Health Care Reform – The Panacea to what ails America’s Health Care System? Maybe, No, Yes?
On Tuesday, March 23, 2010 President Obama signed H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) into law, and a collective sigh of relief could be heard, or was that a cry of despair that swept across the land? Well it really does depend on which side you were championing, but it’s this columnist humble opinion that the real impact, value, benefits and whatnot of H.R. 3590 is far in the future and many of us may not be around to see how this scheme plays out; but let’s try to do a little crystal ball gazing.
Many of my readers may recall my two-part article “The Grass is Always Greener” that ran in the January 2008 and February 2008 issues of Working Nurse. I believe that I made it quite clear in this two-part series that I wasn’t in favor of the so-called healthcare overhaul, and after watching and participating in last year’s discussions, town halls, real or manufactured, and debates too numerous to name I can firmly state that I’m still not in support of the overhaul especially not the one that has been saddled upon our citizenry and several future generations of citizens of our nation. Gasp! How can I a 30+year veteran of the nursing profession not be in support of this gracious gift bestowed upon us by our much wiser and worldly elected members of Congress? You may think that I was oblivious to the pronunciations of such illustrious membership organizations such as the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Nurses Association (ANA) which threw their full weight behind the President’s plan, but the reality is that neither organization represents a majority of their respective professions; and I was well aware of the Democratic-controlled Congress’ monumental plan to create out of whole cloth a Health Care bill that would become the law of the land. Well, I know I’m not the only nurse that doesn’t see the ANA as a significant other in my career as a nurse and strongly oppose their choice to advertise that they “represent the interests of nearly 3 million nurses”, when the fact cannot be further from the truth with their actual membership being around 11% of America’s 3 million nurses; the AMA is not much better with a membership around 17% and yet choosing to present a “face” to the American people that they “speak for” the majority of physicians when they too fall far short of this grandiose promise.
Such examples “hyperbole” weren’t the sole domain of the proponents, but the opponents of what would later become known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) as well. Newspapers, Radio talk shows, daily newscasts and bloggers weighed in and their reports were replete with news stories and opinion of all types about the good, the bad and the ugly that was being discussed as the bill was being drafted and debated. Many held out great hopes that the bill, when it finally reached the President’s desk for his signature would usher in Health Care nirvana for all (well at least all legal US residents, that is). As I watched and listened to the various pundits – those from the left, the right, the far left and far right – I quickly concluded that this bill would be the proverbial elephant as described by a trio of blind men and H.R. 3590 did not disappoint.
I think that pretty much everyone I know and even strangers that I spoke with seemed to unanimously agree in the need for some kind of health care/health care insurance reform, but these same individuals were rarely of the same voice as to “the what” that change should be and I think the theatre that was health care reform discussion put on by Congress this past year was a mirror of that very same elusive “what”. Ironically, the most ardent supporters of health care reform, such as President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid, and others quickly dubbed the Republicans as the Party of NO when it came to the health care reform-taking place in Congress. One only had to do the math, so to speak, to realize that Pelosi and Reid didn’t need a single Republican vote (up until Massachusetts sent their first Republican to the Senate in who knows how many decades) to pass their respective bills. In the House the holdouts that were putting a crimp in Pelosi’s scheme were the “Blue Dog” Democrats who were the real members of the Party of NO, which is one of the reasons the Public were treated to such a circus throughout the health care reform discussions. Most Americans were unaccustomed to the deal making, arm twisting, and at times heated language that our “Honorable” legislators can and do engage in when dealing with legislation making, and this time was no exception; except that the American people had been promised transparency, being able to view the debates and discussion on CSPAN, five days to review any bill on line before it was signed into law and so forth by the President and Party they swept into power in the last Presidential election. I also think the American people were not prepared to be pilloried, insulted, and demonized by their very own members of Congress when they confronted these members at the August Town Hall meetings, in their Congress people’s offices or during protests, at one point a clear majority of American’s opposed the proposed legislation and yet many of our elected officials pontificated that “those folks just don’t what’s good for them, and that it rested on Congress to make things right”. French history has a similar episode – It is said that Marie-Antoinette upon learning that her subjects had no bread to eat is said to have responded with the now notorious quote “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche” (better known as “let them eat cake”).
Indeed the summer of 2009 could be characterized as the summer of discontent, with many Congressman and women shying away from holding any formal meetings to help educate, answer questions and provide an open and free dialogue. Senator Specter at one such town hall, which was televised, made a comment that shocked me when I heard it, what was his comment, you may wonder? In response to an audience member about another meeting the Senator was to attend, the Specter responded in the vein of “he didn’t have to be there or go there” to which the audience erupted with comments of “that’s what he was elected to do, it was his job, etc.” My own Congressman held, to my knowledge, only one town hall in Alhambra in an outdoor venue, that was originally suppose to be indoors, and hundreds of people stood in the sweltering August heat, under the blistering sun for hours before the meeting began in hopes of a town hall meeting. In the end it was revealed that Schiff had organized a panel of proponents of healthcare reform, and the almost one hundred seats that were available had been reserved for the handicapped. The very same seats which would later be filled by mostly bussed in supporters of the bill under discussion. Such machinations marked many a town hall meeting, which only inflamed the public even more, convincing many that there was “evil” afoot, and the sociologist in me would have to agree. Town Halls historically are small gatherings of citizens to discuss issues concerning the citizenry; these meetings are not usually orchestrated with individuals being required to show proof that they are constituents (we were told to be prepared to show proof that we were indeed constituents at my town hall), nor is there usually panel convened to “educate” the citizenry, or limits to the number of questions asked, holding telephone town halls instead of “live” meetings and so forth. However there were Congress people that did brave both the ire and support of their constituents, and where this respect was shown these meetings seemed to have a more positive outcome with people agreeing that it was okay to disagree without having to be disagreeable. One could almost judge the position of the Congressperson on the Health care reform bill by simply observing the attitude that Congressperson had towards the participants in the meeting. Thus it was no surprise to me when the lines were drawn that those who supported Health Care reform were the enlightened and those opposed were described as “Brown Shirts” or “Astro-turf”. These pejoratives did little to foster an open dialogue, and soon it appeared as though Health Care Reform was D.O.A.
Flash forward to March of this year and voila health care reform is the law of the land, and though HR 3590 and the companion reconciliation bill were signed into law there are still many unanswered questions and of course legal challenges. Now that the bill has been signed into law, nurses, physicians and other frontline healthcare providers are going to bare the brunt of these changes, both good and bad. This nation has had a chronic nursing shortage, and the last decade has seen a growing physician shortage (specifically General Practitioner/Primary Care physicians) these shortages will only be exacerbated by the passage of the PPACA. There is talk that the roles of nurse practitioners (NP), physician’s assistant (PA) and even Naturopathic Doctors (ND) will need to be expanded in order to meet the needs of a nearly estimated 34 million people that will be added to the rolls of the insured, and many state legislatures are taking the expansion of the role of NP and PA’s under consideration. This expansion of the roles of the above care providers will no doubt be met with resistance from the medical and nursing communities; one only needs to attend a local chapter meeting of the California Association Nurse Practitioners (CANP) to become educated on the frustrations and roadblocks that CANP has often faced when trying to make “simple” changes, including trying to codify a nurse practitioners scope of practice separate from our state’s current nurse practice act which has faced defeat at every turn to date. At present Congress seems to think they can wave a magic wand and legislate wholesale changes to state’s regulation of both medical and nursing practice, which may prove more difficult then the passage of the PPACA, since we have no national physician or nurse practice acts, as these have been the purview of the states. Additionally, though one can offer huge sums of federally funded grants and dollars to increase the physician and nursing educational pipeline, it still takes time to “backfill” and then reach the saturation point where we are educating and graduating enough nurses and physicians to meet growing demand as well as keeping pace with those leaving the field. Add to the mix that at least twenty states (California is not one of them) have signaled that they may opt out of the high-risk pools that were meant to allow individuals with pre-existing medical conditions and chronic disease to buy health insurance, as well as the fourteen states (again California is not one of these states) that have filed suit claiming that the law is unconstitutional which may make the implementation of the PPACA long and laborious. During the numerous legal battles that will doubtless continue to arise in response to the passage of PPACA nurses can and must continue to act as advocates for not only the patient but for the profession.
As a French native I’m not eager to see us adopt a French-style system, nor am I blind to the weaknesses of our health care delivery model. In this debate, I’m what would’ve been described as an incrementalist, thus I didn’t support the sweeping changes pushed by one side nor doing nothing as others argued. In many of my early writings I often used the following example, when a gardener finds himself or herself confronted by an ailing rose bush does he: a.) Pull out the entire bush and replace it with a new rose bush; or b.) Prune back the bad branches thus allowing the stronger, healthy branches to grow. If instead of all the partisan bickering, ones-up-manship and spinmeistering that seemed to consume Congress this past year, the American people would have been better served if Congress had spent their energies on incremental change that would’ve delivered more bang for their bucks. Just think what impact Congress could’ve made if they’d simply chosen to legislate that all insurance forms be delivered in a standardized format, imagine the trees we could save if they made electronic medical records the law of the land (France is one nation that’s been way ahead of this curve with all its citizen having the medical information available on a secure electronic card for longer than I can remember), or that all hospitals, clinics, labs etc., use a cost system similar to the DRG where doctors and patients alike would actually have a real grasp of the cost of treatment, or even allowing health insurance to be truly portable and purchased across state lines. These four changes appear small, but have a much larger impact, unfortunately Congress was looking for the “grand gesture” and thus PPACA was born, a bill that far too many of our Congressmen and women have yet to read in full and who can blame them the bill is well over two-thousand pages. Perhaps if they had read their bill they might have discovered for example that neurologists had been left out of the key categories that would qualify for reimbursement. Opps! No worries we’ll go back later and fix that little glitch, sounds just like what every homeowner faces when they remodel their home it never seems to come in on time or on budget, which is one of the primary concerns of so many Americans – cost and deliverables.
So lets take a quick and “dirty” look at some of the deliverables of PPACA:
Changes to take place this year – 2010
Perhaps the most notable change is that children and adults previously denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions would be able to access healthcare insurance, this would be accomplished by the establishment of high-risk pools. These high-risk pools are to be Federally subsidized, but the “how” and “when” is yet to be established,
Lifetime maximums are now a thing of the past,
Insurance can no longer drop an individual if they become ill,
No more annual limits, which benefits those with catastrophic illness,
Children up to the age of 26 can stay on their parent’s plan,
Small business offering insurance can apply for a 35% tax credit from the premiums paid,
New plans written during this time period would have to offer preventive care with no co-pays or deductibles,
Medicare D participants will receive a $250 credit to help with the “donut hole”, and
Retirees aged 55-64will be offered access to a re-insurance program.
Next year (2011)
Medicare must provide plans with preventive care with no co-pays or deductibles
Medicare Part D participants will receive 50% off drugs falling in the “donut hole”, and
Health insurance companies will have to justify any premium increase or risk the possibility of being taken out of the state’s insurance exchange pool.
What happens in 2014
AN IRS penalty of $750 per individual or 2% of income (whichever is greater) will occur for those who choose not to purchase health insurance,
No one can be denied access to insurance for pre-existing conditions,
The temporary/state high-risk pools are gone as states will be required to have their insurance exchanges in place, and
Annual caps on benefits are now banned completely.
What happens in 2018
All plans must offer preventive care with no co-pays or deductibles,
Expect ongoing and possibly very contentious discussions regarding what PPACA does and does not “do”, as so often happens with legislation much of the legislative language can be “spun” to bolster or weaken one side or the other’s argument. As nurses we can’t and shouldn’t dismiss the impact that this bill will have on our profession, the patients we care for or the institutions we work in because it’s far from a panacea for what ails our nation’s health system. We have a crippling nursing shortage, a growing physician shortage, many hospitals and clinic are closed or closing and I see few provisions in the PPACA that are meant to address these issues. Don’t expect to see our Emergency Departments (ED) “decompress”, because I doubt the average patient is willing to wait days or weeks to see their Primary Care Physician. Remember when HMO’s were billed as being the great salvation to ending the crush of patients that used the ED as their source of primary care and this hypothesis was been proven flawed. Recently, the New York Times reported the following with this ominous headline – “Health Care Cost Increase Is Projected for New Law”. The chief Medicare actuary, Richard S. Foster, was quoted in the NY Times article to have said “Overall national health expenditures under the health reform act would increase by a total of $311 billion,” compared with the amounts that would have otherwise been spent from 2010 to 2019, which contradicts President Obama’s statement that it would “bring down health care costs for families and business and governments” which was made at the bill signing last month. Foster went on to state that though 34 million uninsured people will gain coverage under the law 23 million (including 5 million illegal immigrants) will still remain uninsured in 2019. Most telling was the following statement from Foster, “these savings assume that the law will be carried out as written, and that may be an unrealistic assumption. The cuts could become unsustainable because they may drive some hospitals and nursing homes into the red, possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries”. The full New York Times article can be accessed here.
As of this moment everyone, including nurses, will have to play a strange game of hurry up and wait, though the law has passed it’s becoming apparent that many of the promises and threats of our elected officials are both real and not to be believed all at the same time. Recently, when several large companies such as AT&T reported, as required by law, that they would see a loss of profits due to the changes in the law, Congressman Waxman and others held numerous press conferences denouncing these “scare tactics” by several of these large companies, demanding and even scheduling hearings for the representatives to come before Congress and explain themselves only to cancel said meetings later when it was learned that the companies were not engaging in fear-mongering as some in Congress had accused them of but simply complying with the law. Thus it is apparent that much in this new law still needs to be fully vetted, there is a report available from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), that can be accessed as a PDF here. This report provides the CBO’s opinion in a letter to Speaker Pelosi dated March 18, 2010 on both the PPACA and the companion reconciliation bill and yet concludes “Although the CBO completed a preliminary review of legislative language prior to its release, the agency has not thoroughly examined the reconciliation proposal to verify its consistency with the previous draft. This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending a review of the language of the reconciliation proposal, as well as further review and refinement of the budgetary projections.”
So whether PPACA remains whole or suffers from changes and amendments due to successful legal challenges or is found to be unconstitutional on its face by the Supreme Court the actions that brought PPACA may have changed our political and healthcare landscape for generations to come. As nurses we will find ourselves, as so many others who deliver healthcare, in the heart of the mix, and thus can best serve our patients and ourselves by educating ourselves on what PPACA entails. There is a real need to look beyond the rhetoric and opinion and learn to separate the “hard” facts from the “soft” facts, and the fact from the fiction our patients deserves this and we need this in order to be the best possible healthcare advocates that we can. As nurses we should continue to monitor all media venues to gather and sift through all the data so we can comprehend the impact of PPACA, attend meetings that will surely sprout up to help “explain” PPACA, and think about setting aside some time during the next few weeks, draw yourself a bubble bath or brew a big pot of coffee and read the 2,000+page law that is the PPACA and educate yourself on this law that has already sent ripples through our healthcare system – our patients and our profession deserves
Obama – Our Fear Monger-in-Chief
A day doesn’t seem to go by that President Obama doesn’t remind the American people that we are in an economic crisis, and more recently near an economic catastrophe. So I’m not surprised to see that every time the President or one of his “economic gurus” open their mouths the stock market seems to sink even lower with it hovering just around 1997 levels and erasing nearly all the gains seen under both the Clinton and Bush administrations. With friends like these we surely don’t need enemies!
I know there are many that have accused the Bush Administration of engaging in fear mongering; however fear mongering isn’t/wasn’t the sole domain of the Bush Administration. Presently the Obama Administration has made liberal use of this age-old tactic. For those unfamiliar with the concept, I have provided the definition of fear mongering courtesy of Wikipedia.
Fear mongering-- (or scaremongering) is the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end. The feared object or subject is sometimes exaggerated, and the pattern of fear mongering is usually one of repetition, in order to continuously reinforce the intended effects of this tactic
I can’t seem to recall any previous President who has made such liberal use of the word crisis and catastrophe as our current President. This apparent, nearly pathological, need to whip up public hysteria does not give me confidence in his ability to lead our Nation; but then again I have always been weary of his preparedness to lead since he had little to no real life experience that provided me with an reasonable reason to believe that he had the requisite skills to be elected the to the highest office of our land. Of course, regardless of his experience or lack thereof he could have opted for informing us of the harsh realities but he could also lift up our spirits with the “hope” he consistently hyped during his campaign. Of course if he did that then he wouldn’t be able to drive the American people into a fearful panic that then serves to distract our attention from the constant gaffes and mistakes being made by both his team and him.
When he’s not busy whipping the American people into a fear-ridden mass paralysis inaction and thus contributing to the continued slide in consumer confidence, which is of course another reason why our economy continues to stumble along. He was pushing through the “Stimulus Package”, a package that is estimated to cost several future generations and us somewhere around one trillion dollars (and this is a conservative estimate). This package was so urgent that no one in Congress was given less than 9 hours to read the humongous bill. Why, because there were those in Congress and President Obama busy trying to “save us” which meant that there was no time for something as impertinent as reading the bill and questions were limited to a handful of hours. This ludicrous situation was highlighted in a recent YouTube video by Congressman Price (R-GA) who created a short video. In this video he highlights the 1,000+ highlighting a copy of the final bill in his possession, and it was distressing to learn that even this final bill seemed to have be hurriedly slapped together with hand written notes in the margin and numbers (often totaling in the millions) written over, next to and above lined out sums. Also missing was the much-promised vaunted transparency that then Senator and now President Obama hawked throughout the campaign trail. A promise he failed to keep – miserably.
So in closing, I hear that today President Obama will address Congress and his new media public relations groupies (i.e.: CNN, NBC, MSNBC, et al) have informed us that he will be “Reaganesque”, which I think is ironic considering how much the Democrats despised President Reagan, and thus have a hard time envisioning him giving a speech in such a manner (except if he’s had two to three days to rehearse and his teleprompter) – but we’ll see. Tonight perhaps he’ll finally stop campaigning for the office of the President and actually lead from the office of the President.
Update – tonight’s Presidential address seemed to me to be more of the same, so much for being “Reaganesque”.
The lie of the non-partisan organization!
It really ticks me off when a group purports to be non-partisan, but in practice is anything but – and this election cycle has been a good example of this growing problem. Except for those who may have been living under a rock most people know about the growing allegations of voter registration fraud and possible voter fraud that have been laid at the feet of A.C.O.R.N. At last count similar accusations have been lodged in about fifteen different states. These allegations are serious, and they also undermine voter confidence in the system. A.C.O.R.N., in my opinion has done little to set the record straight, including their recent political ad that accused John McCain and Republicans of trying to steal the election. Now that’s irony personified since A.C.O.R.N. is on the record endorsing Obama and they are the organization that is under scrutiny in both “blue” and “red” states and by both Democratic and Republican Secretary of States – so one has to wonder who is trying to “steal” the election. A.C.O.R.Ns’ motives are not pure, they purport to be non-partisan yet they endorse a candidate for president – this is not the action of a non-partisan organization. If they were truly committed to simply getting out the vote then they would not pick and chose how they promote the cause. By way of example let me share an email from a young lady in Ohio who attempted to make use of an A.C.O.R.N. early registration “booth”.
I am an 18-year-old student at a local community college in Columbus Ohio. Through out this whole week I have seen Vote Early signs everywhere. But on those signs is Obama’s face. I am voting for McCain and this seems a little biased, because I feel that you can vote early but it should not have only one candidate’s face on the poster. Then today as I was walking to class I noticed a large cut out of Obama. There was a van with "VOTE OHIO VOTE OBAMA" I was curious enough that I decided to go up and ask if I wanted to vote early but wanted to vote for McCain would they be able to take me. The lady I spoke with said well...uhh...I would have to speak with my adviser. This really made me angry. If you want to vote early it should be by absentee ballot only. This would eliminate voter fraud in my opinion, and then I could go to class in peace!
Katie C
After reading this young lady’s email you have to ask yourself was it legal for an early voting area/booth to display any campaign material, let alone only the picture of only one candidate. In California, such electioneering is illegal and can get one arrested. Groups that use public monies, i.e. taxpayer dollars, for something such as getting out the vote have an obligation to not prostelize in favor of any party, proposition, or candidate. Their only focus should be helping people access, complete, and turn in their voter registration forms, these groups should also do everything they can do about helping folks get their hands on ALL the information about the issues, not what the organization picks and chooses. The above example is abhorrent, and inexcusable. I hope that the Ohio Secretary of State takes steps to punish such behavior, but from the numerous published reports that I have read about the Ohio Secretary of State she probably thinks such electioneering is acceptable and I wouldn’t be surprised if she gave A.C.O.R.N. an award for what I can only describe as illicit and immoral actions.
Senator Obama is not a man of his word – what a surprise!
Many of you may remember how Senator Obama accused Senator McCain of running negative ads, going so far as to say that Senator McCain’s ads were negative 100% of the time; and of course he Senator Obama has been above all the fray running nothing but a “positive’ campaign. But negative campaigning like “beauty” is obviously in the eye of the beholder and if Senator Obama can wiggle his way out of or distance himself from negative comments about his opposition then I guess he thinks he can claim that he has done no negative campaign. First he promised to take public financing for his campaign, but reneged on that promise when it become convenient, now he breaks his pledge to avoid negative campaigning and I think he decided to go negative because in his word parsing world since his campaign and he are attacking an “average” person and not a political adversary then it must be okay.
Senator Obama is not above negative campaigning, and his partner-in-crime this time is his running mate Senator Biden (the man Obama said was the “champion” of the blue collar worker and middle America). Senator Biden is such a champion of Middle America that he thought nothing of attacking and impugning a citizen. The verbal attack took place on Thursday (10/16) morning while Senator Biden was being interviewed on national television. Now most American’s have come to expect politicians to vilify one another which explains in no small part why so many people eschew the notion of running for any elective office, no matter how small, for fear of their entire life being laid bare before the public. However, this unfortunate practice has become business as usual for those in the public eye, but now Senators Obama and Biden have stooped to a whole new low and begun to attack the average, on the street individual. Of course the media could not resist and jumped into the whole thing with characteristic glee going so far as to even reveal that this individual owed back taxes to the State. Make no mistake, Senator Obama joined in this “beat on the little guy who doesn’t kow tow to us” theme when at a rally later in the day he also brought up the person we have come to know as “Joe the Plumber”. Shame on you Senators Obama and Biden!
To this citizen, the glee with which Senators Obama and Biden went after a regular citizen is reprehensible. Why did Senators Obama and Biden, their campaign, and surrogates go after this average American citizen? Their actions illustrate negative campaign at its ultimate low and if we tolerate candidates attacking citizens for daring to ask questions and seek answers then we set a tone in this nation that can only have a chilling effect on our freedom of speech and our freedom to question those who wish to be our leaders – and we all know where that path leads.
Senator Obama “phones it in” once again.
For months now Senator Obama has beaten the drum about the failing economy and he has made the economy one of the pillars of his campaign; however his actions this past week show that what is important to Senator Obama is not the problems we currently face with the economy, but with his campaign and his bid for the highest office in our land. In short it was more important that he continue to pander to every audience he could and to raise money for his campaign than show up in DC and work to resolve this crisis. Oh yes, he did go for one day, but only because President Bush requested him to attend, and reports of his behavior, comments and actions during these meetings belay his much carefully crafted image of the skilled, seasoned and reasoned legislator that his team, the media and he has so carefully crafted.
As a management expert I would have to argue with Senator Obama’s flawed logic that staying in telephone contact with such individuals as Representative Pelosi, Senator Franks, et al does equate being in the “thick of things” as a crisis of this magnitude calls for from its leaders. In fact I would argue that this crisis is such that every Senator and Congressperson should have been in attendance during all the various negotiations and meetings, and that abdicating this responsibility to another elected official or one’s staff (even a staff that has in essence been the defacto Senator for nearly two years) is not the actions of a seasoned or experienced leader, it is however a good example of a “paper tiger”. Or as is so often the practice of Senator Obama voting present on a hot button or controversial issue rather than taking a stand.
Democrats and others have been sounding the clarion call of the failure of our economy and using this fear to rally many to their side and to attempt to portray themselves as the only party that will be able to deliver our nation from its economic woes. Unfortunately when we needed all hands to be on deck, so to speak, to handle this crisis (you know the one that only the keen Democratic mind can save us from) the two top Democrats (Senators Obama and Biden) decide it was more important to make campaign speeches and to hold campaign events. Senator Obama defends his actions by stating that he can (and Presidents should be) able to multi-task. The problem is that what has taken place this week is not about multi-tasking, but all about making sure the constituents that elected you to represent them have a voice; but then again I’m sure his constituents and their interests are accustomed to being pawned off to others since that’s exactly what’s Senator Obama’s been doing from almost the first day he was elected to Congress. Then there’s Senator Biden who is so concerned about this financial crisis that he makes sure to insert millions of dollars of earmarks into these fragile negotiations. You should also take a look at how your Senators and Congressman or Congresswoman voted on the Financial Deregulation Act of 1999. Senators Feinstein and Boxer voted yes and no respectfully and Congressman Schiff voted yes. Oh, and just for fun, Congresswoman Pelosi, who is constantly harping about the so-called failed Bush Administration economic plan, voted YES. So it looks like some members of Congress were all for deregulation before they were in favor of regulation.
Before you dismiss my observations and criticism of Senator Obama’s action during this time of financial crisis, let me remind you that early on in the Bush Administration many of the same pundits and elected officials that think it’s perfectly okay for Senator Obama to handle this crisis via long-distance had a field day when President Bush spent a holiday at his ranch in Crawford during a negotiation period (over something not deemed as emergent as our current financial crisis). So why are they not pointing their finger at Senators Obama and Biden and demanding that they return post-haste to DC, perhaps so they can then accomplish to paint Senator Obama as a seasoned executive with enough gravitas to get the “job done” and Senator Obama can focus on what he seems to prefer to do which is once again to focus on the sizzle and not the steak.
Let us not forget that many of the principal players in this current crisis are on the Obama team. Senator Dodd and Obama were the top two recipients of funds from Fannie Mae or was it Freddie Mac (both quasi-governmental agencies that had no business using taxpayer dollars to lobby legislators), then there’s Congressman Frank who loves Freddie and Fannie so much that he all but accused Senator McCain of histrionics when Senator McCain tried in vain to warn Congress that Freddie and Fannie were at risk of causing grave financial consequences to “We the People”.
What this citizen cannot believe is the audacity so many of the now indignant Senators and Congressman (especially Senator Obama and Biden) who feathered their nest with money from some of the very organizations and companies that helped to usher in this time of crisis. They spin ever so confidentially the story that Senator McCain is out of touch with economic reality, all the while they and their chronies worked to silence his voice, but they overlooked the redundancy that is our government and they cannot outrun the tapes and transcripts of those many meetings. Should have and could have Senator McCain been more perseverant about these issues, without a doubt, but it can be somewhat difficult when you are a “minority” voice and a majority from both parties seem to be intent on growing fat off of the public largesse.
So I remind my readers a President must be able to make the tough decisions and must be willing to pull the all nighters when circumstances call for it and must put aside his/her own priorities when the situation demands it. Unfortunately once again Senator Obama demonstrates that running his campaign is more important to him than doing the job he was elected for by the good people of Illinois; and Illinois may be able to find an absentee-Senator acceptable, but I don’t think this Country can afford an absentee-President and our men and women in uniform can ill afford an absentee-Commander-in-Chief.
Proof that women are still held to a different standard then men, and N.O.W. stands silent on the subject!
You’ve got to give Governor Sarah Palin credit for putting up with some of the CRAP that has been coming from the media. Many in the media are engaging in behavior so disreputable that they might as well be labeled as the reprobates that they are behaving as these days.
Is it fair for the media and the public at large to ask questions about how Governor Palin has acquitted herself while in Public Office of course? Her votes, how she ran her campaigns, how she dealt with staff conflicts etc. are all fair games. By evaluating these actions we are provided a glimpse into how she may behave as a potential Vice-President. What is beyond the pale is the innuendos and rumor mongering that has taken over common sense and fair and balance journalism. Even the New York Times (a paper not known for it’s right-lean) was quick to jump into the rumor mongering game and then had to turn around an issue an apology for providing false (yes I’m sure that this shocks you that the editor of the New York Times failed to vet their information completely before going to print) information to the public about Gov. Palin being a member of a third political party prior to joining the Republican Party. Which is interesting since I thought we had a right to assemble in this country and folks were allowed to change political party affiliation as they see fit. Of course if Gov. Palin had run and been elected to her office as this third party’s candidate and then turned around and changed her party, let’s say like that guy from Vermont did then maybe one could argue misleading the public, but even that would have been a minor “bump”; but this in and of itself would probably not be news worthy except it seemed to involve the most scurrilous class of people A Republican and a woman at that! At issue here is that the same media that seems so fascinated with Gov. Palin, who’s only the VP pick while Sen. Obama, who’s the Presidential Nominee, seems to get a free pass at the same level of scrutiny. While she’s been both a mayor (albeit of a small town) and then a Governor she has also been a commissioner of one of Alaska’s more significant commission and let’s not forget a member of the PTA a training ground for many women who eventually enter politics. Senator Obama may have racked up a few more years in elected office, but I don’t put much stock in the time he’s spent in the US Senate since most of that time has been spent campaigning for the office of President. Of course there were the years spent in the Illinois State House where most of the time he was busy taking the ever critical position of voting “present” nearly 100 times which really underwhelms this person. When the rubber hits the road I think I would prefer a Governor who had the added experience of mayor (no matter how small or big the town) who had been trained by the good old folks at the PTA – because that group knows how to prepare community activists, over a smooth talking, prefer to vote present rather then aye or nay because it may come back to haunt me politico. And the next time they decry Gov. Palin on her supposed lack of experience in case, God forbid, something happened to McCain remember President Harry S. Truman. “During his few weeks as Vice President, he scarcely saw President Roosevelt, and received no briefing on the development of the atomic bomb or the unfolding difficulties with Soviet Russia. Suddenly these and a host of other wartime problems became Truman's to solve when, on April 12, 1945, he became President.” He seemed to do alright and is remembered as one of our greats.
But what has me blogging today are not rumors such as those above, but instead the out right dismal failure of the self-appointed representatives and spokes groups of women’s rights. And the greatest offender is the National Organization for Women (N.O.W.). N.O.W. an organization according to its own public relations has approximately 500,000 supporting members (not women, but members) has decided to vilify Palin on their website, and has made no pubic statement (at least to my knowledge) about the double-standard being used to attack Palin versus let’s say their “women” candidates Obama and Biden (such shining examples of feminism that I’m sure every American woman would want their daughters to aspire to be just like them). Granted I didn’t expect N.O.W. to endorse Palin though that might have been nice since its not every day that a woman makes it on to a Vice-Presidential ticket of a major party, just ask Senator Clinton; but they could have acknowledged her achievement. But since N.O.W. couldn’t -- so it didn’t and now everything representatives of N.O.W. have advocated such as whether or not a woman has children, is married, how she looks etc., should never count has been made to count because N.O.W.’s hatred of women who do not cleave to their “feminist” platform has caused them to remain silent. So next time when N.O.W. comes knocking at your door for money to support them because “without them” women would be sent back to the 1950’s or further remember their silence on the invectives being used to tear down Gov. Palin for simply being what real women right’s advocates have always fought for which simply put is to be able to be comfortable in their own skins and to dream big. You may disagree with some or all or Gov. Palin’s politics, but that doesn’t mean we can’t applaud her for her accomplishments. But, N.O.W. should be ashamed for putting their politics before the “women” that their organization purports to empower. Maybe this moose hunting, hockey playing, mother of five is too much woman for them.
McCain announces Gov. Sarah Palin as his VP pick and Obama shows that when the rubber hits the road he’s still a chauvinist!
In case you missed it Senator John McCain announced his pick for a running mate, and for many it was quite a surprise – the governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin. For many, including myself, the announcement was a surprise. My daughters and I watched and listened as Governor Palin spoke to a standing room only crowd in the Nutter Center in Dayton, OH. Her demeanor, presence and words were exciting and gives this voter hope and interest in this year’s election.
It was also during her speech that the Obama campaign chose to release an official announcement about McCain’s VP pick. Considering Obama proclaims that he is the candidate of change, that he's a different kind of politician, etc., etc., etc. His campaign chose to issue a press release that denigrated not only her as a person, and gave a back-handed slap to anyone who comes from or lives in a “small” town. His announcement could have begun by recognizing the she is the Governor, but instead chose to begin with this official statement:
“Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. Governor Palin shares John McCain’s commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush’s failed economic policies — that’s not the change we need, it’s just more of the same,” said spokesman Bill Burton.
This statement is not that a of surrogate and thus providing Obama the opportunity as he has done so many times in the past to pretend that such a comment is not endorsed by him, this statement is from his spokesperson so we can only conclude that it is representative of his true feelings for middle-Americans and I would go so far as to say for women also – and that not only is he an elitist (because only an elitist would look down his nose at a former mayor of a town of 9,000) but he’s also a chauvinist.
If Obama was indeed the candidate of change that he professes to be he should have congratulated Governor Palin on being not only chosen as McCain's running mate but also her historic role as being the first women to be selected as the running mate on a Republican ticket. But, as happens so frequently with someone who is acting a role versus living a role we can catch snatches of his true self. From his comments about “angry people clinging to their bibles and guns”, that if he were President he would require people staying in the Lincoln Bedroom to read and not watch TV, these are all comments of elitism.
Am I excited about this choice, yes! Is she perhaps a little light on so-called “national” experience possibly but no less than Obama, and as the governor of Alaska and a former mayor she has quite a bit more experience serving in a executive and a leader of disparate groups. And she has shown extreme capabilities to adapt and she appears to be a quick learner. She cleared and cleaned “the house” in Alaska and hopefully will do the same if McCain/Palin are elected. Whereas Obama has little experience outside as that of a State Legislator since his time in Congress has been spent more on his bid for the nomination of his party instead of serving the interest of the constituents of his state. I think that McCain made a very unexpected choice, but one that does jive with his often maverick reputation. Today our 2008 election is to not only going to interesting, but historic.
Saddleback Church’s Civil Forum on the Presidency – My Two Cents . . .
Hopefully, most of you, if not all of you have had an opportunity to attend in person, watch the live telecast, see one of the many rebroadcasts, or read one of the multitudes of news articles about the event held at Saddleback Church, located in Lake Forest, California this past Saturday, August 16th. I was one of the many hundred of media that were issued press credentials and thus had an opportunity to view the event and to interview the candidates’ surrogates since the candidates, themselves, were not available for interviews.
Prior to attending the event, like so many of us, I had several preconceptions of both candidates and how they would acquit themselves. Afterwards I found several of these preconceptions dashed and found myself more inclined to support one candidate over the other. Neither candidate was my candidate of choice, since the two candidates I had favored going into the primary have since fallen by the wayside and suspended their campaigns and end their fight for their party’s nomination.
Pastor Rick Warren, the Founder and Pastor of Saddleback Church, had developed and implemented a series of civil forums. Through these forums it’s his hope that polite discourse would replace the often-angry discourse, which seems to plague so many of our meetings these days. Pastor Warren worked diligently to ensure that the forum was and would remain “apolitical” as possible -- a feat in and of itself considering that the two speakers were both the presumptive nominees of their respective parties in the race for the highest political office in our Country. I was skeptical that he could achieve his stated goal, but I think that he accomplished his goals, and the “politicking” was left to the hundreds of protestors that flanked the four corners that marked the church campus’ entrance. Needless to say law enforcement was out in force and several demonstrators were arrested, a small number when you consider that hundreds of passionate individuals gathered outside.
Both candidates were asked the identical questions that touched on four overarching themes, and there were additional questions that followed that were structured to help further “clarify” a candidates’ response. The four overarching themes (as provided by Saddleback Church to the media) were: Stewardship (questions on the Constitution, role of government, security, education, and energy); Leadership (questions on personal character, competence, convictions, and experience to be President); Worldview (questions on life, family, evil, freedom, Christianity, and Islam); and America’s Role in the World (questions on going to war, on America’s responsibility to bless other nations, poverty, and disease, human rights, religious liberty, corruption, and their vision for America). The order in which the candidates got to speak was decided in the tried and true objective method that so many of us are familiar with – the flip of a coin; and Senator Obama won the toss which meant Senator McCain spoke second and got to be sequestered in a separate room so he would not have an added advantage of knowing how the previous speaker answered. Each candidate enjoyed an hour of being questioned by Pastor Warren in a casual setting, as well as casual of a setting as one can have in a mega church being watched by thousands sitting in the pews, and untold numbers watching and dissecting your every word as they watched the live broadcasts on their televisions at home.
During the two-hour event little of the discussion focused on specifics such as healthcare and labor with both candidates sticking more to generalized answers. What surprised me the most was what I felt Senator Obama’s parsing and nuanced responses to Pastor Warren’s questions, while Senator McCain seemed at ease and very comfortable in his own skin. I comment on this because I had expected the reverse from my past “viewing experiences”. I have always found Senator Obama to appear composed and relaxed before the camera and in front of large groups while Senator McCain had always seemed to perform better in smaller and more intimate settings.
There were two responses that struck home with me the first was the very long and thoughtful response given by Senator Obama regarding his pro-choice position in relationship to his Christian beliefs. He also mentioned his position on late-term abortion, but failed to discuss his actions while in the State Senate that lead to the failure of a bill that would address the issue of pre-term infants that were born alive after a late-term abortion (www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08081209.html). This is an issue that I know is of importance to many Americans and of course nurses grapple with this issue often in both their personal and professional lives. He reiterated his support of a woman’s choice and announced his unequivocal support of Roe v. Wade.
McCain used the topic of civil rights to go one step further and address the issue of a card check bill (also known as the Employee Free Choice Act). He emphasized his belief in the strength of the secret ballot and its role in providing an environment “safe” from influence for the decision maker. He drew the comparison that a card check bill, in his opinion, goes against the right of people to make their choice through a secret ballot and that employer and union alike should not try to abrogate the employee’s right to a secret ballot.
All in all it was a rare opportunity, I think, for people to see these two presumptive party nominees away from their “handlers” and spin-doctors. Due to the efforts of the Saddleback Church team an almost flawless effort they were able to keep the venue itself a “political-free zone”, going so far as to request all attendees (media included) refrain from wearing, carrying or using any political propaganda. Most, with the exception of a reporter who left his Obama ’08 screensaver on (Mr. Griffith, a reporter from C-Span – see picture
So much for press journalist staying "neutral" while covering a political campaign
) honored this request. Interestingly enough this was the same fellow that chose not to stand when the National Anthem was played, so I wonder how he rationalized (though I can understand not singing along since perhaps he didn’t know the words or had one of those voices that only a mother can love) not standing and showing respect, but felt no compunction at violating the “ban” on no political propaganda. However, one could argue that as a journalist covering a political event he should have made at least some attempt to portray a position of neutrality.
Luckily most of the public left their posters, hats and other propaganda in their cars allowing the event to remaining somewhat free of political spin. I don’t remember hearing any boos, raspberries or disparaging remarks from the audience in response to comments made by either candidate that, I think, this was left to the postmortem provided by the pundits and party spin-doctors.
The members of the various media that I shared Tent 1 with provided the most humorous moment for me; when various members of the press took time out to interview one another on their impressions of the forum and to take pictures of one another. Proving once again that members of the press are people too.
If you still find yourself in need of more information about these two candidates and their positions you may want to contact your local Democratic or Republican party office, or the campaign offices of Senator McCain (http://www.johnmccain.com/) or Senator Obama (http://www.barackobama.com/index.php). Of course don’t forget you can always watch the conventions, which are usually televised on both local as well as cable TV. Both CNN and Fox News plan in-depth coverage of the two parties; first the Democratic National Convention in Denver which will be held from August 25th through August 28th and then the Republican National Convention which will be held in Minneapolis-St. Paul from September 1st – September 4th.
Of course the Saddleback Church Forum only highlighted two of the six announced presidential candidates. The other presidential candidates are (in no particular order) the US Taxpayers Party candidate is Charles O. Baldwin (http://www.baldwin08.com/), Libertarian Party candidate is Robert Barr (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/splash/?s0618), Green Party, Peace and Freedom Party candidate is Cynthia Ann McKinney (https://mckinney2008.com/PRESIDENT/index.php), and Independent, Natural Law Party candidate is Ralph Nader (http://www.votenader.org).
However at the end of the day please remember to be an informed voter and don’t forget to vote!