Being a Lawyer is Sometimes Cool. . .

Being a lawyer is pretty cool because you immediately know more than the general public about stuff. And the recent lawsuits or threatened lawsuits over HCR allow me to speak up about the one Constitutional law topic I really, fundamentally, understand better than most: standing.

You see, in order for any federal court to allow a lawsuit to proceed in its courtroom, there has to be a case or controversy - which is defined as the loss of money, property or freedom, or the imminent threat of money, property or freedom. This can result in some interesting results. For instance, in Poe v. Ulman, the plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of Connecticut's anti-contraception statute. The Supreme Court kicked the case because no one had ever been prosecuted under the statute, and so there was no imminent threat. So, a woman and a D.A. got together, agreed that the DA would prosecute her for using contraceptives, and that's how Griswold v. Connecticut was born.

Anyway, with regard to HCR, several state AG's are suing the Feds over the provisions of HCR, including the individual mandate, wherein citizens can be penalized for not having insurance. The problem for the AG's is that states can OPT OUT OF HCR. All they have to do is set up their own health care system. You can't sue Best Buy for charging $600 for a TV that you don't have to buy.

As far as the individual mandate is concerned, the only person who's going to lose money/property is someone who's not going to buy health insurance in 2014. So, while the law is up for a legal challenge, that provision of the law can't be challenged until 2014 - because no one in their right mind, and no Court for that matter, is going to commit to not having health insurance four years from now. So, for those of you who want to end HCR, or at least the individual mandate, you're going to have to wait.

**********CORRECTION********

As this article indicates, the penalty doesn't go into effect until 2016, and there are no authorizing provisions to go after someone for not paying the penalty. So, for purposes of standing, the earliest that someone can bring a lawsuit is 2016, but only if some adverse action has been taken against him or her, which, because no criminal charges or liens can be used to collect the penalty means that basically, no one has standing.

Not Pearl Harbor: Even More Thoughts on HCR

The Health Care Reform (HCR) debate has been rattling around in my head all day today, as you can tell by this record output. Anyway, I have a couple of thoughts on HCR that deserve attention.

1) The Pearl Harbor Analogy is off Lindsey Graham, Senator from South Carolina, referred to the HCR vote as Democrats drinking sake in preparations for Pearl Harbor. . .and obviously I think this is a bad analogy. The Health Care Reform bill(s) weren't designed as gambits to destroy a potential threat, but rather, they are the first step in reforming health care services in this country. Accordingly, the GOP and their allies weren't protesting the parts of the bill (which were vague), but rather, they were protesting the idea of health care reform in any way, shape or form.

In other words, they were trying to prevent the Democrats from establishing a beachhead. Thus, its completely possible that Congress could take up the public option (or, as I like to refer to it, the Medicare buy-in) in the future. After all, with a bill this big, you're going to tweak it over the years. So, really, the better analogy is establishing a beachhead on Normandy.

2) Nancy Pelosi deserves a lot of credit Someone, somehow, found some spine on the Democratic side, and from most accounts, it was Nancy Pelosi. After Scott Brown won in the Massachusetts Senate race, everyone thought HCR was dead, and the Democratic centrists were pushing an incremental approach. At that moment, essentially said, "Fuck that," pushed for reconciliation, and put most of the deal together, and delivered the votes.

3) Obama became a leader of the Democratic Party While Pelosi worked her ass off to get the votes, Obama crystallized the cause to a lot of House members. At one point, he told Democratic lawmakers to look back and ask themselves why they became Democrats to begin with. In that way, the Democratic Party is going to be defined for the next 20 years by this legislation, and by Barack Obama as President.

For me, this goes beyond the terms of the typical debate. For the first time in a long time, the Democratic Party, as a whole, stood up for something, and spoke with one voice. They didn't just sign onto the bill, but they signed onto the very reason for the bill's existence, even if doing so meant electoral defeat. Not only did they pass the bill, they were proud to do it. Bill Clinton, for all of his skills, could never do that.

That's what makes Barack Obama so different from any Democratic President we've had in a long, long time. He doesn't want to follow public opinion, he wants to shape it, and it was through HCR that Obama learned how to be a President.

They Finally Did It. . .

I actually had no real plans to write anything tonight, but one of my neighbors held control over the laundry room until late, and I am drying my sheets now. But since I am up, I figured I should comment on the passage of health care reform. So without further ado, here are my thoughts:

1) I actually have little idea what's in the bill. I do know that insurers can't fuck people over preexisting conditions, can't pull the recission bullshit, and nonprofit co-ops can be set up in all fifty states. Outside of that, I am not sure of everything in the bill. Oh, wait, no aid for immigrants, and no publicly funded abortions.

2) The Democrats finally showed some spine. What's amazing here is that this is probably the first bill that was passed without a single Republican vote. In the face of truly ridiculous Republican opposition (to the point the Republicans were just making shit up, i.e. "Death Panels"), and so-so polling, and the fact that every Democratic Administration since Truman tried to pass some kind of health care reform, the Democrats sacked up. To be honest, I didn't think they had it in them.

3) The Republicans overplayed their hand. On a purely political note, the GOP strategy for defeating health care was brilliant, and they masterfully played the Democrats against each other. HCR was even polling badly (of course, if you told people what's actually in the bill, it polls a lot better). They, by all rights, should have won this one, but suddenly, the Democrats showed spine they didn't know they had. That said, the Republicans overplayed their hand yesterday. Calling John Lewis, a civil rights activist from the 50's, the "n-word," and calling Bart Stupak a "babykiller" only got the Democrats mad. The townhall storm of the summer was also ridiculous.

4) The Public Option is dead-ish. Its too bad that the public option didn't make it. That said, not having the public option in the final bill means it can come back later, and much cleaner.

5) I have no idea what the political ramifications of this bill will be, and neither does anyone else. For the first time, the Democrats can point to doing something unpopular for the good of the country - this couldn't be further from the Clinton days. Plus, the measures within the health care reform bill will be popular. At the same time, the opposition is totally and completely nuts. Anything is on the table here.

So what are the lessons to be learned? Having a spine is a good thing, and let's hope for the good of the country, these reforms will work.

Health Insurance Companies, Torture, and Eric Massa (Random Thoughts Blogging)

Rather than go into an introductory rant, here are my thoughts about a few things going on in the world today:

Insurance Companies Hate Being Vilified
In the health care reform debate, Insurance companies are wondering why they are being vilified by the left. In some respects, this is a fair complaint because health insurance companies are simply maximizing profit, which is what all corporations are supposed to do. Are these companies acting any differently than Ford, WalMart, Apple, or even my law firm? Not really.

At the same time, there is a huge difference between normal corporations and health insurance companies. First, health insurance companies are legal monopolies. So, if Apple decides to price itself out of the bargain computing market, people who want computers have a competitor to go to. In health care, this doesn't happen. Second, if a consumer is unable to purchase an Apple, they do without a computer, if they are unable to purchase insurance (and they get sick), they die. This, understandably, leads to bad press. So while I understand where the insurance companies are coming from, they did choose this business.

Lawyers and Torture:

So Liz Cheney, in addition to promoting the use of torture, is attacking lawyers who represented terrorists. This is a very, very bad idea, and she has been chastised by other conservatives. But they don't write on this blog, so here's my two cents:

The role of lawyers in Anglo-American jurisprudence is to be the figurative champion for the client, fighting with words and logic instead of with swords and axes (which is how things were done back in the day). The whole idea is that both sides get champions, who fight it out, and God (or the jury, judge or King) sorted them out. But this only works if both sides get attorneys. As a result, all sorts of evil people and corporations are represented by perfectly reasonable and nice people. The system doesn't work if they aren't.

What Liz Cheney and her cohorts are suggesting, though, is that attorneys who represent alleged terrorists are, in fact, terrorists themselves. And this is a very dangerous concept because if the acts of the client are imputed on the attorney, no attorney would ever defend anyone in anything, and the system would break down.

Speaking of torture, by the way, CIA waterboarding was much worse than imagined. Mind you, in controlled conditions, Hitchens and ManCow both lasted less than 20 seconds, and reported having panic attacks for months afterward.

Eric Massa Folies
I have no idea how this guy got elected, and to be honest, I thought all closet cases were Republicans. And while I'm not sure if Massa is gay, tickling another grown man, as Massa has admitted he has done, is about as gay as Men's Figure Skating. Sure, there's a possibility that the participants might be straight, but its very, very unlikely.

Why I'm Pissed About the Health Care Bill. . .

Under the recent Senate bill, 30 million uninsured Americans will have access to health insurance, and preexisting conditions will be covered. While all of that is great, here's my problem with the bill: what happens if your insurance company screws you?

Currently, every single American is at risk. Make a claim for a serious illness, and the insurance company could very well find something left off the application and use that to rescind coverage. As of right now, cancer is the number one cause of bankruptcy (and most of those who declare bankruptcy have insurance). And insurers will do just about anything to drop insurance coverage.

And let's face it, as corporations, profit-motivated entities, insurance companies are supposed to do this. To improve profitibility, insurance companies can either raise rates or cut coverage. In most areas, there's competition to keep companies honest. But insurance companies have government sanction to become monopolies, so there is no competition.

The public option was supposed to fix this. The reason why it was so popular (over 60% of the public supported the public option, without it, health care reform is favored by 32%), is that the public option was a safety net. Get screwed by your insurance company, get the public option. Private insurance too expensive, get the public option. Quit your job and can't get individual coverage? Get the public option. In other words, the public option was a get-out-of-jail card that would've protected everyone. So, naturally, it was phenomenally popular, and couldn't be enacted into law.

For the record, my ideal public option is simple - a full-cost Medicare buy-in. A friend of mine gets Medicare (she's permanently disabled and gets healthcare through SSI), and loves it. At the same time, not everyone wants government health care, so let's make it optional.

Unfortunately, doing what's popular and what's good policy is simply too much for the Democrats too bear. I will now go light myself on fire. Ugh.

What to do with the Health Care Bill

As a progressive. . .fuck that. I'm not a progressive, I'm a liberal. I believe that the free market/capitalism system is a good system, but the real world being what it is, we need government intervention when the market breaks down. I believe that women should have full autonomy over their own bodies, and that everyone should be free to spend their money on what they want, so long as it doesn't affect anyone else. My previous work in housing rights was primarily correcting the market inefficiency of housing discrimination.

Anyway, as a liberal, and someone who cares deeply about the status of health care in this country (which I've blogged about ad nauseum), I'm left to wonder what to do about the Senate Health Care Reform bill. Sure, there are a number of good things in the bill, but there are huge corporate giveaways. For instance, under this bill, everyone has to get health care insurance or face government sanction. But health insurance companies still get anti-trust exemptions, and can dump people for forgetting to disclose even the most trivial of medical issues. So, the bill guarantees corporate profit.

Moreover, the bill doesn't have a public option or a Medicare buy-in, both of which are critical to bringing down the cost of health care insurance. In the ideal world, people at risk - small business owners, people with preexisting conditions, kids out of college - would have a place to go for relatively inexpensive insurance. I believe the best provider of that kind of insurance is the government (I'll spare you the details as to why).

Without a public option, should liberals and progressives deep six the bill? If I had to guess, I'd say that they won't but strategically, maybe we should. The health care negotiations were largely made between moderate and conservative Democrats, with liberal/progressives left out in the cold. The reason for this is that the Democratic leadership assumed they'd have our vote. And traditionally, they would.

Here's the problem that the Democratic leadership doesn't get that Republicans do - its all about turnout. Right now, the parties are more or less balanced, with the Democrats doing better now. Independents swing back and forth based on the conditions of the day and based on the general enthusiasm of the two bases. The party that gets its base to turnout wins. And so while liberals might not vote for Republicans, they will simply not vote, and the GOP comes back into power. Of course, the Democratic leadership doesn't understand this because those voters have been so disaffected for so long that the Democratic leadership didn't believe these votes existed until Obama convinced them to vote.

To get the Democratic leadership to understand the importance of keeping their base happy, maybe its time to kill something big, like health care reform. Let me expand by drawing an analogy. Anyone who's listened to Jim Rome on the radio knows that, for the most part, he gives softball interviews. His guests are given plenty of latitude to speak their minds, and he doesn't go the jugular. At the same time, Jim Rome has the reputation of being a tough interviewer. Why? Because in 1994, Rome called quarterback Jim Everett, "Chris Everett," to Everett's face, and almost got his face punched in. That's all it took for Rome to be considered a tough interview, and guys still duck his show.

Maybe that's what we progressives should do with the health care bill. Kill it to make it clear to the Democratic Party leadership that we're no longer going to accept getting shit on.

On Mammograms

As per the recent Slate.com article, the Feds are not suggesting that breast cancer screening begin in earnest at age 50, instead of 40, and that self-exams are a waste of time.  Now, as a straight man, I absolutely opposed to this notion, as it increases the risk to one of the things that makes life worth living: boobs.

That said, it appears that the Feds are basing their recommendation on sound statistical evidence.  If you ever, on a theological basis, wanted to know how God can know everything, but yet still allow free will, then study statistics, or more specifically, the law of big numbers.  The bigger the sampling data, the more you can predict virtually anything.  So, as someone who believes in statistics, the Feds are probably right on this one.

But here's the problem: a woman deciding to start mammograms at 40 or 50 isn't going to play the percentages the way that I might.  That's because, if the woman chooses wrongly, SHE DIES A HORRIFICALLY PAINFUL DEATH.  Or, at least, she becomes disfigured and suffers greatly.  Given that a HORRIFICALLY PAINFUL DEATH and/or DISFIGUREMENT is highly disfavored, women will, by and large, choose to continue to getting mammograms at 40, as well as do self-exams.


12-Year-Old Boy Scouts Volunteer To Give Women Breast Exams

All jokes aside, this represents a fundamental issue in health care - when faced with a risk of death, people will tend to overconsume health care.  And, let's face it, when choosing between extra expense and HORRIFICALLY PAINFUL DEATH, the odds go out the window.  That's why Doctors don't compete based on price, but rather, on the services they provide.  Medicine is the only market where competition raises costs. 

A Profanity-Laced Tirade About Health Care. . .consider yourself warned

Two things about the health care debate have royally pissed me off.  First of all, Congress is currently debating whether or not to end the anti-trust exemption for health insurance companies.

WHAT.  THE.  FUCK????  Seriously, why the fuck to do health insurance companies have the right to act as a fucking monopoly?  When did we think this was a good idea?  Furthermore, why in the FORTY FUCKING YEARS OF THE HEALTH CARE DEBATE HAS THIS IDEA JUST COME UP NOW??????  45,000 people are dying every year for lack of health insurance coverage, and another 400,000 people every year are going bankrupt due to illness when they are insured, but I'm sure allowing health insurance companies to do whatever they fuck they want has nothing to do with it.  Unfuckingbelieveable.

Going forward, the public option is a good way to promote competition, and I hope it passes. But you know what else helps competition?  PASSING A FUCKING LAW THAT PROHIBITS ANTI-COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR YOU HORSEFUCKED MORONS!!!! (Sidenote, I think I just created a new swear here - horsefucked - meaning those who have been fucked by a horse, as opposed to horsefuckers, wherein the horse takes the passive role of fuckee).  Anyway, I'm glad to see that someone has figured this out.

The second thing about this debate that royally pisses me off - Old people protesting health care reform as socialism.  Okay, I've written about this in the past, but today in front of my building there was a protest against health care reform (I think DiFi or Boxer's offices are located in my building).  Of the twenty people there, I'd estimate that at least 80% were senior citizens.

Now here's what gets a hair up my ass - all of these fucking old people are RECEIVING PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE THAT I FUCKING PAY FOR.  Medicare is a government run program, paid for by a 3% payroll tax.  That means 3% of my salary and bonuses goes to pay for the health care of old people.  The very same old people who are FUCKING PROTESTING in front of my building saying that government should stay out of health care.  In other words, they're protesting me getting what they got.

FUCK YOU, you DECREPIT, OLD, FAT, FUCKS!!!  I'll tell you what, if you don't want socialized medicine, the burn your Medicare card and get a fucking job.  Not only am I paying your medical bills, but I'm paying for your fucking retirement.  How dare you complain about socialism!  If anyone should be bitching about socialism, its me, the guy who's taxes are paying to keep you alive.

Quick Thoughts Blogging. . .

Top Chef - I'm a big fan of this show, but like any fan, the whole thing annoys me as well.  Last week the chefs had to cook French food, and this week they had to cook in the desert.  I can understand how a restauranteur would have a love of France because the French perfected how to run a restaurant, including how a restaurant should be run.  But it should also be noted that, as any good foodie knows, most of the mother French sauces actually come from Italy, not France.  And French cuisine isn't necessarily better than any other country's cuisine.  In fact, the best chef in the world, Adria, is Spanish, not French.

The Western focus really does hurt chefs from other cuisines.  The Season 3 winner, Hung Huyuh, was criticized all season long for not cooking from the heart (not cooking Asian cuisine), but was given a Western kitchen and only had access to Western ingredients.  It was only in the final, when he could use ingredients of his own choosing that his "heart" showed through.  Duh.

The desert thing was interesting - but where was the refrigeration?  Do the producers want their judges to die?  I am impressed by the high level of competition this year, and it is clear that chefs at the bottom probably would've been mid-level contestants in previous years.  There are at least chefs who regularly produce high quality food (the Voltaggios, Kevin, Jen) and a couple others capable of doing the same (Mike I., Eli, Ashley, Ash) when motivated.  The brother thing is probably driving this show a lot further than in past seasons because the Voltaggios are really pushing each other (to the point where both are keeping track of who wins what), and that, in turn, pushes the other chefs to step up their game.

Baucus Health Care Plan - The Finance Chairman released his proposal for health care reform - which he had been working on with the more conservative members of the Democratic Party and with the Republicans for the past several months - and it stinks.  If anything, its going to make health care more expensive for middle-class families.  This happened, in large part, because he was more interested in Republican support than writing a good bill.  Anyway, with luck, this plan will get redone in committee.

My Health Care Reform Plan - So you know, my plan would essentially be a catastrophic insurance plan.  Everyone pays in via an increase in the income tax, and then would be covered for any expenses over 1/3 of their income.  So, if you make $60k a year, you pay the first $20k of expenses, and the Govt. pays the rest.  If you can't afford $20k, get insurance - which will be cheaper because the insurance company knows its only on the hook for $20k, max.  Oh, and the cost of said insurance would count as part of the first 1/3. 

Beck and 9/12ers - In response to Joe Wilson's claim that Obama lied about illegal immigrants not getting benefits under health care reform (which is, itself, a lie), the fearful Baucus put in stringent proof of citizenship requirements into his crappy bill.  Way to stand up for your President, Max.  In the past few months, the Democrats have shown a willingness to be overly courteous to Republicans.  As a result, we can't get anything done.  So, here's an idea - tell the GOP to go Cheney themselves.  Or rather, stop trying to make the opposition happy - they're trying to prevent the Democrats from doing anything.   This is their stated goal.  Educate the public, but don't be afraid to steamroll the opposition.

The Fallacy of Tort Reform in the Health Care Debate

Last night, as a gesture to the Republicans, President Obama signaled that he would be willing to discuss medical malpractice tort reform as part of an overall health care package. In very short order, let me throw some cold water on this idea. Here are two reasons why tort reform is not going to work:

1) Federal Courts don't do Med/Malpractice Cases: Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, Federal Courts only take cases where Congress says its okay for them to take cases. The types of cases that go to Federal Court are either cases involving a federal statute (Civil Rights Act), or involve "diversity" wherein two people from different states sue each other. Medical Malpractice cases, by and large, fit neither of these bases of jurisdiction. Med/Mal (as we lawyers call it), is a negligence tort - that is, the Doctor hasn't violated the law, per se, but rather, has failed to act competently. There's no statutory basis for Med/Mal, but its part of the area of law called the "common law" - the stuff that we got from England. So, no statute, no jurisdiction. Additionally, Med/Mal typically involves people who live within the same state. So, there's almost never diversity jurisdiction. Oh, and Federal judges know this, and HATE to take cases they don't have to take. At any point in any federal litigation, even before the Supreme Court, someone can throw a monkey wrench into a lawsuit by questioning federal jurisdiction.

This point is important because Congress and the President only have the authority to change Federal law. You know that 10th Amendment that Conservatives talk about, well, here's where it comes into play. The Feds can create a law that supercedes State law, but that doesn't mean state law goes away. Hence, the California law on medical marijuana, wherein State authorities (the police) will let someone go for possession if they have the medical marijuana card (or whatever it is), but the Feds can, and have readily, arrested people for possession. So even if the Feds were to outlaw all Med/Mal cases, or limit the damages, it would only apply to those cases brought before a Federal judge (which is a ridiculously small amount).

2) Tort Reform Won't Help Much: Since 1975, California has had limits on Med/Mal cases of the kind the Republicans talk about. These limits are found in MICRA, and the details of the law can be found here. Basically, MICRA limits the amount that someone can recover from a Med/Mal case, requires arbitration, etc. Look, read the description. Anyway, since its enactment, MICRA has been the darling of the California Medical Association. The mere mention of changing even a comma is practically a call to jihad. If you ask the CMA, MICRA is the foundation upon which doctors can practice medicine in California.

Strangely enough, though, medical costs continue to go up in California, more or less at the same rate as everywhere else in the country. And one of the worst instances of insurer neglect came from California. Read the sad story here. Even though California has MICRA, the medical malpractice reform that the GOP wants, Californians have the same problems with health care as everyone else - its too expensive to go without insurance, and the insurance they get is bad.

The Importance of Real Debate

One of the saddest things that have happened over the past several years is the total and utter lack of a real debate over issues in Washington, D.C. There was a time when the leaders of both parties could sit down, have a bourbon (or two) and hash out a solution to a problem Did that solution always work? Hell, no. But both parties were on the same page, and the debate was open and honest. For me, the last time this happened was during the debate on education which lead to the "Leave No Child Behind" bill. Ultimately, the bill was flawed and has been a disaster, but the debate was honest.

In the wake of Ted Kennedy's death, its appropriate to note the lack of a true debate in Washington over health care, torture, or the economic stimulus package. And apparently, the climate change bill is also going to be a rough one. The problem is, essentially as I see it, that the two parties live in two completely alternate universes. So instead of arguing the how - as in how do we fix this problem - the Parties argue whether or not a problem even exists. Health care, for instance, is tremendously overpriced in this country (we spend more per capita than any other country in the world, by far), and that has lead to bankruptcies and poor health. But instead of arguing how health care reform should be structured, Republicans argue that there is no problem, or worse, make up things about health care reform.

Where are the arguments about streamlining the health insurance market? Where are the arguments against burdensome regulation, or tort reform? In short, where is the honest conservative argument about health care? Or torture? Or climate change? The Republican argument seems to be to deny the existence of any problem. And ultimately, these made up facts have become an identity and not a philosophy. And that's a shame because conservatives have good points to make. For instance, the deregulation of the trucking industry was, all in all, a good thing. Welfare reform has been largely successful (I think). In other words, the conservative voice, or the good government voice, has been an important part of the Republic.

What's more, I deeply fear the insanity of identity politics in this country. Every day I see more and more harbingers of political violence in this country. Listen to this:



Now, Glenn Beck is a total nutcase, but he's alleging a coup by election - in other words, Obama has taken over the government by winning an election - something that has been done by both parties since 1801. Beck is practically encouraging the violent overthrow of the United States! We have pastors praying to God for Obama's death, and their parishioners are carrying assault weapons to Obama's events. Only 42% of Republicans are certain that Obama is a citizen of the United States!

True, the Democrats have, in the past, demonized the right. As the years rolled on during Bush's tenure as President, we became more and more strident against him. Though, to be honest, he did a lot to encourage our ire. But that outrage and anger took years to develop, and the anger was over policy - Iraq, torture, climate change, Katrina, etc. And it took even longer for our leadership to even acknowledge the anger we felt - this, by the way, is a continuing theme: Republicans fear their base, and are responsive to them (no matter how crazy the base gets), Democratic Leadership thinks the base voters are a bunch of dirty fucking hippies and ignore them. *bangs head against wall*

Ultimately, the change occurred because the Republicans realized that they could win more debates by being ruthlessly partisan, no matter what the facts were. And politically, that's the right move. What drives me nuts here is that the Democrats having faced this exact problem for the past thirty years have yet to realize that they need to be partisan in return. But despite what the Democrats do, something has to break with the Republicans - they can't keep doing this.

About that Public Option. . .and how to deal with the Birthers. . .

One of the great controversies in the current health care "debate" (total and utter panic would probably be the right description of what's going on right now), is over the public option. As a progressive, I'm all for it, but most conservatives are completely against it. Not only is the public option opposed, but its mere mention leads to comparisons to Nazism and Hitler (though, again, the Nazis tried to eliminate Germany's public health care program).

But while the public option has been compared to Nazism or Socialism, I think the public option is far, far different. Its about recreating the American frontier. Okay, bear with me here. Prior to the collapse of the American financial sector, fear of losing health insurance was the biggest reason why people didn't quit their jobs and form new businesses. As someone who had to buy his own health insurance for some time, I can tell you that there's a good reason for that. Individual health insurance is pricey, and if you have a preexisting condition, its almost impossible to get. So a lot of people stayed in jobs they hated.

The public option, which would apply to people without employer-provided insurance, allows people to become insured by the Federal Government. Not only would said plan be cheaper, but would cover preexisting conditions, and there would be no fear of recission - where the insurance company rescinds its coverage because the insured didn't fully disclose his/her health history (including minor conditions that were completely treated). Thus, by offering the public option, self-insureds would have access to quality health care at a low cost.

As a result of having such a plan, people would be more willing to become self-insured, and thus, more willing to open their own businesses than ever before. And that's a good thing for a couple of reasons. First, small businesses, in aggregate, hire more people than big businesses do, so more small businesses = more job growth. Second, and more important for this discussion, small businesses act as a virtual frontier. It allows the worker to change his life and his circumstances and head out on his/her own.

Its the frontier aspect of the public option that I find most appealing. Granted, that may be the romantic in me, but America has always been about the frontier. For over three hundred years, the frontier has been the great safety valve, preventing us from getting trapped the way that the Europeans were. Now, of course, the West is no longer free of development, but the frontier is about a state of mind, not about a place. Its about forging your own identity, and building something with your own hands. The true American dream isn't owning a house, but owning a business. And one of the biggest obstacles is the cost of health insurance - which can be solved by the public option. Hence, my support.

Now, unfortunately, the health insurance bill won't help American industry all that much (no public option for Ford/GM), but the public option is a good start. Why no one else is talking about this is beyond me.

With regard to the birthers - I just saw a poll where only 45% of Arkansans believe that Obama is a citizen. As much as I mock the birthers, we've now gotten out of hand. If the media won't do its job, then someone has to. I propose that that Democratic Party put out ads with Obama's birth certificate and the birth announcements in the Hawaii papers in them. Run the ads in the South. Prosecute those who threaten to kill Obama. If someone shows up to a rally with a gun, arrest them. If this cancer continues to persist, someone is going to get hurt.

One Last Word on the Health Care Debate. . .okay not really. . .

While we can debate the protesters (fucking nutbags), or the terms of the debate, or even what should be in the bill, I have one thing I have to say:

If any Democrat in the Senate votes against cloture, they are fucking dead to me. They will not get a fucking dime from my pockets, nor an hour of my time. I won't pass along an amusing anecdote about them online. If they're on fire along the side of the road, I won't stop to piss on them and put out the fire.

That doesn't mean every Democratic Senator has to vote for the health care bill, but when the debate comes, I don't want any Democrat to help the Republicans filibuster. And these Senators can honestly tell their constituents that they voted against the bill - they just supported the ending of debate on the bill. Voting against cloture, though, is nothing short of a ratfuck of the President and of the Democratic Party, and so those that vote against cloture are fucking traitors.

But then again, that's my two cents.

Random Thoughts Blog. . .

As if you people care what I think, but its my blog, and apparently funded by the good people of Kaiser Permanente. Actually, that's a bit ironic as my employer made his money suing. . .but I digress.

Rather that a full blog post on any particular topic, I have been so inspired that I want to do a bunch at a time. Granted, I could avoid this by posting more often, but its my blog. . .err. . .Google's blog, but they let me play here. So bite me. Anywho, without further ado. . .

Birther and Deathers = Identity Politics: Usually, Democrats have been accused of playing identity politics. That is, the Dems allegedly get people to vote for them along racial and/or ethnic lines, instead of along policy lines. In the past that might have been true, but now its pretty clear that the GOP is playing identity politics for reals.* For someone like Sarah Palin, being an American means you have to be white, conservative and from a small town. Predictably, African American, Latino, LGBT, and urban dwellers noticed this in the last election and all voted for Obama. What you're seeing now with the birthers (who deny that Obama is even a citizen) and the Deathers (who think Obama is creating a death panel**, when he's not) are people who oppose Obama because he's a black guy with a Muslim-sounding name. And they go nuts because they think that everyone should know that. Of course, everyone does know that, and most don't care. Hence, they go nuts. Oh, and to the guy who brought a LOADED WEAPON TO A PRESIDENTIAL TOWNHALL - you're an idiot and you're lucky you didn't get shot or arrested for doing it. Now, knock it off. There are about a 1000 police at these things, so trust me, no one is going to mess with you.

But in all seriousness, identity politics is kinda scary because that sort of thing is usually a harbinger of civil conflict. In Iraq, for instance, elections are about identity first, and policy second. So, the ethnic tensions are increased and people end up getting shot. And quite frankly, if no one ends up shot at one of these town halls, I'm going to be very surprised.

* Any and all misspellings, and odd pluralizations are completely intentional.

** What Palin calls a "Death Panel" is actually a process whereby the senior citizen meets with a panel of doctors to discuss end of life care - when to pull the plug, when to go to hospice, etc. So, rather than impose end of life decisions on people, this panel is supposed to empower them. And the creation of this panel was created by the Republican Senator from Georgia, Johnny Isaackson.

Polygamy in Western Culture - So, I was watching "Clash of the Gods" last night on the History Channel (which, aside from the ridiculous notion that the myths may be true, is a pretty good show), featuring both Hercules and Zeus. In both instances, Hera's vindictive jealousy was pretty well explored. What struck me was that while I remembered that Zeus was a hornball, and had numerous affairs with everyone, I did not remember that Zeus largely took power thanks to his ability to forge relationships with powerful entities. He was, in essence, a politician. And like all politicians, the need to be liked carried over into his personal life, and hence his numerous affairs.

What's also interesting is that unlike many other cultures in that part of the world, the Greeks never really developed polygamy. Generally, a man had one wife, and then several lovers (or he just fucked the slaves). Rome too, never really developed polygamy. I think, in part, this has to do with the fact that Roman and Greek women were more equal to their men than were the women of other cultures. Thus, the Hera figure - the angry, jealous wife - becomes the God that women pray to. And in legend, wronged women like Clytemnestra kill their men (though Clytemnestra had a lot of good reasons to kill her husband). So, there was some fear by the men that if they went too far, their women would try to kill them (which Hera apparently tried).

What's also interesting about this lack of polygamy, is that when Christianity developed, it was heavily influenced by the Romans and the Greeks. So, its not surprising that Christianity, for the most part, does not allow polygamy, while Islam (which is also derived from Judiasm) does. Judiasm, interestingly enough, allowed polygamy but dropped the practice.

Shit is Getting Scary. . .

Whenever I read shit like this (and I suggest you read it), I become very, very worried about this country. If one reads the accounts of the political discourse prior to the Civil War, its filled with Senators fighting each other, and prior to the War itself, people were literally killing each other in Kansas. And to be honest, I see the country going this way again.

For a variety of reasons, political discourse in this country stopped being about which policy is the best to follow, but rather about which reality to live in. For more than a few right-wingers, reality is that Obama was born in Kenya, that he's a Socialist, that he wants to kill old people and children, that global warming does not exist, and Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11 and had weapons of mass destruction. None of these things are true, but are taken as gospel by too many people.

Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are, of course, somewhat responsible. Glenn Beck, in particular, has done a lot to stoke the fires of hatred against Obama. And Limbaugh calling Obama a Nazi is not helping either. But let's face it, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are opportunists - if they didn't chase the lunatic fringe, someone else would. That's capitalism. As a moral matter, if anyone gets hurt, because of the hatred these douche nozzles spew, I hope they burn in hell.

Before someone says something about Move-On, and the Hitler ad, allow me to point out that the ad was submitted to Move-On, and they ultimately scrubbed the ad from their site. Oh, and Bush did invade a country for the purpose of spreading his ideology across the world (and was torturing people, and spied on Americans. . .but that's another post). There is a big, big difference between Rush Limbaugh and some random guy. Don't get me wrong, the left has its loonies (goddamn hippies), but our nutjobs don't have institutional support.

So, how do we walk back from this precipice? From this Democrat's perspective, walking back can't mean giving up the store. No, Democrats need to fight harder for what they believe in. And Republicans shouldn't stop fighting for what they believe in either. But we have to start reading from the same page.

On Bipartisanship Take 2

W.O.W. That didn't take too long. In less than 24 hrs after I wrote that the Democrats should abandon all bipartisanship, the right wing partisans went off the deep end. Thus far, we've seen nutjobs start riots in Tampa and St. Louis, threaten the SEIU, and everywhere equating health insurance reform with Nazism.

Quick history lesson - the National Socialist Party had basically two factions - the Fascists who were primarily Nationalists (Hitler) and the Facists who had socialist tendencies (Brohm). When the Nazis were on the precipice of power, Hitler had Brohm wacked specifically to prevent any kind of socialism. Oh, and the Nazis were avidly anti-communist. So, calling Obama a fascist makes absolutely no sense.

Now back to reality. . .actually, let's discuss reality for a second. It seems to me that a good portion of these nutjobs are living in an alternate universe. First off, nobody knows what's in the health insurance reform bill because it hasn't been written yet. Second, there's no way the bill forces anyone to do anything. There are few protections for the most egregious behavior by health insurance companies - like rescinding health insurance when someone gets cancer - and hopefully, there will be a public option (a public health care system that you can use when health insurers won't cover you), but that's about it.

Oh, and for those of you who don't know - like Arthur Laffer - MEDICARE IS A GOVERNMENT PROGRAM!!!!!!!!!! And the reforms to Medicare that are proposed in the bill will simply lower costs and were proposed by Republicans. So, please stop with the signs that say "Government Keep its Hands off My Medicare." Its like saying that the Federal Government should stop running the U.S. Marine Corps. Without the Government, there wouldn't be a Medicare. Got it? Oh, and its MY TAXPAYER DOLLARS THAT PAYS FOR YOUR HEALTH CARE YOU DAMN HYPOCRITES!!!!!

The latest is Sarah Palin saying that Obama wants to kill her son Trig because he has Down's syndrome. Really? Really? How ridiculous is that? All this does, quite naturally, is stoke anger to the point where someone is going to get shot.

In this evironment, there's no way the GOP is going to go along with health insurance reform. Not only will the base not vote for the GOP, but at this point, the base might just shoot its leaders. Bipartisanship is nice, but you can't bargain with crazy. And we're looking at a lot of crazy here.

Last point - if there wasn't this level of craziness, and the Republican Party was willing to discuss how to reform health insurance (instead of saying everything is hunky-doory), then we could have an interesting debate as to how to fix health care in this country.