WTF Indiana?
2010, 2011, and 2012 are big years in Indiana.
In 2010 we have many state legislature and some state senate seats up for grabs, as well as various congressional districts. Most incumbents in the state are fairly safe. Despite the "tea parties" and any other "populist" movements most people are not as divisive or angry as the extremes would make them seem.
So, Mike Pence is stepping down because his wife is gravely ill. I think we can all understand and respect that. You figure political leaders from the NE part of the state would seize on the opportunity. Instead, the (R) successor-apparent is Todd Rokita, the current (R) Secretary of State who is fairly loved by both sides of the aisle due to his anti-gerrymandering stance and redistricting campaign. This impacts 2012.
2010 just opened up widely for the state's national senate seat. Surprisingly, Bayh is stepping down, opening a void the Republicans are anxious to fill. However, their top contender is Dan Coats, who is starting to be despised locally because of his lobbying and public desire to retire out of state. The Dems have to get 4500 signatures to get SOMEONE on the ballot ASAP. Without an evil (D) boogieman to run against, the state Republican establishment has no-one to promote. But there is no-one from the (D) sideline who has been groomed and is ready to go to run for Senate at this point. Maybe Joe Kernan could come out of retirement?
2011 may be the last "odd year" municipal elections in Indiana. I believe this is the first year that some new anti-corruption laws take hold, meaning that people cannot hold civil jobs and also serve as an elected official. So no more policemen and firemen (and women) can run for office. This essentially guts the Indianapolis City-County council and likely many other local boards/groups. Also, the Indianapolis mayoral election occurs, which could be interesting. The current mayor isn't a bad guy, but has been described ranging from "buffoon" to "poorly spoken." However, there isn't the necessary public outcry to ouster him, not like what happened to Bart Peterson in 2007 when the public needed to take out their anger over property taxes and crime on someone.
So far Melina Kennedy is the strongest (D) contender for mayor, but she may lose based on two or three things. One, she's seen as a political insider and insider of the Peterson administration, which was combative with police and responsible for a rise in crime. That isn't the truth, but that is the perception on the street, regardless of how many plea bargains and early releases were concocted by the city prosecutor and other state agencies. Two, she's seen as a political insider, and the current incumbent, although he's quickly ascended to be a political insider, is perceived as an outsider. It's a battle cry that resonates with many of the people. The third is that the last time most of the local public saw Melina Kennedy is someone that lost the city prosecutor election, so she may be seen as a "loser" by locals.
Although Mayor Ballard may be seen as a buffoon by many, he's been exceedingly lucky. He's played the political magic to declare his budget as balanced (implying other budgets weren't balanced, but that's a fallacy of its own.) When the city's Capital Improvement Board found itself in a financial crisis he ignored the problem and let other people solve it. Although his lack of leadership is noted, the perception is that he was in office when the problem was solved, ergo he solved it (although local politicos from both side know otherwise.) The State cleaned up its property tax mess, which happened on his watch (again perception.) And the overall crime rate has gone down (although many feel that different types of crime have shifted.)
To win Indianapolis mayor, a (D) must focus on rising property crime trends, inaction of the city on abandoned homes, and the return of the city to outsourcing strategies that failed in the past, like the management/maintenance of parks by 3rd parties. Going after the "quality of life" specter could be perilous, because the city has made strides in some areas (pot hole filling) while failing in others (quality of parks.)
2012 may not be the year the world ends, but Mitch Daniel's two-term limit as governor is up. He's positioned as a VP or Presidential contender in 2012. With Todd Rokita busy in the US House, there isn't a clear (R) succession plan for the state's highest office. The current Lt. Governor, Becky Skillman may run, but I do not believe she's popular enough or wants the job.
One rumor floated is that Bayh's retirement is so that he can return and be the governor of Indiana again. Although many (D) faithful may like that idea, I see it as unlikely at best.
So once again the Chinese curse of "may you live in interesting times" comes to Indiana, wrecking havoc with the leaders of both political parties locally.
On insipid NFL announcers…
I tuned into CBS to watch the wrap-up of the early games prior to the 4PM Colts kickoff. The announcers were performing verbal fellatio on the '00's Superbowl dynasty of the New England Patriots Cheaters and how amazing it was that they have won 111 regular-season games in a decade, and how amazing it is that the Colts have won 115 regular-seasons games in that same time period. They then reflected back on the Cowboys of the 70s and the 49ers of the 80s, and how they won a lot of games, but not as many.
What these moron announcers left out is that over time the NFL has grown and that seasons have gotten longer with more games. Ergo, these more recent dynasties of game-winning are in-part possible because more games are played and the seasons are longer. So while these stats of n-hundred games-per-decade is a pretty nifty stat, it is useless in a comparative format, because the number of games played by different teams across different seasons is varied!
Sorry for the pedantic rant, but the idiocy bothers me.
When Idealism hurts your own constituency…
The conservative idealism behind a free market regulating itself and a minimalist government is a strong movement, especially in Indiana where change is feared and the woods are full of members of the John Birch Society.
But when one-in-six people in your congressional district do not have health insurance (and therefore health care) available to them, I'd consider that a crisis. The National Review put together statistics of where the uninsured live and compared that to who is representing them in congress. So today I'm going to pick on Representative Mark Souder, from the far north-east corner of Indiana. What isn't rural in that area is related to heavy manufacturing, with a notable exception to some financial services and a large GTE Verizon data center.
17% of his district has no health insurance, per the 2008 US Census. That's the highest percentage of uninsured in Indiana. As a textbook Republican (one who stood-by President Bush and Governor Daniels through thick and thin) Souder is vehemently opposed to the health care reforms currently proposed in congress. If we were to say he was a true conservative ideologue and afraid of government spending when it comes to health care we could fault him for his deficit spending during the Iraq war, but I don't think he is claiming that. He's simply another party-line Republican, and in this case ignoring the plight of 17% of the people in his district in order to retain the appearance of being a conservative.
The health care bill that came out of the senate finance committee could have been written by the health-care lobby itself. It stipulated that all citizens must purchase private insurance (much like what goes on in Germany's health care system.) It nixed the tenuous previous-conditions exemptions and I think it fixed cross-state-line policy sales. In various forums this is what the Republicans have said they wanted (along with a few other things, but this is most of what they are asking for.) Yet they still voted against it, not for the benefit of the people they represent, but for the benefit of a unified Republican party.
What is so troubling about the party lines in Washington is that if Souder were to come forth and say "I need this for my district; I don't agree with this ideology, but I want half of the reforms in column A" he would be crucified by straying from his party.
Now the latest "weapon" in the war on health care is the current barrage of proposals will actually reduce the deficit over a 10 year period. I love the math in this kind of stuff, especially coming from my role as a pre-sales computer hardware guy. Spend $2Million now on a computer, which includes 3 years of service, and you'll save most of the money you'd pay for service on your existing gear over the next four. This has the same kind of ring to it; by fixing wasteful spending from the Medicare drug program, putting caps on reimbursement rates, and changing some regulations the government can afford to have its own insurance program (one where people still pay premiums into the system) and provide service that the private sector does not (covering pre-existing conditions.) This isn't an ideological issue, it is mapped as a simple financial one by the Congressional Budget Office.
So programs that pay for themselves (and potentially reduce the deficit) are against conservative beliefs? How so? Someone on the other side of the aisle came up with them.
On forgiveness, 2nd chances, and Michael Vick
I'm an animal lover. My family loves animals. Over the past 7 years we've rescued 16 or so animals. We don't like dog fighting; in fact, one of the dogs we rehabilitated and rescued was a beagle/basset-hound mix that was dumped in the alley behind our house along with the litter he fathered. Based upon his missing teeth, torn ear, and food aggressiveness we realized he was a "bait dog" used to train other fighting dogs to be more aggressive.
When the news about Michael Vick broke we were all stunned and horrified upon the initial findings, a kid who had it all, a star quarterback, invested in something so violent and back-woods to most of us. Football fans were enraged, animal lovers were enraged, racists even had new fodder they could construe.
Michael Vick's world unraveled from that point forward. He just about lost it all. He was prohibited from his career for 2 years. He was in jail for 18 months. He lost his homes.
So that's the history.
One of the traits that makes us human is compassion. The same compassion that allows my wife and I to take in flea-ridden rug-staining fuzzballs is the same compassion that fuels the ability for us to give second chances to people. We give our children second chances. We give our friends second chances. We give our family second chances. We give our co-workers and our bosses second chances a lot of the time, too. We give many prisoners second chances, whether rapists or murderers or thieves. And regardless who the person is we all stand awestruck and are happily impressed when that individual exceeds expectations. We're all happy that a former thief is able to hold a job and fit into society, we're happy our boss stood up for us in front of corporate management even though he was oddly silent on the other conference call we had, and we're all smiles when a co-worker remembers to provide the documents we need to finish the job without constant haranguing.
So when it comes to Michael Vick I'm troubled by the hypocrisy of many individuals and groups who proclaim compassion or have compassion as a part of their ethos, and fail to give him, a human, the same second chances that they profess to believe in. I firmly believe if he screws up again he should get the book thrown at him, but the facts are is that he served time, likely more time than the average person serves for similar crimes, if they're even caught and convicted at all. He's suffered public humiliation, the loss of his possessions, and was sidelined (literally) from what should be the prime of his career.
For many, this doesn't make up for his despicable actions, and honestly, even for me, nothing ever will. But denying someone the chance to be a productive member of society, after they have served their debt to society as dictated by our laws, goes against the whole structure of our society. Part of the premise of why our society is so great is that we, as humans, can grow and change for the better.
We don't have to root for the Eagles (why would anyone root for the Eagles?) but as humans I think we all should root for Michael Vick to use his stature to show that people can grow and change.
You don't have to like giving people second chances, but that is what we, as humans, do.
More on Health Care
A while back I posted about the poor business models of health insurance companies. The current health care debate has made my ideas far more relevant and poignant.
Those on the right and those that insist health care in our country is "A-OK" are believing in a myth. It isn't.
If we accept that premise, we can look to see that both sides of the political aisle do have some valid plans, but unless they are all implemented in concert they are a band-aid for individual issues and nothing more.
1) Tort reform. Unfortunately, the lawyers in the US are a powerful political lobby for both political parties. Therefore, this won't happen. Standardizing on the definition of malpractice at a national level, instead of at a local or state level would assist in creating a uniform way for doctors to insurance against malpractice suits. Creating a realistic cap on malpractice damages would help, too. For obvious reasons the trial lawyers don't want this kind of reform. First, it would help expose that we have too many lawyers in the country. How? With each state having its own standards for malpractice suits, no single lawyer or law firm can easily specialize in malpractice suits or defending against them. With 50 different laws on the books, there are 100 different niches for lawyers, the plaintiff or defendant in each of the 50 states. This is kind of a silly analog, and I just thought of it, but I do think it is creative. Secondly, by capping the limits on a malpractice suit, the lawyer may not feel that there is enough potential profit in a suit, even one with merit. This is a small piece of the pie overall, though. This will help control health care costs by cutting the risk for health care providers (hospitals, doctors, nurses, their unions, etc.) Given the costs of malpractice insurance premiums that doctors and hospitals have to pay, those are the people lobbying big-time for this common-sense measure.
2) Altering insurance regulations. This is a big one that has been mentioned on both the left and the right. Basic insurance math dictates that the best kind of insurance is the largest insurance pool. In an ideal situation, the risk that the insurance defends against is spread out over many, many people. Therefore, it is likely that the individual premium cost will go down the more individuals are a part of the pool. The easiest way to do this is to trump the state-based insurance regulation with some simple federal rules. This way the same policy can be offered in all 50 states, instead of just one.
The losers here are the independent, local insurance agents. Just like what happened with car insurance, where someone can now visit a website or make a call to a 1-800 number, people can do that with health insurance, too. The winners here are the insurance companies. They just lowered their costs. They can keep their premiums and rates the same and charge the same, but they've increased their profit margin. If I was less cynical, I'd suggest that the insurance companies would reduce their rates accordingly, making more health care affordable. Alternately, this legislation combined with a prohibition on blocking those with pre-existing conditions as well as excess rescission could also then "balance the plate" for insurance companies. Over-simplified, this is a proposal that hurts small business and benefits the big insurance companies, but it can also help control costs for those big employer-based plans that are purchased from those big insurance companies.
3) The public option. For all intents and purposes, a "single-payer" system, such as that which was dreamed up by Hilary Clinton in the early 1990s is a dead notion in the US. There is NO single-payer or universal healthcare proposal on the table in congress. There are fear-mongers on the Right who claim "the government is going to take it all over", but it simply isn't true. Although, if one looks at how Medicare is run, as well as health care in France, the Netherlands and Taiwan, the idea of a government-run system isn't so bad. However, bad examples of single-payer systems show up in nearby Canada and the UK. Since those places speak English, their opinion is worth much more to the US media and breeds much scare talk about the supposed-effects of a single-payer system. So no-one is currently pushing a single-payer system in the US anymore, except for folks like Dennis Kucinich and maybe Howard Dean.
The public option gives people the ability to buy what should be reasonable insurance coverage for discount or low rates; this is to give insurance to those who wouldn't normally be able to afford or receive insurance with private plans, either due to pre-existing conditions or finances. The private marketplace, likely driven by profit margin, does not provide this service. The point of the public option is not to "compete" with private insurance, but to extend insurance to those who don't have it and can't get it.
This scares the free-market idealists. First, with Medicare's proven track record of providing care for less than that of private insurance, many people may jump ship from private insurance to the public option since it is likely for the same care at less cost. This breeds the whole "complete with private insurance" debate. Secondly, those who are afraid of "big government" see this as an intrusion of governmental power. The issue is that this public plan will likely not apply to those that are afraid of it.
Remember, of 300 million people in the USA, about 50 million are on Medicare, and 45 million are on medicaid. So almost 1/3rd of the people in the country are ALREADY on some kind of public health care system. The whole point of the "public option" is to provide health care for approximately 50 million people who don't have insurance, or don't have quality insurance. We'd be increasing those "on the dole" by a mere 30%.
4) Vouchers. The Right really likes vouchers. They want the government to hand out cash in ways to stimulate the existing economies that pay their lobbyists and churches that pay them. Remember, vouchers come up a lot during debates about "school choice" and talk about vouchers for private education too. With vouchers, essentially those of a specific income level would be able to receive vouchers to pay for private health care. There are a few problems with this. First, many private insurance companies exclude people for pre-existing conditions. So, even with a voucher in-hand, you're not guaranteed coverage. Secondly, the amount of money it would take to purchase private insurance for all the Americans who need it would be far more than the cost of a "Public Option." Think about it. Given that the US Government is already providing medical payer services for 1/3rd the population with a better cost structure, why should the US Government continue to prop-up a more costly system?
My old friend Stephanie recently posted about her battle to receive pre-natal health care. [ Note, I have no clue why her blogger-based blog has a warning. ] Her husband was laid off, but even if he was still employed his insurance would not accept her as a spouse for some time. Because she's self-employed she cannot afford insurance on her own. Because she's self-employed she makes too much money for the current public assistance that is available through Medicaid. Because she's both overweight and pregnant many insurance companies won't even talk to her. She's winding up more worried about how to pay for the birth of her child than how to raise it, which should be inconceivable in a first-world country.
In another bout of cost-cutting with health insurance my wife's aunt has been through some turmoil. She was recently diagnosed with breast cancer. Per her doctors the proper course of treatment was a mastectomy. After the procedure was completed her insurance company said it would not pay for an overnight stay, that she should go home after the 4-6 hour procedure was completed.
Let's rephrase this in plain English. This woman just had a body organ removed and was still on an IV drip, in massive amounts of pain, had a drainage tube installed where her breast should be, and was told "it's not cost effective to have you in the hospital, you should recoup at home after this major surgery." After a few angry phone calls to the insurance company from her doctor she was allowed to stay ONE extra night at the hospital, but was then sent home.
Instead of focusing on healing my wife's aunt was now having to focus on battling an insurance company so she could receive the peace and quiet required to heal! The ultimate iron is that she WORKS for this same insurance company. It doesn't matter who your employer is, it is the "costs" that matter. Plus, it isn't like she can complain about the service her own company provides without fear of retribution.
I'm resigned to a sad truth. Wingnuts like Kucinich have it right. The profit-motive has completely screwed up health care companies. For insurance companies it is no-longer is it about taking care of people or spreading the risk among more people, it's about the bottom line and profit. And to make the Wall Street brokers' expectations people's health will suffer.
Why Wellpoint and other health insurance companies will fail.
And no, it isn't Obama's fault. Or Bush's. Or anyone else's.
Publicly traded companies require a continual increase in profits. That is what drives their value in the marketplace. Explanations of "Wall Street Greed" are used to evoke emotions, but neglect this underlying fact of the marketplace.
With that premise in place, health care companies, like Wellpoint, cannot exist forever. Over the past decade Wellpoint (Anthem Blue Cross/Blue Shield) has grown through mergers and acquisitions. They don't make and sell widgets. They don't really create new widgets. At the end of the day, they pool money from consumers, invest it, and then pay it out when required (usually kicking and screaming by constantly denying payments.) That is what insurance does; it hedges bets that not everyone will get sick at once and that everyone shares in the burden of taking care of one another.
They make profit through M&A by streamlining operations and also, if they start to combine product lines, by distributing the insurance risk among more and more paying (healthier) subscribers. So they've done that, time and time again. But they've run out of companies to merge with and product lines to combine. At least from my point of view. They have done some "innovation" with the Lumenos program, but that is just another fancy name for the same old game of managing risk and meting out benefits.
At the same time the same services begin to cost more. Doctors and hospitals have larger insurance bills for their liability; they need new facilities and new health care tools, all of which cost money. That goes back to the Insurance companies that increase co-pays and decrease benefits to level out their costs, but essentially just squeezes the consumer.
After being in and out of the industry for the past few years, as well as a consumer of that industry I really don't see any other way for them to survive. A reduction of benefits and increase of co-pays will eventually mean that the benefits are not worth the premiums being paid. Costs can only be managed "so much" by "agressive" and "revolutionary" programs for consumers to manage health. After those programs are implemented, then what? What is the next step to increase profit margin? I can't see one.
Another why I’m on the left rant…
Obama's infomercial has me pensive on this stuff tonight. Also, watching Jack Welsh and some talking heads on CNBC has raised my hackles.
I used to be on the right. From a libertarian standpoint on social issues; leave the government out of the bedroom and my home. Leave the market to do its work; as companies are successful they hire people and those people have jobs, and money, and buy things and the economy snowballs upwards. We saw it work to some extent under Ronald Regan and even under Bill Clinton.
Then the past 8 years happened. Or maybe the past 16. I'm not sure. At some point companies stopped reinvesting their profits into their workforce and plants. They built more and more overseas and closed doors here. That's just one common story. Others include working on increasing margins but not productivity. Or companies that don't provide value and innovate and only make money by merging and then cutting redundanices. They increase profit but at the end of the day there are less jobs.
This is historical, though, too. This happened throughout the 1960s and 1970s with the automakers and steel industries. They eventually were beaten by overseas production, but later were resurgent.
But that happens again and again and again. At least it seems that way.
I remember a calculus problem in high school that calculates how long it takes to empty the water a funnel. Water is poured into the funnel at a given rate and flows out at another given rate. There is also a starting volume in the funnel. As the funnel drains it is also refilled, but is it refilled at a rate enough to keep the funnel filled or will the funnel eventually run out? It almost seems that our economy is that funnel. We pour into it as it runs out, but we can't pour into it enough to sustain the jobs and people of the country. It's just now that we're reaching some kind of critical mass where many, many people are worried as the funnel drains out.
So we have an American economic ethos that says government should stay out of business. At least that was the ethos professed by the right and something we kept with for the past eight years, but for some reason it hasn't worked. Lower taxes haven't stimulated that much growth. People are worried about their money.
Obama offers an alternative. People keep and have more of their money. This is the economics of the right to a "T" ... more money in the people's pockets means more money spent in different ways, and the economy grows. This is something the right has been professing for years, but lately has only focused on the wealthy or on businesses.
The government has given business a nearly free reign (save SOX compliance) for several years. And they have rewarded the government and American people by moving more jobs off-shore than making them at home. It just hasn't worked.
That's just how I see it.
This contrasts with what Jack Welsh was saying. He's a man I like and respect. He's smarter than I am. He said he's a jobs voter, and thinks that Obama's tax plans would hurt businesses to the point they'd cut jobs. I'd view it more as a wake-up call. Businesses have armies of accountants and there are enough government loopholes that an increased business tax won't net much. With people having more money in their pockets they'll buy more. We know this. The problem is people have less and less money in their pockets due to inflation from energy and healthcare costs. The constant refrain we hear from people over and over again is that budgets are tight and their dollar doesn't go as far. It causes them to spend less.
I can't follow the other logic that I've subscribed to in the past and that troubles me.
Attack of the robo-socialists.
Governor Sarah Palin is one of the nation's most prolific practitioners of socialism. All Alaskans, whether working or staying at home receive an annual rebate from the state due to the profits from leasing land to oil companies. Under Palin's tenure that rebate has increased. Without question this is a Marixst-based redistribution of wealth! In Sarah Palin's Alaska all members of society, not just those who contribute receive funds. I find it unconscionable that Sarah Palin has the audacity to rail against Senator Obama's plan of taxing those making more than $250,000 per year and cutting taxes for 95% of the population as an unfair redistribution of wealth.
So how important is this Bill Ayers?
If Bill Ayers is the pariah that the Republicans portray him to be the Republicans have a big problem. After talking to a professional educator and doing some research, most of the values surrounding school reform as proposed by the Republican party are items that were studied and/or championed by Bill Ayers. These include smaller classroom sizes and smaller urban schools. So are Republicans ready to nix all their current schooling proposals to flee from Ayers ideology?
It is six of one, half-dozen of another…
If you read here you know who I'm supporting and why, but here are some more observations of mine.
McCain wants to drop business taxes and do more of the "supply-side" or "trickle-down" thing. When it works, it works well. Goods and services cost less and businesses should invest in themselves and keep people employed and employ more people. However, in recent history businesses have kept the increased profit and invested off-shore and shuttered factories in the US seeking higher profit margins instead of sustaining their current margins and workforce. Overall this has hurt the American economy and not helped it. When a child exhibits a pattern of bad behavior the rules and circumstances surrounding him/her should be re-examined if not changed. I believe the same goes with government and economic policies. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Obama wants to shore up the business tax code essentially raising business taxes to where they were during the Ronald Reagan years. He wants to cut taxes for about 95% of the population. The difference here is that the government is seen directly serving the people instead of indirectly. There are warm fuzzies associated with this but it's also the same logic. Instead of giving money to businesses to grow the economy it's given to the people. This was done with the economic stimulus check and it's also been a general rationale for tax cuts by the political right. Except the political right doesn't like this idea; it increases taxes for the top 5%, and that's a sound-bite to hold onto.
The debate tonight has quite a bit talking about "Joe the plumber" who didn't know who to vote for. My answer is that it is a net-wash. McCain may give him tax breaks, but with the increased costs related to healthcare under his plan it's probably a wash compared to Obama's plan which would increase his taxes and cut his healthcare costs via small business tax credits.
It also boils down to who can get the job done. With a Republican president and a Democratic legislature there will be nothing coming out of Washington other than half-assed compromises. With an all Democratic suite we'll see some progress, but also an increase in pork.
