A close friend reported going to hear a theologian talk about atheism. I sent him the following reply:
I am fascinated by all these "reverends" and "theologians" speaking about atheism. It really does twist their little pointy tails right up! I think a lot of folks are really bugged that there are some of us out here who just don't buy into the "fairy tales." They are desperate to refute what they THINK we are saying! I think they are scared we might be RIGHT! Before he died, Christopher Hitchens was one of the few atheists going around and talking about it. Most of us hide in the closet. It's not a popular philosophy. But for the most part, atheism gets discussed by those who are hostile to it, so their objectivity is open to question.
I am NOT "anti-theistic." Some atheists are, but I think that is a different kettle of fish entirely, and I think it's dishonest and counter-productive. If one is truly "anti-theist," then he or she is self-encumbered with a burden to prove the NON-existence of a deity, and that is absurd! I can't PROVE a goddamned thing! I have no clue whether there is a deity out there or not. But, I just don't care! As Bill Maher said a few weeks ago, if God will show an unambiguous sign and/or his followers can prove his existence, then I shall immediately change my mind! PRAISE THE LORD! But, until that proof is forthcoming, I CHOOSE to be a skeptic. I CHOOSE to simply not believe. I recognize I could be wrong, but I DON'T CARE! I also do not speak for any other atheist. There is as much variation among atheists as there is among Episcopalians. Some atheists may vehemently disagree with my views!
The magician, Penn Jillette, says there is really no such thing as "agnostic." If one says he or she "does not know" IF there is a deity, then that means they simply do NOT believe there is a deity! One either KNOWS it or does not KNOW it! There is no inbetween. All True Believers (the ones I have talked to) will say they KNOW God exists! It is a moral certainty for them. Fine. I am glad they are certain. They COULD be right! I DON'T CARE! (I personally think they are "whistling by the graveyard"!) But if one does not KNOW, then one cannot possibly believe in the affirmative, which is the true posture of an atheist. A true atheist is not CERTAIN, either. The true scientist is never certain of anything, for a fundamental element of the scientific "persuasion" is that anything a true scientist believes could be proven false AT ANY TIME! That is the essence of the "scientific method": the RISK of being proven wrong!
How many True Believers are willing to admit the POSSIBILITY of error? I have yet to meet one! In his wonderful opera, Faust, Randy Newman has the "Satan" character saying that "religion is the product of a desperate mind that knows it is going to die"!
About 15 years ago, I was interviewed by the local Episcopal rector who was working on his doctoral dissertation, and he was obliged to interview an atheist or agnostic, so he asked to talk to me. He came by my house and we had a very pleasant discussion for about 2 hours. I liked him a lot and considered him a friend. The local Methodist minister was also a friend, and the local Baptist minister and his wife were clients and came to a couple of my wild-ass parties! I guess they felt "safe" there to have a good time, and they did!
I am not anti-theist, but I am anti-establishmentarian. The US may well be a "Christian nation" (whatever in the hell that means), but we are supposed to have a secular government. I try to keep that on the level! I am obliged to defend the rights of others to worship who- or whatever they wish, but I don't have to buy into their silliness.
Monday, March 26, 2012
BIPARTISAN EMASCULATIONS
Regardless of what US voters think they want, or what we've all been conditioned to accept, there is no constitutional authority for the kind of militaristic colonial adventurism that has been going on in this country since World War II and the "reign" of John Foster Dulles and his ilk over foreign policy. If taxpayers are forced to maintain a military force far greater than necessary to protect us, that military force must and will find stupid things to do at taxpayer expense. It's like firemen who go out and start fires to put out because they get bored just sitting around the firehouse--amazingly, much arson is committed by trained fire personnel!
Regardless of all the arguments about what a dangerous world we live in, etc., US colonial adventurism and our penchant for making deals with the wrong local devils (until they are shoved up our asses) has gotten the US into a lot of unnecessary conflict. We justify maintaining a huge standing army for the very reason that our "bipartisan" policies since World War II have been pretty much the same: meddling in the affairs of other cultures and nations and trying to jam their square pegs into our round holes. Our leaders and many voters routinely assume that because no other nation is willing to expend lives and treasure doing that sort of thing that we have no choice but to step into the breach, in mutually bipartisan lunacy. Any reluctance is belittled as cowardice and/or lack of "patriotism."
Notwithstanding the Taliban's perverted social views, they should not be confused nor conflated with Al-Qaida, as so many operatives in both parties and in the military have done. Had the US not been mucking around in Saudi Arabia, it is arguable that the disaster of 9/11/01 would not have occurred. Afghanistan is not a "country": it is a mostly anarchic geographic space between countries! It has no national identity, regardless of which stooge we put in power. The US and its military have no business whatsoever being in central Asia, arrogantly engaging in "nation-building." And, in a fit of hyperbolic patriotism on the part of most everyone, including most of the so-called "press," the US has embarked on an 11-year military exercise in central Asia that is utterly unauthorized by the Constitution, and almost nobody gives a damn because it makes us feel good to go out and kick some "towel-head" ass! Show 'em who's boss!
Tell that to the poor guy whose penis got shot off in Fallujah, fightin' for his country! How many medals will compensate for that?
The rest of us are almost totally disengaged from what has been going on over there, and that is no way to run a "war"! The "good" thing about a congressional declaration of war is that it won't pass unless the need is critical and support is broad, and IF it passes, the nation has no choice but to become engaged. Executive-Branch war-making is blatantly unconstitutional. But that is all we have had since World War II, and every such conflict has been utterly failed, futile nonsense. The US should immediately stop what its personnel are doing in central Asia and get the hell completely out of there--right now! Support the troops! Declare "victory" and bring 'em all home!
And as for 9/11/01, what happened in the US back then was a set of horrific crimes, not "acts of war." The entire mess should have been handled as civilian criminal prosecutions from the very beginning, with proper due process for all suspects. Instead, it was used as a deadly pretext for playing "soldier" with taxpayer dollars and conveniently suspending constitutional guarantees of due process, creating very bad legal precedents in the process. That was all done in "bipartisan" fashion and continues as such under Barack Obama, who campaigned quite to the contrary in 2008. To paraphrase a friend's father (discussing partnerships), "bipartisanship" is the sorriest ship that ever sailed the seas!
And as conservative humor-writer and commentator P. J. O'Rourke says, "bipartisanship" one of the most dangerous words in the English language!
Regardless of all the arguments about what a dangerous world we live in, etc., US colonial adventurism and our penchant for making deals with the wrong local devils (until they are shoved up our asses) has gotten the US into a lot of unnecessary conflict. We justify maintaining a huge standing army for the very reason that our "bipartisan" policies since World War II have been pretty much the same: meddling in the affairs of other cultures and nations and trying to jam their square pegs into our round holes. Our leaders and many voters routinely assume that because no other nation is willing to expend lives and treasure doing that sort of thing that we have no choice but to step into the breach, in mutually bipartisan lunacy. Any reluctance is belittled as cowardice and/or lack of "patriotism."
Notwithstanding the Taliban's perverted social views, they should not be confused nor conflated with Al-Qaida, as so many operatives in both parties and in the military have done. Had the US not been mucking around in Saudi Arabia, it is arguable that the disaster of 9/11/01 would not have occurred. Afghanistan is not a "country": it is a mostly anarchic geographic space between countries! It has no national identity, regardless of which stooge we put in power. The US and its military have no business whatsoever being in central Asia, arrogantly engaging in "nation-building." And, in a fit of hyperbolic patriotism on the part of most everyone, including most of the so-called "press," the US has embarked on an 11-year military exercise in central Asia that is utterly unauthorized by the Constitution, and almost nobody gives a damn because it makes us feel good to go out and kick some "towel-head" ass! Show 'em who's boss!
Tell that to the poor guy whose penis got shot off in Fallujah, fightin' for his country! How many medals will compensate for that?
The rest of us are almost totally disengaged from what has been going on over there, and that is no way to run a "war"! The "good" thing about a congressional declaration of war is that it won't pass unless the need is critical and support is broad, and IF it passes, the nation has no choice but to become engaged. Executive-Branch war-making is blatantly unconstitutional. But that is all we have had since World War II, and every such conflict has been utterly failed, futile nonsense. The US should immediately stop what its personnel are doing in central Asia and get the hell completely out of there--right now! Support the troops! Declare "victory" and bring 'em all home!
And as for 9/11/01, what happened in the US back then was a set of horrific crimes, not "acts of war." The entire mess should have been handled as civilian criminal prosecutions from the very beginning, with proper due process for all suspects. Instead, it was used as a deadly pretext for playing "soldier" with taxpayer dollars and conveniently suspending constitutional guarantees of due process, creating very bad legal precedents in the process. That was all done in "bipartisan" fashion and continues as such under Barack Obama, who campaigned quite to the contrary in 2008. To paraphrase a friend's father (discussing partnerships), "bipartisanship" is the sorriest ship that ever sailed the seas!
And as conservative humor-writer and commentator P. J. O'Rourke says, "bipartisanship" one of the most dangerous words in the English language!
Sunday, March 25, 2012
THE CONSTITUTION AND BIRTH CONTROL
[The following ran, slightly edited, as "Correspondent of the Day" in the Richmond, Virginia Times Dispatch on Saturday, March 17, 2012.]
Your "Correspondent of the Day" for March 12, Rev. Msgr. Michael McCarron of Williamsburg, erroneously asserts that totally voluntary hospital operations of the Catholic Church have a constitutional right to be treated differently from other hospitals merely because of the religious affiliation. He is simply wrong. Like the taxable parking garage owned by St. Paul's (Episcopal) Church in downtown Richmond, as a secular operation a Catholic hospital must and should account to the government the same as other hospitals. A Catholic hospital is a health agency, not a church. Its association with the Catholic Church is merely incidental to its primary function, and it enjoys a government-protected territorial monopoly and receives secular government assistance, the same as other hospitals. The Constitution arguably (1) ensures secular government and (2) protects the practice of religion by individuals and their institutions of WORSHIP. It does not prevent accountability for secular operations. That has nothing whatsoever to do with "freedom of religion."
All hospitals in Virginia must first obtain "Certificates of Necessity" granting a virtual monopoly for the territory to be served by the hospital. One may not simply "open a hospital." Recently, the federal government proposed that hospitals (generally) provide employees with adequate medical care, INCLUDING birth control. The Catholic hospitals were not singled out in this regard. If the Catholic Church wants to make money off its monopoly hospitals and receive public assistance, it should expect to "pony up," the same as any other hospital operator. Instead, it claims a "right" to a special EXCEPTION from universal regulation where none lawfully exists.
If a church is going to establish a hospital, it must obviously abide by government regulations targeting the health of the patients. By Msgr. McCarron's tortured logic, a church-related hospital would be constitutionally exempt from compliance with any health regulation deemed to be in violation of its sponsor's subjective dogma. For example, consider a hospital established by religious snake-handlers that might refuse to treat poisonous snakebites deemed to be inflicted upon presumably wicked victims by the hand of God. Would such ludicrous refusal be protected under the Constitution? I doubt it. (I am not here suggesting an equivalency between snakebites and birth control, although I am tempted!)
If the Catholic Church does not want to dispense birth control information or devices, its members may certainly lobby in opposition to the relevant hospital regulations generally, and/or it can just get out of the hospital business.
Your "Correspondent of the Day" for March 12, Rev. Msgr. Michael McCarron of Williamsburg, erroneously asserts that totally voluntary hospital operations of the Catholic Church have a constitutional right to be treated differently from other hospitals merely because of the religious affiliation. He is simply wrong. Like the taxable parking garage owned by St. Paul's (Episcopal) Church in downtown Richmond, as a secular operation a Catholic hospital must and should account to the government the same as other hospitals. A Catholic hospital is a health agency, not a church. Its association with the Catholic Church is merely incidental to its primary function, and it enjoys a government-protected territorial monopoly and receives secular government assistance, the same as other hospitals. The Constitution arguably (1) ensures secular government and (2) protects the practice of religion by individuals and their institutions of WORSHIP. It does not prevent accountability for secular operations. That has nothing whatsoever to do with "freedom of religion."
All hospitals in Virginia must first obtain "Certificates of Necessity" granting a virtual monopoly for the territory to be served by the hospital. One may not simply "open a hospital." Recently, the federal government proposed that hospitals (generally) provide employees with adequate medical care, INCLUDING birth control. The Catholic hospitals were not singled out in this regard. If the Catholic Church wants to make money off its monopoly hospitals and receive public assistance, it should expect to "pony up," the same as any other hospital operator. Instead, it claims a "right" to a special EXCEPTION from universal regulation where none lawfully exists.
If a church is going to establish a hospital, it must obviously abide by government regulations targeting the health of the patients. By Msgr. McCarron's tortured logic, a church-related hospital would be constitutionally exempt from compliance with any health regulation deemed to be in violation of its sponsor's subjective dogma. For example, consider a hospital established by religious snake-handlers that might refuse to treat poisonous snakebites deemed to be inflicted upon presumably wicked victims by the hand of God. Would such ludicrous refusal be protected under the Constitution? I doubt it. (I am not here suggesting an equivalency between snakebites and birth control, although I am tempted!)
If the Catholic Church does not want to dispense birth control information or devices, its members may certainly lobby in opposition to the relevant hospital regulations generally, and/or it can just get out of the hospital business.
"CRACKER" REPUBLICANS AND THE RULE OF LAW Or, How I became a switch hitter!
Back in the 1960's I was Chair of the Young Republicans chapter at a small Virginia men's college and a self-described "conservative" Goldwater supporter! I saw the beginnings of the flocking of racist Southern Democrats into the Republican Party, beginning during the Nixon Administration and the payoff of Nixon's "Southern Strategy" run by Harry Dent, Jr., a racist Republican operative from South Carolina. I was horrified to watch Republican Nixon recruiting and openly campaigning for incumbent racist Southern Dems against duly nominated Republican candidates in the 1970 congressional elections, and by the time of George McGovern's Democratic presidential nomination in 1972, the goose was pretty much cooked. Most of the Southern Dems (not all, though) had migrated to the Republican Party or were well on their way. McGovern's nomination was the last straw for many.
To be sure, not every Republican is a practicing racist, but practically all practicing racists and bigots are now proclaimed Republicans! Nixon welcomed the racists, and Ronald Reagan welcomed the homophobic bigots and religious bigots into the Republican Party. The Republican Party has become what it is today thanks to Nixon and Reagan and the trailer-trash "crackers" they welcomed into the Party.
I realized I could no longer co-exist in the Republican Party with those types, so I left, wandering in the political wilderness for about four to five years. I voted for Libertarian Roger MacBride in 1976; I could not bring myself to vote for the cretin (Ford) who stupidly pardoned Nixon before he admitted to anything, and I could not bring myself to vote for a shamelessly evangelical Christian (Carter). However, I later came to respect Jimmy Carter as the real deal and was an enthusiastic supporter for him in 1980, partly because Reagan scared the bejeezus out of me! As an independent, I had supported "convenient" Dem Chuck Robb for Virginia Lieutenant Governor in 1977, and I attended my first Virginia Democratic Convention as a Delegate in 1978. I became Chair of a county Democratic chapter in Virginia in early 1979, and I resigned Election Night in 1981 (before the results were announced) when (finally committed) Dem Robb was elected Governor. The wife of my successor as Chair had a bad stroke about a year later, and he was totally distracted with that thereafter, so I wound up effectively serving as "Chair pro-tem" for another few years. I willingly did most of the work and had no real title. I didn't care about the "title," though. The work had to be done. The "Reagan Years" were not popular times for Dems in Virginia, regardless.
I supported Bill Clinton (not my first choice for the nomination) in 1992, but I resigned from the Democratic Party (I was more or less asked to get out) in late 1995 because I knew I would not support Bill Clinton for re-election in 1996. I had been complaining vehemently about his "Wrong-Wing" triangulation tilt with fascist Republican Dick Morris. It seriously annoyed the True Believers in the Democratic Party who would brook no dissent within. I can't remember for whom I voted in 1996--it may have been the Libertarian candidate. I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 because I could not stand nor trust Al Gore or Joe Lieberman. Contrary to the wishful thinking of excuse-mongering Dems, Nader did not cost Al Gore the Election! Gore lost that election all by himself!
In 2004, I mistakenly thought that John Kerry had a chance to take Virginia, so I voted for him, despite the fact that I have never liked or trusted him, either. He predictably lost. For me, getting rid of Bush that year was a high priority. He is arguably the most dangerous, evil President we've ever had. I never thought I would say so, but he was much worse than Nixon!
I gladly supported Barack Obama in 2008. The notion that Sarah Palin might be one of John McCain's feeble heartbeats away from the Presidency was frightening in its implications. The recently-shown HBO drama, "Game Change," only confirms my thinking. Sarah Palin is utterly unqualified to hold any elective office! She is a vapid, silly ditz! Unfortunately, I have come to refer to Obama as "Prez Origami," because he folds so easily and will assume any shape desired! It seems he has squandered almost his entire Presidency so far trying to validate George W. Bush's absurd policies. He has thrown "Hope 'n' Change" out the window! In fact, "Hope" has become "Nope."
As despicable as Osama bin Laden seemed, all we really know about him is what the government has told us! In 2011, bin Laden was summarily shot on Obama's orders, unarmed (probably in the back of his head, gangster-style, with his arms secured behind his back), and his body was conveniently dumped at sea (so there could be no autopsy showing how close the gun may have been to the back of his head). Instead, the Constitution requires that he should have been arrested, brought to trial in a civilian court with a lawyer, a jury, right of cross-exam, etc. in accordance with the Sixth Amendment. Now, I realize this procedure fails to satisfy the blood-lust for vengeance that stupidly infects many Americans' thinking. Because they rigidly believe the US is a "democracy" (George W. Bush said so), many seem to think that "due process" ought to be put to a vote. However, it is well to remember that the purest form of "democracy" is a lynch mob, because everyone in attendance agrees on the outcome, except for the victim!
Although the US Supreme Court has limited the reach of constitutional due process to US citizens or on US soil, there are no such limitations written into the Constitution. Had bin Laden been convicted in a civilian court (as I suspect he would have been), then he should have been punished in accordance with our Constitution, which Obama and everybody else has sworn to support and defend, without exceptions. The possibility that Obama had his fingers crossed behind his back when he took the oath of office does not count! The fact that I am outnumbered by those who angrily disagree with me does not mean that I am wrong!
War, especially all the undeclared "pseudo-wars" we've had since WWII, is never an excuse to evade the requirements of the Constitution. The Congress has not formally declared war any time since World War II, and the President does not have war-making powers specifically granted under Article II, regardless of what the Supreme Court has said. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has mostly abdicated its proper oversight of military and foreign policy in rather cowardly fashion. There are no such exceptions in Article III of the Constitution, and "military tribunals" established and controlled under Article II are also not authorized under the Constitution! All of that seems to bother very few people, however.
Republicans and "tea-baggers" are raising complaints about Obama that are mostly silly and seemingly racist in their purpose and motive. There is plenty to legitimately criticize Obama about, such as Obama wrongfully continuing and escalating the pseudo-wars in central Asia, his renewal of the vile USA PATRIOT Act by autopen and, most reprehensibly, his recent signing of the Military Authorization Act that permits indefinite detention and even "rendering" of persons (including US citizens) "suspected" by SOMEBODY in the Executive Branch of "terrorism," all without lawyers or trials or other pesky "legal technicalities." That is blatantly unconstitutional, but Obama, being the chameleon that he is, signed it anyway while bleating about his reservations with it! WHAT "reservations"?
I had a front-row seat to the sad racist conversion of the Republican Party in the 1970's. I had no choice but to leave.
HEALTHCARE FOR REAL
The recently adopted healthcare law (herein "Obamacare" for convenience) should be overturned by the US Supreme Court on grounds of unconstitutionality and/or be repealed by the Congress. In its place should be adopted a new, truly UNIVERSAL, publicly-funded healthcare law--WITHOUT ANY REQUIRED INSURANCE-CO. PARTICIPATION--and no employer mandates, the kind of plan that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Barack Obama killed. A proper plan should be government-run/single-payer/"Medicare For All," as others have called it. The government system (Medicare) is already in place. The size of a patient's co-pay or annual contribution could and should be means-tested, but the bulk (80%?) of the cost ought to be covered by higher INCOME (not payroll) taxes. In fact, the current 2.9% regressive Medicare payroll taxI should be totally repealed. It is a needless burden on workers and employers. An ill-advised increase is being planned, however, to offset rising costs in Medicare. That may well aggravate current unemployment and "under-employment" and business stagnation.
Yes, there would be fraud, but it could be "managed." (That kind of fraud would not be nearly as bad as current military procurement fraud, for example.) Unlike "Obamacare," primary participation by insurance companies should be superfluous. There is simply no need for a proper healthcare system to allow health insurance companies, acting as "middlemen," to skim off their unnecessary share of the cashflow. They could, instead, market supplemental plans like current Medicare supplementals. "Medical Insurance" is not synonymous for "Healthcare"! It is simply not essential to a proper government-run system. Besides, haven’t the PRIVATE healthcare insurance companies really had quite enough time and opportunity to provide a DECENT system instead of the ludicrous, insurance-centric “pig-sty” we now have?
The chances of such a program getting through the current Congress are almost non-existent! President Obama squandered the most likely opportunity for proper action when the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress. Those days are gone, now, and the Republicans may well take control of the Senate after the 2012 elections! Obama has only himself and Harry Reid to blame.
The insurance companies had their opportunity to "fix the problem" after the failure of Hillary Clinton's questionable health-insurance proposals in the mid-1990's. The companies did nothing, however. They squandered their "right" to be the prime beneficiaries of a national program as they now are under "Obamacare." Bill Daley (son of the Chicago mayor and later Commerce Secretary) attended a healthcare conference in DC back then. Daley's job was to sell the "Hillary" plan to Congress. I stood up and told Daley that all the government had to do (at the time) was to guarantee (1) insurability, (2) portability, and (3) non-discrimination, but Hillary, her cohort Ira Magaziner and Daley had made it needlessly complex, with all sorts of predatory employer mandates, and it predictably failed. The fault for that avoidable outcome may be laid at their feet! They were all very arrogant and patronizing and would not heed anyone's varying opinion. Those attitudes alone may have done more damage in Congress than anything else!
If a good and proper program were adopted, it would prioritize prenatal and pediatric care and limit certain kinds of truly non-emergency treatments for those over 80. It would stress elder COMFORT over most anything else, INCLUDING the use of narcotic drugs if necessary, and it should legalize voluntary euthanizing. It should liberalize and promote out-patient treatment processes, and the authority for narcotic-drug regulation should be taken away from the DEA and its very existence should be revoked! The DEA is a most unnecessary bureaucracy. All drug regulation should be turned over to the FDA instead.
In fact, "victory" should be declared forthwith in the absurd "War On Drugs," and ALL federal drug prohibitions should be immediately repealed. ALL those financial resources should be redirected elsewhere, such as for drug-addiction therapies! Such a shift could substantially relieve the cost of "Medicare For All." All non-violent and petty drug offenders in the federal prison system should be immediately pardoned and set free (thereby reducing the absurd costs of operating the federal prison system)! Drug use/addiction are legitimately HEALTH issues, not law-enforcement issues!
Other countries have figured out how to allow doctors to earn comfortable livings and work enthusiastically in their chosen professions. Why would that be a problem here? Of course, the likelihood of major six-figure windfalls for specialists might be tempered, but why should they be legally protected? Doctors might actually wind up working more predictable hours with less stress and anxiety! The benefits-filing process could be streamlined and simplified, thereby relieving healthcare providers of needless paperwork.
Patent protections for meds and other devices should be extended to run from date of approval rather than from date of application. And, the antitrust laws should be amended to allow the formation of voluntary co-ops for purchase of meds and devices in bulk and from any sources, domestic or foreign, so long as the meds or devices are FDA-approved. FDA funding should be expanded to streamline the approval process, which I would open to all comers.
Unfortunately, and as previously stated, the chances of such changes being approved in the current Congress are almost nil, but that is what President Obama and Senator Harry Reid should have done in the first place. "Obamacare" is a hopeless mess.
Yes, there would be fraud, but it could be "managed." (That kind of fraud would not be nearly as bad as current military procurement fraud, for example.) Unlike "Obamacare," primary participation by insurance companies should be superfluous. There is simply no need for a proper healthcare system to allow health insurance companies, acting as "middlemen," to skim off their unnecessary share of the cashflow. They could, instead, market supplemental plans like current Medicare supplementals. "Medical Insurance" is not synonymous for "Healthcare"! It is simply not essential to a proper government-run system. Besides, haven’t the PRIVATE healthcare insurance companies really had quite enough time and opportunity to provide a DECENT system instead of the ludicrous, insurance-centric “pig-sty” we now have?
The chances of such a program getting through the current Congress are almost non-existent! President Obama squandered the most likely opportunity for proper action when the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress. Those days are gone, now, and the Republicans may well take control of the Senate after the 2012 elections! Obama has only himself and Harry Reid to blame.
The insurance companies had their opportunity to "fix the problem" after the failure of Hillary Clinton's questionable health-insurance proposals in the mid-1990's. The companies did nothing, however. They squandered their "right" to be the prime beneficiaries of a national program as they now are under "Obamacare." Bill Daley (son of the Chicago mayor and later Commerce Secretary) attended a healthcare conference in DC back then. Daley's job was to sell the "Hillary" plan to Congress. I stood up and told Daley that all the government had to do (at the time) was to guarantee (1) insurability, (2) portability, and (3) non-discrimination, but Hillary, her cohort Ira Magaziner and Daley had made it needlessly complex, with all sorts of predatory employer mandates, and it predictably failed. The fault for that avoidable outcome may be laid at their feet! They were all very arrogant and patronizing and would not heed anyone's varying opinion. Those attitudes alone may have done more damage in Congress than anything else!
If a good and proper program were adopted, it would prioritize prenatal and pediatric care and limit certain kinds of truly non-emergency treatments for those over 80. It would stress elder COMFORT over most anything else, INCLUDING the use of narcotic drugs if necessary, and it should legalize voluntary euthanizing. It should liberalize and promote out-patient treatment processes, and the authority for narcotic-drug regulation should be taken away from the DEA and its very existence should be revoked! The DEA is a most unnecessary bureaucracy. All drug regulation should be turned over to the FDA instead.
In fact, "victory" should be declared forthwith in the absurd "War On Drugs," and ALL federal drug prohibitions should be immediately repealed. ALL those financial resources should be redirected elsewhere, such as for drug-addiction therapies! Such a shift could substantially relieve the cost of "Medicare For All." All non-violent and petty drug offenders in the federal prison system should be immediately pardoned and set free (thereby reducing the absurd costs of operating the federal prison system)! Drug use/addiction are legitimately HEALTH issues, not law-enforcement issues!
Other countries have figured out how to allow doctors to earn comfortable livings and work enthusiastically in their chosen professions. Why would that be a problem here? Of course, the likelihood of major six-figure windfalls for specialists might be tempered, but why should they be legally protected? Doctors might actually wind up working more predictable hours with less stress and anxiety! The benefits-filing process could be streamlined and simplified, thereby relieving healthcare providers of needless paperwork.
Patent protections for meds and other devices should be extended to run from date of approval rather than from date of application. And, the antitrust laws should be amended to allow the formation of voluntary co-ops for purchase of meds and devices in bulk and from any sources, domestic or foreign, so long as the meds or devices are FDA-approved. FDA funding should be expanded to streamline the approval process, which I would open to all comers.
Unfortunately, and as previously stated, the chances of such changes being approved in the current Congress are almost nil, but that is what President Obama and Senator Harry Reid should have done in the first place. "Obamacare" is a hopeless mess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
