Over and over again right wingers desperately try to compare Barack Obama to the losing candidacies of previous Democratic Presidential candidates such as Walter Mondale in 1984, Michael Dukakis in 1988, & John Kerry in 2004. But the fact is Obama’s candidacy has little in common with any of them. Obama’s candidacy actually much more similarly resembles Ronald Reagan’s run for the White House in 1980.

Reagan ran his campaign in 1980 against a very unpopular sitting President, Jimmy Carter, with gas prices out of control and the economy in the dumps. Obama is running his campaign against a clone of a very unpopular sitting President with gas prices out of control and the economy in the dumps. Certainly with John McCain having voted with President Bush 95% of the time in 2007 and 100% of the time this year and with McCain sharing Bush’s views on all of the biggest issues facing America, there’s little difference between the two of them. McCain’s candidacy represents Bush’s legacy and that of course gives Obama a huge advantage much like Reagan had in 1980 vs. Carter.

But Obama & Reagan share more in common than just their similar circumstances. They are also very similar politicians despite having very different views on the issues. Reagan was a great speaker that created a lot of excitement among many Americans just as Obama is a great speaker who creates a lot of excitement among many Americans. While Mondale, Dukakis, & Kerry may have been right on the issues (and they were) they were not particularly great speakers and they were not energizing politicians. It makes no sense to compare a politician with the magnetic appeal of Barack Obama to Mondale, Dukakis, or Kerry.

Obama is none of those men, he is the Democrat’s Ronald Reagan.
About the Author:

senate Democrats on Friday beat back Republican efforts to strip out two major provisions of their health care bill that would make deep cuts in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans and create a new long-term-care insurance program.     In different ways, the two provisions reflect Democratic priorities. For years, Democrats have asserted that the private Medicare plans, operated by insurance companies under contract with the government, are getting unwarranted subsidies. Many Democrats say the long-term-care program would fill a gap in the social safety net, though critics assert that the program would be financially unsustainable.

The votes capped a bitterly partisan first week of debate on the legislation. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, said the Senate would work through the weekend.

By a vote of 57 to 41, the Senate on Friday rejected a Republican motion to eliminate the cuts affecting private Medicare Advantage plans, which provide comprehensive care to nearly one-fourth of the 45 million Medicare beneficiaries. The bill would cut $118 billion from projected spending on such plans over the next 10 years.

Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, said some older Americans would inevitably lose some benefits, like vision and dental care, which they now receive from the Medicare Advantage plans.

The No. 2 Republican in the Senate, Jon Kyl of Arizona, said Democrats were breaking Mr. Obama’s promise that “if you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep it.”

But Democrats said the Republicans were just trying to protect the insurance companies that offer Medicare Advantage plans.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, said he had yet to see any instance in which the Republican argument “does not happen to coincide with the interest of the insurance industry.”

In the long-term-care insurance program, people could qualify for cash benefits if they became severely disabled after voluntarily paying premiums for at least five years. The money could be used for things that help people maintain their independence, like housing modifications, special telephone and computer equipment or the services of a caregiver.

Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, said: “This is the next logical step after the Americans with Disabilities Act. It will provide so many people in this country with the security and peace of mind, knowing they won’t have to go to a nursing home or an institution if they become disabled.”

Under the bill, premiums would be set to cover the cost of the new program. But Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, said the government could incur “a huge new liability down the road.”

The Senate voted, 51 to 47, to strip the new program from the bill, but the Senate had previously agreed to set a 60-vote threshold, so the effort failed, and the program remains in the bill.

Mr. Thune led the effort to eliminate the program. He won support from 11 Democrats, including the chairman of the Finance Committee, Max Baucus of Montana, and the chairman of the Budget Committee, Kent Conrad of North Dakota.

The program is supported by President Obama. The House bill includes a similar program.

Away from the floor debate, Democrats continued searching for a compromise on the divisive question of whether to create a new government-run health insurance plan.

Two pivotal centrists, Senators Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, and Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, said they could not support any of these proposals being floated by Democrats.

“The public option is really a government-created and government-run insurance company,” Mr. Lieberman said. “It won’t help a single poor person get insurance.”


About the Author:

An Introduction

Men are innately self-centred, no matter they are sophists, intellectuals, ordinary populace, civil servants, beggars…etc. Due to these characteristics, countless problems are arisen, and if there is no any institution to govern these men’s negative natures, the whole state would steps toward anarchy.

Cambodian government is, of course, separated between three branches; executive, legislative, and judicial institutions. Indeed, all branches single-mindedly targets to offer possible benefits to its people.

Professor George Mckenna, in one of his excerpts called “Why Government!”, claims that government has four basic compulsions to be executed (McKenna, 1998, 7)2.

I. To Establish Justice.

The term “justice” is extremely convoluted to articulate. Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Augustine…etc, all have different opinions for the term “justice”. Not only amongst the people, different forms of government; capitalism, socialism, and democracy, provide different perspectives. We could define the word justice by presenting a figure of a blindfold woman with a set of scales. The scales symbolize balance and fairness; the blindfold stands for impartiality (McKenna, 1998, 7)2. “Justice does not necessarily mean treating everyone alike; otherwise all workers would receive the same pay and all students would earn the same grade, regardless of performance or effort. The impartiality of justice is not completely indiscriminate” (McKenna, 1998, 7)2.

In 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. wrote from jail that just law is one that seeks to “uplift” people; an unjust law “degrades” them (McKenna, 1998, 8)2. For Aristotle’s perspective, just is “the proportional,” meaning that each person should be given what is due to him or her (McKenna, 1998, 8)2. Plato, spiritually defined justice as initiated by internal soul. Justice in the city depends on justice in the soul. If men had unjust souls and therefore allowed their desires to govern their conduct, they would not, presumably, recognize the need to do only what they were good at and would meddle in others’ affairs (Forsyth and Soper, 1988, 24)3.

Pot Pot, Ieng Sary, Kieve Samphan, on the other hand, took advantages from the word Justice. “The three ghosts”4, as the American ambassador called, converted the word justice to fulfill their utopian aspirations. To create justice, the three ghosts evacuated all people from all towns to build up cooperatives in the rural areas. Schools, money, pagodas, private property, and other facilities were totally abolished. Democratic Kampuchea’s constitution (1975-1979), Chapter Nine, Article 12, paragraph 6 stated that “There is absolutely no unemployment in Democratic Kampuchea” (Jennar,1995,86)5. This constitution was the instrument that contains connotation to oppress on its inhabitants.

Justice occurs only in the peaceful environment. Because peace could allocate the proportional time for people to think, to set their short-term and long-term goals, and therefore, government potentially could enforce their performances. Since its revival from the protracted war, Cambodian government has tried her utmost to prevalently offer justice to citizens. The constitution is one of the most revered symbols of the Cambodian nation. Chapter III, which covers Cambodian people’s right and obligation, from article 31 through article 50, Cambodian people, regardless of sex, religious belief, political stance, age, and other social status are protected by law6. This is the notion to prove that the constitution is the pillar to provide justice to the people. The new Cambodian government which is known as the “the economic government” led by Samdech Hun Sen as the Prime Minister, focuses on several policies; eliminating on-going logging activities, kidnappings, and illegal checkpoints throughout the country, in order to bring about justice to his people (Kim Hourn, 1999, 25)7.

II. To Ensure Domestic Tranquility.

Philosopher Reinhold Niebuhr noted that “every community seeks consciously and unconsciously to make social peace and order the first goal of its life” and he also added that “for the simple reason that chaos means nonexistence” (McKenna, 1998, 9)2. As stated above, because men are innately self-important, government is the compulsory institution to cater domestic tranquility.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) imagined about a state of nature in which there was no government. There would be no police, no jails, no courts, no legislatures, no government authority of any sort. Hobbes evaluated such a state as a nightmare; everyone would do whatever to gain interests, because they would not be penalized by the court. Hobbes finally summed up such a state as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (McKenna, 1998, 9)2.

For Plato, to tranquilize the state, citizens are to be divided into three classes; the small class of rational people is to rule the state with the support of the ‘spirited’ or soldier class, from whom the rulers themselves, called ‘guardians’, are selected during the common process of education. The masses in the lowest of the three classes are excluded from any part in government; their role is to obey, and to supply the community’s needs by engaging in useful trades (R.M.Hare,1991,65)1.

Madison wrote that since men were no angels, we require some kind of armed umpire to keep us from harming one another (McKenna, 1998, 9)2. Professor George McKenna proclaimed that coercion is the available source of the government to stabilize the state (McKenna, 1998, 7)2, and no one can hold this source besides the government, which is comprised of people.

In the past thirties years, Cambodia had come across terrible ordeals of war trauma. In her brand-new renaissance, the government has put her ultimate endeavour to convert the whole Cambodian state into an island of peace. Knowing that unless people have adequate facilities to live in human conditions and dignities, the government has actively played her role, in order to attain that goal, in both local and international stages. Constitution plays the gigantically crucial role to turn the whole Cambodian state into the stable island.

As the result from tireless efforts, Cambodian government was able to resume its seat at the United Nations, became the full member of ASEAN in December 1998, and has also attained other political policies (Kim Hourn, 1999, 25)7.

III. To Provide for the Common Defense.

Cambodian government knows who they were in the past, who they presently are, and prospectively who they would be in the future by setting the accurate goals. Chapter I, article 2, of the Cambodian constitution states that “The territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Cambodia absolutely can’t be invaded, that has stipulated in her map…”8 The past thirty years of war has dramatically taught Cambodians on how to strengthen their stance in the present as well as in the future time.

Government allocates budget to defend its people and integrity; moreover, many bilateral and multi-lateral agreements, related to protecting its border, protecting Cambodian people living abroad, harmonizing regional territorial integrity, fighting against terrorism…etc. Chapter I and IV are the genuine outcomes of the Cambodian government to provide for the common defense. It is the government who has adequate resource to prevent the internal conflicts and external invasion.

IV. To Promote the General Welfare.

Maslow asserted that People desire for hierarchy of motives; starting from physiological needs to safety needs to love needs, esteem needs, and finally self-actualization needs (Myers,1990, 314)9. Besides the three chronological obligations of the government written above, government is assigned to be the welfare-supplier to all the Cambodian citizens. Business regulation, helping the disabled and orphans in the form of payments or shelters. For this purpose, varieties of institution, governmental organizations, and non-governmental organizations have been established to accelerate the process. Constitution also claims the role of the government on this goal.

Government should be like a tree that unconditionally and tirelessly provides shade to all who are in need. Or like the parents who cater cares for the children. Government would always heroically venture to sacrifice everything for the goods of its citizens, as Buth Savong wrote in his book called “The Lesson for Life”;

Enlightened Shade, Enlightened Life

In the dry season, absence of wind, in the middle of field, the heat is enormously high, but the tree can still bare such an ordeal respectfully.

Look! Admire the tree that provides cool shade to men and animals, always be tolerant to the sun’s ray, in accordance to her nature.

Likewise, the guardian/breadwinner is the comfortable shade of the other, he or herself has to possess the quality of endurance, struggle for the hardship.

Admire the parents! Both of them are the guardians/breadwinners of the child/children, how have they endured the suffering.

Enlightenment that is achieved by gigantic endeavour, is always be the shade of heart.

………..(Buth Savong, 2003, 58)10.

In the book entitled, “The Tao Inner Peace”, Diane Dreher suggested the style of leadership through Taoist philosophy. In that book, she stated that leader would resemble the water, which is always cool and timelessly beneficial.

“The best people (government) are like water.

They (government) benefits all things,

And do not compete with them.

They (government) settle in low places,

…………………………………………….

Tao.(Tao 8)” (Dreher, 1990,180)11.

Conclusion.

Government is a mean to an end! There is no need at all, if men are innately insightful, philosophical, psychologically enlightened, or if the government does not function well as expected. But since men are evil creatures, government is required to cease the upheavals of the people, as well as benefiting the people from all walks of life. The four basic duties stated above, is initial answer to the question “why government?” Still government has endless contracts, which they have done with the people during the election campaign to be executed.
unique wedding favors

Mark Warner was elected governor of Virginia in 2001 after losing a closer than expected Senate race to John Warner five years earlier. Virginia law does not permit its governor to succeed himself, so Warner’s term ended in January when the newly-elected Governor, Tim Kaine, was inaugurated. Therefore, he will be able to devote himself to full-time campaigning for president.

The fact that Warner was a Democratic governor in a strong “red” state will be a positive for him. However, even though the Republican presidential candidate has carried Virginia every time since 1968, a Democratic governor in the state is not unusual. In fact, since 1977, Virginia has elected a Democratic governor every time a Republican is in the White House. The opposite has been true when a Democrat is in the White House.

If Warner is nominated by the Democrats and George Allen is nominated by the Republicans, the Mother of Presidents will be guaranteed to have produced our next Chief Executive.

Now Warner has a pretty good fallback position if he is not the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008. Because of this possible opportunity, he likely will not officially get into the 2008 race for the White House (although he has begun campaigning like many others) unless he determines that he has a more than fair chance of winning the Democratic presidential nomination.

Of course, for this “Plan B” of sorts to work out, a couple of things would first have to happen. First, Hillary Clinton would have to become the 2008 nominee. Then she would have to be defeated by the Republican nominee in the general election. Those two occurrences would leave the door wide open for Warner.

Then in 2009, he could attempt to recapture the governorship of Virginia, where governors cannot serve consecutive terms. He would be the clear favorite to win, and if successful, would become one of only a handful of men to have served in that position more than once.

Assuming he is elected, he would have the enviable position of being a sitting second-term Democratic governor in a “red” state when 2012 rolls around. With no big-name name or celebrity candidates like Hillary in the mix, he would likely be among the favorites to win the Democrats’ open presidential nomination battle.
kitchen gadgets

When I was a boy, I would overhear older black men talking about this evil, mythical figure called “The Man.” I thought there was Batman, Spiderman, Superman, and The Man.

The Man was accused of selfishly hoarding power and resources that prevented black men from getting jobs, owning businesses, and having greater opportunities in general. As a young impressionable child, The Man seemed like one bad mutha. It took me some time for me to figure out that The Man was the white man.

As humorous and antiquated as this notion may be, it surprises me that The Man still lives in the minds of many black men today. After listening to Barack Obama make his presentation at the Democratic National Convention, which coincided with the 45th anniversary of civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech, there is a palpable energy, optimism, and pride that I’m sensing in my conversations with other black men. An awakening that’s almost spiritual. A fertile synergy that can produce the seeds of a movement – a black male movement.

While the women’s movement has been legitimized and publicized in the press since their struggles for liberation began, there is a potential – and much needed – black man’s movement that’s underway. Of course the media has not picked up on it because they don’t consider it newsworthy or noteworthy, but conscious black people, especially those who desire and seek financial, mental, and vocational liberation for themselves and their children, are well aware of it.

It’s the effect that Barack Obama’s campaign and legacy will have on black men.

To really understand the magnitude of this effect you have to go back in history to another speech. It was given at a graduating ceremony for Howard University in 1965 by President Lyndon Johnson in the aftermath of John F. Kennedy’s assassination and the passage of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination of all kinds based on race, color, religion, or national origin.



“You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: ‘Now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.’ You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, ‘you are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe you have been completely fair…This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity-not just legal equity but human ability-not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result.”

The bill was later amended to cover discrimination on the basis of gender. That amendment largely benefited white women and opened the floodgates for their entry into the workplace.

As more white women migrated into the workplace in 1964, occupying jobs they were “allowed” to have and armed with new legislature and a spirit of liberation that would gain momentum and evolve into the women’s movement, black women would soon follow suit and be deployed in less desirable roles while black men would essentially be displaced; spawning an employment imbalance in the black community where the men consistently have higher rates of unemployment and underemployment than black women.

This statistic holds true to this very day.

When I Juxtapose today’s work environment with yesterday’s, I see that black men still comprise the bulk of the work force that’s relegated to manual labor or undesirable jobs with marginal pay. I searched, but did not find, statistical data on the ethnic composition of the labor force of FedEx and UPS, but through observation, I’m willing to bet they are among the top – if not 1 and 2 – employers of black men, closely followed by any company that provides security (guard) services.

They are all jobs that place physical demands on their employees. Black men have always been used and valued for their physical strength since they stepped (chained) foot into this country. After all this time, we are still more likely to be paid millions for our muscles than our minds.

The Barack Obama Effect will cause the pendulum to swing in the other direction.

In the 60s, gainful employment was denied due to racism, fear, and distrust. Racism is not what leads to unfavorable employment conditions that black men have to overcome, it’s negative perceptions about black men as a group that have proven to be a greater economic and psychological barrier to our success. It’s the internalization of these perceptions that impact us. There’s extensive research that proves how devastating these perceptions can be when internalized by young black males.

According to Dr. Alvin Poussaint, psychiatrist and author of Lay My Burden Down: Unraveling Suicide and the Mental Health Crisis among African Americans over the last twenty years, suicide rates among young black males between the ages of 15 and 19 increased 114%. Head coach of the Indianapolis Colts lost his 18 year old son to suicide in 2005 and finally the epidemic caught the media’s attention, albeit for a fleeting moment.

With commonplace scenarios such as fragmented families that are often headed by single mothers, lack of male leadership, negative influences, and continued discrimination in our schools from teachers who do not embrace, nurture, or support young black males as readily as their white peers, it’s no wonder that so many young black males fabricate false bravado and a cool facade to camouflage low self-esteem, and often seeking validation through sports, entertainment and sexual conquests. Even worse, it creates a fixed mindset.

Author Carol S. Dweck, Ph.D., who is widely regarded as one of the world’s leading researchers in the fields of personality, social psychology, and developmental psychology, notes that psychologists know that negative stereotypes and labels are harmful, but they are still discovering just how negative labels harm achievement. She writes in her book Mindset: The New Psychology Of Success, that a fixed mindset limits achievement. It fills people’s mind with interfering thoughts. It makes effort disagreeable, and it leads to inferior learning strategies. What’s more, it makes other people into judges instead of allies.

My father told me at an early age that black men have to work two to three times harder than white men to achieve the same success. We also have to work smarter to be as successful. There are political, psychological, racial, and legal elements at play in every arena that we thrive in. It behooves us to know how to best navigate through situations that pose a threat to our success.

Whether it’s working harder or smarter, extra “work” is inevitable. Dealing with the inertia that stems from apathy in many of our neighborhoods, communities, and homes; dealing with lingering fears and stereotypes, and having to exert constant effort to fit in with white men who don’t feel as comfortable with us or in our presence. Historically, our prosperity as black men has always been tied to our ability to successfully interface with white men.

I imagine that living life as a paraplegic or without one’s sight is probably harder in terms of difficulty and adaptability, but certainly not capability. That’s where the line gets drawn and a new way of thinking can begin. Yes, being a black man is harder for some black men and it certainly has some societal drawbacks, but like those with the aforementioned physical challenges, we must view them as just that; challenges not disabilities, and certainly not handicaps. Being a black man is hard, but being a black man who is president will be inconceivably hard.

What do we find when we delve into Barack Obama’s background? Let’s see:

Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii to a Kansas-born mother, Ann Dunham (who is a distant relative of Robert Duvall) and a Kenyan-born father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., who met while both were attending the University of Hawaii, where his father was enrolled as a foreign student.

His mother and father divorced when he was two and his mother re-married and they relocated to Indonesia. His father attended Harvard, traveled around the world on official business for Kenya and saw Obama only a few times by the time he turned 10, at which point he was sent back to Hawaii to live with his maternal grandparents so that he could attend the highly-regarded non-sectarian private Punahou School where he graduated from.

Obama studied for two years at Occidental College in California before transferring to Columbia University, where he majored in political science with a specialization in international relations. He became a community organizer for a small Chicago church-based group for three years, helping poor South Side residents cope with a wave of plant closings. He then attended Harvard Law School, and in 1990 became the first African-American editor of the Harvard Law Review.

He turned down a prestigious judicial clerkship, choosing instead to practice civil-rights law back in Chicago, representing victims of housing and employment discrimination and working on voting-rights legislation. He also began teaching at the University of Chicago Law School. Eventually he ran as a Democrat for the state senate seat from his district, which included both Hyde Park (where he currently lives) and some of the poorest ghettos on the South Side, and won.

In 2004 Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate as a Democrat, representing Illinois, and gained national attention by giving a rousing and well-received keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention in Boston; won a Grammy for Best Spoken Word for the CD version of his autobiography “Dreams From My Father” (2006); won his second Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album for “The Audacity of Hope” (2008); sought the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Presidency (2008).

It’s a brief overview that highlights great accomplishments, but his origins are similar to most black men I know: He came from a single parent household, had a strained relationship with his father, a close relationship with his grandparents, and had to make choices.

Law school, community organizer, civil-rights activist, Grammy award winner, member of the U.S. Senate, Presidential candidate – they are all talent and value based decisions. None of them would be feasible if Barack Obama did not truly believe that these goals were possible and put forth the consistent effort to reach them.

What will happen if Barack Obama gets elected president? What will happen when black men stop blaming the man, and start being The Man? Every door will be open. Every American dream – including being president – can be a reality.

Our view and definition of The Man will finally be flipped; replaced by a positive self-image and greater awareness of the super powers we possess, but seldom activate. We will become more motivated to utilize resources, get better jobs, start successful businesses, and capitalize on opportunities because the leadership and role model that so many of us have lacked, will have emerged in the highest visible position in the country – the presidency.

In short, The Barack Obama Effect will mean that our statute of limitations on excuses will have officially run out. The fixed mindset that has plagued black men for centuries from the aforementioned internalization of negative perceptions will be repaired. The Effect Of Barack Obama will germinate a growth mindset which will benefit black men for centuries to come.

Dweck writes: The growth mindset is based on the belief that your basic qualities are things you can cultivate through your efforts. The growth mindset takes the teeth out of stereotypes and makes people better able to fight back. They don’t believe in permanent inferiority. She also writes: Prejudice is a deeply ingrained societal problem…a growth mindset helps people see prejudice for what it is – someone else’s view of them.

The Barack Obama Effect will inspire little black boys to find the courage to choose the road less traveled and explore the many options available to them. The Barack Obama Effect will motivate the parents of little black boys to instill an authentic, deeply rooted confidence which allows and enables them to have personal and professional lives that are only limited by the boundaries of their imagination and efforts, not lack of opportunities. The Barack Obama Effect will linger because black men and black boys will know that in their hearts and in their minds, they are The Man – the only man – who controls their own thoughts, actions, and destinies.

 


About the Author:

How many people do you know who think their Congressperson has the answers to providing health care in America?  Or, their Senator?  George W. Bush?   Barack Obama or  Hillary Clinton?  Or, for that matter, any politician?  Do they really have the answers?

 

If they can’t do it, then how about the politicians in Canada, or Great Britain?  Have they solved the problem in their societies?  Some people believe they have.  However, in England, where the private practice of medicine was outlawed when socialized medicine was first established there, they were eventually forced to reverse their policy and permit the public to go outside the government’s system to obtain health care from private physicians. 

 

In Canada today, the story is much the same.  Many Canadians come to the U.S. for emergent needs, such as bypass surgery, because the waiting time in Canada is interminable, often many months before their citizens can get life-saving treatment when they need it.  

    

State-Run Health Care

All state-run health care systems have one thing in common: rationing.  Not necessarily involving the use of ration cards, but rationing nonetheless.  Rationing of resources.  The cause is a devilishly simple principle that’s present in all nationalized health care programs.  That is, it’s free, or so low cost that it’s almost free.  Basic economics clearly demonstrates that whenever something is free, the demand quickly becomes unlimited.  The lower the price, the greater the demand.  Give something away and you can “sell” everything you have and more.

   

However, the flip side of unlimited demand is a shortage of supply.  And, not having enough doctors, nurses, or expensive equipment, such as CAT Scans and MRIs, eventually leads to rationing.  Without enough health care to go around, rationing becomes a necessity.  That has been the failing with nationalized health care in England, Canada, Germany, Japan, the former USSR, everywhere it has been tried.

    

So, if there are no politicians who really know what should be done to solve our health care problems why do we keep expecting them to come up with the answers?

   

Just exactly what are the problems?  Too many uninsured?  Too high cost?  Poor quality?  Lack of availability?  All of the above?  Do you know or think you know?

    

What have been the government’s (read politicians’) solutions to date?

 

Health Care Policy

National health care (socialized medicine) in one form or another is the primary health care policy that is gradually being adopted in America.  And it is slowly but surely lowering the quality of the health care we are getting.  Talk to any doctor you trust and see if they don’t agree.  They will tell you that they are working much longer hours for far less money, that many physicians are retiring early or converting to “concierge” practices because they are fed up with the government and insurance company bureaucrats telling them how to practice medicine.  Consequently, there is a growing shortage of doctors and nurses.

    

But, you may say, we don’t have socialized medicine in America!  Perhaps not yet, but we’ve been moving in that direction for some time, and we seem to be going further down that path as the years progress.  It’s a slippery slope.   For example, consider Medicare. 

   

But, Medicare is not socialized medicine, you may insist.

    

Unfortunately, it is, or is headed that way.  Why?  For one thing, it’s a system that’s based on price controls. 

    

Price Controls

Price controls have never worked, ever, in any society at any time in history.  They were tried as early as 301 A.D. by a Roman emperor, Diocletian (243-316 A.D.) who implemented price controls under penalty of death.  But, even that didn’t work, and it hasn’t worked since.  What price controls do is cause shortages, increased costs and disrupted markets.

    

Look at what has happened to the Medicare program since 1984, the year the government changed its method of paying for hospital services from a “cost plus” to a system called DRGs (Diagnostic Related Groupings).  DRGs are a method of classifying illnesses and assigning a comparative value and a specific authorized payment to each.  At that point, many hospitals began to lose money because the government started dictating the prices that are paid for inpatient care.

 

As much as 70% of many hospitals’ patients are seniors, whose bills are paid by Medicare.  The Federal Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) determines, in its sole discretion, the prices that can be charged for seniors’ inpatient hospital care, and then pays only 80% of those amounts.  The differences between a hospital’s standard fees for service and the amounts that Medicare pays must be written off.  They cannot be collected from the patient.  That’s price control.

    

Furthermore, because Medicare payments are determined solely by the government, annual cost of living increases are limited, generally to between 1-1/2% and 2-1/2%, in spite of the fact that hospital costs have been rising for years at an annual rate of anywhere from 6% to 14%. 

    

Another little known fact about Medicare is that seniors are prevented from seeking care outside the Medicare system, even if they are willing to pay the bill themselves.  Any doctor who accepts payment directly from a senior who is covered by Medicare is automatically disqualified from providing care to all Medicare patients for a period of two years.  This is especially important in situations where a patient wants a second opinion and would like to see another doctor.  That type of regulation is certainly an element of socialized medicine.

    

Many Hospitals Lose Money

Between health insurance contracts (HMOs) and Medicare limits on their charges, hospitals generally collect only about 50% of their total billings.  The rest is written off.  The result of all this is predictable: many of them are losing money.  About one-third of all hospitals in California are currently operating at a loss.  With a national health care plan, at some point, many hospitals would either be closed or services curtailed.  That’s been the pattern in every country that has nationalized its health care.  Nonetheless, that seems to be where we are headed, in spite of compelling evidence that it doesn’t work. 

    

Like the proverbial frog being cooked in a pot of cold water, Americans are gradually becoming aware that the quality of their health care is declining, even as costs continue to rise.  It just hasn’t sunk in yet.  When it does, they will undoubtedly be led into believing the government has the answers and demand more government control, regulation and oversight.  And, our politicians will be only too willing to oblige. 

    

Nationalized Health Care

Nationalized health care in America is gradually overtaking the free market, and we are all being slowly cooked in the pot of government intervention.   So, don’t be surprised at the type of health care program we get as time progresses.  Whatever your own conclusions, remember one thing: that our politicians won’t have to rely on whatever health care plan they establish for everyone else.  As usual, they will have their own, superior plan.  And, it will not be a part of the nationalized health care system that the rest of us will be required to use.  If you doubt that assertion, just look at the health care plan that our Federal legislators and government employees have now. 

 

In the interest of full disclosure, I’m one of those seniors who has Medicare health insurance coverage and I ran a hospital for about seven years.

 

© 2008 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved


About the Author:

The campaign of Republican John McCain has just released two web videos which highlight what the campaign feels is a national media bias in favor of Democrat Barack Obama in the 2008 Presidential election. It is asking people to vote for their favorite video.

This McCain campaign video release contest comes at the end of a week in which hundreds of members of the national media followed Barack Obama throughout the Middle East, Central Asia, and Europe on his fact finding mission. However, the same press coverage was not to be found when McCain took a similar trip a few months ago or when he more recently visited Colombia and Mexico.

Meanwhile the New York Times featured an editorial from Barack Obama and then refused to publish one written by John McCain. The McCain article was to appear on the paper’s op-ed page and was rejected because it was supposedly incompatible with the article from Sen. Barack Obama that the Times previously had published.

There are three questions about the news media that should be considered in this Presidential campaign. Is the national media as biased in election 2008 as it appeared to be in 2004?. Does John McCain make a point with his recent web video on media bias? Does the American public perceive media bias in favor of Barack Obama in election 2008?

To answer the last question first, the American public does detect media bias. In fact, according to a recent poll (Rasmussen), nearly half of Americans believe that the media is biased toward the candidacy of Democrat Barack Obama. In the same poll only 14% believe that the media favors Republican candidate John McCain.

Certainly, political partisans in both major parties often feel that their candidate is the victim of unfavorable media coverage. So, for a more objective view of media reporting in election 2008, consider only what the independent voter is saying in that same public opinion poll. Indeed, nearly 50% of these unaffiliated voters see a media with a pro-Obama bias while just 21% see unbiased coverage. Only 12% of those not connected with either major party believe the media is trying to help Republican John McCain.

Is this perception of media bias toward Obama by the public based in news reporting reality? To answer this question, let’s consider the results of the study of the media in election 2008 from Jounalism.org. The organization’s Project for Excellence in Journalism evaluates more than 300 political stories each week in newspapers, magazines, and television in order to measure whether each candidate is talked about in more than 25% of the stories.

This excerpt from their ongoing election media study describes the national media’s election coverage to date; ..”It was the sixth straight week since the general election began in which Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, enjoyed a distinct advantage in the race for exposure over the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain. Last week, Obama was a significant presence in 83% of campaign stories studied, vs. McCain in 52%. That advantage for Obama is only slightly higher than what he has enjoyed throughout this early phase of the general election period.

In the six weeks since Hillary Clinton suspended her campaign and the general election phase began, Obama has been a significant factor in 78% of the stories and McCain in 51%. The closest they have come in coverage was the week of June 30 through July 6, when Obama enjoyed an 11 percentage point advantage (73% of stories about Obama vs. 62% for McCain).”

Certainly, an advantage of nearly 8-5 in media exposure is a significant benefit for any politician running for the highest office in the land. The extent of Obama’s favorable exposure from the national media indicates a distinct Democratic bias so far in this election campaign.

Consider that media bias was also perceived by the voting public just prior to the actual voting in the Presidential election of 2004. In a Fabrizio, McLaughlin, and Associates election night survey of 1,000 voters in twelve battleground states, 46% thought the media’s coverage of that election campaign was biased. 32% thought the Democrats were favored by the media while just 14% felt the same way about the media and the GOP.

Of course, in the last election, a national network and prominent news anchor became the news for promoting and defending forged documents in an attempt to influence the election for the benefit of the Democratic Party nominee. Dan Rather and CBS will continue discussions about that dubious matter in their civil litigation currently scheduled for this fall.

Indeed, a lack of national media objectivity in election 2008 may well be a replay of the Presidential campaign of 2004. It looks like John McCain may have a valid point when he highlights media bias in favor of his opponent. However, based on the media’s recent history of political election coverage and an attractive and articulate Democratic candidate, his campaign should certainly not be very surprised.


About the Author: