Evening the "score"

Today, Judge Roger Vinson became the 2nd US Judge to strike down the new healthcare law as unconstitutional, evening the "score" at two judges apiece finding for and against the law. Predictably, both judges who found for the law were appointed by a Democratic president, and both judges who found against the law were appointed by a Republican president. In other words, all four rulings are relatively meaningless and the fate of the law is certain to be decided by the Supreme Court which boasts five conservative judges and four liberal judges. The new law may very well be overturned.

And if that's the case, then it will certainly be a sad day for America and Americans. Not only will all Americans lose the protection against insurance companies provided by the law, but millions of Americans will lose insurance and that means that those people will have their care paid for by taxpayers. As Americans without health insurance continue to receive the most expensive kind of care (emergency care), the rest of us will foot the bill with rising costs and thus rising insurance premiums.

But that's not even the real issue. The economics behind the healthcare law are sound and simple. Health insurance may not be a right (or a mandate), but healthcare is...plain and simple. Walk into any emergency room in the country and there will be a sign explaining that you can be treated regardless of your ability to pay. So as I've already laid out, people without insurance get healthcare that often does not get paid for, so providers raise prices for others which is reflected in unnecessarily high costs and rising insurance premiums.

But back to constitutionality. I'm not a judge; I'm not a lawyer; and most importantly, as a private citizen I don't think the government should be involved in what I can and cannot purchase. If I want an Xbox 360 instead of a Playstation 3, that's fine. If I want a Toyota instead of a Kia, that's fine. If I want a Nike basketball instead of a Spalding, so be it. But here's where healthcare is a little different, if I choose the Nike over the Spalding, no one else is paying extra money to provide me with healthcare. If I get a Toyota instead of Honda or Ford or whatever, then no one else is going to pay extra so I can get healthcare. There's a common theme here. My decision NOT to buy healthcare actually makes things worse and more expensive for others.

That doesn't make the new law Constitutional, but it does make it practical. Furthermore, the mandate doesn't require that you purchase something harmful. Most people agree that health insurance is a good thing. Most people have it already, some of those people buy it voluntarily, many people who don't have it wish they did. It's not as though we're being required to buy peanuts when some of us are allergic to them; it's not as though we're being required to buy a rabid dog; we're talking about health insurance, it's beneficial. We're not even talking about a specific kind of health insurance. The government isn't selling it, the government isn't designing the plans and packages, you still get to choose. And finally, you don't actually have to buy the insurance. You can choose not to and pay a fee instead. And you know what? That's fine with me, because if you choose not to buy the insurance and then need healthcare then I'm footing part of the bill.

Ultimately this battle will be decided by America's highest court, and unless the make-up of the court changes before the law reaches said court, it will probably be overturned. The result of that decision will be higher costs for everyone.

Save NASA!

Last night in his State of the Union Address, President Obama did a fine job of highlighting some of the things America will need to do to maintain it's position as the world's greatest country as we move forward in the new millennium.

Mr. Obama's proposals, especially at the beginning of his speech, calling for investments in education and clean energy were especially encouraging. And the president, while not being specific enough about cutting the deficit in the future, understands that America's long term economic prospects rest on our ability to grow the economy today.

However, the part of the president's speech that most captivated me came at the end. After all the talk about the economy, about the deficit, about Iraq and Afghanistan, and even after well-deserved shout outs to both Joe Biden and (yes, I said it) John Boehner, the president had this to say about America, "we do big things."

It was a simple phrase that is just a repackaged version of American exceptionalism, but it was delivered poignantly. "We do big things." This is America; we do big things. In laying out his vision for America's future (a vision that only one party seems to have, the other has a vision of America's past), the president touched on some of those big things: high speed internet; high speed trains; cleaner and greener energy, but it's something that he barely mentioned at all last night that has inspired me to write today.

Save NASA! We've heard a lot lately about America's new "Sputnik moment." In fact I've used the term myself. In the 1960s it was NASA doing big things, responding to the Soviet's challenge by putting a man on the moon and capturing the attention and will of a nation, spurring us to be the best.

It is a sad thing to see that NASA today is more of an afterthought than a part of America's vision for the 21st century. The nation of big things, the nation that put a man on the moon is neglecting the biggest thing. As the president mentioned last night, the space race unleashed a wave of innovation and technology that spurred economic growth for decades. If we want to keep doing big things in America, we can't neglect looking outward towards the unknown. Like many government agencies, NASA needs to become more efficient. Reallocating funds to cut the deficit means NASA shares the burden. But it would be a true national tragedy for America to forget it's past endeavors into space and neglect looking to the stars in the future.

We do big things. Don't forget it, and don't forget NASA.

2nd Amendment Sensibility

It was less than three weeks ago that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and others were shot in Tucson, Arizona. In the wake of that tragedy there has been a lot of grief, a lot of finger pointing, a wonderful speech from the President, and of course talk about the need for a different approach to gun laws.

As a native Mississippian, I experience some cognitive dissonance when it comes to guns. Don't get me wrong, guns - when used appropriately and safely - can be a lot of fun. I think that Americans should have the right to bear arms as protected by our Constitution. However I think that the 2nd Amendment needs a little revisiting. We've interpreted "arms" - which used to mean flintlock muskets - to mean fully automatic assault weapons the sole function of which is to inflict death.

America's gun laws need significant reform, and they need to be stricter. If the assassination attempt of Gabrielle Giffords and the tragic and senseless deaths of six other innocent people isn't enough to convince you of that then maybe this article is. In the last 24 hours, 11 police officers have been shot nationwide. The police. These are the people whose job it is to protect us, and in just over a day, 11 of them have been shot. That's a problem.

Americans should have the right to bear arms, but our interpretation of arms has gone too far and needs scaling back. I'm sorry but you don't need an assault weapon if you're not in the military. You just don't and no sane person believes otherwise. You may have fun with an assault weapon, but you do not NEED one. You also don't need a clip that lets you fire 30 rounds or a stainless steel weapon that is effectively fingerprint proof. The founding fathers would be horrified if they could see what we have done to the 2nd Amendment. Imagine Thomas Jefferson being faced with the prospect of a private citizen stockpiling canons the way some people today stockpile assault rifles and ammunition. It's tough to imagine because that's not what the founding fathers had in mine when they guaranteed our right to keep weapons.

If we believe that all Americans have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then we should start asking ourselves, what about the right to life? Is the life of a 9 year old girl less important that the "right" to bear an assault weapon? The answer is no. How many innocent people and police officers are going to be shot before we realize that the point of rights is to protect people, and when the right bear arms starts to impinge on people's livelihoods, then that right has been taken too far.

To make matters worse, the NRA has taken steps to prevent research on the topic of gun safety from taking place because studies have shown that guns actually makes situations more dangerous rather than safer. So the people lobbying for assault weapons have undermined the ability of scientists to comment on the claim that weapons make us safer because, in fact, findings showed that weapons did not make us safer. Chew on the irony and then spit it out in disgust.

Americans have the right to bear arms and they can and should exercise that right. But things have gone too far and the conversation on the 2nd Amendment has been dominated by the wrong side for too long. It's ok to own a handgun, it's ok to own a shotgun or a rifle. It's ok to shoot for pleasure and it's ok to hunt. It's not ok to have an assault rifle and it's obviously not ok to use any weapon against other people. I can only hope that all the senseless shootings over the last decade have made people realize that the obsession with gun rights has made our country more dangerous. The law-abiding gun wielders of NRA myth aren't stepping up to prevent crime, but the people who should be preventing crime, the police, are in danger everyday because of how easy it is to buy an outrageous weapon. And not just the police, but innocent people in every state in the nation. It's time for a sensible change to a safer culture of guns.

When Doves Cry

Because Prince, or whatever he calls himself these days is one of the most bizarrely cool people I've never met, and unfortunately, his aptly named song reflects the situation of the world's biodiversity because of climate change and global warming.

Scientists predict that anywhere from 20-30% of species could go extinct over the next century if temperatures continue to rise. There are high profile poster boys for these die-offs, but it's more likely that humanity will be hurt by the extinction of species that we don't really think about.

I happen to be someone who values biodiversity just because I find it cool and beautiful, but I get that not everyone is like that. But even if hiking or camping or snorkeling isn't your thing, and even if you know that the extinction of the polar bear isn't the end of the world (you're right by the way), abundant and flourishing biodiversity is extremely important for the survival of people.

All of what we eat as well as many of the medicines we take come from animal and plant life. A loss in biodiversity could have terrible consequences for humanity. As the linked article mentioned, the loss of seemingly insignificant bird species could mean massive problems with pollination of plant species vital to human life.

Now I'm not crazy, I know that most of the species that have ever existed are now extinct and I know that extinction is a natural thing. However, evolution of new species is much more difficult today than it once was, and so a high and unnatural number of die-offs would be a blow to humanity, not to mention a tragic loss in its own right.

So what can we do to prevent this potential tragic disaster? Well you already know the answer to that question, we can invest in and transition to alternative forms of energy. If my repeated mention of this issue means anything it's simply that there are too many opportunities to discuss it because it is such a big deal. For a nation dealing with a depressed economy and near record snowfalls caused by global warming, not to mention the worst "natural" disaster in our nation's history - which of course was only natural because it was horrible for nature, it was in every sense a manmade disaster - it would only make sense for us to throw our weight behind the drive to greenify our economy and our country, taking the lead in the issue like the global leader we are. Alas, it may take a few more extinct species and a few more inches of snow before we realize that we are creating a monster.

And there you have it

House Republicans today passed their repeal of "Obamacare." Mark my words when I say that what is now a pejorative term will one day be mark of pride. That's not really the point though. The point is that maybe now this "debate" will be over with; now that House Republicans have fulfilled their campaign promise maybe they'll give up on their mission to undermine the well being of Americans.

I've spent enough time defending the law and I've spent enough time bashing Republican hypocrisy and disdain for Americans, so instead of doing either of those things AGAIN, I'll offer a simple question, or perhaps a challenge to Republicans.

Now that you've passed a repeal bill that will give insurance companies the right to steal from and screw over Americans and that theoretically will cost the government hundred of billions over the next decade, what's your plan?

I get the complaints. I get that the law may cost more than advertised. I get that it may be unconstitutional to force people to buy healthcare. It's fair to question the Constitutionality of the law, it's even fair to disagree with the CBO's analysis of the cost of the law. I get it. I disagree, and as you well know, I'm disgusted by the often blatant displays of hypocrisy, but I get it.

So you disagree, and now that you have a majority in the House of Representatives, you've passed a repeal bill that seems doomed to die. I'd like to think this will be the end of the debate, but maybe there is going to be more debate and maybe there will even be more reform. Maybe that reform will be a good thing, but again, Republicans, I ask you, now what?

Do you actually have a plan? I hear about "repeal and replace," but I haven't heard anything about the replacement. What does it look like? What is it going to do? Do you have any actual ideas or have you simply tried to save face, or rather save grandma from those...death panels!

I'm growing tired of the healthcare debate because it simply hasn't been a debate. It's been a set of ideas offered by Democrats and a refusal to cooperate or legislate by Republicans. The "debate" so far has been Democrats offering ideas and Republicans brushing them aside. So we ended up with a law that isn't perfect and now Republicans want to undo all the good parts of that law and replace them with...

I won't hold my breath.

But this leads me to my next and final point which is really the topic for a whole new post. I'm realizing that my frustration with the Republican party is due to the fact that they don't seem to have ANY ideas. What's the Republican plan for weening us off oil and coal and transitioning us to green and alternative energy? What's the Republican plan for reforming healthcare? What's the Republican plan for fixing the economy? These questions don't have answers. There doesn't seem to be a plan.

Maybe Republicans will prove me wrong and come up with a plan for some of these thorny and pressing issues. I certainly hope so, because the only idea they've offered so far involves giving insurance companies the right to revoke my coverage if I get sick.

Back to business...

...as usual? It remains to be seen, but it appears that way. As Congress reconvened today, the hot issue is exactly what we knew it would be, "repealing the job-killing healthcare law," or something along those lines.

In my last posts, in the wake of the Arizona shootings, I have, like many others, acknowledged the need for civility. I've also noted that when Republicans do silly things, we should call them silly.

So that's what I'll be doing now. It's a reality that the House of Representatives will pass a repeal bill and that said bill will die as soon as it leaves the House. That's well and good for America since the CBO estimated that the new law will save over $100 billion while the Republican repeal plan will COST over $200 billion. I'm not sure how Republicans managed to come up with a repeal that is MORE EXPENSIVE than the new law, but my hat is off to them. It's quite a feat to make yourself look that silly.

I could spend the next few paragraphs laying out all the reasons we need the new law. It saves money, it helps Americans, etc, etc, etc. I can also freely admit that I'm not sure if it will stand up to the scrutiny of the Supreme Court, but that as a practical matter, the law is a necessity. I could talk about Republican hypocrisy and how they want to cut the budget with a repeal bill that will cost $200 billion dollars, and I could laugh and the irony that they're willing to accuse the CBO of unfair play when the CBO evaluated a Republican proposal and found that it would increase the budget.

I could do this, or I could look past this and try to find something important for our law makers to do. It has nothing to do with healthcare which is a fight that is going to end for good soon anyhow. The healthcare law was passed and will only grow more popular as time passes and people realize that the GOP complaints about it aren't true. While the law may need some tweaking, the idea is right and the economics - as laid out and tested - don't add to the deficit. This should be a non-starter, but politics are getting in the way.

In the meantime, America is doing nothing to create jobs and technology in the next great field, the one I've been harping about since I started blogging almost a year ago. But there are other things that can be done, consider this great piece, sent to me by a good friend, about the positive and money-saving effect of technology on government operations.

It's a new year, and it's time for a new conversation, the healthcare battle has been fought and won by the right side. Now that we've taken one positive step for America's future, let's find another area that we can improve rather than repealing the good we've already done.

The road from Tucson

Where does the road from Tucson lead us? In the aftermath of Saturday's horrific shooting and the rancor and healing that has followed, perhaps our country does, as Sheriff Dupnik suggested, have some soul searching to do.

In an op-ed piece today, Paul Krugman, a brilliant economist whose economic advice should be taken more seriously, suggests that America is on a path of split moralities. In his view, despite President Obama's inspirational speech on Wednesday, there is little we can do to reconcile ourselves with people who hold opposing views because liberals and conservatives just have completely opposite views on morality and that's that.

I disagree. At the end of the day, this is America and we are all Americans. What we all want is for America to remain great and become greater. President Obama talked a lot about dialogue, and certainly that has been a hot topic since the shooting as people have commented on the shooter's motivation (which may never be determined). There has been perhaps unwarranted criticism from the left and uber-defensiveness from the right, but on Wednesday the president stepped above it all and called for real dialogue.

I will admit to my fair share of Republican bashing, although I've never wished for anything worse than for Glenn Beck to stub his toe, but I also believe in a civil discourse and a bipartisan attempt to improve America. For all the semi-nasty things I've said about Republicans, anyone who reads this blog (does anyone read this blog?) will know that I think they do have good ideas.

America is a nation that needs leadership and new ideas. If we're going to make real progress it's going to take bipartisan agreement and spirited discourse on important issues, like how to transition to an economy that relies on and produces the technology for alternative energy while remaining competitive during that transition. What about immigration? America needs to secure it's borders, but we also need to attract the best and brightest without making it seem like America is a nation of xenophobes.

There is room for debate on how best to achieve these aims, but there is no denying that both sides have some good ideas about how to go about doing what needs to be done. Furthermore, while there is a need for civil rhetoric, there's no need to end impassioned debate and I will continue to call Republicans hypocrites when they behave as such.

It should be obvious to everyone that Democrats and Republicans aren't going to start hugging it out when they resume legislative business, and there will still be plenty of posturing and negativity from both sides. But I'd like to think that the road from Tucson will at least lead us to place where our disagreements force us to cooperate, calculate and compromise and not to a place where we let our emotions take hold of our senses and say something potentially harmful.