I guess I'm back

Well, over the past several months I have been both busy and neglectful. There has been a lot that I have wanted to write about, but I never made the time. Add to that some frustrating conversations and an occasional misinterpretation of my meanderings in the dimmer corners of my mind, and I haven't really felt much like writing, but here goes nothing - today's topic:

The Health Care Bill/Debate.

First and foremost, I am not going to debate the need or lack thereof for the health care reform initiative. Rather, I am going to address some rather specious lines of reasoning that are being touted as to why the bill has to get done, and elucidate on why these tactics make me suspicious of the motives. I am not going to debate the merit or lack thereof of a public option, I am just going to discuss White House and Congressional tactics, principally on the Democrat side. The reason that I am not bothering with the Republican side should be obvious (and no, it is not because I agree with them). The Democrats are driving the debate and have established the criteria of the necessity of this reform. More on that when I talk about the supermajority...

1. We need this bill passed right now. If we don't get it passed by (insert date of choice) then (insert apocryphal saying of choice). Now, this one falls flat on the face of it - if the need is so imperative, why do the benefits not kick in for another four years and the tax increases and medicare cuts happen immediately - this would seem to say that it is imperative, but if people have health issues in the next four years, that is just too bad. A measured approach to any legislation is better - give the legislature a chance to (heaven forfend) actually read the bill so that they know on what they are voting. All of the deadlines are arbitrary and seem to me to stifle debate, making the promise of transparency ring somewhat hollow. If we are going to do this, do it well; do not rush it just to say we got it done. This smacks more of politicking and less of actual concern for the public.
2. We need competition with the private sector - the heath care industry is a "monopoly". I have actually heard the White House press secretary pitch this one - the government needs to provide an alternate to the private sector because the private sector has a monopoly on health care. This just shows misunderstanding of the term monopoly. If the private sector being in charge of an industry is all it takes to have a monopoly, then every industry in which the government does not participate is a monopoly. Why, then, does the government not compete with car insurers, home insurers (in a way, they do), computer manufacturers, video game companies, mom and pop corner stores, etc. The competition angle of the debate is spurious at best - it is simply dressing up the issue to make it palatable to moderates. If the heath care system needs fixing and you believe that your plan will do it, do not make up a phony claim of monopoly - it just makes people suspicious of your motives.
3. The Republicans are a party of "No" - they offer no ideas. and/or The Republicans are putting up roadblocks and we would like them to be part of the process. Neither one of these make a bit of difference. The Democrats have a supermajority. They have the House, Senate, and Presidency. They could pass this without any Republican help. In fact, if I were them, and I really believed that my ideas were good, I would try to pass the laws and make a point that the ideas were all my party's and none of my opposition's. If your ideas are diametrically opposed, and you believe yours are right, state your case, explain why you are doing what you are doing and be willing to take all of the credit and all of the blame. The fact that they are unwilling to do this again makes me think that they do not have a lot of faith in their ideas and they want a "fall guy" if they need it. Again, it looks more like politics and less like they believe in what they are doing.

Honestly, there are many other arguments that I could address, but I don't feel like it right now. In short, all I am trying to say is that if the Democrats want to allay suspicions of the independent voter (they will never convince the far right of the merits of the government option, so they shouldn't try; the reason far right and far left are so... well... far apart, is because their ideas run counter to one another. There is nothing wrong with this and neither side should have to compromise their core principles, they just have to convince a majority that their core principles are correct) they should just come out and say honestly what they believe are the merits of the system they propose - without attacking or making up phony claims. If you believe in it, stand behind it, use it to differentiate yourselves from the Republicans, and you will go a good way toward convincing people that your side is right. The way the process is going, it does not seem like the Democrats are committed to the idea or really feel like it is actually what is best. All of there tactics serve to make people question their motives rather than feel like they are being dealt with in an honest and open fashion.

More on the actual substance of why I personally feel that the bill (and the various iterations that have been proposed) are not actually good economically or for the health care system and my ways that I would reform the system in an upcoming blog.

... Oh yeah, and supergoober, I have reached Level 19 on two player mode of Tetris Friends, and Level 20 (Grand Master) in the 6 player version - top that!