Healthcare.gov: "being sick won't keep you from getting health coverage"

12/17/2013

To skip this introductory analysis go below to
How the provision was distorted.

When President Obama made universal coverage a central part of his first campaign,  rather than attempting a revolutionary restructure of single payer, or Canadian style socialized medicine, his congressional allies tried to incorporate this major change into our existing elaborate medical establishment, while still dramatically expanding coverage.  To do this without increasing taxes, he (meaning congressional committees-and others)  did something that could be viewed as creating a new government backed business venture, one that would incorporate all of the medical establishment- physicians, hospitals etc  into a new delivery system.  The promise and the hope was to make the proposed efficiencies of this law IE (capitation payment replacing itemized billing) compensate for the cost of subsidizing additional scores of millions of new patients.

To do this, insurance companies become the intermediary. They were required to provide some additional services, but also were guaranteed a much larger base of clients.  Unlike most Government programs, this was not to be achieved by raising taxes to cover its costs,  but rather by the voluntary purchase of health insurance by the demographic group whose excess insurance premiums will pay for the additional people covered.  While traditional government programs such as Social Security or Military expenses are paid for by exacting taxes from the population under penalties of law, meaning the political process will determine its proportion of GDP, ACA is different  The contours of health care delivery will only be sustained by the voluntary choices of purchasers of health insurance (encouraged by tax penalties), which is a business rather than a government model.  This is why the outlines of this plan were consistent with a conservative Heritage Foundation monograph.

ACA is similar to Medicare where people pay in when young and healthy to benefit when old and sick.  Yet, rather than the payment being enforced by law, deducted from salaries, ACA business model component means that the prepayment, in the form of over priced health insurance, must be sold, marketed to a specific younger demographic. .

This law will only survive if they buy this product; and to make this happen it takes a mix of coercion and inducement, both the carrot and the stick.  Unfortunately, once this is cast in the model of a private venture, it makes use of principles of product marketing that include obfuscation and exaggeration. This hybrid of business and government, with it's available of coercion, is inherently in conflict.  A loss of trust in even the largest corporation can cause it to fail, while a similar loss of trust in a government, ours now at an historic low, brings more catastrophic possibilities.  

ACA required a two part sales campaign;  the first to gain political support to get the law passed, while the second was to convince the young group who will be financing the heavy users of health care to purchase this product.  For the first campaign, the administration  denied that many people would lose both their current insurance and physicians which only become known as false when the loss occurred.  The universal availability of "guaranteed issue" insurance even to the sick, was a similar exaggeration during the first campaign to sell the law to the public.  Those who will be harmed are the ones who relied on this not to purchase insurance during open enrollment, and find they need it at a later time.     

This marketing decision explains the obfuscation of this  key provision that President Obama mentions whenever this law is discussed.  At this time, the legislation has been sold, and is now law, based on this distortion.  To correct it before damage is done will require acknowledging that this key provision was oversold, and thus misleading.

How the provision was distorted.

This page of Healthcare dot gov  is for those with the question of the heading: What if I have a pre-existing health condition?

The page begins with three sentences saying the same thing, one in double size bold type:

Starting in 2014, health insurance plans can't refuse to cover you or charge you more just because you have a pre-existing health condition. 

Being sick doesn't keep you from getting coverage.

 Starting in 2014, being sick won't keep you from getting health coverage

While this seems perfectly clear, comprehensive and definitive, a few lines down it does describe one  exception, which acts as a confirmation that other than this unlikely "grandfather" clause, you can get insurance under ACA, whether sick or not--period. Now we finally get to this admonition:

Be sure not to miss open enrollment Open enrollment ends on March 31, 2014. Outside of open enrollment, you can't enroll in Marketplace coverage unless you have a qualifying life event.   Open enrollment will begin again in October 2014.

We have here the first introduction of the word "Marketplace" which is not used to modify the proclamation of the opening three lines, or what the President has been stating since the selling of this legislation continuing to this day.  "Marketplace" usually implies a sales channel, and does not, and was not interpreted by many people (see dailykos survey below) as meaning that the non underwritten insurance polices themselves were only available during this period.  
 
The first three clear statements all are misleading at best.  In reality, the main modifier of the bold claim that pre-existing conditions will not prevent getting insurance, is that this only applies during "open enrollment, which will end on March 15th..  Next year, for ten months of the year you will not be able to get insurance if you have a pre-existing condition or find out that you are sick and face major costs.  There is a provision to allow purchase a non ACA standard short term policy, that does not require insurer accepting someone with pre-existing conditions.

Here is a description of time of the open enrollment described on this secondary web site. (official sites with this information have not been located.) 

The annual enrollment period for 2015 and subsequent years will begin October 15 and extend through December 7 of the preceding calendar year. Starting in 2014, the Exchange must provide advance written notice to each enrollee about annual open enrollment no earlier than September 1, and no later than September 30.

We also do have this description from AARP, that mentions the guaranteed issue in this section on Open Enrollment 
Yet it does not say that this is not available outside of this period

What happens during open enrollment?

You can choose health insurance that best meets your needs. This includes initiating or dropping coverage, or picking among such options as monthly premium costs, copayments, annual deductibles and prescription drug coverage. Participating insurance companies can't turn you away or charge you more because you have an illness or medical condition. 

If clarity had been the top priority of Government for this highly complex confusing law, the section of Healthcare.gov could have included the words in italics. 

Starting in 2014, health insurance plans can't refuse to cover you or charge you more just because you have a pre-existing health condition if you apply during the open enrollment period

Or this wording from the Covered California official website

To make sure you are covered in 2014, you must get health insurance before March 31, 2014, or you must wait until the next open-enrollment period begins, in October 2014, for coverage in 2015 

This would have been responsible and probably not even lost support for the legislation, but sadly, this law was sold by exaggeration at every level, this being only one obvious example. We expect bait and switch from private enterprise where marketing often is synonymous with misleading, and business ethics is reduced to avoiding criminal prosecution, but we have a right to expect government communications to inform,  especially in something as vital as health insurance.   The Obama administration is still issuing "official information"  as if it were selling the legislation, with spin trumping clear explanations of the reality of this law.  With trust in government at an all time low, such intentional distortion,  accelerates this potentially disastrous trend.
Some may want to refute the thrust of this article by claiming that the public understood that unqualified statement of guaranteed issue was limited.  This article is from George Will's column in January of 2013 refutes this:

"Roberts noted that a person earning $35,000 a year would pay a $60 monthly tax and someone earning $100,000 would pay $200. But the cost of a qualifying insurance policy is projected to be $400 a month. Clearly, it would be sensible to pay $60 or $200 rather than $400, because if one becomes ill, “guaranteed issue” assures coverage and “community rating” means that one’s illness will not result in higher insurance rates".

This exact misunderstanding was shown by a majority of respondents in this survey of politically knowledgeable readers of the liberal Dailykos website done  after the rollout of ACA. 

This essay is not written to attack ACA; there is too much competition in that endeavor.  It is written (as was a letter sent out on this issue) to inform those who do not understand the limitations on guaranteed issue, and to try to explain, if not excuse, why this distortion arose in this law.  Perhaps President Obama is to be condemned for this, and while I feel that the willful exaggerations described here, and of "Under the new law you can keep your doctor and insurance" are unfortunate,  history has the final word.

We are entering a new era of medical care delivery, with burgeoning knowledge of underlying disease processes unimaginable only decades ago, that, combined with computer technology can dramatically transform mass delivery of medical care.  Such efficiencies could make medical care available to everyone as is the case now with computer-internet technology .  ACA, like the internet interchange start up, is deeply flawed.  Only generations from now will we know whether it was a courageous first step towards rationalization of this complex system, or something ill conceived and poorly executed, thus doomed to failure. 

The defects of this law must be open to discussion, an imperative that far transcends political posturing by either party.  There are those who say that the Democrats and Obama now "own" this law.  I disagree.  It was passed by our Congress and signed by our President, all duly elected.  It is "our" law now, to fight to improve and demand such opportunity, no matter which party is in control. 

While fearing the worst and trying to prevent it, I must hope for the best.   

ACA, Debasement of federal Internal Revenue function:

There are uncounted hundreds of billions of dollars lost to the federal government yearly through tax evasion of all kinds, abetted by narratives similar to the conspiratorial views of public health.  Much of this is done by those who believe the federal government, as now operated, to be an illegitimate enterprise at its core, and therefore even if evasion is illegal, it is morally justified.  They see the entire principle of federal taxation as organized extortion that they have every right to resist.  This sentiment is also ascribed to, either genuinely or as reflection of constituencies, by a sizable number of conservative national legislators.  Senator Ted Cruz took this pose when during his filibuster he compared himself to a resister against Nazism.

While the additional tax for any who do not obtain health insurance has been well publicized, and has been reduce below the levels to achieve the balance that is required to avoid the death spiral of adverse selection, there is something worse that is only now being brought to light, as described in this Washington Post article.. 

"Even if the Internal Revenue Service did find that an individual lacked health coverage, they would still need to look at whether he or she qualified for one of the nine exemptions from the individual mandate. These include clauses that allow Americans with religious objections, incarcerated individuals and those who cannot find an affordable plan to not carry health coverage without penalty."

The article then gives a description of how actually paying the penalty can be avoided, but with some effort  The article does not point out that if there are sizable numbers who use these devices to thwart this penalty, the IRS does not have the resources to prove that the individual is actually liable.  And then if they were able to do so for a given case, their array of enforcement options are reduced under a compromise with those who opposed this law and tried to thwart the method of securing universality of insurance by penalizing healthy people who refused to buy policies that subsidized the sick.

The article concludes with, "Typically, the IRS does have a number of steps by which to recoup unpaid taxes. It can garnish your wages, for example, or, in rare cases, seize property. But with the health mandate, the law's drafters specifically barred the agency from any of those more aggressive tactics.  "In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section," Section 1501 of the Affordable Care Act reads, "Such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure."

Our system of internal revenue that is the infrastructure of all federal services from national defense, medical research to a social safety net for the poor, only exists with a reliable source of income from its citizens.  This is a fragile system, but vital, as we see that countries with low compliance rates of income tax, such as Greece, do fall into the abyss of social governmental collapse. This is the first time that this IRS has been stripped of its authority to bring criminal action against those who fraudulently evade taxes, a great victory for those who see this agency as made up of "Jack booted fascists.' as they were described at a house hearing years ago.

Criminal action by the IRS is already restricted to actual provable fraud, which this provision removes, almost inviting the most extreme tax evasion.  This undermining of the legitimacy of our use of police power to extract money from citizens when authorized by law,  is a giant step towards validating those who claim that the very use of such police action is inherently immoral.  This was done without any discussion, or objection, by the party that wanted this bill passed by any means, in the same way that killing Bin Laden was never weighed against the number of children who would contract polio because their parent's worse suspicions of the public health agenda had been confirmed. . 

ACA-Obamacare- taking a step back

10/16/2013


"A house divided against itself can not stand" is a concept first spoken by Mathew and Mark and later by Lincoln as our country was roiling in the tension between advocates of slavery and abolitionists.  Its latest version was expressed as a real fear of our current constitutional based house of lawful comity collapsing.   This was not by a seer or an orator but by one who for a third of century had intimate knowledge of all the pressing dangers against our country.  It was in a a recent 60 minutes interview with the retired deputy director of the CIA, Mike Morell,  who had given daily briefing on these dangers to the last four presidents.

"What really keeps me up at night is the inability of our government to make decisions that will push our economy and our society forward. And one of the things I learned looking at the world is that a country's national security, any country's national security is more dependent on the strength of its economy and on the strength of its society than anything else....."

What divided our national house before the civil war were the existence of human beings as a lower caste, so low that those who espoused slavery considered then closer to livestock who had as much rights as their cattle or oxen.  Recent revelations of the writings of Thomas Jefferson, indicate that such a view was not abhorrent to him (see article in American History) which explains his conviction that after national abolition those who had been chattel could never coexist with those who had been their owners.  While slaves are the ultimate extreme of human castes, there are versions of this, the proletariat who are described as wage slaves in a capitalist system, and in this country in the 21st century, that large group whose children are always a few days away from hunger while the wealthy bid up among themselves Warhol paintings into nine figures.

Obamacare can be viewed in this metaphor of a house divided by ideology that has no language that does not arouse such passion, fear and hatred, to such a degree that real engagement is impossible.  Realities such as medical care being at the margin of innovation inherently a limited supply of skilled providers and therapeutics are never addressed.  Rather we are regaled with an idealized universal availability of every treatment for all at no cost. Senator Obama's speech at the 2004 Democratic convention made the assertion, "We are not a nation of red states or blue states, but we are all red white and blue."  It got great applause, and launched him to the presidency.  Yet, it was an illusion, a hope, which was to be the byword of his first campaign.  And his signature law was also a hope,  so much so that it was sold as such, such as placebos.  These promised cures for diseases must be simplified, testimonials from those who were saved without any warning of adverse side effects.

There was never an informed discussion based on the actual choices to be made, and so it passed, based on both illusion for the masses and deals with powerful interests in the medical therapeutic complex.  And this was all leavened by something else that is actually two sides of the same coin, hope to believers and cynicism to adversaries.  As this bill became known, and took on the name of the "signature legislation" of President Obama, the actual legislation became a proxy for the ancient battle of haves and have nots, the Greek Hoi Polloi who were dismissed by Hoi Oligoi, a timeless battle that takes a different form in every era.  

I will reference two articles that as of the time of this writing have not been in the public media.  President Obama is currently on the ropes trying to find a way to retroactively repair his repeated statement that no one will lose their existing insurance. It was not a mis-statement, but like the two other issues below, were in the nature of a marketing any product to the public where the truth is stretched as far as possible, often elucidated deep in the small print of the actual sales contract. 

The first is actually an misconception that is still held by a majority of citizens that is so misleading as to be as inexcusable. "Being sick won't keep you from getting health coverage" Fact or Fiction.  The second may even be more detrimental to our government, as it has the effect of legitimizing tax evasion, ACA, Debasement of federal Internal Revenue function:  ACA, Debasement of federal Internal Revenue function:  What makes this particular deal so incongruous is that all assistance to the indigent, from food stamps to housing, depends broad acceptance of our income tax which will be diminished by this provision

At this point I will close this essay, with a separate extended discussion (in process) on historical sociological aspects.  Those who see President Obama as leading the battle for the losers of society, including those who are the spiritual and often biological descendents of actual, rather than "wage" slaves, will still admire his efforts, even if they have been rocky during the last month since the disastrous rollout.. If Obamacare is seen as the first step towards a more egalitarian, communitarian red,white and blue country, then Barack Obama will be seen as a champion of a worthy cause, whether or not it succeeds.  

In reality, we are a house divided, and probably always will be.  Can it still stand and provide something that continues to function, even if not ideally. What are the options?  I would say that making the effort to sustain our constitutional is a worthy cause.  The more we learn about other countries, other civilizations, the more we understand that forces of dissolution, both domestic and foreign, always exist. 

It has been said that the Chinese have an ancient curse, "May you live in interesting times."  Curse, challenge or opportunity, we shall see. 




  

It's only a joke-viral hate mail's new guise

First there was this in my email list from a friend who is part of a tennis group with whom we often have group discussions after the game.  He sends a load of these:

Subject: Fw: DON RICKLES--- A NATIONAL TREASURE

 If you ain't seen this, you gotta. He hits the nail right on the head!!!!

Someone from Hollywood knows the truth!!

Just had to let you see this one!!!!!!!!!  

  Only at 84 could he get away with this ...

Hello, Dummies! Oh my God, look at you. Anyone else hurt in the accident?

Seriously,Senator Reidhas a face of a Saint - A Saint Bernard. Now I know why they call you the arithmetic man. You add partisanship, subtract pleasure, divide attention, and multiply ignorance. Reid is so physically unimposing, he makes Pee Wee Herman  look like Mr. T. And Reid's so dumb, he makes Speaker Pelosi look like an intellectual. Nevada is soooo screwed! If I were less polite, I'd say Reid makes Kevin Federline look successful.  

Speaking of the Speaker...

 Nancy Pelosi,hubba, hubba! Hey baby, you must've been something before electricity. Seriously, the ex- Speaker may look like an idiot and talks like an idiot but don't let that fool you. She really is an idiot.  

Charlie Rangel ... Still alive and still robbing the taxpayers blind. What does that make, six decades of theft? Rangel's the only man with a rent-controlled mansion. He's the guy who writes our tax laws but forgot to pay taxes on $75 grand in rental  income! So why isn't he the Treasury Secretary? Rangel runs more scams than a Nigerian Banker.

Barney Frank ... he's a better actor than Fred Flintstone. Consider that he and Dodd caused the whole financial meltdown, and they're not only not serving time with Bubba and Rodney, they're still heading up the financial system! Let's all admit  it ... Barney Frank slobbers more than a sheepdog on Novocain. How did this guy get elected? Oh, that's right ... he's from Massachusetts . That's the state that elects Mr. Charisma, John Kerry -- man of the people!

You know, if 

Senator Doddwere any more crooked, you could open wine bottles with him. Here's a news flash, Dodd: When your local newspaper calls you a "lying weasel," it may be time to retire. Dodd's involved in more shady deals than the Clintons .  Even Rangel looks up to him!  

Press Secretary 

Robert Gibbs, I really respect you ... Especially given your upbringing ~ All you've overcome. I heard your birth certificate is an apology from the condom factory. I don't know what makes you so dumb, but it really works for you. Personally,  I don't think you're a fool, but what's my opinion compared to that of thousands of others?  

As for 

President Hussein Obama, what can I say? They say Hussein is arrogant and aloof, but I don't agree. Now it's true when you enter the room, you have to kiss his ring. I don't mind, but he has it in his back pocket.  

His mind is open to new ideas -- so open that ideas simply pass through it. Obama lies so much, I was actually surprised to find out his first name really is Barry or Barack or something? Just don't ask about his middle name! But Obama was able to set a record...  He actually lied more in one day thanBill Clinton did in four years.  

President Obama just completed the UNHOLY and ANTI-AMERICAN TRIFECTA:

1st president in 110 years to miss the annual Army-Navy Football Game.

1st president to not attend any Christmas religious observance.

1st president to stay on vacation after a terrorist attack.

AND ALL IN THE SAME MONTH! WHAT A GREAT MUSLIM PRESIDENT!!

So, Are You Going To Share This WITH ALL YOUR FRIENDS?

OR ... AM I GONNA HAVE TO COME LOOKING FOR YA?

----------------

I  drafted the following response;

 

Don Rickles certainly is a national treasure.  He manages to  get away with his cutting humor to be a parody of an out spoken guy, a bit like Groucho Marx sometimes got away with on "You bet your life."

The list of his of not-so-funny personal attacks, often deriding physical appearance of Democratic party members and President Obama isn't even a selection of things he said over the years, and are an illustration of how Rickles differs from those who would really say such things.

One of the problems of this type of fake story, is that the description of actual defects of Democratic policies are seen as similar mean spirited attacks.  There is less receptivity for a genuine discussion of our national policies, which takes a bit of work, at least enough to realize that characterizations that start out as trying to be funny, can metastasize into something much more serious.

This was sent from a satiric site that acknowledges it not only wasn't by Rickles, but not even in his style.

By the way, this rmail is not meant to say  that this kind of distortion that pretends to be satire only comes from the right:

I came across this article, Ted Cruz: “I believe in the Jesus who died to save himself, not enable lazy followers to be dependent on him”

There was a photo of him speaking in the Senate, of a size defining a video clip, which I assumed was of the material quoted below:

“What we have here is our core values as Americans and Christians slipping away into this facade where we should take care of our poor, sick, and disabled,” said Cruz in hour 19 of his filibuster. “It is disheartening to know that the nation our forefathers built is no longer of importance to our president and his Democratic counterparts. Not only that, we are falling away from core Christian values. I don’t know about you, but I believe in the Jesus who died to save himself, not enable lazy followers to be dependent on him. He didn’t walk around all willy nilly just passing out free healthcare to those who were sick, or food to those who were hungry, or clothes to those in need. No, he said get up, brush yourself off, go into town and get a job, and as he hung on the cross he said,”I died so that I may live in eternity with my Father. If you want to join us you can die for yourself and your own sins. What do I look like, your savior or something?” That’s the Jesus I want to see brought back into our core values as a nation. That’s why we need to repeal Obamacare.”

Kind of a strange speech, and like the Rickles one, it is supposed to be satire. Cruz never said it, but tens of thousands of liberals will think that he did.  It would be great if we could simply continue to laugh at what public figures are said to have said, and leave real governing up to those we elect.  It would be great, but they're not really doing much of a job. If people made the effort to call those who spread things that are simply false, and then call it a joke, even though most people don't know its a joke, maybe we could get past anger. 

I wouldn't bet on it happening though.

Regards

Al

----------------

I pondered whether to send this, and decided not to.  Those who hate Obama will have enjoyed reading the email that confirmed their worst suspicions, and to know that their beliefs are shared by someone such as Don Rickles.  Once an extremely demeaning email was sent with a child like Obama riding a tricycle away  from an American Tank, with hostile references to his family.  My angry response from the forwarder was, "It's only a Joke."  So, it's useless to respond to these, as it would be to try to promulgate my criticism of the so called Ted Cruz satire.  We are conditioned to respond to every political or social issue with a quick laugh, or maybe, "a shrug of the shoulders."  Doing more, trying to actually have an effect on our political culture is seen as simply an idle waste of time.  

As it most likely is.

---

A viable political culture- it's up to citizens

10/19/13

Over the last week, as we were approaching reaching the Debt Limit with both sides talking past each other, I had a rising sense of frustration, a need to do something about it. Since my Congressional district had just been remapped to be represented by a key Republican, Darrell Issa, who was, while not a member, talking the Tea Party line, I realized that this district was somewhat divided;  and given the drop in his party's approval over the shutdown, pressure from moderates could make him shift his position.  First I tried to get a local columnist whom I knew to contact him, which he would not do;  then I decided to do it myself since I had the emails of several hundred locals.  Working late into the night I sent out the first email to the list with the Representative's contact information, suggesting that he be told that he could have a press conference the next day to shift to a moderate stand.  While it was mostly due to political changes, he did do exactly what I had suggested, and ultimately voted for the stopgap extension. 

Yet, after a day of feeling satisfied by my effort, I soon realized that nothing had changed, that the conflict between the two parties had not even begun to be addressed, and that we were only a few months away from a replay of this standoff, once again with dire consequences staring us in the face. 

Since the process of writing an essay is fluid, meaning that that when I start down a path, I do some on-line verification of my premise before proceeding.  I was going to use Ted Cruz as another example of fundamentalist, actually Christian dominionist, which provides some of the motivation of the tea party. In my searching,  I came across this article, Ted Cruz: “I believe in the Jesus who died to save himself, not enable lazy followers to be dependent on him”

There was a photo of him speaking in the Senate, of a size defining a video clip, which I assumed was of the material quoted below:

“What we have here is our core values as Americans and Christians slipping away into this facade where we should take care of our poor, sick, and disabled,” said Cruz in hour 19 of his filibuster. “It is disheartening to know that the nation our forefathers built is no longer of importance to our president and his Democratic counterparts. Not only that, we are falling away from core Christian values. I don’t know about you, but I believe in the Jesus who died to save himself, not enable lazy followers to be dependent on him. He didn’t walk around all willy nilly just passing out free healthcare to those who were sick, or food to those who were hungry, or clothes to those in need. No, he said get up, brush yourself off, go into town and get a job, and as he hung on the cross he said,”I died so that I may live in eternity with my Father. If you want to join us you can die for yourself and your own sins. What do I look like, your savior or something?” That’s the Jesus I want to see brought back into our core values as a nation. That’s why we need to repeal Obamacare.”

The article continued, "Both Republicans and Democrats are in utter shock and disbelief at these remarks and pretty much almost everyone sans some Tea Party Republicans are distancing themselves from Cruz. Political pundits and Christian academics don’t even know what to say. However, what they do know, is that Senator Ted Cruz most certainly does not appear to be a Christian with the proper knowledge of the Bible."

My reaction was that this was a slip-up by a fatigued Cruz, not unlike Candidate Romney's being caught saying that the 47% of Americans who will never vote for him wanted government to be responsible for among other things providing them with "food."   While most Americans do not advocate that government provide all things to all people, most do want it to prevent starvation.  Romney actually spoke those words, so it was not out of the question that Cruz had re-interpreted Christian theology to create a different Christ, who even as he was dying, in his heart was a Tea Party conservative. 

This article received 22,000 facebook "share"s, so was probably read by hundreds of thousands of people, mostly liberals who were further enraged that conservative Republicans revere Cruz and his goals.  Only because I read deep into the comments section did I discover that this article was a fake, that Cruz did not say these words or anything like it.  This was written as satire, as legally it is.  Yet, when misrepresentation is seen as the actual words by the vast majority of readers, is it still really satire?  The owners of this web site knew pretty soon that this was taken as a real quote, which is not the way real satire works, as the humor, and the effectiveness,  is in the realization by the reader of the message's absurdity.  Yet the website did not add clarification so that to this day the many links expand those who believe these are the actual words of this Senator, further justifying his views being marginalized.

What this article did achieve is raising the disapproval of the Tea Party agenda even more  among most American, yet it does so by a device that is not unlike that used against Barack Obama, such as the accusations of his being in his heart a Muslim, or a socialist, and or an atheist.  Details never matter when the opposition has become a mortal enemy, only being judged on whether a given action further advances the goal of vanquishing the foe.  This article would be seen as the actual quotes of Cruz on the Democratic site "Dailykos. com" where I have a couple hundred essays stored.  I discontinued writing there when they made a rule, subject to the worst punishment of banishment the "posting of Republican talking points."  They do not prohibit Democratic talking points, which is based not only on their political orientation, but that such things do not exist.

A large proportion of Americans have tuned out of politics, dismissing the entire enterprise as hopeless with words such as, "A pox on both your houses."  The rest have joined one or another of the sides, if not by formal registration with a party, by an identification with either the left or right, even if they also retain a large dose of contempt for both political parties.

We have developed, in our national legislature as well as our broader culture, a division that is so deep that it defies being transcended.  It is not a matter of finding less acrimonious rules of engagement, the elimination of angry words or increasing social interaction between the two sides, but it is a manifestation of something much more profound that few have acknowledge exists.  Just as in 1860, the conflict between those who wanted to continue to use their "sub-human productive resources" that they owned without hindrance and those who saw such a system as an abomination was beyond a negotiated resolution, we have similar conflicts at this time.  The differences in language then, such as the preceding term for African slaves, reflected a deep difference in self interest. ; so too our current language is reflective of deep differences in values that will not be resolved by discussion, no matter who civil.  Yet, debasement of language can make a reasoned compromise, even if only a compromise for the common good, impossible.  In fact, wars of words are prone to escalation, as the inclusion of the uncertain "affordability" of  the healthcare law of 2010 to be an affirmation of this in its very name, lead to the alternative, Obamacare, which while reluctantly embraced by the President,  turned this law into a personification of one individual, whose actions like every President's, is an object of partisan hatred. This linguistic war,  a version of propaganda or it's current term, "framing," turns a potential discussion of the many complex elements of this law into an exchange of epithets, supported by repetitive soundbites that only have a passing resemblance to actual discourse.

Historiography (a word meaning the interpretation of actual events, which is "history") has a way of sorting such past events into moral categories that were never so clear when they were occurring.  At the time before WWII, for instance, the debate over U.S. intervention was intense, and even those who were against  fascism could make a decision, looking at the communist alternative, not to oppose it.   Another aspect of this very same phenomenon is that before the clarification of actually being at war, every discussion or analysis of the issues becomes a proxy for war-like engagement.  Put another way, on December 6th 1941, America was at war with itself, two days latter "we," an instantly united people were at war with the axis forces.  The United States is at this time in such a pre- Pearl Harbor internecine conflict, where the ordnance is language-as-propaganda, rather than deadly weapons  The collateral damage is real; even quantifiable during the recent shutting down of government.  The catastrophic damage that many fear if the United States actually defaulted should be put in context, as it reflects an ideological difference that approaches in intensity that felt by the two sides of the cold war. Then the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction was a reflection of how strongly the people on the two sides embraced their own, and rejected the other's, core ideologies. Like our standoff between political parties last week, mutual nuclear destruction never was triggered.  In some way, the cold war may have been the inadvertent cause of a decades long stimulus program that allowed our economy to thrive. The current war of words across our internal political divide, may also be great for the radio industry and certain TV channels, but like the potential cost of the cold war had it turned hot, we must look at what this escalated war of words is costing us now, and would cost if we drifted into actually defaulting, the overhanging threat that is comparable to MAD. .
  

This article is written  to make a case, not for one side of the cultural-politcal divide or the other, but for a new way of engagement.  It would not be one that would be more polite or even less emotionally hurtful, but one that will be honest, even brutally so. The current mode of our national discourse is failing us, the example of the Cruz "satire" only being the least of it, as the media survives on simplistic transformation of the great issues of our day into entertainment, defined by quick laughs, or stoking the target audience's rage; with serious analysis that develops a possible inter-partisan dialog absolutely excluded. This type of metaphorical war, unlike military wars, lacks the capacity to be visualized by the movement of front lines displayed on maps  The casualties of this war do not lend themselves to quantification, nor does the military costs or loss of productivity.  This partisan warfare has become a part of our culture, available to be tapped by those such as the website that printed the Cruz satire to gain advertising revenue, the same way that Rush Limbaugh or Jon Stewart does and increasingly the New York Times, without any acknowledgement of the damage done to our political culture.   

We are deluded by the historiography that allows us to think that the words first made popular by Martin Luther King, Jr, are invariably true that, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."   This deludes us into believing that our own views, those of our group, represents such an arc-- Ted Cruz actually did compare his personal crusade against the ACA as being like those who courageous men who stood up against Hitler.  History shows a different reality, that any moment of  time is only part of the long secession of events that are variations of Hegel's "thesis and antithesis" reflected in long cycles of prosperity and deprivation, liberation and enslavement and enlightenment and suppression that will inevitably has been humanity's destiny.  Accepting harsh reality, need not be enervating, but will moderate the true believer's enthusiasm that can be too easily become homicidal hatred towards those who block their moral crusade.  

My earliest memory was the dropping of the Atomic bomb, which was to lead to the world divided with both sides having thermonuclear Armageddon at their fingertips. The leaders of each side during this cold war, while convinced that the arc of justice was defined by their ideology, yet, and this is vital, also had an understanding that this ferver had to be subordinated to the higher imperative of survival.  "Better red than dead" was matched with "better capitalist than dead" and so we survived that high risk half century to be alive to make it to the unimagined possibilities of this time.  The danger now is the descent of this country into a war that we can't even see, can't even grasp, that could lead to tragedy. 

The tragedy will not come from the apocalypse of an exchange of thermonuclear weapons, as this need not any longer occur.  The world of my childhood was somewhat self sustaining, as countries were more self sufficient, communications were by written words on paper, with financial investments memorialized in documents that were available for inspection.  For a country to become bankrupted, it would have to engage in overt actions that, for this country, would require decisions of multiple branches of government.  It would be impossible for a minority of elected officials to cause catastrophic harm. Given the implementation of the policies popularized by John Meynard keynes, successful advanced countries all engage in deficit spending, especially during slow economic growth.  Without much contemplation of the potential abuse, it became customary to require an act of congress, which was designed to allow a minority of either of the two houses or the President to demand a super majority, to validate payment for expenses that had already been made.  In the recent impasse, 35% of the single lower house, against the will of the Senate and the President, were able to bring us to the brink of unknown economic harm.  

I make the assertion that what divides us, what underlies the rage of this minority,  are not misunderstandings, but the most fundamental of differences that are almost have become too "shocking" to articulate, yet the greater danger is if we do not do so. While it may follow at this point that I should say exactly what these differences are, and having defined the problem, give examples along with the solution; I will not do that for the very reason that I wrote this essay, that such statements, to the degree that they can be quoted in isolation, make one subject to the the most extreme sanctions- personal vilification or even given one's position, punishment for hate speech. The challenge is to attempt to change the mode of discourse, to sensitize readers to the vital need of a common language that will not be designed to advance one political side or the other, but rather the goal of real engagement.  It must also be an idiom that allows expressions of what we consider the worst aspects of individuals their identity groups.  How do we criminalize hate speech, when hated of others is a part of what it is to be human.  In reality, we have not prevented words of contempt for target groups, but only consigned them to venues of like minded people, where they can flourish with uncontested approval by kindred minds.

In the halls of Congress this takes on a different tone, as every word is on the record.  On the floor there are parallel speeches, broadcast to the country, but each addressed to a separate partisan group.  While at one level the elected officials may know that this is for home consumption, but those getting excerpts from their favored media are never told of the need for accommodating those of differing interests.  In the absence of real dialogue, sound bites become reality, words of not accepting "abject surrender" spoken by the Republican leader become internalized, and have an effect when such a surrender does take place.  The hatred builds and festers on both sides, and the public never understands how a moral hero such as Abraham Lincoln could have been murdered by one who felt in his heart that he was killing a tyrant--a tone of hatred that is gathering in Washington for our current hold
of that office.

For me, accepting this state of affairs is more depressing than making an effort to get others to join to demand a different type of politics.  If it fails, then so be it, as I will have the satisfaction of knowing that I tried within my own individual limits. I have tried to start a group of citizens who will make certain demands on our local Congressman to change the focus of the committee that he leads to personal attacks on the president to actual evaluation of the ACA, it's promises and its realities.  This must be well on its way before the next budget showdown that will occur in a few short months. Representative democracy has its limits, but inherent in these vulnerabilities to be responsive to the will of uninformed masses or the interests of great wealth, is the possibility of individual citizens becoming a coherent force that challenges both of these forces. 

It is to this hope of nurturing such citizen activity that this essay was written.
----------------------------

Email sent to my district on debt limit crisis

Sunday October 13, 2013

This is meant to answer the question of why Republicans would refuse to raise the debt limit.  It is for those who accept the premise of this article in The Wall Street Journal, A Federal Default Invites Catastrophe.

"I have always been amazed that anyone would choose to play Russian roulette. Who could ever be so bored, so irresponsible, or have such low future aspirations that they would flirt willfully with death while having nothing to gain?

Yet Congress is doing just that with the debt ceiling. Except there won't be just one victim. Every American will suffer."

This warning has been echoed by financial experts of both parties, the only disagreement being who is at fault. Ultimately, that question pales when considering the potential destruction that could be caused by the chain of events that could take down the house of cards of our international economic system. 

If this is simply partisan politics at play, the refusal to give the Democratic President a "win," then nothing could be more misguided.  Two polls, Gallup and NBC-WSJ have shown a precipitous drop in approval of the Republican brand, the public blaming them, just as in the quoted article.  Obamacare has enough faults that will become evident over time, the latest described in today's N.Y.Times on the conceptual, managerial and technical causes of the Sign Up software "glitch."  I have a list of my own on AlRodbell.com.  Ironically, the Republican threat of activating the debt limit debacle has actually increased Obamacare's popularity.

Since there is no rational reason for Republicans not to defuse the debt crisis and reopen government (they have already voted to pay the salaries of those they won't let do their jobs),  I see only these two explanations.  The first is fundamentalist evangelical dogma, as articulated by Michele Bachmann who was for a time the leading candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination.  Just last week as reported in a Christian News Website, in response to another issue, she is quoted as saying that although she believes the events described to be a sign of the end times, she is not fearful:  "Rather than seeing this as a negative, we need to rejoice, Maranatha, come Lord Jesus, His day is at hand," Bachmann said. "When we see up is down and right is called wrong, when this is happening, we were told this: that these days would be as the days of Noah."

So, for those who , like Bachman, welcome "end times," a worldwide economic catastrophe would be an event to be wished for.  The other possibility is more mundane; that for certain key house Republicans, controlling exactly when this threat will be diffused is to influence a highly volatile stock market.  Last week, based on whether the news was optimistic or not, the aggregate market swung by hundreds of Dow points, representing trillions of dollars of capitalization.  A handful of powerful Representatives could take positions in leveraged options that would soar or plummet as we approach D day.  They have one major advantage over you and me, control over the events that determine the timing and direction of the gyration.

North County San Diego's Representative Daryl Issa is one of the most powerful Republicans in the House, who as a businessman understands the veracity of the quoted WSJ article; yet on his website we see no acknowledgement of this.  If he chose to have a press conference on Monday, breaking with the "Russian Roulette" wing of his party, it could open the floodgates of rationality among all but the most rigid tea party ideologues.  This threat overhanging the world could be over.  Just by accident, I and most of those who receive this email get to vote on whether he keeps his job. If he realizes that there is a surge of anger in his district against letting this ticking time bomb of a debt limit explode, he could decide to choose rationality over fanaticism.   

This sentiment has to be conveyed to him, and quickly!  This is the link to send Issa an email, (on the bottom "general topic" drop-down, click "Federal Budget.")  If you want to follow up with a call, the number is 202-225-3906.  Those not in his district can start here to find your own Member of Congress, but this only matters on this issue if he/she is a Republican.

This is no game; or if it is, those who are orchestrating it should be punished for imposing it on us all.
------------------------
10/15/2013  I PM EST

This morning I  spoke to Bachman's office which confirmed the quote in the letter.  I also tried to reach Issa by phone before and after 9 AM and was told their phone message cache was full. I called several other representatives, all of whom, except the speaker, had staffers to take my message,referencing this site.

Monday, on CNN Issa was interviewed on Situation Room, and responded to Wolf Blitzer's query, "Would you vote for the Senate compromise to extend the dates several months with no substantive change to Obamacare" with "Absolutely"   He then explained why this would work, having never previously stated agreement with what I describe in the letter above as this pragmatic rational  viewpoint.

Debt Limit Crisis-Beyond Soundbites

Saturday, October 12, 2013--

  Now, the pain of the shutdown and the cost even in anticipation of the debt ceiling is starting to be felt.  I will post my historical analogy of this pending crisis with  previous catastrophes such as WWI and the Civil War for those who are interested in such an analysis. , and refer readers to the right side of my website for articles that I have written about specific failures in the ACA, just to illustrate that this is not a liberal screed, but an attempt to describe a potential collapse of the world's economy.

The damage caused by the impending default imposed by the debt ceiling to the  interconnected world economy has been expressed by a variety of sources of both political parties.The single animating force that is driving those who are willing to risk this calamity is antipathy towards  the Affordable Healthcare Act, which I will call ACA,  a law that has taken on the name "Obamacare" approved by the President in an attempt preempt the slur.  In actuality it has allowed the law to be associated with the man, his values and humanity, which should never have been accepted for something this meaningful.

I write this essay as one who carefully followed the process of passing this law, writing several articles on a Democratic web site with pointed descriptions of its serious defects.  I also foresee the extent of the calamity that will be caused if those, who like me, oppose this law use its defects to actually damage the rapid reliable exchange of securities and currency that is the electric current that energizes our worldwide economic system.  The United States is too big to go around, to much a part of this international grid to be avoided.  If those who fear this, people in key positions of finance and government fear a catastrophe, it is because there will be one of unknown proportions.

I also feel that ACA is much more than a way of providing healthcare to more people, but a law that was never evaluated on first principles, which should have been how does society marshal resources to provide a needed service.  In many respects ACA  was sold to the people and passed by Congress using the same dynamics as the Iraq War Resolution of 2002.  In that case the metaphor was "spreading democracy and combating evil." while the underlying forces may have been the military industrial complex in all its power using absurd buzz words to get revenge for 9-11 on the single country most opposed to Al Qaida, the actual perpetrators.  As bad a decision as invading Iraq was, that war would eventually end, and the loss of life will only be a million or so at a cost of several trillion dollars, and we can close the book on that chapter-ignoring the ongoing carnage that we unleashed on that country.

ACA is more than a health care law, but a redefinition of our culture. I claim the right to make this statement as during the development of this law I actively engaged members of the sponsoring party in an attempt to have a rational, rather than an emotional, evaluation of its effects.  I happen to empathize with the Republicans who are using their constitutional rights to hold the country and the world hostage to prevent this law from taken effect. Yet, they are making a tragic mistake in pushing this too far. 

With the thousand of Television hours of live Congressional coverage and pundit evaluation it reduces down to a few sound bites, that inevitably lead to an impasse--as it must given the embargo on acknowledgement of the deeper effects of ACA.  Paul Krugman  the New York Times Nobel Prize winning economist leads in depicting the "hostage takers" without any understanding of the reason for their opposition.  All he sees is a first draft of a law that will help the sick poor get well.  If we stopped there, if that were the sum total of ACA, his argument would be irrefutable.  But he does not go beyond the ranting of the media Rush Limbaughs to caricature the opposition, thus whether aware of it or not, bringing the discussion down to that level.  He ignores the willful distortions of those who promoted this law personified by the Speakers statement, "We have to pass the law to see what it does. "   Yet, after the law was passed and we could start to see what it does, especially since some provisions of the law had nothing to do with expanding insurance, but were modifications of Medicare regulations that have already taken effect, there was no Congressional openness to evaluations of the larger effect.

Just as "You can keep the insurance that you now have...." turned out to be a sales pitch rather than what would actually occur, so to was the implicit promise of the new law being only a first approximation that is open to change once we see what it does. I will relegate to the addendum, the references, a few my own, others by those with greater expertise, that support my argument I make here.  The first is from the times the day after the roll out, that shows how two thirds of the very poorest will get absolutely no addition care, now will that occur under this law.  This could have been anticipated by the compromises within the law and the details of the Supreme Court Decision that eliminated the mandate on expanded Medicaid.  

Those liberals who fail to understand what underlies the anger of the right wing Republicans, whose strength is focused in the House of Representatives, miss the essence of this historical conflict.  Such obliviousness to the legitimacy of their cause will not help to resolve this very dangerous impasse, but could make the disaster that it portends actually occur. 

We need to go beyond the soundbites that are repeated by each side ad nauseam to make resolution of this impasse not a victory for either side.  The promises that accompanied the passage of this law should not be ignored as simply "political promises" as it is represents too vast a cultural change to be so trivialized.  Those right wing advocates are not to be demonized for attempting to treat ACA for what it is, and to challenge it taking effect without any indication that the promise of revision will be welcomed by the promoters.

---------------------
Addendum:
Millions of Poor Are Left Uncovered by Health Law
This NY Times article shows the reality that the very target of ACA, the poorest who have no access to medical care, have only learned when the exchanges opened that they are not included in this program.  

Concierge practice will increase under ACA, meaning that the middle class who can't afford it will have diminished service.

 Being sick wont keep you from getting insurance, true or false-  You will be surprised at the answer.







My article in the Humanist that describes a one line provision in ACA that will change the doctor patient relationship and cause great harm among vast numbers of the elderly with memory loss, which is all of us.