johnvano.com

He's Not Heavy, He's My... Actually, He is Pretty Heavy

The health care debate swirling about us is a subject I hate. Not because I don't see a need for reform, but because of the way we are once again split into warring sides, half nodding their allegiance to a plan they have not read, but feel in their heart of hearts is right and moral. The other half digging their heels in to stop what they feel is the end of civilization as we know it, or at least, the Democratic Republic for which we stand. 

I believe that tension is a useful law of the universe. When two connected halves are pulling away from each other, the tension restrains them from complete and total fracture. That is why we have had a largely effective two-party system for the last 150 years. It is good that there are conservatives and liberals. We are meant to balance each other, but I'm afraid, that over the past two decades, there have been few things one side hasn't ramrodded into the other. Discourse is a lost art form.

This brings me to the current turmoil. Should the federal government exercise a mandate to take up the health care costs of every uninsured individual, and in so doing, take money from those who are likely the insured--in a time of recession and diabolical deficits? Perhaps I tip my hand just a bit in my wording of this question, but my largest concern is in how we pay for this proposal, how we ensure the success of it if it becomes law, and in the legal right of the federal government to take such action. I acknowledge that these concerns of mine ignore the emotional sides of the argument--that no one wants people to be uncared for, neglected, or destroyed for lack of access to medical care. That is a good and noble desire, but it should not cloud us from making a wise choice regarding the solution.

The slogan du jour on Facebook.com today was this: 

No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day.

I don't have all the answers, in fact, I have very few. What I do have are questions, issues I hope to explore to some level of satisfaction. My first question is this: Are you asked about your medical insurance when you call 911 or an ambulance? If you're rushed into the ER, clearly in crisis, are you denied treatment? I don't think this is so, perhaps these instances do fall under the second category of the above statement of belief, that 'you shouldn't go broke' because you need medical care. Perhaps coverage is denied to those uninsured who have more gradual forms of decay, disease, and debilitation.

How much is our inability to pay for medical care outside of insurance a product of the insurance system itself, and the litigation that has followed? If most of America expected to pay out-of-pocket for prescriptions and office visits, how much less expensive would the costs be with the elimination of the middle man? I know we can't begin to go back to this bygone age, but still, it's a question. There is concern today for the young--those who are least likely to be insured. How much is coverage for a single, 20-something anyway? This is supposing they can't get covered from their college or an employer. Would the cost of such coverage--taken with the understanding that we live by paying cash for things, not incurring rotating monthly payments for things--be equal to or less than the tax burden of this same 20-something to pay for their government-provided health care? I don't know.

Another thing that concerns me, besides my suspicion that very few of our representatives have read the bill they'll soon vote on, is all of the varied policies that are conjectured to be in a final bill. Things like: denying coverage to those who are deemed to have made 'poor life choices', or paying for abortions (which terminate life), or suggesting non-treatment of illness because of one's age and the need to look out for those who are younger.

What I do know is this: the federal government has failed and failed again with massive programs. The areas of medicine that the government is currently involved in are going broke. They seem unable to fix these problems, how can they begin something new, on a much grander scale, and hope to succeed?

I've looked over the Constitution of the United States, and the only thing that seems to have any bearing whatsoever on this issue is in Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce... etc.  (Read more)

There is much that follows, but nothing about securing the medical care of the citizens, or collecting taxes for that end. The closest we get is in that phrase 'for the common defense and general welfare of the United States'. The instances listed below this include 17 examples of what this welfare consists of, and none of it brings us close to what we are proposing in the legislature and from today's White House.

Of course, this brings me back to the opening of my post. We are two warring sides, unwilling to entertain discourse on the subject. I have a hope that we would go back to the documents that define us to guide us today, and to clarify what is permitted. But I know that is wistful thinking. We are left with the problem: how can we help our disadvantaged citizens without crippling our future and disregarding our past? I am in search of the answer.

So He's Doing It

The President I didn't vote for is on his bully pulpit again. Pronouncing health care for all! If you like what you've got--keep it, he says. We're not going to take anything away from you, he says. But in his effort to secure insurance for an estimated 50 million uninsured Americans, large corporations to small companies will no doubt be tempted to wipe their hands of the trouble insurance causes for them. 

If this passes, count on the gap to close between the currently uninsured and the soon-to-be uninsured as Americans quickly become completely dependent on the government for health care. If we can even call it that, socialized system after socialized system is replete with stories of failures in the medical system, long waiting lists to see doctors, and the denial of tests and procedures. 

The President I didn't vote for has also headed down the road of anti-smoking legislation, and he won't stop there. Watch as he enacts rules about how much cake a 50-year-old with 15 pounds to lose can eat. Watch him deny coverage to someone who doesn't take "enough" care of himself. The government becomes our mother in this scenario, providing sustenance for us. This should not be!

The government should get the flip away from our private lives--protect our borders, pave our roads, be a cooperative extension of the American people. I have never seen a president pursue change with the reckless abandon of this guy, so much for crossing the aisle, working together, he has come into office with an agenda to eradicate everything America stands for as quickly as he can, before America wakes up and screams. Once we launch these medical "reforms" they will be very difficult to undo, not something a new election can remedy.

I know I have spoken in some hyperbole here, but this is getting ridiculous, and many of us are feeling increasingly helpless to do anything to change the changes.

I'm a Georgia Voter!

My plan worked, though I mildly "freaked" and didn't stick completely to the plan. If I saw the lines at my precinct wrapping around the church, I was to head to Starbucks and kill some time--I didn't, getting in line with everyone else. From previous experience at this precinct, I knew by the length of the line that I had about a two hour wait--and I voted in two hours, six minutes (at 9:42 am). Trouble was, by the time I had voted the line was about one quarter as long as when I arrived. Slap forehead now.

The guy in front of me massaged his Blackberry while in line, and the 62-year-old black woman who arrived just behind me tried to wink her way to the front of the line by alleging to be John McCain's son. We shared a cordial laugh about that one, so she tried it on the Indian/Pakistani woman who joined us next. Some very dedicated poll workers fussed over us, passing out hot chocolate, coffee, water bottles, and offering portable chairs. We were thanked kindly for our patronage.

Near the front of the line, a man walked about with an electronic notebook, assisting anyone who had doubts about their precinct--a little late, we all thought. Why wasn't he at the back of the line? When a guy behind me answered his cell phone he walked off a short distance to take the call. My friend, John McCain's son, mentioned that he needed to tie his shoelaces, to which his wife responded, "He never ties his shoes. Except at work. I try to get him to at least tuck them in, but he won't do it."

I didn't dress appropriately for the weather--electing a short-sleeved polo shirt and shorts for the 55 degrees and sunny weather. I got goosebumps as I read the October 20 issue of The New Yorker. Inside, I read one columnist's assurances that text messaging doesn't signal the end of intelligent discourse and appropriate language, I read a long summary of Emily Post's life, of Joe Biden's selection as VP and his evolving friendship with Obama, and most insightful of all was this piece on the history of candidate biographies--it all began with Andrew Jackson and continues today.

Once inside Bethany Baptist Church, standing at the voting machine, I got the shimmers. These happen every year as I poke the stick at the screen. I worry that I'm going to accidentally vote for the wrong guy/girl. That somehow I will overlook my mistake and unwillingly contribute to something I oppose. But I triple-checked, and my vote always looked right.

** If you enjoyed this reflection, read "Ode to the Sticker Man" also on johnvano.com.

My Mad Experiment

I'm trying to outfox the other voters. Early elections took place all last week at the library just around the corner from my house. I dropped by at different times throughout the week to judge the best time to go. With this research and observation, I dropped my wife off to vote at 2:45 on Thursday. She was done in two hours, 45 minutes; far better than the 4-6 hours of many others. But as I saw the statistics on early voting pouring in, I determined that I would be better off voting on election day.

Here's why: The highest voter turnout in the last 50 years was 64% of registered voters. At the conclusion of early voting in Georgia, 35% of registered voters had cast a ballot. So if numbers hold, fewer people are yet to vote than those who have voted. Then consider this: these long lines were the result of people from 10-15-20 miles away, coming to select polling centers. But on election day, you go to a precinct that serves a much smaller pool of people. One of our friends, who lives about 20 minutes away, came to our library to vote--she probably lives 10 precincts away!

I should note that I did not use my wife as a guinea pig so I could know when to vote; she "had" to vote early. We're leaving on vacation at noon tomorrow, on Tuesdays she teaches at our kids' once-a-week homeschool co-op. If we were going to hit the road at noon, she needed to vote early.

So tomorrow I'll drop by the polls before they open at 7, and if it's too crowded, I'll go to Starbucks and circle back around to wait in line about 9. Let's see if this works.

Charles Krauthammer's Case for McCain

He's more eloquent than I... see what you think.

America's Choice Now

It's jut one issue in the presidential race, but it's a pretty darn toot'n important one. Watch video compilation.

Just Stop Talking

Remember when you were young and had an overly zealous auntie who'd come to visit? She'd expect you to greet her with a big sloppy kiss--on the lips. So what would you do? If you were young enough, you might just hide from her advances... or, you could confront her and offer a handshake instead.

Every time I turn on the news, or pick up a magazine or newspaper, I feel like that little boy hiding under the couch. Please, just leave me alone. I don't want your candy, don't need your help, and feel no affection for you. Stop forcing yourself on me! Stop cramming your candidate down my throat...

I get it "Good Morning America," with your 9 minutes of opening coverage on one candidate. I get it scrolling news bar with your three positive notes about one candidate and your two negatives about another. I get it, journalists with your full coverage of Alaska's hiring and firing practices but blissful ignorance of any other conflicts of interest.

Now let me get back to that left over bagel I found under here...

The Market Should Punish Bad Behavior

U.S. Representative John Linder (R-GA) has a great perspective on the federal bail-out bill. Read his recent article. Here's a quote:

"We, in Congress, tend to think that we can somehow repeal the laws of economic consequences.  We cannot.  What we are doing at this moment is voting to insinuate the decisions of the federal government into the capital markets.  We are picking winners and losers.  Does anyone believe that we can ever get the government back out?  France has tried this and failed. ...Government intrusion in those markets only distorts them.  You will find my name in the NO column!"

The Sub-Prime Candidates Speak

Both sub-candidates in Thursday's vice presidential debate were clear, well spoken, and relatable. Each gave deference to the other's work and perspective. It was a discussion that did not make me sick or apoplectic, which is a considerable win. I didn't feel that either combatant had much to teach or tell, other than that their ways are best, and their history tells all. It is not the expected formula to veer either from your own track record or from your opponent's past, but as Governor Palin suggested, it would be nice to see a debate on what should and can be done, instead of backward thinking and promises. For what it's worth, she didn't have much to say in terms of this exploration, though I did like the point.

How They Did

I found Sarah Palin to be winsome, informed, and relatable. She has a talent for expressing herself, and for being self-effacing. That said, I didn't think she hit any home runs, just a lot of sharp singles. For Joe Biden, his emphatic and passionate style seemed to me the difference in this debate. Palin seemed unfazed and perpetually perky, while Biden seemed just a smidge angry and busted up, like he might want to take names and get to work. He was particularly sharp when discussing the role of a vice president and in combatting John McCain's "maverick" label. 

In the interest of fairness, I will disclose that my belief system leans toward Palin's and that my vote is going to the McCain-Palin ticket, but in terms of resonating and influencing, Biden had the stronger overall effect. Though his maverick counterpunch was effective, I don't believe it was fair. He wondered how McCain could be much of a maverick when his votes and policies most often resemble Bush, but Biden would like us to forget the thorn McCain has been in the side of much of the Republican leadership over the years, far more of a thorn than Obama has ever been with his own party. The maverick points have to go to the one who most often crosses the aisle.

Palin Offers Hope... Could She Be the Next Reagan?

John McCain seems to have taken my advice by going for some counter-programming in his VP nominee. I humorously suggested that he go for an Obama "clone," since with Biden, he was "cloned" by Obama. He listened, but chose a "Hillary" instead. Though this one delivers a speech like Ronald Reagan--assured, whimsical, on point, and endearingly, with a sharp point when needed.

Sarah Palin wouldn't have been my first choice--but I'm crazy about her as a person, as a professional, and especially as a speaker. With his pick, McCain got people talking about his campaign again--hopefully for him, he won't be overshadowed.

Doesn't he look like Popeye in this picture?