We need to fire politicians who want to eliminate environmental protections

I guess I'm just an ignorant dummy . . . I don't understand the inner workings of a politician's mind. I always felt that one of the first goals of politics and government is to protect people. Kind of like a doctor’s goal of “do no harm.”

How then do some politicians rationalize that by trying to eliminate laws that make polluting the air and water and the very land upon which we live?

I hear and read the arguments . . . These regulations are too restrictive . . . too costly . . . too much government over-reach . . .

But those arguments focus on the short-term, not the long term. They ignore the big picture. Often that big picture means easing regulations now, usually to help and “unencumber” businesses. Does that make sense? If we lift restrictions, say on how drilling companies handle their fracking waste water, a toxic blend of water and chemicals, and companies can dispose of it however they please, then what’s to protect people in that area from being poisoned? Often companies will take the path of least resistance if they can, and that means they’ll dispose of waste as inexpensively and quickly as possible, as an example.

That’s because companies, as they should, are supposed to make money. Doing things cheaply, without being “encumbered” by regulations, means more money can fall to the bottom line. Fine. Unfortunately, it can mean the long-term cost of those business practices may not only be costly to the company, but to the air . . . or water . . . or land. If that happens, as we’re seeing with fracking, ground water gets polluted and that means people who once lived with good water now can drink or even bathe in what’s coming out of their faucets.

So while companies should, of course, make money, they also should bear the responsibility of their actions and policies. They don’t need to be handed freebies by government, or bailed out by taxpayers when they make errors, or when their businesses cause damage. BP and Transocean could have used a better and safer pump/well safety valve, but didn’t . . . That decision cost them tens of billions of dollars and killed 11 people. The blowout preventer valve they used had failed just prior to installation on the deep water well in the Gulf.

Similar, though not as devastating, accidents or failures happen every day . . . leaks and runoffs into streams, rivers and lakes . . . waste from fracking and landfills .  . . chemical dumps . . . air pollution from plants, and even runoff from farms and private homes. It all goes into the land, air or water and that means it goes into the things we eat, drink and breathe.

So while I understand some of regulations of these things might be considered by some to be “burdensome,” history shows that is political sword rattling, and doesn’t prove to be a challenge overwhelming or damaging to most businesses and business profits. Companies predictably complain that any “restraints” on their ability to do business as they wish will create a business environment that will destroy them. Businesses adapt, and adapt quickly. They need to do that to survive and prosper. Government change tends to be glacially slow.

So why do politicians continually challenge environmental oversight? As I said, I am at something of a loss. It’s one thing to be pro-business, but not anti-people. If politicians make laws that strip people of basic protections, like clean water and air, then what’s left? What’s happening in Flint, Michigan, is an example, except this time it’s the government that made bad decisions, overlooked and trivialized complaints and concerns from residents for well over a year, poisoning thousands of residents with high levels of lead.

Keeping people safe should be a primary focus of government at all levels. There need not be a conflict between the needs of business and the safety of the population at large. When I turn on my faucet, I should expect the water coming out to be safe to drink. The plant in town should throw stuff into the air that makes it unsafe to breathe, and the factory that just cl0sed should leave a chemical footprint that lasts for decades and costs millions of dollars to clean.

If politicians can’t keep us safe, then they should find new jobs. It’s up to us to make sure they don’t stay in office.

Medicare needs nips and tucks, then a roll out to everyone

Medicare, the government’s insurance program for people 65 years old and older, as well as younger people with disabilities, sets the standards for virtually all private insurance, but there are several big challenges within the system.

With some 50 million people on Medicare, a system they paid into when they worked, it’s a huge ($200 billion-plus) program. But it is far from perfect.

First, it doesn’t cover all medical costs. It generally covers 80 percent of allowed charges, though discounts often reduce the billed amount to less than that. Some things, like dental, are not covered. Prescriptions require a separate drug plan (Plan D), which is an additional monthly cost. Perhaps most importantly, there is no limit on out-of-pocket costs, so someone in the hospital for weeks, say, could easily have to pay $20,000 on a $100,000 hospital bill . . . and up and up. Most private insurance caps out-of-pocket costs yearly, often at around $5,000.

Also, each state has a supplemental insurance lrigram, which is designed to cover (in varying amounts depending on the plan selected) that gap between what Medicare pays and what an individual pays out of pocket. Unfortunately, each state has different companies offering the supplemental insurance and different requirements,, though the plans (Plans G, N F, etc.) are virtual the same (that’s mandated). In general, when one first goes on to Medicare, he or she can sign up for supplemental insurance and not be denied that coverage (usually offered by several companies all of whom offer the same overall coverage benefits). However, if one doesn’t add the supplemental coverage right away, then each state has a different set of rules and qualifications for the added insurance, so the rules change.

Some states allow all people to buy supplemental insurance, some require an underwriting approval (which generally eliminates anyone with health issues), and some offer a combination of both. New Hampshire only has one company offering supplemental insurance without an underwriting hurdle.

It’s expensive for those of us under age 65, but drops to half the monthly cost on the most complete plan after age 65. As with many of these programs, many companies (AARP/United Healthcare for instance), is not offered. As someone who is under 65 and disabled following an amputation (which is why I qualified for Medicare), it’s virtually impossible to make it through the underwriting process.

 

A national program would eliminate these state-to-state-differences, which would be a good thing for many reasons. First, it would offer the widest selection of supplemental insurance to the widest number of people and eliminate states that waffle on trying to legislate health care options within their borders. It would also prevent insurance companies from cherry picking from the 50 states and ignoring some states. So a national program would level the playing field.

If everyone was offered the same supplemental insurance programs no matter where they lived, it would level costs and slow increases.

Medicare for all?

Talk of a national health insurance program, often referred to as “Medicare for all” is clearly where we are headed, and it is, with slightly different approaches, where the rest of the world is as well. While we have the world’s most expensive health care system, our overall care falls somewhere in the middle of the pack.

National health care coverage without a state by state process would eliminate companies from cherry picking some states and ignoring others. (New Hampshire has stumbled since the beginning, initially launching a state insurance exchange with just one company, trying to move Medicaid to private companies and then killing that system before it got off the ground but well after people had signed up.) Make supplemental insurance options with coverage similar to what it is now.  Some people might not need the supplemental insurance, for instance higher-income people who can afford the 20 percent uncovered by standard Medicare.

Add supplemental . . . add foreign coverage . . . add maybe long term care . . . limit of say $1 million and can add to increase that.   Add dental . . . All can be “supplemental-type” add-ons to any national coverage . . . That’s much the way people buy private insurance now and very much like the way corporate insurance and benefit programs are presented to employees.

That way people get basic coverage but can add what they want and need and can afford.

Some type of national program is coming . . . It’s inevitable because the piecemeal system we have now allows to too many care and cost variations and leaves too many people uninsured, which means they often enter the system through the emergency room, the most expensive door for “regular” care. 

We’ll see more merger in the health care industry as corporations jockey for dominant positions in their fields . . . hospitals, pharmacies, and doctors . . . but don’t buy into talk about corporations suffering through ll of this. They won’t. That talk is like a coach talking to officials about a player on the other team . . . he’s just trying to set up the game to lean towards his team a bit.

By giving people more control over their health care and leveling the field nationally, all the while mandating coverage and acceptance of pre-existing conditions (one of the most important features of the Affordable Care Act) we can all rest a bit easier that we can pay for the health care we need and that paying for it won’t bankrupt us.

Beware the politicians who claim to embrace the Constitution, but only when it's convenient for them

Beware the anti-Constitutionalists, for they shall bend the truth to suit themselves.

Our democracy is difficult. It requires us to let people with whom we disagree rise up and scream ridiculous stuff we hate. Our Constitution tells us that’s what we need to do. Our Constitution tells us that no matter what your religious beliefs (or non-beliefs), we have to respect that and our government needs to be free of religious encumbrances. Our Constitution tells us “a militia” can have guns, but does that mean we can buy as many guns as we want without any restrictions?

In today’s world, politicians love to throw around the “Constitution,” as in Obama ignores the Constitution . . . or people talking about background checks are violating our Constitution . . .

Sometimes, politicians who claim to embrace the Constitution are the first to ignore it . . . Let’s ban Muslims . . . We’ve taken God out of our government . . . Gay people should be executed, or a marriage is only between a man and a woman . . . It’s OK to discriminate against people with whom we disagree . . .

Right now . . . with the caucuses and primaries starting, we’re hearing a lot of rhetoric, much of it hateful and spiteful and fearful, but not much about how that talk is often at odds with our Constitution. I guess that shows how fast some people are to embrace tough talk even if it violates our basic rights.

Are we really willing to keep people from entering America based on their religion? Do we really want to continually monitor and surveil places of worship? Do you want your church constantly under surveillance? Again, we're talking about American citizens who happen to have a different faith than you have. Citizens . . . Citizens who should be protected from such intrusion and bigotry by our Constitution.

Turn it up a notch by saying that Mexicans entering the country (illegally) are all murderers, rapists and criminals?  What’s impact of saying that on Mexicans (or other immigrants) here legally . . . or even U.S. citizens who came from other lands? (Gee that sounds like most of us . . . though our ancestors got in pretty much without restrictions.)          

                           

The right to bear arms? The Supreme Court has ruled that the right belongs to individuals, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices. State and local government are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. (Wiki)

In 1939, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.” (Wiki)

So any talk of “restrictions” on gun ownership as being “anti-Second Amendment” just really isn’t true, but I’m guessing that most people who shout about the Second Amendment haven’t read it or aren’t interested in finding out more about it. It always sounds better just to shout stuff nowadays and see what sticks. Fear sticks.

Our Constitution, in effect, tells us how to act as a nation. Combined with our other chief historic documents, like the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, we have a framework created by our founding fathers for a new nation emerging from under the wing of a dominant power. A power we rebelled against in our fight for independence that cost thousands of lives. But we still managed to defeat and forge a new country. Those documents don’t necessarily make things easier for us, and maybe with some things in an ever-changing world, they make it tougher.

But we can’t afford to lose sight of the bigger picture. Despite all the current political talk, we are a great nation because of our Constitution and the people that forged it. We speak freely, worship as we wish, elect people to represent us at every level of government, buy and sell property and change jobs if we wish, and even manage, at least in theory, to treat all people equally.

Some of that’s taking a beating now, and we’d best remember that, too, since it’s easy to discriminate against things and people different than we are, but we like to think nobody will ever treat us that way. Unless, of course, we feel it’s in our best interest to claim we’re victims of one sort or another.

It’s far from a perfect system and we have shown time and time again that we are anything but a perfect people. We’re all in the same boat, though, and while we sometimes like to think we’re special, everyone in that boat matters, and we all do better when we’re rowing in the same direction . . . as free, equal and thoughtful people willing to understand our history and not throw it out the window when it becomes inconvenient.

Cruz whacks Trump in Iowa, and Bernie rattles Clinton

Ted Cruz takes Iowa in what some are calling an upset, but insiders say was perfectly called by the Cruz staff based on their solid ground game and a successful campaign model tailored after Barack Obama’s 2008 run (which took much of its framework from the George W Bush run in 2000).

While Iowa is hardly reflective of the nation at large, clearly Cruz and his well-managed campaign picks up tons of momentum heading into the New Hampshire primary, where polls show Donald Trump still holds a commanding lead.

On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders locked in a virtual tie with Hillary Clinton after lagging by as much as 50 points a few months ago.

Republicans showed up in record numbers, which was supposed to help Trump, but instead turned out to benefit Cruz. Democrats didn’t pull record numbers (Obama did that in 2008), but it was enough to pull Sanders even with the establishment party favorite. While a win would have added to Sanders’ “rolling thunder” enthusiasm, one still has to wonder just how strong Clinton’s campaign is once one scrapes away the high-profile surface support.

As has been noted in the press, Iowa may be a launching pad for many campaigns, its population doesn’t reflect the nation as a whole, nor does it in any way guarantee a presidential win. Only three non-incumbent politicians won Iowa and went on the win the presidential election . . . Jimmy Carter (who actually came in second to “undecided”) in 1976, George W. Bush in 2000 and Barack Obama in 2008.

While Iowa is pretty vanilla, with a population that is 5.6 percent Hispanic, 3.4 percent black and 2.2 percent Asian (the U.S. as a whole is 17.4% Hispanic, 13.2% black and 5.4% Asian), the Cruz win will set the tone for the “extreme” conservative wing of the GOP. Whether that will play to a more diversified population remains to be seen. It hasn’t in the past. (LA Times)

Marco Rubio’s third-place finish gives some hope to the GOP establishment, but his flip-flops and dicey finances make him vulnerable to attacks both from members of his own party as well as Democrats.

Just how tough a game is politics? Remember that in 2008, Mike Huckabee took Iowa with 34 percent of the Republican caucuses (last night he got just 1 percent and ended his campaign) . . . Rick Santorum took first on the GOP side in 2008 (tied with Mitt Romney), but managed just 1 percent Monday . . . (Wiki)

I’m not sure Cruz will close the gap on Trump in New Hampshire. Trump’s WWE-like campaign (as David Brooks of The New York Times calls it) has garnered a lot of support here, but will the rise of Cruz and Rubio steal votes from him. Remember, too, that in New Hampshire, Independent (or undeclared) voters can vote in either party primary.

It’s New Hampshire, with the hot lights of massive media coverage and a Town Hall-based campaign process that will push candidates forward into upcoming primaries . . . and deliver the kill shot to other campaigns. Chris Christie and John Kasich need strong showings here to have any chance of moving up the GOP ladder.

It will all become a bit clearer February 9.