I keep hearing this rumor that the Republicans are the party of small government. The party of getting government off your back. The party of getting the government out of the way so businesses, entrepreneurs, and the wonderful, all-knowing free market can work their magic.
At least that's what I keep hearing them say. The markets pick winners and losers, not government. Local and state governments know better, not Washington. People can be trusted with decisions over their own lives, their own health, their own money, not politicians or bureaucrats.
But then they do stuff, and I get really confused as to what this party really does believe.
Take Tennessee for example. Please. [Rimshot]. 
Volkswagen has a plant in Chattanooga. This week the workers at the plant are voting on whether or not to join a union, specifically the United Auto Workers. And the company is taking a neutral, hands-off approach to the vote. In fact at times the corporation has sounded supportive of the idea. You see they want to institute a works council at the plant, which is a committee that includes management and workers. They have one at every other VW plant in the world. To have one here requires a union. So they will not be upset to see a pro-union vote.
But you know who will be upset and is doing everything they can to stop a 'yes' vote? Yes the Tennessee Republican party. The Governor, U. S. Senator Bob Corker, various GOP members of the Tennessee legislature have weighed in. They have threatened to withdraw the tax breaks VW was given to open the factory in Chattanooga should a union be brought in. Billboards have been taken out about the invasion from the "union" for "up north". I mean, really? And as I said this is not coming from the corporate management. It's those damned politicians butting in. 
Sen. Corker has even gone so far as to say if the vote goes pro-union VW will probably take the jobs for the SUV's built there to other plants. Or that he has been assured, by people unnamed, that a "no" vote assures expansion and more jobs at the Chattanooga plant.
Of course a VW executive denied this. He said the decision of whether to expand in Chattanooga or instead to expand an existing factory in Mexico would hinge on other factors, not the union vote. After all that plant in Mexico? Wait for it - it's unionized.
So suddenly we see the "trust the people" Republicans jumping into an issue that you would think does not concern government. It's an issue between the company and its workers and the decision is up to the workers. I thought that's what Republicans were all about, people making their own decisions without interference from the big, bad "gummint"? Instead it looks like they're trying to interfere with the market.
But this is just another example of the divergence between what the GOP says and what they actually do. They rail against Obamacare as government intrusion and scream how medical decisions should be up to you and be between you and your doctor. Unless of course you're a woman and the decision is to use birth control, or for whatever reason make the gut-wrenching decision to terminate a pregnancy. Then you can't be trusted apparently and the government must stop you. It must tell your doctor what he or she can or can't tell you about your healthcare options. The government in some states must even mandate medically unnecessary procedures and threaten the doctor with penalties if he or she fails to perform them.
Or if you're a state that has decided to allow same sex marriages. Then apparently Washington knows best and there should be federal laws or Constitutional amendments to override the wishes and laws of the individual states.
So it looks like all the Republican talk about individual freedom, freedom from government interference and intrusion is just that - talk. They trust you to make your own decisions, until those decisions run counter to their ideology or their religion. Then they are all too happy to have the government jump into your bedroom, your boardroom, your doctor's office as quickly as possible. They are very eager and willing to have the government intrude to enforce their ideology and religion on you and make you abide by it. 

 

People have been beating up on journalists and journalism pretty well the last couple of days and deservedly so. I mean you expect Fox News to misrepresent and distort the Congressional Budget Office report on the impacts of healthcare reform ("Obamacare") on the economy. But it was very disheartening to see how many members of the traditional, mainstream, mythical "liberal" media fell right into line with the right wing talking points. And yes I realize in the preceding sentence the word "mythical" can be modifying the words liberal, media or both. I'll leave it up to you to decide which is more appropriate.
As hopefully you realize by now the assertions that the CBO report stated that Obamacare would "kill" 2.5 millions jobs was totally wrong. The report concluded that in fact Obamacare would:

• create jobs
• lower unemployment
• reduce the deficit

What it did say about those 2.5 million fewer people working, was just that. Thanks to being able to find affordable health insurance on the exchanges, approximately that number of Americans would voluntarily decide to leave their jobs. Jobs that in the past they would have been chained to because it was the only way they could obtain affordable health insurance for themselves and/or their families. Now they would have the freedom to retire early and bridge the gap until they qualify for Medicare, leave a job to start a business, switch to a part-time job for a period of time to be home with young children or an ailing parent. The lock between job and health benefits is broken. The jobs don't go away, some of the people who would have filled them in the past, do. Which of course makes room for others needing work.
Even Republicans used to believe that was a good thing. Rep. Paul Ryan even laid that out as needing to be a key component of any healthcare reform when the work on healthcare reform began to get underway in early 2009. The CBO is simply confirming that yes, Obamacare accomplishes that goal. 
Eventually most of the media (the usual suspects excluded of course) got around to reporting the correct conclusions of the report. But of course damage had been done as far as the impression given to the casual observer/voter who may have only heard the initial reports and postings. But in usual media fashion they didn't blame themselves for having totally misinterpreted the report (or more likely not bothered even reading it in the first place and simply reporting off the assertions of others). It was all the Democrats and the White House's problem that it was being misrepresented. Healthcare reform is just too complex so they need to do a better job explaining this "stuff", you know the facts.
Silly me. I guess I'm getting old and hearken back to the good ol' days when reporting facts and making sense of things to the general public was the job of, oh I think the word for them used to be, "journalists". You know an informed citizenry being the lifeblood of a democracy and all that quaint stuff. Now they are content to sit back and be glorified stenographers. They paint every issue as having two (and only two) sides. They simply transcribe what each side says, and then voila their work is done. No context, no facts to help the general public interpret the competing statements. Just a "he said, she said" and you decide which side to believe.
So that brings me to what set me off this morning. I hesitate to pile on since journalism has given itself such a bad black eye recently. And compared to the CBO report fiasco this is really a minor thing. But I heard something this morning that I found infuriating and is emblematic of the level of reporting America receives today.
It occurred on the Today Show on NBC. Of course they are spending most of their time and energy promoting the Olympics, but in between they take time to give the other news of the day.
First up today in the "rest of the news" was a not more than 30 seconds item regarding the vote on extending unemployment insurance. The lead in was along the lines of "Another major loss for Democrats". Then described how they failed by one vote to get the extension of unemployment insurance to come to a vote. That they failed to satisfy Republicans that there was enough of it paid for along with other deficit reduction measures. And then simply stated that as of December 31, 2013 when the extended UI expired 1.7 million Americans lost their unemployment payments.
"There", I thought, "is everything that is wrong with the modern media in a nutshell." 
Notice what the focus of the story was, not the lost unemployment and it not being brought back. No, the focus was the horse race aspect of it. The Democrats lost. The Republicans won. The 1.7 million Americans without unemployment? Bit players in the political drama apparently. No need for context as to the vote itself, the issues involved, the historical context of emergency unemployment insurance in tough times having been a bipartisan, no brainer, didn't have to be paid for, issue in the past. No discussion of how from an economic standpoint extending unemployment on the one hand, and cutting back in other areas, makes no policy sense. Because facts like that just get in the way, and besides then it might appear you're taking sides rather than being balanced.
Which is ultimately one of the major failings of today's traditional media. Their job should be to accurately inform the public. When "balance" trumps accuracy, then everyone in the democracy is in trouble.

So last night the family was sitting around talking about the recent shenanigans in DC around the government shutdown and the debt ceiling.
The TV was on in the background and the story was about the Virginia's governor race. They were talking about Ken Cuccinelli, the GOP candidate and incumbent Attorney General. Specifically they were detailing how much of his focus and energy is on social issues, especially dealing with female reproductive health. Dude is downright obsessed.
At one point it was mentioned that he was in favor of outlawing contraception, even the birth control pill. This blew my wife away, as in how in 2013 could we possibly have to be fighting about something so basic that so many women use? I reminded her that the "conscience clause" that so many conservatives want to add to Obamacare was about the last vestige of health care reform nullification demands the GOP took off the table before their abject surrender.
You know the "conscience clause"? That's where an employer is given the right to object to, and opt out of, paying for plans that provide coverage for anything the employer finds morally objectionable. Presumably it would be for employers to be able to say that the health care plans they offer to their employees will not cover female contraception, at least not without a copay as mandated by Obamacare.
Well this must have gotten my subconscious working and in the wee hours of the morning I awoke with a thought. "Why is it that only female contraception goes against God's will, but erectile dysfunction medications do not?"
I mean at the heart of it that does seem to be the moral/religious objection to the Pill and female contraceptives. (I know, we all know it's really about control of women and certain people always being afraid that someone is having more fun in this life than they are, women having sex with less fear of consequences, etc.) But taken at face value the objection seems to be that contraception is interfering with God's plan. Only God decides when, where and how life begins. By taking the Pill women are taking the power away from God and making that decision on their own. (We won't get into a discussion about how God supposedly gave us all free will, but so many conservatives will fight like hell to be sure nobody is allowed to exercise it.)
And if that's true then why is it morally okay for a man to take Viagra or some other erectile dysfunction drug? Obviously God intended for you to have a limp dick or you wouldn't have one. He has decided you should not reproduce (which we are often reminded is the only acceptable reason for sexual relations). By taking an ED drug and being able to have a boner you are thwarting God's plan. 
Yet the Ken Cuccinelli's of the world never talk about outlawing ED drugs. And apparently nobody believes there needs to be a conscience clause added to Obamacare to allow employers to opt out of paying for treatments that are so obviously morally objectionable. 
A glaring inconsistency if you ask me. Sticks out like a sore thumb.

More random thoughts on the government shutdown and what is going on in Washington.

So basically these Republicans, who claim to be the true protectors of the country and the Constitution, don't understand anything about democracy or the U.S. Constitution. More accurately some of them probably do, but don't care.

Let's recap. The Republican standard bearer in 2012 ran against the Affordable Care Act, aka ACA aka Obamacare. He stated he would repeal it "day one". His party supported him in this proposal. They lost. He lost by about 5 million votes. His party lost two seats in the Senate allowing the Democrats to keep control of that chamber even though they had twice as many incumbents and open seats up for grabs as the GOP did. The GOP lost 10 seats in the House. They lost the overall national popular vote for the House. They maintained control of the House only through severe gerrymandering in many states. This is only about the 5th or 6th time in American history where the party that won the popular vote did not end up being the majority party in the House. 

Despite all this they refuse to yield to the voters will. They use their only leverage, control of the House, to bring the government to its knees, unless the policies they ran and lost on, are enacted. This is unprecedented. To my knowledge it was only tried once before - in 1995 by the GOP again. 
So basically the modern GOP, if it can't win at the polls, decides to use political extortion, beyond the methods laid out in the Constitution, to get its way. All the time proclaiming to be working for "what the people want".  

My mother is 84 going on 85 and going through a hard time of it lately. She has several issues that have been exacerbated by losing my father about six months ago. He was her partner of nearly 60 years and had become her caregiver. Recently she began losing weight and so has been seeing her doctor on a near monthly basis as he, and her family, nurse her through this downturn.
She had one of those appointments earlier this week. I took her there and accompanied her into the doctor's office for the examination. 
The exam itself was not remarkable other than she is showing improvement and gaining weight. The part of interest though for this community, was the discussion she and the doctor had on their way out the door. 
Now from comments he has made previously I assumed her doctor is very conservative, to the point of being a tea-party sympathizer, if not supporter. Still my mother and father both liked him as a doctor and he seemed to genuinely like them and be looking out for them, so I let his politics and any comments slide.
On their way out we were talking about his being busy enough to have hired an additional physicians' assistant for the office. The discussion continued, took a few turns about modern economic realities of the medical world,  and eventually my mother made a comment along the lines of "who knows what's going to happen now", meaning the impact of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), usually referred to as Obamacare, on medical practice.
That's all the opening her doctor needed. He told her of hearing of a woman who called in because something that had been covered in the past suddenly wasn't. It was not specified whether this was a procedure or a prescription. When she called on it she was told that because of Obamacare, Medicare no longer covered it because she was older than 80 years of age. So Obamacare was cutting costs by rationing care for the elderly, after a certain age you just get maintenance/palliative care. 
The doctor then went on about how if Obamacare wasn't defunded this is what was coming. That there was a panel of 18 people, named by the President and approved by Congress, who were empowered to do what was necessary to cut costs. They could determine what is and isn't covered and it would take a 3/5 vote of Congress to overturn any of their decisions. Sounded like the dreaded "death panels" all over again.

Now rightly or wrongly I hate to argue from a position of ignorance and I had no facts to engage the good doctor. So I let it ride and we left the office. But since then I burned up the internet tubes checking this out. 
First of all the assertions sounded too ridiculous to be true on their face. If Medicare under Obamacare was going to ration care for seniors it seems very unlikely AARP would have ever climbed on board the healthcare reform bandwagon. Sure enough a trip to their web site found several positives noted that Medicare recipients can expect from the ACA.  
Just to see what it would look like I took the AARP questionnaire at HealthLawAnswers.org. I entered that I was over age 65, already on Medicare, had a household of 2 people, and fell into the middle income range provided (30,000 to 62,000 annual income). None of that is true but I wanted to see what they would tell me. 
I received a 3 page report telling me basically I didn't have to do anything, was not required to get any additional coverage and then enumerating the different ways Medicare is being improved  by Obamacare. More emphasis on preventative care, everything you have been covered for is still covered, can still see the same doctor, if you have Part D the doughnut hole is shrinking so you might save money on drug purchases, and on and on and on...hardly the disaster depicted by my mother's doctor.
I then moved on to the "death panel" claim. I found a post at The Hill that points to the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, set up by the ACA as the target of this claim. This group is charged under the law with making recommendations to cut Medicare costs, if the costs rise above a certain level [emphasis mine]. Whatever recommendations the board makes do have to be fast-tracked through Congress (which is different than requiring 3/5 to overturn). But the law expressly forbids the board from recommending reductions to coverage or services to save money, you know, to "ration care".
Now the IPAB is controversial. As noted, it is the source of the "death panel" charge and the charge that this will lead to care rationing for the elderly. Howard Dean wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal calling for it be abolished. Several vulnerable House Democrats have joined with House Republicans introducing bills to strip the IPAB from the Affordable Care Act. The argument seems to be that the board will save money by reducing reimbursements to providers for certain services, which will lead to the providers not being able to afford to perform them. The end result is the same as if you were rationing care by eliminating the service. But the board also has its proponents as being very necessary and not having to lead to rationing of care at all.
But here's the rub vis a vis the comments made by my mother's doctor and that story about "some woman" now denied coverage for something under Medicare "because of Obamacare" that used to be covered. The IPAB doesn't exist yet. It has not been staffed. It has made no recommendations. Not only that, Medicare cost increases have been slowing, so the threshold that would trigger recommendations from the IPAB (if it was operational) has not been met. But as with most things these days involving conservative "thought", why let facts get in the way of a good scare? 
I'll be sure to set my mother straight the next time I see her, she has nothing to fear from death panels or rationed care.  
The real object lesson here though is to stay informed. I know something of the ACA and its highlights. But it is almost impossible to anticipate all the arguments thrown at this or any other issue by the right wing and have the facts all lined up ready for a rebuttal. But it's good to still do the research and be prepared. Of course next time it will be some other nonsense on some other issue.