EDITORIAL: The Obamacare Repeal Endgame(s)

This image and corresponding graphic are property of BusinessInsider.com

As I sit to write this article I still find myself struggling to understand the goal of the Senate GOP Health Care bill(s). Obviously, the overall ideology and goal is to reduce the role of the federal government involvement in individual’s healthcare leaving it for the states to decide the fate of healthcare within their own borders. The goal is to make the system more competitive and drive down the costs for individuals across the nation. Along with reducing funding to Medicaid, the tax increases that Obama put into place will expire and a significant amount of money, over time, will go back into the pockets of rich Americans. They will theoretically trickle that accumulated wealth back down to those in abject poverty, create jobs and a better America. Many Americans may benefit from this bill while another portion of vulnerable Americans will find that this bill does little to help their standard of living or make the cost of healthcare easier to bear.

I plan to concede to several facts regarding the ACA and it may be worthwhile to mention them up front and get them out of the way: 1) Yes, some individuals in the United States had higher premiums once the ACA was made law. 2) Yes, young healthy individuals who did not want healthcare had to buy in or were subject to fines (ideologically an infringement upon the right of an individual to make their own health decisions) 3) The ACA did little to drive down the cost of medicine like medical procedures, exams, preventative medical appointments, consultations, surgeries etc. 4) Even though the ACA was signed into law on average we (as Americans) still pay more for less than other westernized countries in terms of healthcare.

There! I have conceded several facts regarding the ACA.

At ModState we try to bring every non-violent view to the table to glean broader perspectives revolving around the major issues of the day. Healthcare continues to galvanize our tribal cores pitting strong ideological views on the right to the social justice advocates on the left.

From the 2016 Debate betwixt Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) versus Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on CNN

Which path do we travel down and which is truly better for our country? Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz had a very mature debate regarding healthcare on CNN, in 2016, and it was apparent Ted Cruz felt that the slippery slope of federal government involvement in your personal life was taking place while Bernie Sanders felt that the definition of access to healthcare was disingenuous because anyone can walk into a hospital or clinic (access) but that doesn’t mean you can afford the treatment you need. With a background in medicine, I bring both firsthand experience of what could transpire when you reign in federal funding to expanded Medicaid system leaving vulnerable Americans in an even more tenuous position. Generally, the more vulnerable individuals like the elderly, those with disabilities and people in extreme poverty have more health issues, or comorbidities, including an increased mortality rate. Another concession…YES there are elderly, people with disabilities and Americans in extreme poverty who do play the system. There are also rich Americans who play the system as well whether that be taxes, off-shore banking etc.

So, I refuse to be disingenuous and not admit to these issues. Overwhelmingly, there are more people on Medicaid and Medicare that need those programs than there are those who just “playing the system.” Is it smart to demonize an entire population of people because a small majority of people play the system?

What if I told you that by shredding these programs the majority of these law-abiding hard-working Americans will continue to get sick. In fact, if we strip these programs and the ability to afford healthcare that these vulnerable population will most likely forgo preventative medical treatment, consultations and visits because of cost and not seek healthcare until the cost of that care is exponentially higher than routine visits. In this case this bill will never get paid and will be a cost incurred by our entire society. Access to healthcare that is affordable and reliable can help drive down costs over-time by reducing inpatient hospital stay and possible highly expensive procedures specialists because of quality management by their primary healthcare MD. I truly believe that both the right and the left have the same exact goal overall but the GOP Senate Bill moves us away from this goal in a rather glaring way with no real alternative plan for affordable access for all Americans. A recent study showed that the cardiac arrest rate dropped 17% in middle age adults since the ACA expanded coverage. This is directly attributed to preventive healthcare access.

They’re picking on their own here, but we feel your pain, Idaho: at least your state legislature wasn’t home to the throwing of fried chicken within its walls. Thanks to BetterIdaho.org for their clever (if unfortunate) image

Now, let’s put “cardiac arrest” into perspective: cardiac arrest means your heart stops. Unless CPR is initiated and a pressure is maintained throughout your body then the lack of perfusion to your organs will render you dead in minutes. If you are resuscitated the rehabilitation from return-of-circulation (your heart starts again) to walking out of the hospital is lengthy and unbelievably expensive. Yes, a large portion of these out of hospital cardiac arrest patients will die but the cost to the social fabric and the overall economic burden of both the death and those who live is extensive and can be devastating. If we are seeing significant decreases in these events it is hard to provide an argument that says we should pull funding to these programs that have allowed for our fellow countrymen to have better and safer lives. Situations like this are part of the reasons why organizations like the American Medical Society could not, in good faith, support the Senate bill that has been drafted. Out-of-hospital cardiac arrests is just one example of what could happen as we give more and more Americans greater access to affordable healthcare. What I have left out of this article is the increased access to low cost reproductive health and family planning clinics, and OBGYN clinics for pre-natal healthcare which would drop the infant mortality rate and help boost our overall healthcare rating in the world. 

A major goal of the Senate Bill is to reduce federal spending and essentially save money over the next several years. Ideologically and fiscally this is not such a bad idea ,as our federal debt continues to rise (as noted on the ModState homepage). What unfortunately looks bad is the ideological outcome of their proposed plan. Stripping away safety nets (please note my abortion piece about the dissolution of safety nets because of ideology) will only create a greater burden on society as a whole whilst the richer Americans will undoubtedly receive tax breaks that will amount to a large sum of money over the next several years. So that means we are stripping safety nets for the poor and giving money back to the rich. I am not aligned with one political belief over another but the irony and disgust that people see in this situation does not elude me.

People don’t miraculously stay healthy when they cannot afford healthcare, and the idea that the states will step and fund these Medicaid and Medicare programs is taking a leap of faith. Again, I cannot stress enough that reducing federal government involvement doesn’t necessarily mean that the states will step up and help their disenfranchised citizens nor will they be able to bear the burden of funding all of their Medicaid and Medicare recipients. We should approach this situation as a team and partners with governors and capitol hill civil servants working together to develop a plan that benefits everyone. Recently both the governor of Colorado and Ohio met with senators on capitol hill to discuss plans for healthcare reform. This was an important meeting because if the GOP gets their way when the healthcare bill is voted upon these state governors will have to bear the burden of reduced funding to their states and will have to implement plans that will allow for their populations to remain safe and have access to affordable care. Bear in mind the majority of Americans find this bill wildly unpopular.

NPR/PBS/NewsHour/Marist poll came out that shows 55% disapprove of this plan while other surveys show that only 17% of Americans approve of this plan. The Congressional Budget Office found that roughly 22 million Americans would not have healthcare by 2026 although there would be a cut to the national deficit by roughly 300 billion dollars. Remember that these 22 million Americans are not necessarily individuals who do not want the individual mandate but people who will simply not be able to afford healthcare. Their departure from affordable healthcare will most certainly create a greater burden to America due to their inability to procure the affordable comprehensive healthcare that the need. We need a plan able to be implemented throughout the whole system instead of a hand-full of older, white male Senators secretly devising an ideologically-based plan that theorize with people’s lives. American lives.

Wellein, Nate S.

Six Degrees of Knowin’ Nothin’: [Untitled]

And on the 8th day, God made bears. Lots and lots of bears.

Does this era need introduction? Or, rather, may a suitable introduction be written? I report, you deride.

1: In any rational era, the sudden appearance of lurid photographs of well-known public figures tends to happen without the consent of those captured in the images. Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton, Anthony Weiner, et al. Notable exceptions to this are of the celebutante variety who sport last names such as Hilton and Kardashian, but then, their deliberate release of self-incriminating material isn’t indicative of a rational era.

That there’s a Stairway to Heaven but a Highway to Hell is indicative of expected traffic volume.

The great Jerry Falwell, Jr., well his undeniable greatness as an Evangelical Christian minister and university president is so ineffable, so vast, that he was no longer able to be confined by any notion of modern decency. If that’s still a thing, that is. Either way, the photograph posted containing the erstwhile head of Liberty University (and descendent of the late and decent Jerry Falwell) is disturbing on several counts. Let’s take a look:

Now, I’m not sure if it’s the ghastly attempt at humor (yeah, “black water”, haw haw haw!), the self-caricature of the gut and the unzipped pants combined with the awful rug on his counterpart (who is not his wife, for those keeping score at home), the fact that students of said Evangelical university get expelled for drinking and/or extra-marital sexual encounters, or that this wasn’t a leak at all that makes this such a disgrace. He could’ve just said it was a faux Black Dog in his glass and been done with it.

The man (so-called) “leaked” it via his own social media aperture, and then delivered a truly abysmal mockery of an apology on-air, and I quote: “I’ve promised my kids I’m going to try to be…I’m gonna try to be a good boy from here on out.” Rock and Roll, Jerry!

Oh and Mrs. Falwell, when your marriage does end, remember: you [expletive deleted] your rebound, and that’s it. You don’t permanently abscond from reality and keep [expletive deleted] them long-term and/or marry them. Especially, I might add, if you plucked them from the extras of “The Walking Dead.”

Silly me. But seriously, though: booze and Evangelicals and social media shouldn’t mix.

2: At times, the headlines write themselves. In their own attempt to swing loose with reality, as it were, Iran has a fabricated aircraft carrier resembling one of those wielded by the United States Navy. “Why”, you ask? An entirely unscripted and well-placed question. For their own propaganda purposes that is, until the entire experiment blew up in their faces. Living out their own version of “delirium tremens”, Iran was so successful in this charade that their accidental destruction of a prop US Navy aircraft carrier poses a threat to a major thoroughfare in the oil trade. Posing an existential threat to traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, and things apparently unbeknownst to Iran such as tides can shift the wreckage, endangering oil tankers.

Give the Ayatollah our best. Speaking of “the best”, if you’re going to challenge the world’s preeminent naval power, you’d better come correct. The Battle of Evermore this is not.

3: Biden must face Trump in debate(s). Yes, it’s answering a “double dog dare” from the POTUS and no, you don’t want to give in to the whims of a bully. But if you don’t follow through then it looks like you’re hiding in a basement and afraid to face Donald J. Trump on the stage. What’s the worst that could happen? They then “triple dog dare” one another to a lindy hop dance-off to the “Misty Mountain Hop” or hand out four sticks (one to both members of each ticket) to swing with? Why would you be afraid of that if you’re in the Biden camp unless, per the Trump camp’s assertions, the former Vice President will be unable to remember whether he’s going to California, or another, “y’know, the thing” that the Founding Fathers said? The great equalizer is the human ego. They’ll debate.

This is an event waiting to go wrong. Don’t hang out with bears. [image credit to Daily Caller & Barstool Sports]
4: Meanwhile, the National Park Service has posted a warning urging American adventurers not to confront bears but, if they do, to not take advantage of their slower companions. And no, this is not made up. Nor is the response of a pack of humans, recently, to a bear arriving in their midst. They didn’t flee or otherwise attempt to discourage the bear; instead they took pictures of their merry band whilst feeding the bear. Good call, ‘Murica.

5: Bill Barr’s appearance was a disgrace for everyone except the Attorney General. For committee chairman Nadler, to open the hearing with that statement was an outrage; and Jordan, thanks for the monologue on things that happened before Barr was back on the job and for God’s sake put your damn coat on!

6: Stat of the Week: the POTUS’ campaign is knocking on 1 million doors a week; the former VPOTUS’ camp is knocking on 0. As in ZERO. Z-E-R-O. This sort of nonsense only seems like nonsenseuntil the time when the levee breaks. Underestimate the mad media genius of The Donald at your peril.

Y’know what? Let’s just cancel everything. If everything’s priority one, then nothing is priority one.
Read More

Contrast: Black Lives Matter v. All Lives Matter (et al)

Black Lives Matter: Let’s cut through the fat together, shall we? Yes or yes? Good. With that, we have a problem in America. Several, actually. We live in a police state, for one thing, and for another, paramount now, is said police state taking a particular interest in African Americans.

Let’s also consider the unbelievable, highly-classified powers of FISA courts to spy unopposed on our own people without their knowledge indefinitely, the ability of the Federal government to suspend the Constitutional rights of American citizens suspected of terrorism via the Patriot Act and the inexplicable repeal of the Smith-Mundt Act (which forbade the Federal Government from using propaganda on American soil). Are you drinking what I’m pouring?

With no malice in my heart toward the many fine police officers across the land (a few I’ve known personally), I say again: we live in a police state.

Over the past decade alone, we have seen increasing examples of the use of excessive force on a disproportionate number of black Americans. Data clearly shows that Whites compose 76.5% of America’s citizenry while Blacks make up 13.4% of it, the former were shot to death by police 370 times versus 235 for the latter.

For those who want to bring out FBI data displaying prevalence of crime amongst inner city black neighborhoods, recall the negligible difference in drug use between whites and blacks and the parity in gun culture between the two.

America glorifies violence, and that crosses ethnic lines. Don’t believe me? Look at what I call “Dollar Voting”, in essence, what we value and spend our money on. What does our art and culture reflect? If we’re being real, it ain’t peace. Does hip hop culture lend itself to violence? Listen to the top ten hits of the genre and get back to me; but before you get back to me, let me know what Johnny Cash, Waylon Jennings, Jerry Reed and “The Dukes of Hazzard” were all about while you’re at it.

As for the movement itself, “Black Lives Matter” is driving home a simple point: yes, every house in the neighborhood matters but only one of them is on fire.

We hardly need a hashtag for Blue (Police) Lives Matter; they roam about largely unopposed, vested with a badge and lethal weaponry, and we provide a safety net (union, pension, et cetera) and, in general, blanket support to include the high probability that bad actors aren’t held accountable in court.

All Lives Matter? Do they? Maybe I’d be more decisive in answering these questions if every new episode of “Death By Cop” didn’t always star a black man.

– Jack DeViney

*************

 

New Orleans Police Department preps for ongoing confrontation and protest throughout downtown.

All Lives Matter(?): Two things can be true at once. In fact, very few things in our world are mutually exclusive of themselves. One can, for example, be in favor of the events in the George Floyd case never happening again and find the phrase “Black Lives Matters” offensive. They are not mutually exclusive. Both can be true. This depends on your definitions of words. Words matter. Words have meaning. Facts matter. Facts have meaning.

If by any definition, one is not a racist, but they will not stand shoulder to shoulder with Black Lives Matter signs, or they won’t kneel down in front of a mob of protestors, they become….what? Insensitive? Divisive?

To be true to this point, I believe “All Lives Matter” or “Blue Lives Matter” are equally asinine. We don’t protest on things we agree upon. We don’t stand outside and shout “the sky is blue”!

Are things worse now than the mid-1960’s? Or do we see public discord in 3D now? We report, you deride.

The assertion that a black man can not step from his home without fear of imminent death from a racist ‘Mericuh is as equally preposterous as the media’s “1619” narrative that America is as systemically racist as at any time in our history. Really? Where’s the poll of young, black men asking them if they’d rather live in 1865, 1965 or 2020? I must’ve missed that astute revelation.

Instead of regurgitated statistics that the left/media refuse to acknowledge anyway, how about we come at this from a novel approach. [So] what is your suggestion? I mean, with all of the statistics stating the exact opposite of your point, what are we doing wrong? Are our hiring standards too low? Is training being swept aside to fast-track officers onto beats? Do we provide immunity to officers that is unnecessary and counter-productive? Let’s get to the “nut cutting” as they say.

If we want to turn this into another narrative where the right just refuses to admit there is a substantial issue and is instead hiding behind years of conservative practices…show me! Where are the statistics that support any of this nonsense? That show America is systemically racist and prejudiced against black Americans? Where are the politicians that you are particularly citing as responsible for these aggressions? Or is it just “orange man bad”, with his “basket of deplorables”?

“You’re killing your father, Larry!”

Once again, the left/media have overplayed their hands. We were told millions of Americans would die if we didn’t shut the world down indefinitely. Now if you have a small business and want to re-open smartly so that you don’t lose everything, you’re killing grandma! We were told that if we would just allow LGBT marriages, all examples of bigotry would be history. Now if you’re a Millennial male that won’t go out with a trans-woman (a man by all scientific facts and definitions), you’re a homophobe! And now, if you won’t march to the beat of this drum, well, you’re just a racist. Or worse, an “Uncle Tom.”

It’s tiring. It’s divisive. It’s unnecessary. This issue is one we must agree on, or we don’t have a country. You cannot have law and order if one group is being systematically hunted down and killed by those sworn to protect us.

Facts matter. Statistics matter. Two things can be true at once.

– Michael R. DeViney, Jr.

Read More

Fabriqué en Babylon: Meanwhile

With the majority of public discourse non-existent and what discussion does occur usually ending acrimoniously, I recalled a lesson (from the past) learned the hard way: in life, there are times the rules are such that, indeed, sometimes the only way to win is not to play.

Politics is considered the art of the compromise, or “the game of compromise,” to suit the lesson. Now, I don’t know if IQs dropped, if we forgot, if the entire paradigm changed despite the entire pantheon of examples (of public discourse), or if it’s an all-of-the-above that’s closer to where we’re at, but we’ve forgotten. One way or another, it’s that simple.

As “The Great Experiment”, that means that this is a failure as a nation. A failure to even try to communicate and find some semblance of common ground, to find a way to even try to be civil and respect one another’s time to speak, to actually listen to a message before deciding what it means and how we view that meaning, to even agree to try and communicate at all.

You see, the trick is in self-control. Before picking up your pitchforks and torches or, worse, leaving altogether, let the damned man have a few final words.

Fistfight breaks out in Turkish parliament

I say “self-control” is the key, if there is one, because in order for public discourse to function where there’s debate, dialogue and (hopefully) resolution at some point, we must individually approach this forum with the intention of conducting one’s self in a civil manner no matter what the opposition says or how they say it.

The first impulse is outrage, I’m aware, followed by some variant of, “So what do we do when [insert example of national Democrats and/or Republicans] start acting the fool?” And that’s precisely where, following my abandonment of my personal Facebook and Twitter accounts that the lesson learned previously (“sometimes the only way to win is not to play”) I remembered that silence isn’t always concession. Sometimes, it might be easy to think, “Ahp! Yep, see, DeViney’s silent so he’s conceding,” when, the truth is, I’ve also come to embrace another tactic summarized best as, “Let them talk; most people will hang themselves given enough rope.”

CNN was really on to something when they debuted the policy debates, featuring an epic duel between Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) versus Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) engaged in an actual, substantive, non-campaign debate. Too bad they didn’t keep the series alive.

In order to pull this off, one must listen to their opponent’s words and, I don’t have chapter and verse from Harvard or Little Sister’s of The Poor and this that or the other study to cite, but I do know that it is humanly impossible for you to absorb as much of what someone else is saying while you’re running your piehole. An easy life “hack” for this (I’m trying to meet you halfway, my fellow Millennials) is to engage in one of America’s most obvious traditions and gently shove, well, pie or any other food one prefers into their gaping maw, which should, advisably, prevent the pie-eater from interrupting while someone else is speaking.

Another idea, and I only mention it in passing, is to teach your children these same concepts so that there’s a generational sort of reboot here, if you will.

Another really good concept, and this brings me back to what we’ve lost in terms of public dialogue, as a nation, as a people, is drop the assumptions. Do I really need to say that, as a Federal republic of 325 million-plus people scattered across 50 nation-states over 3 million-plus square miles, people come from different backgrounds and therefore automatically have their own way of doing things?

Apparently. Just remember: how good is it? Really good.

“Why does any of this matter?” one might ask, certainly a wise and reverent question, and unscripted at that!

As I face the active task of delivering closing remarks that are dually comprehensible and comprehensive, my personal political platform has never stood out more and conversely never kept me directly out of the fray as often. That’s weird. We’re living in a weird era.

As a centrist, I see, for instance, the keen insight President Trump into the general failings of a bloated Federal bureaucracy that feeds right into the national angst of an alienated body of followers who argue the value they get for their investment as taxpayers isn’t worth spending in excess of $4 trillion annually. However crude one views his “one-in, two-out” policy regarding regulations, he was onto something. Specifically, the broader argument that, not because of lack of desire and hardly because of lack of money but because of the inadequacies and failings that are part of the very fabric of a bloated, administrative state; in short, our Federal government is a monstrosity. A monstrosity, I might add, that needs to be shrunk, not given more money.

On the other hand, I also see the benefits of a strong, but limited, leaner Federal government with a decisive Executive having multiple opportunities for reform in bipartisan areas (fringes on both sides notwithstanding) with Congress, and I see those very same opportunities going wanting right now. And that is where, yes, I can see the personality crises stemming from being willing to be at odds with anyone, anytime over anything bringing about, indeed, a sort of “Trump Fatigue.”

That cuts both ways as well: while the people grow weary of the constant drama President Trump’s approach relies upon, they also tire of every single failing in DC being laid at his feet.

The same President who picked a fight (via social media, but of course) with an Autistic foreign teenager over climate change he maintains doesn’t exist to begin with also felt like the status quo that denied opportunities to felons post-release was unfair (See: “The First Step Act”). The very same POTUS who inexplicably disavowed support (however briefly) for our Kurdish allies also did what every Administration since Carter had threatened to by being the American Executive who stood up to Communist China’s underhanded trade practices and illegal valuations of the Yuan (their currency), which gave them unfair advantage(s) in imports/exports against other countries.

I don’t blindly support any politician, and I’m leery of ideologues. I don’t have any heroic, holistic advice on how to approach the President or his (many) conflicts, some contrived and some born of circumstances outside of his control.

These thugs didn’t issue executive orders that restricted travel from other countries into their own. They killed people they didn’t like and/or want. Perhaps a bit of caution, then, before ascribing the President Trump to the ignominious league of names like “Hitler” and “Stalin”, methinks?

But I do know this: the sooner we can get one extreme to stop canonizing every wacky idea the President utters and convince the other side that, no, Sugar, dictators don’t ask other countries to stop immigrants, they just have them shot. Dictators don’t ask, and they don’t Tweet about being treated “very badly” by the judiciary and the media. They don’t have to.

Look at the big picture, and tell me where you’d rather be that would be a better country from which to launch Endeavor A or stand up for Civic Cause B, et al. So, you don’t like the President. I don’t know how much the President likes the President. But you ought to be able to know the difference in there being room for (bigly) improvement in our mixed capitalist system, and in living in a concentration camp as you and your fellow undesirables are systematically exterminated by an authoritarian state.

A dictator? Hitler? Really? See: “Godwin’s Law”

Sound extreme? So do y’all.

Read More