Pondering Healthcare

There have been lots of articles in the news and blogosphere lately about the Affordable Care Act (ACA), more commonly known as ObamaCare.  It has been controversial for some time, but I would like to take a different type of look at some of the history leading up to the ACA and then at what I consider to be significant flaws.

A Little of the History of Health Care

The idea for something like the ACA is neither new nor the product of just one political party.  One President who called for healthcare reform in a similar format to the ACA was Richard Milhouse Nixon in his budget address to the Congress in 1974:

I am once again proposing a comprehensive plan for national health insurance that would make adequate insurance against the costs of health care available to all Americans. This far-reaching reform is long overdue. I urge early congressional action on it. The budget proposes measures to prepare for this program.

President Nixon included a few more details in that address.

The national health insurance plan I am proposing represents another major step toward improving the lives of individual Americans. My proposal calls for basic reform in the financing of medical care. It would bring comprehensive insurance protection against medical expenses within reach of all Americans, including millions of people who cannot now obtain adequate insurance coverage. Costs of coverage for low-income families would be federally supported, with payments scaled according to family income.

It will take several years for this reform to become fully operational. In the interim, the 1975 budget provides $26.3 billion for existing health programs. Under this budget, the momentum of cancer, heart, and other research initiatives would be sustained, and total funding for biomedical research would exceed $2 billion in 1975, almost double the 1969 level. To support continued reform of our medical care system, the budget proposes a total of $125 million in 1974 and 1975 to demonstrate health maintenance organization concepts throughout the Nation. I am also proposing a Health Resources Planning Act to enhance State and regional capabilities and responsibilities for planning and regulating health services.

Congress did not act on Nixon's request.  Nor was there action under Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush (41), Clinton, or Bush (43).  This is despite repeated calls for health care in their various messages to Congress.  (The following are examples and should not been seen as exhaustive or complete).

President Gerald Ford

America needs to improve the way it pays for medical care. We should begin plans for a comprehensive national health insurance system. However, in view of the economic developments and the measures I have proposed to combat recession and inflation, I cannot now propose costly new programs. Once our current economic problems are behind us, the development of an adequate national medical insurance system should have high national priority. I urge the Congress to work with my Administration in order to devise a system that we will be able to afford.

President James Earl Carter

about a comprehensive national health insurance program, which can extend health care coverage to millions of needy Americans while controlling health care costs; and about the need for a human rights policy, which I believe is essential in the pursuit of our foreign policy.

President Ronald Wilson Reagan

I am asking Congress to help give Americans that last full measure of security, to provide a health insurance plan that fights the fear of catastrophic illness. My plan would provide acute care for those over 65 by restructuring the Medicare program. Under my proposal, the elderly would receive catastrophic health care coverage under Medicare, while limiting out-of-pocket expenses to $2,000. This coverage will be made available for an additional monthly Medicare premium of $4.92. The plan also aims to improve protection for the general population and for the long-term care of the elderly. For too long, many of our senior citizens have been faced with making an intolerable choice—a choice between bankruptcy and death. This proposed legislation would go a long way to help solve that dilemma.

President George Herbert Walker Bush

Infant and maternal health is an area where we must invest in the future. It is also an area where we must all be committed to improvement. I am particularly disturbed by the fact that the infant mortality rate for black infants is nearly twice that for whites.

This legislation does not do all that we want to do, but it does do what we can do at this time.

President William Jefferson Clinton

Today is an historic day. The Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee has become the first full congressional committee to report out a health care reform bill. The action of Chairman Kennedy's committee gives me great confidence that Congress will pass legislation this year that meets the expectation of the American people: guaranteed private insurance for every American that can never be taken away. Once again, Chairman Kennedy has demonstrated the leadership that has made him a driving force in the fight for quality health care for the last three decades.

Under the leadership of Chairman Moynihan, the Senate Finance Committee is moving. Chairman Moynihan is committed to achieving universal coverage and bringing legislation to the American people this year.

For the first time in our history, committees in both the Senate and the House are seriously moving forward on health care reform. While much work remains, today's actions prove that the job will be done. The momentum demonstrated in the House and Senate this week is heartening to me and all Americans who want and deserve real health security.

President George Walker Bush

This bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights reflects the principles I laid out earlier this year. It provides strong patient protections for all Americans, ensures that doctors and patients make medical decisions, and holds health plans accountable by providing patients with meaningful remedies when they have been wrongly denied medical care. The bill also protects employers and their employees from unnecessary litigation that would increase health care premiums and force too many Americans to do without health insurance.

While the details vary, all of these Presidents of the United States attempted to get some form of additional healthcare for average Americans.  They all failed.  President Obama is the first to get legislation passed, but it doesn't quite make sense.

My complaint is not with the individual mandate which the GOP and Fox News have inaccurately called the largest tax ever.  As a penalty or a tax, the concept is necessary if we are going to have private health insurers managing our health care.  That last bit is my personal biggest problem with the ACA and should be the second biggest problem for Republicans.

First Concern with the ACA

Despite the cries of fear that the government is taking over your healthcare.  Despite the silliness that the government is getting between your doctor and you.  The reality is that private companies are in charge of your healthcare and are getting between your doctor and you.  That might be reasonable, but those companies have a bottom line goal of spending as little as possible.  Their goal is not to keep you as healthy as possible.  Their goal is not to ease the hassles of getting the care you need to survive.  Their goal, as is the goal of every other private corporation, is to earn money.

The ACA is good in that someone with a preexisting condition can now get health insurance.  One cannot be thrown off of health insurance completely because one's care is starting to become expensive.  The insurers are now required to spend eighty percent of their income on health care (that part is dramatic reform).  Those are all good points.

But, that does not change the insurer's goal of making money.  Their only reason to take reasonable care of you is if there is competition and you might change insurers.  The state exchanges that have so many Republican governors concerned might help with this, but it is an idea that has not be tried yet.

Second Concern with the ACA

If a concern is cost to business, why are we perpetuating an employer based health insurance system?

Many who complain about the ACA are complaining that it will cost jobs because it will cost small businesses too much.  The reason it is costing businesses anything at all is because after World War II some businesses added health care as a benefit to attract employees.  This was not mandated by the government.  It was a business choice.

Since that time, we have gone from having a primarily domestic economy to having a global economy.  The businesses which are competition for American businesses are mostly in countries with single payer health care systems.  Businesses in Europe and Asia do not pay for health care at all (well, they do pay taxes which in turn fund the health care but that is generally in the form of income and value added taxes that are not based on the employees).  It is not a level playing field.

Before someone jumps on me for lauding single payer systems, I will note that not all single payer systems are created equally.  One of the best systems, that of Taiwan, is supposed to be in fiscal trouble.  It is not my purpose to present any panacea for health care in this blog, just to ponder what is happening.

Third Concern with the ACA

The gimmick of pushing most of the costs out ten years is as annoying when done by Democrats as when done by Republicans.  Partly because of this, the Republicans can claim that ObamaCare is a failed system when most of it has not been put into effect yet.  Both the Democratic gimmick and the Republican attacks are lies.  Disgusting politics.

Final Thoughts for This Post

Given the Republican rejection of Republican ideas, such as the individual mandate, it is likely that nothing better than the ACA could have been accomplished during President Obama's first term in office.  While political parties are always rooting for replacement of members of the other party, they usual put country first.  The Republicans stopped doing so with the goal of replacing President Obama.  Perhaps it is racism.  Perhaps it is continued fallout from the near-impeachment and resignation of President Nixon.  Whatever the reason, the loss of the GOP as a political party that places the United States first was a huge loss.  I don't know how this can be repaired.

Praise: Presidential Citizens Medal for Janice Langbehn

Janice Langehn is one of many who received the 2011 Presidential Citizens Medal. President Obama awarded this to her for her fight for equality for the LGBTQ Community.  The White House writes

While on vacation with her family in February 2007, Janice Langbehn's partner, Lisa Pond, suddenly fell ill and was rushed to the hospital. Langbehn was refused access to her partner, who had experienced a brain aneurysm and later died alone. She filed a federal lawsuit and her story received attention from President Obama, who went on to revise hospital visitation rights for gay and lesbian couples for hospitals receiving federal Medicare or Medicaid funds. Langbehn receives the Citizens Medal for her efforts to ensure all Americans are treated equally.

One might be concerned that Ms. Langehn is a token LGBTQ among the award winners. As November approaches, my guess is that a President Romney would offer no one of the LGBTQ Community such recognition. My hope is that he will not have the opportunity to test my prediction.

FollowUp 22: Wisconsin Republican Dirty Tricks

On Thursday 5 April 2012, as many of us were preparing for significant religious holidays, Governor Walker quietly signed about fifty bills into law.  Some of these bills are ideas that I can support, such as SB 547 [that] allows school busses to be equipped with a supplemental mirror system to enhance visibility of the driver.  But there are a number that one would not expect so soon before an election.

·         SB 237 was authored by State Senator Lazich and Representative Thiesfeldt and relates to providing instruction in human growth and development. 

·         SB 306 was authored by State Senator Lazich and State Representative Litjens and relates to voluntary and informed consent to an abortion. 

·         SB 92 was authored by State Senator Zipperer and State Representative Vos and relates to prohibiting coverage of abortions through health plans sold through exchanges. 

·         SB 202 was authored by State Senator Grothman and State Representative Litjens and relates to elimination of compensatory and punitive damages for acts of employment discrimination or unfair honesty or genetic testing. 

·         SB 386 was authored by State Senator Grothman and State Representative Theisfeldt and  relates to voter registration at high schools and certain tribal schools. 

SB 237 reintroduces abstinence education to the schools, despite the fact that it doesn't work.

SB 306 ensures that women give voluntary consent before any abortion, including establishing failure to follow the state directives precisely as a felony offense for a physician.

SB 92 prohibits health exchange insurance plans for covering voluntary abortions.

SB 202 removes much of the power of the Wisconsin equivalent of the Lilly Ledbetter law.  "This bill eliminates the awarding of compensatory and punitive damages to persons who have been discriminated against in employment or subjected to unfair honesty or genetic testing."

SB 386 makes it more difficult to register to vote for students at teachers at high schools.

SB 237 and SB 386 are of tremendous concern to me as a teacher.  I see each as having deleterious results for students.  The other three are being characterized as a continuation of the Republican War on Women, with many pundits writing about them.

Prominent conservative Milwaukee radio pundit Charles Sykes wrote that there is no war on women.

But simply put, there is no great sex-discrimination problem in Wisconsin workplaces that is not being addressed by federal law and preexisting state laws. Further, by making it easier to extract punitive damages from businesses, the 2009 law made Wisconsin companies vulnerable to frivolous claims.

The facts suggest that Wisconsin does have a problem with a gender gap in wages (ranking 36th in the country in 2009).  When women are discriminated against, they do not consider it frivolous.  The punitive damages are intended to provide a disincentive to discrimination, a disincentive that no longer exists.  State Senator Glenn Grothman, author of the repeal of the teeth of the anti-discrimination law, offered the Daily Beast his reasoning.

For the law’s critics, though, even the threat of lawsuits put an intolerable burden on business. “If tomorrow you woke up and some policeman is at your door giving you a summons for something, the fact that you’re innocent wouldn’t make you happy, because you have to show you’re innocent at some considerable time and expense,” says Republican state senator Glenn Grothman, a major driver of the repeal.

Grothman says companies are being bombarded with false accusations of discrimination. “It’s an underreported problem, but a huge number of discrimination claims are baseless,” he says. “Most of them are filed by fired employees, and really today almost anybody is a protected class.” As a result, he says, many companies are forced to pay fired employees to go away. He argues that the Wisconsin law, which allowed for damages of up to $300,000, the same amount as in federal law, raised the cost of doing business in the state to intolerable levels. “It just puts Wisconsin way out of whack with other states,” he says. “I’m not sure there are any other states this bad off.”

Actually, there are—according to data from 9to5, 33 other states have either no cap on damages or the same $300,000 cap as Wisconsin. Still, even if the law isn’t an outlier, it’s not surprising that Grothman would see it as unjust, because he believes that the whole idea of pay discrimination against women is fraudulent.

Whatever gaps exist, he insists, stem from women’s decision to prioritize childrearing over their careers. “Take a hypothetical husband and wife who are both lawyers,” he says. “But the husband is working 50 or 60 hours a week, going all out, making 200 grand a year. The woman takes time off, raises kids, is not go go go. Now they’re 50 years old. The husband is making 200 grand a year, the woman is making 40 grand a year. It wasn’t discrimination. There was a different sense of urgency in each person.”

He continues, “What you’ve got to look at, and Ann Coulter has looked at this, is you have to break it down by married and unmarried. Once you break it down by married and unmarried, the differential disappears.”

As the Daily Beast notes, Mr. Grothman is wrong.  Mr. Grothman has a local reputation of supporting any business and no tax (similar to Jim Sensenbrenner who represents the same area in the United States Congress).  That he places the needs of businesses above the needs of his female constituents is no surprise at all.

Perhaps even more striking than Mr. Grothman's defense of his legislation is Governor Walker's defense of these bills, as reported by Channel 3000.

The president's campaign even joined the fray, accusing Walker of waging a "war against women." The governor refutes the claim and said his approach is all about job creation.

"We care about their future," Walker said. "That's really what we need to be waging our time and efforts on and that's why when I do public signings, I focus on bills that I think will make a better future for our state."

"Most of the legislation signed by the governor today makes tremendous advances in the protection of women, so I would submit it's just the opposite of what you suggest," said Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, answering Walker's critics.

The governor said the criticism is the same old out-of-state special interest talking points which he said "seem to have a total disregard for what the facts are."

Of the five separate bills that I choose to focus on, only one has anything to do with business.  None of them will result in new jobs.  None will protect women and by limiting access to abortion they may hurt women.  For a governor who has spent tremendous amounts of time out of state raising money to complain about "out-of-state special interest talking points" is rich.  The facts are fairly clear and Mr. Walker's talking points seem to be out of sync with those facts.

Wrapping up this blog post, former State Senator Mordecai Lee, now a professor of politics and the University of Wisconsin -- Milwaukee, thinks that this may push Governor Walker into the limelight enough to be the running mate of Governor Romney.  Of course, Mr. Walker will have to survive the recall election first ... although Professor Lee thinks otherwise.

Lee said that Walker is a household name nationwide, he can energize the Republican base, isn't a Washington politician and would satisfy both social and fiscal Conservatives.

"In a sense, Scott Walker is the perfect Sarah Palin without her liabilities," said Lee.  "If he loses the recall, he'll be the martyr hero of the Republicans."

Despite all the controversy surrounding Scott Walker, the recall race and John Doe investigations, Lee believes that Walker isn't a risky bet for Republicans to stand behind. 

I am the last person who Mr. Romney might listen to for advice on picking a running mate.  But I can think of few better than the extreme Governor Walker.  Better, that is, for President Obama.

16 November 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
30 November 2011, FollowUp 1.
4 December 2011, FollowUp 2.
11 December 2011, FollowUp 3.
14 December 2011, FollowUp 4.
15 December 2011, FollowUp 5.
30 December 2011, FollowUp 6.
13 January 2012, FollowUp 7.
17 January 2012, FollowUp 8.
25 January 2012, FollowUp 9.
2 February 2012, FollowUp 10.
9 February 2012, FollowUp 11.
12 February 2012, FollowUp 12.
18 February 2012, FollowUp 13.
22 February 2012, FollowUp 14.
6 March 2012, FollowUp 15.
12 March 2012, FollowUp 16.
16 March 2012, FollowUp 17.
30 March 2012, FollowUp 18.
31 March 2012, FollowUp 19.
3 April 2012, FollowUp 20.
4 April 2012, FollowUp 21.

14 April 2012, FollowUp 23.
17 April 2012, FollowUp 24.
21 April 2012, FollowUp 25.
29 April 2012, FollowUp 26.
2 May 2012, FollowUp 27.
6 May 2012, FollowUp 28.
10 May 2012, FollowUp 29.
13 May 2012, FollowUp 30.
23 May 2012, FollowUp 31.
24 May 2012, FollowUp 32.
30 May 2012, FollowUp 33.
2 June 2012, FollowUp 34.
4 June 2012, FollowUp 35.
5 June 2012, FollowUp 36.

FollowUp 1: Claims of Threat to Religious Liberty

This week, Chicago's Francis Cardinal George wrote a column on healthcare.  He makes some claims that are clearly erroneous.

This year, the Catholic Church in the United States is being told she must “give up” her health care institutions, her universities and many of her social service organizations. This is not a voluntary sacrifice. It is the consequence of the already much discussed Department of Health and Human Services regulations now filed and promulgated for implementation beginning Aug. 1 of this year.

Not at all true.  The compromise reached by the Obama Administration includes that health insurance cover what many of those Catholic institutions already cover.  The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) is not being asked to give up any institution.

Why does a governmental administrative decision now mean the end of institutions that have been built up over several generations from small donations, often from immigrants, and through the services of religious women and men and others who wanted to be part of the church’s mission in healing and education? Catholic hospitals, universities and social services have an institutional conscience, a conscience shaped by Catholic moral and social teaching. The HHS regulations now before our society will make it impossible for Catholic institutions to follow their conscience.

The premise is flawed.  There is no "end of institutions" unless the RCC makes a deliberate choice to end them.  It's touching that so much work went into creating these institutions that are not being terminated by the government.

So far in American history, our government has respected the freedom of individual conscience and of institutional integrity for all the many religious groups that shape our society. The government has not compelled them to perform or pay for what their faith tells them is immoral. That’s what we’ve meant by freedom of religion. That’s what we had believed was protected by the U.S. Constitution. Maybe we were foolish to believe so.

First, no one's "freedom of individual conscience" is under threat.  That one is given the option of using contraception does not mean that one must do so.  Individuals are free to choose.  Second, inclusion of contraception in health insurance does not threaten "institutional integrity".  The RCC can still tell its parishioners to not use contraception.  That returns us to the first point, freedom of individual conscience.

This is where it gets a little more interesting.  The Cardinal implies that their employees, including those who are not Roman Catholic, must not be given the choice of whether or not to have contraception available as part of the health insurance provided by their employer.  They want to make all health decisions for their employees, irrespective of that "freedom of individual conscience".

What will happen if the HHS regulations are not rescinded? A Catholic institution, so far as I can see right now, will have one of four choices: 1) secularize itself, breaking its connection to the church, her moral and social teachings and the oversight of its ministry by the local bishop. This is a form of theft. It means the church will not be permitted to have an institutional voice in public life. 2) Pay exorbitant annual fines to avoid paying for insurance policies that cover abortifacient drugs, artificial contraception and sterilization. This is not economically sustainable. 3) Sell the institution to a non-Catholic group or to a local government. 4) Close down.

No.  Those are ignoring an important choice which involves no change whatsoever for many of the RCC institutions.  That is, allow contraception to be included in the health insurance and simply tell the Roman Catholic employees that you frown upon them using those as much as you frown upon them doing other things that you consider sinful.  That does not require secularization, fines, sales, or closure.

This is an artificial problem, created to stir up political controversy.  The Cardinal wants the RCC to overstep the Establishment Clause and have a greater "institutional voice in public life."

In the public discussion thus far, efforts have been made to isolate the bishops from the Catholic faithful by focusing attention exclusively on “reproductive” issues. But the acrimony could as easily focus next year or the year after on assisted suicide or any other moral issue that can be used to distract attention from the attack on religious liberty. Many will recognize in these moves a tactic now familiar in our public life: those who cannot be co-opted are isolated and then destroyed. The arguments used are both practical and theoretical.

No one is trying to "isolate the bishops from the Catholic faithful".  That is absurd.  This is about public health policy, not about communications with your congregations.

Despite the efforts of the late Jack Kevorkian, assisted suicide remains illegal.  Neither should it be illegal nor should the RCC be limited from preaching against assisted suicide within their churches.  Again, the Cardinal wants the RCC to overstep the Establishment Clause and have a greater "institutional voice in public life."

Practically, we’re told that the majority of Catholics use artificial contraception. There are properly medical reasons, in some circumstances, for the use of contraceptive pills, as everyone knows. But even if contraceptives were used by a majority of couples only and exclusively to suppress a possible pregnancy, behavior doesn’t determine morality. If it can be shown that a majority of Catholic students cheat on their exams, it is still wrong to cheat on exams. Trimming morality to how we behave guts the Gospel call to conversion of life and rejection of sin.

Slow down.  "There are properly medical reasons, in some circumstances, for the use of contraceptive pills, as everyone knows."  I'm not sure that everyone knows that.  Some of the medical reasons are to save the life of the woman taking those medications.  This is what the RCC does not want to insure.

Preaching morality is fine.  Enforcing morality is something else entirely.  The Cardinal is calling for the latter for all of its employees, not just those who are Roman Catholic.

Skipping down several paragraphs:

The provision of health care should not demand “giving up” religious liberty. Liberty of religion is more than freedom of worship. Freedom of worship was guaranteed in the Constitution of the former Soviet Union. You could go to church, if you could find one. The church, however, could do nothing except conduct religious rites in places of worship-no schools, religious publications, health care institutions, organized charity, ministry for justice and the works of mercy that flow naturally from a living faith. All of these were co-opted by the government. We fought a long cold war to defeat that vision of society.

When organized charity is mixed with denial of medical coverage where the RCC determines what may and may not be covered, then perhaps the RCC should be constrained to those activities that involve only those of their faith.  While I generally oppose restrictions on religions, those religions cannot be allowed to impose their will on those who are not of their faith.

The strangest accusation in this manipulated public discussion has the bishops not respecting the separation between church and state. The bishops would love to have the separation between church and state we thought we enjoyed just a few months ago, when we were free to run Catholic institutions in conformity with the demands of the Catholic faith, when the government couldn’t tell us which of our ministries are Catholic and which not, when the law protected rather than crushed conscience. The state is making itself into a church. The bishops didn’t begin this dismaying conflict nor choose its timing. We would love to have it ended as quickly as possible. It’s up to the government to stop the attack.

This is a big lie.  The Cardinal needs to re-read the last sentence of Exodus 20:12.

12 Thou shalt not murder.  
     Thou shalt not commit adultery.  
     Thou shalt not steal.  
     Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

There is no attack against religion.

If you haven’t already purchased the Archdiocesan Directory for 2012, I would suggest you get one as a souvenir. On page L-3, there is a complete list of Catholic hospitals and health care institutions in Cook and Lake counties. Each entry represents much sacrifice on the part of medical personnel, administrators and religious sponsors. Each name signifies the love of Christ to people of all classes and races and religions. Two Lents from now, unless something changes, that page will be blank.

The only reason for those hospitals and health care institutions to not be listed is if the Cardinal decides that allowing people "freedom of individual conscience" is too dangerous to keep the hospitals and health care institutions open.  Otherwise, this is just a huge scare tactic.  Particularly ugly from one who is supposed to uphold the Ten Commandments.

Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up.

6 February 2012: Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.

11 March 2012:  FollowUp 2.

FollowUp 14: Wisconsin Republican Dirty Tricks

Behind Governor Scott Walker and the reason that he might survive a recall election is billionaire David Koch.  Stacey Singer, a report for The Palm Beach Post, was granted a rare interview.  The entire interview is interesting.  Where it applies to Wisconsin, even more so.

David and Charles Koch fund Americans for Prosperity, working to stop the Affordable Patient Care Act and shift society to the ideals of Ayn Rand.

Asked about his efforts to sway public opinion, Koch acknowledges his group is hard at work in places such as Wisconsin, where Gov. Scott Walker is facing off with public unions and grappling with a likely recall vote.

"We're helping him, as we should. We've gotten pretty good at this over the years," he says. "We've spent a lot of money in Wisconsin. We're going to spend more."

By "we" he says he means Americans for Prosperity, which is spending about $700,000 on an "It's working" television ad buy in the state. It credits Walker's public pension and union overhaul with giving school districts the first surpluses they've seen in years. The unions and the left see things differently.

The ads are being run mostly in Northern Wisconsin, an area that is more conservative.  The strategy is to get out the vote as opposed to swaying people from what they already believe.  Those seeking to replace the Governor had best be turning out their supporters if they want to be successful.

The bit about school districts seeing surpluses is a lie.  Assuming that union-busting and pension-busting would result in more funds for school districts, contracts tend to be for two or three years depending upon the school district.  Many school districts that were scheduled to negotiate new contracts accelerated their negotiations last year.  So, most school districts have not been affected by the changes yet.  Americans for Prosperity talks about this as one of their several lies about how well Wisconsin is doing.

I understand that the ads credit Governor Walker for digging Wisconsin out of a debt left by former Governor Jim Doyle.  There are three problems with this:  first, Governor Doyle cut back on state spending, after huge debt from his predecessors, Republicans Tommy Thompson and Scott McCallum; second, there was no appreciable debt when Governor Doyle left office; third, Wisconsin is in debt now, thanks to the loss of tax revenue put in place by Governor Walker.

A year ago, a blogger posing as David Koch famously prank-called Walker and goaded the governor to say it would be "outstanding" if Koch would fly him to "Cali" as a reward for crushing the public unions. The Koch brothers' conglomerate, Koch Industries, holds regular political meetings in Rancho Mirage, Calif., and the events have attracted the likes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

At the time of the prank call, Koch told The New York Times, he didn't even know the Wisconsin governor's name. He knows it now.

"What Scott Walker is doing with the public unions in Wisconsin is critically important. He's an impressive guy and he's very courageous," Koch says after a benefit dinner of salmon and white wine. "If the unions win the recall, there will be no stopping union power."

Mr. Koch holds a great deal of antipathy towards unions.  According to the interview, this is largely based on his father's conservative anti-communist values.

David Koch says his father had no idea who the Bolsheviks were when they first came to his west Texas office asking for his help. Once Fred Koch saw the horrors of Stalin's purges, he was committed to fighting communism's spread. Trade unionism and the welfare state represented a creeping, insidious move toward the Bolsheviks, he believed. He became a founding member of the anticommunist John Birch Society in 1958.

"My dad was a great man. People loved him. I mean they loved him," David Koch says, a far-off look in his eyes. "He was like John Wayne. Just like John Wayne."

I had wondered about the connections between the modern conservative movement, the shift to government controlling details of our lives in the Bircher style, and the McCarthy era paranoia.  Apparently this is a real connection.  Funding Americans for Prosperity and various Tea Party functions is easy when their corporate annual profit is around $100 billion.  Progressives and Wisconsin Democrats in particular had best be gearing up because the Koch brothers are not slowing down.

16 November 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
30 November 2011, FollowUp 1.
4 December 2011, FollowUp 2.
11 December 2011, FollowUp 3.
14 December 2011, FollowUp 4.
15 December 2011, FollowUp 5.
30 December 2011, FollowUp 6.
13 January 2012, FollowUp 7.
17 January 2012, FollowUp 8.
25 January 2012, FollowUp 9.
2 February 2012, FollowUp 10.
9 February 2012, FollowUp 11.
12 February 2012, FollowUp 12.
18 February 2012, FollowUp 13.

6 March 2012, FollowUp 15.
12 March 2012, FollowUp 16.
16 March 2012, FollowUp 17.
30 March 2012, FollowUp 18.
31 March 2012, FollowUp 19.
3 April 2012, FollowUp 20.
4 April 2012, FollowUp 21.
11 April 2012, FollowUp 22.
14 April 2012, FollowUp 23.
17 April 2012, FollowUp 24.
21 April 2012, FollowUp 25.
29 April 2012, FollowUp 26.
2 May 2012, FollowUp 27.
6 May 2012, FollowUp 28.
10 May 2012, FollowUp 29.
13 May 2012, FollowUp 30.
23 May 2012, FollowUp 31.
24 May 2012, FollowUp 32.
30 May 2012, FollowUp 33.
2 June 2012, FollowUp 34.
4 June 2012, FollowUp 35.
5 June 2012, FollowUp 36.

Pattern: Claims of Threat to Religious Liberty

The various denominations of Christianity have a tradition of not getting along well.  From outside appearances, a truce is in place.  At least they have agreed to use common language and approach in their claims that President Obama is attacking their religious liberty. That there is no real attack on the practice of religion is immaterial.  Here are a few examples beginning in November 2011, culminating with reactions to the announcement about two weeks ago that contraception must be covered by all health plans:



Evangelical Protestant: Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association complains that women's shelters in Colorado lost federal funding because they have mandatory bible study as part of the care for homeless and battered women. The claim of religious liberty is conflating a social service and a church service. He then complains that nurses were being forced to participate in abortions in New Jersey when they were required to care for women before and after abortions, not during the surgery. The claim of religious liberty is conflating a health care practice with a church service.



Mormon and Roman Catholic: Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich take the same positions. Both claim that Catholic Charities have been forced to curtail their adoption services because they won't serve gay couples. No, they just don't get federal funds if they are going to be bigots. The claim of religious liberty is conflating a social service and a church service.



Evangelical Protestant: Matt Staver of Liberty Counsel complains that the United States and Israel, all of Western Civilization, are threatened by marriage equality, gender equality, and family equality. Somehow if my partner and I can legally wed then Mr. Staver loses his religious liberty; while I gain my religious liberty. This is confusing equality and liberty with a zero sum game.



Roman Catholic: Bishop William Lori complains that the Church are being driven out of health care and adoption services. He is concerned that freedom of worship will replace freedom of religion. The claim of religious liberty is conflating a health service and a church service, then conflating a social service and a church service. One is free to celebrate one's religion, not to impose it on the rest of society.



Mormon: Hannah Smith complains that contraception is being imposed on religious groups via employer health plans. The claim of religious liberty is conflating a health service and a church service.



Roman Catholic: Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell and Newt Gingrich complain that contraception is being imposed on religious groups via employer health plans. The claim of religious liberty is conflating a health service and a church service.

The pattern is clear.  The cry that religious liberty is being attacked by President Obama is not likely to abate.  That some might see that requiring that contraception be covered by health plans does not mean that individuals are required to use contraception is not going to slow or stop this allegation of President Obama being anti-religion.

What can or should President Obama do?  My gut reaction is that he should use the bully pulpit and explain both the misunderstanding at hand and why partisan interests are turning this into something that is larger than it ought to be.  Sadly, I don't think it would work.

I think the President is going to have to change this policy into something that is worse for the United States.  Employees who want birth control will have to pay for it out of pocket, if they can afford it.  That the cost of preventive measures is far less than the consequences of not taking those measures is not the issue.  That no one would be forced to use birth control in violation of their religious compass is not the issue.  This is entirely about how the President is perceived.

With that in mind, it is fair to consider additional perceptions.  President Obama, despite periodic allegations, is clearly a Christian.  That should have been obvious from his tumultuous exit from Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ.  At some point someone other than the President is going to need to point out that members of the Church of Latter Day Saints do not adhere to the Nicene Creed; they are not considered by most Christians to be Christian.

I don't like playing that kind of politics.  Unless a presidential contender adheres to a religion that is a threat to the United States, the Church of American Dissolution or something dangerous outside of spiritual questions, I don't like using that issue.  Still, those who want to make Mr. Obama a one-term president are already playing religious politics.  To not recognize the politics for what it is could result, if one takes Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Romney at their words, in a shift toward theocracy.

My hope is that President Obama and his advisers both see what is happening and have ideas for getting out of this religious trap that they have sprung on themselves and avoid the low road that I mentioned.

28 February 2012: FollowUp 1.

11 March 2012:  FollowUp 2.

Repudiation: Christian Anti-Defamation Commission

It can be argued that the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission is none of the above.  Their first installment in a series of ten proofs that President Barack Obama is not a Christian is filled with lies that neither promote Christianity nor defend it from anything real.  Watch and see.



Lies I caught:

1.  Life is defined by the Bible to begin at conception.

Genesis 2:7 is the first time that the Bible discusses the soul.  The soul is associated with the first breath, not the moment of fertilization.

2.  Death Panels in ObamaCare.

Despite the claims in this video, there are no Death Panels in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (which detractors call ObamaCare).  President Obama said that the death panel claim is a lie.  It is a lie according to Politifact.  The denial of neurosurgery to patients over 70 is a lie according to Snopes.  The caller to the Mark Levin show was telling a lie when he claimed to be a neurosurgeon.

3.  Abortion funding in ObamaCare.

Not true.  President Obama signed Executive Order 13535 that applies the Hyde Amendment to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  In short, ObamaCare does not include abortion funding.

4.  Reproductive care means abortion.

No.  The World Health Organization says reproductive care should be

access to safe, effective, affordable and acceptable methods of fertility regulation of their choice, and the right of access to appropriate health care services that will enable women to go safely through pregnancy and childbirth and provide couples with the best chance of having a healthy infant.

The only hint regarding abortion is "fertility regulation of their choice", which is best handled through contraception not abortion.

5.  ObamaCare is anti-life.

Exactly the opposite.  But this 501(c)3 that masquerades as a non-political charity is loading in every deception that they have available to distort both the intent and reality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  While the Act could have been improved, Republicans in Congress made that impossible.  Many of the ideas that were originated by Republicans, including presidential contenders Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, are now disavowed as socialist plots to overthrow America and proof that President Obama is a secret Muslim.

Unlike abortion, telling lies is forbidden in the Ten Commandments.  Thus, one could say that the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission is not Christian or at least not adhering to Christian tenets.  Rather than defend Christianity, the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission is slandering the President of the United States.  Thus, one could say that they are not anti-defamation.  The word commission is a nebulous enough term that we can grant that much.  Still, one might wonder from whence came this commission.  Their history page states who founded them, not who commissioned them.

Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up.

FollowUp 9: Wisconsin Republican Dirty Tricks

While one might expect that Governor Walker and the other Republicans up for recall might be focused on cleaning up their image in Wisconsin, they are in the midst of political rewards for those who fund their campaigns at the cost of dirtying the environment of Northern Wisconsin.

When Mr. Walker ran for his office of governor, he did not run on union-busting.  He ran on creating jobs.  Since then he turned down federal money that might have created railway jobs, health care jobs, and has focused on his campaign chest.  But now the Republicans are racing to change Wisconsin mining regulations, to allow for an open pit iron ore mine near Lake Superior (far north in Wisconsin).  Here is a three minute video that offers Governor Walker's propaganda.



To be clear, it is not just environmentalists who are complaining about the race to push this through. The Bad River Reservation, originally deeded to the Ojibwe, abuts the proposed four and a half mile long open mine.



From the Indian Country.

The Bad River Tribe presented 10 guidelines for mining legislation to Walker in September. They are:
1. The definition of iron mining should be clearly set forth to exclude any project proposal that has the potential to cause acid mine drainage.
2. The completeness of iron mining–permit applications should be clearly defined and the burden of preparing and submitting a complete application should be entirely on the permit applicant.
3. The permitting time frame should be reasonable, flexible and consistent with federal agency time frames. It should also provide sufficient time for the DNR, the public, federal agencies, and affected Indian tribes, to fully review and participate in the permitting process.
4. Wetland protection standards should be maintained and the federal/state partnership in the environmental review process under state and federal law should not be jeopardized.
5. Federal clean water act implementation by DNR should be corrected and not weakened.
6. There should be contested case hearings to allow full participation by interested parties, including Indian tribes.
7. There should be no preemption of local control.
8. Citizen suits should be maintained to make sure permit provisions and legal restrictions on new mines will be enforced.
9. Consultation with Indian tribes by the DNR should be required as part of the permitting process.
10. Interested party financing should be provided for the contested case hearing process.

Mayors of neighboring towns object.  So, why would they object to so many high paying jobs.  My friends in Wisconsin tell me that the jobs to be created a low-paying and far fewer than promised.  The real money is flowing in another direction.

The Cline Group is the Florida based organization behind the open pit mine.  They have been making donations to Wisconsin Republicans in exchange for relaxing the permitting process and laws to protect the environment.  It turns out that this is a repeat of similar donations for mining opportunities in Illinois by the same Cline Group.  Dirty money that may lead to dirty water, wrecked land, and dirty air in Northern Wisconsin.

Protests are planned.  (Wisconsinites have become far too practiced in protesting Governor Walker's agenda to hurt Wisconsin).

27 January 2012, Update:  Despite protests, the Wisconsin Assembly passed the mining bill which is now on its way to the Wisconsin Senate.

16 November 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
30 November 2011, FollowUp 1.
4 December 2011, FollowUp 2.
11 December 2011, FollowUp 3.
14 December 2011, FollowUp 4.
15 December 2011, FollowUp 5.
30 December 2011, FollowUp 6.
13 January 2012, FollowUp 7.
17 January 2012, FollowUp 8.

2 February 2012, FollowUp 10.
9 February 2012, FollowUp 11.
12 February 2012, FollowUp 12.
18 February 2012, FollowUp 13.
22 February 2012, FollowUp 14.
6 March 2012, FollowUp 15.
12 March 2012, FollowUp 16.
16 March 2012, FollowUp 17.
30 March 2012, FollowUp 18.
31 March 2012, FollowUp 19.
3 April 2012, FollowUp 20.
4 April 2012, FollowUp 21.
11 April 2012, FollowUp 22.
14 April 2012, FollowUp 23.
17 April 2012, FollowUp 24.
21 April 2012, FollowUp 25.
29 April 2012, FollowUp 26.
2 May 2012, FollowUp 27.
6 May 2012, FollowUp 28.
10 May 2012, FollowUp 29.
13 May 2012, FollowUp 30.
23 May 2012, FollowUp 31.
24 May 2012, FollowUp 32.
30 May 2012, FollowUp 33.
2 June 2012, FollowUp 34.
4 June 2012, FollowUp 35.
5 June 2012, FollowUp 36.