Pesky Facts and other Thoughts

Senator Ben Nelson feels that he has exacted enough pounds of flesh to pay for the pounds of flesh that will be lost in the process, and that the wink and nod he gives government accounting will satisfy his value system. Under the Nelson deal, 45 Million has been allocated over the first ten years for Medicaid and perpetual federal funding for the state of Nebraska's senior citizens and there will be 13 states in which federal funding underwrites abortions.

Comparing Mary Landrieau of Louisiana to Nebraska's senator Nelson is unfair, it is oranges to apples. Mary Landrieau's deal of 300 million for her state's poorest citizens may have cost more fiscally, but at least she didn't sell out morals. She never held the unborn dear in the first place. Nelson, like Adam, couldn't resist the apple.

Reid has the 60 votes to bring the bill to the floor, avoid a filibuster and get the damnable piece of legislation into reconciliation with the house version so that the President can brag of establishing health care. But let's talk about those pesky things; facts.

What the bill doesn't do:
It doesn't lower the deficit. CBO estimates the cost at 2.5 Trillion over the next ten years and I'd add, when has the Government ever come in UNDER budget?
It doesn't fix Medicare (it cuts 470 billion from that program).
It doesn't provide care for the uninsured immediately --it will tax immediately, but the full benefits won't go into effect until 2014.
It isn't fully transparent because it still isn't finished being put together.
It doesn't safeguard the concerns of those who do not want to fund abortions.

What it does do:

It will demand that people and businesses buy coverage or suffer fines.

It will increase premiums (CBO estimates GNP allocations to health care expenses will increase 17 to 24 percent over the next ten years as a result).

It will cover abortions through a wink and a nod of allowing states to opt out and having a monthly premium fee of segregated money used to address this service. 45 million may constitute a fig leaf for Senator Nelson, but for most moral thinkers, dead is still dead and so if you oppose abortion, you don't really care if the abortions are done in Texas or New York, you care that they are done period. You care that your tax dollars pay for an immoral inherently evil act.

It will ration care by adding a layer of bureaucracy.

It will ration care by eventually eliminating much of the private sector. Private schools do compete with public schools but when the economy is tight, guess which ones are suffering?

It will encourage doctors who can retire to do so, rather than be paid less for the same services they provide now.

It will create a whole new segment of government that no one will have read or know much about other than that it costs tons of money and eventually, all of us will pay.

But when things are darkest, we must be lights. Hearts aflame burn brightly.

Call your Senator. Call Congress. Write. Email. Jump up and Down. Speak out. Read. Stay informed and above all else, pray for the strengthening of will, the softening of hearts and true wisdom of the Holy Spirit. Charity towards the poor and the sick does not negate the need to champion the innocent and the helpless. Christ turned away no one and if we would be followers, neither should we.

This bill is many things. People who have argued against it have been called racists, separatists, tools of the insurance companies, uninformed, neanderthals, homophobic, selfish and unpatriotic and unchristian.

This bill is many things, but patriotic, fair, evenhanded, reasonable, good, thoughtful, sensible or helpful to the sick, poor and helpless, and just to all, it isn't. This bill is many things,Christian isn't one of them.

Show Me

The Town hall meetings, the endless discussion and cycle of arguments from the left and the right have left us right where we started, with multiple bills none of which are the one which will be signed into law. Thus the Congressional Budget Office can declare the proposed bill to cost ONLY $829 billion over 10 years and that it would lower the deficit by $81 billion by cutting costs in Medicare payments, taxing insurance plans deemed too expensive and not providing coverage to 25 million of the currently uninsured.

But if health care is a right not to be withheld for moral reasons, the 25 million left out in the cold by this proposal are unjustly singled out. If healthcare is designed to ensure no one suffers from a lack of coverage, then isn’t the extra value added tax to higher end plans going to discourage people from getting the coverage they perhaps need? If Medicare payments are cut, who will make up the difference for the doctors? The patients who rely on Medicare? The doctors? These are not partisan hack questions, they are serious ones. Even proponents of the healthcare bills in all its forms do not seriously believe that increasing spending by instituting a new government entitlement will result in a deficit reduction without draconian cuts in other areas that may not be possible.

We keep hearing how unjust insurance companies are for saying “No.” but the government by paying pennies on the dollars to doctors, also says “No.” and in a substantial way. What are the protections for the patients, the doctors and the tax payers who in this circumstance absorb all the risks the insurance companies once handled. What will be covered? What won’t? And Why? Who decides? Will the government pay for a Down syndrome child to have open heart surgery the way my insurance did for my son? Will it pay for others home health care the way insurance did for my grandmother when she suffered the ravages of Alzheimer’s disease? Will it take care of a child who faces down death nightly because of an extremely rare condition that causes her autonomic functions to shut down when she sleeps? Will it pay for the medications my friend who is on her third kidney at the age of 43 because of Juvenal diabetes needs? Will it pay for a tenth pregnancy the way it pays for a first should such a thing happen? These are real and difficult situations I know of that insurance companies have handled. Will the government do the same?

As tax payers, we need to know what our government is proposing to do in creating this new added on value program that will seek to address real and pressing needs.

We can’t simply trust the government just because the government says “Trust us.” even if we have the belief that the current administration’s goals are purely benign. We can’t know that if the bill won’t be seen or read until it reaches the President’s desk after being reconciled in committee. We’d like the chance to see the bill, critique it, criticize it and ask real questions that need real answers not because we fear change or wish the poor to die quickly and decrease the surplus population, or because we wish people to suffer or society to be divided into the haves and have nots. We’d like to examine the bill because at 1000 pages each in its multiple draft forms, there is a lot to digest and not all of it is good and much of it gives cause for serious concern. The bill put on the President’s desk ought to represent more than the machinations of a few cherry picked legislators if it is going to count on the economic support of all the American people.

Insulting those who want answers like why the number of people affected keeps shifting and what the coverage provided by the government will cover, calling those who show up unpatriotic, racists, bigots, xenophobes, Neanderthals, tea baggers and idiots –to name only the polite terms used, does not constitute argument or legitimate discussion of legitimate issues. Nor does such ungenerous rhetoric by those in power engender trust or the presumption of benign motivations in the minds of people asking the questions. The American people deserve better from their elected leaders, the elected leaders’ surrogates and the press. Trust is a two way street. Show us the bill. Make your case to the American people based on factual issues rather than political posturing.

We may not love everything. We may object, but surely we can be trusted to look at what you have created rather than simply take it. If you want us to trust you with our healthcare and our tax money for the greater good, trust us with the bill, warts and all. Stop hiding behind insults and protocol and spin. Show us the real bill before it becomes law because it’s the right thing to do whether or not it is the prudent political thing to do.

Saw this, Got Annoyed. Thought You Should Know

So I'm to understand that while it's useless to read a bill, it's important to pass it and sign it into law and make us pay for it.

Marie Antoinette's Legislative Tips for the Current Congress

Feeling darn firey lately, I put that energy to use and called my congressmen to tell them not to vote for the Cap and Trade bill currently being whipped to fruition by Nancy Pelosi et. al.

Why did I call?

Because I'm frankly tired of a congress spending money hand over fist without ever bothering to read the damn things they are voting on. Is it too much to ask that they read before they rubber stamp via their party affiliation?

When I was a kid, I loved making cakes from boxes but I didn't want to bother with the stinkin' directions, I wanted the cake. For me it was all about the end result, but I was impatient and unwilling to do what it took to get there, so there were a lot of cakes that 1) lacked structure 2) lacked significant ingredients and 3) got fed to the dog. Until I took the time to examine the directions --at my Mother's insistence (thanks Mom!), I continued to churn out crumble cake after flat cake after inedible reported to be cake. It wasted money. It wasted time. It wasted cake.

Here's an idea, make passage of every bill dependent upon everyone who votes, having listened to it be read aloud --it would slow legislation to a crawl but we'd spend a lot less, or at least, we'd know what we were spending the money on, because the bills would be smaller and more discreet but fully disclosed. And then,maybe we can have our cake and maybe eat it too.

Otherwise, we'll be left with something that isn't even healthy for dogs.

Call your representatives. Stomp up and down. Let them know at least, we require reflection and discernment before they spend more of our future earnings. They work for us, at least for now.

My Two Cents vs. Their Three

Picking up the mail in January, I froze, and not just from the -10 degree wind chill whipping around for my winter pleasure. In my hands amidst the bills and late Christmas cards, flyers for pizza and leftover catalogs were an OVERDUE NOTICE.

I always pay all our bills at the beginning of each month. I keep the tabs and am scrupulous about knowing what checks I write and for whom. Maybe the Christmas rush had allowed me to miss one…I was upset as I sat at the table and began to open it up. Would my clerical error ruin our credit rating? The notice seemed to scold me with its very presence.

Opening the letter my fear gave way to rage. “This letter is to inform you that the bill on your 2004 Mini-van loan for the amount of $.03 is PAST DUE. Please remit the sum of $.03 to the Ameri-Bank account immediately to avoid procedures that could affect your CREDIT RATING.

I put down the letter. I got out my checkbook and past bill stubs. Sure enough, I had written the check for $379.76. The bill was $379.79. I called the 1-800 number to discuss the matter.

“May I help you Ms?” A disinterested voice came on after I had spent the better part of 15 minutes punching buttons on the phone tree to get to a human being.

“Yes! I’m calling about my account…”

She then proceeded to interrupt me to ask for all the information I had just spent 15 minutes punching into the phone tree. “How may I serve you today?” she said finally in a bored voice.

“Why am I getting an OVERDUE NOTICE?” I asked. “You have proof that I made my payment promptly.”

“Yes, it shows that you paid, but our computers indicate that you haven’t satisfied the terms of your contract for the loan.”

“Because of three cents?”

“Yes Ms.” She replied. “What if everyone started writing their checks for pennies less than the actual bill, the company would loose thousands of dollars.”

Momentarily stopped by the thought that a business could loose thousands because of a second of dyslexia, common sense reasserted itself in my brain. “This isn’t a vast conspiracy; I just switched a number by accident, from a nine to a six. I can’t just write three more cents on the next bill?”

“No Ms, our computer indicates that your account is not in compliance. Any additional money sent in next week would apply to the principle but not satisfy the outstanding balance left unpaid.” She droned.

“But it’s three cents. If I write a check for three cents it will cost .39 cents to mail it and more than that for you to process it. Why am I getting a threatening we will destroy your credit rating over three cents?”

“I understand Ms. But our computer reads the payment as insufficient funds and as such you have to send in a check immediately or it will forward your account to the appropriate collection agencies.” I could almost hear her filing her nails and chewing gum in indifference.

“What? For Three CENTS?”

“Yes Ms.” She said this with the evident self detachment culled from hours of telling countless people the same information for even smaller sums.
…..

Trying not to seethe at the incomprehensibility of having my credit rating ruined over three copper coins easily found on the bottom of my car for which the payments were made, I mentally debated the satisfaction of mailing three pennies, of mailing the next full payment in nothing but pennies, and of simply blowing the whole thing off.

“What about an electronic transfer?” I asked, trying to avoid an unnecessary chore and make the best of a stupid situation.

“There is a twelve dollar fee for the transfer Ms.”

“So it would cost me twelve dollars and three cents to square my account?”

“Yes—“

Not feeling particularly civil at that moment, I hung up in mid Ms.

As I wrote the check and began addressing the envelope, I wondered if the bank would fine me for having written a check for such a tiny amount. Phoning the bank, they explained that yes indeed, there would be a 5 dollar fee for writing a check for three cents. I could avoid the fee if the amount exceeded a dollar. I also figured that mailing three cents physically would cost $.45 cents in postage, and that probably sending three physical cents would warrant another letter from the bank.

Ripping up the check, I wrote a new one for a dollar with a note, “Since we both could use the change, I’m transferring my account.”