GODNESS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT

No, that’s not a typo or a misquote of the Mae West line from the 1932 movie Night After Night. Rather it is how I view the tendency for survivors of a disaster to thank God for their good fortune, while death and destruction lie all about them.

Speaking live to a survivor of the deadly tornado in Moore, Okla., (Wolf) Blitzer declared the woman “blessed,” her husband “blessed,” and her son “blessed.” He then asked, “You’ve gotta thank the Lord, right? Do you thank the Lord for that split-second decision?”

But as she held her 18-month-old son, Rebecca Vitsmun politely replied, “I’m actually an atheist.” A flummoxed Blitzer quickly lobbed back, “You are. All right. But you made the right call,” and Vitsmun graciously offered him a lifeline. “We are here,” she said, “and I don’t blame anyone for thanking the Lord.” Nicely done, Rebecca Vitsmun.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/22/tornado_survivor_to_wolf_blitzer_sorry_im_an_atheist_i_dont_have_to_thank_the_lord/

To me the dividing line is not between believers and nonbelievers. While such expressions of gratitude (“Thank God we were spared) do not offend me per se, I often wonder why they emanate from our mouths in the first place.

After all, if you and yours were spared why was the family right next door not? It is not the hand of God at work but merely the fickle finger of fate pointing one way or another.

I do believe such expressions are a form of arrogance, no matter how modest and shaken and genuinely appreciative the folks using them seem to be. After all, why should they have been chosen by God to live when two little children in the same block, or even the same car if it were a vehicular accident, died?

Are they so much better morally or worth so much more in terms of how their talents and actions benefit society as a whole?

I think not.

As that article notes one out of five American adults have no religious affiliation. That does not mean they have no appreciation for people who do declare their faith nor does it mean they have no concept or appreciation for any form of spirituality.

Speaking only for myself as one who, if not atheistic, is pretty damned close (I allow for ALL possibilities existing in the universe…after all, I am a big fan of mysteries) I give thanks for those friends of mine who have included me in their prayer circles in times of great distress for me.

I am not impressed with the power of prayer in these efforts but I am thoroughly impressed with the faith these people have in a complete stranger who has a troubled life.

There can be nothing bad about that.

Likewise I have frequently been wished to have a “blessed day” as opposed to the quite generic almost robotic “have a good day”. Those people are not trying to proseltyze me but are simply sharing their faith in hopes I have nothing terrible befall me.

There can be nothing bad about that.

I mentioned I don’t believe in the power of prayer. But those who do seemingly only acknowledge its power when being the beneficiary of the good result: surviving a tragedy, winning the ball game, getting a substantial raise. Only then do they exclaim “My prayers were answered!”

But in the midst of their financial despair, while tearing up the losing lottery ticket that would have enabled them to thrive if it had won, do you ever hear them declaring “My prayer was answered—but the answer was ‘NO’! “?

For if all prayers are heard and acted upon, one is sure to receive many more ‘no’s” in response than “yeses”.

There can be nothing bad about that.

Our subject article includes this tale of Arizona State Rep. Raul Mendez who was aksed to open a recent session with prayer.

“Most prayers in this room begin with a request to bow your heads,” the Democratic official said. “I would like to ask that you not bow your heads. I would like to ask that you take a moment to look around the room at all of the men and women here, in this moment, sharing together this extraordinary experience of being alive and of dedicating ourselves to working toward improving the lives of the people in our state.”

He went on to say, “This is a room in which there are many challenging debates, many moments of tension, of ideological division, of frustration. But this is also a room where, as my secular humanist tradition stresses, by the very fact of being human, we have much more in common than we have differences.”

There can be nothing bad about that.

LAW AND ORDER—MID-WEEK LINKS

I’ve previously posted a couple of pieces dealing with American Injustice. At least once I included the New York City stop and frisk policies which appear to be both blatantly racially discriminatory and…more importantly…unconstitutional.

To boot, they are extraordinarily ineffective.

But that is a matter for the courts to make the final determination on as it has been doing in hearings that ended this week.

That ongoing story is the focus of this Slate article which highlights the efforts of one NYC cop to hold his superiors respnsible for this injustice. http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/05/22/pedro_serrano_stop_and_frisk_the_heroic_new_york_city_cop_who_s_trying_to.html

Justin Peters tells us of Pedro Serrano, a cop who has testified against his own department in a lawsuit brought challenging the practice. Peters links to a longer profile of Serrano written by Jennifer Gonnerman in New York.

Several telling excerpts from Serrano’s testimony are presented that should be chilling for all of us, even us non-Big Apple residents who are not black, Hispanic, of other dubious ethnic make-up, and most of all young males from early teens to early twenties.

This stop and frisk campaign should be an affront to us all and if allowed to continue in New York, may eventually migrate elsewhere, only to be unearthed by local authorities willing to frack the rocky barriers designed to protect our rights.

Our next entry is a subtle but brilliant mockery of the use of taxpayer dollars to protect us. Also in Slate Amanda Marcotte reports on the case of an Oregon woman, facing a prosepctive rapist, who dials 911 for police aid. Alas it is a Saturday and the local constabulary has been reduced by budget cutbacks to such low numbers that they are available only Monday through Friday. http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/05/22/oregon_woman_raped_because_no_cops_were_available_don_t_be_fooled_by_the.html

Marcotte reviews this case as if she were a conservative commentator. Instead of blaming the government’s lack of spending for her plight, the woman should instead take responsibility for her own misfortune. For instance she could get a job and have enough money to be able to afford her own security force.

Call it snarkery, satire, or sarcasm. Marcotte’s writing shows exactly how governments can be penny-wise and pound foolish.

ATLAS SHRUGGED? LIKE HELL HE DID

In her novel Atlas Shrugged Ayn Rand limns an analogy between America’s most productive citizens and the mythical Atlas. The former face an ever-increasing burden from taxation and regulation while the latter Titan must endure the weight of the entire world upon his shoulders.

The book’s title derives from a questions posed by, and ultimately answered by the character Francisco d’Antonia. What advice would he give to Atlas, given that the greater Atlas’s efforts the heavier the world bore down upon his shoulders. And that advice was “to shrug.”

So the put-upon citizens, believing that civilization cannot exist where every person is a slave to society and government, and that the destruction of the profit motive leads to the collapse of society, decide to emulate Atlas were he to refuse to bear his burden any longer. They begin to disappear and vital industries shut down.

As a result, the government exercises more and more control over these industries even as society collapses.

Certain busness people today as well as noted politicians such as Paul Ryan, are devotees of Rand and her work of…get this…FICTION. Yet they promulgate similar views as to the the virtues of greed and the “free market”, unencumbered by those nasty old government regulations.

“Yes, Yes, Free Us,” they cry, “Free us and your economy will be wonderful! Everyone will be rich rich rich!”.

I may have used this term in a prior post.

BULLSHIT!

For all the whining and kvetching about how much taxes and regulations stymie them, the Rand disciples are thriving far beyond how you would think they are doing if you took their gripes to heart without even a cursory examination of the truth.

Indeed, if the tax rates and regulations these “most productive citizens” carp, grumble, whimper, squawk, lament, bleat, grouse and yammer about are so bad, how the hell do they explain these facts?

In the past 20 years corporate profits have quadrupled while the corporate tax percent has dropped by half. The payroll tax, paid by workers, has doubled.

So states Paul Buchheit in this opinion piece. http://www.salon.com/2013/05/18/were_living_in_an_ayn_rand_economy_partner/

Individual tax rates, despite the recent bump in the highest marginal rate that occurred when the Bush cut in it was allowed to expire, are the lowest since World War II.

More remarkably Atlas seems to be on an extended coffee break from bearing his burden as more and more of what should be our shared responsibiliteies are either neglected or the burden shifted to the lower income classes.

Not only do corporations and individuals benefit from lower tax rates, Buchheit emphasizes that they also benefit from contrivances in the tax code to lessen their payments.

There’s much more. Companies call their CEO bonuses “performance pay” to get a lower rate. Private equity firms call fees “capital gains” to get a lower rate. Fast food companies call their lunch menus “intellectual property” to get a lower rate.

Prisons and casinos have stooped to the level of calling themselves “real estate investment trusts” (REITs) to gain tax exemptions. Stooping lower yet, Disney and others have added cows and sheep to their greenspace to get a farmland exemption.

I could be generous and describe the Ayn Rand approach and the complaining arising from it a mere subterfuge, or public relations spin, or misdirection, or political slant. But I’m no more generous than are these Titans of industry who have the audacity to compare themselves with Atlas, the Titan of Greek mythology.

They are plain lying and they know it.

One should not begrudge these “productive citizens” their financial rewards because of the economic benefits we all derive from their diligence and perspicacity.

Like hell one shouldn’t. Over the past thirty years, remember, the growth in income disparity and the gap in wealth distribution is so acute that the only gains in terms of real dollars belong to the top percentiles of income.

Whatever the basis for the economic theories preached by Ayn Rand and her progeny, that basis resides just as much in mythology as does the tale of Atlas.

Even if these theories were operable or viable at all, the lives of the very people Rand preached to demonstrate clearly that those conditions must be almost nonexistent for her target audience to have prospered so well.

So the next time you hear Paul Ryan or another person of his ilk pontificating about the need to cut taxes and slash regulations close your eyes and visualize that he is offering swamp land in Florida for sale or is on the back of a wagon purveying his special brand of snake oil.

Then realize if you buy what he is selling you’ll either be up to your ass in alligators or retching your guts out with still no cure in sight for what ails ya.

PLEASE POINTE ME TO THE CENTRE OF TOWNE

The Walmartization of America is near completion with only a few remote outposts remaining to be despoiled by acres of parking and huge buildings marked by separate entrances for employees arriving for work and employees arriving to sign up for or to receive government benefits to subsidize their below poverty wages.

In recent years instead of enclosed malls and big box stores commercial developers have seen fit to pretend they are returning us to the prosperous and busy small town downtown shopping districts of yesteryear.

They opt less for the linear in design of the infrastructure and present us instead with quirky intersections, curved access roads, and buldings of varying heights, and…most of all…names suggesting you are shopping in quaint old English villages.

So one experiences a proliferation of Towne Centres, Centre Townes, Towne Pointes, Olde Townes, Younge Centres, Pointe Blankes, Olde Shoppes and all manner of distortions of the Englishe language.

But if these were true English villages they would have dirte streets, woode sidewalks, human waste running in the gutters, grotesque beggars seeking “just a farthing, Mum,” and a dearth of handicap parking spaces for gentlemen’s carriages.

Then one could throwe in the occasional gathering of crowdes to witness the latest hanging of a convicted pickpocket while other pickpockets take advantage of close quarters to earn their daily breade. The merchants themselves would be living parodies of Dickensian squalor.

Of course the stores in our small towns had the advantage of being run by individual businessmen rather than  giant conglomerates. Instead of checkout lines we would pay clerks at the same counter where we made our purchases and those same clerks would possesse actual knowledge of the wares they purveyed.

Too, your jeweler would be your former next door neighbor who, when you as a teen boy would buy trinkets for your mother and sister’s Christmas gifts, would allow you to select from affordable pieces and then gladly wrap them while charging you a substantial discount.

Once you parked downtown you could stroll to the 5&10 (cents, not pence), your doctor’s appointment, your pharmacist and perhaps take a break and eat a BLT at the lunch counter or drop by Isaly’s for a delicious milkshake made with—Surprise!—milk.

In today’s faux downe townes you have none of the convenience or economy of what their names imply, that is it is not a return to yesteryear. Instead it is as if a 3-D collection of computer generated images has been placed upon plots of land formerly used as sites for heavy industries.. But these shopping areas do not enhance the sites so much as provide a sorrowful reminder of the loss of our storied manufacturing  past.

My original hometown of Washington, Pa. had the wonderful attributes of the traditional small town main shopping areas I’ve mentioned. And so did my adopted hometown of Morgantown, W. Va. Those attributes are mere memories now, but huge commercial interests seem to believe that adding an “E” at the end of their developments puts them on a par with what has long since disappeared.

However, while recognizing change is inevitable, it may not be real progresse and it most definitely does not impresse me.

Pointe made?

TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OUT OF NONSENSE

Okay, I’ll narrow the field for you since there is so much nonsense afoot at any particular time.

We have learned that the IRS targeted right wing groups regarding their tax-exempt status or efforts to secure that status. I’ve already addressed this issue and I can safely maintain that I’m agin’ it! http://umoc193.wordpress.com/2013/05/12/no-country-for-old-tax-exempts/

We have also learned that the Department of Justice obtained at least two months of phone records of Associated Press (AP) journalists in an attempt to determine the source of leaks in conjunction with anti-terrorist activities.

There is no doubt these actions by our government are extremely troubling and the Obama Administration is deservedly taking heat.

Piggy-backing on top of the renewed Benghazi investigation Republicans in Congress are undoubtedly feeling their oats. Especially joyful at these revelations are those on the right who are constantly preaching of the evils of the federal government and warning of complete government suppression.

Infortuitously for Obama and his minions, it will be easy to exploit these missteps to make political hay that even, conceivably, could carry over into the 2016 Presidential campaign.

However much one is offended by these actions, and I am sorely offended, I really cannot say that they signal a seachange in government misdeeds that threaten our very Republic.

Senate Majority Leader Democrat Harry Reid offered his two cents that the IRS focus on Tea Party groups is no different than when the agency picked on Greenpeace and the All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, California during the Cheney…er…Bush Administration without a peep of protest from Republicans. http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/reid_republicans_hypocritical_for_benghazi_irs_outrage/

In the former instance Greenpeace was subject to an extensive IRS audit due to allegations its advocacy passed lines of permissibility for a tax-exempt. It seems that a supposed watchdog group, heavily financed by Exxon, instigated this audit. Exxon, of course, is the natural enemy of Greenpeace. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0322-10.htm

The Church got into trouble when its former Rector, Rev. George F. Regas, gave a guest sermon chastising Bush for the Iraq war. http://articles.latimes.com/2005/nov/07/local/me-allsaints7

Neither did spying on journalists originate with the Obama DOJ.

But obtaining phone records of journalists is an extreme course of action that has serious ramifications. There are special rules in place in the United States that authorities are supposed to adhere to when obtaining journalists’ communication records, and they’re intended to protect press freedom and stop prosecutors from compromising journalists’ constitutionally protected newsgathering role. Federal regulations instruct investigators that they can obtain journalists’ phone records only as a last resort, and the decision to seek the records should receive the “express authorization of the Attorney General.” The authorization should be given on the basis that “effective law enforcement and the fair administration of justice” is deemed, in the specific circumstances, to outweigh “the public’s interest in the free dissemination of ideas and information.”

In recent years, however, the FBI has flagrantly disregarded these rules on multiple occasions. A scathing 2010 review by the DoJ’s inspector general criticized how the feds had spied on Washington Post and New York Times reporters in a leaks investigation carried out in 2004. The feds obtained 22 months of reporters’ phone records “without any legal process or Attorney General approval,” the inspector found, which illustrated “the absence of internal controls” and was judged to be “negligent in various respects.” The same report detailed two other cases of the FBI obtaining reporters’ phone records without following the proper procedures. One of these cases was described as “deficient and troubling” and the other a “clear abuse of authority” that violated the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, federal regulation, and DoJ policy.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/05/14/ap_reporters_allegedly_spied_on_by_the_justice_department_aren_t_alone.html

Also in the past American journalists have allowed themselves to be used by the CIA for intelligence gathering, i.e. spying, mostly furing the Cold War. Carl Bernstein gave a lengthy review of this practice in this essay. http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

So the great concept of Freedom of the Press has often been compromised in the past and, on occasion, it is the Press doing the dirty deeds.

Our level of disgust when we are informed of these abuses usually depends on whose ox is getting gored. That is, if the party in power is one you are antipathetic towards, your umbrage will reach record highs.

It often develops that the offenses are dreamed up at the lower levels of bureaucracy, whether out of a misgiuded sense of loyalty to the administration then in power or from an inner need to feel self-important by wielding power not actually granted to you.

But these offenses and abuses are most egregious when they are the product of the high political appointees to office who are most likely striving to consolidate and enhance their designated powers.

However outraged we are over the AP spying, we seem to be less so when faced with the erosion of 1st and 4th Amendment rights when it comes to fighting terrorism. In Salon, Natasha Leonard enumerates the steps taken, laws enacted, etc, that seem to have us going quickly down the slippery slope. Again, though not new with Obama or even George W. Bush, since 9/11 the government has sought and been granted greater access to our personal lives, all in the name of “anti-terrorism.” http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/whats_so_special_about_journalists/

Reg Henry of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette opines that these current scandals are simply more of Obama’s opponents crying wolf. http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/reg-henry/obamas-opponents-do-a-lot-of-crying-wolf-687665/

I take a more wait and see attitude before judging the impact of these matters. I’ve already clearly stated that the IRS actions merit full investigation.

I do have a suspicion that there will be no sustained effect on the Obama Presidency. I’ve had my own bones to pick with him but to date these latest “sins” don’t appear to be anywhere near as serious as what I’ve been railing about.

In the end, history will tell us which it is. We do not, however, need to wait thirty years or so in order for that history to be written. These scandals often have a way of working themselves out so that in a few years down the road we will need stark reminders to recall they ever occurred.

STRANGE TALES FROM OUR LEGISLATORS

The Tesla, the electric car that is a sensation and gaining sales momentum, somehow has become a target of legislators in some states seeking to keep it from being sold there.

This story highlights two instances. http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/05/13/north_carolina_tesla_ban_bill_would_prevent_unfair_competition_with_car.html

In North Carolina

From the state that brought you the nation’s first ban on climate science comes another legislative gem: a bill that would prohibit automakers from selling their cars in the state.

The proposal, which the Raleigh News & Observer reports was unanimously approved by the state’s Senate Commerce Committee on Thursday, would apply to all car manufacturers, but the intended target is clear. It’s aimed at Tesla, the only U.S. automaker whose business model relies on selling cars directly to consumers, rather than through a network of third-party dealerships.

Believe it or not campaign contributions may have played a role. The North Carolina Automobile Dealers Association made the state maximum contribution to State Sen. Tom Apodaca, the sponsor of the legislation. Hmmmmm.

Meanwhile in Texas, that bastion of free enterprise (wink…wink)

…the company is fighting a law under which the employees of its “showroom” in Austin are not allowed to sell any vehicles, offer test drives, or even tell customers how much the car costs. But at least Texas still lets people buy the car online, which North Carolina’s law would prohibit.

I can find no words to comment on these occurrences other than ridiculously absurd.

Back in 2008 in Louisiana the “Louisiana Science Education Act” became law. Essentially it permits the teaching of creationism in classrooms. This is blatantly unconstitutional.

Now there are some level heads  in the Pelican State who have been striving to get this law repealed. All these efforts have failed and did so again about two weeks ago. The committee vote was 3-2 against repeal and here is an explanation, from the monkey’s mouth if you will, as to why one legislator voted no.

Sen. Elbert Guillory, D-Opelousas, said he had reservations with repealing the act after a spiritual healer correctly diagnosed a specific medical ailment he had. He said he thought repealing the act could “lock the door on being able to view ideas from many places, concepts from many cultures.”

“Yet if I closed my mind when I saw this man—in the dust, throwing some bones on the ground, semi-clothed—if I had closed him off and just said, ‘That’s not science. I’m not going to see this doctor,’ I would have shut off a very good experience for myself,” Guillory said.

          http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/05/05/louisiana_and_creationism_law_allowing_religion_to_be_taught_in_school_survives.html?wpisrc=obnetwork

   

Yep! That’s what he said, folks.

 

 

Beware of semi-clothed men throwing bones on the ground.

 

But there is one legislature that is actually seeking to advance its citizens interests, and possibly providing a great gift to humanity and common sense as well.

 

Minnesota is poised to become the twelfth state to approve gay marriage. The legislature has passed the bill and it awaits the governor’s signature.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/05/13/minnesota_gay_marriage_gov_mark_dayton_set_to_sign_bill_making_state_12th.html

 

Today’s vote is that much more noteworthy because it was only this past November that gay-marriage advocates were playing defense, successfully campaigning to block an amendment to the state constitution that would have defined marriage as being a union solely between a man and a woman.

The additional benefit to society is if Michele Bachmann carries out her threat to leave Minnesota if the law goes into effect.     http://dailycurrant.com/2013/05/13/bachmann-threatens-to-leave-minnesota-over-marriage-equality/

Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out, Michele!

 UPDATE

In my contempt for everything Bachmann I allowed myself to fall prey to a satirical article. She did not make such a threat and I apologize to my readers for not being more careful with my facts.

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD TAX EXEMPTS

There is more and more light being shed on Internal Revenue Service (IRS) agents who targeted right-leaning political non-profit groups for heightened scrutiny during the 2012 election campaign. Although the IRS has apologized for this, questions remain as to who knew what when. That’s a variation on the Watergate meme of “what did Richard Nixon know and when did he know it?”

It does appear that this scrutiny dates back as far as at least mid-2011.

But on June 29, 2011, Lois G. Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt organizations, learned at a meeting that groups were being targeted, according to the watchdog’s report. At the meeting, she was told that groups with “Tea Party,” `’Patriot” or “9/12 Project” in their names were being flagged for additional and often burdensome scrutiny, the report says.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/11/irs-tea-party_n_3260286.html

IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, a George W. Bush appointee, maintains that this problem is entirely a concoction of lower level IRS employees. That may prove to be the case but Shulman’s word should not be the last one.

Nor, right now, are there any credible allegations that anyone in the White House conceived this plan or had any knowledge of it. But the results of any investigation must assure us that this is true. For if someone in the White House is involved, it be will be damned difficult for President Obama not to be implicated.

Recall that misusing the IRS for political reasons was one of the impeachment counts lodged against Richard Nixon. Had he not resigned ample evidence existed that may have led to his conviction on that count.

Americans of all stripes have a natural distrust about the IRS. While many are worried their misdeeds will be detected, probably most of us honestly believe we are at least trying not to cheat but still get nervous stomach any time we have contact with the IRS other than to obtain our filing forms or receive our refund checks.

For the most part in our history any paranoia has been unfounded. But it is occasions such as this that can generate enormous hate against the agency that impedes its normal functions and creates an atmosphere in which any government entity is looked on with suspicion.

Tax exempts are a special category that does deserve scrutiny. However, the potential for misdirected scrutiny can be high for any organization that is both tax exempt and operates in a manner that brings controversy.

One generally is not going to find IRS shenanigans concerning your average food pantry, or cancer fighting fund-raising group or your church on the corner that concentrates on serving its congregation instead of involving itself in social and political causes.

Last year Stephen Colbert, on his eponymous Comedy Central TV show, played with creating a Superpac to demonstrate how IRS regulations pertinent to such an organization’s money trail could be exploited easily and legally so the public never learns what happens with the money.

It is perfectly understandable why the government encourages the formation of tax-exempt groups with charitable or socially beneficial purposes. But there is opportunity within these organizations for abuse, not merely from corrupt individuals running them, but due to their very nature.

It may be the time to revisit this issue to explore whether the purposes of these organizations should be narrowly defined in order to qualify them for tax-exempt status and then regulated suffciently to ensure these purposes are met. That way we may avoid the pitfalls of permitting groups that have their own survival as their goal more than any public good to take advantage of this status.

In addition there would then also be far less incentive to manipulate the IRS to annoy, harrass, or otherwise mistreat them.

Look. It is pretty obvious that I have no love for the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, or any other group that makes ludicrous assertations about Obama and liberals that have little or no basis in fact. But if these groups qualify for tax-exempt status under present law I vehemently object to this unwarranted IRS scrutiny solely on the basis of their ideas and beliefs.

It is plain wrong and probably illegal. So investigate fully and identify whomever was responsible for these actions, countenanced them in their positions of oversight, or had the power to instigate them by exceutive fiat de facto or by inferred derivative power. And I do mean whomever.

Then let the punishment fit the crime.

 

Correction/Clarification

Reference to IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman was proper and he was a Bush appointee. However he resigned in November and no new IRS Commissioner is in place. Thus the call by Marco Rubio for his resignation now won’t quite work.

Update at 1:20 a.m. 5-14-13

MASTERS OF OUR DOMAIN

Health care costs in the United States are an ongoing concern. And well they should be. They are the highest in the world, per person, and far outstrip the costs for the same or similar levels of care (or even higher) in our peer nations.

I’ve looked at thse comparative costs previously. http://umoc193.wordpress.com/2012/05/04/our-insane-health-care-costs/

Yet we have millions of Americans who still lack health insurance. While there are some ameliorating factors, these uninsured (and a good number of them are working or in working families) face the highest costs of all for health care, especially when an illness or injury necessitates their hospitalization. Faced with having to pay the costs of their treatment themseves, they frequently accumulate overwhelming debt.

Medical care debt accounts for about 42% of the 1.5 million bankruptcies filed each year. Remarkably, over 75% of those filers had health insurance. But high deductibles and/or copays, uncovered treatments, or coverage limits lead to this debt.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA or just ACA) by its name infers that it is a direct attack on these high medical care costs. I look instead to the intent of the law to provide health care insurance coverage to an additional 30-50 million Americans as its primary purpose.

The law does contain provisions directly related to the actual costs of treatment, but there is no way of actually knowing the total effect of these provisions until the ACA is fully in force in 2014.

Related to the high cost of health care is the high cost of insurance, whether under a group policy for employees or members of affinity groups or individually.

The law, if basic principles of supply and demand and spreading risk over larger numbers apply, should mean lower premiums. In other words, the private insurance companies   will provide the bulk of coverage to this additional customer base. With so many more customers, the total premiums needed to support coverage payments will bring lower premiums per customer.

There is no guarantee, however, that this will occur. Critics of the ACA are fond of pointing out that private insurance premiums have risen significantly since passage of the law. Of course they blame the ACA for this increase while chortling that President Obama promised a reduction of premiums of $2500 per family due to the law.

The Washington Post Fact Checker has looked at these mainly political claims and found them wanting.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamacare-and-rising-health-insurance-premiums/2012/04/01/gIQAJFGZpS_blog.html

In fact the “promise” of Obama that premiums would decrease by $2500 was a projection that premium costs in 2016 would be that much lower than they would have been absent the law, not that there would be a reduction by such amount from current premiums.

The rising costs of Medicare are also thought to be a problem. With people living longer and more seniors reaching eligibilty age, there are some predictions that Medicare costs will be a huge budget buster.

I don’t have data available that would illuminate the exact relationship, but surely Medicare faces budgetary problems due in part to the overall rise in health care costs, not simply its demographic realities.

In February a Time Magazine cover story by Stephen Brill focused on our health care costs and examined them in depth. He presented examples of what patients without insurance pay, what the government pays for Medicare patients, and the charges to private insurers, all for the same procedures, treatments, drugs, medical devices, and hospital stays.

We learned from that article that hospitals maintain what is called a “Charge Master”, essentially the rates billed to whomever pays for a patient’s treatment. If the patient himself pays the bills are extraordinarily high. Private insurers pay far above the costs to hospitals and Medicare patients are billed the least of all.

It came to our attention…if it had not entered our consciousness previously…that “non-profit” hospitals appear to be anything but.

Brill used the information that he discovered to suggest that the extension of Medicare to more, younger people was one way to help address these high costs. Or any single payer system might accomplish the same goal whether through Medicare or not.

Now the governemnt has released data on medical costs in a comprehensive format that provides additional proof that our health care costs, if nothing else, are erratic and wildly disparate from provider to provider with seemingly no rational basis for the differences.

 Huffington Post gives us some examples from wading through the new report and showing how much disparity there is in charges by hospitals within the same geographical area.

The government data base itself is accessible here: https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/Medicare-Provider-Charge-Data/index.html

Here is an example of disparity in cost highlighted in the HuffPo article.

When a patient arrives at Bayonne Hospital Center in New Jersey requiring treatment for the respiratory ailment known as COPD, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, she faces an official price tag of $99,690.

Less than 30 miles away in the Bronx, N.Y., the Lincoln Medical and Mental Health Center charges only $7,044 for the same treatment…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/hospital-prices-cost-differences_n_3232678.html?1367985666

There are startling differences in the charges for the same services at the two hospitals in my home town of Morgantown, W.Va., barely a mile apart if that.

For instance the charge for a heart catheterization w/ drug-eluting stent is $48,454 at WVU Hospitals, a teaching hospital connected with the university, while just up over the hill at Monongalia General Hospital (established by the county) the charge is $30,334. That is where I underwent the procedure four years ago.

Meanwhile, at UPMC Presbyterian in Pittsburgh, 75 miles away, the charge is $85,023. Of course that is an even larger teaching hospital than WVU.

Now the charge is not what is paid. The average covered payment at each of the three institutions is $16,974, $10,039,, and $14 870 respectively.

But the difference between what is charged and what is paid merely emphasizes the seemingly voodoo approach to determining the charge in the first place.

If you combine the reportage of Stephen Brill with the bombshell facts emerging from the Government report one is left scratching one’s head in bewilderment. (And if this head-scratching continues, who the hell knows what the charge will be for treating any resultant condition?)

Exploring in detail the factors entailed in setting these prices requires work that exceeds my capabilities here.. But even a cursory examination gives impetus to the notion that the normal so-called free market characteristics of supply and demand, the cost of procuring supplies, transportation, labor costs, etc. are only a small part of the processes entering into the Charge Master.

Now that we have infinitely more information available on medical costs we can enter more intently into the world of policy making and implementation that can more reasonably apply charges that fairly compensate providers while reducing the burdens on those who pay for these services. Ultimately doing so will allow us to make access to health care both more available and more affordable to all Americans.

That does not mean we should expect perfection. It does mean we should expect to be Charge Masters of our Domain.

FUNERALS ARE FOR THE LIVING

As my age continues to advance (I’m not complaining, considering the alternative) I have become more contemplative about my eventual and inevitable demise.

I can only hope to slow, not end the process. Stepping off the path is impossible save for a few detours as we traverse the orange cone lined zones of life that provide temporary respite.

Film critic Roger Ebert’s recent death brought greater awareness of this essay, excerpted from a book, in which he deals with the reality of his death. http://www.salon.com/2011/09/15/roger_ebert/

It contains much wisdom and is applicable no matter your religious persuasion or if you, like me, have been persuaded by no religion at all.

But that deals with dying whereas funerals deal with death after the fact. One can muse to one’s heart content about their dying, its pain or not, their life regrets or appreciations, or even how they want their death observed.

But once dead, they no longer have any feelings, any eyesight, any hearing or any thought processes by which to observe the world around them or to form any opinion whatsoever.

Whatever happens to finalize the final recognition of their life and disposal of their remains is done to satisfy the needs and desires of those left behind. Even if the deceased had expressed preferences for ceremonies or other details and observing these requests demonstrates respect for these wishes, not doing so will not change the fact that the deceased is dead.

Take my mother, Please! She died in December of 1991 having provided for her cremation and specifying that she wanted no funeral nor graveside service when her cremains were laid beside my father in a cemetery in Wheeling.

My brother and sister and I, my mother’s grandchildren, a few remaining other family members and some friends all grieved just as anyone grieves when a loved one passes. But there was no fancy casket, no overwhelming flower arrangements, no dirges played, and no ostentatious public display of mourning.

Despite this low key approach my mother today remains as successfully dead as any decedent whose passing was observed with great expense and all the exhibition of decorum demanded by tradition and funeral home marketers.

Any personal affairs or financial accomodations were satisfied and wrapped up quickly with little fuss and absent any hint of acrimony.

Contrast that to the families torn apart by fighting over what the dead wanted and how they wanted to be remembered and the expense involved when the dead had no greater concern with these matters than they did with the ongoing debate over the size of Kardashian asses.

In these cases the dead are still successfully and blissfully in that state while their survivors are relegated to their fifteen minutes of fame on Judge Judy arguing over who pays for what while proving to a national TV audience that non-humans indeed are entitled to their day in court.

I wish to emulate my mother in terms of no funeral. Additionally, if I can complete the proper steps, there will be nothing of me left to bury. That oughta cut the cost waaaaaay down.

On the other hand I do wish for my sons to hold a celebratory party for whatever family can attend and for all my friends. It could be that reserving the rest room at Burger King will suffice for space. But…who knows? Perhaps it would be necessary to rent Mountaineer Field to hold all the folks who want to give public thanks for my passing. That would have the added advantage of the police being able to interview in one venue all the “persons of interest” who may be responsible for my death.

Most of us live our lives with varying degrees of success— personally, professionally, financially,—and that success is rarely sustained for much more than 30-40 years. But I can pretty much guarantee that all of us can remain successfully dead for centuries, if not longer (it depends on whether George Romero has use for us) whether the world learns of our death via flowery obituary or gleefully circulated hate-filled email: whether our corpses are contained in fancy caskets or Hefty Bags: or whether any formal service takes place in the most magnificant cathedral or the humblest parlor in a loved one’s home.

Once we achieve death we are immutable objects who will be modified in no way by a funeral. Let the living enjoy them…I think I’ll have a beer.

GOOD IDEA?—BAD IDEA?

I have three separate issues here with articles or editorials expressing a view as to what action, if any, should be taken. I’l present my basic opinion but I believe there is ample room for discussion either way.

First the notion of term limits for members of Congress rears its ugly head. Rep. Matt Salmon (R.-Ariz) has proposed a Constitutional amendment to limit terms, six years total for the House of Representatives and twelve years for the Senate.

Writer Jonathan Bernstein thinks this is a bad idea and explains why. http://www.salon.com/2013/04/27/republicans_term_limits_proposal_is_dumb_undemocratic/

Here is his reasoning in two short paragraphs.

Just to briefly remind everyone why it’s such a bad idea, it really comes down to this: The federal government is going to develop policies. Liberal policies, conservative policies, whatever: The government will develop and carry out choices about public policy. Each of these choices winds up being a struggle among a whole lot of players: the president; members of the House and the Senate; the political parties; interest groups; the permanent bureaucracy in executive branch departments and agencies.

So what do term limits do? Term limits have one simple effect: They weaken one set of those players. The one set of players who have the strongest reason to care what ordinary voters think. The one set of players who at least to some extent live out in the rest of the nation, and not in Washington.

I’m inclined to agree. Staff members on Capital Hill often are careerists but may not stay with one lawmaker for many years. They do get hired and re-hired frequently to my knowledge and their bosses rely on them heavily when developing or debating legislation.

It can take elected members of Congress time to fully understand all the nuances of their offices that actually allows them to be effective. Limiting the amount of experience they can ever hope to garner may have them relying more heavily on these aides who will wield more power as a result. But these aides are not elected.

I fully grasp the enmity most people feel towards Congress and share much of it. But much of that enmity derives from a sense that Congresspersons are beholden to special interests and spend far too much time working to be re-elected, some acting as if that is their main job. I don’t necessarily disagree but think that other measures to lessen these influences will work better than term limits.

Our second entry is a Post-Gazette editorial urging that Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett opt in to the expansion of Medicaid.

Every week seems to bring fresh evidence that expanding the state’s Medicaid eligibility rules under the federal Affordable Care Act would be good for Pennsylvania. Let’s hope Gov. Tom Corbett is paying attention.

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that each state could decide whether to expand Medicaid under Obamacare, Mr. Corbett approached the topic cautiously. He said he wanted to be sure it would be a good value, in the short term and the long run, if Pennsylvania agreed to raise the income limits for Medicaid eligibility so more of the working poor could be covered.

Lots of other governors had the same initial reaction, but eventually prominent Republicans including New Jersey’s Chris Christie, Arizona’s Jan Brewer and Ohio’s John Kasich decided to go along. Under the expansion, the federal government would cover 100 percent of the cost of newly eligible enrollees for three years, and then the federal share would drop to 90 percent.

Earlier this month, Mr. Corbett met with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. If that session didn’t resolve all of his concerns, he can find ample support for the expansion in three new studies by respected sources.

There are slight variations in their numbers, but the Pennsylvania Economy League, Rand Corp. and, most recently, the state’s Independent Fiscal Office all reached the same conclusion: Expanding Medicaid will mean health insurance coverage for hundreds of thousands of additional Pennsylvanians, could create thousands of new jobs in the state and will trigger billions of dollars in economic activity.

The Rand study was commissioned by the Hospital and Healthsystem Association of Pennsylvania, whose members would benefit from the expansion of Medicaid, and the Economy League report was prepared for the PA Health Funders Collaborative, an association of health foundations that works to promote better health care outcomes and healthy lifestyles. The fiscal office provides revenue projections in the state budget process and analysis to help members of the Legislature evaluate the impact of policy decisions.

Yes, some of these groups have vested interests in Medicaid expansion. But when diverse and well-established research organizations study the same data and arrive at the same conclusion, it probably means their judgment is sound. Gov. Corbett would be wise to follow their advice.

Although the editorial speaks only to Pa.’s situation, I assert that this is a good idea for all states remaining on the fence. There is some limited empirical evidence that providing health insurance through Medicaid provides general economic benefits in the long run. Healthier people are better able to work and earn money and pay taxes.

Under the ACA the federal government will pick up 100% of these Medicaid costs for three years until its share is reduced to 90% in 2020. By contrast, Pa. currently receives just under 55% of its Medicaid costs from the federal government. So Pa. taxpayers (or those in other states exercising the option) should not have an increased state tax burden, though in some limited cases that may happen, depending on demographics. (Incidentally no state presently has more than 75% of this cost borne by the federal government and the maximum possible is 83%.)

I acknowledge that the federal spending for this program will increase, but I would suggest that spreading the burden on all American taxpayers will be cost-effective over time. Admittedly that is speculative. But I still think this expansion is a good idea on humanitarian grounds if for no other reason.

Finally, you may have heard the tale about guards in a Baltimore jail participating in a drug smuggling ring to supply inmates. The story is more complicated. All the charged guards were female and many had intimate relationships with the male prisoners. So the question arises, should women be guarding male prisoners?

This article explores that question and provides greater detail on Baltimore. http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/04/26/black_guerrilla_family_should_there_be_female_guards_in_men_s_prisons.html

It certainly sounds like a heap of a mess there. But are these problems common to prisons generally with female guards? I am not aware of any widespread problem in this regard. Occasionally reports emerge about scandals involving abuse or smuggling in prisons. I would guess that we only learn of a fraction of these cases.

I do not believe that the problem lies mainly with having female guards but probably stems more from poor administration in this particular case as well as the general horrid conditions in our prisons.

So…good idea or bad idea?

What say you?