a tale of two testimonies

In regard to healthcare, I found the following two, recent testimonies fascinating. This is a little lengthier post than usual; however, the contrast is striking and insightful… two people, reacting to the exact same thing. First, from Lisa Morse…

“In 2010, at the age of 30, I ran my first half-marathon. A year later I ran my first full marathon (4:25:10 — you never honestly forget your first marathon time). I was in the best shape of my life. Although I gave myself a few months off from long-distance running, I started planning for my next half-marathon. Unfortunately, I began having intense joint pain in my hands, wrists, hips, knees, ankles, and feet. I was only 31 years old but felt like I was 80 — simply getting out of bed in the morning was a physically painful endeavor. Turning the pages of a book could cause ridiculously excruciating pain. It felt like my joints were being stabbed repeatedly with a knife that was on fire. Imagine going from running a marathon to just a few months later struggling to open a car door.

Numerous Google searches told me I most likely had psoriatic arthritis. I made an appointment with my doctor and the testing began. Because psoriatic arthritis isn’t something you can directly test for, I had to be tested for everything else that it might be. Blood tests ruled out rheumatoid arthritis, lyme disease, and parvovirus. I was then referred to a rheumatologist and officially diagnosed with psoriatic arthritis. Psoriatic arthritis is an inflammatory arthritis in which an overactive immune system attacks the connective tissue in the joints. If it is not treated, it can lead to irreversible joint damage. 15-30 percent of long-time psoriasis sufferers (I have had it since the age of 14) develop psoriatic arthritis, and I am one of the lucky ones. My rheumatologist prescribed hydroxychloroquine, a form of quinine, which suppresses the immune system. It provided some relief and life became a little bit easier — I even started running again — but my immune system still wasn’t working properly and I needed frequent doses of Aleve.
In 2014, my insurance plan changed and the rheumatologist I had been seeing for the past two years was no longer an in-network provider, so I had to change doctors. Although I grumbled about it at the time, it was probably one of the best things to happen to me medically since the pain began. My new doctor was astounded by the swelling in my ankles and in addition to telling me that I should absolutely not go on any more 10-mile runs (unless I wanted to start talking about ankle replacement surgery), he wanted to pursue a much more aggressive treatment plan. He prescribed Humira for me and the life-changing effects were almost immediate. My psoriasis cleared up entirely, the joint pain eased considerably, my energy levels increased, and I started to feel pretty good again. Humira is another immuno-suppressant. Although it sounds counter-intuitive, with a suppressed immune system I am sick much less often and much less severely than I was prior to Humira. In the two or three times a year I get sick now, I can usually work through it: pre-Humira I was sick once a month (or more) during the flu season and would miss at least three days of work at a time. Humira allows me to be a more productive, tax-paying member of society.

My two medications retail for $4,900/month and $175/month, which annually amounts to the cost of approximately 87 iPhones.

My experience with psoriatic arthritis and Humira have taken place entirely within the timeframe that Obamacare has been in effect. I do not have a job that provides health insurance. For the past 14 years, I have worked for a sole-practitioner attorney. I am his only full-time assistant. I serve as receptionist, office manager, paralegal, and more. My boss has always treated me well and is, quite honestly, much like family. I have helped to build his law practice into the success that it is today. My husband is a self-employed public policy consultant. We purchase our insurance on the marketplace and rely on the Obamacare subsidy to make ends meet. For our family of three, our silver plan premium (without the subsidy) is about $840/month. Our premium will increase substantially next year, especially if the ACA is repealed, and we will be paying more money for less coverage. If we lose our subsidy and our rate increases the 20-30 percent that is projected, our premium will be unaffordable for us. Without insurance, my two medications retail for $4,900/month (Humira) and $175/month (hydroxychloroquine—generic), which annually amounts to the cost of approximately 87 iPhones. On a side note, Humira was $3,200/month when I was initially prescribed it two and a half years ago—the drug has been on the market for 16 years, so the research and development has been done and over with for a long time. This mark-up should shock the conscience of anyone with a soul.

Thanks to Obamacare, my insurance cannot drop me or charge me more due to my condition. I have worked, paid taxes, and been insured my entire adult life. I am college-educated. Aside from the Obamacare subsidy I receive, I have never relied on public assistance. Psoriatic arthritis is not the result of unhealthy choices or stupid life decisions. I realize I am expensive to treat medically, but I am also a valuable member of society, as are many other similarly-situated people. No one is an island, and despite Ayn Rand’s writings to the contrary, civilized society requires a bit of compassion.”

And second, from Mary Katherine Ham…

“You may know me as a political pundit and writer who has spoken publicly about how the Affordable Care Act negatively affected my family. What you might not know is two years ago, I was a seven-month-pregnant widow with one toddler who got a letter two weeks after my husband died, informing me I’d lost my third or fourth health insurance plan since the Affordable Care Act passed. If you’ll remember, the promise was that I could keep my plan if I liked it. I could not.
I predicted what would happen to my family’s insurance, and to much less fortunate people subjected to the exchanges with us, many of whom have seen doubled premiums and tripled deductibles. If you’ll remember, the promise was everyone’s premiums would go down. They did not. For predicting it, I was routinely called a lying hack in public. It’s a hazard of the job, but I wasn’t lying. I was right. I also thought it was improbable the federal and state governments could handle building these exchanges and that they’d likely blow up and be inoperable, thereby preventing people like me from actually purchasing the new plans the ACA required we purchase. Again, I was not lying for partisan gain.

ACA has helped people. I know some of them well! I have two friends with serious health challenges, one of whom I can say was probably kept alive by Obamacare; the other by the fact she was able to keep her grandfathered pre-ACA plan. I am not in the habit of asserting any piece of health legislation is either perfect or a tool of evil designed by hateful actors. They’re not. I will not assert either of these fundamentally shallow and manipulative things about either ACA or adjustments to it (and, yes, this piece of House legislation is an adjustment or a reform, not a repeal, which would change dramatically in the Senate if taken up and change again before eventual passage).

It has come to my attention that, even among those who should know, or assert they know a lot about health care policy and the market, many don’t know that people like me exist. But there are many of us, many with far fewer resources than I, who now have much more expensive, less effective, junkier, nearly unusable plans than we had back when our allegedly “junk” plans were outlawed. Again, we are not the only ACA story. But we are part of the story, we were sold a bill of goods, and we’re often overlooked.
There aren’t a lot of good answers, here. There are many reasons for that, which start in the mid-20th century with a fundamental distortion of health-care markets through wage-and-price controls, and then a tax benefit that incentivized employer-based health insurance. ACA was not a good answer. AHCA likely isn’t a super one either.
In any system, and any change to a system, there will be people who come out on both the good and bad sides of the deal. When Obamacare supporters denied this truth applied to ACA, it was wrong. There’s the possibility of marginal improvement to it, but not if you do nothing, as insurers and customers alike pull out of exchanges because they can’t afford to stay in them. Yet another major provider announced this week it will drop out of the Virginia exchange. Republicans were elected several elections over to address just this problem.

Most people who aren’t in the individual market, which is the one most affected by ACA, have no idea what the plans look like. It is a market where the costs of the bill’s mandates are more visible, even when subsidized. When I cite exorbitant deductibles, folks tell me to suck it up and pay $3,000. I laugh at a $3,000 deductible. What in the old system was considered a very high deductible is now among the lower available, and premiums for any kind of deductible are high, even with subsidies. Many families have to hit $12,700, and they’re paying a mortgage-sized premium. For many, the purchase becomes hard to justify or supplants an actual mortgage or similar outlays.
Arguing about this as if beneficiaries of ACA don’t exist isn’t right. Arguing about it as if people like me don’t is also not right. ACA was never the panacea it was sold as and it remains distinctly un-utopian in its results. Lazy characterizations of things you like as perfect—and of people you oppose as big fans of people dying—are not particularly helpful to actual people.
So if you’re weaving a utopian or dystopian scenario for Facebook, remember reality is almost always less extreme and more nuanced than you’re asserting, and you probably know a real human on both sides of every imperfect adjustment to our Frankenstein system.
One of them was a pregnant widow who had to spend her 32nd week of pregnancy and the first week after her husband’s funeral calling midwives, doctors, insurance companies, and help lines to make sure she’d still have the third plan she was promised she could keep.

My family may be the trade-off that was worth it for you to implement ACA. And I’m actually fine with you thinking that, as long as you don’t pretend we and the rest of the people like us don’t exist. We’re probably never going to stop arguing about this, but arguing responsibly and empathetically is better.”

Striking, isn’t it? … how for some, the Affordable Care Act has been helpful, and for others, the exact same law has been hurtful.

I’m thinking most of us need to broaden our perspective… maybe… just maybe.

Respectfully…
AR

important

IMG_1457So as I sat in silence, prepared to pen today’s post, I ran through my mental list of what’s most important and what I desire to discuss today.

I contemplated writing about health care…

Sorry.  I know this is an issue to which the Intramuralist frequently refers; my sense is simply that it’s a glaring example of partisan politics, in which transparency is scarce, economics and ethics are compromised, and neither advocates nor opposition are respectful of contrary opinion.  Today is supposed to be the first day in which annual enrollment is complete, and mandates and fines are imposed.  Talking with several of you across the country, I also hear your irritation in regard to how this has been implemented and executed.  We could discuss this today, but my perception is that it isn’t what’s most important.

We could speak of Russia’s armed aggression…

Two weeks ago, they voted to annex the Crimea region of Ukraine after the people in the area supported a public referendum.  (I wonder…  if Minnesotans voted to be part of Canada, would we so easily support letting them go?  But lest I digress…)   I cautiously watch Russian Pres. Putin as he strongly and swiftly alters the Ukrainian border.  I watch, too, how his military amassing seems unthwarted and his ambition unmoved no matter the words of Western leaders.  And then I see Pres. Obama on ESPN.

I contemplated writing about Obama on ESPN…

I have mixed emotions on this, friends.  The Intramuralist is no fan of being a critic for critical sakes.  I expect our nations’ leaders to have interests outside of foreign policy.  But there’s something about Pres. Obama’s frequent flirtation with pop culture that makes me uncomfortable.

On ESPN, the President did his annual analysis of his NCAA college basketball picks.  We all do that.  (Ok, most… sorry, Mom…)  But the point is that the kind of analysis the President presented takes significant time.  It takes focus.  It takes energy and concentration to know that the Spartans of Michigan State were in position to make a long run in the tourney, due to their preseason ranking, early season injuries, and late season prowess.  That takes time — more than the 2 hours interviewed by the original Entertainment and Sports Programming Network.  Beyond a shadow of a doubt, I want the leaders of our country, regardless of party, to spend their time on what’s most important.  Right now, our foreign policy and relations are vital.  Pop culture is not.  Is it right?  Is it wrong?  I can’t definitively answer those questions.  I simply suggest it makes me uncomfortable.

 

And so as I was seeking to focus today’s blog on what is most important, I had to chuckle.  Down at the bottom of my page, as I prepared to type, was the following:

“josh is a awsome son”

So my 12 year old, special, special needs son doesn’t consistently hit the “shift” key.  His spelling isn’t always correct, and sometimes he talks differently that you and me.  There are a lot of things he can’t do.  But what am I focused on?  On what he can’t do — or what he can?  Only one of those responses prompts gratitude in me this day.   So I stopped writing, went to his room, and teased Josh about his semi-humble, self-assessment.  He immediately matched my chuckle with his own contagious glee, and then joyfully said, “Mom, I want you to write about me today.”

Once again, when I look at life through eyes other than my own, I see what’s most important.

 

Respectfully,

AR

yes & no

1374034516_8619_affordable care actFor years I’ve wrestled with Obamacare.  Call it Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, the “healthcare security act” — each of which I’ve heard a person utilize when it’s most politically expedient.  When the bill was perceived popular, some made certain to name it after the President; others were resolute in avoiding any name recognition.  Once the act became far less popular, the utilization of the term totally changed.  Geepers.  Talk about Washington hypocrisy.  It’s rampant.  For both parties.  (Please allow me one more “geepers.”)

But after the new healthcare law officially passed its 4th anniversary (note that I didn’t say “celebrated,” as it’s not a term generally thought to be compatible with the law), I believe I’ve finally discerned the Intramuralist’s bottom line on why this bill bugs me so.  It’s no secret, friends; after reading the proposal, the Intramuralist has long thought the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is unwise policy.  While it addresses some significant problems within the application of healthcare, it also creates a whole new host of serious snags.

The snags are significant…

Rising costs…

Cancelled policies…

Loss of doctors and hospitals…

Poor execution of enrollment…

Mandates, taxes, and fines…

More mandates, taxes, and fines…

Arbitrary and inconsistent implementation…

Making people pay for services they don’t need…

Etc., etc., etc…

These are just a few of the snags.  Still, none of the above are my primary problem.  None are why the bill bugs me so.

Economically, I don’t believe the bill is wise.  You can’t expect to cover more people more effectively and efficiently, give them more stuff, and for the care to somehow cost less.  That doesn’t make economic sense.  Again, however, such is not my primary problem.

The bill is still not popular.  Current polling data puts support of the bill at no more than 40-42%, while now 54-56% oppose the law.  Granted, the Intramuralist has never been driven by popularity.

As stated here multiple times previously, the bill was passed via a strictly partisan vote.  Only one party voted for this law.  I don’t like any law crafted in such a way; however, still not my bottom line.

My bottom line problem with this law is actually rather simple.  It has nothing to do with economic theory nor the nuances within healthcare.  It’s basic.  Perhaps its one of those “all I really need to know” things from kindergarden.  It’s easy.  But it’s true.

I was always taught to let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no.  It’s not rocket science.  In other words, we should mean what we say and say what we mean.  So much rhetoric and salesmanship was used to make us want this bill.  It was not honest, transparent conversation.  From being able to “keep your doctors” to “liking the plan once we found out what’s in it,” all seems designed to sell us on something the majority of us don’t want.  Even if the majority wanted it, the Intramuralist will never be attracted to the politician whose “yes” and “no” mean something other than “yes” and “no.”  That bugs me.  Still.

Respectfully,

AR

mandating behavior

In our 3 most recent posts, I’ve seen a trend appearing.  As a society, we struggle when anyone attempts to mandate behavior for the masses.  From how we teach our kids about Santa to how we care for the least of these to yes, even how and if we celebrate the Christmas season, we continually have persons who want to tell us what we can and cannot do.  Isn’t that our challenge?

 

I mean, the challenge on both sides of the equation within contemporary Christmas controversies is that people keep wanting to dictate what we do.  People keep wanting to mandate the specifics of how a holiday can or can’t or shouldn’t be celebrated.  We aren’t ok allowing the freedom of individual decision-making.  Why is that?  What’s the motive?

 

I see this pattern repeated in multiple scenarios.  Sometimes it’s packaged up a little nicer and neater — arguably a little more covertly — but there exist multiple examples of entities attempting to mandate behavior for the masses, attempting to require specific actions on our part.

 

Isn’t that the reality behind Pres. Obama’s broken healthcare promise — that “if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it?”  In my opinion, the President is too smart to have not known that such was untrue.  He’s a brilliant man; he had to have known the implications of the law for which he was advocating.

 

Please know I am not declaring that Pres. Obama lied.  Let’s face it; anytime we assert that one another is a liar, it complicates the conversation.  The dialogue becomes more passionate and emotional, and the temptation to become disrespectful increases exponentially.  So let me truthfully, transparently assert what I believe to be the primary motivation for the untruth:  those advocating for Obamacare are attempting to mandate behavior for the masses — and convince the rest of us that such is good.

 

All healthcare plans starting after 2014 are required to offer the same benefits but will have different out-of-pocket costs.  Question:  do we need the same benefits?  Does one size truly fit all?  Do men and women need the same healthcare?  Do men need maternity care?  Do persons in varied geographic areas need the same care?  How about the elderly?

 

Friends, I’m not attempting to be disrespectful in my questions; the reality is that by mandating the behavior for the masses, we end up mandating things for some that are unnecessary.

 

So what’s the motive?  Is the motive as some would suggest that people aren’t bright enough — that they don’t know what’s good for them — and so someone has to control the decision-making?

 

Or… is the motive more economic — that the only way to make the policy work for some is to mandate the behavior for all?

 

Under Obamacare, it’s great to be a woman.  Women can’t be charged more than men.  On one hand that sounds great; we can hear the rallying calls that no longer will women be discriminated against.  But let me also ask the next logical question:  is it discrimination if the woman’s care costs more because it actually covers more?

 

My sense is that in the case of Obamacare, the motive is economic.  The federal government charges the men more to pay for the women; they charge the young more to pay for the elderly; and they charge the upper and middle classes more to pay for the lower class.  Mandating the behavior of the masses is necessary in order to make the plan work.  What any individual needs is less significant than the macroeconomic approach necessary to support the totality of the system.

 

The lingering question is whether or not such mandating is good.

 

P.S.  Merry Christmas.  Happy Festivus, too.

 

Respectfully,

AR

this used to be my playground

As we watch the events of the past 6 weeks — the flawed rollout of Obamacare and the resulting rhetorical responses — the opportunists who partisanly pounce on perceived Armageddonish, administrative activity — and the loyalists who adhere blindly to minimizing or even dismissing the negativity — I struggle with how to discuss this well.

 

As said, I believe the Affordable Care Act makes government too big, costs too much, and allows for too much potential corruption.  There are better ways to care for those in need of affordable health insurance, as a one-size-fits-all insurance policy does not actually fit all.

 

Let me repeat, too, that I am disturbed at the unprecedented enactment, as no law of this economic magnitude has been previously passed without at least some bipartisan support.  This isn’t a game.  More than one point, one vote, or one run-batted-in should be necessary to enact such major legislation.  However, Pres. Obama advocated and executed this approach, and I thus respectfully hold him responsible.

 

I’ve learned, however, from my thoughtful friends who consistently camp on a distinct side of the partisan aisle that when a like scenario unfolds, many lose respect and trust in our nation’s leaders.  Many, for example, lost trust in Bush 43 due to the Iraq invasion and/or his response to Hurricane Katrina.  Many now are losing trust in Obama due to the way he’s handled healthcare.  Throw in the fact that the trust of 2 more of our most previous presidents, Bush 41 and Clinton (1) also was eroded.  Bush 41 promised not to raise taxes, but did so anyway.  Clinton, no less, split microscopic grammar hairs attempting to alter the definition of “is” via his extra curricular Oval Office activities.

 

And so, yes, I struggle with how to discuss this well.  I must thus again return to what is elementary.  If our leaders only governed with the basic, ethical, elementary rules, perhaps then our trust would not evaporate so dramatically.  Let’s go back to what we learned in kindergarten.  Let’s return to the playground…

 

Healthcare, etal., should have been handled like this (with my semi-subtle, editorial comments in between):

 

  1. Let everyone play.  (Not just those who think like you.)
  2. Don’t judge a kid who’s different.  (Yes, we’re all kids.  You’re kids.  And If you can’t  talk nicely to a kid who’s different and consider how they feel, you’re acting superior.  When you act superior, you’re being judgmental.  Judgment is ugly.  Even in kids.)
  3. Let the children run.  (If they fall and scrape their knee or break something, they’ll learn from it — and be wiser in the future.  We don’t have to make a rule that prohibits children from running.  We don’t have to legislate everything!  Geepers.  Let all of us learn!)
  4. Say what you mean and mean what you say.  (Lying is bad.  We learned that in preschool.)
  5. No throwing dirt.  (I repeat:  no throwing dirt.)
  6. Know your job and respect authority.  (Recognize that you are not an authority on all things; and refrain from doing things that are not within your job description.)
  7. Be a good sport.  (In the minority or majority.)
  8. If you choose to lick the monkey bars during cold weather, don’t blame anyone else.  (Don’t blame the person who dared you; don’t blame the weather.  Take responsibility for your own actions.)
  9. Remember these rules are only for the playground.  (Our job is not to establish rules for the bathroom and the gym.  We don’t have to govern every area.)

 

And the number one playground rule Obama, the Bushes, Clinton, and Congress should have learned:

10. If you can’t abide by the rules, then don’t play on the playground.

 

Respectfully,

AR

grrrrrrrrr…

Reason #387 why government can be so frustrating:  the response to Obamacare.  First the facts:

 

  • During Oct. 1st – Nov. 2nd, 26,794 people enrolled on the federal website.
  • When state exchanges are included, 106,185 people enrolled.
  • The 106K number includes persons who put a plan in their cart but never paid  (think Amazon.com, in which “in cart” does not equate to actual “sale”).
  • 7,000,000 people are forecasted to be enrolled by March of 2014; this equates to 1.5% of the forecast currently, partially enrolled.
  • In regard to plan cancellation, an estimated 5 million people have already been notified they are losing their desired plans.
  • As recently as September, Pres. Obama said repeatedly that people could keep their plans.
  • Premium prices are skyrocketing for many.  Specific factual data on this aspect remains ambiguous.

 

Instead, however, of transparently acknowledging the above negative results — and the inability of being financially sustainable — our elect choose spin instead of governing.

 

Do both the Democrats and Republicans contribute to this?  Of course they do.  Some act as if it’s the end of the world, while others act as if it’s insignificant; still some suggest it’s only a flawed website.  In my opinion, one of the primary problems with this law is that it was not bi-partisanly crafted.  No Republican supported the totality of this law.  While aspects have been previously supported by both, the massive extent of this law was written and enacted by one party, which is not consistent with the way this country has ethically governed.  There exist huge problems.  Here then, are my questions for Pres. Obama, Congress, and Health & Human Services Sec. Kathleen Sebelius, that I’d like them to publicly, honestly, and concisely answer:

 

  • Why did you promise repeatedly that people could keep their healthcare plans?
  • Was it because you believed without the untrue promise, the bill would be too unpopular? … that the legislation might not pass? … that your own re-election might be dependent on that lie or faulty promise?
  • If it wasn’t a lie, how did you not understand the implications of the policy you advocated?
  • Is this current mess all part of the plan — just a necessary, negative step on the way to universal, single payer, or socialized healthcare?
  • Have you been truthful and transparent?
  • Where have politics entered into play?
  • Why the numbers only now?
  • Why include those who have not paid?
  • Is it appropriate to raise men’s premiums to pay for the more costly women’s care? … is that fair?
  • Is it appropriate that the young and stereotypically healthy pay for the elderly and stereotypically more expensive care?
  • Does what the public thinks on this matter?
  • Does the opinion of persons from any other partisan stance matter?
  • Is that ethical governing?
  • And does a one-size-fits-all healthcare plan make either economic or ethical sense?

 

As the Intramuralist has articulated since the introduction of the Affordable Care Act, there are some serious, sobering actions and implications within this bill.  In my semi-humble opinion, it makes government too big — and exponentially increases the potential for corruption and incredible cost inefficiency.  Call it far more than concern #387.

 

Unfortunately, however, we don’t seem to be dealing transparently with the concern.  The President, Congress, and Sec. Sebelius seem too focused on the spin.  The words change daily.  Watch them.  And depending on one’s partisan persuasion, the words either minimize or maximize the negativity… and the lack of truthfulness and transparency in Washington.  That is not ethical.  That is not governing.  That is not ethical governing.

 

Respectfully,

AR

affordable care problem

The current, primary problem with the new healthcare law isn’t all the major glitches with the website.  Truth be told, if all Intramuralist readers based their opinion of our ongoing dialogue on the initial days of our website, we, too, would probably have far fewer numbers than the some 2,000 of you that are regular visitors.

 

The primary problem isn’t even the deep polarization surrounding the law.  Democrats supposedly love it — a historic, long-coveted legislative victory!  Republicans hate it — we’re doomed via this socialist, massive government control!

 

No, it’s not even the consistently negative public opinion of the law.  From CNN’s most recent poll this month, showing 56% in opposition of the legislation to even Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart — not known for any conservative allegiance — calling the law/rollout a highly descriptive “turd” on this week’s broadcast.

 

I really don’t believe any of the above are the primary problem.

 

As stated repeatedly amidst these posts, the Intramuralist has serious concerns about the Affordable Care Act.  Having read the entire piece prior to its passage, there are multiple, specific aspects and implications driving my concern, primarily in regard to cost, inefficiency, economics, and increased government control.  Nonetheless, I don’t see it as the current primary problem.

 

Let’s return to Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) profound statement from March of 2010, saying, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.”

 

The current, primary problem with Obamacare is that we still can’t find out what’s in it.  There’s too much controversy, too much salesmanship, and too many ambiguities or potential mistruths.

 

Regarding the controversy, remember that the law was enacted without a single Republican vote.  When Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) was elected and the chances for a filibuster-proof bill fizzled, the Senate then utilized an obscure budgetary tactic even though the bill was not about the budget.  Any significant piece of legislation passed in such a manipulated way would seem to invite such controversy.

 

There’s also too much salesmanship.  Instead of objective analysis, the elect and their microphone-loving cohorts are trying to convince instead of educate.  Education allows for the good and the bad; however, our leadership works instead to convince us of only the good or the bad.

 

Just yesterday, for example, I received two ironically contrasting emails.  One was from a conservative writer, telling me that “Obamacare is broken beyond repair.”  The other was from Obama, telling me he needs me “to be a part of Team Obamacare” and tell everyone I know about the law.  The challenge with both of those messages is that they only include the good or the bad.  They are trying to sell us on a product or perspective.

 

Lastly, there exist too many ambiguities and potential mistruths… the whole idea that “if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep” it… the “death panels”… and just this week, HH&S Sec. Kathleen Sebelius (the current most likely candidate to be thrown under the bus, by the way) saying the President didn’t know anything about the website failures beforehand… former Obama Press Sec. Robert Gibbs saying “there’s no doubt” people at HHS and those involved knew… CBS News saying the website is providing “incredibly misleading” estimates.  The ambiguous examples are countless.  It’s simply too hard to know what’s true.

 

The current, primary problem with the healthcare law?  Nancy Pelosi was wrong; we still don’t know what’s in it, as we remain in the fog of the controversy.

 

Respectfully,

AR

respect vs. rhetoric

Last week I had a tough conversation with a leader in my church.  It was tough because of the subject matter, as we disagree on a way to solve a current challenge.  It was not tough in the way we related.  It was not tough because there was a lack of respect. It was not tough in our means nor manner of communicating; neither of us worked to rally more to our side.  Respect trumped rhetoric.

 

Last week we witnessed our government’s leaders do exactly the opposite.  We watched way too many seemingly smart people employ rhetoric and disrespect, and work more to rally others to their side.  Friends, political affiliation did not — and sadly, does not — matter.

 

Once again, our federal government has spent the maximum amount of money it is legally allowed to borrow.  They have maxed out their credit cards, so-to-speak.  Funny, but regardless of party, the majority always wants to spend more; and regardless of party, the minority always desires to spend less.  Such is evidenced in the following, amazingly insightful comment:

 

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.”

 

The above quote is from Barack Obama, when he was a senator — and voted against raising the debt ceiling.

 

Nonetheless, as President, Obama and others now desire more freedom to spend.  This is a tough conversation.  But the Intramuralist would propose that asking to increase our credit limit is not primarily tough because of subject matter; it’s tough because of how leadership feels justified in communicating…

 

“If you go to the 1940s, Nazi Germany.  Look, we saw in Britain, Neville Chamberlain, who told the British people, ‘Accept the Nazis. Yes, they’ll dominate the continent of Europe but that’s not our problem. Let’s appease them.’”  — Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), comparing Nazi Germany to not standing up to debt and Obamacare

 

“The reason Ted Cruz stood up and asked for a delay is so that he could have a vote during today when the ‘tea baggers’ in his Tea Party were going to watch.”  — Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)

 

”We are for cutting spending. We are for reforming out tax codes, reforming out entitlements.  What we’re not for is negotiating with people with a bomb strapped to their chest.”  — White House Senior Adviser Dan Pfeiffer

 

Or the other phrases utilized… “political terrorism” by Al Gore… “tea party anarchists” and “stupid” by Harry Reid… “legislative arsonists” by Nancy Pelosi… “holding hostage” by multiple Republicans and Democrats… “raping the American people” by television commentator Tamara Holder… even “blackmail” by Obama.

 

My point is this… this conversation is going to remain tough because our leaders have allowed rhetoric to trump respect.  They chide instead of humbly communicate and consider; they insult instead of respect and submit.  We can’t keep spending more then we take in, but we also can’t tackle the problem when our leaders continue to stand in front of the cameras and work most to rally others to their side.  They should instead be meeting one-on-one, face-to-face, listening and submitting to one another, resisting the cameras and campaign stops…  just as I did with the leader in my church last week.

 

In my meeting, I will share that we did not end by agreeing on a singular solution and then living happily ever after.  But we heard one another; we each felt respected.  We vowed to work together, listen, and go forward together, recognizing that we are on the same team.  Our leaders need to do the same.  In fact, with their generous use of disrespect, perhaps they would first benefit by going back to church.

 

Respectfully,

AR

truth in advertising

Here’s the challenge…

 

No matter the merits…

No matter the goodness…

No matter the efficiency…

No matter the cost…

 

Instead of engaging in dialogue that encourages actual, objective analysis, we instead attempt to seduce audiences into thinking all is good or all is not.  In other words, we don’t fairly evaluate the merits of an issue, policy, or proposal.  We don’t examine efficiency.  We instead spend more effort and energy into “talking people into things.”

 

This summer “Organizing for Action” — the organizational successor to Pres. Obama’s campaign arm — began advertising their perceived positives regarding Obamacare…

 

“The truth is, Americans are already seeing the benefits…

Better coverage and lower costs.  That’s what Obamacare means for them.”

 

Are the above statements true?

Maybe.  Maybe not.  But “Organizing for Action” is spending over a million dollars on their current cable television ad buy in order to appeal to us emotionally — and thus convince us such is true.

 

As one who has watched the healthcare debate closely and carefully studied the legislation, my sense is that the above claims cannot be made with certainty.  However, such misses the point of today’s post.  This is not an analysis of the merits of the newly imposed Patient Affordable Care Act.

 

The point is that many (on multiple issues) encourage little to no honest dialogue.  There are seemingly few attempts to forthrightly decipher what is good and what is not… what will work and what will not… and what works for one person but for another will absolutely not…

 

Instead of objective analysis, far too often our goal seems to manipulate the audience — bypassing any unbiased examination — bypassing total truth in advertising — and emotionally convince others that our perspective is entirely accurate and good.  In other words, once again, we stink at dialogue.  Actually, we don’t stink; we simply skip the step.

 

Let’s instead ask better questions.  Let’s work to inform, discuss, and help all affected comprehend.  Let’s understand the positives and pitfalls together — as both exist and both are relevant.

 

Let’s do that instead of spending massive money on emotional appeal.

 

True, the current ad buy is only an approximate million dollars by a political action committee.  That number, however, can be added to the federal government’s previous tens of millions of dollars — taxpayer dollars — spent hiring PR firms to promote the law.  Something tells me that such can’t be all good either.

 

Dialogue would be better.  By far.

 

Respectfully,

AR

concerned

Now that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act/”Obamacare” has been ruled mostly constitutional and the Intramuralist’s analysis of the law itself has ceased, allow me to share my most significant, resulting concern…

 

The process to enact the law was fully partisan.  The sad reality is that this is an observation we ignore if we agree with the bill — with most bills.  But then again, this isn’t what concerns me most.

 

The process was divisive.  Due to the fact that the process was pushed from a partisan perspective, divisiveness was rampant.  One of my current, chief apprehensions about Pres. Obama is whether or not he’s a uniter or divider.  Then again, this also isn’t what concerns me most.

 

The process (notice there is much about the process) was manipulated, full of favors, negotiated behind closed doors, and rushed through Congress without congressmen reading the bill.  There is much in that observation that causes this semi-humble current events blogger to shake my head, wondering how so many seemingly ethical people can be comfortable with that.  But no, this still isn’t what concerns me most.

 

It also isn’t the content.  The advocates’ primary talking point for the last few months has been:  “the bill’s not perfect, but it’s a good start.”  Allow me to acknowledge there is some ‘good stuff’ in there; but allow me to also acknowledge there’s some ‘bad stuff’ in there.  Ignorance of that fact does not make this law wise nor even comparable to “perfect.”  Then again, the specifics of what’s embedded within the legislation are known to very few.

 

I’m also not most concerned about the new taxes.  I know, I know…  Even after the Supreme Court ruled the only way the mandated purchase can be constitutional is because it’s a tax, the White House Press Sec. said Friday (after the ruling) that it’s not a tax; “it’s a penalty.”  Geepers.  The Supreme Court ruled a “penalty” is unconstitutional; a tax — regardless of wisdom — is legal.  Still, the flurry of rhetorical contradiction is not my greatest concern.

 

Additionally, I’m not significantly concerned about some pundits’ reactions.  For example…

 

Democratic National Committee Executive Director Patrick Gaspard, tweeting almost immediately after the ruling:  “It’s constitutional. B—–s.”  Note that his “B” word rhymes with “witches.”  Nice.

 

Am I concerned about significant inflation and debt?  Of course… but not most.  Economically speaking, if coverage is mandated, specific services are required, and coverage is now free for many, someone has to pay for that.  Will it be the government, thus sinking into deeper debt?  Or will it be you and me?  What will be the effect on small business?  Small business now has 2 choices:  hire less than 50 people (so providing coverage isn’t mandated) or significantly raise the price of goods and services.  One amounts to fewer jobs — the other, higher inflation.

 

Am I most concerned about larger government?  Where inefficiency expands and individual liberty potentially diminishes?  Not exactly.

 

Ok, ok… what concerns me most?

 

Time and time again, our country passionately works to care for the least of these.  I believe that is our calling, as a nation, but even more so as individuals.  Ironically, however, time and time again, our justification for caring for those ‘least’ totally omits that this is what the God of the universe has long exhorted us to do.  The call comes not from a party nor any president.

 

Repeatedly, policy is advocated where we omit any recognition of a divine creator.  We pat ourselves repeatedly for doing what’s supposedly good and compassionate without acknowledging it was God who mandated the calling.  With healthcare, we can boast, “Finally!  We are taking care of the least of these!”  But God has been historically clear; any nation that refuses to acknowledge him — what he’s done and what he still calls us to do — ceases to exist.  Don’t take my word for it.  Study it.  Countries who negate their reliance on God are at some point utterly ruined and destroyed.

 

I believe in individually and corporately caring for the least of these.  I believe in being fiscally responsible.  And I believe in acknowledging God as the one who called us to do both.

 

Respectfully,

AR