Posts Tagged ‘health care’

An Open Letter to Mitch McConnell

July 12, 2017

Dear Senator McConnell:

Republicans have been saying for many years that a nation that cannot guard its borders is no nation at all.  As a point of geography, this is not really true; there are many national borders today that are not patrolled or even fenced, where a person may wander from one country to another without realizing it, and still those nations thrive.  Why?  Because physical boundaries do not matter nearly as much as the ability to govern and control.  If a nation is able to make and enforce laws within an area, it exists.  I could live in Canada for twenty years, in a shack, thinking I was in the U.S. because the border was unguarded and I can’t read a map, and it would not threaten Canada in the slightest, so long as when I finally broke the law in some way Canadian police were able to arrest me, and Canadian courts were able to judge me according to laws made by and for the people of Canada.

Currently, in the United States, we cannot say with confidence that we are a nation.  Our ability to choose our own leaders is under attack.  Without the ability to choose our own leaders, we cannot make our own laws.  Without our own laws, our courts are reduced to enforcing the laws made by others.  When our own courts cannot enforce our own laws, our police and military are merely security guards protecting someone else’s property, following the directions of the boss who actually makes the rules.  And right now, Russia is striving to be that boss.

We know that the Russian government hacked at least 21 state election boards.  We are told that they didn’t change any votes, but we do not know that since no one has actually investigated this.  To say “we have seen no evidence that any votes were changed” when there has been no serious (or even cursory) investigation by DHS is like the “three wise monkeys” with their eyes and ears and mouths covered, so that they cannot see, here or say anything bad. (Source:  http://www.thedailybeast.com/dhs-never-ran-audit-to-see-if-votes-were-hacked).  It is a farce.  But instead of investigating this very real, proven threat to our national sovereignty, you, the Republican Party, are wasting millions of taxpayer dollars investigating voter fraud, which even you, Sen. McConnell, admit never happened (sources:  http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/03/politics/kris-kobach-letter-voter-fraud-commission-information/index.html and http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/17/opinions/mcconnell-call-out-trumps-rigged-election-comments-douglas/index.html).  You yourself said in February of this year that no tax money should be spent on this snipe hunt; but still, a Federal government commission is demanding that state governments aid in its “investigation,” tying up millions of dollars to pay for an investigation using up the time of public servants who could be better employed preventing Russian hacking of the 2018 and 2020 elections.  The executive branch of this government has repeatedly called the entire Russian hacking investigation a “hoax” and “fake news,” with our President even repeating in Poland that “we don’t know” who was involved in hacking our election.

A nation that cannot guard its own methods of choosing its leaders is no nation at all.  The Russian hacking of our nation’s elections systems is a direct attack on our national sovereignty.  By comparison, everything else—-health care, tax reform, even military spending—is irrelevant.  What difference does it make whether we have the best military in the world, if the leaders who command that military are chosen by a foreign power?  We will simply be mercenaries for the Russians.

The Founding Fathers of this great nation, the authors of our Revolution and of our Constitution, were profoundly influenced by the philosophy of John Locke.  His was one of the first and most effective pens to be raised in defense of government of the people and by the people, at a time when England and most other nations still proclaimed the divine right of kings to absolute power.  When the leaders of the Thirteen Colonies sought to articulate the weight of their oppression and the justice of their cause, they turned to John Locke for guidance.  Here is what John Locke writes in his Second Treatise of Civil Government:

 

The delivery also of the people into the subjection of a foreign power, either by the prince, or by the legislative, is certainly a change of the legislative, and so a dissolution of the government: for the end why people entered into society being to be preserved one entire, free, independent society, to be governed by its own laws; this is lost, whenever they are given up into the power of another. (Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter XIX, sect. 217; http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr19.htm)

 

Since the 300 year old English can be a little clumsy to the modern ear, please allow me to rephrase:  When the leader of a nation, whether it be the Executive or the Legislative branch of the government, turns power over to a foreign government, that nation has dissolved, and the citizens are on their own to live as individuals, or to join together, take up arms to defend themselves, and to form a new government more responsive to their will.  That is the threat under which we now live:  the end of the United States of America.  And just as John Locke’s words justified a revolution on the far shores of the Atlantic eighty-six years later, there will be people who will say that they justify another one, should you, Senator McConnell, and your fellow leaders, allow this nation to hand its elections over to a foreign power.

I do not exaggerate when I say the United States faces an existential threat.  Here we are, threatened with the loss of our nation’s ability to control its own affairs in its own borders, while the Executive branch is focused instead on justifying the President’s fantasies of popularity and the Legislative branch is focused on passing legislation which the voters do not want and which don’t matter two whits if we cannot say with confidence that our nation is really ours.  Your behavior is as if the nation’s capital were again being burned to the ground by an invading army, and Congress were busy planning for the coming Cherry Blossom Festival.  What will future generations say, when our children or grandchildren ask how it came about that a mighty nation, at the height of its power, suddenly fell into subjugation and humiliation?  How will you be remembered, who allowed this to happen?

Put aside all this nonsense and distraction.  Health care will wait another year.  Tax reform will wait.  These things may flatter the Republican ego, allowing you to feel like you won over the Democrats; but only a fool fights in a burning house.  Focus your attention on something that will actually get bipartisan support, something that might actually unite our troubled nation, and something that actually matters.  Form a bipartisan, independent commission to discover what the Department of Homeland Security seems so uninterested in:  what the Russians are doing to influence state and national elections, and how to stop them.

Thank you for your time.

A Gamer Looks at Politics: the government shutdown (pt. ii)

October 11, 2013

A Gamer Looks at Politics:  the government shutdown (pt. ii)

 

If you must negotiate, watch your enemy’s eyes.

   Klingon proverb

 

            The politics of the health care debate are thus clear.  First, the Republicans did not want to negotiate; they wanted to repeal and replace—repeal the law and replace Obama.  They lost.  In the game of Presidential Monopoly, they lost because the Democrats had more spaces they could collect on, and the Republicans managed to hit every one.  The Democrats had all those properties the Republicans mortgaged to put up those luxury hotels— the women’s space, the immigrant Americans space, the moderate’s space, the young people, and on and on.  But to ease up on the game metaphor a bit, they gave Americans a choice:  vote Romney and stop Obamacare, or vote for Obama and let this “terrible” bill stand.  And despite misgivings about the bill, I think most Americans want health care reform.[1]  Any politician who had come up with a genuine way to improve this bill, or even made an honest attempt, would probably have been lauded nationwide.  However, as they say, “all politics is local,” even when government is national; what is good for the nation is not necessarily what is good reelection and campaign contributions, and what is bad for the nation can be good politics. 

            The game now is not “stop Obama.”  He will not be president after the next election.  But the game is not “save the nation” either.  At this point, the game is “shut down the government.”  That is why 80 Republican congressional representatives said in August that the Republican Party should shut down the government.[2]  Any Republican who calls this “Obama’s Shutdown” is a bald-faced liar; but as a political move, it is a shrewd ploy, an attempt to get the benefits of shutting down the government while avoiding the blame.  Complaining that the Democrats won’t negotiate with them is, from an historical perspective, absurd; the Republicans refused to negotiate when they had the chance, preferring to force the Democrats to pass a bill without a single Republican vote even though it had more Republican ideas than it did Democratic ideas, just so they could run against the bill in the presidential campaign.  Since so many members of the Tea Party won election by opposing Obamacare, and government in general, they are still playing that trench-warfare political game. 

            Democrats, looking at Republican moves to divine their strategy, have concluded that the Republicans are not serious about wanting to merely delay or modify.  The Republicans have stated repeatedly that they wanted, above all else, to break health care reform as part of their strategy to capture the White House.  Democrats are reacting to what they perceive to be the Republican game.  Since they believe that Republicans are not serious in wanting to negotiate and are simply playing politics, the Democrats refuse to engage.  And, given statements from Republicans confirming this perception, Democrats have some reason to be suspicious.  For example, Senator Ted Cruz says “It is the view of every Republican … that Obamacare should be entirely and completely repealed.  Nonetheless, the House started with a compromise of saying not repealing Obamacare but simply that it should be defunded.”  It seems that they are not playing the negotiation game, but rather something more like a shell game, where one side keeps the ball moving until he can steal it without the other side noticing.

            Republicans, for their part, are also looking at the Democrats and trying to deduce what game they are playing.  Research has shown that most Republican voters are nostalgic for the “white majority America” that they remember from the 1950’s (primarily a romanticized 1950’s they watched on television and remember from childhood, not the one with lynchings and blacklisting and “duck and cover” drills in school).[3] They see Obamacare as a conspiracy to win Democratic votes by appealing to “those other people,” those gays or blacks or browns or Muslims or etc.  by giving them things.  Both the Republican leadership and the rank-and-file fear that if the Affordable Care Act is ever implemented, it might just succeed in giving people health care, and that people might like being able to get health care without fear of bankruptcy or of being dropped by their health insurer through no fault of their own.  Republicans believe that if people like the Affordable Health Care Act, they will become lifelong Democrats and that will be the end of the Republican party; and they believe that Democrats are simply playing presidential politics as well, offering a government giveaway for no reason other than to buy votes.    And most likely, the Affordable Care Act was just as serious or cynical a move as was the unfunded, $7 trillion program from the Bush administration, Medicare D, which no Republican presidential candidate spoke out against.[4]   This addressed an actual problem; it also violated core conservative principles by being a massive unfunded entitlement, though it appeals most directly to the core Republican constituency. 

To be continued….


[1] Hell, my own father, a medical doctor for well over forty years, said back the 1980’s that the medical business had changed so much that he wouldn’t advise anyone to become a doctor.  There were simply too many private-sector insurance bureaucrats and too many government bureaucrats between him and his patients.  He never wanted socialized medicine, having been a doctor in the Navy for four years; but the HMOs were not much better to work for.  If even a successful surgeon and leader in the state AMA recognized that American health care needed to change, how much more likely is it that the patients will suspect that something has to change before the whole thing collapses?  They are the ones who have to change doctors because their physician is no longer “in the network,” who have to wait until their kid’s ear infection causes 105º fever so they can get treated in the emergency room for free, or have to pay $100 for an aspirin in a hospital to cover the bill of the kid with the earache and life-threatening fever who came in last night and can’t pay his bill.

[3] See Democracy Corps, “Inside the GOP: Report on Focus Groups with Evangelical, Tea Party, And Moderate Republicans;” Oct. 3, 2013 (http://www.democracycorps.com/Republican-Party-Project/inside-the-gop-report-on-focus-groups-with-evangelical-tea-party-and-moderate-republicans/)

[4] Associated Press, “GOP 2012 Candidates Opposed to Repealing Bush-Era Medicare Drug Benefit;” Sept. 18, 2011 (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/18/gop-2012-candidates-opposed-to-repealing-unfunded-medicare-drug-benefit/)

A Gamer Looks at Politics: the government shutdown (pt. i)

October 8, 2013

A Gamer Looks at Politics:  the government shutdown (pt. i)

 

 

Hey, did you get starside R and D?

 -No.  I got Games and Theory.

Games and Theory?  That’s military intelligence.

 

—–Starship Troopers, directed by Paul Verhoeven, Tristar Pictures/Touchstone Pictures/Big Bug Pictures, 1997

 

 

I am not a political scientist.  I have read some political science, and I’ve read a fair amount of political philosophy.  The main difference between the two is that political science says, “Hey, I only built the bomb; I didn’t drop it on anybody;” while political philosophy looks at whether one ought to drop the bomb, or whether it is a bomb or a tool, destructive or useful, good or evil, what purpose it ought to serve.  The political scientist says, “Appeal to the people’s fears, hatreds, lusts, and you will win power;” the political philosopher says, “Appeal to the negative may win in the short run, but it will destroy the society, the people and the one who gains power that way.”  But I am not primarily interested in writing as a philosopher, either, except insofar as I might not bother writing at all if I did not think it was important.  I am interested in tapping my decades of experience as a gamer.  I am old-school.  I began with chess and Stratego and Risk as a child, graduated to Avalon Hill and SPI in the 1970’s.  I have played the part of Eisenhower and von Rundstedt, Ben-Gurion and Bismark, and sent the Jesuits to burn the Lutheran heretics.  In 1975 I learned Dungeons and Dragons, and from there played nearly a dozen different RPGs.  I’ve also played my share of computer games; but IMHO they lack the personal experience.  When you play in the same room with the other players, you play the person, not the system.  You learn to “watch your enemy’s eyes,” gauge not just the board but also the manner of the person.  I have not always won, but I have at least been a challenge in most of the games I’ve played. I consider myself a competent strategist.

One lesson I’ve learned as a gamer is that games are not just games.  They are fragments of life, distilled until just the elements that the game designer and players care about are left.  Monopoly was originally designed to show the dangers of unrestrained capitalism, as players spread bankruptcy and ruin across the board.  The players, of course, tend to be more interested in being one of those filthy capitalists; but even though the game has drifted far from its original roots, elements of even this abstract and silly game show harsh economic realities.  Military academies have played war games for centuries, rehearsing strategies and defending against hypothetical threats; the Pearl Harbor attack was carried out after Japanese military leaders realized, after playing various military scenarios, that the only chance they had for a crushing victory was a surprise attack.  As a philosopher, I read that Ludwig Wittgenstein argues in his Philosophical Investigations that all human language, and thus all thought and behavior, can be explained as “language games.”  We learn what it is to be a person, a citizen, a Christian, a liberal, or a conservative or atheist not by listening to the protestations and assertions of others, but much more simply by watching what moves people make and what rules they seem to be following

Another lesson I learned is that you can’t just assume that everyone is following the same rules or aiming at the same target.  You can’t even assume most people are really aiming at the target they claim to be aiming at.  As Alasdair MacIntyre wrote, the problem in life is that your pawn to K-4 is often answered by your opponent’s back-lob across the net.  We are often playing different games.  Sometimes we don’t even realize the other person is playing a different game; sometimes (unlike “real games”) we don’t even quite realize what game we ourselves are playing.   At times we need to look at what moves we ourselves are making, what goals we are achieving, and then deduce from this what game we are actually playing.

Role-playing games in particular are mini-labs in group dynamics theory.  In RPGs, the players often have disparate individual goals, but must work together to attain some joint goal and in the process realize their individual goals.  A group takes on a life of its own; it is never merely the sum of its parts.  Who is the leader?  Who has the power?  How many ways are there of gaining power in the group, of influencing its direction and goals?  Which of these help group cohesion and functioning?  What ways can one advance one’s status and influence, only to destroy the group altogether and leave one the leader of nothing?

What games are being played now?  The Republicans claim to be trying to negotiate changes to the health-care law; but if they wanted to negotiate, they had years to do so.  In 2009, Democrats were crawling on their knees to beg even one Republican to sign onto the cause of health-care reform; but none would make any suggestions.  On July 20, 2009, Republican Senator Jim DeMint called for the GOP to fight all health care reform, to “just say No,” arguing, “If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.”  So instead of trying to make health care reform better, or even caring about whether health care was good or bad for the country, it was determined the first move in the game of presidential politics would be to fight any and all possible health care reform.  Well before there was any actual health care proposal, Republicans were fighting “Obamacare,” even though Obama was taking a hands-off approach and leaving Congress to work out the particulars.  In the past, one party would propose policy, the other would negotiate changes based on its bargaining position, and eventually enough people on both sides would get what they wanted to convince them to sign on.  Instead of trying to have any influence on health care, Republicans determined to fight it as a way to weaken the President and win control of the government for themselves.  Even when Republican ideas were adopted by Democrats in an attempt to create a health care plan that both sides could accept, the Republicans repudiated ideas put forward by Mitt Romney and the Heritage Foundation.  If the goal was to negotiate over the health care bill that was being written at that time, this was not even a move; it was walking away from the game.  But the game was not “Operation” or “Let’s Make a Deal;” it was chess, and the Republicans were playing a gambit.  They sacrificed a piece, hoping to gain the initiative and a superior position for the endgame.  By being the Party of Nope, they were able to disavow responsibility for everything that might go wrong, while sacrificing any right to claim any credit for anything that might go right.  They therefore had to make sure nothing went right; so they set out to delay and sabotage.  This is good strategy.  They may have prevented any meaningful improvement on the jobs market, where they said they would have a “laser focus,” but they made staggering gains in the mid-term elections.  In chess terms, they seemed to have made up their initial sacrifice and then some.  They took over most of the state legislatures in time to control the post-census gerrymandering, rewriting the boundaries of congressional districts to give Republicans safe districts even as they were losing national popularity.  But in the midgame, they made a very risky attack, threatening to default on the national debt (most of which represents money spent by Republicans or at least voted for by them).  As a governmental policy, this was a bad move; it damaged the national credit score, probably permanently, which will cost the nation billions of dollars over time.  However, it was not a governmental policy; it was a political move, another step in the presidential campaign.  It was part of the Republican “Presidential Monopoly” game, and part of the individual game of several Republican politicians with presidential ambitions.  And in the personal ambition game, it was an extremely good move; several Tea Party Republicans gained fame and, more importantly, money from PACs and anonymous donors.

The health care battle remained the central strategy in the Republican version of Presidential Monopoly.  Like a player who sells off all the yellows and greens and reds in order to put four motels each on Park Place and Boardwalk, the GOP staked everything on the “No Obamacare” campaign.  And to an extent, they succeeded; they have so tarnished the idea of “Obamacare” that even though a majority of people say they support the Affordable Care Act, a majority also say they oppose Obamacare—completely unaware of the fact that the two are the same thing.[1]  However, it turned out not to be enough to win the Presidency.  Against the “Stop Obamacare” campaign slogan, the Democrats had “Bin Laden is Dead and GM is Alive.”  Against the “big tent” approach of the Democrats, the Republicans focused on what Republican Senator Lindsey Graham described as “angry white males;” and as he himself said, that’s not a winning strategy.