt status - whether LD 1020 becomes law or not makes no difference and can make no difference. Further, having identified himself as a law scholar, a reasonable viewer would more likely to trust the accuracy of Prof. Fitzgibbon's statement over that of a lay-person.
To the best of my knowledge, there are no activity restrictions on the tax exempt status granted to churches under Title 36 of the Revised Maine Statues.
Additionally, though they kept the AP Associated Press masthead in the ad's imagery, evidence shows that the headline may have been altered from the Associated Press article's original headline: Gay Rights Group: Maine Diocese Violating Tax Lawto the headline indicated above.
Taken on it's own, out of context, this is a true statement. However, in context, the evidence does not support the claim. Further, the lack full disclosure of the fact that question 1, whether passed or not, has no bearing on IRS rules for tax exempt churches, and the difference between federal and state legal authority on tax law, by legal scholars, is not only deceptive, it suggests an intent to deceive.
Sixth Claim: "Homosexual marriage will be taught in schools whether parents like it or not."
The evidence for this claim consists of:
Prof. Fitzgibbon makes the claim verbally.
The ad depicts text reading:
"Homosexual
Marriage
Taught in
Schools"
The ad depicts text citing the civil suit, Parker v. Hurley 414 F.3d 87 (1st Cir.2008).
This claim is patently false. The suit cited is based on a Massachusetts law for which Maine has no direct parallel. Not only is there no such provision in LD 1020, but to the best of my knowledge, there is no law in the entire body of the Revised Maine Statutes that mandates any such curriculum be taught in any Maine School. Again, the identification of Prof. Fitzgibbon as a law scholar would tend to increase the credibility of a reasonable viewer.
Taken out of context, this assertion may be arguable, but in no way certain in it's truth - in Massachusetts. In context, and in Maine, it is unequivocally deceptive, and again the lack of full disclosure on differences in state laws, by legal scholars, is deceptive and suggests an intent to deceive.
Just a quick note: The FTC fairness in advertising rules do not apply here in any measurable sense, since they deal with a product's likelihood of harm versus a product's benefits. Any perceived harms or benefits of a political message would be subjective to such an extent that making a harm/benefit analysis would be unusable in any objective sense. Which is a good reason why these particular rules are not applied to political speech.
You can comment on this post here.
To Everyone
To The Phones for Health Reform
September 2009
Post 11
by Kay Street
Today I talked with the offices of Rep. Mike Michaud and Sen. Susan Collins about health care reform. I have recorded below the questions asked and the answers given as best as I can recall. There's some bits of editorial sarcasm added in as well. Sorry!
First I asked each if they believed access to health to be a right of all Americans.
From Rep. Michaud's office: I spoke to a nice young man named Josh, who was the congressman's intern. He gave me a fairly long-winded answer that was non-responsive to the actual question. I asked if he had political aspirations, and he said yes. I told him he was a making a good start. in the end, he agreed to ask the congressman to get back to me on that question.
From Sen. Susan Collins' Office: I spoke to a young woman named Alex, who when I asked about her job, said essentially that she answers phones and stuff. I asked if she had a job title and she said no. So I asked to speak to someone who could answer questions regarding health care reform. She said she could help me. I was less than confident in veracity of that claim, but chose to keep that fact to myself.
So I asked my first question: is health care access a right? The response was that the senator "has no official stance on that issue." Suddenly, I had much more faith that Alex could answer all my questions - as long as I didn't expect any answer that contained any substance or relevance.
Next I asked each if they supported a single payer system such as HR 676.
From Rep. Michaud's office: Josh said the congressman did noy support HR 676, and agreed to ask for me why the congressman didn't support such a plan.
From Sen. Collins' office: Alex said that "the senator has no official stance on this issue." Thus, you see the source of my new found faith in Alex's ability to answer my questions.
Next I asked each about their stance on a public option.
From Rep. Michaud's Office: Josh pretty much restated what's in the congressman's position paper on this issue. That the congressman is generally supportive of a public option, but has some concerns on the details - mainly he is concerned about reimbursement rates.
From Sen. Collins' Office: She is against a public option. That she actually has an official position on something almost seemed like a breakthrough. Perhaps there is more method than madness afoot in their reluctance to answer any and all questions.
Next I asked about mandates, both for individuals and small businesses.
From Rep. Michaud's office: Josh was not aware of the congressman's position on mandates, and agreed to ask the congressman for me.
From Sen. Susan Collins' office: Alex said that the senator "had no official stance on this issue." Here, I paused to summon the restraint to refrain from asking if the senator even had legs since she seems to have little need for them. Past experience has taught me that such inquiries inevitably put the person on the defensive, and generally makes them much harder to deal with.
Next I asked about each about their stance on the for-profit business model.
From Rep. Michaud's office: Josh, and other's I have spoke to in the congressman's office, seem to hold the industry in general contempt. They seemed genuinely sympathetic to the wasteful spending represented by the so called "medical loss ratio" insurance model. They are less forthcoming about solutions, however. When I pointed out the a single payer is the best cure, Josh agreed, but Rep. Michaud didn't change his mind, I'm sure.
From Sen. Collins' office: Alex said that the senator "had no official stance on this issue."
You can comment on this post here.
To Everyone
No Public Option, No Competition
September 2009
Post 10
by Kay Street
In hindsight, from the standpoint of the White House, it looks almost like the public option became something of a decoy ensuring that the debate never focused on if they can fix this system in any meaningful way.
Regulations are only as good as their enforcement, and for-profit insurance company business models contain an inherent conflict of interest with the customer. To make a profit, they have to limit the amount of benefits paid out. This benefit limit even has a name, they call it the "medical loss ratio" This refers to the proportion of premiums taken in to medical benefits paid out for patient health care services. For example, for every $100 of premiums taken in, the company spends no more the $70 dollars on medical benefits thus giving them a medical loss ratio of 70%.
Not only do they have to limit benefits, but if they want to keep a decent share price, they have keep the so-called medical loss ratio under 70%. Wall Street has a history of frowning mightily on the share price of any insurance company whose medical loss ratio rises above the 70% marker.
The reforms talked about, such as no pre-existing conditions exclusions, no cherry-picking, no dropping coverage after a person becomes sick, no yearly or lifetime caps on benefits, no purging, etc. These are all things that tend to hurt the bottom line, or they wouldn't have become conventional business practice in the first place. So how are insurers supposed to follow the regulations, keep executive egos happy with huge salaries, and keep shareholders happy with maximized profit margins and yearly dividends? I see only one way - raise premiums.
Congress and the White House would seem to believe that competition will keep premiums prices down. They speak of 'co-ops' or 'exchanges' with various rules for entry, such as a minimum benefits package and no discriminatory exclusion practices and perhaps even a limit on the medical loss ratio, but they don't require any insurance company participation. They say the lure of 30 million new customers would bring the insurance companies in to compete in this market. What they seem to overlook is that vast majority of these people are the same 30 million people who are currently uninsured because the insurance companies don't want them as customers - even without the added burden of new regulations on discriminatory practices.
So where is the competition coming from? Somehow I can't see 30 million new customers, whom the insurance companies have already deemed "unprofitable" to insure, as much of an incentive to enter a market where they can no longer even discriminate based on pre-existing conditions and such. Even if they did, the premiums would have to be higher than they are now - at least in the short term.
Congress and the White House do, however, want to require consumer participation. What does this mean? Well, a captive market without meaningful competition means insurance companies can basically charge whatever they want for premiums, and we'll be required by law to pay them. For those deemed unable to afford the premiums on their own, the government will be picking up the tab with taxpayer money.
Looked at logically, a coverage mandate would be a burden of epic proportions on small businesses. Offering tax credits to help pay for coverage adds nothing to a business' monthly cash flow, and according to the non-profit small businesses I've heard from, they would not realize any benefits from tax credits, anyway. So how are they supposed to pay the bills long enough to realize the tax credit? What are non-profit businesses supposed to do?
In the end, without a public option, we will still have the same 8 major insurance companies with a 90% plus market share, the smaller regional companies that still remain will be at an even bigger disadvantage considering the new regulations. Yet, I see nothing in the bills as currently written that would add more competition or even require the existing companies to compete in their little faux marketplace. The evidence suggests that, just like in states like Maine with consumer protection laws already in place, if the big boys don't like the rules, they simply won't play the game. While if the rules are favorable to insurance companies, you can be sure that consumers will be hurting on two fronts - buying insurance and subsidizing with tax dollars those who can't afford it.
Bottom line: there's no real upside here for the consumer, and no real downside for the insurance companies... that's not reform, that's just a gift to the for-profit insurance business. The only sensible, logical, and economical solution is a basic single payer plan, one fully funded by premiums that could take a variety of forms, and let the for-profit insurers offer gap coverage.
To Everyone
Handicapped By Truth
September 2009
Post 9
by Kay Street
The health care "debate" is rife with the rhetoric of fear. It's puncuated by emotionally charged lies, mis-directions, and obfuscations. One thing it is not, is a debate. There is no room in debate for "they who are the most terrifying win." A debate is about logic, and well-reasoned and persuasive argument and rebuttal. But mostly, it should be about truth. Philosophies can vary, but the truth remains the truth. That's why we do need a new "fairness doctrine."
Not the same one that, about 20 years back, the FCC deemed as having a "chilling effect" on political speech . I see no realistic method of achieving the old goals of advising ahead of time those with an interest in the speech and allowing a rebuttal for every instance of political speech broadcast in any medium. This would indeed have a chilling effect on political speech, as well as being a logisictal nightmare.
I ask only that we hold political speech the same standards we impose, and indeed hope is the paramount goal, of all other forms of broadcast and print media news -- an obligation to tell the truth. No slander, no libel, and no lies. No more passing off unverifiable rumor as news using the "some people say" or "question mark" dodges.
For example, I couldn't definitively say that "Ms. 'A. Person' is crazy and likely to harm small animals for fun." Not unless I had some proof. I can, however, say that "Some people say that Ms. 'A. Person' is crazy and likely to hurt small animals for fun," without any proof whatsoever because I'm not making the claim - I'm passing the buck to 'some people' which makes it nearly impossible to deny the statement as not true. You can find 'some people' who say just about anything.
Then there's the "question mark" dodge that works something like this: Instead of making a statement, you ask a question. "Is Ms. 'A. Person' a crazy lady who likes to harm small animals for fun?" Again, there is no way to hold the questioner accountable for the implication that Ms. Person is a crazy animal molester, because no such actual claim was made.
All public officials should be held to the highest standard of honesty in their discourse. They should be required to have evidence to back any and all claims, and this evidence should be readily available to the public. We have abundant information dissemination resources at the immediate disposal of almost any citizen who wishes to seek such proof. Every senator and representative already has a web site, and White House has one as well. No real burden, and no logistical problems at all.
If you want to say that "this amounts to a government takeover of healthcare," you need to prove it, and explain why it's a bad thing for the American people. If want to say that "single payer systems are rife with problems, such as rationing of care and the unavailability of the latest medical technologies," prove it. Not with anecdotal evidence, but with an honest assessment and due diligence.
If you want to say that "this would lead to a collaspe of the private insurance industry," prove it. And while you're at it, tell the American people the truth about the private coverage you're defending. Explain the Medical Loss Ratio, and how it induces the rationing of care. Tell the American people what exactly these companies add to the value of the economy. Tell them how H. Edward Hanway, the CEO of Cigna, makes more in a one day than the average American worker makes all year, and his primary responsibility is making sure Cigna is not spending "too much" money on health care. Then explain why this not a conflict of interest between company and consumer.
To Everyone
Same Sex Marriage in Maine
September 2009
Post 08
by Kay Street
The Family Research Council (FRC) describes itself thusly, "FRC was founded in 1983 as an organization dedicated to the promotion of marriage and family and the sanctity of human life in national policy."
Although not within the sphere of "national policy," The Family Research Council has recently begun to weigh on the issue of a ballot question to be decided this November by the people of Maine. The so-called People's Veto of LD 1020, a Maine law that allows same sex marriages the same legal staus afforded heterosexual marriages. The FRC wishes to repeal this law, and below I look at some of their ideas on why they think the law needs to be repealed.
Here's their mission statement:
"Family Research Council champions marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of society. FRC shapes public debate and formulates public policy that values human life and upholds the institutions of marriage and the family. Believing that God is the author of life, liberty, and the family, FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society."
The FRC promoting it's values as 'the foundation of civilization' is ironic on a number of levels levels. Judeo-Christian history is replete with examples of some of the most barbaric acts in human history. The Old Testament details a portion of human history that was pretty much a constant state of war. No doubt a reflection of the times in which they lived, but still far from civilized. Then we have witch burnings, the inquisition, slavery, the decimation of native populations, and on and on.
I believe, as sentient beings, we are still working toward becoming civilized. Though "blindly groping" toward civilization might be a more accurate assessment. Once when asked what he thought of Western Civilization, Gandhi replied, "I think it would be a good idea." I agree.
To the extent that we still fight wars, deny human beings of their basic rights, that we look the other way and pretend the atrocties of Darfur, Tibet and the Democratic Republic of the Congo are not our problem, we are still not civilized. To the extent we believe in killing our fellow man as necessary to secure the blessings of liberty, we are still not civilized. I do believe that it takes courage to fight for freedom, but I also believe it takes a courage greater still to do it without inflicting harm on others. A courage born of what Dr. Martin Luther King called "Soul Power."
To extent we believe that non-violence is a noble, but naive and ineffective doctrine for effecting social change, we are not civilized. To the extent we forget, ignore, or dismiss the proof of what non-violence can do -- proof that is embodied in the lives of Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, we are still not civilized.
To the extent we value money and those who amass great amounts of it - to the extent that we diefy greed - we are not civilized. Even the native American peoples we called savages were wiser in this than we. A proverb of the Cree nation in regards to the white man is said to be, "Only when the last tree has withered, the last fish been caught, and the last river poisoned, will they realize that they can't eat money."
In my view, the most civilized government on the planet is the 'government in exile' of Tibet. Driven from thier homeland by the Chinese who continue to this day a practice of genocide within the borders of Tibet, the Dalai Lama (the Tibetan head of state) continues speaking with a message of non-violence and compassion for all. This compassion includes the Chinese - indeed especially the Chinese whom the Dalai Lama would see as more needful of compassion.
This government is a theocracy, one based on the tenets of Tibetan Buddhism, and not any Judeo-Christian religion, yet this society is the far more peaceful than most, the far more just than most, and perhaps the foremost avocate for human rights on the planet.
To the FRC, justice means a system of laws, beliefs and so-called "mores" that promote the well-being of people who look like them, think like them, behave like them, and believe like them. Everyone else is wrong, and therefore of no account. To Jesus, on the other hand, a man's looks, system of laws, beliefs and mores were of no account as long as he had faith. See the Faith of the Centurion, Mark 8:5-13.
To the FRC, freedom means being able to do, believe, and have faith as one wishes, as long as people do, believe, and have faith as they themselves do. Everyone else is wrong, and needs to be shown the error of their ways, and converted. Jesus, on the other hand, cared not whether a man was a Jew or Gentile, Roman or Judean, or even a man for that matter -- his equal treatment of women is something that all Christian religions have tried very, very hard to downplay for centuries. He cared only that one had faith in God and loved his neighbor as himself.
To the FRC, stable means that all people think, believe and behave as they think, believe and behave; and for those who do not - you're wrong, so keep quiet and prefably go away. Jesus, on the hand, gave us the "Golden Rule" that admonishes us to treat others as we would like to be treated.
From this I conclude two things:
1. A society based on a Christian worldview could be a remarkably good thing.
2. That the FRC has no idea what the Christian worldview actually is.
To Everyone:
Of Branding, Salesmanship and General Relativity
September 1, 2009
Post 07
by Kay Street
"Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity, nothing exceeds the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well-warmed, and well-fed." -- Herman Melville
You know those emails you sometimes get? The ones wrapping political views in cute or inspirational stories? For example, the grasshopper and the ant story – but instead of the original ending, it ends with the do-nothing grasshopper warm and fed, and the hard working ant out in the cold. All because of taxes on the ant and welfare for the grasshopper. Just enough truth in there to make you think.
Ever notice the content is overhwlemingly conservative in nature? I can actually remember the one, out of hundreds, liberal themed email I've gotten in the last year. It attacked country singer Toby Keith for, if I recall correctly, being racist and supporting “lynching.” All because of some “tongue in cheek” song lyrics about the merits of “eye-for-an-eye” justice. Thing is, it was patently false unless you really wanted to see something to complain about, and therefore, it was ultimately ineffective as rhetoric.
The health care reform debate of late has me thinking a lot about perceptions. It seems to me that so very many of us want the same things, but our perceptions lead us down different paths. I am fond of telling people who disagree on any subject, and use their disagreement to pass judgement, that all points of view are equally valid -- Einstein proved this conclusively. And so he did, but it occurs to me lately that those perceptions, to be truely valid, must be based in truth. Too often they are not.
This not the fault of the point of view, nor of the person viewing life through it, but rather the fault of an acceptance of disingenuous rhetoric. I say disingenuous, rather than untrue or false, because the rhetoric I speak of is never entirely untrue, but instead, cleverly designed to lead one to false conclusions. To my mind a much more dangerous ploy.
A great many conservatives are devoutly religious, and value the word of God in their everyday lives. A lot of liberals are devoutly religious, and value the word of God in their every day lives. This is the truth.
Many on the right seek to portray as a kind of heresy, the fact that liberals place a high value on the adherence to the rule of law as set forth in the Constitution of the United States. Particularly as it relates to the “separation of church and state” doctrine.This is the falsehood, but one that is very easy to believe. It's true that liberal organizations often do their best to insist on a strict interpretation of the separation of church and state. They do this, however, not to quash God's message, but to save it, and all forms of spiritual belief and even non-belief, for all equally. When government advertizes one belief over others, no matter how small the advertizement might be, it marginalizes the beliefs of others. This applies as much to the Christians as it does to atheists. If the government advertized atheism in any way, no matter how small, Christians would be outraged, and rightfully so. So let your child pray in school - it is your right. But don't expect every child to join in – they have rights too.
Conservatives value hard work, paying your own way, and pulling yourself up in times of trouble and need, and they don't mind putting a hand out to help others in those times. Liberals value hard work, paying your own way, and pulling yourself up in times of trouble and need, and they don't mind putting a hand out to help others in those times. The only difference is that liberals know that there are those out there in trouble and in need, but with no one offering a hand. They feel that government, in these instances, can be an effective instrument to “promote the general welfare” to quote the preamble of the Constitution. I believe that's what constitutes the truth.
There are those on the right who want us to believe that these people are unworthy of help, that they are lazy, ignorant, and deserving of whatever fate may bring. This is the falsehood. But it's a falsehood that is very easy to believe. We tell ourselves, “I work. I pay my own way. I've pulled myself up when it was needed. If I can do it, so should they.” Yet we often forget that we usually had some help. We usually had some kind of support. Even if it was just a loan to keep us housed and eating until we got back up. There are those who lack any support at all. Who live in places where there are no jobs to be had. They have no money and no means of transportation to go where there might be jobs. They deserve our compassion, and our help.
Notice that you rarely, if ever, hear about the “welfare for the rich” programs – from the right or left. Yet we spend over $100 billion a year, at the federal level alone, on corporate and business welfare programs. Welfare for needy families? About $17 billion. These business welfare programs are pervasive right through every level of government down to the city and local. They take the form of grants, subsidies, tax credits and tax breaks, reduced utility prices, and more. No need to take my word for it: look here, and here, and here, and here. These, the people taking government hand-outs -- These are the very same interests, the very same people, who tell us the free market is in our best interests, and denounce as "socialism" any government program designed to help the middle class and poor.
There are more examples of misleading rhetoric: being against war does not mean one does not support the brave men and women of our armed forces. Quite the opposite, it is a desire to keep them out of harm's way. Protesting against the government is not unpatriotic. In fact it may well be one of the most patriotic actions a citizen can take – as guaranteed by the first amendment. Gun control laws don't – ok, I admit it, I'm more with the right on this one.
Guns can be dangerous, yes, but so can driving a car. One thing about freedom: we know it's not free, but it's costs include more than just fighting to protect it – it's costs include inherent risks. One cannot be totally safe and remain free. This applies to ideas as well to bodily harm. All points of view need to be free to flourish or die, no matter how abhorrent we might find them originally. The best we can hope for is that truth prevails.
The question I ask, and would really like you to think about, is this: Who is it that wants you to believe these myths, and why?
The answer to who is easy enough: the rich and powerful, corporate America, and the politicians who represent them.
But why?
Because they like owning 98% of America's wealth. In what kind of world is one person accumulating more wealth than one could spend in 10 lifetimes remotely fair or just? In what kind of world is having all that wealth and still wanting more not overly, even obscenely, greedy? In what kind of world is advocating the benefits of a free market on one hand, while taking government hand-outs with the other not the height of hypocrisy?
Because they like their power. In what kind of democracy does it make sense that that the wealthiest 2% of the population, and corporations (legal entities, but not even real people, and they can't vote) have more access to and influence with a duly elected representative than that representative's constituents? In what kind of democracy does it take a cash layout of $12,000 to $80,000 a year to get your duly elected representative's attention?
Because they like their ridiculously low tax rates. In what kind of country does it make sense to tax working families at 25%, and tax capital gains -- the proceeds of already having money, and investing it; no actual work involved – at 15%? In what kind of country do the politicians promote deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy as an economic stimulator year, after year, after year, in spite mountains of historical data showing they don't work? I trust in the wake of the recent crises, no one really needs links on this one.
Because they want good, hard working Americans in their corner. They want you to believe they share your values, but looked at closely, it's a total sham. That is not the world, the country, or the democracy I see when I reflect on Jesus' teachings. As Jesus pointed out, “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” – Mark, 19:24. A man cannot serve two masters: God and money.
Most of all, they like it when we blame it all on those who are not actually part of the problem -- the poor, and the liberals who seek to help them.
You can comment on this post here.
Open Letter to All:
Imagine
August 30, 2009
Post 06
by Kay Street
In the current climate of the health care reform debate, it seems like all our questions are motivated by fear. Undoubtedly, this is an effect that some with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo are working to achieve. They seem to be quite good at their jobs. At this time, however, I would like to ask you to imagine what it might be like when we implement needed reforms. Instead of asking what might reform do to us, imagine asking what reform will do for us.
We ask, “What about my current insurance? Can I keep it?”
Along with asking, “Can I keep my current insurance?” We could ask about choices. What choices will the reform legislation give me? Imagine being able to get better coverage. Imagine being able to lower your premiums with more and better choices. We could ask about portability. Imagine insurance coverage that stays with you if you change jobs. Imagine coverage that is there for you and your family even if you lose your job. Imagine the security and piece of mind of knowing you and your family's health will always be taken care of. When your children grow and leave for college, or new jobs, and a place of their own, coverage will be waiting for them.
We ask, “What about my Doctor? Can I keep the same Doctor?”
Along with asking, “Can I keep my doctor?” We could again ask about choices. Imagine being free to change doctors at any time. Imagine making a move with coverage that moves with you, and being free to find a doctor of your choice in your new home. Imagine coverage that pays for screenings and preventative care keeping your family healthier. Imagine coverage that pays for in-home care in the case of a long-term illness, and without limits on the number of days or the total costs. Imagine being able to have that loved home with you during this most trying of times. Imagine having your doctor decide when you need to see a specialist. Imagine the freedom of being able to seek a second opinion from a doctor or specialist of your choice, and not the insurance company's choice. Imagine the security, the piece of mind, in knowing that all your health care choices will always be your choices for you and your family.
We ask, “Will I lose my insurance?”
We ask, “Will I have to pay more for health care than I do now?”
Instead of asking, “Will I lose my insurance?” Or asking, “Will I have to pay more for health care than I do now?” Imagine an efficient coverage system open to all, one that can control costs thereby making both coverage and health care less expensive for us all. Imagine the freedom of knowing coverage will always be there for you and your family. Freedom from the worry of losing both job and coverage during troubled economic times, when your family needs it most. Freedom from the medical debt and medical bankruptcies that plague our nation's people and drive up the cost of providing health care for us all.
Imagine the freedom of never being rejected for coverage. The current insurance model seeks out the healthiest, and least likely to need medical care as preferred customers, and typically does their best to reject or limit coverage for anyone else. Those with a pre-existing conditions (PEC), even in the unlikely event they can get coverage, the insurance companies refuse to offer benefits for any treatment related to the PEC for a period of up to two years.
Consider this true life example: A hard-working, self-employed woman that has always played by the rules, paid her own way, and made comfortable living, and accrued a tidy savings for retirement. At 50 years of age, her former insurance coverage was priced into un-affordability. During the next 2 years, as she searched for new, affordable coverage, she developed adult onset diabetes. This made the improbable search for coverage virtually impossible. Even in the unlikely event she could find affordable coverage, nearly every ailment for which she might seek treatment could be related to diabetes, and therefore denied benefits. So under the current insurance model, she would have to pay two years of premiums, plus her own medical expenses, and all with no guarantee that her coverage would not be dropped by the insurance company at any time1.
Imagine freedom from the limitations of the current insurance model. Freedom to have care provided no matter how long it takes or the how high the costs may run. In a typical “Standard Plan” in Maine, lifetime benefits are capped at 1 to 2 million dollars. This lifetime limit is absolute, even while insurance companies double or triple the yearly deductibles for a family plan, this lifetime cap remains the same – after reaching it, you're on your own.
Imagine being able to decide, along with your doctor or other practitioner, how often you need to see him or her. Under the same typical plan in Maine, the insurance company may limit the number of visits per year for certain treatments and for home care.
Imagine the freedom to be covered for all treatment equally, and the freedom of having your practitioner decide how much treatment you need and how often. In the typical Maine plan we are using, lifetime treatment benefits are sometimes severely restricted by categorizing the treatment. For example, mental health and substance abuse treatments can be subject to a lifetime limitation of as little as $7,500. Insurance companies also typically adjust the co-payment for these categories, often raising out of pocket costs by 150%; from a 20% co-pay to a 50% co-pay.
Imagine freedom from huge deductibles. In Maine, these out of pocket expenses can run from $250 per year for a high-end plan to $20,000 per year for a “major medical” plan for singles. For a family plan, these deductibles are doubled, or even tripled. These are applied anew each and every calendar year.
We ask, “What about taxes? Will you be taxing my benefits at work?”
Imagine a way to make taxation a boon to small businesses. Imagine cutting costs for providing health coverage for their employees by 50%, and ensuring every single worker -- from the business with 1 employee to the one with 199 employees (the cut-off point for the small business definition). These are the very businesses that supply 80% of new jobs! How exciting would that be?
How? Imagine a payroll tax, like Social Security, where small businesses pay into a trust that is used to finance employee health care. A flat tax, where everyone pays the same. One rate for single plan and a higher rate for a family plan. With an income cap, like Social Security, that would keep those with higher incomes from paying outlandish premiums.
How does this help? Small business, as a whole, suddenly rival even the largest firms in terms of both the number of people to be covered, and buying power. They can command the best of plans with the minimum of premiums, and maintain a large degree of employee benefit cost flexibility by letting the business decide the proportion of tax that is paid by the employer and by the employee. How do we arrive at the 50% savings figure? One example: compare the health benefit cost per person of GM to that of your neighborhood barber shop.
Another example: imagine the end of the sophisticated insurance scams that have arisen since the passage of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). While very beneficial to controlling employee benefit costs of very large firms, this act blurred the lines of authority to regulate insurers between the states and the federal government, and into this gray area moved the insurance scam artists. “According to a study by the General Accounting Office, between 2000 and 2002, there were 144 bogus insurer cases that sold policies to some 200,000 people, and left them a combined unpaid medical debt of $252 million dollars1.” The lion's share of this cost was borne by health care providers, which raises the cost of providing health care for all of us.
We ask, “Will there be cuts to Medicare reimbursements? How will poor, rural areas compete for trained medical personnel?”
We ask, “How much will it cost? How much will it add to the deficit spending and the total deficit?”
Imagine expanding this system to cover every single person regardless of PEC, regardless of age or infirmity, or likelihood of needing medical care. Imagine a return to the “community rate” model that worked so very well in the 1930's and 1940's, the heyday of the original Blue Cross.
Imagine a time when our grandmothers no longer have to choose between food and medicine. Imagine a time when her coverage provider works for her; using it's market power on her behalf to get the her the best deal possible.
Imagine a system where we actually get costs under control. Imagine a move from the world's most expensive health care system to the most efficient system that our ingenuity can invent. Imagine lowering costs by nearly half, from 16% of GDP to under 9%, where doctors, hospitals, and all other manner of health care providers know that everyone has health benefits, and everyone's bills will be paid. No more need to inflate costs for the uninsured, the under-insured, denied claims, or catastrophic illness that exceeds a patient's coverage. Imagine a system where Medicare reimbursements will be right in line with costs, and no one will lose by accepting them.
We ask, “Will a public option lead to socialized medicine by wiping out the private insurance industry?”
Imagine that it doesn't have to. Imagine a non-profit, low overhead provider, like the original Blue Cross, providing broad-based insurance coverage. Other companies can adapt to fill the inevitable niches that emerge in such a system such as gap coverage and disability coverage. But they will have to adapt to a leaner, more efficient system to survive. They will lose the market power to extort from us a 30% surcharge on our health benefits, and lose the power to limit our access to health care products and services, but these should never have been theirs to begin with.
We ask, “Is this a government take-over of health care?”
Again, it doesn't have to be. The government could manage a system such as I have imagined, but so could a well regulated, tax exempt, private, non-profit organization. Blue Cross did quite well with it for quite a numbers of years. However, the government has done as well for far longer with the portion of the health care system they currently manage. Medicare, VA and Native American health plans are extremely well liked and well managed. All government employees have excellent health benefits – just ask your Senators and Representative. Military health care for active duty personnel is almost totally socialized. There is no charge for any medical treatment of the active duty person or their dependents. This includes dental and eye care for the active duty personnel. The facilities are government owned and operated, and almost all medical personnel are government employees, and I don't hear many complaints about that system.
We ask, “Will illegal immigrants be able to get health care?”
I can't say for sure, but I can say that I prefer to be guided in my vision of change by a compassion for all people, so in a personal sense, I do hope so. But I doubt it. The number of illegals is so small in relation to the total population, that I can't see the harm, but I know that many feel the rights of Americans in America should be reserved solely for Americans – as if we can somehow claim the credit and entitlement simply for being lucky enough to be born here. But that's a philosophical debate I leave to those smarter and more just than I.
In summary, imagine a new health care landscape. One that eliminates the worst of the current system, and keeps the best intact. One that works for all Americans, and because of this – not in spite of it – allows us to control costs and emerge with the most efficient model we can devise. We can do this – make no mistake. By imagining the best of what American creativity and ingenuity can accomplish – we can do this! But we have to stand together! Together against the special interests for whom change seems undesirable. Together against the short-sighted, out of touch, “we can't” attitude in Congress. Together we can face, without fear or compromise, what we are being told is the worst that can happen, and we can stand up and demand the very best.
Note 1: This true story, quote and other facts from: Sick, 2007, by Jonathan Cohn.
Other facts and statistics from:
The Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust
maine.gov's Consumer Guide to Health Insurance
Sen. Collins' office has yet to respond to this issue.Sen. Snowe's office has yet to respond to this issue.
Rep. Michaud's office has yet to respond to this issue.
You can comment on this post here.
Lobbyist Leverage: Nothing New, but Why are They Trying to Stifle Us?
August 27, 2009
Post 5
by Kay Street
I'm a frequent correspondent with my congressional representatives, and I've long known that it's common practice among members of congress to lump such correspondence into categories and send out canned position papers as a reply to such inquiries. Recently, I conducted an experiment to see what would happen if one had questions about the content of the position paper. In my first attempt, I used the same channel as the original inquiry – the congress member's web site email form. I had wondered if, and truth be told fully expected, that I would get a copy of the exact same position paper. I was right.
This led me to ask the question: Why do lobby's and lobbyists command the level of influence they do. Is it solely a matter of campaign money and revolving door accessibility? Or is it, perhaps, something deeper?
I found that some lobby's apparently have the power to dictate to our government what they will and will not accept. Case in point:
“Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) agreed to cut $80 billion in projected costs to taxpayers and senior citizens over ten years. Or, as the memo says: "Commitment of up to $80 billion, but not more than $80 billion1."
In return for:
“...the White House agreed to oppose any congressional efforts to use the government's leverage to bargain for lower drug prices or import drugs from Canada -- and also agreed not to pursue Medicare rebates or shift some drugs from Medicare Part B to Medicare Part D, which would cost Big Pharma billions in reduced reimbursements1.”
Now both sides quickly backed away from this deal once it was made public, but that doesn't change the fact that it happened. It also points out that the very notion that such a deal was considered became a public embarrassment to both the White House and PhRMA once it became public knowledge.
Not surprisingly, this suggests that more than the standard quid pro quo, and revolving door access is at work here. It suggests that some lobby's have the clout to deliver votes in both houses. Again, considering Jack Abramoff, not surprising.
From my perspective, it seems like congress would want to do something about this system. Why be under someone's thumb when it's fairly easy to get out? Seems like they would be able to do more good with less strife and stress. Turns out, my perspective is not congress's perspective – not even close.
What is surprising, at least to me, is that the level of influence is as pervasive as it is because congress lets it be that way. It's a twisting maze of “I'll support your thing, if you support mine” with enough layers, shadings, and back door deals to make your head explode. The lobbyists expertly manipulate this to their advantage, and thus allows congress to be, frankly, lazy. Why try whip up support for a position, when -- for a simple selling of your integrity -- you can get a lobbyist to do it for you? So from the congressional perspective, the system works.
Now for the sinister underbelly: apparently there are some members of congress, who believe that “we the people” don't belong in the mix and need to be stifled, and have introduced legislation to achieve that end under the guise of “ethics reform.”
In 2007, the bill, S. 1: Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 20072, was being considered in the Senate, and contained a provision that required financial disclosures of any group “stimulating grassroots lobbying efforts.” This affects real lobbyists not at all, they already have such disclosure requirements, but for organizations like MoveOn.org, it could be quite burdensome, and even smaller sites, like Dirigo Blue, could be affected simply by taking reader donations, and subject to a $220,000 fine. Fortunately, the Bennett amendment, S.A. 20, stripped this provision from the bill by a 55 – 43 vote.
Also in 2007, H.R. 984: Executive Branch Reform Act of 20072, was considered by the House Oversight committee and contained a provision that “would require over 8,000 Executive Branch officials to report into a public database nearly any "significant contact" from any "private party." Although promoted as a regulation on "lobbyists," the bill defines "private party" as "any person or entity" except "Federal, State, or local government official or a person representing such an official3." This bill never came to a floor vote.
So basically, some in congress believe that if we, as citizens, want to exercise our right to petition the government, they want to know who we are, where we live, and if there's any money involved. Talk about your intimidation tactics!
Note 1: Internal Memo Confirms Big Giveaways In White House Deal With Big Pharma
Note 2: H.R. 984; Executive Branch Reform Act of 2007
Note 2: S. 1; Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007
Note 3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying
You can comment on this post here.
Dear Sen. Snowe:
That Explains Alot.
August 25, 2009
Post 04
by Kay Street
Thank you for sending a copy of the position paper you sent me last time I asked questions regarding health care reform. What, exactly, do I have to do to get my questions taken seriously?
I spent a great deal of time and effort to engage your office in a serious debate on an issue that closely affects me and my family. To have my thoughts simply lumped into a category and sent a canned reply is unacceptable. I deserve better. My family deserves better. The American people deserve better.
So please, let me know what it takes to get your attention. Do I have to register as a lobbyist? Start a PAC and contribute to your warchest?
Don't you see – this is exactly why you are so out of touch with the people of Maine and the American people. Your world begins and ends inside the beltway.
Note: This was an expected development, but still somehow very disappointing.
Sen. Snowe's office has yet to respond to this issue.
You can comment on this post here.
Dear Sen. Snowe, Sen. Collins, and Rep. Michaud:
Do You Believe? Part II
August 24, 2009
Post 03
by Kay Street
I'd like to talk to you, once again, about health care reform. I have decided to include each of you in all my future correspondence, and I would welcome any reply that each of you care to make.
Do you believe the following words to be true?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” -- Declaration of Independence
I believe they are not true. Though written and signed by men of great courage and foresight, they still failed. At that time, they failed include more than 50% of the population.
I believe these words have slowly become more accurate over the years. Today they include most of the population, but not all... so these words are indeed more accurate, but ultimately they are still not true. We have failed to fully realize what Lincoln called “our Grand Experiment.” By which he meant a true representative democracy, or as he put it “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
Why point this out? What does it have to do with health care reform? Everything. Like it or not, and most don't like it, the insurance industry is a form of government. A government accountable, not to the people, but only to profit.
The insurance companies levy taxes which they call premiums.
The insurance companies decide how much these taxes will be, and how they will be used.
The insurance companies decide who gets the benefits of these taxes making them the American people's gateway to all forms of medical care.
The insurance companies decide how much and for how long the American people will receive medical care.
The insurance companies decide who will be covered and who will not
The insurance companies even, at times, decide who will live and who will die.
All this might be acceptable – if this government were accountable to the American people whom it is supposed to serve. But it is not.
The insurance companies use the taxes levied not to enrich the lives of the American people, but to enrich themselves and their investors.
The insurance companies use their gateway not to ensure access to all, but to deny access to as many as possible
In short, it is, as the Declaration of Independence says a “form of government that has become destructive of the ends” of the American people's “right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
It is therefore our right to “alter or abolish it.” Given that this for-profit government has proven to be a dismal failure, it is high time we abolish it.
Congress says that it wants a chance to “fix” it. Here's another self-evident truth: This service is vital to the people's right to life, liberty and happiness -- to have profit and greed as it's primary motivation ensures that the goals of the insurance companies and the people are inherently at odds.
It's not complicated:
1. Insurance companies exist to make a profit.
2. Paying benefits costs money thereby decreasing profit.
3. Therefore the goal of insurance companies is not to pay benefits, but to deny them.
1. Consumers buy insurance in order to have access to medical care.
2. Medical care costs money.
3. Therefore the consumer needs the insurance companies to pay benefits, not deny them.
Anyone else see the conflict of interest here?
Not to mention that it is morally wrong to profit from the suffering of others
You can regulate it, but you can't change the current system's inherent conflict of interest. We must have a non-profit solution.
It is time to replace it with a proven system. It is time for Medicare for all. It is time for H.R. 676.
Note: “Do You Believe?” is a series of correspondence that asks the question: “Do you believe in the fundamental principles of government upon which our nation was founded?” It is intended both as a reminder, and an effort to show relevance in the debates of today.
Sen. Collins' office has yet to respond to this issue.Sen. Snowe's office has yet to respond to this issue.
Rep. Michaud's office has yet to respond to this issue.
You can comment on this post here.
Dear Sen. Snowe, Sen. Collins, and Rep. Michaud:
Do You Believe?
August 22, 2009
Post 02
by Kay Street
I'd like to talk to you, once again, about health care reform. I have decided to include each of you in all my future correspondence, and I would welcome any reply that each of you care to make.
At this time, I'd like to ask a very specific question: Do you believe health care to be a fundamental right of all Americans?
Do you believe that this right is implicit in the words:
”We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Or is sickness just another market to be exploited for profit?
Do you believe that Medicare, while not perfect, is a system that works? Do you believe in expanding this working system -- a Medicare for America -- to benefit all Americans?
Or will you struggle to save a failed system?
Do you believe that insurance companies taxing us 30 cents of every dollar we spend on health care is a broken system?
Or is this simply what the “market” will bear?
Do you believe that the insurance companies using this 30% tax to exclude the sick, to deny benefits, and to drop loyal customers that are “too expensive” for the bottom line, are symptoms of a broken system?
Or is this necessary workings of a free market?
Do you believe that all Americans have a right to see a doctor of their choice in a timely manner?
Or do you believe that the poor, the uninsured, and under-insured should have to wait until their child's simple cough and mild fever turns life threatening, only to go to a hospital for a desperate and worry-filled 5 hour wait in a crowded emergency room?
Do you believe that a doctor is best qualified to determine the length of a new mother's hospital stay?
Or should a 30% surcharge paid, bean counting, insurance company bureaucrat decide when to kick that women to the curb?
Do you believe a doctor is the best judge of what course of treatment is a woman's best chance to survive a fight with breast cancer?
Or should that 30% surcharge paid bean counter be able to deny treatment because it's “not covered” or “experimental?”
Do you believe that Americans should be able to have complete and continued access to their doctors, and all the care they need for a catastrophic illness?
Or should that 30% surcharge paid bean counter be able to say, “Sorry, but according to our records, you've been sick enough for this lifetime, no more health care for you.”
Please, let us know what you believe.
Sen. Collins' office has yet to respond to this issue.Sen. Snowe's office has yet to respond to this issue.
Rep. Michaud's office has yet to respond to this issue.
You can comment on this post here.
To All Maine's 2nd District Representatives:
Are You Really That Blind?
August 21, 2009
Post 01
by Kay Street
Sen. Snowe, you recently took a walk in Bangor, and talked with some people about health care. First, a sincere thank you for making yourself available. It means a lot to us.
I found myself intrigued by the Bangor Daily News coverage of the event. Here is an excerpt of a conversation with Dr. Kathryn Bourgoin:
"The senator, as cool as anyone could be on a 90-degree day, agreed that Medicare has worked well for the nation’s seniors. “But, I’m not as confident that government can run an entire system,” Snowe said." - Snowe talks health care on Bangor walk; The Bangor Daily News, August 20, 2009, By Eric Russell.
Interesting perspective, to say the least, since you seem to have the utmost confidence that, with a little reform, the private sector can run an entire system just fine. How is that even possible? It defies all logic.
Please.... please... PLEASE, take off your ideological blinders that tell you the “free market” works best in any situation, and look at the evidence.
Medicare has a long, successful track record, as you have admitted, an overhead of 4%, and the person running it makes $150,000 a year.
The private sector insurance companies, on the other hand, have an average of 30% overhead, and an average CEO salary in excess of $10,000,0001. These companies preside over the most expensive system in the world, we pay 50% more for our health care than the next closest industrialized country, and we pay that premium for a quality of service that ranks 37th in the world, and dead last among the top 19 industrialized nations2.
Great Britain has government run health care, and spends just 6% of it's GDP on health care. The United States spends 17% of the GDP of the largest economy on the planet, yet the WHO ranks Great Britain's system 18th in the world compared to 37th for United States2.
Afraid of rationing? Try getting into an emergency room in any U.S. city, on any given evening. In his book, Sick: The Untold Story of America's Health Care Crisis – and the People Who Pay the Price, Jonathan Cohn tells the story of a 55 year old Boston woman with heart disease. One evening at 4:35pm, following her collapse and a 911 call, the responding ambulance was turned away, due to over-crowding, from the emergency room of the closest hospital [within 5 minutes] equipped to deal with her condition. She was re-routed to another nearby hospital whose trauma team did not have the means to perform the life saving procedure she required. By 7:03pm that evening, she had died.
Why the crowding, and hence the rationing? Because the under-insured and uninsured have no choice but to go to emergency rooms for any treatment they need. You see, to have a regular primary care physician and office visits, they pretty much insist on having insurance and/or immediate payment. While emergency rooms cannot, by law, refuse emergency treatment. So these people literally have to wait until a condition becomes an emergency!
Why is this true? Put simply, so H. Edward Hanway (Cigna) can retire with a $73 million golden parachute1, and Ronald Williams (Aetna) can make $18.6 million a year1. What do we get for paying this exorbitant compensation? They develop better and better ways to raise premiums, deny claims, exclude the sick from coverage, and purge customers who actually, you know, use the insurance to get health care (the audacity!). Also known as making a profit in a free market, but yeah, Senator, big government is the problem.
Senator, what exactly, considering the above, makes you so confident in the private insurers? Your reform? Your oft-touted SHOP Act doesn't even ban discriminatory practices such as pre-existing conditions. Fostering competition? Your bill fails there too, Senator, a co-op for shopping? No matter how many co-ops you form, there are still only 8 major players, and they don't need your co-op as badly as you need them... According the economics I studied, that still leaves them in the driver's seat on pricing.
What makes me so sure? Because some states, like Maine, already have consumer protection laws that these companies don't want to deal with... so they just don't offer insurance here. What's your plan on that?
Seriously, what is your plan? Since the Finance Committee is keeping the details of their plan under wraps (somewhat understandably, I admit) during negotiations, we really don't know anything but the broad strokes. According to the Washington Post, It will cover an estimated 94% of Americans -- eventually. Here's an interesting quote from article: “The Finance Committee coalition is seeking compromise on some of the most complex issues facing Congress [such as]... ...who and how many should be allowed to remain uninsured.”
Yet, even as you sit your taxpayer sponsored; socialized; all visits, screenings, and procedures 100% covered; health insured persons around your conference table deciding whom to exclude, you people have the nerve, the unmitigated gall, to call the provisions of H.R. 3200, Sec. 1233 monstrous, evil, dangerous? You have the temerity to lie about bureaucrats making life-critical decisions they have no business making? It's becoming easy to see where you get your material.
Congress needs to come to grip a certain fact: Only a non-profit, low overhead organization is going to fix this. So, tell us Senator, what's wrong with Medicare for everyone again?
By the way, I have an idea. How about we leave members of congress, and all the congressional support staff serving congress as a whole uninsured? The co-ops are your idea, how about you buy your insurance there?
1. Source: AFL-CIO, 2009 Executive Pay Watch
2. Source: World Health Organization, World Health Report
Sen. Collins' office has yet to respond to this issue.Sen. Snowe's office has yet to respond to this issue.
Rep. Michaud's office has yet to respond to this issue.
You can comment on this post here.