#107 – Dick Bernard: Abortion

/1 Comment/in , , /by

Almost 45 years ago – it was March, 1965 – my wife and I, and her doctor, were worried that she was pregnant with our second child.
This was not a selfish worry.  Barbara had very serious kidney disease, and it was getting worse and worse.  Pregnancy would kill her and, of course, the fetus.
It turned out she wasn’t pregnant.  Four months later she died waiting for a kidney transplant at a major University teaching Hospital.  Her end of life meant major surgeries and isolation and intensive care for the last two months she was alive.  We were a charity case.
But if she had been pregnant in March, 1965, there would have been the issue of terminating a pregnancy.  We were Catholics; the hospital was a Catholic hospital; I think the Doctor was Catholic.  Likely we would have had to look at other options, and then have to live with the guilt of, as anti-‘baby-killers’ like to say, killing an innocent unborn human life.

Barbara and Dick, sponsors at a Baptism, March, 1965

Barbara and Dick, sponsors at a Baptism, March, 1965


I think of our two years of health hell every time the debate over abortion, over “choice”, heats up.  It never ends, and I despair that it will ever be resolved.  The cement in which zealots feet are firmly planted hardens.  There is no room for dialogue.  Theirs is, they say, the “objective truth”.
I am terminally pro-choice, largely because of personal experience.  Pro-lifers would not have nice things to say about me, even though I am, in all the important ways, as, if not more, pro-life than they are.
Now one of the issues made to be in Health Care Reform is an absolute prohibition on funding for abortion.  It is a ‘kill the bill’ position.  It is dishonest, and it is insane.  Some would add birth control, sex ed, personal conscience, et al to the list.
There is less likelihood that Law will end Abortion, than there was that Prohibition would end Booze.  Still, the pious outrage continues.
Abortion is called death of an innocent human being, but to my knowledge, there has not yet been a single legislature courageous enough to pass a bill making abortion murder, with penalties for the person having the abortion.  After years of intense heat but little light, there is no “life in prison without parole” for having an abortion.  (Occasionally there may have been some legislators who actually introduced such bills.  If so, I’d like to see the evidence.)
I remain Catholic.  Barbara passed on 44 years ago.
People, doubtless caring and of good will, rail against women’s right to choose without caring to understand the dilemmas of a lack of a right to choose.
It is a (too many would say) a ‘divinely divisive’ political issue, and, apparently, a good ticket to heaven….
I’m in pretty solid company, I feel, including amongst practicing Catholics.  Most would agree with me that a woman should have the right to choose.  There is not now, nor will there ever be, an effective law or penalty against abortion or family planning because such a law would be fatally flawed, and the view is shared by only a minority of Americans.
Still, ‘life’ remains a potent political issue, and only by shining the spotlight on it will the other side of it ever be examined.
This is an attempt to shine such a light.
Postscript:  Barbara and my personal story is here.
UPDATE October 16, 2009
Two days after the above post I saw a commentary which seems to fit the general topic in an appropriate way.  Perhaps is still accessible here.

#104 – Dick Bernard: Health Care Reform. Lurching to a finish line.

/in , , , /by

UPDATE OCTOBER 13, 2009:  It is my understanding that yesterday the insurance industry rolled out its really big guns and demanded that Health Care Reform legislation require everyone to buy insurance (thus further enriching the insurance companies which are a big part of the problem to begin with.  This shameless move is presumably motivated by a need – expressed by Wall Street – for even more profits at public (our) expense.  The “rest of the story”, revealed by the authors of the “research”, was that the industry left out crucial information in its release to Congress and the public that refuted its propaganda….
Original, October 9, 2009: At some point, probably sooner than later, the issue of Health Care Reform will finally come to a final vote in the U.S. House and Senate, and the resulting legislation sent to the President for his signature or veto.  All that remains is the exact wording after endless information (and an immense amount of misinformation) dispensed over the last many months.
The legislation we will see will be a significant improvement over what currently exists, but will fall far short of where we should be.  The new bill will probably protect the interests of those who don’t really have our interests at heart, specifically the insurance and for profit-medical sectors, but that will be the best that can be done, for now.
The ultimate goal of the minority political party, I have become convinced, is to pass as bad (for we citizens) a bill as possible so that the majority political party can be blamed for the results, and the President forced to either sign that bill or veto it, and then, however he decides, he and the majority party will be blamed for the less-than-perfect results in the 2010 elections.
Perversely, the ultimate legislative objective for some is failure for “we, the people”: failure which can then be politically exploited.  Intentionally defective public policy makes for great politics…and it’s very good for big business.
Unfortunately, “we, the people”, will get what many of us lobbied for (and against), when we railed against true reform because it was “socialism”**, or worried that it would benefit “illegals”, or would assure abortions*** paid on demand, and on and on and on – based on endless pieces of misinformation (lies) passed on to us from those whose motivation was considerably less than pure.
We will get what we deserve.  One can hope we’ll learn from our mistake, but that is not terribly likely.  “We the people” would rather exclude certain others, than include all.
I have followed this health care reform “debate” very carefully for many months now, and written about it frequently in this blog (beginning with July 24, 2009).  My personal story, from 1963-65, is at #mce_temp_url# (see #1).
Perhaps the best summary comment I’ve seen on the reality of the need for universal health insurance was published in the New York Times on October 4, in Roger Cohen’s column “The Public Imperative”.
In his column, Cohen said this: “I’m grateful to the wise Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic for pointing out that Friedrich Hayek, whose suspicion of the state was visceral, had this to say in [his book] “The Road to Serfdom”.
“Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the states helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong.”
Hayek accepted and endorsed the notion of nationalized health care….
Andrew Sullivan is not a “liberal”.  Friedrich Hayek* most certainly wasn’t.  Hayek is almost a deity among conservative libertarians.
I read the 50th anniversary edition of “Road to Serfdom” six years ago.  Conservative economist (and apparent Hayek disciple) Milton Friedman wrote the introduction to the book.  I had been steered to Hayek’s book by an avowed neo-con friend, got it, and read the volume cover to cover.  As I told my friend, later, Hayek said many things I, as a liberal, could generally agree with.  I high-lited 52 specific sections of Hayek’s reasoning that intrigued me, an anti-war liberal.    (One of the 52 was the above quotation.)  The conversation with my neo-con friend ended….
So, now we’re at the brink of passing as defective a Health Care Reform bill as possible so that it can be used as an election issue in the coming year.  That is how public policy has come to be debated in this country.  As I say,we deserve what we get.
As for me, there’s plenty of reasons why I could say it’s a waste of my time to care much about this issue:  personally, we have excellent health and pharmaceutical insurance (at least at the moment), for ten years we’ve had the best long-term care insurance available (so we’re told), we have the correct cards (Medicare and Medicare supplement) so that we’re not turned away at the door of a clinic or a hospital.  And free flu shots….
On that latter point, I got my flu shot last week.  There was, indeed, no charge.
But how about that illegal who is capable of receiving and communicating that disease which we are all fearing this season?  What about him or her?  In our infinite wisdom, some of us don’t want that illegal to get that flu shot, or even try, or take the precautions necessary to stay well.  “Send them back where they came from” comes the chorus.  But not even that will protect us in this global society of ours.  By choosing who qualifies for health, we’re putting ourselves at risk.
Wherever you are in this debate, think this issue through, and do something constructive.  The key word is constructive.  Refuse to accept the lies about death panels, or getting rid of or damaging Medicare (which is a “socialist” program, by the way), or that reform will trigger a wholesale rush to abortions #mce_temp_url#, or on and on and on….  Health Care Reform is about the future of our society.
Everybody should be covered, automatically, no questions asked.
* * * * *
* Friedrich Hayek, an Austrian who spent most of his adult life in England, wrote “Road to Serfdom” in 1944, during, but nearing the the end of, WWII.  He seems to have been railing primarily against the evils of National Socialism (Nazis) and to a lesser degree Communists, so it is of little surprise to me that currently an attempt is made to tar people like me, as well as Democrats and President Obama, as Nazis, Communists, fascists, allies of Hitler and Stalin, and to tar the concept of “socialism” with the same broad brush….
Ironically, contemporary American Capitalism, in which big business dominates government policy (the Military-Industrial (and Congressional) complex that President Eisenhower so feared as he left office in January 1961 #mce_temp_url#, see section IV ) seems about as close to a parallel of WWII era German and Soviet Union government-business-industry alliance as we have ever seen in this country.  Contemporary American Capitalism is an excellent parallel for the radical socialism Hayek feared.  Capitalism essentially has taken over American socialism and replaced the public good with the primary value of profit.
Here’s what the 50th anniversary edition of “The Road to Serfdom” says about the author:  “F. A. Hayek (1899-1992), recipient of the Medal of Freedom in 1991 and co-winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics in 1974, was a pioneer in monetary theory and the principal proponent of libertarianism in the twentieth century.  He taught at the University of London, the University of Chicago, and the University of Freiburg (Germany).”
* * – Some of the many kinds of “socialism” we Americans not only accept, but demand:
Social Security
Medicare/Medicaid
State Children’s health Insurance programs
Police, Fire, and Emergency Services
U.S. Postal Service
Roads and Highways
Regulation of Air Travel by FAA
U.S. Railway System
Public subways and metro systems
Public Bus and Lightrail Systems
Rest areas along major highways
Sidewalks
All Government-funded local/state projects
Public Water and Sewer Services
Public and State Universities and Colleges
Public Primary and Secondary Schools
Sesame Street
Publicly Funded anti-Drug Use Education for Children
Public Museums
Libraries
Public parks and Beaches
State and National Parks
Public Zoos
Unemployment Insurance
Municpal Garbage and Recycling Services
Treatment at any Hospital of Clinic that has ever received government funds (virtually all of them)
Medical Service and Medications created or derived from any government grant or research funding (pretty much all of them).
Innovations resulting from government programs like National Aeronautics and Space Administration
The publicly accessible internet.
Any program relating to foodstuffs, meats, produce and Crops: including regulation, research, product safety and the like.
Government buildings like the U.S. Capitol, Smithsonian, that are open to the public
Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson Memorials; Arlington and military cemeteries.
The Grand Canyon and National Parks
All government funds for any military purpose, including all expenditures for war (Defense budget is a huge share – probably over half – of the federal budget)
Without “socialist” programs the U.S. as we know it would collapse.  Public health insurance for all is no more “socialist” than public education or Medicare.
*** – Some personal reflections on abortion.  #mce_temp_url#

#101 – Dick Bernard: Running for TJ; and building a base.

/in , , , /by

My nephew, TJ Hedeen, died during liver transplant surgery on April 15, 2008.  He was 36.  He had a congenital liver defect.  He was a great guy, and left behind his wife, Mickey, and two stepsons, Bryant and Brace.

TJ, Bryant and Brace

TJ, Bryant and Brace


TJ’s death touched us all, but few as much as my son-in-law John Hagebock, a little older than TJ, who resolved to not  let TJ’s death be in vain.
John decided to make his contribution by drawing attention to organ donation programs, specifically Life Source.  #mce_temp_url# His first action was running the Twin Cities marathon on October 3, 2008.  It was his first marathon, and he finished the race.
John nearing the finish in the Twin Cities Marathon Oct 5, 2008

John nearing the finish in the Twin Cities Marathon Oct 5, 2008


The 2008 race was John’s warm-up.  He decided to do a reprise in 2009, but to up the ante a bit.  He began to quietly promote participation for TJ in the 2009 run, October 3.
By race day John had fresh running shirts advertising Life Source, and six more runners to “share the colors”.  He again ran the marathon; the other recruits were willing to do the ten mile segment.  Two of the six ended up injured, and couldn’t compete, but the other four finished the course.
John was a bit disappointed that he had only four new people on the course this year, but I’m really proud of what he accomplished.
He plans to do the same next year.
I suggested to him that a worthy objective would be to work with his new team to convince each of them to recruit two more runners for next year, and thus start a tradition of growth.
His program is off to a great start.
Congratulations, John.  Good running!  Good work!
There were doubtless many others in the thousands of runners who similarly were engaged in using the run as motivation for doing good for others.   Congratulations to them, as well.  They gave additional meaning to the race as well.
Again to readers, if you’re not familiar with organ donation programs, here’s a good chance to learn: #mce_temp_url#
Starting line Twin Cities 10 mile October 3, 2009

Starting line Twin Cities 10 mile October 3, 2009

#79 – Dick Bernard: President Obama speaks to the nation on Health Care

/in , , , , /by

Since anyone and everyone is predicting what Pres. Obama will say tonight, and what he means by what he says, I have my right to my own opinion, which is, I would say, as informed (and uninformed) as that of anyone else.  
I am deliberately posting this before Obama’s speech, rather than after.
As time has gone on, I am more and more of the opinion that what is happening now in the debate on Health Care Reform is very similar to what happened as the tide turned against the Vietnam War in the late 1960s early 1970s.  There came a tipping point in that conflict when public opinion turned against the war.  Nixon won a landslide victory in 1972; by 1975 the last frantic refugees lifted off from the U.S. embassy in Saigon; Nixon was already history.  The turn started earlier, but reached a crescendo quite rapidly.  The end wasn’t perfect, and the future wasn’t either, but for certain, change began to occur.  The past began to end…and lasted till we got mired in our next war – Iraq/Afghanistan.
If I’m correct, the current divisive atmosphere is a very good omen for the beginning of long term and very substantive change.  The Health Care Reform debate is being waged in the Congress, but far more importantly, it is being waged in the public square.  By no means is Health Care Reform “dead on arrival”; nor will it get stuck in cement after the first round of legislation is passed this fall.  
(On August 31, I was among those senior citizens who spent some time in the DFL (Democratic party) booth at the Minnesota State Fair.  I have done this before.  This time we were concerned about being attacked by irate people, to the extent that we had a training session before hand.  The training was a waste of time.  If anything, the people were more polite and serious minded than in previous similar events.  Sen. Al Franken was very politely received.  The people, I think, get it.)
I am not particularly concerned about what finally ends up in this first Health Care Reform bill.  There never was, and there will likely never be, a massive sea change in the general attitude of the body politic. So many of us, and so much of our economy, is wrapped up in the business of medicine that it would be unrealistic that revolutionary change would occur (though I think such a change would ultimately be for the betterment of all of us.  Who would miss those endless television ads for this or that pharmaceutical or treatment – the true cost of “competition”.)
A friend predicted earlier today that Obama would throw the progressives “off the bus” tonight.  
I am certain that, whatever he says, he will be interpreted as having gone too far, or not far enough, or this, or that, or the other.   Whether he throws progressives off the bus or not is going to be strictly an item of interpretation by the viewer, and we will have an opportunity to hear and see lots of comments about what it all means afterwards.  I will take every comment with a grain of salt, particularly if it comes from someone with a particular vested interest in the outcome of the debate.
Personally, I hope the advocates for revolutionary change prepare themselves for some realistic response, and rather than saying “we were sold out”, treat whatever positive changes which end up being made as the positive changes that they are, and then redouble their efforts for more and better changes down the road.
The debate is being waged, and we can thank the President of the United States for this.  
If we want “change we can believe in”, we now have an opportunity to help make it happen, one small and difficult step at a time.
To those tempted to throw the President “off the bus”, I don’t wish you well.

#75 – Dick Bernard: "Faith-based", as in Fraud and Politics

/in , , /by

These comments need a disclaimer: I am a lifelong Catholic, and active in my faith life.  Anyone who knows me would so attest.  This would make me a “Christian”, at least it would in the wake of John F. Kennedy’s election as President in 1960, though I would guess that there are still plenty of “Christians” out there that would consider me otherwise.  So be it.  
“Faith” and “authority” are not always a good combination.  It is not hard to find examples of abuse.
1.  The Sunday, August 30, 2009, Minneapolis Star Tribune, a paper with a circulation of over 600,000, carried a major front page story with the banner headline “False Prophet, False Profits?” about a local alleged swindler who “told listeners to a Christian radio network he could protect their wealth.”  He “called his worldwide radio audience [on more than 250 stations nationwide] “Truth Seekers”. ”  His pitch preyed on their fear and their greed.
The truth finally outed, and hundreds of his trusting flock lost millions through his network of lies.  He was not the first man of the cloth to have feet of clay in my part of the world, recently.  He joins an all-star gallery of higher profile slick pitch preachers who prey on people’s faith to make a fast buck.  His story is likely repeated everywhere.  An aberration?  Certainly.  But should one be cautious?  You betcha. The Bible in the hands of someone unscrupulous can be a dangerous thing indeed. (The entire story is likely available for a limited time at  www.startribune.com.)  
The shameless radio preacher damaged individual lives, but there are, in my opinion, even worse examples, where innocent bystanders are recruited to spread lies. 
At about the same time the swindler was exposed, two other unrelated stories surfaced about what I would consider misuse of authority to make unwitting church people agents of church people with a less than holy agenda.
2.  The September 1, 2009, Washington Spectator (www.washingtonspectator.com) carried a most interesting two page commentary entitled “Preying on Fear and Predicting the Final Solution”.  
The reporter had spent some time traveling rural Oregon with a Congressman who was holding town hall meetings in many counties in his Congressional District. This is, of course, the time of controversy over certain alleged aspects of Health Care Reform (demonstrable myths), and predictably at each location some nice (or not so nice) person would ask about things like euthanasia (“death panels”), legislated abortion and the like, issues which have been shown to be false indictments of the proposed legislation.    
The reporter talked in person with some of those raising the allegations, and it came to be clear that they were talking points provided by an outfit connected to a major “Christian” university, and disseminated through the website of someone who bills himself as “the pastor on the Internet”.   
The so-called “pastor” admitted there were errors in the talking points and promised they’d be fixed, but that is like admitting the barn door needs fixing after the horses have escaped.  The damage was done, and, I think, it was done deliberately – to make foot-soldiers of people whose fear (and trust) was exploited for ignoble ends.
3.  At about the same time I received the preceding items, the local Archdiocese (Catholic) newspaper came (we’re on the subscription list).  The Catholic Church I know is historically a pillar of social justice, and should be four-square in favor of health-care reform, and is, mostly.
But the local Archbishop, in a front page column headlined “Approach to health care reform speaks volumes about our values” really emphasized only limited value “Abortion, euthanasia…” to his own flock.  Indeed, the Archbishop went beyond the formal statement of his brother Bishops in the United States by adding to their list of concerns the long debunked “euthanasia” word.    (It should be mentioned that “Catholics” themselves basically reflect the general body-politic on these issues.  The Archbishop reflects a relatively small minority of zealots but is considered an authority figure nonetheless.)
When it comes to Authority, some authority figures abuse theirs, regularly, with not always pleasant consequences.  
Be cautious.

#74 – Bob Barkley: First do no harm

/in , , , /by

It is intriguing to observe our nation’s current on-going debate about medical care – a system that ostensibly follows the ethical principle of “first do no harm.”
It seems that medical care has now digressed to an un-American and unprofessional dictum of “first do not care for the unprofitable.”
How can we “first do no harm” when we have allowed medicine to denigrate into a profit motivated business rather than a basic human right?
When did not doing harm to a business take precedence over not doing harm to an individual’s health? Perhaps what seems so basically humane no longer applies to protecting our environment or caring for the sick.  Could I have missed that decision somewhere along the way?
When did we decide that corporations could tax us at will – through uncontrolled and outrageously escalating premiums – and do their taxing without representation of those being taxed?  Is this one of our great American values all of a sudden?
When did we decide that we could harm the poor by rationing medical care only to the wealthy and fortunate? Does “America the beautiful” pertain only to our scenery or should it apply equally to our compassion?
Isn’t one of the basic premises of government in a civilized society to protect its citizens against excesses?  How does allowing the continuation of a broken system of unconscionable medical care excesses in profit and privilege fit with being civilized?
When did we first decide that we could tolerate armed citizens behaving like terrorists in disrupting civil discourse?  What statute was it that slipped by us and sanctioned that sort of threat to our liberty?
Who was it that first proposed that America should slide to the bottom of the developed nations and allow so much harm to be continued? Why have those who call themselves American conservatives become so enamored with the existing evils of our medical care system that they fight so relentlessly not to change them?
What true American is it that would stand in the way of authentic and fundamental doctor-patient care rather than first fret over who might have coverage versus who will not be so lucky?
I don’t recall when we decided to let insurance companies govern our lives and determined that our democratic government should allow such harm to continue.  How is it that the huge bureaucratic waste that resides in these companies is somehow tolerable to those who lash out so vociferously at the mythical ineptitude of government?
“First do no harm!” is apparently the biggest myth of all.  Providing adequate and affordable medical care to all Americans is both necessary and feasible.  We will all need to share in its costs according to our means.  Providing for those costs are simply the dues true Americans have agreed to pay to be citizens of our great country and members of our great society.
I have excellent medical coverage – much of it well run by our government.  I would do just fine if nothing changed.  But “first do no harm” seems fundamentally American to me.  Consequently, the system that rewards me so well should be extended to all my neighbors alike. I thought that was what made our country so cherished.  Surely civility and rationality will prevail.  Surely we can do better. Surely we wish to do no harm. Am I wrong?  I guess I will know shortly.
 Robert Barkley, Jr., is a counselor in Systemic Education Reform, retired Executive Director of the Ohio Education Association, and began his career as a teacher and coach. He is the author of Quality in Education: A Primer for Collaborative Visionary Educational Leaders and Leadership In Education: A Handbook for School Superintendents and Teacher Union Presidents.

#70 – Dick Bernard: Health Care and Government in LaMoure

/in , , , , /by

Other posts on this topic: July 24,26,27,29,30,31,August 1,2,5,6,7,10
See Update at end of post.
Friday I was in LaMoure (county seat of LaMoure County, ND, pop. 900). 
As is usual on my visits there, I was an early customer for coffee at the gas station on the east edge of town.  I got my coffee, picked up the daily Fargo Forum and the weekly LaMoure Chronicle.  The Forum front page was dominated by a large photo and headline “Conservatives rally in Fargo for ‘Tea Party’.  Speaker Hennen says ‘freedom is under attack’.”  (That phrase,’freedom is under attack’, would be amusing, were it not so tragically wrong.) 
As I paid for my small purchases, I noticed on the counter a newsletter, “Recovery Times”, put out by FEMA, the natural disaster section of the Department of Homeland Security.  A few months earlier LaMoure had indeed been ‘under attack’ by a near catastrophic spring flood, and at that time,  ‘government’ in the form of outside assistance was very, very welcome in LaMoure, North Dakota.  Indeed, Fargo, where the Tea Partiers were conclaving, had also had great need for FEMA in its own disaster a few months earlier. 
When in LaMoure, I always pick up the LaMoure Chronicle because I’m  a fan of publisher Gerald Harris’ Comments column.  He always seems to call it like he sees it, whatever the topic, and I enjoy his passion even though, I would guess, we are not ideological twins.  He seems to have no problem with disagreement, and has printed my letters in response to something or other he’s written.  If I’m correct, I like it that he’s willing to consider and even publicize other ideas.  Maybe, even, he can accept other points of view, and maybe even change his mind…not at all a bad trait.
Harris’ August 12 ‘Comments’ column was on Health Care.  I’ve retyped it in its entirety at the end of this column.  It speaks for itself. 
No question, the Health Care debate has taken on the cast of ‘government’ versus the people…and I always find that odd.  The people are, after all, the government.  Whatever the final results of the Health Care debate, the private sector will continue to reap the benefits.  Even if we went socialist (not a swear word to me), the government would be the health care industries biggest customer.
(Come to think of it, in the area of military expenditures, we are already ‘socialist’ – without huge government expenditures for ‘defense’, the massive defense industry would be treading water.  There’s apparently good socialism and there’s bad socialism, and it’s all around us.  Indeed, little LaMoure has a small operating military facility just outside of town.  It’s a piece of pork that goes way back to the time when a local boy was United States Senator from North Dakota.  There’s an old rocket on display right beside the motel I stay in when I visit….)
So, the Health Care debate rages on, as well it should, given the immense size and complexity of the entire Health care complex.  It is not an easy debate.  A couple of days before LaMoure, I was sitting with a group of 14 “birds of a feather” (Mr. Harris would likely observe we all were like thinkers), but what was striking when we talked about Health Care was that there were, even among ourselves, many points of view about what needed fixing, and how it should be fixed. 
What seems clear is that a fix is desperately needed, and continuing to deny reality is like putting off the operation for a cancer until next year, when we know more about the specific disease.  By then it’s too late for the patient.
What’s needed in this debate is not only ideas, but an ability on all sides to really listen, rather than getting stuck in some ideological cement. 
I appreciate Gerald Harris’ point of view.  I hope he appreciates mine, too.
COMMENTS by Gerald Harris, Aug 12, 2009, LaMoure Chronicle
The health care business is becoming a contentious issue in this country today.  There are those that think health care is a right and there are those that think if you can’t pay for it you have no right to it.  I happen to be one that thinks that children and those incapacitated should be taken care of no matter what parents and others can afford to do.  What I don’t think is a solution is for the federal government or state government stepping in to turn our private health care industry into a government controlled industry.  The thing that will do is take away the incentive to improve health care because there will be no reason to do so.  The reason people keep looking for ways to improve things, whether in the health care field or any other field, is they have a monetary or other incentive that drives them.  There has to be something that a person gains from improving things or they won’t do it.  For the most part people don’t look for better ways to do things just for the fun of it.
This is a nation that spends upwards of $3 trillion a year on medical care and that may indicate that we are a nation of hypochondriacs.  It may also mean that we are becoming an aging population has has never taken good care of itself physically.  There are many reasons for poor health and some can be prevented and some can’t and it is up to us to prevent as much of it through diet, exercise and sleep as we possibly can.  This in itself would lower our health care expenditures.
The problem that we face now is that all of our energy to solve the health care problem is focused on health insurance.  The federal government’s efforts are aimed at getting everyone insured through some sort of health insurance policy whether they can pay for it or not.  As I see it this is entirely the wrong approach.  If government wants to get involved at all, and they sure seem to, they should look at making health care available to all citizens young and old through a two or three tier system.  The Number one effort should be protecting those who can’t protect themselves and that is, for the most part, the young and the mentally and or physically infirm.  The country should see to it that all children age 0-18 have free health care.  The second thing is to leave the private health care industry, including the insurance industry, alone to provide health care as they see fit.  The third thing would be to provide a public health care system by expanding on the Veterans Administration health care system to include all those that can’t or won’t afford the private system paid by insurance or by the individual without using insurance.
Ths would provide competing health care systems that the federal government seems to want and it would provide health care to all.  The details of this could easily be worked out and it would be interesting to see what the general populace would do.
By providing for children we have solved the problem of seeing to it that most of those that have no choices have a chance at growing up healthy.
What the government is proposing will eventually cost a lot more money than it does now and probably be no more effective than what we have now.
**
“As I see it, every day you do one of two things: build health or produce disease in yourself.”  Adelle Davis, 1904-1974.
Moderator Comment:  I certainly don’t carte blanche agree, or disagree, with Mr. Harris.  But the suggestion that the government is the problem brings back the comment about FEMA in LaMoure.  When there was a threatened flood, FEMA was there, even though it may well have been smarter for the town of LaMoure, and particularly the farms in the James River Valley, to be built on higher ground.   Government Health care (i.e. Veterans Administration) IS efficient…probably too efficient…it cuts into profits….
Letter to the editor published in August 19, 2009, LaMoure Chronicle:
I’m in and out of LaMoure from time to time, and when in town I always look for and appreciate Gerald Harris’ Comments in the Chronicle.  They make me think, even though I don’t always agree with them.
The August 12 column on Health Care is no exception.
I have a lot of experience with Health Care over many years; luckily I’ve been pretty health, personally.  Were it as simple as Mr. Harris and others assert.  As currently organized, medicine is extremely complicated and inefficient.
“Government” which seems to be, often, a hate-word, is all of us…not some sinister “them”.  Anyone on Medicare or who has ever been in a VA Hospital or in any way has been visited by catastrophe (your flood a few months ago) knows and appreciates the good side of “government” in Health Care.
The massive middle class – most of us, from lower to higher income – is the group that desperately needs reform of Health Care, and protection from the whims of private enterprise and economic downs.  Ironically, it is that same middle class that is mobilized to defeat the very reform that is needed.
So, you have insurance?  You can lose that job which has the insurance, or the rates or the coverage can change, or you move somewhere else.  What stability is there for the common citizen in our current system?  Precious little, I would submit.
I type this letter on an old computer that needs replacing due to innumerable upgrades, etc., over the years.  It was top of the line when I bought it, but no more.  In many ways, American Health Care policy is like this old computer.  It has patches on top of patches.  It needs, badly, “reform” (replacement).
The bottom line mitigating against reform is, I feel, the preoccupation with profits.  That is the main reason for the blizzard of misinformation about keeping what should be public, private.  There’s lots of money to be made from keeping the current system, and the prime beneficiaries are people living a life style that we cannot imagine.
Thanks, Gerald.  I have my own blog, and have written quite a lot about this topic in the last month. www.thoughtstowardsabetterworld.org is the address.  Start with August 15, where I write about the visit to LaMoure last week.
Dick Bernard

#68: Dick Bernard: Putting the "n" back in "commuity"

/1 Comment/in , , , /by

Other posts on this topic: Jul 24,26,27,29,30,31,August 1,2,5,6,7,15.
There is no such word as “commuity”, but that is what effectively happens when you remove the “n”, as in “negotiate”, or “neighborly” or “nice”.  Put the “n” back in, and you have, again, “community”.
We all have a pretty clear sense of “community”, and how a good “community” works.  Most of us live in such environments.  People may not know each other well, but when chips are down, they chip in and help each other.  Reluctant as they sometimes might be, ordinarily there is some kind of negotiations to make changes for the greater good of everyone. 
There are efforts to define “community” in very narrow ways.  Community, really, is all of us, together.  We are not isolated homes, villages or farms, and if honest about our history, we’ve never been able to exist on our own.  This is especially true today.    
This thought comes to mind as a well orchestrated and small, (and very well publicized) group of very ordinary appearing “thugs” are out and about attempting to make it seem like the current debate over health care reform will result in riots and chaos if such reform is passed. 
It is tempting to think that the situation is nearly out of control.  This is what we are led to believe, especially by media accounts.
But, I would ask, stop for a moment, and take a look around in all of the “circles” that you personally identify with: the people on your block and the few surrounding blocks; the neighbors down the road; the people who go to your church, or who you work with, or see frequently, whether they are friends are not.  Just ordinary people, like you.
What percent of these folks are likely to become a fascist militia to run riot if some law is passed which will improve they and their families lives? But that is exactly what this mis-named “debate” is about: inculcating Fear and Loathing.
I have done this little circle of communities exercise with myself.  I have a lot of circles I’m  one way or another part of.  Most of these circles are not full of people who think exactly like I do.
I would submit that the “thugs in waiting” in these circles are very few and far between – I guess less than 5% and that’s guessing very high. 
If we don’t capitulate (by inaction), and keep letting lawmakers know that we support the need for change, the likelihood is that the sense of crisis will dissipate…mostly because we are not talking, here, about radical changes (except, perhaps, as seen by some of the key ring-leaders against change who want chaos, but prefer to stay hidden in the shadows, and send out their own volunteer militias to attempt to make trouble.) 
I grew up with many sayings.  One which comes to mind, now, is that “quitters never win, winners never quit”. 
Well over 70% of the U.S. population wants change in Health policy.
Are we going to let some folks well inoculated with Fear derail progress in this area?
Seriously, look at your own “community circle census”.  It’ll restore hope.
Then get back to work.  Dealing with change is not a spectator sport.

#67 – Dick Bernard: Communicating Health Care Reform

/in , /by

Other posts on this topic: July 24,26,27,29,30,31,August 1,2,5,6,10,15
Early in this round of emotional overkill on Health Care Reform debate, someone sent me the link to a draft bill on Health Care Reform, and put the spotlight on three “sections” of the bill.   I opened the document, which turned out to have 1,018 pages, and looked for the cited sections, but they didn’t exist.  I wrote back, reporting this to the sender.  The response from my correspondent was that he was referring to “pages”, (not “sections”, as he had mentioned).  I likely couldn’t have given him a satisfactory response to his question anyway – his mind seemed to be made up.  This seems to  be how it goes:  “Don’t bother me with alternative thoughts.  My mind is made up.”
The exchange I describe was with someone I really value knowing and with whom I’ve had a lifelong relationship.  Now, how would this go with some stranger I’ve never seen in my life, and will likely never see again?  I’m trying to prepare myself mentally for this reality.  Each year I volunteer at the DFL (Democrat) booth at the State Fair on Senior Day, and each year some “flamethrower” will wander in, unannounced, among all the very nice other people, and attempt to disrupt and confuse.  What to do?  There are many thoughts.  There is no adequate preparation that can be made.
The quandary: a half-dozen of us met for almost two hours earlier this week, trying to decide on a handout piece for the State Fair – one that people would at least look at, possibly carry home, and perhaps even use.  The meeting was important, and useful, and even so, we’ve done only one side – a simple listing of our state’s federal lawmakers and their office phone numbers including an encouragement to simply make a phone call when they get home. 
Unfortunately, we can’t go home with the people, actually pick up their phone, dial it for them and convey their message, whatever that message is.  That’s a reality, and the lawmakers know that far better than we.
(A year or two ago, I participated in a sit-in at a local Congresswomans office.  I volunteered for a certain hour for a number of weeks, and was there each time.  This was during duty hours.  The receptionists desk was across the floor from us, and what struck me during that duty was that the telephone almost never rang at the receptionists desk – and he had a genuine old-fashioned telephone that actually made a sound.  Simply, there weren’t incoming phone calls.  That is odd, given Congressional districts comprise more than a half-million population, most of whom are potential callers….)
Then there are The Louts:  I’ve been noticing that all of the news media have given an inordinate amount of attention to a tiny number of incidents of truly outrageous (in my opinion) behavior by a few louts in assorted town halls around the country.  The Louts are some real “LuLu’s” – I can imagine a neighborhood conversation with them.  NOT.
I keep wondering to myself: how much good are these Louts doing for their cause, even amongst the other people in the crowded meeting rooms.  I’ve been in these meeting rooms from time to time in my life, and the vast majority of the people who attend such meetings are there to learn something.  The Louts are teaching the participants a lesson about Loutish behavior.  They aren’t helping their cause.
A simple exercise: I think of my own little “town” – our homeowners association of 96 homes.  We’re mostly senior, all middle class, very moderate income, probably a reasonable mix of conservative and liberal. 
I can think of only two in this association, where I’ve lived for ten years, who are probably cheering on the Louts.  I doubt that many of the others would resonate with the Louts shrill and obstructive message….  There is no ‘town crier’ going up and down our streets….
Whatever your view, stay in positive action.

#66 – Dick Bernard: The practice of the viral lie.

/1 Comment/in , , , /by

Note comment following this post.
Other posts on this topic: July 24,26,27,29,30,31,August 1,2,5,7,10,15.
In #60, posted July 29th, I commented on an e-list I somehow found myself on.  The list sends what could only be described as hysterical fear-mongering, mostly against Health Care Reform, and offers to send faxes to all 535 members of Congress for members for only $25 a month.  July 29, I reported having received six e-mails from this source.  This morning it is up to 15.  I am keeping them all in my ‘junk’ file.  Each e-mail includes a disclaimer at the end.  The disclaimer is reprinted in full at the end of this post.  The outfit works out of a PO Box in Orange CA.
July 25, in the morning, I received the first more-or-less “normal” salvo in the Health Care Reform lie campaign of 2009.  It was a YouTube segment of an undated, apparently recent, radio talk show.  The audio had, helpfully, a cover gallery of Nazi photos as wallpaper background on the YouTube screen, doubtless to remind the viewer/listener where we were headed if we didn’t stop this Health Care Reform business.  I didn’t know who the talk show host was – it turned out to be former Senator Fred Thompson.  The guest was identified as Betsy McCaughey, purporting to give the truth about the Health Care Reform proposals, especially about euthanasia for old people. 
The e-mail came to me and two others; the sender of the e-mail had been one of four who had received it the previous evening.  It came with a note “shocking if true”.  The subject line said “A warrior for Health Care”.  It was a viral e-mail.
At the time I viewed the YouTube segment it had been watched 36000 times. 
In between July 25 and today, McCaughey’s arguments have been outed as more than dishonest – well, let’s call them what they are: lies.  No less than an editorial in USA Today commented on their dishonesty.  Yes, they are carefully worded lies, but if one intends to deceive, it is a lie nonetheless, and that is what McCaughey, and her ilk, are doing. 
When I last looked, today, 11 days after the initial mailing, the YouTube segment has been viewed 180,000 times – about 10,000 per day.  One of those viewers is me.   I also sent it to my own e-list.  Perhaps some of them watched it as well.
Many (but by no means all) of those forwarding and watching the video will accept it as the truth, even though it is untrue. 
That is how it goes in the land of the viral lie.
So, what to do?
I simply pointed out the dishonest facts about the segment to the person who sent it on to me, actually sending additional documentation about the dishonesty in past days.
Beyond doing that, I don’t know that there is much more that can be done.
You hope, hopefully not in vain, that the recipient of the corrected information will pass it back on up the line as these are people who he/she knows in person, and they have no idea who I am. 
Assuming the worst – that there will be no clarifying going back up the line – (the most likely scenario), the only thing I think we can do is to continue to slog on, doing our best to be truth tellers in a time when truth is an extraordinarily scarce, and even despised, virtue.   
If polls are at all accurate, the vast majority of Americans believe there are very serious problems with our current system of Health Care delivery.  Most people know the system is broke and they its current or potential victims.  The vast majority of Americans are perhaps sufficiently skeptical to not “buy the [dishonest] kool-aid” of the outrageous claims made by the enemies of reform.  But lies are enticing, and can be made believable.
I will keep checking in on that YouTube segment to see how the numbers grow over the coming weeks (occasionally I’ll post updates).  It would be reasonable to expect that it will go over 1,000,000 – by no means will all of those who watch it, believe it.  And even if everyone who watches it believes it, they remain a tiny drop-in-a-bucket of the total U.S. population, and they are the type who’ll be on that other e-list I described at the beginning of this post, and trying to shout out dialogue at town hall forums.  It is important to keep that fact in mind. 
Meanwhile, I know that for anyone who has even the tiniest bit of interest, there are multitudes of sources out there which respond to all of the charges which have been made.  With sophisticated search engines, and a tiny bit of care in what search words one uses, truth-telling information is available, particularly on the internet.
Here’s the disclaimer referred to in the first paragraph of this post: “This mail cannot be considered spam as long as we include contact information and remove instructions.  This message is being sent to you in compliance with the current Federal Legislation for commercial e-mail (H.R. 4176 – SECTION 101 Paragraph (e)(1)(a) AND Bill s. 1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th Congress.”