Mozy on over to our friends at Purple State of Mind if you want to read this there or otherwise generally visit with them (which we wholeheartedly approve of).
This semester my middle school daughter Rachel is taking guitar. Her newfound interest has come with an unexpected gift to her mother, a piqued interest in all things Beatles.
(Enter a good excuse to walk down memory lane with your daughter, mostly while she is kicking and screaming and telling you that you looked really scary in bellbottoms.)
Yesterday I was waxing away on Beatles memories (to snoring 7th graders) when I remembered the â€œPaul is deadâ€ rumor that was rampant when I was just about their age. The ensuing years of not thinking about this (so very much) left me with no memory of which song said what and which you had to play backwards to hear the fateful news, sent out like an arrow straight to the hearts of all the thirteen-year-olds who oh-so-loved Paul. So I Googled it.
The song I remembered turns out to have been â€œStrawberry Fieldsâ€, which supposedly said â€œI buried Paul.â€
I remember the conversations we had, the records we played backwards, the teeny-bopper bonding over what was clearly obviously ultimately a falsehood. (Unless, of course, the actual hoax is the whole Heather Mills â€“ Paul McCartney marriage/lawsuit fiasco and goodness knows Wings, which did seem stunningly unreal even at the time and certainly in retrospect. Hmm, Iâ€™ll have to get back to you on that.)
The point here, as I am finally forced to reluctantly leave my adolescent angst rewind behind to make, is that the Wikipedia â€œPaul is deadâ€ entry nearly knocked the air out of me, it bore so much resemblance to our current crop of breathless conspiracy theories. Positively brimming with logical fallacies launched in careless dedication to wishful thinking over â€“ well â€“ thinking.
Conspiracy v.2009 was launched by birther conservatives and tea-bagging populists sure that our duly elected President is here fully intending to burn the whole American joint down. Before liberals get smug, note that Conspiracy v.2002 was the steadfast belief that Bush was behind 9/11. Earlier whacky incarnations included yarns spun over the Lindbergh kidnapping (for which my grandparents were actually stopped and questioned because my infant uncle was about the right age), widespread speculation unraveling Kennedyâ€™s assassination facts-be-darned and a bizarre story of a sitting president ordering a break-in of a Pentagon employeeâ€™s psychiatristâ€™s office. (Oh, wait.)
I can tell you with every fiber of my former middle school girl-ish self that conspiracies are great for entertainment. Conspiracy theories also foment hatred masterfully, supporting the Dr. No cartoon version of good and evil we seem to prefer to reality.
But conspiracies blow as a basis for governance.
How in the world do political parties create policy based on understanding of a conspiracy theory? It leads them to crazy dead-end wrong-headed solutions to problems that are brutally real. Iâ€™d say this go round it has led conservatives away from making a much-needed real-world argument on health care, preferring instead to bend to conspiracy-fueled town hall fury. To be sure there are people who are right about seemingly crazy things and no one believed them (uh, round earth), but statistically those moments are unicorns, not horses. We can go round and round amusing ourselves to death with our conspiratorial cohorts, fighting Darth Vaderâ€™s forces of darkness that donâ€™t buy our thinking, or we can grow up and get on with the work that grownups do.
If we donâ€™t move smartly toward coping with the world of the big and real problems we have, we risk making big bets on our future that the record says â€œI buried Paulâ€ when it was really â€“ according to John Lennon â€“ (I kid you not) â€œcranberry sauce.â€
For kicks I replayed â€œStrawberry Fieldsâ€ a bunch of times and I swear to you, Paul is dead.
The Tea Party Movement is flexing its electoral muscle in a New York special election that could lay the ground work for the Republican Partyâ€™s nominee for President in 2012. New Yorkâ€™s 23rd Congressional District hasnâ€™t been represented by a Democrat in more than 85 years. Parts of the District havenâ€™t been represented by a Democrat since the Civil War, and yet it may be just that, a civil war within the Republican Party that allows a Democrat to recapture the seat.
Washington insiders and party leaders are calling the race a referendum on President Obama and the enormous spending being under taken by Democrats in Congress, pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into each campaign. Moderate Republican Representative John McHugh of New Yorkâ€™s 23rd has resigned his Congressional seat to accept a position in President Obamaâ€™s cabinet as Secretary of the Army. Republicans quickly nominated State Legislator Dede Scozzafava. Democrats have selected a political newcomer in Bill Owens and Attorney from upstate New York. However the Conservative Party, upset with the pick of Scozzafava, has nominated their own candidate Doug Hoffman.
Political infighting in the Republican Party has ensued. Conservatives are upset with the pick of Scozzafava, a politically moderate woman with a liberal record on abortion and gay rights. The Conservative Club for Growth has endorsed Hoffman and poured nearly $250,000 dollars into his campaign. In the recent weeks Republicans Sarah Palin and Governor Tim Pawlenty have come out in support of Hoffman, bucking party leaders like Newt Gingrich and Representative John Boehner, who support Scozzafava.
The Conservative Party and the Club for Growth have definite ties to the Tea Party movement in general and the growing ultra-Conservative movement in particular. Both Palin and Pawlenty are thought to be presidential hopefuls in 2012, and could be using this election to better position themselves within that part of their electorate. Gingrich believes between 20-30% of Republicans would vote for either candidate, but that â€œyou need 50% + 1 to win an election,â€ and they canâ€™t get that support.
That leaves Bill Owens. If the Republican vote is split, it will almost assure the Democrats and Bill Owens the seat. If Scozzafava wins, Republicans will call it a referendum on Obama, but might damage ties with the more conservative part of their party for 2010 and 2012. If the Conservative Candidate Doug Hoffman wins, it could be a huge step forward for the conservative Tea Party movement.
Let the conversation begin.
“Incivility is the new secondhand smoke. Everyone feels impelled to disdain it, but nobody is willing to do away with it entirely.” —Tim Rutten, The LA Times
Beware of news on the Internet. It is a trackless swamp with a few islands. Find the islands and stay there. Anything else is a morass, and you have only yourself to blame if you sink into it. —Purple State of Mind
Last Sunday, U2’s Bono wrote about the Millennium Development Goals, America’s role in achieving them, and touched on the Nobel Peace Prize in doing so. In case you missed it last week like I did….
â€œWe will support the Millennium Development Goals, and approach next yearâ€™s summit with a global plan to make them a reality. And we will set our sights on the eradication of extreme poverty in our time.â€
Theyâ€™re not my words, theyâ€™re your presidentâ€™s. If theyâ€™re not familiar, itâ€™s because they didnâ€™t make many headlines. But for me, these 36 words are why I believe Mr. Obama could well be a force for peace and prosperity â€” if the words signal action.
The millennium goals, for those of you who donâ€™t know, are a persistent nag of a noble, global compact. Theyâ€™re a set of commitments we all made nine years ago whose goal is to halve extreme poverty by 2015. Barack Obama wasnâ€™t there in 2000, but heâ€™s there now. Indeed heâ€™s gone further â€” all the way, in fact. Halve it, he says, then end it.
Many have spoken about the need for a rebranding of America. Rebrand, restart, reboot. In my view these 36 words, alongside the administrationâ€™s approach to fighting nuclear proliferation and climate change, improving relations in the Middle East and, by the way, creating jobs and providing health care at home, are rebranding in action.
These new steps â€” and those 36 words â€” remind the world that America is not just a country but an idea, a great idea about opportunity for all and responsibility to your fellow man…
In dangerous, clangorous times, the idea of America rings like a bell (see King, M. L., Jr., and Dylan, Bob). It hits a high note and sustains it without wearing on your nerves. (If only we all could.) This was the melody line of the Marshall Plan and itâ€™s resonating again. Why? Because the world sees that America might just hold the keys to solving the three greatest threats we face on this planet: extreme poverty, extreme ideology and extreme climate change. The world senses that America, with renewed global support, might be better placed to defeat this axis of extremism with a new model of foreign policy…
The president said that he considered the peace prize a call to action. And in the fight against extreme poverty, itâ€™s action, not intentions, that counts. That stirring sentence he uttered last month will ring hollow unless he returns to next yearâ€™s United Nations summit meeting with a meaningful, inclusive plan, one that gets results for the billion or more people living on less than $1 a day. Difficult. Very difficult. But doable.
The Nobel Peace Prize is the rest of the world saying, â€œDonâ€™t blow it.â€
But thatâ€™s not just directed at Mr. Obama. Itâ€™s directed at all of us…
Hmmm. I wonder if we stopped arguing about whether Obama deserved the Nobel and rolled up our sleeves on the Millennium Development Goals, what then?
(The latest in the contributions we’re making to our friends discussion over at Purple State of Mind. Feel free to head on over and weigh-in too.)
At the Village Square, we started out knowing not-so-very-much about healthcare. Â Then, over the last 4 months, through the wonder of the internet and a little old-fashioned elbow grease, we became students of the health care debate. Â Weâ€™ve spent time with experts, read policy-wonk-ish studies until our eyeballs bled (requiring us to need â€“ uh â€“ health care) and even invited 200 people to dinner to talk about it all (Take 2 Aspirin, Fix Health Care & Call Me in the Morning.) Â
As the Congressional debate ramps up, as we can expect a run of confusing and an increasing volume of plain dumb, we thought you might just be in the mood for a non-ideological primer on healthcare, written specially for our friends in the purple crowd. Â (With all the health care studying weâ€™ve done, weâ€™re probably smart enough to do single day surgeries by now, but too bad for you weâ€™re long distance.) Â So here, with affection, is our non-surgical gift to you:
Doing nothing really isnâ€™t an option. The rising costs are unsustainable; they bankrupt individuals, handicap small businesses and even hurt larger businesses competing in global markets.
Free market forces simply arenâ€™t working in health care. The pro forma partisan argument between offering a market solution and a governmental one misses the salient point: The incentives that drive down cost & increase quality in a market economy are inverted in health care. The current system encourages more treatment over better care; we need to flip it. Fixing convoluted incentives is a complex task that requires grown-ups to come to the table, not the five-year-olds who seem to usually show up.
Advertising pharmaceuticals probably ought to stop. Â Heavily advertised allergy, hair loss and erectile dysfunction medications create a huge health care bill for things we often donâ€™t really need. Â It builds a consumer-driven demand effectively, yet consumers donâ€™t directly pay for what theyâ€™re demanding. Â Itâ€™s like if the mall management started paying for your teenage daughterâ€™s shopping, a situation that doesnâ€™t tend to produce rational decision-making and restraint. This doesnâ€™t mean some of us donâ€™t need these medications, but our doctor will guide us to them when we do. Â Winning with the endless-erectile-rama isnâ€™t just Big Pharma, itâ€™s also the networks selling them ads. Â Losing is â€“ uh â€“ taxpayers (and good golly gosh our kiddos who have to listen to 15,000 Cialis ads an afternoon).
Common sense lawsuit reform needs to stop being a political football and start happening. There are measured voices on the left (among them Governor Howard Dean and President Obama) who admit that excessive malpractice awards canâ€™t help but weight the practice of Â medicine towards overutilization of testing. Â Democrats have to just wake up and smell this coffee. Â And Republicans need to stop pretending that the health reform sun rises and falls with tort reform. Â It doesnâ€™t.
Cost-control is the big gorilla in the room. Â No real advice here, because this gives me a headache.
Rome wasnâ€™t built in a day. Â Whatever reforms we try will be imperfect and will need to be incrementally improved. Â Thatâ€™s as it always has been. Â Good results can start with imperfect beginnings.
Grow up and lose the breathless good and evil story lines. Â At some point the body politic needs to stop searching for a villain. Every interest in the health care fight has skeletons in their closet and owns a part of what has to change. Â Weâ€™d like to see them stop throwing stones from their glass houses and â€“ in the words of President Obama – â€œgrab a mop.â€ Â Â There are even skeletons in the closet of the vaunted American citizen. Which leads me to a last bonus health insurance insight…
We are overweight. Â 70% of health care costs are lifestyle dependent. Â We want to eat, drink and be merry then we want someone to give us a pill to fix it when our chickens come home to roost. Â And if somebody expects us to pay for the pills ourselves, weâ€™re going to vote them the heck out of Dodge.
If you read only two articles on health care reform, here are The Village Square picks (both long, both well worth it):
You might want to take a moment to read this piece by our friend and guest blogger Chris Timmons, which ran in the Orlando Sentinel last weekend. Chris is young, smart and really knows how to turn a phrase (but I’ve got to ask him for a bigger picture, sorry Chris). Here Chris sees some troubling trends on the internet from a uniquely conservative perspective:
Mark Helprin has a beef, and it’s with me â€” or my generation.
Helprin’s new book, Digital Barbarism, at first blush, seems to be an overheated, high-watt diatribe against the computer geeks at Google who have given us the digital age. These geeks, in concert with a nonprofit corporation called Creative Commons, want to eliminate copyright protections for written works (after the holder is gone) and have them available for free on the Web for the public good.
This seems innocent enough, yet, like many a great writer, Helprin sees its dangers.
Helprin understands that copyright has more importance than its technical aspects. He relates in his book that copyright, because of the scale of what it protects, is an essential part of the cultural garment. Continue reading…
Choosing a name for a new concept is an interesting exercise. You look at this blank piece of paper and, literally, anything can be put there.
I can’t even remember now what the competing names for The Village Square were. I do know why we picked “The Village Square,” it was Albert Einstein’s amazing quote: “To the Village Square we must carry the facts of nuclear energy. From there must come America’s voice.” What a central concept to everything American, to everything we’ve ever been. Our forefathers abandoned the way that every government on earth had ever operated… they made the bold move to make the people the boss. Their gamble made the town hall (or as we call it, the village square) the seat of power.
Once we decided we loved “The Village Square,” the only thing that stood in our way was that are a million things named “Village Square.” We’d be violating every common sense notion of branding: Go unique.
Ultimately, we decided, the Village Square was never about something new, it was about reviving what was old and what has always been there. The fact that there are a bazillion Village Squares is exactly and profoundly correct.
Turns out – on the occasion of our 3rd birthday – our high concept, low PR branding worked. Despite all the “Village Square” name competition… We google #1. And while we love being first, and know it’s you who’s made us first, we couldn’t possibly be happier that the “Village Square” has pages and pages other google hits.
It helps to remind us that with just a wee bit of reaching, The Village Square is everywhere.
“You can tell that you have made God in your own image when it turns out that He hates all the same people that you do.”
(Hat tip to Lea.)
5 PM, Thursday November 5th, Finnegan’s. Be there. More info HERE.
One of the personal conclusions I came to in my study of health care leading up to our “Take 2 Aspirin” health care forum is that a for-profit model simply doesn’t work in health insurance. (I want to make the clear distinction between for-profit and nonprofit here. Nonprofit insurers are a horse of a different color.) The true customer of a publicly traded company is the shareholder and the interest of shareholders and the company’s insured patients are largely directly opposite.
This plot has just thickened.
In yesterday’s incarnation of the titanic health care struggle, Democrats and health insurance companies were at it again, after their first round battle over whether the reforms will raise insurance prices, as the insurers have charged in a report they commissioned. Yesterday Democrats began talking about eliminating the anti-trust protections enjoyed by insurers. Under the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act, insurance companies are exempt from federal anti-trust regulation. The law doesn’t mandate state regulation, but allows it. Here’s a quickie primer on the Supreme Court case that ultimately decided that insurance didn’t qualify as interstate commerce to be regulated by anti-trust laws:
The South-Eastern Underwriters Association controlled 90 percent of the market for fire and other insurance lines in six southern states and set rates at non-competitive levels. Furthermore, it used intimidation, boycotts and other coercive tactics to maintain its monopoly. The question before the Court was whether or not insurance was a form of “interstate commerce” which could be regulated under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
Here’s what the feuding parties said yesterday:
According to the Dems (Chuck Shumer – D NY): â€œThe health insuranceâ€™s antitrust exemption is one of the worst accidents of American history,” Schumer said. “It deserves a lot of the blame for the huge rise in premiums that has made health insurance so unaffordable. It is time to end this special status and bring true competition to the health insurance industry.”
According to the insurers: â€œMcCarran-Ferguson has nothing to do with competition in the health insurance market. The focus on this issue is a political ploy designed to distract attention away from the real issue of rising health care costs.â€
Here is a fascinating argument that the monopoly insurers enjoy is much bigger than just health care costs, but was fundamentally involved in our fiscal meltdown, particularly AIG:
…insurance is essentially unregulated and, when [insurance] companies were allowed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 to expand into banking, the lack of transparency inevitably led to the subprime mortgage crisis of 2007 and will ultimately result in more financial services and insurance company bankruptcies. Repealing McCarran-Ferguson is an essential first step to fiscal regeneration in this country…
Please jump in if you have any further insight into this issue. Seems like a big one to me? It gives rise in my mind to a number of questions I currently have no answer to:
- Would this problem be solved by the Republican’s recommendation that we allow insurers to compete nationally? (Note that Dems said this would just make it so all the insurance companies would base in the states with the least regulation.)
- If we’re trying to control health insurance costs, eliminating anti-trust exemption seems like low-hanging fruit. So why in the world hadn’t this come up before? Had the administration made a deal with the devil (for purposes of argument, the for profit insurers) that was broken when the insurers released their report suggesting steep cost increases under the current legislation?
- With long-standing federal anti-trust laws in our country, why the heck would insurance be exempt? Am I missing something?