Our Three Tragedies -- The Ancient Greeks and the Affordable Care Act

The debate over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as Obamacare, is looking like a Greek tragedy – not one but three.

The first tragedy is President Obama’s age and experience. 

While no one chooses his or her birthday, Obama’s lack of political experience, especially guiding something as tricky as a near overhaul of health care in the United States, is his responsibility.

Had he not been a young man in a hurry in 2008 – and certainly a better student of American history – he would have delayed his presidential ambitions. 

Instead of seeking his party’s presidential nomination, Obama would have gained executive suite experience as either a governor or a Cabinet member in a Hillary Clinton Administration.  But he pressed on, winning his current post.

Which is unfortunate.  Because if Obama was a better history student, he would know the most effective presidents – the ones with the chops for the job – came to the White House with one or two characteristics:  Prior executive experience as either a governor, a general or a Congressional leader and, usually, 50 years old.

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, James Polk, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan – some of the country’s best presidents – possessed one, if not both, attributes when they became the country’s leader.

If Obama demonstrated patience, he’d be watching this debate from the sidelines, not find himself in the middle of it, showing what he really is – a political novice whose inability to manage the new law may very well sink his presidency and his party, too.

The second tragedy is the law’s name.  The citizenry is finally hearing – loud and clear – it’s called the Affordable Care Act. 

But when there are, potentially, as many as 50 million people facing cancelled health insurance plans because theirs don’t cover every disease, test and possible treatment required under the new law – and facing large increases in their monthly premiums – then this new law doesn’t look “affordable.”

It looks expensive.

In California, the Los Angeles Times reported, some self-employed people paying less than $100 a month for their monthly health insurance premium are looking at an increase of about $140 a month so their plan is in synch with the new law.

The McClatchy News Service reported as many as 40 million people in the United States, buying health insurance through their employers, may see their policies cancelled because they don’t stack up with the law and another 11 million people buying policies on their own are also likely facing the same problem.

And, of course, everyone heard – or saw by now – the infamous video of President Obama saying, “If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it.”

That statement didn’t come with any caveats. The American people took him for his word.

But now Obama’s eating his words, attempting to find wiggle room to keep that promise while, at the same time, attempting to maintain his signature legislation, something that’s more difficult by the day.  Especially when he’s receiving “help” from former President Bill Clinton, who also made a run at changing how health care is managed and paid for.

The third tragedy is economics.  Its first law is that there’s no such thing as a free lunch and if that isn’t understood by now, it may never be.

A to Z health care coverage – and then some – is costly.  This isn’t like buying a liability policy for your car – usually sold for fewer dollars – so anyone you hit is paid off.

The new law requires you to buy a comprehensive health care policy covering you for anything and everything even though the likelihood of you needing such coverage might be statistically remote.

So what everyone is suddenly learning is that the Obama Administration, through the Affordable Care Act, sold off the American public to the insurance industry.

You’ll pay their rates – and you’ll enjoy it!

And given the Supreme Court’s ruling, there are few legal challenges available.

The Ancient Greeks thought no tragedy was meaningless.  There’s always a lesson. 

Maybe we’re finally learning that if we paid own doctors, out of our own pockets, with our own money, instead of receiving a subsidy from the insurance industry, as we have since World War II, then health care’s prices will drop.

We need to stop acting like crack addicts and wean ourselves off the insurance industry.  If we don’t, health care prices will continue to be inflated.

Sources:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-health-sticker-shock-20131027,0,2756077.story#axzz2kj7MCbYZ

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/07/207909/analysis-tens-of-millions-could.html

http://itsfourthandlong.blogspot.com/2008/03/history-of-american-president-what.html

Rushing to Obsolescence: The Limbaugh Story

Yeah, I use to listen to Rush Limbaugh. 

It was back in the early to mid-1990s, when my traveling sales job took me to exciting metropolises like Salina, Kansas; Joplin, Missouri; Sioux City, Iowa; Columbus, Nebraska; and Grand Forks North Dakota.

This was before satellite radio was added to rental cars, so, often, there was little or no selection on the AM or FM dials after leaving the broadcasting range of the stations in some of the larger Midwestern and Southern cities I once visited.

So Rush, unlike his liberal counterparts, was often the only game on the dial. 

He was pretty funny back then.  And let’s face it, in Bill Clinton, he had a lot material to work with.

(I’ve come to miss the Clinton years; he was a capable president, with an uncanny ability to keep the extremists in both parties at bay.)

I haven’t spent any time listening to Rush since 1996, when my full-time business travels ended, so I’m not sure what he sounds like anymore or even what does on the air.

But I worry when anyone attempts to censor anyone else.  I’m not a registered with any political party, but there should always be a full airing of all views, even the ones that are bothersome, irritable, naïve or disagreeable. 

Besides, if we live in the progressive society we think we do, then we need to act like one and not support anyone’s censorship efforts against any one else.  Your favorite radio station or television host, columnist or book author could be targeted next.

Censorship efforts are also risky.  They can provide sympathy for the target.

In other words, Rush’s is in the news today because someone is telling Dairy Queen they’re not buying Blizzards anymore until their ads are off his show.  Someone – who may not hold Rush’s views – is hearing this and thinking it’s unfair.

So what to do about Rush?

He’s on the verge of collapse.  He’s been on the air for more than 20 years, had a good run and is likely repeating himself, which happens to many in the media world.

If his opinions were that unique or his arguments that good, he would be on many more stations, especially given that a Democrat is back in the White House.

The market is judging him – harshly.  He’s on fewer than 600 radio stations (he peaked at just over 600 stations in the mid-1990s) and if you study his list of stations (it can be found here: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/stations/all_stations/, you’ll notice his show sometimes carried on two radio stations in the same city simultaneously. 

In other words, add it all up and he’s not as effective as he once was.

No radio sales manager – regardless of their own political affiliation – will want to keep the Rush show if he’s not delivering the audience merchants demand.

Rush will spin out of control by himself.  He doesn’t need your help.

Senator Edwards Explains America and Sex

CHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Former U.S. Sen. John Edwards, once his party’s vice presidential nominee, used his presidential campaign theme on Saturday to explain his recent exploits, saying there are some Americans who are committed to sexually monogamous marriages while there are other married Americans like himself “who fuck around.”

“Unfortunately, I got caught,” said the former North Carolina Democrat, admitting to having engaged in a sexual liaison with a California movie maker.

The former Senator is the second prominent Democrat this year to admit to having sex outside of his marriage. Eliot Spitzer, never accused of having a libido, resigned from the New York’s governor’s office in March because of the sexual services he purchased from a prostitute.

“There are two Americas,” former Senator Edwards said. “There are married Americans who are committed to remaining sexually monogamous in their marriage and then there is another America, consisting of married men and women, who, like me, fuck around on their spouse.”

Asked if there was any comparison to the former New York Governor, Edwards said, “There are two Americas. There’s the one that pays for sex and then there’s other that gets it for free – kinda like me.”

The former Senator’s wife, Elizabeth, battling cancer, refused to issue any comment about the affair.

“There are two kinds of wives,” Edwards said. “There’s the kind of wife who puts out and who, by doing so, keeps her man safe at home, and then there’s the kind of wife who engages in risky behavior and refuses to have sex with her husband.

“She’s the one who loses her man,” Edwards said.

“We don’t really know what a ‘sexual liaison’ is,” said a man who’s no stranger to dalliances outside of his marriage, former President Bill Clinton. “He (Edwards) coulda just received a hummer and, according to the Constitution, that’s not really sex.”

“Less than one percent of all American women have had sex with me,” said Edwards. “I plan to get back out on the campaign trail to give more American women the opportunity to have sex with me.”

Asked if there was anything in particular he was looking for in a potential sexual partner, Senator Edwards, smiling, said, “As long as it’s a woman who’s over 21 – and she’s not a complete double bagger – I’m in.”

Swimming toward the target

A friend of mine called recently to say he was going in for a vasectomy. After giving life a lot of thought, he and his fiancé decided children aren’t in the cards.

His story reminded me of an entirely different time in my life. My wife and I were attempting to conceive our first born and we were experiencing difficulties.

So, like my friend, I decided to take control of the situation and consult the medical authorities.

That was the easy part of the decision. Making the appointment to see my doctor was an entirely different story.

“Why do you want to see the doctor,” the receptionist asked.

None of your damn business I wanted to say. But that’s just not an appropriate way to speak to someone if you need an appointment presto pronto.

“Oh, I just need to see the doctor,” I replied. Ordinarily these things don’t faze me. But in this case, since we were discussing things south of my belly button, I just couldn’t bring myself to be so open.

“Again, what are you coming in for,” she continued.

“I’m not telling you. And it won’t take long,” I said.

“The doctor won’t like this,” she said. As if I cared.

A few days later I found myself in my doctor’s examination room.

“So what’s up,” he said upon entering the room.

I explained the problem. And rather than suggest to my wife that she see a doctor, implying somehow that this situation was her fault – not mine, of course – I told the doctor we should start with me. So what do we do, I asked.

The great thing about this guy is that he’s able to break down complicated medical terms into language we can all understand.

“We need to find out if you’ve got enough swimmers,” he said. “And then we need to know if they can swim.”

That was an interesting way of putting it. And how do we do this, I inquired.

“Easy. We refer you to a clinic where you give a sample.”

That’s a breeze, I thought. Just go to some sterile medical clinic, by myself, and, uh, well, uh, you know, uh, uh-oh. What have I gotten myself into?

Yikes!!!!!

I’d only done that, you know, in private. So the mere thought of doing you know in a quasi-public place was enough for me to ask my doctor for some Viagra – JUST FOR THIS ONE TIME.

Don’t sweat it, the doctor said. There will be more than enough magazines and videos to get me through this exercise. How did he know, I wondered.

The next thing to do was to call the clinic. I forget its name but it was something like “The Clinic to Make Sure You’re Packing a Wallop.”

After taking down the necessary information from me, the receptionist at Packing a Wallop inquired when I’d like to stop by.

I inquired about the following Wednesday. That was just fine, she said. And then she issued an edict:

“No sex for three days before this appointment.”

“Okay,” I mumbled.

The Big Day arrived. And I was a little nervous, to say the least.

My wife was on a business trip on this particular day. And I was wondering if that wasn’t a mistake. Maybe she should have been there. That would have made this exercise easier.

I thought about calling a few women I knew to see if they’d join me on this event. But then I reconsidered. They’d probably turn me down anyway. And the clinic might have rules. Besides, I thought, that would be like Bill Clintoning this whole exercise.

Is it sex? Isn’t it sex? Those were more questions than I could handle. So forget that idea.

I put on stiff upper lip and made my way to the clinic – alone.

The first thing I noticed in the clinic was a picture gracing the lobby’s wall of a lone, very determined looking sperm. It must have been magnified 5,000 times, maybe more. I suspected it was to reinforce to all those entering Packing a Wallop what they were suppose to do during their visit. Drop off a sample!

The next thing I noticed was the receptionist. She was a hot looking Latina. Maybe her looks were part of the clinic’s plan. Look at her, they figure, and things will happen.

I checked in with her and she asked if I was ready.

“I guess.”

I was ushered into a room. I’m not sure what the room is called. It’s not exactly an examination room. Maybe it’s a play room.

I don’t know what they call that room, but it was packed with more pornography, movies included, than I’d ever seen in one place.

Now I’m not exactly a prude; for that matter, I’m not innocent either. I’ve bought my fair share of porn.

But this was something else. The shelves were staked with huge quantities of magazines and movies.

The doctor was right. There were more than enough magazines to pull me through this exercise.

I thought about asking the receptionist to stick around. If she could just stand there, naked, this would have been so much easier. And, hey, I wouldn’t have touched her. That would have defeated the exercise.

But then I thought about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky and dismissed the idea.

She closed the door behind her and, suddenly, I was alone.

What the hell, I thought, let’s check out the movies. And that’s when I learned I just might be entirely out of the mainstream.

There’s nothing wrong with being gay, but lesbian porn just doesn’t do it for me. I’m straight and in today’s world that probably makes me weird.

Eventually I got comfortable with a magazine and things that needed to happen, well, happened. The sample was delivered and the most embarrassing exercise of my life was over.

I just hoped no one would notice how embarrassed I was as I walked out of the lobby. I don’t think anyone did.

A week later the doctor reported that everything was good to go. What a relief.

Six weeks later, my wife and I learned that our first born was on his way. Another relief.

Five years later, I can tell you that children provide more awkward moments than I would have ever realized. There are embarrassing moments involving the bathroom, crying, and things that they notice that they want to tell you about in their own way.

But none of those moments compare to the 30 minutes I spent at that clinic.

Damsel in Distress or Iron Lady?

While U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, (D-IL), makes an interesting candidate for president – an attractive black man, as his Senate colleague Joe Biden said rather stupidly last week – the one who actually holds the cards to winning the nomination would likely make a far better chief executive.

U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, (D-NY), evokes a visceral reaction among both her supporters and those who, without any diplomacy or tact, will tell anyone within listening distance that they hate her.

Since 1992, when she came onto the country’s national political scene, Hillary has been both a source of pride and contempt for the Democratic Party. She doesn’t play by the rules established for First Ladies, either current or former. And now, here she is, barely into her second term as a United States Senator, and she’s the one to beat for her party’s presidential nomination next year.

It’s just so unfair.

The only other First Ladies who were as close to being as controversial as Hillary include Rosaylnn Carter (she announced she’d join her husband for the Cabinet meetings); Betty Ford (she supported a woman’s right to choose); and Eleanor Roosevelt (who toured the country and stumped for her husband).

Had Senator Clinton been the traditional First Lady, her husband would remain in the spotlight – or in as much of the spotlight as former presidents receive – and she would confine herself to staying within his shadow.

But anyone who knows anything about Senator Clinton knows that’s not her style. She only retreats to lick her wounds and find another way to achieve victory.

During the 1992 presidential campaign, Hillary proudly announced that she didn’t stay home “and bake cookies.” While the comment may not have been intended as an insult to First Lady Barbara Bush, it certainly drew a distinction between the Baby Boomer and World War II generations.

(Bill Clinton was the first Baby Boomer to be elected President while George H.W. Bush was the last President to have served in the military during World War II.)

While her husband was Arkansas’ governor, Senator Clinton was a partner in the Rose Law Firm and, according to Wikipedia, she chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee, the Rural Health Advisory Committee; she also introduced, according to Wikipedia, the Arkansas Home Instructional Program for Preschool Youth, “which trains parents to work with their children in preschool preparedness and literacy.”

The online encyclopedia also reports that the Senator was named Arkansas Woman of the Year in 1983 and Arkansas Mother of the Year in 1984. Her business experience, during her Little Rock days, included serving on the Board of Directors of TCBY, The Country’s Best Yogurt, and Wal-Mart stores.

Shortly after her husband won the presidential election, she was appointed to lead the presidential task force investigating ways to change the nation’s healthcare system. The task force met privately, making it an easy target for Republicans, which later helped them take control of Congress during the 1994 midterm elections.

After the healthcare plan, one of the single largest controversies surrounding Senator Clinton was the way she handled herself during President Clinton’s impeachment and subsequent trial as well as the way she stood by him after it had been revealed that he’d had an affair – a sordid, quick fling is a better description – with a White House intern.

Monica Lewinsky wasn’t the President’s first mistress; during the presidential campaign in 1992, Bill Clinton admitted that he’d damaged their marriage, perhaps more than once; while in the White House, it was reported that he’d had at least one another dalliance.

The Senator had two ways to handle this affair: She could walk out on him, thereby making her the first First Lady to ever divorce and/or separate from her husband; or she could stand by him, the option she chose.

Hillary’s decision reveals a lot about her. She may not have exactly had her eyes on the Senate in 1998, when the affair with Monica was made public. At the same time, it cannot be simply dismissed that she was not planning her post-White House years either. She said, more than once, that Bill Clinton did his thing and she did hers.

While she may have forgiven the president for his transgression with Monica – we’ll never really know – it’s also equally possible that she figured that Bill Clinton’s former wife would never have as much political cache as his current wife. And that was likely one of the reasons she stood by him.

Hillary also saw in Bill Clinton something she needed – a masterful politician to guide her through the trials and tribulations that any national and state-wide politician encounters. He had an ability to confound the Republican majority in Congress and look better after every assault launched against him. She knew, especially when she decided to run for the Senate, that his advice, knowledge and experience would be required to win the campaign.

Losing the Senate seat to a relative unknown, like U.S. Rep. Rick Lazio, was simply not an option. She had to win, especially if she wanted any kind of political future that wouldn’t require her to play second fiddle to her husband.

For that matter, Bill Clinton equally knew that to place his legacy in good standing, Hillary had to win. A Hillary victory, to Bill Clinton, is spawning a politician in his own mold, and it keeps him in front of the American electorate.

As she shown already, Hillary will make sure that no one can “out-left” her. The primaries are a time when the party faithful vote, so Hillary will do whatever is necessary to show them that she’s the Democrat they want returned to The White House. Her husband will campaign for her, too.

She’ll beat Barack Obama for this simple reason – there are politicians that owe her favors. After eight years in The White House, and more than six years in the Senate, there are governors and members of Congress who owe her (and her husband) in a way that they don’t owe Senator Obama.

Senator Obama will get there, but it will take a few more years than he’d like. Who knows, there’s a good chance he could wind up as Hillary’s running mate.

After she sows up the nomination, Hillary, in an attempt to capture the votes of independents and dispirited Republicans, will move to the center – at least in her speeches. She’ll essentially tell America that she’s tough on defense and illegal immigration; supports adoption (along with a woman’s right to choose); likes hunters (but supports tough hand-gun legislation); is tough on crime; supports environmental causes; and will say that the world’s perception of America needs to be improved. She’ll dance around Iraq and Afghanistan. If necessary, she’ll talk about a time-line to bring the troops home.

All of that just might secure a White House victory. But, of course, any presidential campaign with Hillary leading the ticket contains a very possible, and very serious, vulnerability. It’s her husband.

A vote for Hillary, Republicans will say, is a vote for Bill. (In fact, you can expect the Republicans to make Hillary to look live the Devil.) The Republicans will say President Clinton left the country vulnerable to terrorism (He had a chance to kill Osama bin Laden while he was in The Sudan but failed to take it) and they’ll remind the country that the Clinton Administration was once charged with selling high-tech secrets to China. And let’s not forget the impeachment hearings.

If Hillary survives this assault – and the Republicans stumble – she’ll likely be elected.

What Kind of President will she be?

Gender will play a role in how Hillary conducts herself in office. It’ll force her to be harsher in some areas, like national defense, and softer in others, like families and children.

As the first woman to become president, Hillary will need to prove, more so than the average male president, not that she’s about to surrender the country and its interests to some of our toughest enemies, like North Korea’s Kim Jong Il, Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.

(Hillary was recently asked in Iowa if she had any background in dealing with “evil” men. Some interpreted the way she asked the question as an acknowledgement of having dealt with her husband, which she’s since denied. Even if we accept her denial at face value, let’s face it, she’s dealt with a husband who’s admitted to being less than faithful to his marriage.)

Hillary’s gender will force her to act tough when it comes to foreign policy, much in the same way it forced former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s hand. She had no choice but to retake the United Kingdom’s Falkland Islands after they’d been stormed by Argentinean troops in 1982. Failure to do so would have made Britain’s first female prime minister look feeble and incompetent on matters of national defense, something no female leader can afford.

In addition to Thatcher, there are other previous female world leaders Hillary can study for tips on how to approach certain issues. Sarah Baxter, a writer for the Sunday Times of London, reports that Hillary only needs to review the life and times of Israel’s Golda Meir and India’s Indira Gandhi to find out tough she can be on national defense.

Meir, Baxter reports, “authorized the assassination of Palestinian terrorist leaders and the annexation of conquered lands, and she led Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur war.” Ghandi led India during its war with Pakistan.

Iraq and Afghanistan?

Hillary will deny, on a large stake of Bibles, that she has anything in common with former President Richard Nixon. She was a staff attorney on the Senate committee investigating Nixon over Watergate in the 1970s.

But she’ll borrow from the Nixon playbook when it comes to Iraq. Nixon knew that the domestic political climate didn’t support continued U.S. involvement in Vietnam; but he equally knew that he couldn’t be the first president to lose a war. He was in a bind.

So he started bringing the troops home while, at the same time, ordering far more aggressive attacks on Communist forces in North Vietnam and in Cambodia. By doing so, he looked tough on Communism (something he was known for) while also acknowledging that it was time for the United States to end its involvement in Vietnam.

Hillary will likely do something similar. She doesn’t want the enemies of the United States and Iraq’s current government to succeed, and likely, neither does the average American voter. But she’ll need to strike a balance between domestic desires and the harsh reality of Iraq. It’s my guess that she’ll bring some of the troops home (a way to keep the Democrats appeased) while continuing some kind of U.S. military presence in Iraq.

Afghanistan is a different story. It’s essentially a NATO operation but there are also U.S. troops in Afghanistan that are not under NATO command. This allows the United States to work with NATO allies while, at the same time, giving it the flexibility to conduct operations that may be questioned by its allies.

The operation in Afghanistan basically hides behind the one in Iraq; it will likely remain that way during the Hillary Clinton presidency.

If any of America’s enemies, like North Korea, Iran or Venezuela, start saber-rattling, expect Hillary to deal with the issue forcefully and effectively.

The one thing that people will soon notice about Hillary is that she’ll have an easier time making a decision than her husband, especially on issues of national security.

Domestic Issues

Hillary’s domestic politics can be summed up in this manner – she’ll support traditional Democratic causes whenever possible, like unions, abortion rights, domestic partnerships, but, at the same time, she’ll make every attempt to keep herself in the center, so she’s appealing to moderately conservative voters.

So, she’ll support a woman’s right to choose an abortion while supporting legislation that makes adoption easier.

Hillary will probably not want to deal with gay marriage, but she’ll certainly support domestic partnerships, enhancing them wherever possible.

She’ll talk up her religious faith on the campaign trail, when necessary, and she may even be inclined to continue the President George W. Bush’s program to give government money to faith-based charities helping the poor and downtrodden.

Hillary will be as conniving and as crafty as her husband. But I expect her to be a much more formidable executive than her husband, too. Once she makes a decision, even if it is controversial, she’ll likely stick with it.

Inspired to attack

Let's keep something in mind: The appeasement policies of Neville Chamberlain inspired Adolf Hitler. Chamberlain tried hard to keep Hitler in a bottle and even gave away Austria, thinking it would satisfy him.

As we all know, it didn't. Hitler attacked Poland and then followed up that campaign with one against Western Europe.

So, if anyone tells you that the war in Iraq is only inspiring the terrorists and making the United States more vulnerable to attack, ask them this: What did the United States do, before 9/11, to inspire the terrorists?

If anything, we've done more for Muslims than they've ever done for Christians or, for that matter, Jews. At the direction of President Bill Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the United States, and its NATO allies, defended Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo with bombing campaigns over Serbia and other parts of the Balkans.

And, I note, there were no Saudi fighter jets, or any other planes from Muslim and Arab countries, flying sorties against the Serbians. If they hate us, fine. But, at the very least, Arabs and Muslims could do a better job of defending their own kind.

In addition, the United States has provided millions of dollars in aid to the Palestinians.

Sometimes a country can do nothing, like Great Britain, and yet still be hated by another country, like Germany of the 1930s, or a terrorist group.