Under-Informed Health Care Debate

Posted on 2009-10-01 by David

Considering how widely discussed the health care issue is and how long running that discussion has been it is easy for people to think they have all the available and relevant information on the subject. The fact is that despite the appearance of coverage you can only scratch the surface of available information unless you search beyond mainstream news sources. Here’s a letter in the  Salt Lake Tribune yesterday as a case in point:

To President Barack Obama and Congress, I say: Negotiate the various health care reform bills — soon. Get the Blue Dog Democrats on board, and pass a bill — soon, before your public becomes so weary of partisan infighting that we oppose anything you pass.

The Republicans, for all their bluster, have not offered any alternative, except our Sen. Bob Bennett with Oregon Democrat Sen. Ron Wyden, and that bill has received only token Republican support. . .

The author is right that the Health Americans Act by Wyden and Bennett has received only token Republican support – largely because it is only fleetingly different from the various Democrat only bills in circulation. On the other hand, he is far from right that Republicans have offered no alternatives – that’s just the line that Congressional leaders and the administration have been feeding to the media. Just browse the sites of Rep. Ron Paul and Sen. Jim DeMint to get an idea of some of the Republican counter-proposals that have been offered. Then consider that for every idea presented by those two members of Congress there must be dozens of ideas that were offered in negotiations before the Republicans left the tables that never received even token consideration by leaders of the various committees.

On the very day the letter was being published Rep. John Shadegg (AZ-03) was talking about one of those non-existent Republican plans that was apparently introduced back in July and cosponsored by Rep. Rob Bishop (UT-01) among others. (h/t Right Truth) As always in the health care debate, each bill should be measured against the findings of David Goldhill to see if it actually addresses the real problems in the health care system. (Shadegg’s bill appears to do better than the bills actually acknowledged by the media from what I’ve seen.)

Although I maintain that being truly informed requires that we look at more information sources than the mainstream media that also means that we have to be discerning about the accuracy of each information source. I think it’s safe to doubt the accuracy of anyone (especially an MD) that believes that our current health care system suffers from a “lack of government regulation.” I’m amazed that someone could seriously argue that the current proposals under consideration represent free market solutions and that solutions based on free market principles would be a good thing while also arguing that the free market is the cause of our health care woes.

Posted in National | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 18 Comments

Re-Founding Requires Renewed Statesmanship

Posted on 2009-09-30 by David

photo credit: mharrsch

Bob Henline strikes again, but this time there is nothing he said that I would argue with.

. . . all we end up doing is enacting more ridiculous laws that only spin the problems, never really resulting in any tangible effects. That leads us to ask the question of why this is the case?

The short answer to this question is that we lack anything resembling long-term thinking in this country. Our politicians have shelf-lives of 2, 4, or 6 years and our general public has an attention spam of about 12 seconds. This situation doesn’t lend itself well to long-term solutions, but it does lead to amazing long-term problems. Over the course of the past 50 years or so we have done an amazing job of creating problems and of pushing them off onto future generations. The problem that we now face is that we are the future generation that is stuck with the tab.

Continue reading →

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , | 6 Comments

Civility in Politics

Posted on 2009-09-30 by David

Last Night Sutherland hosted a blogger briefing discussing the topic of civility in politics and where we draw the line between being passionate and being civil. Dave Hansen and Rob Miller spoke – representing republicans and democrats in the discussion – and then they opened up for questions. It was a pretty good discussion in which they agreed on almost everything.

The main thing that I took away from the questions about how to foster civility  in political discussion is that first and foremost we must each govern ourselves. Rob emphasized that multiple times – that it starts with an individual decision to keep our heads about us and be honest in our interactions whether we agree or disagree. Being honest requires that we not pretend to agree, that we not disagree in order to play devil’s advocate, and that we admit when we make mistakes or get some of our facts wrong. If we each keep our emotions in check we will be able to treat others in a dignified way, as all people deserve to be treated, and we can keep ourselves from escalating tensions when our feelings inevitably get bruised in the tussle between competing opinions.

Posted in culture, State | Tagged , | 2 Comments

My Way or the Highway

Posted on 2009-09-29 by David

I have come to the conclusion that any broadcast news is going to be full of content that is designed to help listeners think their are being informed when in reality there is no substance to the content. Usually the headlines are enough to get the point across. That’s why I like getting news from feeds where I can glance at the headline and only take time for the full story (video, audio, or text) if the headline promises information that I don’t already have.

Because of this conclusion I no longer leave the radio on the same station all the time (for what little time I listen to it). Today I found myself listening to Sean Hannity and within 10 minutes I had confirmed why I avoid talk radio. When I first tuned in Sean was busy making sure that his listeners knew how stupid some of his previous callers were in disagreeing with his position on the news story of the moment. Seeing as I agreed with Hannity on that particular story I let it go. A few minutes later a caller voiced an opinion on another story that Hannity disagreed with. This time I had heard the caller and I got to hear the way Hannity responded to him – it was disgraceful.

Hannity badgered his caller and ignored everything the man said that he did not agree with. In this case I could not ignore Sean’s tone for two reasons – first, I heard the caller so I knew what Hannity was responding to; and second, I disagree with Hannity and think that besides being wrong he is doing a great disservice to conservatives everywhere by ruthlessly shutting down debate with anyone who disagrees with him. I accept that there are many people who believe as Sean does on that later issue and although I strongly disagree with that position I could not consider myself a decent human being if I were to shut down any opposing voices as ungraciously as I heard Sean doing today.

Posted in culture | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Legislator as Candidate

Posted on 2009-09-29 by David

My experience with many campaigns – especially for any office higher than state legislator – is that the majority of them spend their time talking about a) the fact that they need your money to run the campaign, and b) the fact that whoever they are running against is not the right person for the job. Few of them talk about the seat they are trying to fill, or the issues that are relevant to that position.

All the time spent soliciting money is time not spent promoting the candidate. It is universally understood that campaigns need funding and the candidates do have to mention that at times, but when that is the primary focus of the campaign it indicates a shallowness of purpose that seems to degrade the office they are seeking. Requests for donations should always be the sideshow of the campaign message.

Secondly, I have no reason to trust what Candidate A says about Candidate B unless I have already chosen to support Candidate A – in which case Candidate A is probably wasting time preaching to the choir.

A good legislator should not be spending their time running against an opponent, they should be running for a position. This does not mean that they cannot say anything against their opponent(s) but whatever they say against another candidate should demonstrate why the criticism is relevant to the office they are seeking. This same principle applies to what a candidate says about themselves. It doesn’t matter if a candidate bases their positive platform on “I’m a Republican” or “I’m a Democrat” or “I’m an Independent” or “I’m pragmatic” or “I’m experienced” in all cases what they say should be reinforced with evidence of why what they are (or claim to be) is relevant to the position they are seeking.

If the platform or message of the campaign revolves around anything other than the position they are seeking (even if it revolves around the Constitution) then the message of the campaign is distracting from the purpose that should be driving the decisions of the voters.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Legislator as Campaign Strategist

Posted on 2009-09-28 by David

I had thought to cover the ideal candidacy of a good legislator in a single post but it has become obvious to me that there is just too much to cover in one sitting. On top of that, the campaign is arguably the aspect of being a good legislator where candidates – whether they end up winning or losing – stray from what a good legislator should do.

From a campaign strategy perspective the most important thing that a good legislator should do is understand the system that they are to be working in. I saw what I thought was a good example of this in the Jason Chaffetz campaign for Utah’s 3rd District congressional seat in 2008. For the sake of clarity I would like to say that I was not part of the campaign nor do I live in the 3rd district  – I am simply an outside observer who happens to share the same party affiliation.

My observations were of a campaign where they understood the Utah Republican Party rules to receive the nomination and they focused their efforts on getting that nomination. As far as I could see goals of fund-raising were completely secondary to goals or raising support among those who would actually be casting the votes for the Republican nominee in the district – first the state delegates, and then the members of the Republican party when he fell just shy of averting the need for a primary race against Rep. Cannon. Again from my outsider perspective it appears that all other goals were designed and pursued only as a means of reaching and persuading those who would actually be casting the votes. Contrary to what seems to be the conventional wisdom, there is more to it than raising large amounts of money and buying up as much advertising as possible – as proven by the fact that Chaffetz was significantly outspent by Cannon.

The reason that a legislator needs to be a good strategist with a solid understanding of the system is not simply so that they can get elected, but also because those skills are important in working within the legislative body to which they are seeking membership. Again from my outsiders perspective Rep. Chaffetz appears to demonstrate this by the fact that he has been able to garner more attention and influence than I would have expected to see in a freshman congressman in the minority party of the House.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

We Must Be Clear About This

Posted on 2009-09-25 by David

photo credit: roberthuffstutter

Bob Henline is promoting Electoral Equality today at Non-Partisan. The sentiment is admirable, but there are a couple of things that need to be cleared up before anyone jumps on the bandwagon here. Let’s look at his description of what he is promoting:

For those of you unfamiliar with it, National Popular Vote is an organization that is trying to bring some semblance of equality to American presidential elections. NPV is doing this through legislation at the state level, legislation that would create an interstate compact to award each of the member states’ electoral votes to the candidate that receives the nationwide popular vote majority . . . It’s a long road, but shorter than the other alternative, an amendment to the Constitution.

Thankfully Bob is upfront about the fact that this really should be pursued as an amendment to the Constitution. On the other hand, this movement is technically legal unlike other Constitution skirting movements. So there’s the first problem – they are not pursuing an amendment which would be the proper course.

The second problem is much more problematic and it holds true even if this were pursued as an amendment to the Constitution. The goal of removing the Electoral College or simply rendering it obsolete moves us further along the path that the 17th Amendment set us firmly on, namely the path of fundamentally altering our structure of government from being a republic to being a democracy. I admit that some people would openly pursue that change, but I highly doubt that most people even recognize the difference and thus they are unqualified to decide which form is more advantageous to the nation.

Continue reading →

Posted in National, State | Tagged , , , | 7 Comments

A Legislator as a Person

Posted on 2009-09-25 by David

When I assert that anyone who would be a good legislator must have some basic life qualifications I base that assertion on the example outlined in the Constitution where requirements are set for members of the House to be at least 25 years old and members of the Senate to be at least 30 years old. Basic age requirements such as these may be among the few life requirements that are truly objective and quantifiable but I believe they are indicative of a larger  (although still limited) set of subjective requirements that must be met by a good legislator. The age requirements set forth are appropriately different for different offices. The purpose of the age requirements is the same – it is intended to promote a level of maturity and life experience commensurate with the duties of the office.

Another subjective requirement of a good legislator include the ability to connect with the people that they would be representing so that they can understand their constituents and relate to them. Obviously they cannot expect to experience everything of concern to their constituents, but the ability to listen and empathize with those they represent. Due to variety among the constituents empathy will not always mean agreement but so long as the legislator feels that they are above the constituents rather than among them they will be unable to accurately and dependably represent their perspective within the legislative body.

The last subjective requirement that I would include is a degree of stability in the life of the legislator. While anyone can have their life disrupted unexpectedly it is unwise to choose a legislator whose life is currently riddled with disruptions. In a stable society the effects of legislation are often long lasting and thus should be protected as much as possible from avarice and caprice. Witness the situation in Massachusetts where the democratic legislature made a law when they had a republican governor that the governor could not name a replacement in the event of vacancy in the seat of their senators. Now a few short years later they have a democratic governor and an actual vacancy – so they change the law rather than wait to fill the seat after a special election as they had prescribed before. It is important that legislators have lives that are stable to give them the best chance at creating laws which will also be stable. A legislator who has a life currently marked by stability will be more likely to plan for the future for himself and for those that he represents.

Posted in General | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

An Ideal Legislator

Posted on 2009-09-24 by David

I seem to have caught the interest of some people when I offered to describe the job of a being a legislator. I said that it would take multiple posts (and it will), but I thought I should start out by explaining the scope of what I would be describing.

My view is that being a legislator involves being a person and thus the job of a legislator demands some qualifications within the life of the person filling the role. I believe there is a lot of room for variation, but there are some things that really are necessary in the life of someone who would be a good legislator. (If I still have any atheists among my readers let me just offer that having any religious belief or affiliation is not among the qualifications.)

Being a legislator also involves being a candidate in the vast majority of cases (there are obviously exceptions where someone is appointed to fill a vacancy in a legislative body) thus there are ways that an ideal legislator would approach the campaign process differently than a less-than-ideal legislator. Watching campaigns today is a good way to observe how far our current political environment is from the ideal. (I know that when I talk about this there will be people who argue that what I say is impractical – in fact I would not be surprised if some of what I say gets labeled “political suicide.”)

Finally, being a legislator obviously involves participating in the process of crafting legislation. This is the most important aspect of what makes an ideal legislator and in some ways the least well understood. I would argue that a legislator who truly does their job in this area should not have to actively campaign for re-election other than to defend themselves against any unfair attacks from challengers. (I do make some exception in this for those who have not served a full term because of being appointed, and possibly also for first term representatives because they have served less than two years before voters are asked to vote again on filling their seat.)

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

No Individual Mandate. Period.

Posted on 2009-09-23 by David

photo credit: wstera2

When I responded to Obama’s Health Care Speech I said the following about the potential inclusion of an individual mandate in whatever health care overhaul bill is eventually debated in Congress:

In a nod to the necessity of compromise and political expediency (I do have a pragmatic bone in my body – somewhere) I will keep it out of the non-starter category and say that if it is extremely limited, as liability-only car insurance is, I could accept an individual mandate.

Scott challenged me on that position and I defended it as politically expedient. Now that I have had more time to think about it I believe that I can conclusively demonstrate why the president wanted to rush the health care legislation through before the August recess. His reason was that he understood that the longer people have to process the issue the more people will realize how little government can legitimately do to address this issue and how dangerous it is to allow Congress to employ tools that are not legitimately theirs in order to “fix the system.”

Continue reading →

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , | 8 Comments