opa-opines.net

Change Senate Rules

Opa — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:44:17 +0000

Did you ever wonder why so little work gets done in the U. S. Congress?

Citizens of the United States have been witnessing a congress that struggles to pass laws. Many bills designed to serve the people of the United States lie dormant, awaiting action – often for years. What is the problem?

The Senate, but not the House, has a filibuster rule. If a minority of Senators do not like a bill they can deny the rest a vote. It takes 60 percent of Senators to close consideration and vote. This is true despite the fact that it only takes 51 votes to pass legislation. Why is this?

What are some of the effects of Senate special rules? First since it takes a “super majority” to vote to allow a bill to be debated and voted upon, legislation that the majority of Senators (or the majority of Americans) want may never even get a vote.

I have carefully researched the Constitution and discovered that nothing in that document requires that the Senate have a “super majority” for anything other than overriding vetoes, amending the Constitution or Impeaching Federal officials.

How has the Senate become a barrier to legislation? Seems that the problem is their own rules – rules it invented itself. So, think about it Why would any Senator want to deny action on major legislation?

These actions give each individual senator a lot of power. This is power never intended in the constitution. This is power that attracts big money from special interest groups. This is the power that provides many thousands of dollars of “donations” to Senators who will agree to use the power to support the interests of big business, big banks, or big healthcare companies.

These special rules explain why our Congress accomplishes so little. Do most senators serve the people that elected them? I think not. I think that most senators serve the people who pay them – big businesses, big labor, big healthcare companies, and big banks, and they hide behind their own rules to keep this power. The “rules” have become more important than the people’s business.

I am embarrassesd for our nation that the Senate of the United States has reached such a low point in morality.

“Concurrent Receipt” And The Disabled Veteran’s Tax

Opa — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:43:58 +0000

I learned this recently that, although the President included “concurrent receipt” in his proposed budget, the Senate refused to pass it. This stand by Senator’s who voted negative is political and immoral. I believe that no Senator, regardless of Party, who fails to appreciate this issue, should be allowed to continue in government. But let us look at the issue. I doubt most American’s understand.

Disabled veterans who were forced to retire due to their disability pay a substantial fee (tax) for healthcare from the Veteran’s Administration. The tax is levied by the branch of military in which the veteran served.

Here is a simplified way to view the amount of the tax. A disabled veteran who was retired from the military because of a “service connected” disability is paid by the VA a monthly stipend related to the percent disability the veteran suffers. That VA stipend is partially subtracted from any pay that the service grants the veteran who they force to retire.

This entire problem is congressional. Congress decided many years ago that career soldiers who dedicated their lives to serving this country, must be forced to retire if they become disabled. Congress approved a specific document that defines the disabilities and what constitutes a “service connected” condition. For example a veteran who is severely injured in a government owned vehicle accident (in a war zone, on a military post or training area) may be judged to have a “service connected” injury or condition. Historically most soldiers who are “wounded”, or die in the service of their country, are cut down by disease and accidents.

The more severe the disability, the higher the tax. For example a veteran who is 30 percent disabled gets $376 in VA Disability Compensation, while a 100 percent disabled veteran gets $2763. The problem is that the military services are forced to reduce the veterans pension by the VA Disability Compensation. So, generally the 100 percent disabled veteran pays more than 2000 dollars every month for his medical care. Of course 100 percent disabled means that the veteran physically cannot get another job to help fund living expenses. .

This tax is not charged to disabled veterans who work, as a civilian, for the government. That is true even if the civilian worker is disabled from the job and get disability from civilian sources and the Social Security administration. Members of Congress are not charged this tax. And, of course, “retired” members of Congress (those who served a few years and were not reelected or decided not to seek reelection) are paid retirement and provided benefits.

So, think about it. Senators vote to declare war and to fund ongoing wars. A small percentage of Congressional members actually served in the military. With no sacrifice on their part, Senators approve sending soldiers to war. When the soldier honorably serves and becomes disabled in the process, Congress deducts a healthcare premium for any medical care the veteran accepts for his “service connected” health problems.

To me, this situation is immoral, and certainly unfair. As a nation we expect to have a military to defend our interests, why does the our congress refuse to support them when they are injured in serving their country?

Congress meddles with MEDICARE

Opa — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:00:10 +0000

Congress just created a crises. They were given the opportunity to remove a law that mandates a 21 percent reduction in MEDICARE and TRICARE payments that is effective in January 2010. What this means is that a physician treating a MEDICARE patient will get paid over twenty percent less that in the past. This action alone will create a major crises in American healthcare.

Most doctors are not paid enough now. I interviewed one physician who claims that he barely breaks even with MEDICARE patients. Another insisted that he actually lost money on Medicare patients, because they tend to be sicker than the average patient and need more time than the average 15 minutes he spends with other patients. Both of these doctors say that the will stop seeing Medicare patients when the reduction becomes effective.

The failure of Congress to act occurred despite lobbying by many veterans organizations, and The American Medical Association. How can our elected representatives be so dense? The concept of lowering payments to doctors assumes that:

(1) they charge unfairly high prices;

(2) they have enough financial leverage due to payments from insurance companies that they can treat seniors free of charge;

(3) the insurance companies are paying them generously and without hassle.

None of those assumptions are true. The reality is that physicians are one of the least lucrative professions, above teachers and policemen, but far behind bankers and financiers, and congress (with their extensive healthcare insurance).

One trouble with congress is that they have a short memory. Congress held extensive hearings during the 1960s into the health insurance situation for our senior citizens. Insurance companies had begun to drop policies of older Americans. Insurance companies testified that they did not want to insure seniors because their care cost too much. Finally, congress passed Medicare. It was not envisioned that Medicare would be financially profitable. Numerous times in the decades since, congress passed revisions of Medicare to cut costs. Numerous times our government revised the rules because physicians would refuse to take Medicare patients.

It is time for congress to wake up and at least sponsor a “professional” unbiased study of doctor’s fees. They will find many physicians struggle to maintain a marginally profitable business.

What is a Human Life Worth

Opa — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 00:00:49 +0000

Years ago, when I lost my eldest son, an insurance agent asked me to decide what he was worth. The insurance industry at the time had guidelines that centered upon earning power. The policy coverage of the driver who hit my son set the maximum at $250,000. I pondered the question and I answered that my son was priceless. But the question remains: What is a human being worth? What are you worth?

I believe that the question of the value of human life is very relevant for the current health care debate in congress. One member of congress recently observed that 22 thousand people die each year from a lack of health insurance. The Institute of Medicine claims that more than 40 million Americans (including 10 million children) do not have health insurance. Why don’t they have insurance?

Most of those without insurance either cannot afford it or have been rejected by insurance companies due to existing health conditions. And despite rumors, at least 85 percent of the uninsured are American citizens, and 80 percent are from working families. Some of the uninsured had insurance until their employer dropped the policy or they lost their job (an increasing number due to our financial crises).

About the uninsured, note that a large number of them work in jobs that make our lives easier and more convenient, the service industries (fast foods, restaurants, maintenance workers, medical staff). Many of these people are economically poor but very hardworking. What are these people worth?

Then we have the under insured. These are people with health insurance, but who have rapidly mounting debt because of: “copay”, deductibles, and costs that insurance companies do not recognize (sometimes more than 25 percent of the bill). I have friends with more than $75,000 in medical debts. I know people who have lost their homes because of high medical bills. Many of these under-insured people are teachers, police officers, firemen, and small business workers and owners. What are the under insured worth?

Personally, I have grown weary of the healthcare debate. I am biased as I believe in the value of human life. I am biased because I feel great sympathy for people who suffer unnecessarily. I am biased because I value people more than money. I just would not be comfortable making millions of dollars each year from the unrelieved pain and suffering of my fellow citizens. I am biased because I abhor the idea of wealthy insurance companies getting billions of dollars to support a healthcare program. I am biased because I believe that the most important task for the U.S. Congress is passing into law a bill that will relieve the pain of our people.

Creating False Image

Opa — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:11:29 +0000

Imagine this: you witness a crime. You actually see someone stealing from your neighbors house when they are not at home. So you telephone the police and report the robbery. Your neighbors come home, find that their house was vandalized and robbed. They report the crime to the police. The police arrest you.

Think that is absurd? Think that cannot happen? Just ask Acorn. Last year Acorn was accused of “voter fraud” when it was reported that some people had filled out false voter registration forms. Actually some pranksters had filled in names like Donald Duck on registration forms and turned them in for registration. Acorn discovered the prank forms and reported them to voting officials. The press picked up the story and several political commentators accused Acorn of voter fraud.

Aside from the fact that actual voter fraud only occurs when a false voter actually votes, the only damage has been to Acorn’s reputation. Not one state voting official presented false ballots from erroneous registrations handled by Acorn. The main stream media, however, just ran the story and never investigated it.

Acorn is a troublesome organization. This organization serves several functions: advising the poor about available social services; assisting the unemployed with finding jobs; helping underemployed persons obtain training to improve job skills; and, assisting local governments with voter registration. Acorn is a non profit organization with no real power other than helping people. The Acorn work force is heavy with volunteers.

Most of the tasks listed for Acorn are actually the job of local government. Local government is, of course, limited by the tax dollars allotted by their budget, which is paid by the voters. In that sense, Acorn appears to fill a definite need,

The problem, however, is that Acorn does irritate powerful and wealthy people. When Acorn registers poor people and encourages them to vote they tend to vote for candidates who support their causes, usually liberals and democrats.

Working with poor people results in Acorn wanting to raise the minimum wage. That puts them up against businessmen who do not like the minimum wage. Acorn keeps pushing since the people they serve are close to starvation.

So, what do we do about Acorn? I suggest that we need Acorn as it saves us tax dollars and performs services that must be done. Maybe we should get off their back and praise them for their good work.

Prove your Citizenship

Opa — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:30:09 +0000

Today I heard it again. “President Obama is not a citizen of the USA, so he is not really our President.” Is that true? Can we prove it? Let us review how he got to be President. Observe several events: Obama served in the Illinois Senate, The United States Senate, campaigned for more than a year, was certified by the Electoral College and sworn into office by the Chief Justice of the United States (a conservative). How did all those people and agencies miss checking on his citizenship?

Let us take service in the United States Senate. Before Obama could schedule a visit to a foreign country (for example he traveled to Africa before he became a candidate), he was required to get a passport. When I applied for passports for my family, I had to give certified birth certificates, with official raised seals, to the United States Department of State. Everyone I know who has a passport has been required to present evidence of their birth. That tells me that Obama has some official record of citizenship filed with the US Department of State. So his country of birth is established, and any prominent conservative official or politician could view the evidence. Why haven’t they?

During the Presidential campaign, and once since the election, the State of Hawaii has released evidence of a birth certificate for Obama. An official presentation by a state government is pretty rare. Why did Hawaii do that if Obama was not born there?

Let us look at a broader question. Has any previous President of the US presented his birth certificate to the American people? Has any member of the US Senate or House of Representatives made such a presentation?
If not, how do I know that any of them are US citizens?

Next the question of John McCain. Several people have complained that since he was born in Panama, he may not be a citizen either. Researching the question I discovered that for many decades it has been US law that a child born to American parents in a foreign land is automatically a citizen. In addition, John’s parents resided on a US Naval base in Panama, which is technically US soil just like an American embassy in another country.
Since John McCain was born of US parents on a US Navy base, he is clearly a natural born citizen.

What will it take to prove Obama’s citizenship to the concerned?

Cultural Change?

Opa — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 13:43:11 +0000

Just read an article in Newsweek* that ponders whether elections are the answer in some foreign countries. The author wrote about Afghanistan and Iraq where “international officials who oversee the rebuilding countries often try to nudge them towards democracy as soon as possible.” Some political scientists tend to complain. They note that the risk of violence “decreases during an election year, in the following year it more than doubles.” The election “slightly increases” the likelihood of civil war.

I remember in my youth being inspired by teachers who noted the frequency with which Latin American republics lost their elected leaders when their army sponsored a rebellion. In the past twenty years I have noticed similar incidents in Africa and Southeast Asia. The people vote in a democratic election and lose the new leader to a coup d’état.

Paul Collier, a professor at Oxford University, says: “what an election produces is a winner and a loser, and the loser is unreconciled.”

The Newsweek article led me to think about the current political situation in the United States. The people elected a new leader, but the rivals have not accepted the elected leader. Opposition pundits began speaking out about the new leader before he took office and have continued their resistance. Is this “opposition” anything like an African coup d’état?

Consider the details of the negative campaign. They sponsor “tea parties” which remind us of the Boston tea party of the American Revolution. They oppose every proposal he makes without even knowing the details. They spread the word that he is dangerous since he will: take away our guns; take the military directly under his personal command; remove our civil rights; make himself permanent dictator; establish panels that will eliminate seniors; abolish Medicare; revise health care so that it is totally government controlled. And, of course, they deny that the election of the new leader is valid, because he is not a native born American. Each of these rumors are easily disproved with a little research, but they are delivered emotionally with much fear attached. Such arguments do not respond well to logical responses.

If you recognize these tactics it is probably because you heard about most of them in history class when you studied the periods prior to revolutions.

I can understand that the losers of the last election may be upset. But even most of them do not really believe that our current President is as bad as they claim. Most of them recognize that the President’s proposals are well meaning and that he is constantly attempting compromise and consensus. The President is far from perfect, but any semi intelligent politician will admit he is not as bad as many we have endured in the past.

So, is the US culture becoming ripe for a coup d’état? I do hope not, but when I listen to current political opposition, I am concerned that the more fear is inflamed the more likely that an attempt will be made.

Let is pray.

* “Elections aren’t the answer,” Newsweek, August 24, 2009.

Have American Values Changed?

Opa — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:45:46 +0000

Has America changed? Have American’s become a people who emphasize their personal welfare at the expense of others? Lately I have begun to wonder.

I remember stories told to me in my youth about how the original settlers in this new world helped each other. If someone in the community needed a barn, the people of the community gathered and built that barn. If a farmer was injured, his neighbors harvested his crops for him. When a woman gave birth to a child, the local women came to assist.

I heard many such stories in history class, and others in civics class (which was a required subject). Additionally, I remember my parents and grandparents participating in many actions to help their neighbors.
I studied the Marshall plan in American history. I marveled that our country decided not only to help our World War II allies rebuild, but helped Germany and Japan as well.

Recently I have heard numerous media pendants and politicians railing against a bill to revise health care in the United States. I have listened carefully to the rationale for and against revising health care. Those for revision talk about people who do not have health insurance, the high cost of medical care, and the plight of people who lack health insurance. Those against claim the idea is socialistic, that it might reduce our choices, and that medical costs may increase. Some of those against also engage in fear mongering by contending, for example, that any government run program may kill grandma.

Listening to one town hall presentation on health care, I heard many complaints from people who themselves had health insurance. Their comments seemed to indicate that they were afraid that any change in the law could somehow reduce their personal health care. Others were certain that Medicare would be harmed by any change in the law. Where do these rumors originate?

None of the opponents to the health care bill have suggested how or if we would help those who lack insurance. None of the opponents have suggested how to help people who go bankrupt by medical costs.

What happened to our values? Somehow knowing that those against the health care bill have no alternative plan to help people in need leads me to wonder whether they even care about the plight of the millions of folks in this nation that are suffering because of a lack of access to insurance.

I don’t understand – what happened to our traditional values?

Public Option for Health Care?

Opa — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:55:31 +0000

The health insurance companies are spending millions of dollars to defeat any changes to our current health care system. Why? Is it because the insurance companies fear that can’t compete with a public option? Let is consider several points.

1. Some note that the Health Insurance Companies finance republican legislators and “blue dog” democrats. Is this support to insure that these congresspersons vote as the Insurance companies desire?

2. Health Insurance has been consolidated into only 7 companies. The companies are extremely profitable. Do they fear losing business.

3. Insurance companies only want to offer insurance policies to younger people and people who can pay. The poor, sick and the elderly are not good risks.

4. Health care companies want Medicare to continue. They do not want to insure older Americans. They want Medicaid to continue as they do not want to insure poor people.

5. Health Companies, between 1960-1980, spent lots of time and money to get congress to redesign medicare so that it covered all Americans at age 65. Insurance companies then canceled policies for older Americans. Now some offer “supplemental” insurance that pays only when Medicare recognizes the procedure (that is profitable because Medicare does the administration)

6. Companies & RNC fatcats are sponsoring TV ads to stimulate fear – - make up charges, like the government wants to kill seniors (like H. W. Bush ?). Is it because they only want insurance to cover rich people? They want to leave 45 million people without insurance – maybe let taxpayers take this burden. They don’t want a “public option”, but what is it when people without insurance go to the emergency room for care (bill goes to government and is paid for by taxes)

Should Americans have public health care?

1. The VA is rated the best health care system in the US. It is 2/3 as expensive as Medicare (per patient).

2. Medicare is the best civilian system, Most efficient, least costly.

3. VA/Medicare costs less than 5% (admin, operations, etc.) 95% to care.

4. Private Insurance spends more than 20 % for admin. Only 80% to care.

5. Members of Congress have public health care – and love it. Why don’t they want it for you?

A choice must be made, but what is really best for the American people?

Is it American?

Opa — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:20:30 +0000

I just read a fund-raising letter. It was not for elections in 2010 or 2012, but for policy fights now.

Seems that the republican party has dropped the American custom of accepting election results and becoming the loyal opposition. Our history is filled with hard fought campaigns, followed by the losing party working with the winning party for the good of the nation. It was not that the losing party suddenly agreed with the winning party, it was that they cooperated in most matters (especially national security), while keeping the government’s actions in check.

But now, for some reason, politicians are raising money to battle in the media for policy alternatives they failed to sell during the last election. What are the trying to sell? I have heard of three areas: economic recovery, the war, and healthcare. All three of these issues were fought over in the last election campaign. The election is over, so the fighting should now be in congress not in the media.

Congressional sessions are mostly dull and meaningless. The democrats propose a bill, and the republicans say no. This is not working toward a solution to our problems, but an expensive avoidance. This is not legislating, but attempted intimidation. If a politician does not like a proposal, he buys media time for ads that attack the opponents, instead of researching the issue and presenting either arguments diminishing the problem or alternatives to the offered solution.

Much of what politicians put in the media is flagrant fear mongering.

This must end. The American people have not trusted congress for many years and with all the mindless bickering, the lack of trust will surely grow. We the people need to stand up and tell congress to do their job. We need to tell them to get to work at the people’s business or plan to be fired at the soonest opportunity.