"Guns don't kill people; people kill people."
Or so the clichéd and oft-quoted axiom goes.
Love it or hate it, there's a lot of truth in the saying.
Last week's knife attack at a Pittsburgh area high school that injured about 20 people is yet another clear reminder that weapons aren't responsible for human destruction, but rather the humans using them.
I hate to say this to those who have been stuck in the gun-ban gear, but, see, I told you so.
I've said multiple times before that if we ban guns, then those who are bent on destruction will simply find and use other objects to carry out their violent intentions.
This is the second major knife attack in as many years. The last one was at a Texas college in 2012.
Will our benevolent leaders and government authorities ever be convinced that we cannot legislate our way to solutions to an intrinsic, pervasive cultural problem?
Banning firearms certainly didn't prevent the knife attacks from being carried out. And, banning knives now won't prevent another student from assembling a pipe bomb and stashing it in his locker until he is ready to detonate it in between classes when the hallways are crowded.
We cannot merely treat the symptoms and hope to cure the disease. But that is exactly what civil leadership is doing when it proposes legislation to limit or restrict weapons. If we ban this weapon, then that one, and then another one, then all we are doing, in effect, is treating the symptoms of a much deeper disease. The real problem is never addressed; only its effects.
If we are ever to get a handle on the why's and how's of solving America's violence problem, then we must summon the courage to probe deeper than the surface. Far below in the depths a cancerous tumor grows. We cannot see it. We can only see its effects on the surface of the body.
It is much easier to treat the symptoms, and feel better about ourselves that we were able to do something, than it is to dig underneath only to find things that we don't want to see.
But it is imperative that this be done if we are going to meet the problem head on, and have any hope of getting a handle on it.
This means having to reflect on society and our culture as a whole, to see the bigger picture hidden under layers of bandages that we've placed over the wound that is now infected.
We thought we could just put a Band-Aid over the wound to cover it up, so that we wouldn't have to look at its ugliness. And when that bandage became soaked with blood, we just replaced it with another. And another. And another. Until the wound became infected and now the problem is more wide-spread and life-threatening than it was at the beginning.
America's self-serving and humanistic culture has much to do with the deterioration of morals and values that place a premium on life. People today are not much better than wandering zombies; hollow bodies without any internal substance. Life to them has been all about the acquisition of materialism, stroking the ego, instant gratification, and the pursuit of power, position and money.
Many people today lack a moral compass. Their spirits are all but dead, and the only thing that separates their actions from those of animals is that humans know when they are doing wrong.
But when the messages we receive from popular media is that nothing really matters, then who cares? What does it matter? We are born, we live, we die and feed the worms.
Until or unless Americans summon the courage to attack the viruses of apathy and spiritual agnosticism, we will never find the deeper answers to the problems that are seemingly out of our limited line of sight.
There will be other mass violence attacks: Be them with guns, knives, bombs, vehicles, or vials of deadly germs. We cannot afford to focus on the symptoms any longer. To rid our body of the cancer within, we must attack it straight up and head on. We must be prepared for how uncomfortable and difficult cancer treatment can be. But to do nothing to the tumor only encourages it to grow.
Our nation cannot bear the consequences of doing nothing for much longer. If we are not careful, we risk imploding and collapsing from within.
There is no greater enemy to the self than the self. No weapons necessary save for the destructive thoughts of pride, ego and apathy.
Sunday, April 13, 2014
Friday, December 20, 2013
Sexual hypocrisy
For the past several months, the television news media appears to have been falling all over itself covering the supposed wild popularity of the "Fifty Shades of Grey" franchise. Morning show co-hosts, both male and female, can't seem to contain their excitement over production of the first "Fifty Shades" movie due out some time next year.
In an era of high sexual perversion, I'm not at all surprised that the kinky, dark side of sex is being exploited, glamourized and sensationalized. However, I do find it surprising that mainstream media is embracing this darker side of popular culture given heightened vigilance society has toward sexual crimes and misconduct.
In a single morning show episode, NBC's "Today Show" co-hosts debated the appropriateness of a Colorado school district suspending a six-year-old boy for kissing a girl on the hand, while excitedly anticipating the upcoming release of the first "Fifty Shades" movie.
How can we say in one breath that what the little boy did was inappropriate, and in the next exclaim how excited we are to see a sexually explicit movie about bondage and domination? It makes absolutely no sense. It is absurd.
We chastize a little boy for committing sexual harassment, simply for kissing a little girl's hand; something that was a show of respect in times gone by. But we turn right around and act like a bunch of giddy school kids awaiting a movie that we want to see because it speaks to our inner desires.
The hypocrisy over the way our culture views sex and sexual expression couldn't be more evident.
We chide people for their public expressions of romance, calling such actions harassment. But we embrace "tolerance" and open-mindedness when it comes to sexual expression in art.
We cheer artistic sexual expression, but we ignore how these messages can get conveyed by viewers, readers and consumers of such. We seem appalled when consumers translate this expression in public.
Really?
Seems to me like a natural consequence.
If we say it's okay to promote alternative sexual lifestyles, but not okay to act them out publicly, where is the rationale in that? If it's okay to promote sex, but not okay to act out sex, what sense does this make?
I agree that acting out sex publicly can be very destructive and should be discouraged. But so should the explicit and implicit messages that our culture sends people through art and expression.
It makes no rational sense at all to condemn an act but embrace the message that can influence an act.
But that's what human culture does. We want it all: The ability to express ourselves without restraint, but then we want the ability to regulate our actions.
Until we recognize that thoughts influence actions, I doubt humanity will ever see its hypocrisy.
In an era of high sexual perversion, I'm not at all surprised that the kinky, dark side of sex is being exploited, glamourized and sensationalized. However, I do find it surprising that mainstream media is embracing this darker side of popular culture given heightened vigilance society has toward sexual crimes and misconduct.
In a single morning show episode, NBC's "Today Show" co-hosts debated the appropriateness of a Colorado school district suspending a six-year-old boy for kissing a girl on the hand, while excitedly anticipating the upcoming release of the first "Fifty Shades" movie.
How can we say in one breath that what the little boy did was inappropriate, and in the next exclaim how excited we are to see a sexually explicit movie about bondage and domination? It makes absolutely no sense. It is absurd.
We chastize a little boy for committing sexual harassment, simply for kissing a little girl's hand; something that was a show of respect in times gone by. But we turn right around and act like a bunch of giddy school kids awaiting a movie that we want to see because it speaks to our inner desires.
The hypocrisy over the way our culture views sex and sexual expression couldn't be more evident.
We chide people for their public expressions of romance, calling such actions harassment. But we embrace "tolerance" and open-mindedness when it comes to sexual expression in art.
We cheer artistic sexual expression, but we ignore how these messages can get conveyed by viewers, readers and consumers of such. We seem appalled when consumers translate this expression in public.
Really?
Seems to me like a natural consequence.
If we say it's okay to promote alternative sexual lifestyles, but not okay to act them out publicly, where is the rationale in that? If it's okay to promote sex, but not okay to act out sex, what sense does this make?
I agree that acting out sex publicly can be very destructive and should be discouraged. But so should the explicit and implicit messages that our culture sends people through art and expression.
It makes no rational sense at all to condemn an act but embrace the message that can influence an act.
But that's what human culture does. We want it all: The ability to express ourselves without restraint, but then we want the ability to regulate our actions.
Until we recognize that thoughts influence actions, I doubt humanity will ever see its hypocrisy.
Compassion...journalist style
About a month ago, news about the Justice Department's official report on the Newtown, Connecticut, shooting was released. Survivors and victims' families were given the opportunity to view the government's final report. It was entirely voluntary, and no one was required to read the findings.
At the time, NBC "Today Show" co-host Matt Lauer reported that the network had made the decision not to air the findings out of respect for the victims' families. Then, in his next breath, Lauer commented that NBC made this decision because there was nothing new in the report. Because there was nothing new, it wasn't worth revealing publicly, and better to respect the feelings of the survivors and victims' families.
So, ultimately, NBC's decision was not made out of a measure of compassion toward those most directly affected by the massacre. Rather, it was made for pragmatic, practical reasons. There wasn't anything new, exciting or revealing in the report to waste NBC's precious air time with; so why bother? Instead, let's respect the victims' families and the survivors by not airing the details of the report.
However, if there had been something new in the report, then the victims' families and survivors be damned. The media would have aired these details despite any feelings about it, and irrespective of compassion toward those most affected by the event.
In my experience, journalists can be among the most callous and desensitized professionals in the business world. More ruthless than a commodities buyer or speculator. More heartless than a corporate executive whose company runs a sweat shop. More inhuman than a software engineer who talks to computers all day.
I know this, because I was a journalist for a decade. I saw first-hand just how separated from reality these people can be.
I remember my first year working in a news room. It was around 11 p.m., and one reporter was listening intently to traffic on a police scanner. The night had been a very slow one as news was concerned. Editors were worried about what their lead front-page story would be. Maybe coverage of a local quilt show? A high school sporting event? Something soft and not very intriguing.
Then, a few minutes later, traffic over the scanner indicated an automobile accident on the highway outside of town. The dispatcher reported to the responding officers that there may be a fatality.
Suddenly, the reporter came alive and with wide eyes and a smile on his face, he exclaimed, "Yes! There's our front page!"
I couldn't believe my ears. He was cheering over a fatal car accident? Who, in their right mind, would do such a thing?
The answer: A journalist.
I resolved at that moment not to ever let myself get so desensitized by my work that I would come to regard human beings and the things that happen to them as just words on a page, a headline, a tag line, a photograph that sells newspapers, magazines and air time.
The NBC decision not to air the final report on Newtown was equally as callous as the reporter rejoicing over a car accident. There wasn't anything new to report, so we will respect the feelings of survivors and families. But that wouldn't be the case if there was something new to report.
In other words, feelings and compassion are only important when it doesn't compete with "journalistic responsibility." I call this journalistic zeal; not responsibility.
Responsibility is acting on and exercising conscience. Something the news media rarely, if ever, does when ethics compete with a juicy story.
I'm just a little bit tired of the phony "compassion" displayed by news journalists. They relish in making themselves appear compassionate, tolerant and empathetic. But this ruse lasts only as long as there isn't something "new" to report on. Then these bastions of humanity become barricudas.
It is a frighteningly quick transformation, because a journalist can turn from a warm-blooded human being into a cold-blooded viper faster than Clark Kent stripped to his Superman suit in the telephone booth.
I struggle daily to respect news journalists because of their disingenuousness. I was too honest, too real, and didn't have enough onion layers on me to survive long enough as a news professional. I was too human, and not zealous enough.
Thank God for that.
At the time, NBC "Today Show" co-host Matt Lauer reported that the network had made the decision not to air the findings out of respect for the victims' families. Then, in his next breath, Lauer commented that NBC made this decision because there was nothing new in the report. Because there was nothing new, it wasn't worth revealing publicly, and better to respect the feelings of the survivors and victims' families.
So, ultimately, NBC's decision was not made out of a measure of compassion toward those most directly affected by the massacre. Rather, it was made for pragmatic, practical reasons. There wasn't anything new, exciting or revealing in the report to waste NBC's precious air time with; so why bother? Instead, let's respect the victims' families and the survivors by not airing the details of the report.
However, if there had been something new in the report, then the victims' families and survivors be damned. The media would have aired these details despite any feelings about it, and irrespective of compassion toward those most affected by the event.
In my experience, journalists can be among the most callous and desensitized professionals in the business world. More ruthless than a commodities buyer or speculator. More heartless than a corporate executive whose company runs a sweat shop. More inhuman than a software engineer who talks to computers all day.
I know this, because I was a journalist for a decade. I saw first-hand just how separated from reality these people can be.
I remember my first year working in a news room. It was around 11 p.m., and one reporter was listening intently to traffic on a police scanner. The night had been a very slow one as news was concerned. Editors were worried about what their lead front-page story would be. Maybe coverage of a local quilt show? A high school sporting event? Something soft and not very intriguing.
Then, a few minutes later, traffic over the scanner indicated an automobile accident on the highway outside of town. The dispatcher reported to the responding officers that there may be a fatality.
Suddenly, the reporter came alive and with wide eyes and a smile on his face, he exclaimed, "Yes! There's our front page!"
I couldn't believe my ears. He was cheering over a fatal car accident? Who, in their right mind, would do such a thing?
The answer: A journalist.
I resolved at that moment not to ever let myself get so desensitized by my work that I would come to regard human beings and the things that happen to them as just words on a page, a headline, a tag line, a photograph that sells newspapers, magazines and air time.
The NBC decision not to air the final report on Newtown was equally as callous as the reporter rejoicing over a car accident. There wasn't anything new to report, so we will respect the feelings of survivors and families. But that wouldn't be the case if there was something new to report.
In other words, feelings and compassion are only important when it doesn't compete with "journalistic responsibility." I call this journalistic zeal; not responsibility.
Responsibility is acting on and exercising conscience. Something the news media rarely, if ever, does when ethics compete with a juicy story.
I'm just a little bit tired of the phony "compassion" displayed by news journalists. They relish in making themselves appear compassionate, tolerant and empathetic. But this ruse lasts only as long as there isn't something "new" to report on. Then these bastions of humanity become barricudas.
It is a frighteningly quick transformation, because a journalist can turn from a warm-blooded human being into a cold-blooded viper faster than Clark Kent stripped to his Superman suit in the telephone booth.
I struggle daily to respect news journalists because of their disingenuousness. I was too honest, too real, and didn't have enough onion layers on me to survive long enough as a news professional. I was too human, and not zealous enough.
Thank God for that.
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
Serious journalism...
...versus not so serious.
The distinction can be summed up by the difference between the Wall Street Journal and the National Enquirer.
Serious journalism is the gathering, organizing and reporting of information without all of the fru-fru. It is about communication; moving information from one source to another. Serious journalism can be dry, bland and boring. But it has a practical, functional purpose behind it.
There is a world of difference between the journalistic approaches of the nightly news casts and the morning shows that air on the alphabet networks; like the difference between an ice-cream cone and a hot-fudge sundae.
One is basic, and the other super sugar-coated. One is serious, and the other light-hearted. One is hard news, the other soft. One is structured, and the other laissez-faire. One is about delivering information, the other entertainment.
I don't mind so much the light-hearted nature of the morning shows. But I resent the hosts calling themselves journalists.
Bologne.
If they are at all journalists, they are overly fancied versions. They are entertainers on the level of Ed Sullivan, Johnny Carson, and Jay Leno.
The difference between Brian Williams of the NBC Nightly News and Matt Lauer of the NBC Today Show is like the distinction between a sales representative and a used car salesman. While both are salespeople, one is focused on profession while the other on showmanship.
Jerry Rice and Deion Sanders are good comparisons. Both were professional athletes; but Rice took his profession more seriously. The football field was his office. For Sanders, it was a stage upon which to show off. Rice was a worker; Sanders a showman.
The same can be said about Michael Jordan and Shaquille O'Neal. The former was a hard-working professional on the court, while the other was more of a showman.
Lauer is not a serious journalist. He's a showman. If he was, then he wouldn't be content to hosting a soft-news driven morning show, and would have ambitions of anchoring a nightly news broadcast. While I don't feel his former co-host, Katie Couric, was a particularly effective or serious journalist, either, she at least had the ambition to seek a more serious position in her profession; even though it didn't last.
Call me a morning show humbug, but I just am not impressed with these programs as premier journalistic venues. I really don't mind them being light-hearted and soft in their approaches. But I think it is a misnomer to really consider morning shows as serious journalism.
Of all of the hosts on the three networks in the morning, only Al Roker fits the bill of a morning show host. He's naturally funny and light-hearted; the way morning shows are designed to be. But he's also a meteorologist; a weather man. He doesn't fancy himself as a journalist.
Morning show hosts are entertainers above all. They are not journalists. Their job is to present information in an entertaining fashion; not to report it and pass it on.
If you want to see serious journalism in action, watch your local news broadcasts. If you want entertainment, then watch the morning shows. But don't think for a minute that these morning show hosts pass for serious journalists.
Serious journalists aren't content to write gossip columns for the rest of their career any more than broadcasters are content to host entertainment programs rather than news casts for the remainder of their careers.
You morning show people have traded serious journalism for entertainment. All fine and dandy.
Just do us all a favor and don't call yourselves serious journalists; because you're not.
The distinction can be summed up by the difference between the Wall Street Journal and the National Enquirer.
Serious journalism is the gathering, organizing and reporting of information without all of the fru-fru. It is about communication; moving information from one source to another. Serious journalism can be dry, bland and boring. But it has a practical, functional purpose behind it.
There is a world of difference between the journalistic approaches of the nightly news casts and the morning shows that air on the alphabet networks; like the difference between an ice-cream cone and a hot-fudge sundae.
One is basic, and the other super sugar-coated. One is serious, and the other light-hearted. One is hard news, the other soft. One is structured, and the other laissez-faire. One is about delivering information, the other entertainment.
I don't mind so much the light-hearted nature of the morning shows. But I resent the hosts calling themselves journalists.
Bologne.
If they are at all journalists, they are overly fancied versions. They are entertainers on the level of Ed Sullivan, Johnny Carson, and Jay Leno.
The difference between Brian Williams of the NBC Nightly News and Matt Lauer of the NBC Today Show is like the distinction between a sales representative and a used car salesman. While both are salespeople, one is focused on profession while the other on showmanship.
Jerry Rice and Deion Sanders are good comparisons. Both were professional athletes; but Rice took his profession more seriously. The football field was his office. For Sanders, it was a stage upon which to show off. Rice was a worker; Sanders a showman.
The same can be said about Michael Jordan and Shaquille O'Neal. The former was a hard-working professional on the court, while the other was more of a showman.
Lauer is not a serious journalist. He's a showman. If he was, then he wouldn't be content to hosting a soft-news driven morning show, and would have ambitions of anchoring a nightly news broadcast. While I don't feel his former co-host, Katie Couric, was a particularly effective or serious journalist, either, she at least had the ambition to seek a more serious position in her profession; even though it didn't last.
Call me a morning show humbug, but I just am not impressed with these programs as premier journalistic venues. I really don't mind them being light-hearted and soft in their approaches. But I think it is a misnomer to really consider morning shows as serious journalism.
Of all of the hosts on the three networks in the morning, only Al Roker fits the bill of a morning show host. He's naturally funny and light-hearted; the way morning shows are designed to be. But he's also a meteorologist; a weather man. He doesn't fancy himself as a journalist.
Morning show hosts are entertainers above all. They are not journalists. Their job is to present information in an entertaining fashion; not to report it and pass it on.
If you want to see serious journalism in action, watch your local news broadcasts. If you want entertainment, then watch the morning shows. But don't think for a minute that these morning show hosts pass for serious journalists.
Serious journalists aren't content to write gossip columns for the rest of their career any more than broadcasters are content to host entertainment programs rather than news casts for the remainder of their careers.
You morning show people have traded serious journalism for entertainment. All fine and dandy.
Just do us all a favor and don't call yourselves serious journalists; because you're not.
Monday, November 25, 2013
A tale of two charities
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times... or so Charles Dickens' story begins.
Picture this: A lonely old widow places a five dollar bill into the red bucket of a Salvation Army bell ringer. That money she was going to use to buy a few small food items for herself. Instead, she donated all she had to others in need, and left herself deprived of the basic necessities of life. Rather than hoard the money out of fear, she gave out of a joyful heart; and out of faith that her God would provide for her needs.
Then picture this: Multi-million-dollar celebrities appear in a television commercial for St. Jude's Children's Hospital and Research Center of New York. As soon as the shoot is over with, the stars have their make-up removed and change out of their wardrobe. Their charitable work is done. They then are ushered away from the studio into their limousines and chauffeuered back to their mansions in Beverly Hills or Malibu.
Without further thought, they go on about their leisure while their personal assistants and accounting staff worry about the details of their employers' charitable donations, which, for many of them, is required by contract as part of maintaining a positive public image. A few thousand here; a couple hundred thousand there. Mere drops in the bucket for these philanthropists.
Now, I ask you: Which donation meant the most, and had the greatest impact on humanity? The five dollar bill given by the needy widow, or the two hundred thousand a celebrity drops into the bucket of need for St. Judes?
By man's standards, the St. Judes donation would have the farthest reaching impact.
But measuring the charity by God's standards, the widow's donation meant the most to meet the needs of others, because it came from the heart. It wasn't some formality like the paper charities supported by celebrities.
While paper philanthropists like media personalities and entertainers can appear to have the largest of hearts because their money is farthest reaching, their generosity is eclipsed by the average, inconspicuous donation of a humble human being who just wants to do the right thing for somebody else.
So, before you begin admiring a movie star for his or her charitable contributions, look more locally at the humble donors in your own community as people to honor for the good that they do.
Most of them are anonymous. They do not want to attract attention to themselves for the good works that they do; the way celebrities naturally tend to do. Rather, they give secretly, because their reward exists not in this life, but the next one.
Picture this: A lonely old widow places a five dollar bill into the red bucket of a Salvation Army bell ringer. That money she was going to use to buy a few small food items for herself. Instead, she donated all she had to others in need, and left herself deprived of the basic necessities of life. Rather than hoard the money out of fear, she gave out of a joyful heart; and out of faith that her God would provide for her needs.
Then picture this: Multi-million-dollar celebrities appear in a television commercial for St. Jude's Children's Hospital and Research Center of New York. As soon as the shoot is over with, the stars have their make-up removed and change out of their wardrobe. Their charitable work is done. They then are ushered away from the studio into their limousines and chauffeuered back to their mansions in Beverly Hills or Malibu.
Without further thought, they go on about their leisure while their personal assistants and accounting staff worry about the details of their employers' charitable donations, which, for many of them, is required by contract as part of maintaining a positive public image. A few thousand here; a couple hundred thousand there. Mere drops in the bucket for these philanthropists.
Now, I ask you: Which donation meant the most, and had the greatest impact on humanity? The five dollar bill given by the needy widow, or the two hundred thousand a celebrity drops into the bucket of need for St. Judes?
By man's standards, the St. Judes donation would have the farthest reaching impact.
But measuring the charity by God's standards, the widow's donation meant the most to meet the needs of others, because it came from the heart. It wasn't some formality like the paper charities supported by celebrities.
While paper philanthropists like media personalities and entertainers can appear to have the largest of hearts because their money is farthest reaching, their generosity is eclipsed by the average, inconspicuous donation of a humble human being who just wants to do the right thing for somebody else.
So, before you begin admiring a movie star for his or her charitable contributions, look more locally at the humble donors in your own community as people to honor for the good that they do.
Most of them are anonymous. They do not want to attract attention to themselves for the good works that they do; the way celebrities naturally tend to do. Rather, they give secretly, because their reward exists not in this life, but the next one.
This is news?
A story was posted today on Yahoo! News about how more employers are passing higher costs of health care on to their employees.
For me, personally, this story comes about two years too late.
Beginning in 2011 the insurance premium I paid through my employer rose by 100 percent.
That's right. Within months of the Affordable Care Act becoming law, my premium doubled.
And it has remained just as high ever since.
Frankly, I dislike the phrase "See, I told you so," but this is one of those moments. I wrote a couple of years back about the likely consequences of Obamacare, and increased costs to the consumer was one of them.
I said back then that I am waiting skeptically for the "affordable" part of the ACA to kick in. Now, it looks like "affordable" will be more oxymoronish of the law rather than an integral part of it.
Fundamental economics teaches us that when demand for a product or service increases, the cost of said product or service for sale on the market also increases. This is particularly true for more "affordable" health plans; the supply of which remains dismally small.
In fact, when shopping for "affordable" health plans on my state insurance exchange web site, I found no individual or family plan below $300 a month in premium. Even the most basic plans with high deductibles were well over $300 a month.
How is this affordable for the average American household already struggling to meet expenses?
My advice is not to wait with bated breath for health care coverage to become more "affordable," in spite of what the President's law says. You may otherwise pass out from asphyxiation.
Talk is cheap, after all. Until I see the "affordable" side of things, I remain skeptical that Obamacare is a real fix to the problem of rising health care costs, and more convinced than ever that it was snake oil sold by a travelling charlatan, who just happens to have hung his hat at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue until January 2017.
For me, personally, this story comes about two years too late.
Beginning in 2011 the insurance premium I paid through my employer rose by 100 percent.
That's right. Within months of the Affordable Care Act becoming law, my premium doubled.
And it has remained just as high ever since.
Frankly, I dislike the phrase "See, I told you so," but this is one of those moments. I wrote a couple of years back about the likely consequences of Obamacare, and increased costs to the consumer was one of them.
I said back then that I am waiting skeptically for the "affordable" part of the ACA to kick in. Now, it looks like "affordable" will be more oxymoronish of the law rather than an integral part of it.
Fundamental economics teaches us that when demand for a product or service increases, the cost of said product or service for sale on the market also increases. This is particularly true for more "affordable" health plans; the supply of which remains dismally small.
In fact, when shopping for "affordable" health plans on my state insurance exchange web site, I found no individual or family plan below $300 a month in premium. Even the most basic plans with high deductibles were well over $300 a month.
How is this affordable for the average American household already struggling to meet expenses?
My advice is not to wait with bated breath for health care coverage to become more "affordable," in spite of what the President's law says. You may otherwise pass out from asphyxiation.
Talk is cheap, after all. Until I see the "affordable" side of things, I remain skeptical that Obamacare is a real fix to the problem of rising health care costs, and more convinced than ever that it was snake oil sold by a travelling charlatan, who just happens to have hung his hat at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue until January 2017.
Thursday, November 7, 2013
A little late for sorry
President Barack Obama has apologized to Americans who are losing their current health insurance as a result of the Affordable Care Act law of 2010.
"I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me," the President told NBC News.
Yes, I'm sure you are, Mr. President. You don't have to worry about another election now. You are a lame-duck chief executive, sir, and it is a little late for sorries.
"We've got to work hard to make sure that they know we hear them and we are going to do everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position as a consequence of this," Obama continued.
Really, sir? Will you work as hard as you did to rush Obamacare through Congress before the next election? Will you work as hard as you did to avoid the tough questions from Americans who read your law and raised concerns about it? Will you work as hard as you did in 2008 selling your snake oil of hope and change? I sure hope so, because this is your legacy, Barack. If this program fails before you leave office, the legacy of your eight-year tenure will be one great, big mess.
“Obviously we didn’t do a good enough job in terms of how we crafted the law," Obama said. "And, you know, that’s something I regret."
No kidding. You and your democratic buddies rushed this bill through Congress, ignored or downright silenced skeptics at townhall meetings, and insisted on getting this legislation passed into law before the next general election.
Mission accomplished.
Unfortunately, it came at substantial price. That being competency of the law, confusion over it, and the downward cascading effect it is now causing.
Obamacare is now circling the drain of irrelevance and is at risk of being flushed down the toilet of monumental, illegitimate failures.
According to NBC news, the Obama Administration knew since 2010 that millions of Americans could lose their health insurance coverage. Information from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services dating back to July 2010 estimated that “40 to 67 percent” of the 14 million consumers in that marketplace could lose their policies due to turnover in the individual insurance market, NBC News found.
Let's recount the many ways in which the President promised that this would not happen:
• June 15, 2009, in a speech to the American Medical Association: “That means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”
• March 19, 2010, in a speech at George Mason University four days before the ACA became law: “If you like your doctor, you’re going to be able to keep your doctor. If you like your plan, keep your plan. I don’t believe we should give government or the insurance companies more control over health care in America. I think it’s time to give you, the American people, more control over your health.”
• October 4, 2012, during the first presidential debate with Mitt Romney: “Number one, if you've got health insurance it doesn't mean a Government takeover. You keep your own insurance. You keep your own doctor. But it does say insurance companies can't jerk you around.
• September 25, 2013, during a speech in Prince George’s County, Maryland: “Now, let’s start with the fact that even before the Affordable Care Act fully takes effect, about 85 percent of Americans already have health insurance -– either through their job, or through Medicare, or through the individual market. So if you’re one of these folks, it’s reasonable that you might worry whether health care reform is going to create changes that are a problem for you – especially when you’re bombarded with all sorts of fear-mongering. So the first thing you need to know is this: If you already have health care, you don’t have to do anything.”
• October 30, 2013, during a Boston speech on the Affordable Care Act: “Now if you had one of these substandard plans before the Affordable Care Act became law and you really liked that plan, you were able to keep it. That's what I said when I was running for office. That was part of the promise we made. But ever since the law was passed, if insurers decided to downgrade or cancel these substandard plans, what we said under the law is, you've got to replace them with quality, comprehensive coverage because that too was a central premise of the Affordable Care Act from the very beginning.”
Ah, yes, the power of political promises. It is a darned good thing that Obama is now in his second and final term, because if this had come out before the end of his first, he'd have been a one-term wonder instead of a two-term regret.
I am personally still waiting for the "affordable" part of the ACA to kick in. Since 2010 my family's health insurance premium has doubled in out-of-pocket cost, and there is no indication in sight that I will start seeing any savings any time soon. Some of my copays have increased, too, so this adds insult to injury of having to pay more for health care coverage since the the passage of the Affordable Care Act of 2010.
The President's broken promise wouldn't be so tough to swallow had he not ended his apology this way:
“The majority of folks will end up being better off," he said of the changes caused by the ACA. "Of course, because the website not working right they may not know it."
Another promise from a guy who knows how to keep them.
"I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me," the President told NBC News.
Yes, I'm sure you are, Mr. President. You don't have to worry about another election now. You are a lame-duck chief executive, sir, and it is a little late for sorries.
"We've got to work hard to make sure that they know we hear them and we are going to do everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position as a consequence of this," Obama continued.
Really, sir? Will you work as hard as you did to rush Obamacare through Congress before the next election? Will you work as hard as you did to avoid the tough questions from Americans who read your law and raised concerns about it? Will you work as hard as you did in 2008 selling your snake oil of hope and change? I sure hope so, because this is your legacy, Barack. If this program fails before you leave office, the legacy of your eight-year tenure will be one great, big mess.
“Obviously we didn’t do a good enough job in terms of how we crafted the law," Obama said. "And, you know, that’s something I regret."
No kidding. You and your democratic buddies rushed this bill through Congress, ignored or downright silenced skeptics at townhall meetings, and insisted on getting this legislation passed into law before the next general election.
Mission accomplished.
Unfortunately, it came at substantial price. That being competency of the law, confusion over it, and the downward cascading effect it is now causing.
Obamacare is now circling the drain of irrelevance and is at risk of being flushed down the toilet of monumental, illegitimate failures.
According to NBC news, the Obama Administration knew since 2010 that millions of Americans could lose their health insurance coverage. Information from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services dating back to July 2010 estimated that “40 to 67 percent” of the 14 million consumers in that marketplace could lose their policies due to turnover in the individual insurance market, NBC News found.
Let's recount the many ways in which the President promised that this would not happen:
• June 15, 2009, in a speech to the American Medical Association: “That means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”
• March 19, 2010, in a speech at George Mason University four days before the ACA became law: “If you like your doctor, you’re going to be able to keep your doctor. If you like your plan, keep your plan. I don’t believe we should give government or the insurance companies more control over health care in America. I think it’s time to give you, the American people, more control over your health.”
• October 4, 2012, during the first presidential debate with Mitt Romney: “Number one, if you've got health insurance it doesn't mean a Government takeover. You keep your own insurance. You keep your own doctor. But it does say insurance companies can't jerk you around.
• September 25, 2013, during a speech in Prince George’s County, Maryland: “Now, let’s start with the fact that even before the Affordable Care Act fully takes effect, about 85 percent of Americans already have health insurance -– either through their job, or through Medicare, or through the individual market. So if you’re one of these folks, it’s reasonable that you might worry whether health care reform is going to create changes that are a problem for you – especially when you’re bombarded with all sorts of fear-mongering. So the first thing you need to know is this: If you already have health care, you don’t have to do anything.”
• October 30, 2013, during a Boston speech on the Affordable Care Act: “Now if you had one of these substandard plans before the Affordable Care Act became law and you really liked that plan, you were able to keep it. That's what I said when I was running for office. That was part of the promise we made. But ever since the law was passed, if insurers decided to downgrade or cancel these substandard plans, what we said under the law is, you've got to replace them with quality, comprehensive coverage because that too was a central premise of the Affordable Care Act from the very beginning.”
Ah, yes, the power of political promises. It is a darned good thing that Obama is now in his second and final term, because if this had come out before the end of his first, he'd have been a one-term wonder instead of a two-term regret.
I am personally still waiting for the "affordable" part of the ACA to kick in. Since 2010 my family's health insurance premium has doubled in out-of-pocket cost, and there is no indication in sight that I will start seeing any savings any time soon. Some of my copays have increased, too, so this adds insult to injury of having to pay more for health care coverage since the the passage of the Affordable Care Act of 2010.
The President's broken promise wouldn't be so tough to swallow had he not ended his apology this way:
“The majority of folks will end up being better off," he said of the changes caused by the ACA. "Of course, because the website not working right they may not know it."
Another promise from a guy who knows how to keep them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
