"Grassroots" vs. "Astroturf"

April 15th, 2009: During an interview on KTUV news in San Francisco, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) who is the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives declared "This [tea party] initiative is funded by the high end — we call call it astroturf, it’s not really a grassroots movement. It’s astroturf by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class."

Again on August 6th, 2009 she restated to a reported who asked if the angry town hall meetings were "Astroturf" she responded by saying that she thought they were, "You be the judge."

Today (August 25th, 2009), the Politico.com reports that Democratic National Committee through it's organizing arm "Organizing for America" are going to push through 500+ "events" between Wednesday and September 8th when Congress returns from the Break. “In these last few weeks of recess we want to demonstrate the energy, passion and commitment that the American people have to health care reform so that when members return after Labor Day they know that they can turn their attention to getting this done because they have the backing of the American people,” said DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse.

Is this "astroturf", Mrs. Speaker?

Another Indication of the Breakdown of Civil Discourse in the US.

So, it's not big news, but maybe it is.

Once upon a time, not so very long ago, Rosemary Port had an anonymous blog. In it, she said some very unkind things about people. Very unkind things. Things that had she said them to their subject's faces would have probably resulted in a fist fight or worse. But because she was hiding behind a screen name or assumed identity, she felt that she could do so without fear of reprisal.

Except, when the individual that Ms. Port was saying unkind things about was model Liskula Cohen. And Ms. Cohen was starting to get pretty angry at this anonymous person that was saying very unkind things about. Things like 'ho', which is a very unkind thing to say to a woman, rap music's popularity notwithstanding. Ms. Port conveyed this message on her blog which was uncharitably titled "Skanks in NYC". So by association, Mr. Port also called Ms. Cohen a 'skank', which is also a very unkind thing to say to anybody, much less a woman.

So Ms. Cohen, who has considerably more money than Ms. Port, hired a lawyer who wrote a very convincing letter to Google strongly requesting the email address of the blogger that owned the blog. Google said "OK", and now Ms. Port is known to the world.

Her argument for her actions is that she believes that blogs are a forum for discussion and that Google did not do enough to protect her identity. As outrageous as her vitriolic postings defaming Ms. Cohen were, this is far more outrageous. As a friend of mine once said, "You're first amendment right to expression ends where my nose begins." Translated, in the United States your freedom of speech is only protected as long as said speech does not unfairly demean or slander the reputation of any person who is not deserving of such speech. And those that commit slander should be made to pay for it.

The right to free speech should never be allowed to impede any other citizen's right to pursue happiness. Ms. Port's blog did just that by making vicious and slanderous public comments, which are apparently a reprisal for a comment made by Ms. Cohen to Ms. Port's boyfriend. How does the fact that Google and other companies provide venues for web logs ever get interpreted to mean that you can say whatever you want, no matter how cruel, about somebody and not fear any reprisal?

I'm reminded of Thumper from the Disney movie "Bambi" and his famous sage advice: "If you can't say somethin' nice about somebody, don't say nothin' at all."

Why Do We Look At Health Insurance so Differently than Other Kinds?

This national health care insurance debate has caused me to think very seriously about a big problem that I can't believe hasn't been seen by other more qualified persons than myself.

Why do we not look at health insurance the same way we look at, let's say, car insurance or property insurance? Consider this scenario. I'm driving home from work and I get into a serious accident which the police determine to be my fault. Although I survived the crash with only minor injuries, my car is completely wrecked. Further, let's say the car is a very new Italian car. Let's say it's worth more than fifty or sixty thousand dollars. So I get home, whip out the business directory and call up an auto insurance company. I hide from them the fact that my car is already totaled. I get comprehensive coverage. The following day, I call up the insurance company and make a claim for my totaled car.

Do you think the insurance company is going to pay? Heck no! Why not? Because the damage to the car existed PRIOR to the insurance purchase, and any insurance company that would be willing to pay for such damages is simply guaranteeing that they will be soon out of business. Why? Because if car insurance companies were required to cover pre-existing damages what would happen is that people would only sign up for an insurance policy when they had an accident.

This principle is known as "adverse selection". People who are more likely to suffer a loss (high risk) or who have already suffered loss (guaranteed risk) are much more likely to buy insurance than someone that is not likely to suffer a loss (low risk). Insurance companies survive when only a certain fraction of the people they collect premiums from actually submit a claim. As long as the claim payouts and the costs associated with running the business are lower than the premiums being collected, an insurance company will stay in business. When this fraction is exceeded, insurance companies can quickly find themselves with no cash reserves left. A recent example is the number of insurance companies that went out of business trying to pay out all the claims made in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina in 2005. (Incidentally, it is still very hard to find insurers willing to accept the risk for homes built in New Orleans.)

Back in the day when I sold insurance, I once tried to sell a life insurance policy to a guy whom already knew that he had diabetes. He didn't make any effort to hide it since the required blood test would have revealed the condition anyway. I told him that I could protect his family against his loss for any reason except a death related to the diabetes itself. His response was "If you cover me for diabetes related death I'll buy your insurance, otherwise, have a nice day." So he was willing to buy insurance so long as we covered the most likely reason that he would die. See the problem? He was only willing to buy the protection on the sure thing that will probably kill him. And that means that the insurance company would be guaranteed to have to absorb the loss. That's NOT what insurance is all about. Insurance is the idea that for a relatively low monthly cost being paid in by any one individual of a group an insurance policy can be obtained that transfer the risk of loss to the whole group. No insurance company or any other type of plan (including a co-op) will stay in business long if they have to accept responsibility for a sure risk.

I frequently ran into this problem while I was an insurance salesman. The problem is that people think that buying insurance is a gamble. They think they have lost the gamble if they pay for the insurance and never use it. The gamble is actually always on the other side... the insurance company and the group of people they represent. Every time the insurance company grants a new policy they are gambling that they will one day have to pay out a claim on that policy.

Since USNHC promises to prohibit the exclusion of pre-existing conditions it is logical to conclude that health care payouts are going to become much more frequent and these payouts will be more expensive. Much more expensive, since many people who want insurance for their pre-existing conditions will jump at the chance to get on an insurance plan that is guaranteed to transfer the risk of that condition. How can President Obama possibly think that he can control these kinds of costs?

Relevant sections of SR 3200 (Senate version of USNHC)
Title I, Subtitle B Sec 111: Prohibiting pre-existing condition exclusions.
Title I, Subtitle B Sec 112: Guranteed issue and renewal for insured plans.

Conservative Resistance to Health Care Reform is NOT the Same as Not Needing to Reform Health Care

The President's ongoing program to create a massive and very expensive modification of United States health care availability is generating passionate debate.

Many of the proponents of SR 3200 (the current USNHC bill in the US House of Representatives) that have been facing angry constituency are declaring that these town-hall meeting "disruptors" and "protesters" to be "un-American" and hateful people who want to deny health care to the less fortunate and prosperous segments of our society.

Uh... no. Nearly all of the people against this reform bill that I've talked to, or whose blogs I have read are nearly united in acknowledging that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are in big, big trouble. Most of those of the baby boomers and "gen x-rs" believe that most of the social government programs will have gone bust long before we actually are allowed to begin receiving benefits.

However, many of us have come up with ways to make sure that both our retirements and our golden-year health-care needs are funded. Privately. So that we do not need to depend on Uncle Sam.

So here's the problem. Those of us that already have health-care are already paying a LOT for it. We are very concerned about SR 3200 because we see that the only way to cover the so-called "47 million" who are not insured is for those of us that are already paying to either pay more, or be taxed more.

Here's some of our concerns:

1. If SR3200 were to be adopted, right now, with the public-funded option the GAO has estimated that this program would cost approximately 1.2 trillion dollars. President Obama has said that this amount could be reduced by eliminating fraud and waste. Yet both Medicare and Medicaid are being fraudulently abused all the time and the federal government hasn't even come to grips with that problem. USNHC would be nearly one order of magnitude bigger.
2. As previously stated, the U.S. government can't control Medicare and Medicaid, but they think they can control USNHC? Why would we believe that? Show me a government program that actually does not exceed it's budget and I'll show you a government program that spends less than $50 million per year. USNHC will spend nearly 1.2 trillion.
3. No nation on earth has ever tried to provide a public option, or more dramatically, "single-payer" to a population as large as the United States. Further, no nation currently on single-payer (eg: The United Kingdom and Canada) has been able to control spiralling costs. Both the UK and Canada are now in the "rationing" stage of their nationalized health care programs because they have fewer workers paying into the system in ratio to the older retirees taking out of the system. France is approaching a 1-1 ration between worker/retiree and their system is going bankrupt.
   
4. Instead of the Insurance company being "between" me and my doctor, a public option is perceived to put the federal government between me and my doctor. For the record, if I have to have a choice between who is going to deny me, I'd rather fight Blue Cross Blue Shield or Aetna than Uncle Sam.

As I've previously opined, I will not support SR3200 or any other incarnation of USNHC until the following options are also included:

1. Tort reform in medical lawsuits.
2. Elimination of class-action lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies.
3. Penalties for frivolous lawsuits.
4. Reduction in the mega-million fines and penalties being awarded to victims.
5. The establishment of one or more national co-ops instead of a public option for those who aren't able to get insurance through their employer at a reasonable price.
6. Qualification for public-option only open to those who are currently not employed but who can prove U.S. citizenship. Enrollment in public-option is only valid during period where enrolled is actively seeking employment and or the enrolled has been adjudicated 100% disabled. Able-bodied U.S. citizens that refuse to work would NOT qualify for this program.

If these provisions were added to the already existing SR3200, I would grudgingly support the legislation because I believe that items 1-4 would dramatically reduce the cost of health care by reducing the premiums being paid by providers and pharmaceutical companies for malpractice and errors and omissions insurance.

Otherwise, count me out. I'll just continue to plan on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security collapsing and financing my own solutions.

Mrs. Pelosi: Disruption in 2006 and 2009.

Nancy Pelosi in January 17, 2006: "So I thank all of you who have spoken out for your courage, your point of view. All of it. Your advocacy is very American and very important." This was said to a group of anti-war protesters.

Nancy Pelosi and Lenny Stoyer USAToday Op-ed: "Un-American attacks can't derail health care debate." This was in reference to the rather strong opinions being expressed in August townhall meetings by many concerned people who are against SR 3200 (United States National Health Care) bill.

So a bunch of anti-war protesters in 2006 chanting "Hell No! We won't go! Just say no!" are "very American" but a bunch of people who are against the current version of SR 3200 (USNHC) in 2009 chanting "Hell No! Just say NO!" are "un-American".

As is usually the case, the only thing constant when you have no moral compass is inconsistency.

Healthcare reform: Case Study #1

Mitchell Wiener was the first person in New York City to succumb to the H1N1 virus, popularly called the "Swine Flue". Mr. Wiener was a principal for I.S. 238.

His family has now filed a lawsuit against New York City and associated Health and Education departments. The complaint stipulates that the defendants directly caused Mr. Wiener's death by failing to close the school when H1N1 was first detected in New York City.

The amount? $40 million dollars.

Now I will leave it to the New York City justice system to determine whether or not NYC and it's departments are guilty of this accusation. But $40 MILLION dollars? With all due respect to the family of Mr. Wiener, can we really say that for the duration of the remainder of his expected life-span that he would have produced $40 million dollars in income? These exorbitant settlements contribute significantly to the cost of health care in the United States because doctors, nurses, hospitals, clinics, and pharmaceutical companies must purchase high cost malpractice and errors and omissions insurance to protect themselves against these kinds of lawsuits.

Why is it in all of the health care debate that class-action lawsuits, tort reform and frivolous lawsuit reform is not even mentioned, much less debated and discussed? There are some that say that as much as 1 in every 6 dollars spent on health care in the U.S. goes to some form of insurance or legal defense. Considering that Americans pay more money on health care than any other single category of expense, that is a LOT of money.

I will not even consider supporting health care reform that does not include tort reform or place some kind of limit (based on a formula) on the amount of compensation that can be sought in a lawsuit.

ObamaCare: Single Payer is Ultimate Goal.

View this video.
View this video.
View this video.

From these videos highlighting President Obama and other influential thinkers behind the migration of the U.S. citizen from "employer" based to "socialized" healthcare plans.

President Obama has stated several times that were he to have the benefit of starting "from scratch" on the U.S. healthcare system, he would implement an "single-payer" system. Government subsidized.

President Obama, Jacob Hacker and other influential Democrats such as D-IL Jan Schakowsky have stated that the United States, under their direction, will "eventually" get to a single-payer system. However, they acknowledge that it will take time.

Yet the big lie that is expressed in these videos is the fact that they will not do it by "scaring" people into thinking that they will lose their option for private insurance. President Obama and Jacob Hacker both state that it will take 10, 15 or even 20 years in order to achieve this goal.

But make no mistake... the goal is socialized single-payer system.

After you watch the videos, how could you possibly refute what I have posted?