Health Care Reform

Living in North Texas is a challenge for a moderate. Everywhere I go, I am confronted with Republican anger over everything President Obama does. It seems nearly everyone I interact with is a follower of Rush Limbaugh or Fox News. And they are furious.

The current topic du jour is health care reform. The conservative consensus is that socialized medicine is bad and that everyone should pay their own way. What they fail to see is that through our current private pay system, we already have state-supported healthcare. It's just indirect.

If I don't have health insurance, I cannot be refused treatment at a hospital. I may be eligible for a host of other benefits too, like SCHIP and Medicaid, to name a few others.

If I don't pay my hospital bills, who pays? Everyone else, of course -- the payers support the non-payers through higher prices. This is also true for those who pay out of pocket rather than those who have insurance. Doctors charge different rates for those with insurance and those without.

The policy decision made many moons ago, which is sound, is that no one should be denied necessary healthcare. The only question remaining is who should pay for it, and how.

The best analogy here is to auto insurance. We are all required to have it (liability coverage, anyway). Why? So that everyone is responsible for losses they cause. It's not a big stretch to make the same argument for healthcare. If health coverage were mandatory (either via employer payroll deduction or private pay), then all employed persons would immediately be paying and participating in the system fairly. Yes, there would still be "free riders," namely children, seniors, the disabled, and the unemployed. But the workers of America have always supported those who are unable to do so.

As a side benefit, pre-existing condition issues would be a thing of the past. If you always had coverage, you would never be declined for coverage based on a previous medical problem. It would devolve to the former and current insurance companies to hash out who pays.

It's myopic to think that the current system is working. While doctors and Big Pharmaceutical may oppose government price controls, it is no different than the various state insurance regulatory authorities setting limits on car insurance. The state has a legitimate public health interest in establishing parameters for health insurance, including pricing and availability.

The remaining issues (chiefly choice of doctor and denial of services concerns) are no different going forward than they are at the present.

Fortunately, many in the GOP acknowledge that the current system is broken. If their main beef with Obamacare is the public option, I can understand their concern. But to fight the President's plan on the basis that it is socialist, or that universal health care is somehow evil, is just stupid and ignores the reality of our current situation.

Why I voted for Obama

Today I went to the White Settlement senior recreation center and, to the voice of a persistent old guy cajoling even older women to greater heights of calisthenics, I participated in early voting for the 2008 general election.

I voted for Barack Obama.

Obama inspires me and moves me like no politician in my adulthood. He appeals to the naive idealist in me. Moreover, I respect him -- intellectually and from his commitment to public service. I think he honestly cares about the country and wants to make it a better place. I trust his motives and his character.

Ironically, I supported John McCain in 2000 in the Republican primaries. I even joined his ill-fated Texas operation briefly. After watching his candidacy get torpedoed by Karl Rove's smear squad, it seems McCain has taken the position that he must adopt similar tactics to win office. He is no longer the man he was eight years ago, and sold his political soul to the RNC. That was made all too clear in his selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate and his failure to control the RNC attack machine, which is intent on making this election about fear.

Palin is a hypocritical, judgmental, right-wing ideologue -- and as much of an anti-intellectual as you can get. Her selection was a pandering manuever to the far right of the Republican party, with a hope that she would attract disaffected Hilary Clinton "hockey mom" voters to McCain's ticket. Electing McCain is essentially voting in Palin as President, given the odds of McCain's surviving four (or eight, heaven help us) years in office. I cannot abide the far right's social conservatism, and neither can most moderate Americans.

It remains to be seen, however, how either candidate can really do anything substantially different, given America's current military and financial entanglements. Even if those crises were solved, payments on the federal debt, entitlements, and other minimum items offer little wiggle room for new programs -- let alone tax cuts.

Let's hope that whomever is elected has the guts to balance the budget and start America on the road to being debt-free.

Mortgage bail-out?

President Bush signed the ballyhooed mortage bailout bill, and while the law does bail out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, it's lukewarm relief at best for distressed homeowners. Why?

Because the lender may rework the loan through the Federal Housing Administration. There is no requirement that the loan be modified, even if the borrower meets the standards under the law. All the law does is provide a structure in which the new loan can be made at the lender's option.

It remains to be seen how many lenders will avail themselves of this program. As long as there is a greater financial incentive for them to rework the loans, this may work. The only carrot being offered here is the possibility that the borrower can perform under a new fixed mortgage where they could not perform under the old (presumably ARM) mortgage. In cases where the problem was not the interest rate but rather the amount borrowed, the new law will give no relief. Folks with "too much house" won't be helped by this law.

See also http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080730/ap_on_bi_ge/mortgage_relief_q_a

More on the Gitmo Travesty

Turns out that Guantanamo Bay wasn't just for the "worst of the worst" terrorists ... in reality, it's a place where ordinary footsoldiers and old men, brought to the prison because of score-settling and bounties collected by their Afghani countrymen, ended up mixed with the handful of real Al-Qaeda operatives.

http://www.star-telegram.com/464/story/701139.html

This is why due process is such a big deal, folks, and why Guantanamo Bay needs to be closed immediately. Imagine being held for years without being charged or tried for any crime, and having no means to defend yourself and none of the protections of the Geneva Convention.

This is the voice of Gen Y?

Not everyone in pop music is a virtuoso, a poet, or a visionary. I accept that. Some of my favorite music (say, from 1977 through 1993) is relatively mindless post-punk, new wave fun. But few of those pop artists cloaked themselves in an aura of musical sainthood -- they seemed just happy to have the fortune and glory of stardom. Those artists that did have something meaningful to say (U2, for instance), said it powerfully and without apology.

But now we have John Mayer, the man who considers himself the inheritor of the guitar throne of Hendrix, Clapton, Santana, and Vaughan. He's everywhere in the tabloids, too, frolicking from one starlet to the next. Womanizing young rock stars are nothing new. But Mayer's attempt at social and political relevance sets a new standard for vapidity and slackerdom.

Here's what his website (http://www.johnmayer.com/bio) had to say about his most recent hit, "Waiting on the World to Change":

With "Waiting on the World to Change", Mayer shot for something even more
ambitious - something like an attempt to explain his generation's attitudes
about politics. "It's meant to shed a little light on inactivity and inaction,"
he says, "because I don't believe that inaction is disinterest, I think inaction
is preservation – nobody wants to get involved in a debate in which the rules
and the facts will change so that they'll lose. So we end up with this other
option, which is, I guess we'll just have to wait for things to get better.

This is the musical/political spokesman for Generation Y? He's too afraid to get into a debate because the situation isn't static? It's a lame excuse, and frankly insulting to the numerous twentysomethings that do actually give a damn and are willing to risk a little conflict.

Mayer starts with a Van Morisson sound and marries it to milquetoast lyrics, creating a saccharine tribute to inaction. The net result? A catchy tune justifying ignorance and apathy. I wonder what Joan Baez, John Fogerty, and other musicians whose souls bled on vinyl in the 60's would say about Mayer's philosophy. Would Mayer still be "Waiting on the World to Change" if he was drafted?

The simple truth is that Mayer promotes a do-nothing attitude because it's not his ass on the line.

Greg Kot, reviewing a guitar festival at which Mayer performed this drivel, put it this way (at http://crossroadsguitarfestival2007.com/presscoverage.html):

John Mayer’s “Waiting on the World to Change” may be the most spineless
social-justice song ever written. It advocates a passive approach, whereas the
song it most closely resembles --- Curtis Mayfield’s classic “People Get Ready”
--- urges everyone to get involved, or risk being left behind.

I have news for you, Johnny -- you can keep on waiting, but the world isn't going to change, and if it does, it's not going to be in a way that makes it any easier for any of us. Taking action to make things better takes guts. You have to be willing to fail in order to make a difference. Your song, in short, is a candy-coated enabling of a generation of slackers who, if they listen to you, will remain blissfully unaware of the world crumbling around them.

"Someday our generation's/gonna rule the population."

Heaven help us.

One more reason to shake your head ...

For more on our government's failure to provide basic due process rights to those held at Guantanamo Bay ...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080609/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/guantanamo_interrogations
These men were held indefinitely, essentially under a suspended writ of habeas corpus -- then the government denies them any access to prosecutorial information to defend themselves. But is this really surprising considering our current policies concerning torture and rendition?

This is an affront to our values, our legal system, and the American way. Anyone who believes in liberty should be appalled at this, yet another step on Bush II's road to a fascist state.

One assumes that the "detainees" (what a sanitized term ... call them kidnappees or prisoners) are only now getting a trial so that their judgments can be pronounced prior to W's exit from office. Let's hope their attorneys can delay the cases long enough for a new chief executive to change policy and end this travesty in a just manner. What would be just? A civilian criminal trial or a war crimes trial as provided under the Geneva Conventions.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither -- and lose both." -- Benjamin Franklin

More on Real Estate and Mortgages

Here's a good example of "investor" speculation fueling the mortgage crisis:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24569891/

(Self-absorbed man buys eight negative-amortization homes and loses his shirt when the market goes bad).

I have represented several clients with a similar story, though none used such a ridiculous mortgage product. In a neg-am loan, the borrower artificially reduces his payment BELOW the amount necessary to cover the interest. Principal is never paid. You read that right. The balance on the note gets bigger over time! As if interest-only mortgages weren't bad enough.

The real estate business is a mine field, and investing in it with mostly borrowed money (or in risky mortgage variants) puts your financial future in the hands of shaky tenants to pay the rent and a volatile real estate market to eventually recapture your investment.

There are thousands of people in North Texas right now who think they are the next Donald Trump. These "investors" are "investing" in real estate with other people's money, and for every success story there are ten others who have flamed out, unable to pay the mortgages on properties nobody wants to rent or buy.