Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

National Healthcare, My Two Cents

I'm not a doctor. I don't work in the insurance industry. I have not read the bill. I need to get that established right away, lest you go mistaking me for some expert and try quoting me at the water cooler.

What I do know is that 40-50 million of my fellow citizens are currently without any type of health insurance. What I do know is that without insurance, your chances of adequate medical treatment for injuries or disease is somewhere between slim and none. What I do know is, even when this recession (depression) is long gone, there will be unemployed and part-time employees who do not qualify for their employer's insurance plans.

Much has been made of the recent attempts to get a national health care plan pushed through. Wrangling on both sides has made for good theater, but in the end the only thing that matters is whether something gets done that actually addresses the problem.

In this, I am a pragmatist. I do not expect any bill, should one get signed into law, to be perfect. I do not expect it to address every little problem. I do think that there will always be people without insurance, and this will be their choice. Maybe they don't trust the government, maybe they simply can't afford it, and maybe their religious dogma sees modern medicine as rebelling against God. Who know, and who cares. Remember that the ink on our Constitution wasn't even dry before they concocted ten amendments to it. And it's a good thing for us that they did. We've added dozens of amendments to what was already a pretty good document, and we were right to do so.

Whatever the final version of the healthcare bill includes, you can expect to see amendments proposed to it forever after. As our understanding of the issue broadens, as industries adapt to this new legislation, as the needs of our uninsured shift and morph, so to must our laws.

What I have found interesting during the theater of debate is the people insisting on perpetuating lies in the interest of sinking the legislation. Here's a safe bet: these people (A) already have health insurance and (B) have no trouble affording it. I also suspect the ones protesting the loudest are the least likely to have actually read the damn thing. There's nothing like ignorance to get the blood boiling. Just ask the Klan.

And speaking of Klan, what's with the people carrying swastikas and racist protest signs to the town hall meetings? Do they really think this is furthering the cause? Is this attracting people who would otherwise have been undecided? Look: if you have a problem with something your government is doing, the First Amendment guarantees you two very important freedoms, the freedom of peaceable assembly and the right to petition the government for a redress of your grievances. But these boondoggles at town hall meetings are not "peaceable assembly". And shouting down your elected officials just because you chose to believe whatever lies Fox News is telling does not constitute a petition for the redress of grievances. If you already have insurance, and have no plans to avail yourself of the government option, then you have no grievance. None. Anyone who tells you differently is lying to you, and trying to heat up your blood.

Stay tuned, faithful readers...

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

Gay Marriage - Let's Skip To The End, Shall We?

So Iowa legalized gay marriage, and the California Supreme Court upheld California's right to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

Cue the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

It seems, at best, ironic that supposedly forward-thinking California, Land of Fruits and Nuts, would take this colossal step backwards in the pursuits of equality while Iowa, the very embodiment of all things Midwestern, would take such an unexpected step forward. The other way around would have been business as usual in the Old Reality. Now the New Reality is letting us know not to take anything for granted.

But with New York on the verge of voting to legalize same-sex marriage, we now find the ball officially in motion, as state after state emerges from its puritanical trance and awakens to this New Day of Equality. All that's left now is to sit back and watch the dominoes fall one by one.

I don't think we can expect to see all fifty states ratify same-sex marriage anytime soon. As evidenced in California, the wheels of progress can grind very slowly indeed. But just to recap, let's spell out the facts:

  • The argument over gay marriage is not a religious one. This is because marriage licenses are issued by state governments. No religion, no religious facility, and no clergy are needed to legitimize a marriage in the eyes of the law. Every single religion could take a hard line stand against gay marriage, and gay people could still go to their local courthouses and be married by a judge. Therefore, religion is a moot point.
  • Just because one state issues you a marriage license does not guarantee the state you live in will recognize it. If a gay couple, denied their opportunity to wed in California thanks to Prop 8 passing decides to jet off to Des Moines and tie the knot, they may not necessarily have their marriage recognized back home. This is going to be a fun one to watch when it hits the United States Supreme Court (and it will).
  • There will still be (and ought to be) restrictions on who can marry. I'm a big believer in True Love, and I tend to believe that true love conquers all. But let's be reasonable. At the risk of sounding conservative (shudder!) I must stipulate that I don't believe that just anyone should be allowed to marry. Opponents of gay marriage like to paint a picture of an "anything goes" society, where brothers and sisters get hitched, pet owners marry their dogs, and group marriages abound. So for the purposes of these debates, let's be clear: marriage ought to be defined as a union of two consenting adult human beings, unrelated. (Sorry, England.)

In all of the hoopla surrounding this very divisive subject, I have yet to hear one lucid argument as to why two men or two women ought not to get married. I have still not heard how, precisely, society at large would suffer as a result. There are currently 18,000 gay and lesbian married couples in California. With the court’s decision to allow Prop 8 into law, it begs the obvious question: why should couple #18,000 have a right that couple #18,001 should not? It’s one thing to talk about unfair when discerning between the gay couples vs. the straight ones. But with the Court’s decision, we now have some gay couples enjoying a legal and legitimate marriage in the state of California, while another gay couple is summarily denied the same right. This, Gentle Reader, is the textbook definition of unfair. This leaves us to decide whether to annul the 18,000 existing gay marriages, or allow the right to marry to couple #18,001. Given that Prop 8 passed and was upheld in court, I don’t want to assume that this time fair play will win the day.

I must reiterate that the topic has very little to do with me personally. My marriage is lucky enough to be recognized in all fifty states. No decision on the issue of gay marriage will undo that. So why do I care? I care because I don’t want to live in a country that practices what amounts to apartheid against a minority group. I care because even though I’m in the majority today, tomorrow they may decide that people with blue eyes aren’t as good as people with brown eyes. They may decide that left-handed people shouldn’t be allowed to vote, or drive, or have children. They may decide here in California that people from other states have to pay a higher income tax than natives. Sound bizarre? I agree. But it only sounds bizarre because we’ve been conditioned to believe that in this country, all men are created equal. We’ve been told from our earliest schoolings that all people in this country are entitled to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

But in light of the Court’s decision to uphold Prop 8, I am forced to ask: what happened to America? What happened to the land of liberty? When did we decide that certain people aren’t as equal as others? Throughout our history, we as a nation have grown to understand more deeply and thoroughly what it means to live in a free country. When we became a nation, only white male land owners were allowed to vote. In the beginning, we practiced slavery. We ended slavery, gave women the right to vote, created laws to protect workers’ rights, gave the right to vote to anyone over 18. We bled on foreign shores for the freedoms of people we don’t even know. We’ve waged war on behalf of the oppressed in countries most of us couldn’t find on a map. And with the passing of Prop 8, we shame our forefathers. The decision to deny rights to a minority group for no good reason is a slap in the face to all the brave men and women who served this country and bled and died for the cause of freedom. We have betrayed our very foundations. America is supposed to be the Land of Opportunity. It still can be, if we are willing to face this issue bravely, overcome our own personal phobias and recognize, once and for all, that we cannot claim the mantle of liberty while denying it to some.

Monday, March 30, 2009

Throw The Bums Out

President Obama has asked for (and received) the resignation of GM's CEO, Rick Wagoner. Of course, the Anti-Anything-Obama crowd has wasted no time crying "Socialism" and lamenting the President's abuse of power. They fear for those poor unfortunate millionaires, and speculate as to who's going to be next.

For myself, I can't imagine why I'd feel too badly about what's happened. There is an axiom in the business world that whoever is paying the bills is the one in charge. "If you want to know who's in charge, follow the money." Think about it this way: if you go to a restaurant and order something, you have the right to request that the kitchen prepare it in a certain way for you. After all, they can assume you'll pay the bill when it comes due, and this entitles you to a little pampering. No ice in your drink? Steak well done? Dressing on the side? These are not foreign concepts to us. However if you found yourself in a line at a soup kitchem where the soup was free, you might think twice about being high maintenance.

The truth is, our government has given billions to the auto industry for decades, and when we ask them to toughen up their emissions for the sake of the environment, they whine like little bitches. When we ask them to improve the gas mileage to help the average American, they whine like little bitches. When we pass legislation giving the cars more stringent safety requirement to protect the passengers, they whine like little bitches. And so it goes. They have forgotten the debt they owe to the government for all the money, all the tax breaks, all the preferential treatment. They act with an overblown sense of entitlement, pay their elite exhorbitant salaries, and whine like little bitches when the UAW members want to make enough money to do such uppity things as own their own homes or send their kids to college.

But now, and for the next four to eight years, there is a President who is calling their tab. We have a President who did not grow up rich. We have a leader who had to go and earn everything he has, and the mindsets of the corporate elite are unknown to him. For someone with a work ethic, the pampered elite do not elicit much sympathy. The worst possible thing that could have happened to Detroit's leaders has come to pass: a leader who understands the concept of paying one's dues and being held accountable.

I hope he fires the lot of them. I hope he appoints Al Gore as auto industry czar, and Michael Moore as assistant. I hope Executive orders fall on Detroit like snowflakes, demanding quality vehicles. I hope the Obama Administration grabs the Big Three by the short and curlies and twists, by God. I wish to see the end of Business As Usual in Detroit. I hope we can say goodbye to the Age of the Oversized Gas Guzzlers.

And I don't really care how much gas costs. Two dollars a gallon, four dollars a gallon, even twenty dollars - it shouldn't matter. What should matter is that we take significant steps to wean ourselves off of this oil addiction that has gripped us for years. What is important is that we pollute less. What is important is that Americans have the option of quality affordable cars that are safe and that last. For years, Detroit has plugged its fingers squarely in its ears and drowned out all the good ideas taken up by foreign car makers. America prides itself on inventing the car (we didn't actually, but you can look it up yourself). We pat ourselves on the back for our innovation and ingenuity, and as soon as someone suggests that American carmakers could be more competitive globally if they made smaller cars, more hybrid and alternative fuel cars, well we just can't shut them up fast enough, can we?

The point: For decades the government has doled out millions and billions to the American auto industry to keep it afloat. When given the options, the suggestions, the requests to innovate they have dragged their heels. In recent years we have seen companies like Honda and Toyota eclipse American companies. Now Fords, GM's and Chryslers are no longer the best-selling, or even the best made care in the world. In order to regain their competitive edge in the global marketplace, these companies will either have to kowtow to the Administration's demands or find another financial teat to suckle. It is fitting that President Obama has called their tab and fired Rick Wagoner. It should serve as a notice to other CEO fat cats: this is the dawning of a new day, and if you're not on board, there is no room for you here. As an American I am proud that this has happened.

Thursday, March 19, 2009

AIG, blah blah blah

Oh so NOW we're upset? Suddenly the media is saturating us with news about how AIG gave nearly $200 million in bonuses to its elite, and now we're filled with righteous rage? Why now? Is it because they took all those billions in stimulus dollars and swore on a stack of Bibles that THIS TIME they'd stop with the bonuses? Are we storming the Bastille here because that stimulus money they're handing out like Monopoly money was essentially our taxpayer dollars? Or, is it because your average American family is facing the prospects of foreclosures on their homes and layoffs at work?

Now? NOW we're upset??

Good.

I say it's high time we all got good and pissed off. Sure, this is a lame pretext to go all torches-and-pitchforks: I mean, $200 million? Whoop de friggin do. In the grand scheme of things, this is a DROP in the bucket, people. Even though $200 million is more than most of us will ever see in our lifetime, it still pales in comparison to the big picture. If anything, it just illustrates that we are dealing with people who are completely detached from reality. They think the rules do not apply to them. These are people who wear $1000 suits to work. These people have not brown-bagged a lunch since the third grade. These people have never had to sit at the kitchen table and draw names out of a hat to see which bills got paid. These people exist on an altogether different plane than the rest of us paycheck-to-paycheck riffraff. They do not see the big deal in taking millions in dollars in bonus money in addition to their already lucrative salaries. These people do not see what the big deal is, taking rewards while the companies they control hemorrhage money. These people have no moral misgivings about sending jobs overseas for the tax dodge. Their patriotism is eclipsed by their need for profitability. And whenever we question these practices, they hide behind their imaginary obligation to their investors and stockholders.

Let's also remind ourselves that AIG is an insurance company. Since when do insurance companies do the right thing? Do we really expect them to have a conscience all of a sudden? Think about your own dealings with insurance companies: if they owe you money, how prompt are they to pay you, generally? If anything, they will refuse to pay out, even when the policies state their obligations clearly. Then when they do pay out, they make their customer fill out reams of useless paperwork, all in the hopes that you'll forget to sign somewhere, forget to initial, fold something that isn't supposed to be folded, anything to give them a flimsy pretext to deny your claim, since you didn't do it right. How many people every year have to sue their own insurance companies just to get their fair share? You can bet they keep a cabal of lawyers on tap to steamroller you if you try. Taking on an insurance company is either very brave or very stupid, but most often it just very pointless.

So the insurance company AIG, in order to keep itself solvent, agreed to a laundry list of conditions to get their hands on a government bailout package. They pinky-swore that THIS TIME they'd do the right thing and be responsible with our money. They wouldn't be greedy little pigs anymore. And now they're failing to observe the terms of the deal by using that money (or at least part of it) to pay millions of dollars in bonuses out to their elite. Are we supposed to be shocked here?

Add to all this, the idea that they are somehow "too big to fail", and we have to consider the stockholders in all this. First - too big to fail? I am ALL for testing that theory. Perhaps letting them fail is exactly the cautionary tale the insurance industry needs to get them to realize the gravity of our situation. "Too big to fail", my ass. How about "too pompous and corrupt to exist"? If they fail, they fail. And as to the stocker holders? Well, seeing as how OUR tax dollars went to bail them out, and seeing as how without that bailout they'd be out of business, I'd say that makes the American Taxpayer a stockholder. It's our money they're using to stay afloat, that gives us a say in their future. So as a stockholder vis a vis my tax dollars, I say: screw you, AIG.

Welcome to my world, bitches.

Friday, November 14, 2008

Bailing Out the Auto Industry Now?

When the government decided to give $700 billion to the failing bank industry, I kept quiet. I'm a big believer in keeping my mouth shut unless I have something valuable to contribute to a discussion. I know zero about banking and finance, and my little brain can scarcely comprehend how much money $700 billion actually is.

But like many of you, I drive. In L.A., you pretty much have to drive. So when I heard that Bailout 2: the Sequel had the American auto industry in mind, it got me to thinking. Like you, I've seen the news for the last few years. I've seen the reports of Ford, GM and Chrysler losing money, closing plants, and laying off their workers. Michael Moore started out with a documentary called "Roger and Me", which I recommend watching if you haven't already.

In the United States, people are more likely to be driving a Honda or a Toyota than a Ford or Chevy. Why is this? Simple. They are better values. We are capitalists, which means we don't believe in pissing hard-earned money away, even for patriotic reasons. We're not rich, and when we buy a car we take three basic things into consideration: initial cost (sticker price), gas mileage, and maintenance costs. Whichever car best suits our needs both in practical and financial terms is the one we typically choose. The final truth there is this: Honda's and Toyota's are comparably priced, get better gas mileage, and are less likely to break down that their American counterparts. My Honda has about 175,000 miles on it, and apart from some dings and dents, runs like a champ. It still gets about 25 miles per gallon, which is better than a lot of new cars. When the time comes to replace it, you can believe I will be looking at Honda's and Toyota's first.

Back in the early 1980's when Chrysler was on the ropes, Lee Iaccoca was made chairman. He pretty much rebuilt the company back into relevance. One of the ways he did this was with the "K Car". For those of you too young to remember the K Car, it was this boxy little sedan, nothing particularly gorgeous, but not ugly either: it looked typical for cars of that era. It ran about average, looked about average, and didn't stand out in any particular way except one: it got 41 miles per gallon highway. This was unheard of, at least for American cars. In those days, if you wanted a gas sipper, you bought Japanese. The car sold like crazy, to people eager to "buy American" but anxious to get a bargain at the pumps.

To the best of my knowledge, none of the Big Three has come out with a car since that gets 41 mpg highway. And that's a shame, because gas has only gotten more expensive. I've often wondered if there isn't some arrangement with the American automakers and the gas companies. But that's another paranoid rant for another day.

It should also be mentioned that Ford makes car models specifically for the European market that get considerably better gas mileage. The rationale here is that Europeans pay a lot more for their gasoline then Americans do, so for Ford to remain competitive they have to market cars to the Europeans that address this. That's sweet and all, but it raises two points in my mind: first, Americans are paying been paying much higher prices for gas lately. Secondly, whatever happened to root, root, root for the home team? I hate to tug at Ford's patriotic heartstrings, but why are they showing love to the Europeans by giving them better cars, and then asking our government to bail them out? Dude, go ask the EU, since you seem to give them better cars anyway.

The only thing that is going to save the American car makers is innovation. For too long, they have sold us those towering SUV's. Unsafe, way too big and wasteful with gas, they represent their owners here in America. We too are unsafe - we're now fighting "pre-emptive" wars in countries based on dubious (and what turned out to be bad) intelligence. We're way too big for our britches - we go around acting like the world's police and unofficial hall monitor, assured of our moral superiority as we waterboard hapless saps from third world countries. And we're gas hogs - we produce 3% of the world's petroleum while we consume 25%. Cars like the Humvee have come to symbolize America's simultaneous overblown sense of entitlement and need to assert itself in the faces of everyone else.

I propose that if the automakers here in America want to wet their beaks at the nation's tax coffers, that it come with a list of conditions that reflect our needs.
  • First off, don't bother making cars that get anything less than 25 miles per gallon. That eliminates a big chunk of the fleet, and I say good riddance. It's not the size of the vehicle that I find distasteful - it's what it represents - the notion that we assert our dominance through our vehicles, that we have an endless supply of gasoline, that we need not concern ourselves with pollution, leave that for the tree-huggers.
  • Second - hybrids. Here's a thought. If Americans don't want to drive a Prius because the shape of it is a little too much of a departure, fine. Let's do this - we'll make hybrid versions of all existing American car models. Hybrid Mustangs, hybrid Corvettes, hybrid Ford pickup trucks. We've already seen how Cadillac is coming out with a hybrid Escalade, and Chevrolet has a hybrid Malibu. Good for you, guys. Now follow it through to its conclusion.
  • Also, as a thank-you to the taxpayers that allowed their hard-earned money to bail you out, you will give standard ten-year warranties on all models sold in the States. We're not going to be nickel and dimed to death with crappy cars after we kept you afloat.
  • And finally, every gas-sipping EuroFord and EuroGM car currently tooling its way up and down the Autobahn will be made available to Americans within twelve months. Retrofitting all those shut-down plants in places like Flint Michigan will not only create jobs in the short run, but it will create a sustainable future for American carmakers. If it was innovation that made us #1 back in the day, it will be innovation that saves us.

Think of it this way: the Day of the Humvee is done. Now we enter the Day of the Economy Car. You already make them, and make them well, from what I hear. Now you're going to retrofit all those Yukon XL and Humvee assembly lines around the world to make cars we really need. We'll figure out how to haul our soccer practice gear around in smaller cars, and you'll realize the basics of the free market: if you make stuff people can't afford and don't need, you're going to go out of business. If you make cars we need and can afford, you'll never have to ask anyone for a handout again.