Monday, August 10, 2009

Now That You Mention It — 090810

Comments on an article in the Pueblo Chieftain.

I normally do not comment on matters at the national level in this forum. But because of the importance of the issue of healthcare ‘reform’ and its impact on everyone in the city and county of Pueblo, I’ve decided to start this Now That You Mention It series.

The Pueblo Chieftain article caught our attention the other morning. And I decided it was time to throw in my two-bits on what was said in it.

The article, titled “Health care debate deserves more than one-sided rhetoric”, relates to HR 3200, a.k.a., America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.

It is by Juan Espinosa. He’s the “night city editor” of the Pueblo Chieftain. And, as with all too many people in such an organization, he’s ‘liberal’ to the point of obvious bias. Maybe even to the point of being ‘progressive’. But that’s beside the points I’m about to make here.

But before I begin here, let me comment that this matter is being complicated in a manner that Juan is NOT addressing. Like so many others, he is getting confused by mutually conflicting issues. And I’ll discuss those as “The Bottom Line” after fisking Juan’s article.

So, now, let us begin…..

RE: Curiosity Is….

The “throw Obama’s health care reform plan under the bus” bus came through town Thursday afternoon. Curiosity made me go and watch.—Juan Espinosa

....a good think. And I’m glad he came. Especially since his article gives us an opportunity to ‘debate’, i.e., refute as in Cross-Examination Rebuttal, what he says.

RE: Let the Belittling Begin

The rally, billed as a tea party protest, was held in a vacant lot across the street from the new Pueblo City-County Health Department headquarters. A building on the west and several grown trees provided ample shade in the late afternoon for the crowd of about 400. Most attendees were there to protest the president’s health care reform plan and his presidency in general.—Juan Espinosa

In the first place, it wasn’t “billed” as a tea party protest. It WAS a TEA Party protest.

As for the “vacant lot”, the place of the event is a shady garden compared to the weed-grown vacant lots I see throughout our fair city. If only other property owners kept their “vacant lot” as well shaded and maintained.

RE: That Many??!?!?

As I was approaching the rally, I saw a group of about two-dozen counter-protesters moving toward the crowd. Their signs were in support of Obama and health care reform.—Juan Espinosa

I’ve got a video tape of about eight people on the sidewalk behind the “vacant lot”. I have to wonder what happened to the other sixteen or so counter-protesters.

Or one might wonder if Juan was wearing his reading glasses instead of the tri-focals at that point.

RE: The Lack of the ‘Interesting’

This is going to be interesting, I thought to myself, fully expecting an angry confrontation. To my surprise, there was little reaction to the pro-Obama counter-protesters as they stood silently at the rear of the crowd holding their signs high. If there was any confrontation, I missed it.—Juan Espinosa

If Juan wanted “interesting” and “angry confrontation”, he should have been in St. Louis. MY! But those union guys were ‘bulky’. And very brave of them to whup-up on that one fellow selling Gadsen Flag t-shirts.

Generally speaking…..I tend to see THIS as being a more accurate portrayal of the TEA Party movement.

RE: Meanwhile…..

Back at the rally, one speaker after another told horror stories about inferior health care and sky-rocketing tax rates in countries that have socialized medicine. The message was direct: We have the best health care system in the world and we don’t want to turn it over to a government that can’t run AMTRAK or the U.S. Postal Service.—Juan Espinosa

...Back at the Rally…..

That is an accurate and concise report of what was said. But it leaves out the critical information presented. Information that corroborates the growing concerns of many people. People concerned with the wisdom of having the government, which can’t seem to run ANY effective program in an efficient manner, running your medical care.

RE: Were You Not Listening?

I find it hard to believe anyone would speak publicly in defense of the cost of health insurance, medical care and prescription drugs except those who work in those industries.—Juan Espinosa

Or maybe Juan has selective remembrance?

Doesn’t Juan recall that one speaker, a nurse who came to US from Canada, recounting how doctors from 50 miles away descended on a hospital to watch a ‘new’ and advanced form of pace-maker be installed in a patient. A pacemaker never before seen in Canada.

A pacemaker that is normally installed in patients in the United States.

How is it possible that Canada’s vaunted socialized medicine program doesn’t seem to have the wherewithall to have such devices available to their citizens? If the testimony is true—and I have no reason to doubt it at this time—this is quite significant.

Then, the same speaker recounted the availability of sophisticated diagnostic equipment in the United States, England and Canada. The latter two being blatantly socialized medicine countries. The litany of equipment—MRIs, dialysis machines, etc., etc.—where the United States has many more per capita than the other two was not merely ‘significant’ it was ‘dramatic’.

The inverse was true in terms of time patients waited for treatment of an ailment or disorder. Again the United States is superior to England and Canada at getting the patient and the doctor together in a timely manner.

People seem to think these factors are not important. Why? I can’t imagine. It’s almost as if they think nothing will change with regards to these things if we adopt HR 3200. But I’ll wager that we’ll see government bureaucracy interfering with the availability of medical care as it does with just about everything else it gets involved with. However, as the tried and true adage goes….

Wise men learn from other peoples’ mistakes. Fools NEVER learn.

We’ve seen what goes on in countries where socialized medicine is implemented. And it has always been, as with most every other effort at socialism, an abject failure when it comes to everyday people. It seems to work well for the elites, however. Why is that?

RE: Oooh Pulease…..

The tone of the half-dozen speakers I listened to at the rally bordered on hysteric.—Juan Espinosa

‘Hysterical’? There’s a laugh. I’ve SEEN hysteria. It wasn’t in attendance.

Indeed. The only “hysteria” I’ve seen associated with the event is Juan’s observation.

Maybe Juan should watch some good horror movies to get a better understanding of the concept of ‘hysteria’.

Yes. Some were emotional. But ALL were rational and in control of themselves.

RE: Getting to the ‘Meet’ of the Matter

They said alarming things about Obama’s plan, such as:—Juan Espinosa

Juan wants a “debate”? Here we go….

But before you can debate a matter, in this case HR 3200, you SHOULD have the basic document on hand. So that you can follow and participate in the debate, you can download the PDF version of this document, as it stands at this moment, from THIS SITE.

People 65 and older and those with serious health problems are going to be allowed to die…. —Juan Espinosa

Now that you have the document….I trust you have the document….read pages 424 through 430. Pay close attention to the concept of the mandatory Advance Care Planning Consultation.

As I read the proposed legislation, once you reach the designated age (at this writing 65) you MUST submit yourself to ‘counseling’ on what’s to be done with your life. The government counselor then writes up what sort of care you can get. That includes, based on items in the latter pages, limitations on such care.

For example, if the counselor thinks it’s okay for you to have a knee replacement, you can get one. That is IF they have the budget for it. Never mind that YOU might have the money for it. Then again if they don’t think you should get a knee replacement….

....buy yourself a walker or a wheel chair.

There are other scenarios too. Up to and including let the person die. How can I say that? Because it’s not, repeat NOT written OUT. Everything is either ON or OFF the proverbial table, based on what the counselor writes….which is based on what his boss, whom you never see, told him is allowed. And what is allowed is based on some government bureaucrat’s assessment of the budget and whether or not someone is considered ‘economically repairable’ or ‘special’.

And by ‘special’, I mean look at Senator Chris Dodd and his ‘special’ relationship with the Countrywide Mortgage company. Are you that ‘special’?

....our individual tax rate could surpass 60 percent…. —Juan Espinosa

Juan apparently hasn’t paid much attention to the amount of taxes people pay in Scandinavia to get their cradle-to-grave nanny state. And I thought he was a ‘journalist’. Well….maybe he is. And I’ve not had a great impression of that line of work of late. All too many of them seem to have issues with being ‘open-minded’, candid and/or truthful. But maybe that’s just me.

....and the mismanagement of the VA was held out as an example of what all Americans can expect if Obama gets his way.—Juan Espinosa

I’ve had some interesting experiences with government-based medical care. That’s from service-brat,  active duty and most especially VA experience. I’d relate them here but it would take a LOT of text that would digress from this discussion. Maybe later.

Suffice it to say I don’t care much for any of them. ESPECIALLY the VA.

RE: It’s a Success….

In the eyes of the organizers, the rally was a huge success.—Juan Espinosa

It WAS a success.

RE: ....But….

They drew an enthusiastic crowd of like-minded people and everyone went home feeling good about being mad.—Juan Espinosa

....but he’s the only one who seems to be ‘mad’, in one form or another. Looks like ‘projection’ on his part to me.

RE: Disagreement Is Good

I disagreed with most of what was said and heard nothing that would have inspired me to join the cause….—Juan Espinosa

I’ve always felt that….

A clash of doctrines is not a disaster. It’s an opportunity.

The problem I’ve found is that when people say they want to debate, when they start losing the debate, they either (1) run away and/or (2) drop into ad hominem arguments. Very often, both.

So. I have to wonder, what sort of argument(s) would “inspire” Juan to see the bill as others of US see it?

RE: Yes….

....but it was still good to see a different contingent of Americans stand up and exercise their right to assemble and freedom of speech.—Juan Espinosa

....it is always good. Let’s see what he thinks of more of the same. These rallies are growing. All across the nation.

Oddly enough Speaker of the House Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid, as well as President Obama don’t feel the same way.

Does Juan think he saw people ‘threatening’ or ‘participating in’ democracy last Thursday?

His political party leadership seem to think he saw the former.

RE: The One-Sided Scene

Good for them. As one who’s been there and done that, I support their right to peaceful assembly and protest. On many occasions, I’ve stood in a crowd listening to one-sided speeches and agreeing with every word. We raised our fists into the air and shouted slogans in protest. It felt good.—Juan Espinosa

I’ve only stood in such a crowd….let’s see….four times now. This is the first time since 1971, where in a city far, far away, I stood against a crowd. Actually a REAL mob. An angry mob that had been tearing up Washington DC in the May Day Riots of 1971. With a platoon of comrades-in-arms. But that’s another story.

So, when you hear all this business from Pelosi, Reid and Obama about ‘angry mobs’....don’t you believe it. They’re exaggerating. Probably because they’re scared.

RE: Matters of Substance

In June, I attended a meeting organized by local pro-health care reform advocates. In comparison, I found the speakers equally one-sided, but the presentations had more substance. Granted, the pro-reform meeting was held in more of a classroom setting with about 100 people in attendance, while the anti-reform event was an outdoor rally.—Juan Espinosa

I guess it matters what Juan believes as to whether or not what he hears has any substance. If he’s in favor of it. It has substance. If he’s opposed to it…..

This is not the sort of mental state one would expect of a good ‘judge’ in any debate I’m familiar with. Indeed. It appears there’s something of an agenda that interferes with his sound judgement, based on what I’ve seen in THIS article I’m fisking.

On the other hand, the TEA Party speakers encouraged us to read the proposed bill and to use our own intelligence to judge it on its merits.

Why hasn’t Juan done that? Why hasn’t he told us where to find the bill and read it for ourselves? I thought he was interested in “debate”?

You can’t have an effective debate unless you understand the topic being debated. In this case HR 3200. I suggest that you go back to that link I offered above, download the legislation and read certain sections for yourselves. Particularly those starting at page 16, where they describe how you will NOT be able to keep private coverage if you decide to change it, and page 424, where they describe that business of how a government bureaucrat will decide what sort of health care you can and, although they don’t say it directly, cannot have with their ‘orders’ written after a mandatory Advanced Life Care Consultation….every five years after you reach the age of 65.

Reminds me of Logan’s Run.

And remember….

....when reading ANY sort of government regulation, be it a city ordinance or a bill in Congress, you must not only pay attention to what they say. You must pay SPECIAL attention to what they DON’T say.

RE: Wrong

The question of how to improve health care and make it more affordable for all our citizens is too important to be left to pep rallies and fiery one-sided rhetoric. Nationally, the debate has reached the level of a childish shouting match.—Juan Espinosa

The debate has not reached the level of “a childish shouting match”.

In the first place, the people at these town hall meetings, if you watch them on YouTube and the like, are asking cogent questions. Which the politicians are being evasive and/or disingenuous in answering. THIS behavior, on the part of these politicians is drawing the ‘shouting’. And justifiably so. The politicians WORK FOR US. To shut US out or evade our honestly presented questions is a violation of trust.

In the second place, I’d like to see Juan address the beating of a black man by other black men from a union supporting Obama as “a childish shouting match”.

It’s not. This is politics done the Chicago Way. And Obama even foments it….

Barack Obama told a crowd of supporters in Philadelphia back in 2008, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” He added, “That’s the Chicago way.”—Christopher Johnson in the article

We’ve now progressed BEYOND “childish shouting match” discussion.

And, by the way, I have YET to hear either Pelosi, Reid, or Obama repudiate the use of violence in this ‘debate’.

There’s still hope for Juan…..

RE: Delay Tactics

Locally, I say get the two sides to meet at City Auditorium, or the State Fair Events Center if we need a larger venue, to debate the various issues relating to the cost and quality of health care, health insurance and medicine. Nationally, a presidential-style televised debate could prove educational.—Juan Espinosa

It would be nice to do that. Indeed. I think it would be VERY useful. However, the steamroller Congress-Presidency want to rush to mis-judgment before any such debate could be well organized and held at the local and national levels.

Why does Juan think the President wanted to ‘Rahm’ the legislation through BEFORE the August recess?

RE: Slogan Campaigns

Slogans will not sway the unconvinced.—Juan Espinosa

Stop me if you’ve heard this before….

Yes We Can!

Or how about….

Change we can believe in!

And the ever popular….

Hope and Change!

Maybe it would have been better for Juan NOT to have made that comment.

But that just reminds me of the thought that only the simple-minded are convinced by simple slogans.

RE: The Bottom Line

The bottom line of this discussion is that there are TWO discussions.

The first discussion is that of whether or not there needs to be a change in the way the United States deals with healthcare. In my opinion, that’s a slam-dunk win for the Affirmative team.

I doubt if there is one in ten who would say “No”, unless they were in the medical-drug-insurance-attorney Congress-Industrial complex.

There is a second discussion. That is the one over HR 3200 and whether or not IT is the proper solution to the first discussion. And THAT is what people are ‘discussing’ here.

I believe that Juan and a LOT of other people are confusingly mixing the two discussions. Hence their confusion about those of US who can recognize the difference between the two and speak out against the second.

And maybe I’ll discuss that in greater depth a bit later…..

Less...