Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Politics

  • Health Care Must be Produced

    I read this article on CQPolitics.com that deals with some of the issues of handling health care costs, and also suggests to me that my feeling may be right that the types of savings claimed by the candidates as part of their health care programs may be much more complicated to attain than they would have us believe.

    There’s a fundamental qualitative difference between saying that someone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and saying that someone has the right to free health care. While there are costs for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, once won, they impact very broadly. In the case of medical care, someone has to produce the care, in fact, many someones. There are physicians who spend huge amounts on their training and go into massive amounts of debt for the privilege of treating us. Drug companies do make profits, but they also must expend a great deal of time and energy on research and development. Those who produce medical equipment again have huge investments. Then we turn around and say that everyone has a right to their services.

    Now those who have been around this blog for some time may want to remind me that I have called for universal health care, and this post sounds like I’m arguing against it. But I hope you’ll also recall that I have mentioned the contradiction. The problem is simply this: We’re not going to deny people treatment at the emergency room door. What happens as a result? We do cover those least able to pay but in one of the most expensive and least effective ways possible.

    Since we’re going to spend money here–and as a Christian I believe I should do what I can to see that these people are cared for–the question is how are we going to do so more effectively. The article I cited at the beginning lists a number of excellent points. I’m not going to try to reiterate them or argue with them. I confess that I am finding the details confusing, and I don’t think I’m that easily confused.

    Here’s the direction my thinking is going. I think we need to define basic medical care that will be universal, and provide the necessary subsidies for that care, possibly through a type of credit on taxes. Then we need to leave the more advanced and experimental care ideas in private hands to be developed over time. As a technique becomes ready for the mainstream, we could change the boundaries of basic medical care.

    I believe Nurse Practitioners are one way into the future. I often wonder how people from non-medical families do it. I can call my wife, sister, mother, all RNs, or my brother the cardiologist, and say, “Here are my symptoms, do I need to go see the doctor?” Generally the answer is no. A little sensible care at home and I’m up and running again. Just consider this: Friday was probably the most miserable day I’ve ever experienced in terms of illness, and today I’m sitting here typing, no visit to the doctor involved.

    People are concerned with lawsuits, but that is something that could be managed legally as well. Preventative care would be important and could be pursued through more accessible primary care.

    But health care plans that simply deal with distributing care won’t provide a long term answer. We need to keep in mind how good health care is produced, and what any new plan will do to that production. Medical practitioners are not merely distributors of an existing good, like water. They are producers, and if we want them to produce we’ll need to deal fairly with them as well.

  • Enabling Media Bias

    Walter Shorenstein is decrying media bias in favor of Barack Obama. The only surprising thing here, in my view, is that someone felt they needed to write a memo–and I favor Obama myself. The question is just how media bias works, and what the bias is.

    First, while I think there is a natural tendency to bias a story in favor of one’s own political views, and journalists tend to be more liberal than the overall population (I believe), I think the strongest bias in the media is towards the unusual and the exciting. What do the most people want to watch and hear about. For example, I suspect that many people who may well not vote for Barack Obama have been more interested in how he will perform. Here’s where Hillary Clinton’s experience and time in the public view works against her. We know more about her than about Obama. If she wins, though it’s historic, it’s what was expected originally. Obama, on the other hand, is unexpected.

    But second, I think there is a simple fact about media coverage that enables media bias. There are very few actual facts reported in the media. What actually happens is that we get claims, followed by hour after hour of analysis by different experts. Sometimes the position of these “experts” is entirely predictable; they are the spin doctors for the campaigns or parties. At other times they are more unpredictable, because they are from political science professors or unaligned political consultants.

    There is time to actually examine and analyze facts, but that time is instead taken up by getting more and more opinions. Why is this? Well, this comes down to my big objection to what I would call “practical postmodernism.” This is the view that all ideas are more or less equal, they are just part of someone’s story, and the way to be properly unbiased is to make sure that every opinion gets expressed.

    This results in a rudderless program, free of actual analysis, while filled with reams of apparent analysis. Now there are many things I can say about this, but my key point today is that this approach to journalism allows media bias to occur and to be concealed under the veneer of the balanced approach. Consider the headlines about various polls, for example. Is 46-44 a slight lead for candidate A, or is it a statistical tie. If the next day it’s 45-45 is candidate B moving up on candidate A, or is it statistically insignificant. (Statistically both are within the margin of error and one would best regard them both as a tie. There isn’t necessarily any trend here.) But what viewers want, and the media wants to supply is news, and that means they have to spin it in the direction of change.

    I would prefer more reporting of facts, and there are plenty of those missing. I’ve been researching health care plans, for example, and while there is a great deal to read, very little of it is in the mainstream media. Media outlets could do the voters a great favor by researching the numbers in those health care plans and seeing whether there’s any likelihood that the projected savings can occur and asking what will happen to things like experimental treatments, for example. I admit that in my part-time look at this I’ve failed to make heads or tails of it all. I just continue to have this feeling that the claimed savings are, to put it mildly, optimistic.

    I’d prefer to see media representatives admit their bias and report what they believe to be true. Then it’s out on the table, and I have a better basis for analyzing their statements. I’d prefer more experts producing information and analysis, and less expressing generalized opinions. In other words, I think we’d be better off with journalists researching what they believe to be facts, reporting those facts, and get our balance either by reading or watching other journalists, or by analyzing those facts for ourselves.

    The implied standard of media fairness seems to be whether each candidate or “side” gets a similar amount of time and attention. I think that if a candidate commits a whopper, that candidate ought to get disproportionately negative coverage, and vice-versa. I think most of us are aware that the idea of an unbiased media is an illusion. It’s an impossible dream. Let the fact wars begin instead.

    I can’t end a post like this without reference to two sites that are perhaps the strongest contrary evidence, Politifact.com and Factcheck.org, who seem to be managing to be the most unbiased folks I’ve encountered, and are doing fact checks. I do think that we need something like what they do, only that goes a little deeper, but they are providing a valuable service to the public, and I present them as evidence that maybe I’m wrong, and maybe it can be done. Note, however, that in doing their job, they definitely run contrary to the “all ideas are equal” camp.

  • A Conservative Christian Republican for Obama

    I found this post via if i were a bell, i’d ring, and find the arguments used interesting. Not being as conservative as the the post author, I have less policy concerns with Obama than he does, but I find his arguments very interesting.

  • Stump Speeches and Empty Rhetoric

    I’ve watched with some interest the debates over Barack Obama’s rhetoric. He has been charged with using empty rhetoric instead of presenting actual solutions.

    I have a bit of a problem with this. Stump speeches generally are mostly fluff. They’re designed to encourage and excite the faithful. They’re supposed to be emotional. I haven’t seen all that much substance in anybody else’s stump speeches either. I looked around, but I can’t find any sort of analysis, and I’m not certain how it would be done.

    I do think there’s about as much substance in this campaign as in any, and I believe with a number of tools on the internet that there it’s even easier this year to get at the candidates’ views and records, irrespective of stump speeches. It seems to me that all the complaints about Barack Obama’s words derive form the fact that he delivers low substance lines so much better than anyone else in the campaign.

    As I’ve said before I’m not 100% satisfied with Barack Obama as a candidate. As an independent in a closed primary state I didn’t have anything to say in the Democratic nomination either. But I see no reason to reject a candidate because he delivers a stump speech very effectively. I think his opponents should find something else to talk about.

    They could always try more substance themselves.

  • Church Politics Good and Bad

    Not too long ago I posted about the necessity for church politics. Today I was reading Frederick W. Danker’s commentary on 2 Corinthians, and I ran across a similar argument, based on 2 Corinthians.

    Let me quote it:

    Much of Paul’s success lay in his political acumen, with a flair for recognition of the potential of others for service. If politics is the art of mobilizing power and resources, material and human–with whatever bureaucratic structures are necessary–to satisfy the optimum requirements for justice and to ensure the safety of the powerless, St. Paul qualifies as one of its masters. There are those who shy away from the use of the terms politics and bureaucracy in connection with ecclesiastical matters. But if politics is presumed to be so intrinsically tainted that the institutional church is embarrassed by the term, there is no reason to expect “politicians” to think better of themselves. There is no escape from reality–politics and bureaucracy are facts of life, and it is primarily a question of whether there will be good or bad politics and good or bad bureaucrats. It is also true that groups of people ultimately determine which kind will prevail. In this letter to Corinth, Paul exposes practitioners of bad politics and invites his addressees to insist on good politics. He himself claims to be a politician dedicated to the interests of God and Jesus Christ, and therefore of the Corinthians’ interests. It is not surprising therefore that many of Paul’s statements in this letter relate to matters of morale, authority, teamwork, and obedience.

    I think this paragraph presents a very important truth, and it is well supported by the epistles of Paul, and particularly 1 & 2 Corinthians. Whether in politics or in the church, when we dismiss all politics as dirty or unnecessary we simply guarantee that we will have bad politics.

    Cynics around the country will fail to vote or fail to express their opinions and then will complain. But they themselves are complicit in the fact that politics is dirty, because they do not participate and place their votes against the bad politicians.

    In many churches there are people who complain about the way the church functions. In my own United Methodist denomination many like to complain about the larger church organization, but very few people want to get involved and do the hard work of making church politics function well.

    We have to get involved and expect–no, insist on–more. Otherwise we’ll continue to get less.

    (I wrote a short review of Danker’s commentary on 2 Corinthians here.)

  • Ralph Nader Running for President

    . . . according to this MSNBC.com story. He had an exploratory campaign for about a month. Normally an exploratory campaign is designed to see if you ought to run. Now here’s what I want to know. What would he have had to discover to persuade him not to run?

  • Life of a Rumor

    One of the nastiest sins you can have break out in your church is gossip. Unfortunately, it’s also one of the most common–more common than the common cold. I have seen church congregations broken apart by gossip, and nobody involved thought they were doing anyone any harm.

    Excuses for spreading rumor and innuendo vary. Sometimes people just don’t see the harm. Sometimes they believe the rumor is true. Other folks just can’t help it; the rumor is too juicy and they just have to tell someone.

    If another person draws their attention to it, there are plenty of excuses. Here are some samples:

    “I’m just doing my duty as a church leader to find out the truth.” This one works even if you’re on the hospitality team, or you help park cars. You’re still a leader, right?

    “I’m not spreading the rumor. I’m trying to control it and let people know how unreliable it is.” OK!

    “I’m not talking about _____ (the subject of the rumor). I’m dealing with the people who spread it.” Well, no problem then!

    But my favorite is: “I’m just telling you so you can pray for _____ more specifically.” I’ll make sure to pass on your inside information to God in my next prayer in case he missed it.

    There are a few malicious tale bearers, but most people simply talk, and they never realize what they are doing. But the spread of a rumor can do a great deal of damage. Generally also the rumor becomes more believable the more people who repeat it. It’s not evidence. It’s how many times you heard it. By the time you get to the people talking about the people talking about the rumor, nobody knows where it started, and it has a life of its own.

    Similar things happen in the media, I think, and with similar effect. A newspaper publishes a story that may (or may not) have inadequate support. Then we get the media outlets who spend their time talking about how nasty it was for the first outlet to release the story, but the general public simply hears the rumor again and again. Multiple experts get on the various talk shows to comment on whether the original story should have been published. Then more experts talk about whether we should be talking about the story. Before long viewers, readers, and listeners are no longer sure just what the story was.

    Finally, of course, bloggers like me start talking about the media that talked about the media that talked about the media that originated the story . . .

    It’s driven by the fact that we, the public, will watch this kind of thing. It’s a human thing, just like gossip in a church community. If we don’t want it, we’re going to have to learn to change the channel, read a different web page, listen to a different radio station, or perhaps simply go and research the facts as best we can.

    Let me recommend two sites I’ve been using more and more: PolitiFact and FactCheck.org. We need to be aware that even they can be wrong, but looking for the facts is a number of steps above simply chewing on the rumors.

  • Of Rules and Fairness

    When I was in my early teens I remember playing a game (I can’t remember what) with a younger cousin. I was old enough that my idea of fairness was that you followed the rules and that was fair. It didn’t matter how many wins each person had. My younger cousin, after losing a few times, told me that I was not being fair. He should win as often as I did. I was obviously not wise enough to realize that fairness might also involve my being older than he was, and that perhaps I should have introduced a handicap. But he would have been satisfied with nothing other than an even number of wins and losses.

    I was reminded of that incident when I read this poll in which there is a substantial, and perhaps significant dip in Barack Obama’s popularity against John McCain in Florida. The article suggests that his stance on Florida delegates might just be to blame.

    I live in Florida, but I’m registered independent, so I don’t have a dog in that particular hunt. Nonetheless, it’s interesting to watch. Americans have very little tolerance for procedures and rules. Like my young cousin, they like fairness (evenness?) in the results. Our court system is more interested in procedure, in following the rules. Justice has to take a back seat. On first look, that tends to offend many people. But you should consider the opposite. Supposing that the rules could be set aside so that a particular judge’s idea of justice or fairness would prevail. What would happen then? We would certainly not have much fairness in the way different people were treated before different judges.

    This kind of attitude comes into play in the issue of Florida’s Democratic delegates. We have too basic arguments that clash. The first argument is that the rules were set, everyone knew them, and Florida didn’t follow those rules. I have great sympathy with that particular argument. The second, however, is not at all like the first. It says that everyone’s vote should be counted, that people have a right to be heard, and that the process has left Florida’s Democrats without a voice in their party’s convention.

    It is not coincidental, either, that the campaign that would benefit most from Florida’s delegates is advocating their inclusion, while the other campaign, well, not so much! It might be that one or the other campaign is arguing from principle, of course, but self interest is fairly obvious. Clinton is not arguing that the delegates should be seated. It’s funny that she and her staff didn’t make that argument in Iowa or New Hampshire, where it would not be well received. In fact, we don’t hear about seating those delegates until she has won both Michigan and Florida, and is behind in the delegate count.

    But there is a large constituency for that type of fairness argument. Government campaign financing involves it. Spending limits for campaigning, which I regard as egregious violations of free speech (in principle–the Supreme Court seems to think otherwise, and for some reason people listen to them instead of me, go figure!), are also based on the idea of the getting the fairest results. The better fundraiser is limited in the benefit he can get from his better fundraising. At the last election there were people prepared to roll out arguments on both sides if someone didn’t win the popular vote and yet won the electoral college. The electoral college is one of those procedure things. It doesn’t seem “fair” to many Americans.

    Of course, we could go back behind the rule that Florida violated, and ask whether that rule itself was fair. But for that we have to ask the same question. Are we concerned with whether it was properly proposed and passed, or whether it adheres to some other standard of fairness, such as “count all the votes.”

    I don’t think these issues are very easily resolved. Despite being a Florida resident, my own feeling is that the rule that Florida violated was a bad rule, but it was the rule nonetheless. Florida’s politicians would have done well to try to get it changed, but violating it was a bad idea. I wouldn’t seat the delegation. That’s my feeling, but I can think of many arguments against my own position.

    More importantly, I think that Americans need to learn more about procedure and process, and their importance in producing reasonable fairness and justice. They may not work all the time, but their absence would result in much less fairness. We may have little patience for procedure. We laud the person who cuts through the red tape and gets the job done. But sometimes those hoops we have to jump through have a purpose. Even if the system looks troubling, consider what might happen without it.

    Let’s reform the rules and procedures wherever they apply, but let’s not just bypass them in the interest of the moment’s notion of fairness.

  • Not Keeping Hyperbole Straight

    Some folks on the right are apparently having trouble keeping their hyperbole straight. I’ll let Ed Brayton, of Dispatches from the Culture Wars carry it on from there with OMG! Obama is a Fascist!, referencing a post on STACLU and his next post No, Wait: Obama is a Communist!, referencing a post on WorldNetDaily. Ed, those two sources give you way too much fun! And some of those folks on the right need to learn to keep their hyperbole straight.

  • Gov. Bobby Jindal Interview

    I enjoyed Wolf Blitzer’s interview with Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (transcript). Here’s a rising star in the Republican party. He also knows some of the importance of not only having a message but communicating it.

    I was interested in his comments on Barack Obama:

    But I will say this about the other two major candidates. Senator Obama, I agree with those that find him inspiring. I think he does bring a genuineness and enthusiasm. I think he’s an inspirational speaker.

    I don’t agree with him on a lot of the issues. I do think he is more liberal than I am. But I think there is something that explains the large turnouts and enthusiasm he’s generating.

    …. [skip several paragraphs]

    And what I think people find so inspirational in the senator’s rhetoric — and I certainly think what resonated with voters when they voted for me — was that they are tired of all the ideological fighting, they are tired of the partisan fighting.

    In a democracy, we should disagree. We should have debates. We should stand up for our principles. But it isn’t about winning or losing, it’s about finding common ground and enacting common sense (inaudible)…

    I could say a very similar thing about Jindal that I say about Obama. I disagree with both of them on some policy points, but I think they both have a very positive impact on the political process from everything I’ve seen thus far. I will never be able to vote for a candidate with whom I agree on everything. But I’m seeing some leaders here with whom I disagree, but who are nonetheless people I can respect.