There are times when the issues facing our community mirror the issues facing our nation. I feel at times like I live in two worlds – the world that I sleep in, and the world that I live the rest of my day in.
I see things that most people in the community that I sleep in will never know and sometimes I can never adequately report. I write this message today, because I think we are in trouble as a community, a state, and a nation.
I begin by pulling powerful language from the Orange County Register from over two weeks ago, regarding shootings in the city of Anaheim that has been gripped by protests, with protesters reaching the breaking point.
It all began with a shooting by the police that killed a 21-year-old Latino on July 21 in Anaheim. Except that it did not begin with that. At least, this was simply the catalyst which has exploded, bringing to the surface problems long hidden from the general public.
The Orange County Register writes: “The protests laid bare years of growing resentment and deep division in a city best known as the home of the Happiest Place on Earth. They tapped into anger over politics and power, over crime and police – over the very direction of Orange County’s biggest city.”
They add, “Interviews with protesters, political leaders, police and residents of Anaheim show that the recent unrest was never just about the police shootings that first sent people into the streets. The groundwork had been laid for Anaheim to explode. The shootings just lit the fuse.”
Cut to later in the article and we see the rising tensions, with complaints about the police before the July 21 shooting: “More than 100 people packed a meeting with police later that month and demanded justice. As pressure grew in the community, the city agreed in June to launch an independent investigation into ‘major police incidents,’ including past officer-involved shootings.”
“Barely a month later, on the afternoon of July 21, officers on a gang-enforcement patrol in the Anna Drive neighborhood pulled up to a small group of men. By all accounts, Manuel Diaz, 25 and a convicted gang member, ran,” the article continued. “Officers gave chase down an alley and into the front yard of an apartment house. People nearby heard two gunshots. The police association later said officers saw Diaz pull something from his waistband and turn. Diaz’s mother says he was shot in the back of the legs and the back of the head and has sued the city for $50 million. Diaz was found to be unarmed.”
And still later: “As night fell on July 24 – the fourth night of protests – police ordered a crowd of about 1,000 people to disperse. Some had come from the neighborhoods to again push for change from the City Council; others had come from the Occupy movement, Kelly’s Army, socialist groups and By Any Means Necessary – outside groups who had come to Anaheim to protest police brutality.”
” ‘The system won’t change unless we keep the pressure up,’ said Adam Lerman, 42, of By Any Means Necessary, who drove from Los Angeles after hearing about the Diaz shooting. ‘These people need answers, and this is all of our fight.’ “
“Orange County’s Occupy movement held an emergency meeting on the morning of the protests. Its members agreed to take to the streets as well – but as peacekeepers, pleading with those who used the Occupy name to remain peaceful, media liaison George Olivio said. ‘We tell them, please respect the families. The families want this to be done appropriately.’ “
People will read into this story all sorts of things from the influx of Latino immigrants, changing demographics, a political and social divide, race, gangs, and law enforcement.
What becomes more and more clear is that this is in many ways the new divide that this nation must deal with, as tumultuous as the issues of the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Adding to the fuel is the long enduring Great Recession that has made people vulnerable to the economy in ways that have not been felt in generations.
I could tell some interesting and similar stories locally. The situation is not quite as explosive in Yolo County, but it could be getting close. Latinos remember the Gutierrez shooting in ways that others do not. The protests of last November on the UCD campus frame another portrait of modern America – the once affluent and privileged middle class that has been ripped open and torn asunder.
And yet, there we watch as state government, torn by political divide and petty partisan bickering have failed time and again to meet the needs of the underclass, to fund the investment into the future, to protect the most vulnerable and to sustain the next generation of our middle class students.
It is within this context that I reflect upon the insanity of the past week. Insanity is actually the only appropriate word to describe the fact that in 2012 a member of the House of Representatives would say the unthinkable and the indefensible.
Todd Akin, a member of the US House of Representatives and a Senate Candidate from Missouri, may well have been on his way to become one of 100 members of the United States Senate when he made a fatal error – he opened his mouth.
As everyone knows by now, he said: “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to shut that whole thing down.”
Not surprisingly, everyone was horrified about this comment for a variety of different reasons and toward a variety of different intended ends.
Mr. Akin has tried to explain it away as a misstatement, but there can be no fixing what he had said.
Then there are the links between Representative Akin to Vice Presidential Nominee Paul Ryan. Paul Ryan, a darling of the conservative movement was supposed to clarify the fiscal policies of the Romney ticket, but instead he plunges them into this quagmire.
The Republicans, it seems, have some problems here, both in the language of the bill that the two co-wrote as well as the plank in their party platform that will eliminate rape and incest exceptions to abortion laws.
This is not an article about abortion, however; it is an article about extremism, and more importantly, the divide between political classes and the average American – for while it would not be very difficult to find Americans who believe this is the most important issue, it would be less than 10 percent of the overall population, perhaps even less than 5 percent.
From a political standpoint this was a dumb move for so many different kinds of reasons. First, every second that Republican Nominee Mitt Romney is not talking about the economy, he is losing. Second, every second a candidate spends on defense, they are losing.
We already had a huge political divide between men and women on party; this will explode that further.
But forget all of that. We are in midst of the worst economic period in most people’s memory. Long established businesses are still closing. People are losing their homes. Cities are going bankrupt.
The undercurrent is worse. We have all of these problems and this week the national discussion was on rape and abortion. It is 2012 folks. Can we not all accept that rape is rape and deal with the consequences of false allegations like we deal with all other wrongful imprisonment? Why is rape still such a polarizing issue, but assault with a deadly weapon a moment of clarity?
I see a party in this great nation that has given in to extremism. We can all laugh at Sheriff Arpaio’s folly of trying to investigate President Obama’s birth certificate, but the fact is, a sizable number of Americans really believe that President Obama is Muslim or not a Christian, they really believe that he was born in a foreign country, some believe that he fabricated papers to become President of the United States, perpetrating the great hoax on all us. And, most of all, they really believe that somehow he is an extremist who is different from the rest of us.
An old mentor of mine, a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, once told me that the only thing worse than Republicans would be no Republican Party.
I think Robert Reich, the former labor secretary said it best this week, “The capture of one of our great parties by fanatics is nothing to celebrate. A democracy needs at least two sane political parties.”
“A house divided against itself cannot stand,” Abraham Lincoln once said.
We know where this path takes us. We know it does not end well.
As someone else said, we have zero sane political parties at this time; one just “sucks” less than the other. Unfortunately, in November, the voters will be left to determine which one they think sucks a little less.
We are in troubled times, and we need sound minds to lead us to a better tomorrow. Instead, I fear we are headed down a path similar to Anaheim. Our problems will be buried and forgotten until they explode upon a moment’s notice.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Davis is not immune to the type of events that occurred in Anaheim. Until law enforcement acts inappropriately to a relative or a friend, most people turn a blind eye. They just don’t want to believe that it happens right here in our town, too.
Sheesh, this article took so many turns in your attempt to spin it into a Republican bash piece. Yes Akin said something very stupid for which almost all Republicans including Romney solidly denounced. One thing in this article is correct, we should be talking about the economy and believe me the GOP would love nothing more than to concentrate on what a terrible job the Divider-in-Chief Obama is doing in that regard. He loses on the economy and the Democrats know it so that’s why the Democrats are trying to make the election about anything but the economy.
Rusty: I’ll just say if you read this as a Republican bash piece, then you missed the point of it entirely.
I think that anyone enlisting in the police or the military should be at least 25 years old. And they should have mandatory rotations between desk jobs and jobs where they put on their uniforms & their guns and interact with the public.
Interesting. not untrue, but only addresses one side of the coin. Now let’s address the other side of the divide and its fanatacism:
We have a president that hired an attorney General who made one of the most snotty, meanspirited, and stuck up statements about the USA:”nation of cowards on race.” yet the president decided not to defend the american people on this attack, but to defend Mr. Holder. Nuff Said.
We have a president who called the people who elected him “at times, we have been arrogant” Thank you Mr. President for your unvarnished opinion of the people who put you in office
the vanguard brought up the 60’s. In that, the vanguard is reminded of the civil rights struggle. Well, I’m also reminded of the fanatical movement that was born of that era – a movement which knifed our army in the back. Our veterans returning home in Berkelely CA recieved a warm reception of being spat on, having bags of feces thrown at them by people in the new peace movement who knew nothing of who those people were or what they had done in the field.
I’m also reminded of another recent presidential candidate who knifed our men in the back: “they said they raped, cut off ears, cut off limbs, razed villiages in a fashion reminiscient of ghengis kahn…” note the use of heresay to smear the entire army and all the people in it, even those who fought with honor.
then we have the berkeley city council, to slap our veterans in the face by arbitrarily deciding to close recruiting offices in that area.
then we have the “9-11 truth movement.”
then we have the plastic bag ban. nuff said.
we have the earth liberation front, greenpeace.
then we have the anti pesticide movement of any kind.
then we have all the fanatical college campus movements, some of which all but oppenly espouse communism. We have their UBer-liberal professors, which prostheletize anti US Govt. rhetoric repeatedly and often.
At UC Davis, we see a photo of the famous Che Guevara on the UC Davis Mural. Once again, nuff said.
then we have movements like Students for Justice in Palestine and Muslim Student association, who all but espouse the garbage of al-Qaeda. As rich Rifkin pointed out – Muslim student association is on the govt watchlist for terrorism – yet the organization openly displays itself for all to see on College campus..
then we have our beloved push to legalize drugs – this is hardly an opinion on the “moderate” side.
then we have Wikileaks and George Soros deeming that anything and everything need be public.
Given enough time, I could probably develop a list a mile long but I think you get the idea.
We live in a state that given putting legalize marijuana on the ballot one wonders how many people in this state are actually stoned and how often. lol
Good points Octane. How about a President who in every speech tries to divide our nation just so he can get re-elected.
Wow. Somehow this thoughtful article that David G wrote has illicited comments about legalizing cannabis. Okay, lets go there. All the rich folks who slam down their Grey Goose cocktails, then get in their Lexius and drive home to their million dollar abodes: you scare me. Hey, lets get this on the ballot: a DDRO registry: dangerous DUI repeat offenders. Lets name it after some child who was struck & killed by a DUI driver. Let’s publish the name, photo and address of these dangerous repeat offenders, because I want my kids to be safe. The ofender could be living right in my neighborhood in Davis; I might not know it. They could put their Lexus in reverse, back out of their fancy paved driveway, and run me or my kid down . They are known to re-offend. I’m more afraid of DUI people than of a stoner listening to Elliott Smith in his dorm room.
lol Marie, DUI’s include those who are stoned.
91
Except as a list of groups that you do not like, some of which have nothing what so ever to do with each other: Vietnam war protesters and environmental extremists for example, I really do not get what you are trying to say. Could you clarify what this disparate list has to do with Davids article ?
I’m wishin’ I never even dignified the anti-cannabis people with a reply: as the thoughtful article says, we are a nation bitterly divided. Hope none of you anti-pot people never need chemo. I’m done with this debate.
[quote]DUI’s include those who are stoned.[/quote]
I think that Marie’s point may have been more about the hypocrisy of a society that treats the use of substances that impair judgement to the point of dangerousness so differently than about which substance is involved in a
DUI. People who get caught with alcohol, even illegally as with an open container in the car, get a legal slap on the hand compared to those caught with illegal drugs.
An example, son of a friend with clean background, DUI with open container in car. The penalty was a fine and essentially a “don’t do it again son”. Do we really think this would have been the outcome for a similar quantity of
meth or crack ? Our society has a vast array of disparities based on drug of choice ( and alcohol is definitely a drug whether we choose to call it that or not), ability to pay for a good attorney, neighborhood, economic status and yes
religion and race.
If you doubt this, why are so many detractors of the president so intent upon proving that he is a Muslim? If we truly are about religious freedom in this country, why would that matter ?
Our divisions as a nation go far beyond the political. Until we are ready to put aside our preferences for our own
cultural and religious backgrounds and truly honor the freedoms that our constitution states apply to all, we will not get past the divisions that David is describing. Having said that, I think David paints too bleak a picture.
What I see as great in America is that we have slowly, but steadily moved in the direction of greater equality.
We have gotten past our extremely violent repressive past of genocide of Native Americans and slavery.
We have gotten past considering women as inferior beings who should not have the right to vote.
We have gotten past the color of one’s skin determining their right to vote.
We have gotten past the acceptance of child labor and indentured servitude ( at least legally).
We are working now on acceptance of the concept that people’s individual sexual preference should not limit their
civil rights.
We are working to maintain women’s rights to determine what legal medical procedure they can choose as opposed to the government dictating what can be done to her body. We are working to balance this with the rights of the fetus or unborn child depending on one’s point of view.
Democracy is a messy business, but I see an overall trend toward attempts, imperfect and slow though they may be to strengthen rather than weaken peoples rights and equality from both sides. True we tend to see equality and different rights as paramount, but human rights and equality do seem to remain a major point of interest for all. Now if we could just get to the point of honoring everyone’s rights, not just those we personally treasure most for those that are most like us, we would, as a nation have something to be proud, if not arrogant, about.
David wrote:
> An old mentor of mine, a dyed-in-the-wool liberal,
> once told me that the only thing worse than Republicans
> would be no Republican Party.
The problem is that with rare exceptions Democrats and Republicans are just working for the people that gave them the money to get elected (and re-elected) and use things like gun bans and abortion bans to get large groups of voters excited so they go out and vote.
The people that get millions to run programs for the left don’t want anyone to ask why it costs $10 million to give job training to 10 people and the people that get millions from the right don’t want anyone to ask why it cost $10 million to build 10 outhouses in Iraq.
As a nation (and at most state and local levels) we are heading toward a financial cliff that will impact us all in such a big way that we won’t really care what kind of bags the stores give out or if the football team can pray before games.
Most people don’t get their news from multiple sources and if you read a left leaning paper long enough you will start to think that Republicans are evil, and if you listen to right wing radio long enough (like it looks like 91 Octane does) you will think that the Democrats are crazy.
I don’t want to beat up on 91 Octane since I probably agree with him on more things than we disagree on, but if we come together we need to remind ourselves that making things like guns or drugs illegal don’t really do anything (any stoner can get pot and any convicted felon can get a gun) and it is something that we can come back and look at once we have a solvent nation with fully funded pension plans.
I see America as a sinking ship with a hole in the bottom that no one cares about while they are all above deck fighting over whether to fly the Che Guevara or Ronald Regan flag from the mast. Bad times (like war) often bring people together. It is my hope that we can get people to work together sooner than later to avoid the bad times that we are heading toward…
This Vanguard piece is a little all over the place and quite glass-half empty, but I get the general point. I also agree that we are a more divided nation.
I think 91 Octane nailed a number of very applicable points. I find it interesting too that Marie did a virtual door-slam-and-refuse-to-talk move after disagreeing with something. Let’s keep that type of response in mind as we consider our divisions.
Our divisions are a problem of leadership. Tribalism is natural. Take any collection of people and they will begin to filter and fragment into Lord of the Fly-type structures. What keeps the whole together is leadership. A strong leader sets the tone and establishes the shared goals that can bind a larger group. The leader first has to be committed to the goals of the larger group. He has to be perceived as everyone’s leader. If he plays favorites, the filtering will grow a divide.
What we have is a crisis in leadership. Obama is singularly responsible for creating the greater divide we are experiencing today. More specifically, he is responsible for not counteracting the natural forces that are always lurking to pull us apart. In fact, he is exploiting those natural forces to gain and retain his political power.
We also have the media. The media is stuck on a political, cultural, social, racial, gender, class… you name it… separation. The talking heads can’t seem to stop with their binary comparisons and stories of divided conflict. It is a lazy media. Stories of conflict sell, so it is in the media’s best interest to keep stoking the fires. Politicians have learned to use lazy media as their tool to help them divide and conquer.
This picture about covers it:
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/divide.jpg[/img]
The way I see it… there are a number of filter-tribes of people in this country that feel somewhat disenfranchised. We have always had a percentage of people that feel this way, and we always will. These are people potentially resentful and envious that they don’t have more in comparison to what some others have. The fact is that not everyone can be at the top of the success food chain. The design of the US has been so successful because it allows everyone the freedom to strive to be at the top of the success food chain. What Obama and liberal Dems are attempting to do is transform the US by eroding those freedoms to be replaced by redistribution that seeks to artificially prop up those resentful and envious. What we should be doing instead is increase our freedoms and lead the potentially resentful and envious to understanding that they too can seek greater prosperity in this – the greatest nation ever on God’s green earth.
Vote for Romney to get back to the type of leadership this country needs… and will always need.
Medwoman, the point I was trying to make is the general tone and demeanor of the article suggests the lions share of fanatics, outrageous behavior or extremism stems from the right wing.
this quote, also illustrates his belief that the problem is with the republican party.
“I see a party in this great nation that has given in to extremism.”
my contention via the list, is to illustrate the left wing and to just as large of an extent, democrats have spawned their own brand of extremism and outrageous lies, movements and behavior that is just on par as anything they can name with conservatives or republicans.
PS: I forgot to mention the failed attempt to link Sara Palin to the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords.
I also forgot to mention the spawned extremist monster in the occupy movement.
Med woman, I appreciate your positive attitude. I am afraid I just can’t find the optimism in it. The things you mention are big, but never should have been, and took lifetimes to negotiate. So while the parties fight over what should already be a done deal, we drift toward utter catastrophe. And I am afraid that only real catastrophe, if that, can bring humans to work together. Meanwhile, the suffering will be astronomical.
and my listing of what berkely did to our troops in vietnam is to illustrate the left also has its own brand of “hate”, a word they like to use so often.
Jeff
Your insistence that Obama is more divisive than leaders before him is I would say rather naive.
You have to look no further than 91s list to see that many of the “divisive” issues were in place long before Obama became president.
And all of the items that I listed occurred long before Obama.
Has Obama unified us ? No. But look what he had to work with . An opposition that stated before he even entered the White House that their most important priority was to defeat him. I honestly do not see how in good faith, you can continue to place failed leadership solely at his door when defeat of the opposition, not the good of the people or the country was the Republican leaderships stated goal. You usually attempt more intellectual honesty than this.
91Octane: I get your point and agree there are extremists on both sides. I don’t like ideologues and would prefer that our political leaders be pragmatic and compromise in order to achieve goals.
Sometimes I think David wakes up really grumpy on weekends.
[quote]I am afraid I just can’t find the optimism in it[/quote]
The optimism is based on an article of faith in my life. I do not believe that what happens in life is determined by some supernatural being. I believe that we shape the world we are in by our individual actions. We have the power to change the world to be more fair, to enhance opportunity and to choose equality over oppression. And we have a blue print called our constitution which was a superb statement, given the cultural milieu of their time, of the founders belief in equality. It was and is, far from perfect, since it considered some humans superior to others, however, it was a pretty good stab at equality given the time.
While it is true that the things I mentioned should never have occurred, we, as a society have recognized this and worked to improve. I do have faith that if enough people are willing to work, some in small ways, some in large and public ways, to promote equality, we can move forward to building a more just society.
[quote]we drift toward utter catastrophe[/quote]
What is this utter catastrophe that you see us drifting towards ?
I never slam doors, I rarely raise my voice and puff up my chest and I don’t slam things down or throw things. I just walk away quietly, to meditate for another day. Peace.
medwoman: ” An opposition that stated before he even entered the White House that their most important priority was to defeat him. I honestly do not see how in good faith, you can continue to place failed leadership solely at his door when defeat of the opposition, not the good of the people or the country was the Republican leaderships stated goal. You usually attempt more intellectual honesty than this.”
medwoman, I’m not in complete disagreement, but I think that argument cuts both ways. It was clear when bush became president those on the opposite end of the spectrum were determined smear bush at all costs, be it foreign, domestic policies etc. or trying to prove florida was the incorrect result. You almost couldn’t hear bush’s name without the smear liar in the same sentence. Furtermore, the dems were determined to undermine the war at every turn – better to lose a war and destroy bush politically than have it go well and it be bush’s success. Tom Daschle’s obstruction of everything under the sun bush tried to do cost him his job.
and so much of it was couched in euphemistic terms such as “truth”, “debate and discussion” etc. Harry reid when talking to a bunch of high schoolers called the president “a liar and a loser” now hows that for bi-partisanship, cooperation, good faith, an honest attept to mend fences, work together or whatever feel good languaage you could come up with?
and also, you mentioned obama – I remember him slinging lots of mud at bush during his campaign and prepared to tell us that his current problems were bush’s fault and not his own.
medwoman: why do you and others keep making so many excuses for Barak Obama? If a new CEO takes over for a failing company and fails to turn it around, she would be fired. Obama was “hired” as our chief executive and he has failed miserably to turn it around. He should be fired. However, you and others keep making excuses for him and blame others. That is just astounding.
You are correct that all these divisive issues existed before. You are also correct that Obama has not unified us. What you are failing to do is hold Obama responsible for the lack of unification. You are blaming others for that failure, instead. I hate to say it, but it looks like a sort of affirmative action response… that Obama is needing to be protected and his qualifications dumbed down because of ??? My assessment of his performance is race & class-blind. His performance has been terrible. He needs to go.
Bush did a better job unifying us, and I think Bush did a pretty poor job at that.
Sometimes I think David wakes up really grumpy on weekends.
ya, hehe.
The article would’ve been more accepted if David had used some examples of divisiveness from the left. But as usual David pointed out what he considered flaws of the right and pretty much made it sound like the GOP is the problem. This is why many readers often don’t take the Vanguard very seriously.
“What is this utter catastrophe that you see us drifting towards ?”
In my opinion we’re fastly becoming another Greece. We have a fiscal cliff fastly approaching in which all Hell is going to break loose especially if Obama is re-elected and keeps up the unchecked spending.
[quote]why do you and others keep making so many excuses for Barak Obama?[/quote]
Where do you see me as having made any excuse for Obama ?
I merely stated the fact that the people he needed to help him enact the policies that he had stated he wanted were determined to undermine him at any cost. By their own statement,not by my interpretation.
Also, I certainly did not state that the same approach was not taken by Democrats to Bush. There certainly were obstructionist tactics used. However, I do take exception to 91’s statement that this was done,in the case of the wars, just so Bush would fail. There are many reasons other than specific political animus for not wanting to go to war, including holding a pacifist philosophy.
[quote]If a new CEO takes over for a failing company and fails to turn it around, she would be fired.[/quote]
I find your analogy a bit disingenuous. If a new CEO takes over a failing company, would she not have been given the ability to fire those who stated that they would not cooperate with her under any circumstances. I believe that
a Chief executive would have considerably more discretion over building her team than does the President.
If that is not true, please inform me on how this works in private business.
“Sometimes I think David wakes up really grumpy on weekends.”
LOL. It was a tough week.
medwoman, I could begin with examples of the way life is elsewhere, fill in the blanks, do you think we are exempt?. I can tell you are a very compassionate and thoughtful person and as a doctor I expect you see a somewhat wide cross section of our society. Don’t you already see lives that are a catastrophe? The worst is not here in the middle class yet. It is also not just about money. Because all the money in the world will not buy decent air to breathe or clean water to drink as we destroy this planet. And if the climate change projections are correct, it is no more than a joke to think we are making any strides whatsoever in thwarting the affects of that. How about war, do think there won’t finally be the use of the unthinkable weapons? And where the wars, famine and “unstable” societies are now, what do you think the lives of those people are like? The utter catastrophe is already in many parts of the world and we are not exempt. We have a lot of resources to work with and we are squandering them.
[quote]What we have is a crisis in leadership. Obama is singularly responsible for creating the greater divide we are experiencing today.[/quote]I agree with the first sentence. In the second sentence, I believe that you could easily substitute Romney for Obama. Both, in my opinion, are tepid leaders.
I have rejected both major parties for association. I vote for individuals.
The country has been deeply divided before, and will be again.
We did have one truly great leader as president. He was a Republican (the first elected President). The division which he had a lot to do with healing (although his work was unfinished) is known variously as “the Civil War”, or the “war between the states”, or the “war of Northern Aggression”. He was greatly disparaged, and killed by an assassin.
“The article would’ve been more accepted if David had used some examples of divisiveness from the left. But as usual David pointed out what he considered flaws of the right and pretty much made it sound like the GOP is the problem.”
Most of the complaints came from three posters. Hundreds have read the articles. So I don’t know how you can claim, “the article would’ve been more accepted…” Perhaps by you. But, and I really don’t mean this as a shot, it really wasn’t written for your acceptance.
The only surprise is that the discussion briefly turned to cannabis rather than abortion or rape.
[quote]But the point of the piece is really that while Democrats and Republicans can play their games, real people are in peril.[/quote]
This article does not bash Democrats, but only Republicans. Both parties have been guilty of fomenting extremism for their own political ends. And because of it, a number of moderates have left Congress. The news media also caters to extremism bc the news media believes it makes “better” news coverage (more money for them).
Meanwhile more and more has leaked out about the corruption in gov’t at all levels, while the average person on the street is suffering from under employment/no employment/huge tax burdens. CA’s parks dept was caught hiding millions, as Gov Brown wants to raise taxes; the GAO at the federal level is holding a lavish million dollar party, an agency that is supposed to tell other agencies how to spend gov’t money wisely, and as Obama is calling for higher taxes; the federal Atty General is caught purchasing guns to sell to drug cartels in the Fast and Furious Scandal, and on and on the corruptions goes. I could give a laundry list, but the reader can catch my drift.
The extremism the nation sees is from frustration of a gov’t that is out of touch with reality and the common man. Federal/state/local gov’t is not being responsive to the needs of its people. Grass roots movements like the Tea Party movement and the Occupiers movement are examples of that frustration with an out of touch gov’t that spends, spends, spends, while the people are losing equity, jobs, and their way of life. The future for citizen’s children looks bleaker, not more promising. Home ownership appears to be a thing of the past – to be substituted with investors who will rent out houses. The divide between the wealthy and the rest of us is growing wider. The grass roots movements of the Tea Partiers and Occupiers are an attempt to “take back America” by the people, for the people.
We are a resilient nation, and I firmly believe we will survive. But our future I suspect is going to be very different than our past, and much of it will not be for the better. We have a tough road ahead, but we will need to stop yammering about how divided we are, but rather pull together as a nation to overcome this severe recession we are in. And if it means we have to “clean house” and get rid of politicians that are not responsive to the electorate, then so be it. We essentially just did that locally, and I think it will make a world of difference for the better. Sometimes a fresh voice is needed, one that is more upbeat and innovative to effect positive change…
Nattering nabobs of negativity get you nowhere…
“This article does not bash Democrats, but only Republicans. Both parties have been guilty of fomenting extremism for their own political ends.”
So post the extremism that you see in the Democratic party. I’m a Republican but I think the republican party right now is more out of whack than the Democratic party. I didn’t think so 25 years ago however.
“Most of the complaints came from three posters. Hundreds have read the articles. So I don’t know how you can claim, “the article would’ve been more accepted…” Perhaps by you. But, and I really don’t mean this as a shot, it really wasn’t written for your acceptance.”
I only see about four posters who agree with you so far but that being said there’s only of very small percentage of your readers who actually post so I don’t think to say it’s only three is a fair evaluation. Secondly, when you bash Republicans you’re just preaching to the choir here in Davis as most of your readers are Democrats. I’m sure many conservatives don’t bother to read you just because they know what’s coming and get tired of the frustration. Lastly, and I really don’t mean this as a shot, but if you want to be considered a more serious news source you might try being a little more objective in your articles.
Interesting how the terms “liberal” and “conservative” are used… many “conservatives” associate themselves with strong Christian ideologies… yet, if you are familiar with the basic documents of the Christian faith, was Jesus a conservative, or a liberal? How would the Pharisees and priests of the time characterized him?
[quote]So post the extremism that you see in the Democratic party. I’m a Republican but I think the republican party right now is more out of whack than the Democratic party. I didn’t think so 25 years ago however.[/quote]
I’d say 91 Octane already did a pretty good job of listing extremism on the liberal side of the aisle…
[quote]I’m a Republican but I think the republican party right now is more out of whack than the Democratic party. I didn’t think so 25 years ago however.[/quote]
I think that has a lot to do with perspective, and where you live in the country. Californians receive a very filtered picture… I have to get some perspective by talking to folks I know in the Washington, D.C. area. VA is conservative, MD is more liberal, but it is definitely not as whacky as it is out here…
“I’d say 91 Octane already did a pretty good job of listing extremism on the liberal side of the aisle…”
You’re entitled to your view and your decision, however, I have found 91 Octane to be an extremely hateful and disagreeable person and prefer not to read his or her comments. So if you wish to have a discussion with me, you can post your own comments, but I will not be reading 91 Octane’s.
“I think that has a lot to do with perspective, and where you live in the country. Californians receive a very filtered picture”
With all due respect, you don’t know me or my background.
Elaine: [i]Nattering nabobs of negativity get you nowhere[/i]
LOL! Poetic and true in the macro sense. Negativity is barely useful.
Soooo……
Now that we have all said our collective pieces, what next?
As don put it, okay we have extremism from both sides. Now how do we come together? God only knows. We should focus on what unites us as medwoman put it. but what is that exactly? we all agree everyone should have rights. But the details of how those rights are spread around is an entirely different matter and where division occurs. Everytime an election cycle comes up we see accusations hurled all over. I agree with elaine the media feeds this divisiveness and the accusations.
so how do we stop all that? I think the closest we came was 9-11.
In some ways I miss the days right after 9-11, when this country seemed very united in purpose and support for the country, president, congress, the troops, and eachother.
for a brief moment we got that unity back when bin laden was killed. I hope we can have more moments like that in the future.
Yeah, I miss Spiro Agnew, too. He was a truly inclusive, non-divisive leader.
medwoman: [i]If a new CEO takes over a failing company, would she not have been given the ability to fire those who stated that they would not cooperate with her under any circumstances. I believe that
a Chief executive would have considerably more discretion over building her team than does the President.
If that is not true, please inform me on how this works in private business.[/i]
91 Octane: [i]In some ways I miss the days right after 9-11, when this country seemed very united in purpose and support for the country, president, congress, the troops, and each other.
for a brief moment we got that unity back when bin laden was killed. I hope we can have more moments like that in the future.[/i]
Let me try to tie these two things together re: leadership.
There are two fundamental leadership approaches for implementing significant change with large groups of stakeholder: participatory or exclusionary. The approach selected should depend on the type of change and the required urgency. In general, a well-led participatory approach can take more energy and more time, but can net a more optimized outcome. A participatory approach also demands expert leadership skills of relationship-building, mediation and negotiation. A participatory approach is necessary when the problems and opportunities being addresses are nebulous, dynamic or complex, and there is a need to first develop a shared vision and shared goals. Conversely, when enough stakeholders already share the vision and the goals, and there is a need for urgency, an exclusionary approach is generally the better choice. At this point the leadership skill is focused on execution.
91 Octane uses two examples of leadership where the vision and goals were shared by a large percentage of the stakeholder group, and there was an accepted sense of urgency. There was little need to spend extra time building relationships, mediating and negotiating a plan. The primary leadership need was for execution. Both Presidents did well executing.
However, in terms of the Obama agenda for our country’s domestic economic and social transformation, there has been little leadership work done to build relationships, mediate and negotiate. What Obama and the Dems are doing instead is pursuing an exclusionary approach using a divide and conquer strategy. They are counting on strength in numbers after tarnishing the brand of Republicans and conservatives, fomenting class, race, age, gender, sex… and any other groupsim they can think off… and with the help of a politically biased education system and media, they are driving a political wedge between THEM and US.
Obama is failing to lead on the things where there is enough shared vision and goals and a need for urgency (e.g., deficits, unemployment), and his leadership approach for those much larger and more nebulous and argumentative transformative goals he is pursuing is wholly inadequate and divisive.
A CEO cannot succeed if she does not have the support and confidence of her board, her peers, and her employees. She can come in and start firing people if these actions are backed by a clear vision, shared goals and a sense of urgency. Nevertheless, she cannot do so without suffering the loss of some votes of confidence. Likewise, she cannot ignore the need for execution to prevent her from having to deal with tough decisions without suffering the loss of some votes of confidence.
My sense of Obama is that he is a nice guy, and a smart guy, but he has always been in way over his head. He just lacks enough real world leadership experience. It is like we took this grade school experienced football coach and put him to coach the New England Patriots. Obama has made many leadership errors that are really expected given his lack of executive experience; but has not seemed to learn from them. He continues to be bullheaded that his way is the only way. It is the wrong way. It is a way toward greater decline of this once great country.
Romney is not a perfect replacement; but he is many times better qualified than Obama. The need is leadership. Romney is the better leader. Obama is the stronger feel-good, pop-culture, American Idol President; better suited for a time when we are not in such dire straits.
“However, in terms of the Obama agenda for our country’s domestic economic and social transformation, there has been little leadership work done to build relationships, mediate and negotiate. What Obama and the Dems are doing instead is pursuing an exclusionary approach using a divide and conquer strategy. They are counting on strength in numbers after tarnishing the brand of Republicans and conservatives, fomenting class, race, age, gender, sex… and any other groupsim they can think off… and with the help of a politically biased education system and media, they are driving a political wedge between THEM and US.”
Well said Jeff. Have you seen the movie 2016 Obama’s America? What you stated here is nicely laid out in the movie.
The problem I have with business-oriented analyses of politics is that politics has very little in common with business. So, for example,
[i]”there has been little leadership work done to build relationships, mediate and negotiate.”
[/i]There has been no willing partner for doing any of that. For the Affordable Care Act, Republicans chose to sit on the sidelines. All the mediating and negotiating by the Obama administration was with two moderate Republicans, both of whom are leaving, and with a handful of conservative Democrats. It was a process of counting votes, doing enough horse-trading and ego-stroking to get to cloture, and getting the bill passed. It was a major legislative accomplishment involving very strong leadership skills, specifically knowing when the president needed to engage directly and when it was more productive not to.
[i]A CEO cannot succeed if she does not have the support and confidence of her board, her peers, and her employees.[/i]
An irrelevant analogy in the case of our president. To accomplish anything legislatively the president’s team has to build consensus, negotiate, and compromise. That is how bills are crafted and passed. When one party absolutely refuses to do any of that, what do you propose the president do?
[i]”the things where there is enough shared vision and goals and a need for urgency (e.g., deficits, unemployment)”[/i]
Clearly there is not shared vision and goals, nor any shared sense of urgency between the parties. If there was, there would be negotiations and an attempt at compromise. The parties don’t agree on how to get the deficit reduced, or whether that is a priority over stimulating growth (fiscal policies toward one goal may inhibit the other). The parties don’t share any of those things, if in fact you believe the Ryan plan is the blueprint advocated by the Republican party.
You disagree with his politics. Fine. Vote for the conservative, or whatever you think the amazing shape-shifting Romney actually is. But to try to continually disparage Obama as ineffectual is inaccurate (he did get the ACA passed, which is a huge achievement). And the constant drumbeat questioning his patriotism, his commitment to “exceptionalism” and other buzzwords, seems like a veiled way of saying, over and over, ‘he’s not like us’.
Romney has no greater qualification to be president than the incumbent. There is nothing in his past nor in his character that leads me to believe he would be more effective in any way. His foreign policy would be a disaster. His fiscal policies don’t add up. And I believe he is either completely dishonest or has no core beliefs and values.
“And the constant drumbeat questioning his patriotism, his commitment to “exceptionalism” and other buzzwords, seems like a veiled way of saying, over and over, ‘he’s not like us’.”
Yeah, yeah, yeah. We all must be racists because it just can’t possibly be that we don’t like Obama’s policies. Pathetic.
When, rusty, did I say you were a racist?
With regard to divisiveness and bridging partisanship, on his very first important decision — his selection of a running mate — Romney failed. He chose one of the most hard-right members of Congress on social issues. He chose the man who is credited, almost single-handedly, with blocking the ‘grand bargain’ that Obama and Boehner had nearly struck last summer. He did so because of his absolute, dogmatic, uncompromising positions and his refusal to compromise or negotiate. So it is clear that a Romney presidency, if Paul Ryan is any indicator, would be more divisive than what we have now.
A more moderate running mate would have been a signal to independent voters that Romney is willing to work across the aisle to get things done.
And where did he say you can’t disagree with Obama’s policies: “[b]You disagree with his politics. [u][i]Fine[/i][/u].[/b] Vote for the conservative…” He made a very specific point that you obviously completely missed.
Not me personally or directly, but you interjected the code words that the left now use like “veiled”, “buzzwords” and “he’s not like us” inferring that those that see him that way are indeed racists.
“A more moderate running mate would have been a signal to independent voters that Romney is willing to work across the aisle to get things done.”
And please tell me how Obama and the Democrats are working across the aisle? The Reid led Democrat controlled Senate won’t even consider any bills that are being passed by the House and presented to them.
[i]”he did get the ACA passed”[/i]
Yes, he did Don. He got it passed with an exclusionary approach, and it cost him significantly in votes of confidence from decision stakeholders. He did not have a clear vision, nor did he have clear shared goals. The sense of urgency was not even shared. Yet he took the approach to steamroll those that apposed HIS WAY and got it done HIS WAY. He did this when he SHOULD have been focused on the main street economy. At a time when great uncertainty was stifling capital investment and lending, Obamacare added more uncertainty. So did the threat of tax increases to business owners and wealthy investors.
You like Obamacare. Most Americans do not. The way it was passed was an example of Obama’s poor executive leadership skills.
[i]”The problem I have with business-oriented analyses of politics is that politics has very little in common with business.”[/i]
Don, I disagree with this statement completely. There are differences, but the CEO of a large company has duties and challenges that are quite similar to that of the CEO of the United States. Have you ever worked as an executive manager for a large company? The fact of the matter is that we SHOULD be running government more like a successful business.
I really think you and others are blind to this Obama leadership deficiency. Your tendency is to make him to be a victim… for example, say “it is those nasty GOPers that caused him to act or fail the way he has.” That is just ridiculous. No US President should be provided these types of excuses.
Once elected Obama was supposed to be President to EVERY citizen of the US, not just his base. However, he has been on perpetual campaign. When a conservative listens to Obama speak there is little that resonates, and quite a bit that stings and builds resentment (and fear). He is in a bubble of his own ideology and denigrates and demonizes those that have opposing ideas. He has taken potshot and potshot at the GOP since day one. He alienated himself from leaders like Paul Ryan, instead of reaching out to compromise. Now, they dislike him. They don’t trust him. He does not have their vote of confidence. They don’t want to help him succeed, because they know he is in over his head, he is flailing about, and he is a danger to the country because of his inexperience and ideology.
What if Chancelor Katehi lost a vote of confidence from half her managers, half the employees and half the students? Don’t you think she would have a hard time being effective in her job?
Ryan is a perfect choice for VP, and the debates are going to very good. I suspect that after the debates between Ryan and Biden Democrats are going to get quite frantic. The debates between Romney and Obama are going to be great too because it is going to clearly deliniate the primary ideological differences. I think Romney wins on that alone… even if Obama didn’t have his crappy record dragging him down.
[quote]Don’t you already see lives that are a catastrophe? [/quote]
I see lives of people who are not as economically advantaged as I am. But deciding whether or not something is a catastrophe depends upon what you are using as your comparison. If you are using a third world country, or the depression in this country with the indigent migrant families as depicted by Dorthea Lange in her famous photographs, no, I do not see that. If you are referring to the loss of jobs and homes, yes, I see that virtually every day.
Again, the issue for me is not are we in or approaching a catastrophe ? It is what can we do as individuals, as groups, as a city, state and nation that will help. The vast majority of people that I see that are in life crisis are not there because of their own laziness or poor choices, unless you include being honest, getting an education, getting a job which you then lost because of economic factors beyond your control. These people are genuinely in need of help. We need to stop squabbling about surgical procedures, magazine clips, and who is more extreme than whom, and provide the needed help. It has been put forward here often that private charity and churches will take care of these folks. Rather obviously, right now that is not working. For those of you who are Christian, the question I would ask is, what would Jesus have us do for these folks ? For those of you who are not, I would ask,
what would you want in the way of help if this were you and you did not have family or friends who were in a position to help ?
And one more question. For those of you who claim that Obamas opponents only oppose him because of his policies, I will ask again, if prejudice plays no role in any of this, then why would any care whether or not he is really Muslim?
Elaine
[quote]but it is definitely not as whacky as it is out here…[/quote]
I had to smile when I read that sentence as a follow up to your first of the same post that it is a matter of perspective. Having lived in rural Washington, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, the latter is by far the least whacky of the places I have lived….from my perspective ; )
Elaine wrote:
> Home ownership appears to be a thing of the past
> to be substituted with investors who will rent
> out houses.
The median price of a home in America is ~$170K. If you can save up ~$5K for a FHA down payment you can get a $165K loan at ~3.25% for a monthly payment of ~$720 a month. If a guy and his wife can come up with less than $25/day (less than $12/day each) they can buy a home nicer than 50% of the homes in America. In towns like Davis and San Francisco where the supply is limited homes will cost more, but you don’t have to live in Davis or San Francisco…
> The divide between the wealthy and the rest
> of us is growing wider.
In every society throughout history the divides between wealthy and the rest has always grown wider (and if you play Monopoly with friends for an hour with friends the divide between everyone that was equal at the start will grow wider)…
The US income gap has fallen significantly in 2012. What we keep reading about is the gap right before the Great Recession. Even so, the increase in earned wealth has lifted real income for all groups.
[i]You like Obamacare. Most Americans do not.[/i]
Except that they like the provisions of the Affordable Care Act except the individual mandate. And you’re actually wrong anyway:
[url] http://www.people-press.org/2012/03/26/public-remains-split-on-health-care-bill-opposed-to-mandate/%5B/url%5D
“In the latest Pew Research Center survey conducted March 7-11 [2012], 47% of Americans approved of the health care legislation passed by Barack Obama and Congress, while 45% disapproved.
This mirrors the balance of opinion in the weeks after the bill was passed. In April 2010, 40% approved and 44% disapproved of the law.”
[i]The way it was passed was an example of Obama’s poor executive leadership skills.[/i]
The way it was passed was the only way any health insurance reform legislation could have been passed then in the face of unanimous Republican opposition. The only alternative was for him to walk away from a signature campaign promise.
[i]He did this when he SHOULD have been focused on the main street economy.[/i]
I seem to recall something called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. You know, that $800 billion stimulus bill?
You probably don’t like that one. The Tea Party sure didn’t.
So he got a stimulus bill. Got his health insurance reform bill. Got no Republican help on any of it. How do you think he would have gotten anything done if he had tried to work with the Republicans? When he did work with Boehner, the Speaker couldn’t even get his own party to cooperate. And the guy who shot it all down was Paul Ryan.
Don, other polls still indicate more people dislike Obamacare than like it. Those polls have been consistent since it was passed. That is one reason that the GOP does not support Obama… their consituents were furious that the bill passed. Obama and the Dems cut the GOP out of the negotiations for ACA (aka “Obamacare”).
Sure they like the provisions now. That is what happens with redistribution… once you get it going it becomes the new normal.
So, why do you think the GOP is treating Obama differently than Bill Clinton?
I think I’m understanding Jeff Boone’s perspective.. it is typical of those on the “right” and the “left”.. it’s all about them… not what is ‘right or wrong’. It’s what is best for them, personally. That’s fine. That is normal. I guess I’m ‘abnormal’. I’m still not sure how I will vote, come November… I do know that I am not persuaded by anyone who has posted,
Don wrote:
> In the latest Pew Research Center survey conducted
> March 7-11 [2012], 47% of Americans approved of the
> health care legislation passed by Barack Obama and
> Congress, while 45% disapproved.
This is a good example of America Divided, I bet that close to 1/3 of America would approve of anything Obama did (say throwing old people off a bridge to save on health care costs) and 1/3 of America would disapprove of anything he did (say finding a cure for cancer by mixing three different common herbs) and the other third will swing depending on how the question is worded “Do you approve of health care legislation passed by Barack Obama and Congress that will save babies from dying” or Do you approve of the socialist health care legislation passed by Barack Husain Obama and Congress that will cost Billions and make going to the doctor worse than going to the DMV”.
The Pew families that set up the trusts that fund the foundation were super religious right wing Republicans and early work from the foundation was right leaning. Like most boomers the people running things at Pew now lean left of center (pretty fair, but still left of center and it says something that they couldn’t craft a question that could get half the people they called to support Obamacare)…
[i]So, why do you think the GOP is treating Obama differently than Bill Clinton?[/i]
You mean the GOP that investigated, impeached, and obstructed Clinton? I assume that isn’t what you meant. I assume you’re referring to the times they cooperated with him. The answer is that today’s GOP is more conservative, more intolerant, more ideological, and more extreme than at any time in history.
Democrats may have gotten more liberal, but nowhere near as much as Republicans have gotten more conservative.
[img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/nominate-house_medians_custom.jpg[/img]
Republicans who cooperate or compromise face Tea Party primary challenges.
SouthofDavis: From the same Pew article. “Five other major surveys conducted over the past month find similar divisions of opinion, and with little change from two years ago.”
[url]http://www.people-press.org/2012/03/26/public-remains-split-on-health-care-bill-opposed-to-mandate/[/url]
When asked about the provisions of the ACA individually, the public supports them. Except the individual mandate. Which is, unfortunately, the part that makes it fiscally responsible.
Moreover, the public is ready to move on.
[i]”Fifty-six percent of Americans believe opponents of the law should “stop trying to block its implementation and instead move on to other national problems,” according to the poll by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation.[/i]
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”Don, other polls still indicate more people dislike Obamacare than like it. Those polls have been consistent since it was passed. That is one reason that the GOP does not support Obama… their consituents were furious that the bill passed. Obama and the Dems cut the GOP out of the negotiations for ACA (aka “Obamacare”).
Sure they like the provisions now. That is what happens with redistribution… once you get it going it becomes the new normal.
So, why do you think the GOP is treating Obama differently than Bill Clinton?”[/i]
Jeff, as a finance guy I am really surprised that you don’t see the compelling fiscal argument against the healthcare system that Obama is trying to deal with. It makes absolutely no sense from an actuarial risk management perspective to break the insurance pool down into the incredibly fragmented disaster that it is.
The people who respond to the kind of polls you and Don are referring to are clueless about just how much they are being bled dry by the current system. When first started working in healthcare in 1982 the administrative/marketing percentage was somewhere between 8 and 10%. Now it is close to 25%. Why? Because private sector insurance companies spend billions of dollars trying to differentiate themselves from one another in the marketplace. Does any of that differentiation contribute one iota to the improvement of the quality of care? NO. Does any of that differentiation even deliver any care to patients? NO. All it does is create an non-care delivery bureaucracy within [u]both[/u] the insurance companies and care giving organizations (hospitals and doctor groups, etc.). 100% wasteful. Can you imagine how much more affordable healthcare would be if we carved out all the administrative/marketing fat that has been added to go from 8-10% in 1982 to 25% today? Very few small business owners would be complaining about the cost of health insurance.
If I have any problem with Obamacare (and I do) it is that it didn’t go far enough. Republicans never looked at the fiscal analysis of what a single risk pool would do to cut out the fat. They were neither willing nor able to be objective about the numbers. Obama actually steered a compromise course between hard line reformists like me and the Republicans on the other side. I personally wish that Obama had been less of a compromiser.
SouthofDavis said . . .
[i]”The Pew families that set up the trusts that fund the foundation were super religious right wing Republicans and early work from the foundation was right leaning. Like most boomers the people running things at Pew now lean left of center (pretty fair, but still left of center and it says something that they couldn’t craft a question that could get half the people they called to support Obamacare)… “[/i]
I went to school with a number of members of the Pew family all through elementary, middle and high school. “Super religious”???? Not from my experience. They attended Presbyterian services on Sunday the way that I attended Episcopalian services. Their kids went to a secular school. The family’s active participation in the Republican party was a pretty straightforward response to the general antipathy virtually all the oil industry had to the policies of FDR. Joseph N. Pew Jr. was progressively active in promoting and funding higher education for African Americans.
Any family is going to have a mix of members with different perspectives. I’m sure that there are some pieces of specific information about specific Pew family members that can be castigated, but my experience says that they were just a normal American family that built a $4 billion fortune.
Image:[img]http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6lqf93MQS1ra14nmo1_500.jpg[/img]
[quote]Sure they like the provisions now. That is what happens with redistribution… once you get it going it becomes the new normal.
[/quote]
What an interesting turn of phrase. By calling the provisions “redistribution” you are able to some how avoid any consideration of whether or not they will be beneficial, whether to individuals, families or the society as a whole.
II think that Matt has done an excellent job of pointing out one of the reason for the increased cost of health care associated with the lack of a coherent distribution system. So I ( at considerable risk of being considered too emotional) I am going to address the human side based on what I have seen first hand.
1) The child care provision / no refusal for pre existing condition. Common example, child with severe asthma
Without ACA, if the child’s parents were fortunate enough to have insurance, all is well, but they are
economically likely to be stuck and completely dependent upon their employers continued choice of the
same insurance policy. Not very likely given the recent volatility in the extremely inefficient insurance
market with attempts to pay the very least amount possible on the part of employers. This alone costs the
family and society since this is a couple who will not be able to take the financial risks sometimes needed to
get ahead in their careers, build their own business, change to a new, more lucrative line of work because of
the insurance constraints placed on them by their child’s illness. If they choose to make a move, have
different insurance that denied the child care because of the pre existing condition, that child is now
dependent upon the demonstrable inferior and much more expensive care provided by Emergency Rooms
as opposed to by a pediatrician who knows the child.
I fail to see how one could view the previous lack of delivery system as superior for the child, the family, or
the society which is now paying the much more expensive ER care. With the ACA, the child will be eligible
for care, the family, freed from the worry about their child’s health, now have an improved opportunity to pursue improving their economic situation. Is not this economically as well as socially better for both the family and the society ?
2) Expansion of parental insurance coverage until age 26.
A 22 year old girl while away at college is diagnosed with anorexia, a chronic recurring condition with a
one in five mortality rate if not treated early and very aggressively. Unfortunately effective treatment
involves very highly specialized in patient treatment programs which typically cost around 150,000 for a
4 to 6 week hospitalization. Let’s say her parents have contributed to the insurance company for their
previously healthy daughter never before using more than the benefit of an annual sports physical. But now,
under our previous arrangement, when she turns 23 in a week, she is out of luck. No coverage,
no opportunity to have built up enough money to buy her own insurance, and oh, yes, did I forget to
mention, uninsurable because of her “previously exisiting condition” even though it was just diagnosed.
With the extension, the girl will be treated promptly, the costs rightfully covered by the insurance company
that has benefitted for years from this family’s purchasing of their product, and has a much higher chance
of not costing the taxpayer years and years of ER visits as she repetitively destabilizes enough to need ER
care which would have been preventable with early intervention. If you think this is extreme, I know of many
such women, and have a 46 year old now in my clinic who bounces from one emergency to the next and
will likely have a shortened life expectancy, all preventable with early aggressive care.
I would like anyone who feels that these changes are not demonstrably better both for the individuals involved, but also for the entire society which now potentially benefits from not having to pick up the tab for the much higher cost of Emergency Room as opposed to primary care visits and the potential long term benefits of healthier children and adults able to contribute more to the society than would the chronically ill.
Expand these cost and income advantages across the entire country and you have huge win in terms of both human and financial considerations. If you want to label this redistribution, fine, please just explain how our
previous arrangement is superior.
1
medwoman said . . .
[i]”So I ([b]at considerable risk of being considered too emotional[/b]) I am going to address the human side based on what I have seen first hand.”[/i]
You go girl !!!
“The CBO (and other non-partisan groups, as cited below) also list some disadvantages of the Act. 1.Increased coverage may actually raise health care costs. That’s because many people will receive preventative care and testing who, fortunately, find out they didn’t have that critical illness. However, the CBO found that additional testing, such as cancer screening and cholesteral tests, will lead to higher net medical spending. (Source: CBO,2009 Study on Preventative Health Care, August 7, 2009)
2.Those who don’t purchase insurance, and don’t qualify for Medicaid or subsidies, will be assessed a penalty of $95 (or 1% of income, whichever is higher) in 2014. It increases to $325 (or 2% of income) in 2015, and $695 (or 2.5% of income) in 2016.
3.About 4 million people, or 1.2% of the population, will wind up paying the penalty rather than purchase health insurance. The CBO estimates this will total $54 billion in penalties. (Source: Washington Post Factchecker, Tax Breaks vs Tax Hikes, July 6, 2012)
4.Taxes will be raised on one million individuals with annual incomes above a threshold of $200,000 and four million couples filing jointly with incomes in excess of $250,000. They would pay 2.35% (up from 1.45%) Medicare taxes on income above the threshold. In addition, they will pay a additional 3.8% Medicare taxes. This would apply to the lesser of income from dividends, capital gains, rent and royalties or income above the threshold. (Source: Smart Money, What Obamacare Means for Taxes, June 28, 2012)
5.Pharmaceutical companies will pay an extra $84.8 billion in fees over the next ten years to pay for closing the “donut hole” in Medicare Part D. This could raise drug costs if they pass this onto consumers.
6.In 2018, insurance companies will be assessed a 40% excise tax on “Cadillac” health plans. These are plans with annual premiums exceeding $10,200 for individuals or $27,500 for families. Many of these plans are for people in high-risk pools, such as older workers or union workers in high-risk jobs. (Source: Kaiser, Cadillac Tax Explained, March 18, 2010)
7.Medical-device manufacturers and importers will pay a 2.3% excise tax. Indoor tanning services already pay a 10% excise tax. This could discourage those businesses from hiring new employees.
8.Between 3-5 million people could lose their company-sponsored health care plans. Many businesses will find it more cost-effective to pay the penalty and let their employees purchase their own insurance plans on the exchanges. Other small businesses might find they can get a better plan through the state-run exchanges. (Source: CBO, The Effects of the Affordable Care Act on Employment-Based Health Insurance, March 15, 2012)
9.There are 30.1 million people who currently buy their own private health insurance. Many of them may need to get another plan if their insurance doesn’t meet the minimum standards — which haven’t yet been established. (Source: Factcheck.org, The Keep Your Plan Promise, June 28, 2012)
10.In 2014,those under 65 can only deduct medical expenses if they exceed 10% of income.”
hpierce: [i]”I think I’m understanding Jeff Boone’s perspective.. it is typical of those on the “right” and the “left”.. it’s all about them… not what is ‘right or wrong’. It’s what is best for them, personally.”[/i]
First, good Sunday morning to you.
We all gravitate toward what is best for us personally; but that is not what drives my opinion on these things that divides us politically. What keeps me up at night typing on this blog and writing letters is my concern about my children and their children.
Like many people of my generation, my biggest challenge growing up was deciding what I wanted to do with my life. There was not much of concern that I would make a decent living. My economic stress was primarily to decide what I would dedicate my professional time and effort to. I knew I had to work. I knew I had to struggle. I knew I had to work hard. I knew I needed an education. I knew I had to climb a ladder of higher prosperity and I had to compete with others doing the same.
The polarization we see is a culture war and a war of ideas over how we should all continue to lead our lives. What pisses me off is all us baby boomers having sucked every bit of value and opportunity out of our system, and doing so by putting the country under a mountain of debt, and now demanding that those having competed and worked the hardest give up more to pay for all this over-spending… not just to pay for the debt, but to also continue to fund all the over-commitments made.
It pisses me off that we have grown the size of government and entitlement spending at all levels and Democrats demand we increase taxes to tack on more of the same.
It pisses me off that I cannot not afford to start a business that would provide jobs to young people in this town because of the breathtaking crush of taxes and regulations that I would have to deal with.
It pisses me off that government policies have continued to increase regulations and threats of tax increases at a time when small business are failing or barely hanging on… and trillions in capital languishes in accounts because there is tremendous uncertainty that their returns on investment would not be demonized and taxed to smithereens.
It pisses me off that I have to pay so much to fund the crappy higher education of my two kids while their schools have increased pay and benefits and administrative costs way beyond the rate of inflation for years. It pisses me off that their K-12 education was so much crappier than mine even though it cost significantly more.
My perspective is really quite simple. Government has proven that it does not have fiscal discipline. It cannot be trusted. So, we should shrink the size and scope of government and allow people to retain and invest more of what they earn themselves so they can better take care of their own children.
It pisses me off every time I read “they want to return to the policies that got us into this mess”. What got us into this mess is the folly of politicians and political bureaucrats spending, taxing, regulating, spending, lying, cheating, stealing… and consistently underperforming. You cannot fix this with nuance. It is a social and cultural war for our children’s future and the only way to win it for them is to defeat the ideological left worldview. The US has always been a center-right country. The far right is going to have to pull it back from the brink of disaster caused by the slow and steady march left. Are we going to end up like Greece? Not if we can help prevent it.
Davids point about division is certainly valid. For every point on which Jeff is pissed off, I have a counterpoint by which I am saddened
[quote]It pisses me off that we have grown the size of government and entitlement spending at all levels and Democrats demand we increase taxes to tack on more of the same. [/quote]
It saddens me that we have grown our military to enable wars that provide no constructive benefit which are paid for by our taxes and thus limit what we can provide for our own population.
[quote]It pisses me off that I cannot not afford to start a business that would provide jobs to young people in this town because of the breathtaking crush of taxes and regulations that I would have to deal with.
[/quote]
It saddens me that the very inventive and farsighted people that would like to start businesses see government as the enemy instead of understanding that we live in a highly nuanced environment in which a regulation which burdens them personally, may be of great benefit, or even life saving for someone else.
[quote]It pisses me off that I have to pay so much to fund the crappy higher education of my two kids while their schools have increased pay and benefits and administrative costs way beyond the rate of inflation for years. It pisses me off that their K-12 education was so much crappier than mine even though it cost significantly more.
[/quote]
It saddens me that as a pacifist, I have to pay so much to fund wars that I view as immoral. I would much rather by contributing that money to fund public education.
My perspective is also quite simple. Government has demonstrated an ability to do some things extraordinarily well. We are indisputably the most militarily powerful nation on the earth. So why do we automatically assume that this very powerful force which is our government, could not be enlisted effectively to provide benefits in other areas of our society ? I believe that the failures listed by Jeff are not do to the inability of government to provide these other services, but because those in the extreme of his philosophy will do anything to cause the government to fail by opposition regardless of whether or not an idea is sound, so that they can then say, “look the government has failed.” Our military would also fail if no one would cooperate by enlisiting, or if all of the officers and enlisted men refused to take orders. This is a matter not of a corrupt philosophy on the part of the left, but of a failure of extremists on both sides, but more notably recently on the right, to choose to work together.
[quote]medwoman: I had to smile when I read that sentence as a follow up to your first of the same post that it is a matter of perspective. Having lived in rural Washington, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, the latter is by far the least whacky of the places I have lived….from my perspective ; )[/quote]
LOL God help us! I’m an East Coaster, and I guarantee what flies here on the West Coast would not fly back East…
[quote]erm: Home ownership appears to be a thing of the past to be substituted with investors who will rent out houses.
SouthofDavis: The median price of a home in America is ~$170K. If you can save up ~$5K for a FHA down payment you can get a $165K loan at ~3.25% for a monthly payment of ~$720 a month. If a guy and his wife can come up with less than $25/day (less than $12/day each) they can buy a home nicer than 50% of the homes in America. In towns like Davis and San Francisco where the supply is limited homes will cost more, but you don’t have to live in Davis or San Francisco…[/quote]
If you listen to federal leaders, they make it very clear the wave of the future is away from home ownership and towards rental. See [url]http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/28/real_estate/housing_debate_rent-vs-buy.fortune/index.htm
[/url]
[quote]In May, U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan testified before a House committee that the financial crisis proved the need for a better balance between ownership and rental housing. And HUD senior official Raphael Bostic last week told the Washington Post: “In previous eras, we haven’t seen people question whether homeownership was the right decision. It was just assumed that’s where you want to go,” Bostic said. “You’re not going to hear us say that.”[/quote]
medwoman: We have not grown our military.
Defense spending per GDP:
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/defspend2.jpg[/img]
Defense spending as a percent of the Federal budget:
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/defspend1.jpg[/img]
The preamble of the US Constituion…
[quote]We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure Domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…[/quote]
Note that [b]insure Domestic Tranquility[/b] and [b]provide for the common defense[/b] are second only to [b]establish Justice[/b].
Obama gets reasonable marks from me for providing for the common defense. But I find it interesting that Bush is still responsible for Obama’s economic failures, and someone Bush is not also responsible for Obama’s military successes.
Obama is failing on insuring Domenstic Tranquility. He is doing the oposite… fomenting groupism and class warfare for political gain.
Back to the other items in the preamble…
Liberal progressives seem stuck on overblowing the definition of [b]promote the General Welfare[/b] as the primary function of our Federal government. They also extend the meaning of this way beyond the intent of the framers.
Even if I were to agree with Liberals on their demand for government to put less into our defense and spend even more on redistribution and entitlements, there is a very relevant argument about how much of this actually promotes the general welfare. There is plenty of evidence that this does just the oposite (i.e., Greece and much of old Europe). It also reduces our Blessings of Liberty… especially to our Posterity.
I think you need to work on controlling you sadness and me my anger. We all need to work together on deciding what the vision and shared goals for our country should be going forward. Obama is not an inclusive President in this respect. He is in over his head. Conversely, Romney has governed the second most liberal state in the country. He is experienced in private business and the private economy. He has proven leadership in large complex undertakings like the Olypics. I’m not 100% certain he is the right leader for us. But, I AM 100% certain Obama is not.
Jeff
[quote]Liberal progressives seem stuck on overblowing the definition of promote the General Welfare as the primary function of our Federal government. They also extend the meaning of this way beyond the intent of the framers. [/quote]
Can we at least agree on the following: The phrase “overblowing the definition of promote the General Welfare as the primary function of our Federal government” is quite subjective. What you would define as
“overblowing”, I would define as essential. For example, I cannot imagine how one could be “promoting the General Welfare” if that does not include having enough to eat. I am sure that you do not see it that way. So what we have is subjective interpretation of what is meant by “promoting the General Welfare”. What we
probably also can agree on is that neither of us was there to pin down the founders on “exactly what do you mean by that phrase “General Welfare” anyway ? So our interpretation remains just that, our interpretation.
We could similarly state that the Founders, not being able to foresee the advent of automatic weapons might have had a different view of how to write that pesky business about militia and the right to bear arms had they been prescient. But again, we can’t be sure, since we weren’t there, just exactly what they meant by that.
[quote] We have not grown our military. [/quote]
You spent quite a bit of space objecting to an argument I had not made. I said nothing at all about “growing
our military”. I did make a statement about being saddened by very expensive wars that I see as morally indefensible and how I thought the money might be better spent, two issues that you chose not to address.
[quote]Even if I were to agree with Liberals on their demand for government to put less into our defense and spend even more on redistribution and entitlements,[/quote]
Again the use of the words “redistribution and entitlements” rather than addressing my specific points. This is no more true or contributory than if I simply restate this as “fair compensation for work and value provided and necessary social programs. ” The framing of “redistribution and entitlements” plays on the emotions of those who feel that this a threat to preserving what they have just as surely as my phrasing plays on people’s inherent sense of fair play and decency. Neither is particularly objective or specific, both are emotion based appeals. I am very willing to admit that openly. Are you ?
[quote]Can we at least agree on the following: The phrase “overblowing the definition of promote the General Welfare as the primary function of our Federal government” is quite subjective. What you would define as
“overblowing”, I would define as essential. For example, I cannot imagine how one could be “promoting the General Welfare” if that does not include having enough to eat. I am sure that you do not see it that way. So what we have is subjective interpretation of what is meant by “promoting the General Welfare”.[/quote]
Sorry, but I started to chuckle at this statement bc of a television documentary I saw many years ago on “hunger”. The reporter for the documentary interviewed a mother and son, who were supposedly “starving”. Both of them were morbidly obese! It just boggled the mind that the reporter used such inapt examples, and didn’t see the incongruity between their thesis and who they were interviewing.
What made it even more embarrassing is that as the mother was interviewed, she clearly admitted to having bad eating habits. The two survived on bread and gravy sandwiches, but not necessarily because better food was not available to them. In fact the current complaint of the federal gov’t is that not enough low income folks are accessing the SNAP program (food program for the indigent), even though it is readily available. So whether someone has “enough to eat” is also very subjective…
Jeff, you paint things in very extreme terms, and I believe in many cases the “truth” lies somewhere in the middle. I am going to assume that you see Medicare and Medicaid as entitlements. Correct me if I am wrong in that.
So lets look at how and why both Medicare and Medicaid got started. The reason is really quite simple, we as individuals were doing a lousy job of managing both the financial risk and the medical risk associated with continuing to live. The realities of life until recently when life expectancies have soared was that 90% of the healthcare costs of an individual would take place in the last year of their life (frequently the last month of their life). So when medical risk crashed down on an individual who had not saved enough money to cover that 90%, then the financial risk of treating them transferred to the society as a whole. Why? Because we as a society were unable to simply let the those persons die who couldn’t shoulder the financial risk of their medical care. So we created enforced savings . . . in the form of healthcare insurance. But still individuals didn’t behave responsibly and either save enough money for their eventual/inevitable care, or alternatively buy insurance coverage. So the government created a forced savings program in order to shift the financial risk of care back onto the individuals who were doing a lousy job of disciplining themselves. If we had simply been willing to let people die, then that wouldn’t have been necessary.
The problem is that actuarially we promised ourselves better healthcare than we can afford. For a long time nobody understood that, but even when the light did go on, we didn’t have the fortitude to tell ourselves, “Stop.” Instead what we did was to layer on layer after layer of the “lack of a coherent distribution system” (love that term medwoman) siphoning more and more of the already scarce healthcare delivery dollars into non-healthcare delivery activities. That siphoning created lots of new jobs, but those in simple terms were not smart jobs.
Fast forward to the 21st Century and we find ourselves again facing the stark reality that we need to shift financial risk. Counterbalancing rusty’s published OMB statistics, UCDavis Medical Center wrote off $178 million in unreimbursed charity care the last year I was there. Multiply $178 million by the thousands of hospitals and the millions of doctors and the amount we are [u]currently spending[/u] is staggering. it is just that we don’t see that spending as a line item in a budget. UCDMC didn’t simply swallow that $178 million. They passed it on in the form of price increases to consumers and negotiations terms to third party payors. The third party payors (insurance companies) didn’t simply swallow their portion of the passed on $178 million. They passed it on in the form of premium price increases to consumers. Bottom-line, in healthcare we are like the person with too many credit cards who spends a whole lot of time shifting balances from one card to another.
Obamacare was a step toward fixing that. Unfortunately IMHO it wasn’t a big enough step. One huge national risk pool will allow us to see clearly the true cost of the healthcare that we have over promised to ourselves.
Medwoman: yes, “promote the general welfare” is subjective. It also requires a long-range view of the consequences of short-term fixes.
Matt: I’m not sure that the “truth” lies in the middle. The truth is often just the truth… and it can be very hard to accept depending on our values and views. I do believe that almost all decisions are just an acceptance of the tradeoffs. There are pros and cons, costs and benefits in everything we decide. Optimizing our outcomes requires that we bravely and honestly analyze and calculate those tradeoffs. We also have history to guide us… so we don’t keep making the same stupid mistakes.
I have written before, and it is still my opinion that socielty needs to take care of children, people significantly disabled and older citizens unable to care for themselves. Chidren already have access to Medicaid and other programs. The elderly have Medicare. It is our spending on able-bodied adults that I have a problem with. It is also our obscene spending on public-sector employees that I have a problem with. If Democrats would agree to serious reductions for both these things, conservatives like me would be happy to talk about tax increases to help fund education and Medicare and Medicaid to improve the situation for children and the elderly that need help.
In addition, I support government helping private-industry as long as it is in a public-private partnership with an arms-length involvement. If we view the economy as a game, I think we need government to stay off the playing field, and focus on keeping competition robust and fair. Some industries will need help, but it should not come with social engineering string attached. The social benefit is more jobs, greater opportunity for economic prosperity, greater tax revenue from all, and not just a shrinking pool pf producers.
We should be looking at Greece and running the opposite direction. Instead of following Obama to the same outcome.
Our policies, situation, and future are not even comparable to Greece. Here’s a good analysis.
[url]http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/103365-comparisons-between-us-greece-are-overblown[/url]
[i]We have not grown our military.[/i]
No, but I can’t think of any rational basis for the Romney proposal to increase defense spending, retain or even increase troop levels, or tie defense spending to GDP.
Jeff, according to Internet sources In 2009, the United States federal, state and local governments, corporations and individuals, together spent $2.5 trillion, $8,047 per person, on health care. If we reduced the Administrative/Marketing overhead back the current 20-25% back to the historical 8-10% that would reduce spending on healthcare by $250 billion. I haven’t seen any actuarial estimates of how much that would reduce healthcare spending if we went to a single risk pool, but another $250 billion decrease wouldn’t surprise me. Don’t you think we should be paying attention to a potential $250 billion to $500 billion savings? This isn’t about entitlements IMHO, it is about wise spending.
Don: [i]Our policies, situation, and future are not even comparable to Greece.[/i]
Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, England?
We are heading the same direction. When do we pull back… when we finally DO compare? It will be too late then.
Matt: Much of the trim-able cost of our healthcare in this county are the high administrative costs from heavy government regulation and trial lawyers running up malpractice premiums. We also have much high labor costs from unionization of nurses and other medical employees. As for marketing costs, I agree that we should not allow direct marketing for drugs and healthcare services. I would be fine with regulation of that just like we do for cigarettes and booze. Health care products and services should be marketed to medical professionals. However, I don’t have any problem with health insurance being marketed to individuals.
However, I remain 100% convinced that we will all suffer greatly with a government-controlled, government-run, single-payer healthcare system… and that the priamry opportunity for reducing healthcare costs and increasing access and quality is to leverage the power of competition and the free market. We need to explode the level of free market choice for consumers of health care. We need to cut down on the regulations for delivering health care. We need tort reform.
Jeff
[quote]However, I remain 100% convinced that we will all suffer greatly with a government-controlled, government-run, single-payer healthcare system… and that the priamry opportunity for reducing healthcare costs and increasing access and quality is to leverage the power of competition and the free market. We need to explode the level of free market choice for consumers of health care. We need to cut down on the regulations for delivering health care. We need tort reform.[/quote]
And as a health care worker for 30 years, I remain completely convinced that we would all be much better off with a government run single payer healthcare system. We have a single payer government run military which you and I am sure would agree is the most powerful on the earth. So please explain to me why you feel government run health care would be a disaster, when I do not hear you arguing for everyone having to pay for their own military, or police need insurance.
[i]”We have a single payer government run military…”
[/i]
Not only that, we have a single payer government run military health service, which gets high marks from its customers and provides health care rather efficiently from what I’ve read.
And I’m not sure why Jeff is so worried about single payer health care. The ACA isn’t single payer. It isn’t even close to single payer.
[i]”Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, England?”
[/i]
Which of those countries have implemented austerity programs, and how is that working out?
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”Matt: Much of the trim-able cost of our healthcare in this county are the high administrative costs from heavy government regulation and trial lawyers running up malpractice premiums. We also have much high labor costs from unionization of nurses and other medical employees. As for marketing costs, I agree that we should not allow direct marketing for drugs and healthcare services. I would be fine with regulation of that just like we do for cigarettes and booze. Health care products and services should be marketed to medical professionals. However, I don’t have any problem with health insurance being marketed to individuals.”[/i]
Jeff, what is your evidence for those high administrative costs from heavy government regulation? Medicare has a single fee schedule that applies nationwide. Medicaid is more complex because each individual state administers its own version of Medicaid. Now compare the simplicity of that to the complexities on the insurance/managed care side. The typical Sacramento area hospital accepts upwards of 2,400 different insurance plans. Some admittedly are very minor, but all you have to do is drive down the highway and look at the billboards and you can see just a sampling of the big ones. Each one of those insurance companies has a myriad of different plans that they offer their members/insureds. A healthcare provider negotiates specific rates with each of the payors with whom they want to do business with. No national contracts exist, and the local providers (Sutter, Mercy, UCDMC) all want to create a competitive advantage over their two rivals (and Kaiser), so each provider employs a cadre of business analysts and financial analysts and accountants and public relations gurus in their attempt to generate that smidgen of advantage. Not a single one of the members of those multiple cadres adds even one iota of quality to the delivery of healthcare to patients. Further each payor has its own unique billing requirements and its own cadre of business analysts and financial analysts and accountants and public relations gurus in their attempt to generate that smidgen of advantage over the other payors. Their clerks frequently are operating under policies that almost guarantee that the first submission of any substantial bill is returned to the provider for “clarification.”
Marketing healthcare products and services directly to healthcare professionals is one of the major contributors that has gotten us into this mess in the first place. Really, really, really bad idea. That is like giving someone your VISA card and telling them to “use it wisely” when making purchases, but also telling them that they will never either see or have to pay for a bill. Would you give your children a VISA card under those terms? Would their definition of “use it wisely” be the same as yours?
Why should there be any need for health insurance marketing at all. Shouldn’t you simply be able to (as an employer or an individual) look at a scedule of available coverage plans and choose the one that matches your coverage needs and your ability to pay? One stop shopping for a plan that you choose. What do you do now if the coverage you want is not available from the companies that market to you and/or your company? Do you simply accept their lack of the offering you desire, or you find yourself devoting valuable time to find an insurer that does offer what you want. The bottom-line is that there is no reason that virtually all coverage options can not be made available. It simply boils down to actuarial risk. With a national pool the risk associated with a seldom requested coverage gets spread over the entire US population. The way it is now, if the payor’s risk pool isn’t large enough they simply refuse to offer what is more than likely a very valid coverage.
I could go on and on and on about how irrational our healthcare insurance and healthcare delivery markets are, but lets defer that discussion until we have a cold beer in our hands.
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]However, I remain 100% convinced that we will all suffer greatly with a government-controlled, government-run, single-payer healthcare system… and that the priamry opportunity for reducing healthcare costs and increasing access and quality is to leverage the power of competition and the free market. We need to explode the level of free market choice for consumers of health care. We need to cut down on the regulations for delivering health care. We need tort reform.”[/i]
You will note that I took the difference between 8-10% and 20-25% and netted it to only 10%. Tort reform is a real issue and it fits somewhere in the low end difference between 8 and 10 or between the high end difference between 20 and 25. It is real, but it is trivial compared to the actuarial fracturing of the market.
You say, “We need to explode the level of free market choice for consumers of health care.” I’m curious, 1) do you think that consumers of health care are informed/knowledgeable consumers? and 2) what are the differentiators that competition will provide those consumers so that they can indeed leverage their position in the market? Do you really expect individual consumers to have any leverage with the oligarchs of the healthcare industry? Again, some fodder for discussion over a beer.
medwoman said . . .
[i]”And as a health care worker for 30 years, I remain completely convinced that we would all be much better off with [b]a government run single payer healthcare system[/b]. We have a single payer government run military which you and I am sure would agree is the most powerful on the earth. So please explain to me why you feel government run health care would be a disaster, when I do not hear you arguing for everyone having to pay for their own military, or police need insurance.”[/i]
Actually medwoman I disagree with the government run part of your bolded words above. The government only needs to run the actuarial portion of the system. The delivery of care would still be run by the providers as it is now, and the data processing related functions associated with reimbursing providers would be provided (for a fee) by the very insurance companies that currently service today’s fractured market. They would provide those data processing related functions under contract to the government. That way no insurance company would go out of business as a result of the conversion to a single payor system, they would simply change the services that they provide. Lots and lots of marketing and business analyst and public relations jobs would be lost, but those jobs currently don’t contribute to the delivery of quality healthcare. It would be much better if those seasoned professional helped other industries where there really is an ability for the competitive market to thrive and reward the best companies in those markets.
As an aside, Ross Perot got very rich doing for tMedicare and medicaid and the insurance companies that which they were unable to do efficiently and effectively for themselves.
JMHO
rusty: [i]”The CBO (and other non-partisan groups, as cited below) also list some disadvantages of the Act.” [/i]
[i]1.Increased coverage may actually raise health care costs. That’s because many people will receive preventative care and testing who, fortunately, find out they didn’t have that critical illness. [/i]
Excellent. That’s one of the goals: more preventative care. Overall most analysts think it will reduce costs, sort of by definition of “preventative.”
[i]2.Those who don’t purchase insurance, and don’t qualify for Medicaid or subsidies, will be assessed a penalty of $95 (or 1% of income, whichever is higher) in 2014. It increases to $325 (or 2% of income) in 2015, and $695 (or 2.5% of income) in 2016. [/i]
Yes, that is how the individual mandate will be enforced.
[i]3.About 4 million people, or 1.2% of the population, will wind up paying the penalty rather than purchase health insurance. The CBO estimates this will total $54 billion in penalties. [/i]
That’s their choice.
[i]4.Taxes will be raised on one million individuals with annual incomes above a threshold of $200,000 and four million couples filing jointly with incomes in excess of $250,000. They would pay 2.35% (up from 1.45%) Medicare taxes on income above the threshold. In addition, they will pay a additional 3.8% Medicare taxes. This would apply to the lesser of income from dividends, capital gains, rent and royalties or income above the threshold. [/i]
Yes, that is part of how the changes are paid for: higher taxes on the wealthy.
[i]5.Pharmaceutical companies will pay an extra $84.8 billion in fees over the next ten years to pay for closing the “donut hole” in Medicare Part D. This could raise drug costs if they pass this onto consumers. [/i]
Yes, it’s too bad Congress and Pres. Bush didn’t deal with this when Medicare Part D, a massive unfunded mandate, was passed. Good of Obama to take care of it. Just how do you think that is being funded right now?
[i]6.In 2018, insurance companies will be assessed a 40% excise tax on “Cadillac” health plans. These are plans with annual premiums exceeding $10,200 for individuals or $27,500 for families. Many of these plans are for people in high-risk pools, such as older workers or union workers in high-risk jobs. [/i]
The insurance companies gained a great deal from the Affordable Care Act: the massive expansion of their customer base by means of the individual mandate.
[i]7.Medical-device manufacturers and importers will pay a 2.3% excise tax. Indoor tanning services already pay a 10% excise tax. This could discourage those businesses from hiring new employees. [/i]
Another part of how the plan is paid for. They will hire new employees if there is greater demand. A 2.3% excise tax will barely affect hiring if at all.
[i]8.Between 3-5 million people could lose their company-sponsored health care plans. Many businesses will find it more cost-effective to pay the penalty and let their employees purchase their own insurance plans on the exchanges. Other small businesses might find they can get a better plan through the state-run exchanges. [/i]
The purpose of the exchanges is to make it easier for small businesses and individuals to find those better plans. Some businesses may decide to pay the penalty. Some companies (many, actually) are already deciding to forgo health insurance for their employees because of the rising cost. The idea of creating a much larger pool via the individual mandate is that it should help reduce the rate of premium increase.
But it is correct that some companies may decide to drop their plans. That is their choice. Why the Affordable Care Act would increase that likelihood is not clear. Those companies would find themselves less competitive in attracting workers, but might find the lower expense is worth that tradeoff. It’s their choice. Overall, more uninsured Americans will get health care coverage after the ACA takes effect.
[i]9.There are 30.1 million people who currently buy their own private health insurance. Many of them may need to get another plan if their insurance doesn’t meet the minimum standards — which haven’t yet been established.[/i]
Yep. It’s hard to see how this is a disadvantage. If the companies want their business, they’ll make sure their plans meet the minimum standards.
[i]10.In 2014, those under 65 can only deduct medical expenses if they exceed 10% of income.”[/i]
I have no idea how relevant this is for anybody.
Don said
[quote]I have no idea how relevant this is for anybody. [/quote]
Quite relevant for me. Numbers are not my forte so any simple explanation of that side of the issue helps. So
my thanks to those of you for whom this comes more easily for the clarifications.
Matt said
[quote]I disagree with the government run part of your bolded words above. The government only needs to run the actuarial portion of the system[/quote]
I think perhaps we are being hung up by our interpretation of the scope of the word “run”. It is true that I believe that providers and patients should be in control of making the actual medical and treatment decisions free of government ( or political interference) from either side. However, I see no reason at all to have independent insurance companies ( mine included). To me, these are nothing more than middle men that add nothing of value to health care. If the idea is to distribute risk over a large population, why not make that population the entire citizenry of the United States and dispense with the cadre of employees needed to deal with the various insurers altogether? Would this not improve efficiency in your view ? And since, as Don has pointed out, the government already does this for the military, we have an existing model for how it might work that is home grown, since so many abhor the idea of looking abroad for other systems that work more efficiently, why would you object to this ?
Jeff
[quote]We need to explode the level of free market choice for consumers of health care. We need to cut down on the regulations for delivering health care. We need tort reform.” [/quote]
I’ll take each assertion separately
1) I agree that we need tort reform.
I do not believe that we will get realistic tort reform until, as a society, we are willing to more compassionately care for those who through poor medical outcomes become unable to care for themselves
or a family member . These catastrophic medical outcomes in a society that does not take care of its weakest members turn torte reform in a lottery. I have seen a number of patient’s who, facing astronomical health care related bills, are convinced to sue as their only way to avoid financial catastrophe. I know that you say that you believe that those unable to care for themselves should be provided for by the government, however, I have yet to see you put forth any realistic way in which you feel that might be achieved.
2) I do not believe that “exploding free market choice” will get us better health care.
I will use my own field to explain why. It is not competition, but rather collaboration that improves medical care. We have seen this definitively within our group. Since our doctors have no incentive to try to take patients from each other, we also have no incentive to make the false claim that we provide better care. This frees us to work to ensure that every patient gets the best care possible. So let’s suppose that I truly excel in the area of breast cancer detection and treatment of benign breast disease, but am not so hot at the treatment of urinary incontinence, chosen because both are within the realm of gynecology. If I am in a collaborative practice, I have no incentive to pretend that I am as good at both as my colleague ( as opposed to my competitor) and can freely direct the patient to the provider who will provide the best care. This frees up each individual provider to be able to contribute the most in the area in which their skills are the best. The patient, who has no way of determining who is really “the best” gests the best possible care in the most efficient way possible. Since the doctors are not competing against one another for their income, they are invested in helping their colleagues to improve and we have doctors who are demonstrated to be the best in what they do teaching the next generation their finely honed skills. I would think that we could all agree that we would rather have our surgery done by the best surgeon, rather than the surgeon whose advertising is the best. I would take this even a step further outside of my own medical group. What each of the major players, UCDMC, Sutter, Kaiser… has tried to do is to convince the public that we are the best value. One way of doing this is by establishing “centers of excellence”. Unfortunately what this leads to is needless and inefficient geographic redundancy. Instead of working collaboratively to ensure that the area has for example a single cardiac care center of excellence that draws the very best cardiac professionals from the area and builds the best functioning cardiac surgical teams, what exists now are various different companies trying to draw the best of the best from each other. This makes no sense at all in terms of the overall health care of either the individual or the community since we know that the teams that do the highest number of cases in the demonstrated most beneficial way, not only get far better outcomes, but do it more efficiently and less expensively. It is this goal that we should be working towards, not just the goal of making more money.
Jeff
3) Government regulation and health care
I think that this might be the area of the biggest disagreement because we would probably both have to set aside some of our more ideologically driven beliefs to even begin to engage meaningfully here.
I think it depends largely on how much you trust the honesty and good will of “business people” vs how much you trust the government. So I will start with the easy areas.
1) Would you agree that there need to be standards of training and demonstrated competency for a doctor
to call themselves a gynecologist ? This could be interpreted as government regulation. I think we would
probably agree it is needed.
2) Would you agree that there need to be standards for how to appropriately sterilize surgical equipment?
Also government regulation.
3) Let’s get a little chancier.
Would you agree that doctors should be bound to follow a patient’s directive regarding end of life care whether they are in moral agreement with the choice being made whether it is to prolong life, or to let life end
as in the case of the refusal of a patient to accept life saving treatment on the basis of moral conviction ? This could also be seen as government regulation.
4) Would you agree that the government should have any say at all with regard to the options that a woman can exercise regarding her own reproductive health. Definitely a major source of contention about the appropriate role of government regulation at present.
So I suspect that the appropriateness (or lack their of ) of government regulation, might depend upon which specific regulation you have in mind. Some might be economically driven, but others might be driven more by moral or philosophical beliefs. What say you ?
Interesting how this discussion devolved. I was trying to write a commentary about the country tearing itself apart, illustrating the turmoil in Anaheim which is a symbol with Disneyland being there, and noting that the two parties are focusing on extremist and inconsequential issues. Instead we get the usual ideological debate which is quite boring to me in most points and illustrates the exact problem I was attempting to raise but obviously failed miserably at doing.
David
Although I would agree that the conversation has evolved into areas that you have expressed as not of major interest to you. I would disagree about the relevancy to your essential premise that we are, as a people, divided. I would even go further about how this discussion is relevant to presumably a course of action that you would consider wiser than divisiveness. By moving the discussion away from generalities, and down to specifics we would be more likely to find points of agreement and move away from the typical ” you only believe that because you are far right or far left” type of conversation.
David: I think part of the reason that this discussion devolved into something you consider boring is that most of us do not see the world through race-tinted glasses as you do. So, it is not in our DNA to be sucked into that type of discussion.
However, I think you hit on the primary point I would make related to the conflict you see as being race and/or culture related… that is the state of our economy and entitlements for able-bodied adults. With a robust private economy and a social system that requires everyone that can to work, we have less of these incidents that you attribute to racist undertones that threaten to boil over.
Look around the world. Look at history. In about 50 years the US has accomplished something that many countries have not been able to accomplish in their entire existence… that is a level of relative harmony of races in an extremely diverse population. You continue to see the glass half empty; but it is actually only 10% empty in my opinion. I think if you immerse yourself into that 10% you damage your objectivity and perspective related to race relations.
Try this for an alternative. Explore the rest of the world, and the history of the rest of the world and then come back to factually assess what goes on in the US. Certainly we have continued racial issues to deal with, but we will never stamp out tribalism and ignorance in this country of 310 million diverse souls. The exception to that relatively small amount of bad stuff is a marvelous level of inclusion and acceptance that has no equal. Even liberal Europe fails by comparison.
Today, the roots of the problem that contributes to most racial incidents are economic-based. And within that economic root problem we have problems with our social governance… specifically a growing entitlement system. If you really want to stamp out more incidents of race-conflict with law enforcement, then advocate for a growing national economy and a change in our social policy that DEMANDS that everyone capable either work or go to school.
medwoman thinks we need to make sure nobody in this county goes hungry. I think that is a noble goal. I don’t disagree with the goal. What I disagree with is how we attempt to accomplish it. It is that soft bigotry of low expectations (i.e., you cannot feed yourself, so government will step in to save you) that continues to trap generations of a family into welfare and food stamp entitlements. Welfare should always be “workfare”. The message should be “you don’t work, you don’t eat”. As long as you work and work hard we can provide bridge benefits… that should be temporary as you climb the ladder of prosperity.
The US is a more diverse nation, and that diversity is a primary strength, because we are a democratic free market capitalist system where EVERYONE has equal opportunity to strive and compete for economic prosperity. Social egalitarianism and social engineering destroy that race-leveling mechanism of free economic opportunity and pursuit. Without it we continue to gravitate toward social and cultural group-ism and tribalism. That is a big reason why we are divided and why you sense that conflict is growing. We are moving toward a more European worldview where more people expect to be taken care of, and resentment festers when there is a perception that one group is getting more than another. That type of movement will destroy what has been great about this country. Obama is the leader of that movement at this time.
Jeff:
I disagree that you don’t see the world in that manner. Part of what you see in Anaheim is demographic changes where a new influx of Latinos has displaced or altered the existing power structure. There is now a direct conflict for resources and political power. I can’t imagine that you have no feelings on issues of immigration and such.
I think there is a huge and growing divide in this country and situations like Anaheim are happening all over, even this county, but we don’t address these issues. Instead we get into ridiculous discussions about rape and abortion, while real people are on the brink.
David,
Okay, that helps. Your article was a bit too nebulous and broad for me to understand that point.
You are correct and I do agree with you. I have written that culture matters. I agree that the influx and concentration of Latinos in some Border States areas is a big problem, because it imports a culture at odds with the base American culture… it enables an isolated existence lacking assimilation. It is really a soft invasion that will grow in conflict.
However, the solution is still the same. With a robust economy and a retreat in our entitlement mentality, we will help these folks assimilate. This is exactly what has enabled all of our past soft invasions to end up as peaceful and with beneficial results.
What else do you recommend to solve the problem?
I take responsibility for that. I was trying to do something very complex with the piece and I didn’t nail it all together.
“However, the solution is still the same. With a robust economy and a retreat in our entitlement mentality, we will help these folks assimilate”
What are we the Borg? I don’t think it’s that simple.
[quote]I take responsibility for that. I was trying to do something very complex with the piece and I didn’t nail it all together.[/quote]
But don’t you think much of the “divisiveness” is media made/driven? I’m not convinced that most of us don’t want the same things – a nice place to live and work where we can raise our families in peace and harmony. It is the media that focuses on the differences ad nauseum, even making stuff up as they go along to sell their product – so called “news” LOL It is nothing more than ugly 60 second sound bites of fake controversy…
“But don’t you think much of the “divisiveness” is media made/driven?”
No. I talk to a lot of people and no, I don’t think much of it is media driven at all.
“I’m not convinced that most of us don’t want the same things – a nice place to live and work where we can raise our families in peace and harmony. It is the media that focuses on the differences ad nauseum, even making stuff up as they go along to sell their product – so called “news” LOL It is nothing more than ugly 60 second sound bites of fake controversy… “
I think most of want those things. The difference is that a lot of people know that they cannot reasonably get them for a variety of reasons within their lifetime. I don’t think that’s media driven, I think that’s just reality.
[quote]We have not grown our military.
No, but I can’t think of any rational basis for the Romney proposal to increase defense spending, retain or even increase troop levels, or tie defense spending to GDP.[/quote]
I chuckled at this statement. Our economy is driven by two things: Christmas and defense spending!
[i]I think there is a huge and growing divide in this country and situations like Anaheim are happening all over[/i]
Yes, but they were happening all over in 1965-68 as well. Far more so than now, I would say. Anyone who remembers that period will probably agree that it was traumatic. And the divide you are seeing politically was occurring, and really solidifying the significant demographic and party-affiliation changes, in the presidential race of 1968. We had an avowed racist running as a third-party candidate. We had ‘law and order’ as the main campaign theme. The old FDR coalition was disintegrating.
When Jeff says we are a ‘center-right’ country, I think that is an oversimplification. Our country has regions that have shared values, and they vary quite a bit. Three states — California, New York, and Illinois — have 25% of the total population. They are distinctly liberal. The Pacific Northwest, the mid-Atlantic states, and New England tend towards liberalism. The upper midwest is moderate to liberal. The central midwest and the bible belt are distinctly conservative. American share some values, but there is and always has been a lot we disagree about.
What are we the Borg?
No, that is what liberals want… rid ourselves of American individualism and include everyone into the collective.
I mean assimilate into American culture.
Speak English… the language of business.
Learn about American values and norms and practice them. For example, take responsibility for your own well-being and grow you own success.
“Yes, but they were happening all over in 1965-68 as well.”
I tend to agree. Actually I think we’re probably closer to 1974 personally.
“No, that is what liberals want… rid ourselves of American individualism and include everyone into the collective.”
I certainly don’t want that. So I’m not sure if you are painting too broad a brush or creating a strawman argument.
“I mean assimilate into American culture. “
I don’t know what an American culture is. I wager to guess my Jewish family is very different from yours. And my wife’s is a bit different from mine and yours. Why is yours the right culture and not mine or my wife’s.
“Speak English… the language of business. “
I think Americans are stronger is they speak more than just English.
“Learn about American values and norms and practice them. For example, take responsibility for your own well-being and grow you own success. “
It’s funny, I think immigrants embody that value more than even native born American citizens.
[i]Speak English… the language of business.
[/i]
In my exit interview as I graduated in Plant Science, I was asked what changes I would make to the major. My answer: require Spanish.
Yes, I would be incredibly curious what “American culture” is.
How are the problems in Anaheim any different than the problems in East LA after the Rodney King verdict?
Let’s say they are not – what is your point?
Don, doesn’t it bother you that you can probably define Mexican culture, but then draw a blank when asked to define American culture?
Here are the core American values that shape our culture, and that imigrants should learn to emulate…
[b]PERSONAL CONTROL OVER THE ENVIRONMENT[/b] – Americans no longer believe in the power of Fate, and they have come to look at people who do as being backward, primitive, or hopelessly naïve. To be call “fatalistic” is one of the worst criticisms one can receive in the American context; to an American, it means one is superstitious and lazy, unwilling to take any initiative in bringing about improvement.
[b]CHANGE[/b] – In the American mind, change is seen as an indisputably good condition. Change is strongly linked to development, improvement, progress, and growth. Many older, more traditional cultures consider change as a disruptive, destructive force, to be avoided if at all possible. Instead of change, such societies value stability, continuity, tradition, and a rich and ancient heritage—none of which are valued very much in the United States.
[b]TIME AND ITS CONTROL[/b] – Time is, for the average American, of utmost importance. To the foreign visitor, Americans seem to be more concerned with getting things accomplished on time (according to a predetermined schedule) than they are with developing deep interpersonal relations. Schedules, for the American, are meant to be planned and then followed in the smallest detail.
[b]EQUALITY/EGALITARIANISM[/b] – Equality is, for Americans, one of their most cherished values. This concept is so important for Americans that they have even given it a religious basis. They say all people have been “created equal.” Most Americans believe that God views all humans alike without regard to intelligence, physical condition or economic status. In secular terms this belief is translated into the assertion that all people have an equal [b]opportunity[/b] to succeed in life (Note: this is not [i][b]ensuring equal outcomes[/b][/i]. Americans differ in opinion about how to make this ideal into a reality. Yet virtually all agree that equality is an important civic and social goal.
[b]INDIVIDUALISM[/b] – Here, each individual is seen as completely and marvelously unique, that is, totally different from all other individuals and, therefore, particularly precious and wonderful.
Americans may, and do, join groups—in fact many groups—but somehow believe they’re just a little different, just a little unique, just a little special, from other members of the same group. And they tend to leave groups as easily as they enter them.
Individualism, as it exists in the United States, does mean that you will find a much greater variety of opinions (along with the absolute freedom to express them anywhereand anytime) here.
[b]PRIVACY[/b] – Privacy, the ultimate result of individualism is perhaps even more difficult for the foreigner to comprehend. The word “privacy” does not even exist in many languages. If it does, it is likely to have a strongly negative connotation, suggesting loneliness or isolation from the group. In the United States, privacy is not only seen as a very positive condition, but it is also viewed as a requirement that all humans would find equally necessary, desirable and satisfying. It is not uncommon for Americans to say—and believe—such statements as “If I don’t have at least half an hour a day to myself, I will go stark raving mad.”
[b]SELF-HELP CONTROL[/b]- In the United States, a person can take credit only for what he or she has accomplished by himself or herself. Americans get no credit whatsoever for having been born into a rich family. (In the United States, that would be considered “an accident of birth.”) Americans pride themselves in having been born poor and, through their own sacrifice and hard work, having climbed the difficult ladder of success to whatever level they have achieved—all by themselves. The American social system has, of course, made it possible for Americans to move, relatively easily, up the social ladder.
[i]Note: Take a look in an English-language dictionary at the composite words that have “self” as a prefix. In the average desk dictionary, there will be more than 100 such words, words like self-confidence, self-conscious, self-control, self-criticism, self-deception, self-defeating, self-denial, self-discipline, self-esteem, self-expression, self-importance, self-improvement, self-interest, self-reliance, self-respect, self-restraint, self-sacrifice—the list goes on and on. The equivalent of these words cannot be found in most other languages. The list is perhaps the best indication of how seriously Americans take doing things for one’s self. The “self-made man or women” is still very much the ideal in 20th-century America.[/i]
[b]COMPETITION AND FREE ENTERPRISE[/b] – Americans believe that competition brings out the best in any individual. They assert that it challenges or forces each person to produce the very best that is humanly possible. Consequently, the foreign visitor will see competition being fostered in the American home and in the American classroom, even on the youngest age level. Very young children, for instance, are encouraged to answer questions for which their classmates do not know the answer.
[b]FUTURE ORIENTATION[/b] – Valuing the future and the improvements Americans are sure the future will bring means that they devalue that past and are, to a large extent, unconscious of the present. Even a happy present goes largely unnoticed because, happy as it may be, Americans have traditionally been hopeful that the future would bring even greater happiness. Almost all energy is directed toward realizing that better future. At best, the present condition is seen as preparatory to a latter and greater event, which will eventually culminate in something even more worthwhile.
[b]ACTION/WORK ORIENTATION[/b] – “Don’t just stand there,” goes a typical bit of American advice, “do something!” This expression is normally used in a crisis situation, yet, in a sense, it describes most American’s entire waking life, where action—any action—is seen to be superior to inaction.
[b]INFORMALITY[/b] – If you come from a more formal society, you will likely find Americans to be extremely informal, and will probably feel that they are even disrespectful of those in authority. Americans are one of the most informal and casual people in the world, even when compared to their near relative—the Western European.
[b]DIRECTNESS, OPENNESS AND HONESTY[/b] – Many other countries have developed subtle, sometimes highly ritualistic, ways of informing other people of unpleasant information. Americans, however, have always preferred the first approach. They are likely to be completely honest in delivering their negative evaluations. If you come from a society that uses the indirect manner of conveying bad news or uncomplimentary evaluations, you will be shocked at Americans’ bluntness.
[b]PRACTICALITY AND EFFICIENCY[/b] – Americans have a reputation of being an extremely realistic, practical and efficient people. The practical consideration is likely to be given highest priority in making any important decision in the United States. Americans pride themselves in not being very philosophically or theoretically oriented. If Americans would even admit to having a philosophy, it would probably be that of pragmatism.
[b]MATERIALISM/ACQUISITIVENESS[/b] – Foreigners generally consider Americans much more materialistic than Americans are likely to consider themselves. Americans would like to think that their material objects are just the natural benefits that always result from hard work and serious intent—a reward, they think, that all people could enjoy were they as industrious and hard-working as Americans.
JB: “Speak English… the language of business.”
Unless you’d like to take advantage of booming business opportunities outside the U.S., in which case the languages of business also include Mandarin, Spanish, Hindi, Arabic, etc.
JB: “[b]PERSONAL CONTROL OVER THE ENVIRONMENT[/b] – Americans no longer believe in the power of Fate, and they have come to look at people who do as being backward, primitive, or hopelessly naïve. To be call “fatalistic” is one of the worst criticisms one can receive in the American context; to an American, it means one is superstitious and lazy, unwilling to take any initiative in bringing about improvement.”
Conservative caveat: unless we’re talking about pollution or contamination that will inconvenience the more immediate bottom line of business. Then “personal control over the environment” can go to hell as a cherished American value and then it’s okay to be lazy and unwilling to take any initiative in bringing about improvement.
“[b]CHANGE[/b] – In the American mind, change is seen as an indisputably good condition. Change is strongly linked to development, improvement, progress, and growth. Many older, more traditional cultures consider change as a disruptive, destructive force, to be avoided if at all possible. Instead of change, such societies value stability, continuity, tradition, and a rich and ancient heritage—none of which are valued very much in the United States.”
Conservative caveat: as long as the current economic/social/power structure remains in control.
“[b]INDIVIDUALISM[/b] – Here, each individual is seen as completely and marvelously unique, that is, totally different from all other individuals and, therefore, particularly precious and wonderful.
Americans may, and do, join groups—in fact many groups—but somehow believe they’re just a little different, just a little unique, just a little special, from other members of the same group. And they tend to leave groups as easily as they enter them.
Individualism, as it exists in the United States, does mean that you will find a much greater variety of opinions (along with the absolute freedom to express them anywhereand anytime) here.”
Conservative caveat: as long as your values correspond to something that resembles traditional white western European heterosexual christianity.
“[b]PRACTICALITY AND EFFICIENCY[/b] – Americans have a reputation of being an extremely realistic, practical and efficient people. The practical consideration is likely to be given highest priority in making any important decision in the United States. Americans pride themselves in not being very philosophically or theoretically oriented. If Americans would even admit to having a philosophy, it would probably be that of pragmatism.”
Conservative caveat: unless we’re talking about scientific conclusions that upset currently held norms. Then science is all about opinions that are as good as anyone else’s.
I could have a field day continuing on with this, but I have to get back to work and celebrate that cherished American work ethic.
That is a treatise written by a USIA official to explain American attitudes to foreigners who are coming to this country. It isn’t a description of “American culture.” Those are interesting generalizations, but also somewhat arguable. And how do you “assimilate into” those attitudes?
In the context of your statement that liberals want to “rid ourselves of American individualism and include everyone into the collective” it really doesn’t make much sense.
You’ve posted this list before. As with the last time, I think you are misreading the intent of his list. I will reply that it is what the author thinks Americans are [i]like[/i], not what he thinks Americans or immigrants [i]should aspire to[/i].
Yes, I posted this before. Because you or someone else asked that question before “What is American Culture?”
If it is what Americans are like, then these are the values that define American culture.
I don’t really care who wrote it, because I agree with it and most Americans will also agree with it.
If you do not value these same things, then it explains why you reject the notion of an American culture even existing and also why you have no problem importing other cultures. But, if you want to know why there is conflict, it is in part because of the disregard for American culture and the attempt to force those that do value it to change in acceptance of foreign culture and value systems.
wdf1…
Personal control over the environment includes the economic environment. Conservatives don’t believe we can control the weather, do you?
Change: Conservative do not require current economic/social/power structure remains in control. In fact, we celebrate the ascent of the little guy to power. We like it when Microsoft grows bigger than IBM, and Apple bigger than Microsoft. We support creative destruction. We dislike monopolies. We demand robust and fair competition. But we also demand everyone plan the game and honor the rules.
Individualism: Conservatives support individualism… including the rights of an individual to be disgusted by the behavior of any other individual. What we don’t support is the forcing of some individuals to have to accept the behaviors of others.
Practicality: You only focus on global warming. There is a large tradeoff consideration in economic activity. It is frankly not practical to go all environmental wacko on global warming. We won’t make any measurable impacts on climate change (can’t be measured if we did), and we will likely just damage our economy more. Global warming is the impractical half-truth.
Happy you agree with the American value of strong work ehtic!
[i]Americans no longer believe in the power of Fate[/i]
A significant percentage of Americans believe very strongly in the power of fate: God’s will. And a large percentage believe in the apocalypse, and that we are in the end times.
[i]such [older] societies value stability, continuity, tradition, and a rich and ancient heritage—none of which are valued very much in the United States.[/i]
Hm. That is kinda contradicted by that whole gay marriage thing, eh?
[i] Schedules, for the American, are meant to be planned and then followed in the smallest detail.[/i]
People who move to California often comment that we don’t seem to be this way.
[i] Americans believe that competition brings out the best in any individual.[/i]
Speak for yourself. I believe cooperation brings out the best in individuals.
[i] you will be shocked at Americans’ bluntness.[/i]
In some parts of the country, perhaps. I think Garrison Keillor aptly describes Midwesterners as being very different in this regard.
—-
“[i]If you do not value these same things, then it explains why you reject the notion of an American culture even existing and also why you have no problem importing other cultures.”[/i]
It’s a long list. I value some, not others. I can’t imagine you value [i]all[/i] those things. I believe there is no consistent thing describable as American culture, because we are an amalgam of cultural attitudes, differing ethnicities, and backgrounds. There are a handful of things most Americans probably say they value in common.
How am I trying to “force…acceptance of foreign culture and value systems”?
[b]Americans no longer believe in the power of Fate[/b]
Don: [i]”A significant percentage of Americans believe very strongly in the power of fate: God’s will. And a large percentage believe in the apocalypse, and that we are in the end times.”[/i]
True. Have to give you that one. However, it is a myth that conservatism = bible thumper.
[b]such [older] societies value stability, continuity, tradition, and a rich and ancient heritage—none of which are valued very much in the United States.[/b]
Don: [i]Hm. That is kinda contradicted by that whole gay marriage thing, eh?[/i]
I think you are right on this too. However, it is not just a conservative issue since the most liberal President since FDR, Obama, agreed that marriage should be defined as being man-woman… that is until his handlers told him he needed to lock in that gay vote.
[b]Americans believe that competition brings out the best in any individual.[/b]
Don: [i]”Speak for yourself. I believe cooperation brings out the best in individuals.”[/i]
They are not mutually exclusive. Cooperation is subordinate to competition… it is a subset of competition. In competition, you use just as much cooperation as is require for winning. If you use too much you increase your risk of losing. If you don’t use enough, you increase your risks of losing.
[b]you will be shocked at Americans’ bluntness.[/b]
Don: [i]”In some parts of the country, perhaps. I think Garrison Keillor aptly describes Midwesterners as being very different in this regard.”[/i]
It depends. I grew up in the Midwest and have family there I go back and visit regularly. Midwesterners are more reserved for some topics (i.e., sex), but will generally not hesitate to tell you what they think about other things (i.e., Big Red, Obama).
I think it is a bit sad that you and others cannot accept or recognize an American culture. What does that say about a country that it “has no definable culture”? Do you say that about Mexico, Canada, England, France, Japan? I actually find it a bit insulting as an American. I think in some respects this rejection of the notion that there is an American culture is a natural defensive move supporting immigration and immigrants. It is also the common view of those demanding multi-culturalsim… that PC-correctness force-feeding Americans the traditions of others. This approach did not work out well in most of Europe. Even most European liberals recognize their mistakes for disregarding the existence of their culture, and the need to assimilate their migrants into it.
I agree with everything on this list as being core American values that shape our culture. Too many people doing differently is a problem. A little bit is fine. The problem we have now is the result of massive immigration from south of the border. In some places there is too high a concentration of Latinos and some other ethnic groups, and this enables them to import their own culture. It is a clash of cultures. The remedy is assimilation into American culture as I defined by this list of core values.
[quote]Americans believe that competition brings out the best in any individual. [/quote]
Does it make me less American that I disagree with you profoundly on this point. I do not believe that competition brings out the best in any individual. Some may do best in a competitive environment, others clearly to best in a collaborative environment. One is not merely a subset of the other as you seem to be claiming.
[quote]I think it is a bit sad that you and others cannot accept or recognize an American culture[/quote]
And I think it is sad that you and others are not open to a changing and fluid construct of an American culture which is open to the inevitability of change and acceptance of others beliefs as having as much validity as one’s own. I am not willing to give up my identity as an American because I do not meet your checklist of what American culture means and I certainly do not feel that my particular variety of being American is inferior to your definition.
The primacy of individualism should surely mean at its core, that one is free to see and interact with the world as one perceives it, not as dictated by a very narrow view of what it means to be an American.
medwoman said . . .
[i]”I think perhaps we are being hung up by our interpretation of the scope of the word “run”. It is true that I believe that providers and patients should be in control of making the actual medical and treatment decisions free of government ( or political interference) from either side. However, I see no reason at all to have independent insurance companies ( mine included). To me, these are nothing more than middle men that add nothing of value to health care. If the idea is to distribute risk over a large population, why not make that population the entire citizenry of the United States and dispense with the cadre of employees needed to deal with the various insurers altogether? Would this not improve efficiency in your view ? And since, as Don has pointed out, the government already does this for the military, we have an existing model for how it might work that is home grown, since so many abhor the idea of looking abroad for other systems that work more efficiently, why would you object to this?”[/i]
You are right we probably are differing in our definition of “run” so let me clarify. Someone has to process the claims for payment for services rendered. Right now the government has no infrastructure to process any claims. My point is that the government should not assemble such an infrastructure. Just as they currently do in both Medicare and medicaid, the government should use TPAs (Third Party Administrators) and the back-end processing infrastructure of the insurance companies are exactly that. The difference is in name only.
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”David, Okay, that helps. Your article was a bit too nebulous and broad for me to understand that point.
You are correct and I do agree with you. I have written that culture matters. I agree that the influx and concentration of Latinos in some Border States areas is a big problem, because it imports a culture at odds with the base American culture… it enables an isolated existence lacking assimilation. It is really a soft invasion that will grow in conflict.
However, the solution is still the same. [b]With a robust economy[/b] and a retreat in our entitlement mentality, [b]we will help these folks assimilate[/b]. This is exactly what has enabled all of our past soft invasions to end up as peaceful and with beneficial results.
What else do you recommend to solve the problem?”[/i]
I wholeheartedly agree with your bolded sentiments.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”What are we the Borg? I don’t think it’s that simple.”[/i]
Actually David, I think it is that simple. If people are bringing home paychecks then tensions cool sustantially.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”I think most of want those things. [b]The difference is that a lot of people know that they cannot reasonably get them for a variety of reasons within their lifetime.[/b] I don’t think that’s media driven, I think that’s just reality.”[/i]
David, Malcolm Gladwell discusses exactly the phenomenon that you describe in his book Outliers. The first generation Jewish immigrants very clearly were faced with exactly the reality you are describing. They [u]knew[/u] that they could not reasonably get what they aspired to for a variety of reasons [u]within their lifetime[/u]. That didn’t stop them from working their tails off, leveraging the meager resources that they had, with the clear goal that their children and grandchildren would not face the same obstacles.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”I don’t know what an American culture is. I wager to guess my Jewish family is very different from yours. And my wife’s is a bit different from mine and yours. Why is yours the right culture and not mine or my wife’s.”[/i]
I can not believe you said that with a straight face!!! Your family is a quintessential example of American culture . . . the melting pot . . . ever evolving, ever growing.
[i] ” ‘Learn about American values and norms and practice them. For example, take responsibility for your own well-being and grow you own success.’
It’s funny, I think immigrants embody that value more than even native born American citizens.”[/i]
Very, very true. My very superficial experience has shown me that the immigrants’ (whether legal or illegal) generation is not the challenge. The challenge is the first generation that was born here in the US. The immigrants very often arrive with a specific job waiting for them. Their children born here don’t have that, which indeed brings us back (at least part way) to the point that Jeff has made . . . embrace American culture and accumulate the currency of the American economy, the language, the self discipline associated with completing school tasks, if at all possible a degree.
Matt, I would argue a bit that the US is different now than when these first generation Jewish immigrants arrived. What is missing is the level of discrimination. What is added is a move to an information economy where high-paying jobs require education, and what is left are low-paying service jobs.
First generation immigrants have a big problem moving up unless they have an education. Their best focus is to help their children get that education. Unfortunately, more and more of these kids are not getting a good enough education, and they don’t pick up enough good English skills. So instead on one generation in poverty, we have two and three or more.
A more vigorous economy and a reformed education system is what we need to start fixing these problems. I would be interested to hear what Don, David and medwoman suggest as things we can do to help.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”In my exit interview as I graduated in Plant Science, I was asked what changes I would make to the major. My answer: require Spanish.
Yes, I would be incredibly curious what “American culture” is.”[/i]
Don, one of the most valuable statements made by a professor in all my years of education was “Think like an Income Statement.” What he was pointing out is that in order to get to the bottom-line of any life situation you need to be aware of and embrace the “currency” of your pursuit. In agriculture one of the key currency elements is the Spanish-speaking labor force. If you didn’t become intimate with that currency you were always going to be working with one hand tied behind your back.
Don Shor said . . .
“Yes, I would be incredibly curious what “American culture” is. “
My son’s household is for me the perfect example of “American culture.” He is a WASP. His wife is a Thai-born Buddhist. One of their house mates is an African-American Muslim, and the other is a Hispanic Roman Catholic.
That to me is “American Culture” personified.
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”I think it is a bit sad that you and others cannot accept or recognize an American culture. What does that say about a country that it “has no definable culture”? Do you say that about Mexico, Canada, England, France, Japan?” [/i]
Jeff, what you have just done in the above list is compare the most heterogeneous country in the World to a list of some of the most homogenous countries in the World. Further, look at the major challenges that England, France and Japan are facing in handling 1) immigration and 2) the role of women in their society. The US is way, way ahead of the curve. Not only are we already heterogeneous, but we are continually evolving. You need go no further than West Sacramento to see that evolution in action .
[i]”I actually find it a bit insulting as an American.'[/i]
What is your definition of an American? What makes you an American?
[i]”I agree with everything on this list as being core American values that shape our culture. Too many people doing differently is a problem. A little bit is fine. The problem we have now is the result of massive immigration from south of the border.”[/i]
How is the current wave of immigration any different than all the waves that went before it? I grew up in Philadelphia, which is a stew of the Italian wave of immigration, and the Eastern European wave of immigration, and the German wave of immigration, and the Irish wave of immigration and the Puerto Rican wave of immigration, etc.
In some places there is too high a concentration of Latinos and some other ethnic groups, and this enables them to import their own culture. It is a clash of cultures. The remedy is assimilation into American culture as I defined by this list of core values.
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”Matt, I would argue a bit that the US is different now than when these first generation Jewish immigrants arrived. What is missing is the level of discrimination.” [/i]
Jeff, I couldn’t disagree with you more. Discrimination is always going to exist as long as the “haves” want to protect their assets from the “have nots.” That is human nature. Discrimination is always going to exist as long as Man is a social animal. We glom together in groups and exclude those who are different than us. Look at how cruel children are to one another. Discrimination is a core characteristic of human nature.
[i]”A more vigorous economy and a reformed education system is what we need to start fixing these problems.”[/i]
I think you know from my prior posts that I agree with you 100% on what you say here.
Elaine said
[quote]I chuckled at this statement. Our economy is driven by two things: Christmas and defense spending![/quote]
Well given those two drivers, I would much prefer that Romney would propose increasing our Christmas rather than our defense spending. How about it Romney/Ryan ?
Matt: I’m glad you brought up the first generation of Jewish immigrants, because they lived in their own portions of town and kept to themselves, as did the first generation if Irish and Italian immigrants. I really don’t think things are that different now, except that the immigrants are Hispanic, Korean, or Chinese.
[i]I would much prefer that Romney would propose increasing our Christmas rather than our defense spending.[/i]
I think there would be more public outcry over the former than the latter. How about more spending on the “Winter Holiday”?… geesh
What is different about the other past soft invasions of immigrants?
Numbers.
There are many, many, many more Latino immigrants that have settled in, and by population have taken over, many broad areas of the American Southwest. Previous soft invasions (e.g., Italians and Jews) had some concentrations in large cities, and smaller areas of the US (with a much smaller concentrations), but the influence of their imported culture was offset by the existence of the ethnic neighborhoods next door.
Here are some 2000 census maps that show the concentration of non-English speaking and Spanish-speaking residents.
[img]http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/language/non_english.gif[/img]
[img]http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/language/spanish.gif[/img]
Frankly, I think it is disingenuous to deny that this is our issue related to race relations with the Hispanic community. There has been a growing culture clash that has been ignored because the economy was humming and we could satiate our political correctness sensitivities by conveniently ignoring what decades of illegal immigration were doing to our demographics. Now we act surprised that it is happening.
I think the majority of Americans do not care about ethnic origin. We are post-civil rights movement, and young people that have grown up in that era are more than comfortable living in this giant melting pot. They also celebrate the spice of other cultures included in our American culture. What they object to is when another foreign culture becomes the new main course…when it refuses to melt and mix with the core culture, and stubbornly establishes its own separate whole.
Note too that this population is largely poor and undeducated. They consume many more dollars in public assistance than they contribute to the economic well-being of the country. They have a devistating impact on the economy of these border state areas. This too is contributing to a growing resentment as there is greater competition for a shrinking pool of public resources.
[i]Latino immigrants that have settled in, and by population have taken over, many broad areas of the American Southwest. Previous soft invasions (e.g., Italians and Jews) had some concentrations in large cities, and smaller areas of the US (with a much smaller concentrations), but the influence of their imported culture was offset by the existence of the ethnic neighborhoods next door.
There has been a growing culture clash that has been ignored
What they object to is when another foreign culture becomes the new main course…when it refuses to melt and mix with the core culture, and stubbornly establishes its own separate whole.[/i]
Um, Jeff: they were there first. Seriously, this is one of the most astounding analyses you have ever put forward.
I grew up in San Diego (note origin of name) south of Los Angeles (note origin of name) in a city that has and had a large Hispanic influence. My Christmases looked a lot different than what Norman Rockwell portrayed and what, apparently, you think is “American.”
There is no culture clash. There are different cultures that live together. Only WASPs and conservatives seem to see any clash. The rest of us enjoy our burritos (originated in America) and the luminarias and still put up conifers with baubles on them, and don’t feel threatened in the least.
Hispanic is not “a foreign culture” in any of the southwest or California. It is part of our culture here. It is part of the core culture, just as lutefisk and jello-as-salad are part of the culture in the upper Midwest. And just like those other cultures, Hispanic culture is, in fact, mixing, and still retaining identity.
[i]Um, Jeff: they were there first.[/i]
Wow Don, “they”? Interesting. Are you an “open borders” kind’a guy? Is the “they were here first” argument justification for any and all cultural disputes? How far back do we go? Is there a statute of limitations you believe in, or do we march back 2000 years ago and establish cultural ownership? You do know that most wars are fought over this conflict of culture, don’t you?
I frankly do not appreciate the “holier than thou” tone for this.
I also think you just blew through what I wrote without giving it much deep thought and immediately launched into your multi-culturalism crusader mode.
When more than 50% of a region does not speak English in a country where it is required, then yes it is a problem.
When so many people lacking experience with American culture are concentrated in large sections of the country, then yes, it is a problem.
When so many poor and uneducated from another country migrate here, and the next generation fails to integrate, then yes it is a problem.
The majority of Americans do not have any connection to Hispanic culture other than to experience it as a foreign culture. I don’t care that “they were here first” any more than I care that Jews first habituated parts of Palestine being claimed by Muslims. Change happens and cultures form in geographic areas. Countries have sovereign rights to protect their culture… especially what represents their heritage. Maybe because I am related to Daniel Boone I have a stronger love of American culture and want to see it protected and preserved. In any case, it seems that you don’t particularly care for it or value it.
The thing that gets me a bit heated here is the dismissal that American culture is worth protecting, and that it cannot be diluted and changed for the worse. Mexico did not land on the moon, or create the computer industry. It did not stop Nazi Germany or Communism from conquering the world. I don’t have any problem with Mexican culture. I love Mexican food and music and other aspects of Mexican culture. But America is great because of our culture, values and beliefs. We have been a melting pot. Diversity is one of our great strength. The American Southwest – especially the southern areas – has grown much less diverse as it has grown more homogenously Hispanic. The same is true for areas like Anaheim.
I have plenty of Hispanic friends. I went to high school in a CA farming community that had a high percentage of Hispanic students. I have a pseudo-adopted brother who is a first generation Mexican immigrant. My family had a vacation home in Baja Mexico for over two decades. We have many friends from across the border and I understand quite a bit about Mexican culture.
An example of culture clash is the trouble my brother had with his biological family. His parents did not support him going to college. His folks would not learn to speak English. His dad had cultural beliefs about machismo and money and political involvement and religion and family that were all based on his Mexican culture and were in direct conflict with the base American culture. His parents would not talk to his sister after she married a non-Mexican non-Catholic. His father believed that a real man needed to own at least one cow and a bunch of chickens. He believed a woman should not work outside the house or drive a car. He would shoot his dogs when they got too old or were injured and could not work. I could go on. My brother still struggles with his assimilation having had all these values and beliefs layered on him growing up. He struggles feeling like he fits in. The difference is that he is smart enough to recognize that the problem is his own and not some projection of racism.
Some of this cultural difference is humorous, endearing and acceptable in small doses. However, if these type of cultural beliefs start to dominate… in a Democratic system they will start to supplant the existing culture and belief system. They become more and more isolated and ostracized from the rest of the country still strongly American in practice and belief. They feel less and less like they fit in… because they more and more do not.
Now, I certainly see that Latino culture is also changing… becoming more Americanized from the export of American pop culture. However, the people that tend to migrate here from south of the border tend to be much more backwards and slower to adopt the changes going on in their home country.
The first step we need is a massive effort to teach immigrants to speak English as their primary language. We need a much reformed education system, and a much more robust economy and job market. We also need to stop the flow of illegal immigrants so we can manage this need for assimilation into American culture. We need to do these things if only to help give immigrants a better chance to be successful and prosperous in this country… but also to help maintain the strength of our culture where the whole is greater than sum of its parts.
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”An example of culture clash is the trouble my brother had with his biological family. His parents did not support him going to college. His folks would not learn to speak English. [b]His dad had cultural beliefs about machismo and money and political involvement and religion and family that were all based on his __________ culture and were in direct conflict with the base American culture.[/b] His parents would not talk to his sister after she married a non-________ non-__________. His father believed that a real man needed to own at least one cow and a bunch of chickens. He believed a woman should not work outside the house or drive a car. He would shoot his dogs when they got too old or were injured and could not work. I could go on. My brother still struggles with his assimilation having had all these values and beliefs layered on him growing up. He struggles feeling like he fits in. The difference is that he is smart enough to recognize that the problem is his own and not some projection of racism.”[/i]
Jeff as I read your comment above, I found myself saying, “Jeff could be describing any fundamentalist/reactionary segment of American society (World society).”
I turn to the words of Lawrence Block’s character matthew Scudder in situations like these, [i]”The notion that the world can’t get along without my help is a pretty common delusion. The more religious a person is, the more s/he will subscribe to it. If there’s one thing the fundamentalists of the world have in common it’s the conviction that God’s work won’t get done unless they pitch in and do it.” [/i]
Matt, I agree with that general point, but there is the point of demographic concentration. How might you feel about similar large concentration of people from poor countries in the Mid-East bringing along their culture? This is exactly what has been going on in much of Europe and it has not been working out too well. Most Europeans now believe in stronger efforts to assimilate these immigrants.
I was thinking about this article, and how David laid out a problem he was seeing. It took me a while to understand his point, and then I responded with how I frame the problem and how I would go about solving the problem.
I went back and read the other posts, and you are the only poster other than me suggesting and opining directly on potential causes and solutions.
Are we really having a problem, or is Davis just imagining this?
I think David truly sees a problem and frames it as being evidence of racism and heavy-handed law enforcement. That conclusion might make a race-sensitive person feel good, but I fail to see how it can lead to any substantive improvements. We already attack indications of racism with gusto. Hate crime laws and anti-discrimination laws are also heavy-handed tools to at least keep the racists underground without power to cause material harm. If someone sees a path for material improvement here, I would be open to listening.
What is it that others want here? What IS the problem that they see? What do they suggest as a solution?
I think it is a bit ironic that we are opining about this while living in one of the most lily-white small central valley cities in California. We don’t seem to go too far out of our way to be more inclusive to the large population of poor and uneducated Latinos living here. Folks could always go live in Winters, Dixon or Woodland to enjoy a greater infusion of Hispanic culture. Some of the same people arguing strongly against my ideas are also the same arguing to keep Davis the same and protect it from those other communities they deem more crappy.
I am having a hard time assigning credibility to those claiming advocacy for struggling immigrants when they opine from their gated, exclusive community. I would like my Davis friends to explain why they do not live in any of these communities with such a high concentration of non-English-speaking immigrants.
Jeff, I think those concentrations are there, but the proximity of Latin America makes the impact more intense. One in every seven Californians is identified as “Asian,” 4.9 million in total, which is one third of all the US residents identified as Asian. That is a pretty substantial “concentration” One in 20 US residents is identified as being of Arab descent, with 94% of them “concentrated” in the major metropolitan areas. Again, pretty substantial concentration. Another one in 20 US residents are Indian Americans, So the picture from my perspective is not in as high relief as you perhaps see it.
Matt, Here is what I am talking about…
1980:
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/im1980.jpg[/img]
2000:
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/im2000.jpg[/img]
Too bad this does not include 2012, because the bubbles are much bigger.
This from a demographic research report from the City of Anaheim (1990 – 2000):
– Anaheim has a younger median age at 30.2 years than the County (33.3), State (33.3) and Nation (35.3).
– The percent of the population under the age of 14 is the 4th highest in the County behind Rancho Santa Margarita, Santa Ana and Stanton.
– The largest age group in Anaheim is the 25 to 34 years age group, while the County’s is the 35 to 44 years age group.
– Since 1970, the senior population (65 years and older) has more than doubled.
– Hispanics or Latinos make up 46.8% of the City’s population and is the largest single racial or ethnic group.
– The Hispanic or Latino, Asian, and Black or African American populations combined make up 61.1% of Anaheim’s population.
– Anaheim has the 2nd largest Hispanic or Latino population in the County – Santa Ana has the largest.
– The largest Black or African American population group in the County is in Anaheim (7,939 people).
– All racial and ethnic groups increased in population in Anaheim except the Non-Hispanic White population, which experienced a decrease of 22%, from 57% to 37%.
– Anaheim’s population is extremely diverse throughout the community with the exception of one area in central Anaheim which is predominantly Hispanic or Latino and an area in the City’s Hill and Canyon Area which is predominantly White.
Jeff: so what? I fail to understand why it matters if there are more Hispanics in one place or another place.
If Anaheim has an ethnic divide between their populace and their police force, perhaps they can try recruiting from within the community. Or require officers to live in the community. But I personally have zero concerns about increasing Hispanic populations anywhere in the US.
JB: [i]Personal control over the environment includes the economic environment. Conservatives don’t believe we can control the weather, do you?
[/i]
Some conservatives seem to believe that Obama can ([url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/28/rush-limbaugh-isaac-obama-convention_n_1835674.html[/url]).
These conflicts with local police involving racial tensions and shootings are, of course, nothing new. Here is a good outline from the DOJ, 2002, about responding: [url]http://www.justice.gov/crs/pubs/pubbullpoliceuseofforcedraftrevision72002.htm[/url]
I think this is a good example of where the federal government can play a useful role, simply by being an outside agency that can act as an honest broker.
The next article David writes should be on a “World Bitterly Divided”. The Muslim part of that world is a mess. Lefties will undoubtedly double down blaming Bush and our pre-Obama foreign policy. However, it appears that electing a President with Muslim origins that practiced appeasement and apologizing to Muslims has done about as much good improving Muslim vs American relations as has having a black President that appeals to blacks in America has done to improve black vs white relations in America.
Time to get the unqualified cool President out of office, and get back to leadership that works.