145. Healthcare reform is necessary

That healthcare stocks rose in anticipation of Republican Scott Brown's victory in the Massachusetts Senate race says everything one needs to know about who benefits from the present healthcare system. It is this corporate interest in healthcare that has prevailed-one that thwarts progress, denies coverage and lets people die. Consider the following address to Congress on healthcare:

"Millions of Americans are just a pink slip away from losing their health insurance, and one serious illness away from losing all their savings. Millions more are locked into the jobs they have now just because they or someone in their family has once been sick and they have what is called the preexisting condition. And on any given day, over 37 million Americans -- most of them working people and their little children -- have no health insurance at all.

And in spite of all this, our medical bills are growing at over twice the rate of inflation, and the United States spends over a third more of its income on health care than any other nation on Earth. And the gap is growing, causing many of our companies in global competition a severe disadvantage. There is no excuse for this kind of system. We know other people have done better. We have no excuse. My fellow Americans, we must fix this system and it has to begin with congressional action."

You might be surprised to know that these are not the words of President Barack Obama; rather, they are the words of former President Bill Clinton made on September 22, 1993.

It's been over sixteen years and almost nothing has changed.

In 2000, the World Health Organization ranked the United States 37th in healthcare in comparison to other healthcare systems in the world. In 2004, Timothy Stoltzfus Jost wrote this in the Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics:

"All other developed countries of the world (other that the United States) including developed countries in Western Europe, Asia, North and South America, and on the Pacific Rim, provide healthcare for all or most of their residents. Although private health care products are available for purchase on a voluntary basis in virtually every country, no other developed country relies on private insurance as does the United State to provide coverage for its population. All developed countries have recognized that voluntary private insurance cannot cover everyone, and have developed some form of public health insurance."

Well . . . every developed country except one.

There is no denying that reforming healthcare is a difficult, even an overwhelming task. There are billions of dollars at stake; it's very complicated, with plenty of intricacies and interests. It should not be surprising that those with the most to lose, those that have preyed on the American healthcare system for decades to the tune of millions in profits, would fight the hardest. Healthcare corporations, pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies not only influence politicians (both Republicans and Democrats) through election donations and lobbying, they also make millions for their shareholders through the financial incentive not to pay claims or not to insure those that have preexisting conditions.

It is interesting to note, and maybe surprising to some, that private insurance administrative costs can exceed twenty percent, while government can be as low as three percent. Interesting and surprising, but it makes perfect sense. Private insurance companies have an incentive not to pay claims, to create huge salaries for the directors and returns for their shareholders. Government insurance has no incentive to deny coverage, only to prevent fraud. There are no profits, unreasonable salaries or ridiculous bonuses.

It stands to reason that any piece of legislation so large, and so complicated, would not be completely agreeable to anyone. Obviously, with so many ideologies and interests, it would be impossible to make everyone happy. This realization has been the basis of the Republican opposition to the bill.

With that, I've grown tired of the argument made by Republican politicians that, "yes, we need healthcare reform, but . . ." In addition to the reasonable concerns, there has been an unfortunate amount of political propaganda by Republicans, the right wing media and special interest groups. The propaganda includes not only inaccuracies about specifics like illegal immigration and "death panels," it also provides the normal rhetoric about socialism. The worst from the right has made this debate personal, bordering on hate-directed squarely at President Obama.

The healthcare reform proposed is far from perfect, and there are aspects of it that frustrate me. Personally, I would like a complete overhaul of the system, a start from scratch. However, the question really is whether or not we are better with this reform or without it. Will this reform increase the access and decrease the cost of healthcare in America? Will more people be covered; will there be fewer deaths and bankruptcies?

Arguments about specifics are largely about the politic interest of Republicans and the financial interests of large healthcare corporations. It is not that they are not important, and should not be negotiated and compromised to the extent possible-they should-rather it is that it is being used to create anxiety, misconceptions and anger. It is selfish and, at times, ridiculous.

The most legitimate concern stemming from the proposed legislation is the concern for the national debt. However, it is a matter of priorities and Congressman Dennis Kucinich may have said it best, "The United States is going deeper and deeper into debt. We have money for Wall Street and money for war but we don't have money for work . . . for healthcare. We have to start asking ourselves, ‘Why is it that war is a priority but the basic needs of people in this country are not?'"

The bottom-line is that we have the wealth and ability to provide quality healthcare for everyone. We need Republicans and Democrats, rich and poor, corporations and nonprofits, and blacks and whites to put aside their interests, differences and prejudices to get this done.

After World War II, England decided that healthcare would be a right for their citizens. If healthcare reform fails, it is likely that we will spent nearly a century in the dark ages by the time meaningful reform is realized.

But at least healthcare stocks will be up.

144. Decade challenging, rewarding

I watched "Scrooged" last night with my wife, a movie which can certainly make one start to think about his or her own life. I have also been reading about "people of the decade," and can hardly believe that the first decade of the 21st century is already coming to an end.

I remember the 1990s in two parts. The first part I spent finishing my undergraduate degree, and while I was also working full time-it was a security job, whose only burden was the third shift hours. But any trouble this may have been was offset by the free time I spent playing both baseball and racquetball, traveling the country with friends and teammates-having a great time.

The second half of the 1990s was spent meeting, dating and marrying my wife. As most will remember-it is among the best years of your life. We went to racquetball tournaments together, spent the summers watching Indians baseball, going to movies and plays, and took vacation/weekend trips we could not afford. We were on the poor side-heavy credit card debt, living in a mobile home-but we had fun, with few worries and lots of laughs.

This decade, however, has been the polar opposite. It has been about work and school and doing the things, that, well, I probably should have been doing in the 1990s.

In February of 2000, we moved into our new house, and while excited, we faced the American responsibility of a mortgage and taxes and insurance, and everything else associated with owning a home. That excitement was mellowed with the declining health of my father. I coached baseball that spring at Keystone High School, but recall the burden of wanting to spend time with our new home and trying to make the trip to the Cleveland Clinic to see my ailing father. He passed away in June of that year, without ever seeing me coach, read a column, or attend my graduation. He saw my new house only once. One of my last memories with my father was sitting in hospital room watching the Browns beat New Orleans for their first win in their return to the NFL.

In September of 2000, I started my MBA program. From 2000-2002, my routine was consistent-work all day, school all evening. I specifically recall a dinner with my wife at a point where she knew I was overwhelmed-she said, "You just get through this, I'll take care everything else." It provided me with inspiration I needed. When I finished my MBA, I said the same thing that I said when I finished my bachelor's degree, "That is the last class I will ever take."

In 2002 we still faced heavy debt, as the MBA did not have the immediate payoff that I had hoped. I coached baseball again that spring, this time at Lake Ridge Academy. In early 2003, I entered the Nursing Home Administration intern program-working with a woman that I met in my MBA program. The internship paid next to nothing, so I worked a second full time job at May Credit-sometimes until 3:00 am. In between, I worked a third job at Five Season Country Club, part-time, just to get through it. I knew healthcare was an up and coming field and was likely to offer more opportunity that manufacturing. Until now, however, I thought that was the most difficult time of my life. I hardly saw my wife, and we rented out rooms in our house to my friend and my brother just to make ends meet.

In October 2003, the internship ended and I started substitute teaching in Lorain, while still working at May Credit. In November, the nursing home I had worked for had an interim administrator opening in Toledo and asked if I was interested. It was a "real" job again-even if it was only temporary and even if it was in Toledo. I kept my job at May Credit however, because I knew this was an interim position and I had yet to hear whether or not I had passed my licensing exam.

I started writing for the Amherst News-Times in August 2003. I remember my first column-I was away from home, staying in an interesting $25 per night room in Columbus. We spent our last dime-even once having my debit card for the room refused-getting me through the required "Executive Education" course at Ohio State. My wife called me to tell me my first story had run.

In December, I learned that I had passed my test. I was stuck in a snowstorm in Toledo when my wife called and asked how this room was. She simply said, "Is it nice enough for a licensed nursing home administrator?"

In 2004, the nursing home offered me a job closer to home in Milan-but there was still uncertainty about my position. The days were long and difficult, the pay still wasn't that great, and so I kept my May Credit job. I applied for many other administrator positions, but the competition turned out to be steeper that I had realized-many of the people also had master's degree and had spent their entire professional lives in nursing homes.

I entered the Leadership Lorain County program in September of 2004 looking for a bit of a competitive advantage and had a professional awakening-learning about Lorain County, meeting new people.

Finally, in 2005, my hard work paid off when I was offered a job at the Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services Board of Lorain County. I had a job close to home, relatively secure, that I found to be rewarding. Later in 2005, I heard that my job at May Credit would be coming to an end-the company had been bought out. I kept this job until it was officially closed in early 2006.

In 2006, I spent my free time as president of the Center For Inquiry of Northeast Ohio. It was an overwhelming task which not only took every bit of free time that I had finally spared with the end of my second job, it also took most of my wife's free time-but at least we were finally seeing each other again.

Then, in 2007, I made the decision to go back to school, for one final time-this time law school. I felt that professionally, to achieve some of my goals, I needed this additional education. In 2008, we spent our tax return to fly me out to California to take the required "Baby Bar."

This year, however, has been, without a doubt, the most challenging of my life. I began freelancing with The Chronicle Telegram in February to help pay for some of the costs of going to law school. I've enjoyed the experience meeting and learning about the people of Lorain County-but it has taken a toll. With six law school classes, and my job at the Alcohol and Drug Board, I barely have a moment to breath.

This decade has been a whirlwind, and while there has been some professional progress, my health has become dismal-and without a new focus, this hard work will have been for nothing. And my poor wife . . . what she has endured-the ups and downs, the new endeavors. I can't imagine trying to have gone through this without her.

In addition to the hard work, I'll remember the decade in many other ways. I became involved in politics, moving left in becoming a Democrat and a vegetarian, and joining several political and community organizations like the Lorain County Solid Waste Policy Committee, Lorain Family YMCA, American Civil Liberties Union and American Constitutional Society. I'll remember the elections of George Bush and Barack Obama, and the terrorists attacks, wars and country's economic meltdown. Finally, I'll not forget the personal moments, such as my wife's miscarriage, the loss of my wife's father and death of our dear dog, Shea.

Goals for the next decade include finishing law school and passing the bar. I also want to write a book or two. But, more importantly, I want to have more free time, and time to take better care of myself. I want to play racquetball again, this time just for fun. I also would like to play golf, and maybe softball. I would like to spend more time with friends and family-relaxed, taking the intensity down a level or two. And I want to be there more for my wife and our dogs-they deserve it.

Consider this a toast to the holiday season and a new decade. What goals do you have, what is on your bucket list-what will the ghosts of Christmas future bring you?

143. Issues were decided by marketing

A few post election thoughts.

As expected, Issue 2 passed and is now engrained in the Ohio Constitution. With the farmers raising four million dollars and the opposition barely scrapping up enough for a few door hangers, the result offers a peak into modern American democracy.

Although those of us in opposition did everything we could in terms of sending emails and using social networking to speak out against it, the sad fact is that as long as Americans remain disengaged in the democratic process, things like this will continue to happen. Without researching the issue further, many Ohioans were subject to marketing ploys that included keeping "outsiders" or "radical" groups out and bipartisan "robo" calls from Governor Ted Strickland and U.S. Senator George Voinovich.

This was bad government pandering to corporate interest-and the truth is that people just did not understand. What happened to the small government people, the people who do not trust large corporations, the people who want to protect the state constitution, and the people who like animals? Republicans and Democrats alike, this should have been very easy to defeat.

In my many discussions on the subject, I heard a few things that surprised me. First, many people do not understand what a big business factory farming really is. There was a continued misperception that local famers represented the farming industry. Many small farming organizations/unions opposed Issue 2. Factory farmers are a powerful political group dedicated to profit above anything else-which includes your health and the welfare of their animals.

Secondly, I did not realize the prejudice there is against vegetarians and animal groups. Some people relished in the opportunity to "stick it" those who think that animals should a decent life before ending up on a dinner plate. Few had actually read Proposition 2 that received overwhelming support in California-but they were determined to defeat it before it got started.

Then there were the absurd, arguments that had no basis in reality. One person told me that chickens have more room than children in classrooms. Another told me that if this failed, eggs would go up to $12 a dozen. And, then, there was the nearly incomprehensible response from Representative Boose, who, of course, said the issue was about taxes. If this issue had anything to do with taxes, those in the state legislature that supported for that reason ought to resign from office for deceptively misrepresenting a constitutional amendment to the public. The aim presented to the public was the creation of a "standards board." The reasons presented were safety and the fear of "radical" animal groups. The motive was clearly profit.

The surprising reality of the situation is that this does not prevent reform of the farming industry. The Humans Society of the United States did not spend money in opposition because a new amendment, one that includes actual farming standards, can just as easily be proposed to the voters of the state in a year or two. In the end, the whole thing was ridiculous.

I was not surprised that Issue 3 passed. It was only a matter of time and this seemed to be the best proposal presented thus far. Too many manufacturing jobs have been forever lost and the state needed to find new job opportunities. If money was going to be spent by Ohioans on gambling, it is probably best that it is spent here. I do fear that gambling problems will ensue, and it is usually the poor that is enticed to gamble away a rent payment.

Conversely, I was a bit surprised that Issue 4 failed. It is true, however, that many people are still feeling the effects of the recession and just do not have the money to support any tax increase. Yet, this issue was geared at safety and failure means that citizens of Lorain County will continue to feel the effects of reduced safety forces (and other social services). It's unfortunate that we have to choose between low taxes (which Lorain County has) and safety. I thought the tax was fair, since it was a sales tax, but many people are now against all taxes.

In local races, I was disappointed that several political offices ran nearly unopposed. Voters cannot have it both ways, they cannot continue to fight everything local politicians are trying to do, and then vote them back into office year after year.

Voters need to step up and be accountable-they need to understand the issues, question candidates on their values, and get involved in politics. Do not let issues be won be on the basis of money or slick marketing campaigns. Government belongs to us only if we understand it, and participate in it. Our democracy depends on it.

142. Republican Party schizophrenic

Undeniably, Jesus would be a socialist.

In the Gospels Mathew, Mark and Luke, Jesus is quoted to the effect, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."

This unselfish perspective is at the heart of the unusual marriage created by the Republican Party-that of fiscal conservatives and social conservatives.

Fiscal Conservatives believe in capitalism through free trade and a small government, one that carefully manages the deficit. At the heart of this mind set is every man for themselves-the free market. There is little sympathy for the lower classes and social services-"work harder" is their mantra. President Reagan, a proclaimed fiscal conservative, worked emphatically to lower the taxes on the rich from 70 percent to 28 percent in seven years. He spoke of "trickle down," but what he ensured was more for the wealthy. When the government runs out of tax revenue, social services are cut-if you don't like it, get a job you bum.

Conversely, social conservatives have traditional values-often based on religion. They generally vehemently oppose abortion and same sex marriage. They promote public morality, exemplified in censorship and the death penalty. If they are truly socially conservative, in tune with the teaching of Jesus, they should favor social programs that engage in a humanitarian effort. It is about living one's life morally, giving away more than you keep, and reaping the ultimate prize-spending eternity in Heaven.

So how is it that these two groups have come together to form what is today the Republican Party? Why is it that social conservatives are willing to sacrifice their values of the rich helping the poor-through social programs like Medicare, welfare, unemployment, fair wages, unionization and health insurance-in adopting the economic system of the fiscal conservatives?

Jesus certainly would not approve of the corruption that takes place in capitalism, the "greed is good" in producing shareholder wealth mentality. Jesus would not approve of the destruction of lives, the foreclosure of homes, and the lack of healthcare that occurs as a result of Wall Street's thirst for profits. Presented with that alternative, Jesus would have been a socialist, I am quite sure.

I have often said to poor social conservatives that the Republican Party does not represent your economic interest. I think that most fiscal conservatives could not care less about abortion and gay marriage. It is a distraction that they use and something they wear on their sleeves to bring along the social conservative voters in order to get elected. They care about money, first and foremost, and will do whatever it takes-including selling the American dream-in order to make sure they can keep their money away from the government, and subsequently those in need. Think about the 2004 election when gay marriage brought out lots of social conservatives, despite the fact that party leader, Vice President Cheney, had a gay daughter. Fiscal conservatives played social conservatives like a fiddle.

In reality, social conservatives should create their own political party, combining the economic values of the Democrats with the current social values of Republicans. Democrats believe in making the government as large as necessary to provide necessary social services. However, Democrats, particularly liberal Democrats, will never engage in the censorship and discrimination that encompasses the traditional values of the social conservatives. And fiscal conservatives have no particular interest in providing for the poor-"sharing the wealth," as President Obama famously called it.

The difference in party economic interests is exemplified in the current government deficit debate. Fiscal conservatives were willing to run up large debt during the war, in order to protect their economic interest (terrorist attacks crash stock markets). Conversely, liberals seem willing, if necessary, to run up a deficit in order to provide healthcare for everyone.

Conflicting interest is also marked within the Republican Party itself on the subject of illegal immigration. Fiscal conservatives enjoy the cheap labor but cannot stand the idea of paying for their healthcare. Social conservatives often engage in the discrimination of other groups, but must surely feel a humanitarian responsibility.

Presently, what it comes down to is that social conservatives, when it comes to American politics, do not have a home. They have to either sell out their economic or social interest.

Maybe it is time for social conservatives to identify themselves, break ranks, and ask, "What would Jesus do"?