Obama Tells Congress Like It Is

Last night, Barak Obama addressed the U.S. Congress and the nation to "set the record straight" on the issue of health care reform.  Since then, the talking heads have been discussing ad naseum every little detail of that speech, not that that's unusual.  There were a couple of unusual things about this speech, however, not the least being that Obama made it at all.

Obama, as he himself admitted, is not the first President to attempt this Herculean task.  Truman tried in the late 1940s as did the Clintons, disastrously, in the early 1990s. The difference between those former heads of state and Obama is this:  He's not backing down.  Not that I blame the other two for doing so, considering the flack they encountered.  But this is a different time, and Obama is a different person.  He gets out there and tells it like it is, in no uncertain terms.  If he says he'll "be the last" President to reform this nation's health care system, well, dang it, I believe him.

The other unusual occurence was the lack of courtesy shown Obama by  Republican Representative Joe Wilson.  I can't remember any other congressperson acting out in such a manner during a Presidential address.  Even Clinton, who was hounded non-stop by Republicans during his two terms in office, was never publicly shown such disrespect during a televised speech.  And all Obama is trying to do is reform the health care delivery system not for himself or those in congress, but for the American populace.

Even after the speech's concessions (it looks like the "public" part of "public option" is out) the Republican rebuttal by Rep. Charles Boustany still exuded peevishness.  Not willing to admit that the administration had ceded ground, Boustany's speech mostly bleated that both parties should "start over".  Well, sure.  I guess if I was getting paid whether or not I delivered any results, I'd feel that way, too.  What we need is for these guys to stop wasting taxpayer money and get the job done.  Let's hope Obama's speech will have that effect.

Conservatives to Obama: Stay Away from Our Kids

The wailing and gnashing of teeth by conservatives in response to Obama's speech to the nation's schoolchildren seems to be another attempt to discredit the current administration.  Not content with spreading disinformation about his health care reform plan in order to incite pandemonium where understanding should prevail, they have now moved to the other end of the age spectrum to try to make school-aged children fear their President.  Or, more specifically, the parents of those children.

Once again, I am in awe of the maelstrom they have been able to foment on the flimsiest of ideas.  The notion that schools are no place for the "indoctrination" of young children is a  case in point.  Let's see...we take a large population of blank slates and fill them with knowledge and new ideas...well, I guess Republicans are using a different dictionary than I am.  I wonder:  How would conservatives characterize their preoccupation with re-instituting creationism and school prayer in public schools?  Another is the idea that Obama is trying to push a "socialist" agenda.  Don't these naysayers know that the "public" in public school means taxpayer-funded and therefore available to all?

Obama is not the first U.S. President to address schoolchildren in this manner.  Both Reagan and the elder Bush did, as well.  But for some reason, this time is different.  What, for heaven's sake, is wrong with exhorting kids to work hard and stay in school so that they can help both themselves and their country?

Not all Republicans have joined in this ridiculous campaign.  Laura Bush, a former schoolteacher (and First Lady!) lent her support.  Others, after reading the text, withdrew their opposition.  It still rankles, however, that this latter group had the egotism to screen Obama's speech at all.

When Obama first took office, there was much talk of the end of bipartisanship and touchy-feely speeches about everybody working together.  Well, the honeymoon is over.  There is a boisterous contingent that would love to see this administration fail, and will use any method they can to make it happen.  I guess that what happens when a politician has the nerve to try to change the status quo.

The Public's Option to Deny the Truth About Health Care Reform

Recently, the media has been full of the "town meetings" that congressional representatives have been participating in for the purpose of discussing health care reform.  Instead of disseminating much-needed information on the subject, these meetings have mostly been free-for-all shout-fests in which citizens deride their congresspeople for attempting to "bankrupt the country", foster a "government takeover of health care", and create "death panels" with the proposed reforms.  Lawmakers have faced hostile crowds that burn them in effigy, equate President Obama with Hitler and, outside a public forum in Connecticut, loudly suggest that Christopher Dodd take a "handful of painkillers" with a whiskey chaser to treat his prostate cancer.  Nice.  All because this administration is trying to come up with an alternative to the current health insurance status quo.

I've noticed something about the people who attend these meetings:  they are, for the most part, older.  By "older", I mean that they are Medicare recipients.  Is it possible that they do not know this?  If they do, do they not know that Medicare, in fact, is a government-sponsored, single-payer insurance plan?  That seems unlikely.  What then, is the genesis of their battle cry, "Keep government hands off of my health care"?  How can the government stay out of a plan that they administer?  Additionally, Medicare is not a choice; if you are 65 years of age, you participate, period.  As far as I know, the current reforms have never required anyone to segue onto the public option insurance, if it ever comes to pass.

Of course, if these persons are so fond of the Medicare program that they shout down any suggestion of change, then why wouldn't they want the same for their children, and their grandchildren?  Another question is why each forum seems dominated by the elderly.  Are these meeting being held during the day, when only retired people can attend?  Or has there been some quiet organizing going on, by parties unknown?  I really don't understand why these people are so intent upon derailing this issue, since it doesn't affect them directly.  Not that there is anything wrong with voicing your opinion about current events, whether they touch your life or not.  However, the vitriol being aired suggests that Obama is considering outlawing the Early Bird Special, rather than trying to make health care affordable for working-age people.

Now, I am of the opinion that, after 65 or more years on the planet, one should be able to discern truth from lies better than, say, an 18-year-old with much less life experience.  Ellen Goodman, in a recent editorial, has shed a little light on why elders are behaving this way.  I have always liked Goodman, who seems able to tell it like it is without being nasty or insulting.  She points out that the senior contingent was the only group not supportive of Obama's presidency.  Knowing that, Republicans have been courting them in an effort to overturn this latest attempt at reform.  A Republican-sponsored "Seniors' Health Care Bill of Rights" is feeding this frenzy, inferring that the reforms on the table would provide health care for everyone younger than 65 only at a cost to Medicare.  Sure, Medicare reforms are also underway, the most positive of which entail closing the costly "doughnut hole" in  drug coverage.  There are no plans to ration coverage of any kind for older folks, or to force life-or-death choices on the frail.  These inferences are just untrue.

So, to older Americans, I say:  Please be a driving force for Medicare reform.  You know better than the rest of us what works and what doesn't in that program, and your voices should be heard.  But, please, please don't use your collective power to deny better health care delivery to those younger than you.  Your grandchildren will thank you for it.

Public Option: Here Today, Gone Tomorrow

One of Barak Obama's key campaign proposals was the overhaul of the current health care system.  Like many others, he recognized not only the need for change in this area but also the American citizen's desire for it.  Back then and even as recently as this past July, a publicly-funded insurance alternative to the current system was a cornerstone of this proposal.  Then the ranting and raving started (not that there's anything wrong with ranting).  This important piece of the puzzle went from being, in Obama's words, "...the best way...to force insurance companies to compete and keep them honest", to, less than one month ago, "...not the entirety of health care reform (but) one tiny sliver of it".  What happened?

Well, to put it simply, the Republican Party happened.  Or, more precisely perhaps, pressure on the GOP to scuttle this proposal in favor of "health insurance cooperatives" in lieu of a government-sponsored, single-payer system.  Do you smell a lobbyist here?  Now, I don't know that such a system wouldn't work, and I know that other countries use them with success.  However, according to T.R. Reid, author of "The Healing of America", his research of these co-ops has shown that the heavy hand of regulation is what actually makes them workable.  In other countries, these co-ops are not allowed to refuse coverage for pre-existing conditions or deny payment for needed care.  If they try, the insured gets the next month's premium for free.  Now, there's a concept!  They are also not allowed to raise premiums on their own; if they do, they face steep fines. Have you heard of anything like this falling from the lips of those pushing this notion, though?  I sure haven't.

I admit that, besides this core issue, I'm in the dark as to what else is being considered in the arena of "health care reform".  Besides prescription drug negotiations to close the "doughnut hole" in Medicare, I really don't know what other reforms of our health care system are being discussed, and I've actually been paying attention.

Since no real reform seems imminent without a public alternative to private insurance, I think that all the other stuff (whatever it is) should be pushed to the back burner, at least for now.  Change coming in small steps is usually more palatable to most people, so, I say, just concentrate on the public option segment right now.  Too bad if the insurance companies and  "big pharma" don't like it--it's the one thing that will make the biggest, most positive change in the lives of most people.  And, ahem, isn't that supposed to be what this is all about?

Apostrophes, Fonts and Pet Peeves

I admit that I'm one of those people who is constantly grumbling about the lack of proper grammar and spelling in newspapers, leaflets and signs. So I laughed out loud when I read an article recently presenting the concerns some other "Grammar/Punctuation Nazis" have with the fact that many signs denoting public places are missing key apostrophes. Famous places like Pikes Peak (see?) have had their possessive stature demoted. According to an article by Dave Gram for the Associated Press, the U.S. government has has a policy of not using apostrophes in signage for at least the last 100 years. Are people just now noticing? Guess so. Gram also notes that agencies like Veterans Affairs, trade publications such as Publishers Weekly and even credit cards like Diners Club follow this example. Personally, I don't think it's a big deal. You want to know why? Because I'm someone who gets annoyed about the overuse of the apostrophe.

I believe that all those missing apostrophes have been migrating from signs identifying famous or public places and things to ordinary, everyday signs. "Free Kitten's" and "Computer's on sale all week", are just a couple of examples of the abuse of the apostrophe that irks the heck out of me everyday. Oh, and have you noticed that signs and advertisements involving acronyms are notorious for apostrophe overuse? TV's, DVD's, VCR's...the list is endless. In fact, I don't think I've seen these terms used without the possessive form in years. Now, that's something to get peeved about! And don't even get me started on the apostrophe's poor, overworked cousin, the comma. I have read articles that use so many commas in one paragraph that I literally have trouble understanding the meaning of the text. Offenders should be required to read multiple sections of the MA General Laws (a shining example of poor sentence form) until they learn some respect for punctuation.


Just the other day, I read another amusing article, this time on the brouhaha that has ensued after Ikea released its (note no apostrophe) newest catalog in a different font. Stephen Nasstrom reported that people were "outraged" and "sad"; some were even filled with "disgust". Ha! I thought. Now,THAT is a silly thing to get upset about.

"Death Panel" Propaganda Attempts to Derail Health Care Reform

As commonly occurs during debate surrounding legislation that would actually benefit the majority of Americans, a vocal minority creates a catch-phrase to try to tilt the scales of the discussion in their favor. Who are these people? Usually they are groups that stand to lose something (read: money) if the legislation goes forward without their input. The health care reform debate is no different.


I don't know who came up with the term "death panel" to refer to language regarding end-of-life counseling. I do know that somehow Sarah Palin, never afraid to say the most nonsensical things in a public arena, has become their poster girl, claiming that "bureaucrats" will be empowered to deny health care to persons such as her "...parents and ...baby with Down's Syndrome", based on how much these panelists feel such persons contribute to society. Huh?


Now, the foregoing is silly enough to be laughable if not for the fact that, apparently, people are believing this nonsense. Notwithstanding Mark Twain's famous comment on the American populace, I'm still reeling from the realization that educated adults actually think that their government is drafting laws to decide who lives or dies based on cost considerations. The language only requires that Medicare cover this counseling, which I understand to be things like pain management, hospice care, living wills, etc., if it is desired. How is this wrong or "evil"? Notable, too, is the fact that this language is not new, and has been supported by Senate Republicans. So, what's the problem?


Hopefully, those behind this ridiculousness will be exposed for the muckrakers they are sooner rather than later, so that the rest of us can get back to the necessary task of making health care available for all.

We Don't Have to be Fair, We're the Phone Company

My neighbor, Ms. R. came over Saturday morning to use our phone to call Verizon. Their telephone was not working, so we found a number and she spoke to a representative who, despite admitting that the problem was with their equipment, said that the earliest someone would be out to fix the problem would be Tuesday at 6 p.m. Fair? They don't have to be fair, as Lily Tomlin's character on Laugh-In always said. They're the phone company!

Last December, the Northeast sustained quite an ice storm. Power was out for several days, as was the telephone. When everything was turned back on, I called the phone company to say that I didn't want to be charged the daily base rate for the time we had no service. I don't remember the exact conversation, but I'll reproduce it as best I can for you, just for chuckles.

Verizon: I'm sorry ma'am, but you need to call us as soon as your service is out so that we know you're not lying.

Me: I couldn't call, the phone was out.

Verizon: Ma'am, do you have a cellphone?

Me: No, but even if I did, there's no service here. I would have to drive somewhere IN AN ICE STORM to be able to use it.

Verizon: Could you have used a neighbor's phone?

Me: Duh. They were out, too. You know this. Verizon had crews up here working on the problem. It was in the newspaper. Don't say you didn't know!

Verizon: All right, ma'am, I'll do it for you this time as a courtesy (!). But next time, you need to call.

Me (under my breath): Stupid cow.

This was embellished a bit, but not much. Imagine millions of people paying for several days of service they didn't receive, for one reason or another. That's a lot of free money for the phone companies. Deregulation, ah, what a joke. At least one thing is the same as before the break-up of Ma Bell: They're still not fair. And they don't have to be.