So the GOP got to first base with their new plan for health care, after striking out on their first two attempts.
Next, the Senate will be up to taking a pitch from Team Trump, but meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office will come up with a cost-benefit scoring analysis as the folks back home complain to their elected representatives about the many negative aspects, as explained to them by journalists who have actually read the bill, unlike House Republicans who voted to approve it before reading it or waiting for the CBO to analyze and estimate what it would cost.
So far, the people most likely to score benefits from the plan are the wealthy, who don't need much help in getting basic health care.
They do, however, always feel they need help in keeping their money away from tax collectors. And major newspapers are detailing the effects of the plan with detailed reporting of their own, which the folks back home will surely read as they challenge congressional representatives at town hall meetings.
Assuming the politicians have the gumption to show up.
Saturday, May 6, 2017
Dog Daze
Donald Trump is the first U.S. president in 130 years not to have a dog. It's not known whether he even likes dogs.
The question for many folks is this: What kind of a person is he who doesn't like dogs, and what does that say about his personality and how he deals with other people?
News outlets around the world have pondered this issue since before the inauguration of the real estate titan last January, even as a potential deal to adopt a Goldendoodle named Patton fell through when the owner of the pup decided to keep him.
Whether the dog's military namesake was a deciding factor is yet another question.
Early on, Barack Obama promised he would get a dog for his daughters, and soon Bo, a Portuguese water dog, joined the White House family, followed by Sunny, another of the same breed.
Bill Clinton had both a cat and a dog, a Labrador retriever named Buddy.
Jimmy Carter enjoyed the company of a collie, an Afghan hound and a Siamese cat. Lyndon Johnson was photographed with his Beagle.
John F. Kennedy housed a zoo's worth of pets at the White House, including a Welsh terrier, a canary, parakeets, a rabbit, and hamsters.
Dwight D. Eisenhower favored a Weimaraner named Heidi.
And Franklin D. Roosevelt had his favorite terrier, named Fala.
Harry S. Truman reportedly did not like dogs, but he accepted several puppies as gifts even though he did not keep them.
The last president never to have a dog in the White House was William McKinley. Nevertheless, he did have roosters, a parrot and several kittens, according to the Presidential Pet Museum, so he could not have been been all bad.
As to whether the current occupant of the White House will yield and accept the loyalty and devotion that pet dogs are famous for giving their people, only the future reveal that.
But this question hovers above all the others: Why would a man who values total loyalty above all else not have a dog?
The question for many folks is this: What kind of a person is he who doesn't like dogs, and what does that say about his personality and how he deals with other people?
News outlets around the world have pondered this issue since before the inauguration of the real estate titan last January, even as a potential deal to adopt a Goldendoodle named Patton fell through when the owner of the pup decided to keep him.
Whether the dog's military namesake was a deciding factor is yet another question.
Early on, Barack Obama promised he would get a dog for his daughters, and soon Bo, a Portuguese water dog, joined the White House family, followed by Sunny, another of the same breed.
Bill Clinton had both a cat and a dog, a Labrador retriever named Buddy.
Jimmy Carter enjoyed the company of a collie, an Afghan hound and a Siamese cat. Lyndon Johnson was photographed with his Beagle.
John F. Kennedy housed a zoo's worth of pets at the White House, including a Welsh terrier, a canary, parakeets, a rabbit, and hamsters.
Dwight D. Eisenhower favored a Weimaraner named Heidi.
And Franklin D. Roosevelt had his favorite terrier, named Fala.
Harry S. Truman reportedly did not like dogs, but he accepted several puppies as gifts even though he did not keep them.
The last president never to have a dog in the White House was William McKinley. Nevertheless, he did have roosters, a parrot and several kittens, according to the Presidential Pet Museum, so he could not have been been all bad.
As to whether the current occupant of the White House will yield and accept the loyalty and devotion that pet dogs are famous for giving their people, only the future reveal that.
But this question hovers above all the others: Why would a man who values total loyalty above all else not have a dog?
Friday, May 5, 2017
Jobs
The unemployment rate in the U.S. dipped to 4.4 percent in April, its lowest in ten years, according the government data, as 211,000 new jobs were added to American payrolls.
Meanwhile, the average for hourly pay grew by 0.3 percent, and personal income and disposable personal income also rose.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics also reported that jobless rates were lower in March in 336 of 388 metro areas throughout the U.S., higher in 38 and unchanged in just 14.
Separately, the Commerce Department said the international trade deficit narrowed in March. Also, the Federal Reserve Board said the nationwide labor market "has continued to strengthen, even as economic activity slowed." First quarter growth was 0.7 percent, down from the fourth quarter rate of 2.1 percent.
All things considered, things are looking OK, and companies are hiring.
Meanwhile, the average for hourly pay grew by 0.3 percent, and personal income and disposable personal income also rose.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics also reported that jobless rates were lower in March in 336 of 388 metro areas throughout the U.S., higher in 38 and unchanged in just 14.
Separately, the Commerce Department said the international trade deficit narrowed in March. Also, the Federal Reserve Board said the nationwide labor market "has continued to strengthen, even as economic activity slowed." First quarter growth was 0.7 percent, down from the fourth quarter rate of 2.1 percent.
All things considered, things are looking OK, and companies are hiring.
Thursday, May 4, 2017
Trumpcare (Not)
Health care is too important to be left entirely to profit-oriented private business.
Republicans in the House of Representatives celebrated their "victory" today as they passed, with a single vote to spare, the effort to turn the health insurance market back to the insurance companies and the various states that may or may not want to regulate how they do business.
Now the bill goes to the Senate, where it will face fierce opposition and many amendments before it returns to the House for a second approval and then to the White House for the president's signature.
Meanwhile, the crux of all the changes means the states can opt out of many of the federal provisions in the name of state's rights and the free market philosophy that says customers will have the "privilege" of choosing from the many variations of health care options that may or may not be offered by the dozens of companies that may or may not decide to offer policies to the young and healthy (yes, because they don't need it), to the old and sick (no, because that will interfere with corporate profits), or to those with pre-existing conditions (no, because that, too, will cut into corporate profits), and besides, people can go to hospital emergency rooms when they're really sick and get treatment there.
The problem with that is that many millions of Americans who now have insurance through the Affordable Care Act (emphasis on "affordable") are likely to be priced out of the market and trust to luck that they will not become sick.
Once they do, of course, and a crisis arises, these folks go to emergency rooms, where hospitals are required by law to treat them whether they can afford to pay or not.
There are two problems with that situation: First, the cost of treating them is absorbed by the hospital, which then passes on the costs in the form of higher prices to others who have insurance or are wealthy enough to pay directly.
Second, the cost of emergency, crisis treatment is far higher than routine maintenance and preventive care that affordable health insurance can provide.
Either way, the additional cost is passed on to the general public. Meanwhile, however, the commercial insurance companies emphasize their corporate need for profit and recompense to shareholders.
As things stand now, the United States is the only major nation that does not provide reasonable health care for all its citizens, regardless of ability to pay. Moreover, America spends more money per person on health care but has lower outcomes than other advanced nations.
It matters not. Corporate profits, it seems, are more important than a healthy citizenry
Republicans in the House of Representatives celebrated their "victory" today as they passed, with a single vote to spare, the effort to turn the health insurance market back to the insurance companies and the various states that may or may not want to regulate how they do business.
Now the bill goes to the Senate, where it will face fierce opposition and many amendments before it returns to the House for a second approval and then to the White House for the president's signature.
Meanwhile, the crux of all the changes means the states can opt out of many of the federal provisions in the name of state's rights and the free market philosophy that says customers will have the "privilege" of choosing from the many variations of health care options that may or may not be offered by the dozens of companies that may or may not decide to offer policies to the young and healthy (yes, because they don't need it), to the old and sick (no, because that will interfere with corporate profits), or to those with pre-existing conditions (no, because that, too, will cut into corporate profits), and besides, people can go to hospital emergency rooms when they're really sick and get treatment there.
The problem with that is that many millions of Americans who now have insurance through the Affordable Care Act (emphasis on "affordable") are likely to be priced out of the market and trust to luck that they will not become sick.
Once they do, of course, and a crisis arises, these folks go to emergency rooms, where hospitals are required by law to treat them whether they can afford to pay or not.
There are two problems with that situation: First, the cost of treating them is absorbed by the hospital, which then passes on the costs in the form of higher prices to others who have insurance or are wealthy enough to pay directly.
Second, the cost of emergency, crisis treatment is far higher than routine maintenance and preventive care that affordable health insurance can provide.
Either way, the additional cost is passed on to the general public. Meanwhile, however, the commercial insurance companies emphasize their corporate need for profit and recompense to shareholders.
As things stand now, the United States is the only major nation that does not provide reasonable health care for all its citizens, regardless of ability to pay. Moreover, America spends more money per person on health care but has lower outcomes than other advanced nations.
It matters not. Corporate profits, it seems, are more important than a healthy citizenry
Tuesday, May 2, 2017
Control Freak
Rudeness is no cover for ignorance.
Simply put, ignorance means not knowing. In and of itself, this is not dangerous, but acting on that lack of knowledge, especially in government and international relations, can be extremely dangerous.
Rudeness, however, can be proof of an ignorant man's need, born of insecurity, to control every conversation, situation or project that he encounters.
Truly intelligent people are aware of what they don't know, and are willing to listen to others with knowledge or expertise of a subject. In doing this, they absorb many sides of an issue and balance all aspects to make an informed decision.
The biggest dangers, therefore, lie in uninformed decisions, or in snap decisions made on incomplete or inaccurate knowledge. That is, ignorance.
Add arrogance to the mix of ignorance and rudeness and you form an image of an extremely dangerous political leader.
Simply put, ignorance means not knowing. In and of itself, this is not dangerous, but acting on that lack of knowledge, especially in government and international relations, can be extremely dangerous.
Rudeness, however, can be proof of an ignorant man's need, born of insecurity, to control every conversation, situation or project that he encounters.
Truly intelligent people are aware of what they don't know, and are willing to listen to others with knowledge or expertise of a subject. In doing this, they absorb many sides of an issue and balance all aspects to make an informed decision.
The biggest dangers, therefore, lie in uninformed decisions, or in snap decisions made on incomplete or inaccurate knowledge. That is, ignorance.
Add arrogance to the mix of ignorance and rudeness and you form an image of an extremely dangerous political leader.
Finger Snaps
Corporate moguls, politicians and military leaders are accustomed to getting their own way, snapping an order and expecting it to be carried out immediately and without argument or discussion of any kind.
Some members of this breed are so used to this practice that they forget that journalists are not in their employ, to be treated as recalcitrant underlings who instantly leap when told to jump.
The most pushy of this breed often resort to threats, blatantly warning others, "I will be so angry" if a certain task is not done quickly and to his satisfaction. And he will call out publicly by name those who do not conform to his wishes.
This name blame tactic may work in the private sector, where the designated leader can say, "You're fired," and there goes the career of someone who does not conform.
Sound familiar?
The lesson here for anyone in government is that insulting journalists just for doing their jobs has little effect, except that it is more likely to increase the negative coverage. Reporters learn early that the more someone protests "negative coverage," the more likely the story is right on.
In addition, calling out legislators from your own party and warning them that you will be angry if they don't do as they're told is simply not a good idea. In its way, this tactic has greater consequences than insulting journalists, because a government or political leader needs the support of others in his party more than he or she needs the support of journalists.
In fact, warning others to behave themselves and do as they're told or face an angry leader is the kind of tactic parents use to bring naughty children into line.
Sound familiar? The current president of the United States used just such language over the weekend against two congressional representatives from Pennsylvania, warning them, "I will be so angry" if his proposed health care bill is not passed quickly.
Members of Congress must keep in mind that they answer to the electorate, not to whoever happens to be president.
At least, that's what the Constitution was designed to arrange.
Some members of this breed are so used to this practice that they forget that journalists are not in their employ, to be treated as recalcitrant underlings who instantly leap when told to jump.
The most pushy of this breed often resort to threats, blatantly warning others, "I will be so angry" if a certain task is not done quickly and to his satisfaction. And he will call out publicly by name those who do not conform to his wishes.
This name blame tactic may work in the private sector, where the designated leader can say, "You're fired," and there goes the career of someone who does not conform.
Sound familiar?
The lesson here for anyone in government is that insulting journalists just for doing their jobs has little effect, except that it is more likely to increase the negative coverage. Reporters learn early that the more someone protests "negative coverage," the more likely the story is right on.
In addition, calling out legislators from your own party and warning them that you will be angry if they don't do as they're told is simply not a good idea. In its way, this tactic has greater consequences than insulting journalists, because a government or political leader needs the support of others in his party more than he or she needs the support of journalists.
In fact, warning others to behave themselves and do as they're told or face an angry leader is the kind of tactic parents use to bring naughty children into line.
Sound familiar? The current president of the United States used just such language over the weekend against two congressional representatives from Pennsylvania, warning them, "I will be so angry" if his proposed health care bill is not passed quickly.
Members of Congress must keep in mind that they answer to the electorate, not to whoever happens to be president.
At least, that's what the Constitution was designed to arrange.
Monday, May 1, 2017
Clear, Concise, Complete
The secret of good writing is not in knowing what to put in, but in knowing what to leave out.
The three C's of good writing are these: Clear, Concise and Complete, and the goal of writing is to communicate an idea, a message or information to others or to preserve it for posterity.
If readers don't grasp or understand what you write, you have failed to reach your goal.
Writing for broadcast news is harder, because you have only one chance to communicate your idea or message. In print, if readers fail to grasp the message immediately, they can go back to the beginning of the sentence or paragraph and read it again, several times if need be, until they fully understand.
Don't make them do that, because they may decide it's not worth the effort. Therefore you, the writer, have failed in your mission.
Broadcast writing does not have the luxury of a second read.
Here, then, is where the Three C's of good writing form a useful guideline. It is often a challenge to be concise and complete even as your message must be clear.
But the secret is not in knowing what to put in, but in knowing what to leave out.
Ask any headline writer, whose job it is to convey in six or ten words the essence of a story that may go to a thousand words when all the details and supporting information is included.
The three C's of good writing are these: Clear, Concise and Complete, and the goal of writing is to communicate an idea, a message or information to others or to preserve it for posterity.
If readers don't grasp or understand what you write, you have failed to reach your goal.
Writing for broadcast news is harder, because you have only one chance to communicate your idea or message. In print, if readers fail to grasp the message immediately, they can go back to the beginning of the sentence or paragraph and read it again, several times if need be, until they fully understand.
Don't make them do that, because they may decide it's not worth the effort. Therefore you, the writer, have failed in your mission.
Broadcast writing does not have the luxury of a second read.
Here, then, is where the Three C's of good writing form a useful guideline. It is often a challenge to be concise and complete even as your message must be clear.
But the secret is not in knowing what to put in, but in knowing what to leave out.
Ask any headline writer, whose job it is to convey in six or ten words the essence of a story that may go to a thousand words when all the details and supporting information is included.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)