Archive for the 'Obama' Category

Obama’s ‘New’ Ideas…

Published
by
seanb
on 3 March 2010
in Healthcare and Obama
. 0 Comments

This article from The Atlantic, presented to me by my fellow-lefty acquaintance, ToledoLefty, discusses the merits of Obama’s inclusion of high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) in an effort to reach (further) out to the Right on health care reform, and, specifically asks whether health savings accounts (HSAs) are effective.

In the interest of full-disclosure, I suffer from a chronic health condition that has benefitted from years of high-cost treatment to abate the symptoms. I am not an ideal candidate to take advantage of a HDHP or an HSA. Why, then, did I do it?

I did it because I recognize that much of what I suffer from, I control. I chose to sign up for an HDHP precisely because it gives me a chance to improve my life by hitting ME in the pocketbook when I don’t use maximum effort to control that which ails me.

Some people are not so lucky as me. Some people cannot just control their conditions by diet and exercise, followed by weight loss and health improvement, as I can. For these folks, HDHP and HSA programs are purely Fata Morgana… mirages… worthless. Window dressing.

But, as Derek Thompson suggests in his article, adding this arrow to his quiver is not a bad idea. Anything that works to expand peoples’ options while expanding catastrophic coverage is a good idea.

This said, I’m still for universal coverage under a single-payer system. Why? Because we all contribute to the general health of our economy. As such, we should all reap the benefits of that economy.

What did he do to deserve it?

Published
by
seanb
on 9 October 2009
in Obama, Political and Uncategorized
. 0 Comments

Today, our president of the United States, was named the winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. I was surprised to find this bit of news waiting for me in my e-mail this morning, as a news alert from the New York Times. I knew that several people were not going to be happy with this development.

I didn’t expect such a public firestorm.

I arrived at my office to my boss complaining, with the words of the title of this post emanating from his office. I’ve heard similar sentiments from others who might or might not be like minded, namely Rush Limbaugh and Michael Steele (both of whom should try to run for President some day – it would be great for comedy).

One of my staffers greeted me with: “Did you see what your ‘boy’ did today?”

Unfortunately, that’s just it: President Barack Obama didn’t do anything, except espouse the belief that America (and thus the world) would be better off if it were to use its power for peaceful purposes rather than running rough-shod over the world the way the previous administration did. As such, it’s my opinion (which is worth roughly $0.02 today) that the President is eminently qualified as a Nobel laureate.

As I alluded to in a comment about a previous news article attributed to Rush Limbaugh: We turned that corner on November 4, 2008, in this country, and, my friends, we would be wise to not look back (except, of course, to help fix the mess that you see in the rearview mirror).

Obama changes tactic on Iran…

Published
by
seanb
on 24 June 2009
in Elections, Obama, Political and Voting
. 0 Comments

… only he really didn’t.

And if he did, show me because I can’t see it.

From the Monday following the elections, to yesterday’s comments in his news conference, President Obama has railed against the vicious treatment protesters in Iran have received at the hands of the Basiji.

He has stopped short of calling the results of the elections illegitimate; however, is that really the place of our President? The last one to say something he wasn’t absolutely sure about ended up getting us involved in two wars, tanking our economy, and generally ransacking our international prestige in the process, so much so that Obama is still working hard to right the ship.

Barack Obama spoke initially in measured tones on the issue. Yesterday he was a bit more forceful in his rhetoric…

Perhaps that change in timbre is what is meant by a “change in tactic.”

But I still don’t see it.

Oh no… Obama wants to socialize our healthcare system!!!

Published
by
seanb
on 22 June 2009
in Elections, News, Obama and Voting
. 0 Comments

One of the fundamental economic issues facing our republic in today’s world is the “problem” of healthcare costs spiraling out of control.

In most Western economies, healthcare is provided by a national health system paid for by everyone through various taxing schemes (income, value added, etc.). In this regard, most Western economies do provide healthcare “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs,” if Karl Marx will please excuse my profane use of his oft-cited quotation. It is argued by many on the right that were the United States to move in the direction of such a nationally-provided healthcare system, our quality of care would suffer and stagnate because of added layers of bureaucracy that would be added.

Even President Obama in his desire to pass some form of healthcare reform has declared such a single-payer system to be “off the table” for the purposes of this year’s attempts at passing this, yet many on the right continue to rail against Obama’s plans as a potential “back door” to allow single-payer healthcare at a later time.

What I’d like to know is: what makes our congressional leaders (in both houses) so much better than us that they can obtain health insurance for themselves AND their spouses for roughly $290 per month? On top of this, they have access to physicians at their place of work, and have access to the Naval medical centers so prevalent around DC. If they happen to need prescriptions (with the mean age of them approaching 60, who of them could POSSIBLY need that), they have a great prescription drug plan.

We already pay these people $175,000+ per year, which is slightly more than four-times what the average Joe the Plumber makes… add to that the health benefits, and these are some pretty cushy jobs that you and me pay for.

So what I’d like to see happen for healthcare is either you and me get the option of choosing the healthcare plan of our senators and/or representative, or this same congress cobbles together a plan, like Medicare, that is made optional for those of us who have no health insurance, or who think we can get a better deal on the national plan.

Chances are I’d stick with my employer-provided option, because I’m quite happy with the HMO that I have been enrolled in.

But the time has come to level the playing field between us and our worldwide competitors when it comes to getting EVERYONE access to the best healthcare we ALL can afford.

Why the focus on health care reform?

Published
by
seanb
on 8 March 2009
in Economy, Healthcare, Obama and Society
. 3 Comments

The financial crisis in which we find this country is the worst since the Great Depression, this much has been widely posited by both sides of the aisle in Congress – oh, and Joe Lieberman. I agree that we need to do whatever we can in order to get us out of the mess. But I’m curious about Obama’s focus on health care at a time like this. Why not abandon that hope, for the present, and work on What Seems To Be The Right Thing To Work On? (namely, the economy, stupid – to paraphrase Bill Clinton’s catchphrase from his era)

In speaking some time ago with a very wise individual, my father Larry Bossinger, he told me what he thought was the reason we need health care reform: most other industrial nations have government-provided, or single-payer, health care systems. Health care is not a cost borne by industry – directly, anyhow… it is borne by everyone through taxes. Thus, companies like Toyota in Japan, Volkswagen in Germany, Fiat in Italy, and Renault in France, don’t have the huge bills for healthcare that companies here in the States do – like GM, Ford, and Chrysler, or, dare I say, Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon.

I’m not convinced a single-payer system is what we need to move toward… but I am convinced that we do need to find a solution so that every American, regardless of income or ability to pay, is guaranteed the best possible primary and emergency health care available. I would even go so far as to suggest that access to health care in an economy so prosperous as ours is a fundamental human right.

If we can borrow trillions to invade a sovereign country where it wasn’t required, we sure can figure out this problem in a way that is equitable to all, and levels our playing field.

Obama’s Speech – Jindal’s Rebuttal

Published
by
seanb
on 25 February 2009
in Obama and Political
. 0 Comments

I was quite impressed with President Obama’s speech to the Joint Session of Congress last night. While there was not much that was substantively new, I appreciated the fact that he got up there and stated what has been on pretty much everyone’s mind lately. And while he didn’t make light of the subject, I do think he brought just the right touch of levity to the situation: We are in tough economic times, and we will have some political haggling, but we do need to remember who sent us here and do the work they want us to do.

What most impressed me about the speech was the three-legged approach to fixing the country’s economic ills that Obama proposed: fixing the health care problems, fixing education, and fixing banking. These three items are absolutely critical if we want to flourish as a nation. How we do it is where we will probably see more political bickering. This being said, I do appreciate Obama’s sense that he will listen to parties on all sides of an issue and welcomes ideas from all around.

After watching the speech, I debated with myself whether to turn off the tube and think about how happy I am we have an administration in power that seems to be making good on its promise to bring more transparency to DC. However, I really wanted to see what the Republican party would say in its response.

Watching Bobby Jindal speak took me back to some of my high school debates, figuratively speaking, of course. Jindal’s ideas, some of which resonated with me, came up short because of the style of delivery he chose – as if Mr. Jindal was talking down to children. While Obama is a tough act to follow when speaking, I hardly expected such a tentative response.

Insofar as the content of Jindal’s speech was concerned, I was most disappointed with the continued scary rhetoric that all the Democratic party wants to do is enlarge the government, particularly as it pertains to healthcare. While I wholly welcome the increase in taxes for those who make more than $250,000 per year, it hardly seems likely that we can afford to increase the size of our government. In fact, I would suggest that Obama’s plan doesn’t increase the size of government as much as it right-sizes it, building a foundation from which we can prosper once again. Applying the right amount of oversight, so that we can clean up messes like we have now, and prevent them from happening in the future, with an appropriate mix of regulation, rather than the irrational exuberance that was the hallmark of the last administration.

I feel that we are getting back onto the right track.

I welcome your comments.

What is going on here???

Published
by
seanb
on 2 February 2009
in Democracy, Obama and Political
. 0 Comments

I’m glad that one of the first things Obama did when he took office was to right the wrongs of the previous administration by signing executive orders stating the goals of a transparent administration guided by people who have no lobbying interests. Unfortunately, the second thing he did was to make an exception to this rule for messers Patterson and Lynn.

I am all for government transparency, and laud the efforts of this new administration; however, I do question the workability of these rules as we move forward.

The other things that Obama needs to work on are Geithner and Daschle. These gentlemen aren’t your run-of-the-mill citizens. They are smart people. Shouldn’t they have the money to hire accountants to make sure they aren’t cheating their once and future employer out out taxes?

I do my own taxes, and can appreciate one’s desire to do their own taxes, but come on – even my coworker officemate uses an accountant.

Where this blog is headed…

Published
by
seanb
on 19 November 2008
in Democracy and Obama
. 0 Comments

Now that Obama has been the president-elect for two weeks, I am in the process of figuring out where this blog is going to go.  I’ve never been a frequent blogger, but I think I might want to try doing that.

Ideas from my two readers will always be accepted.

We got our signs…

Published
by
seanb
on 5 October 2008
in Biden, Obama and Voting
. 0 Comments

We got our Obama yard sign, several buttons, and a couple bumper stickers when my wife and I took a walk past the Obama/Biden ‘08 Campaign office on Miracle Mile in Coral Gables.

The office was abuzz with calls being taken and made, and people, not unlike myself, donating to the cause and walking away with much-coveted merchandise. The people who own our duplex, registered Republicans themselves, were very happy to have our sign put up on our lawn, as they have indicated that they’ve “had enough of the mess that this Administration has become.”

I’m happy to hear that… but the hard work isn’t over yet. In fact, it’s just begun.

As soon as I’m clear of some of my class work (I have an exam due in one of my classes, tomorrow, followed by a synopsis of a reading for that same class on Wednesday) I hope to be able to do some canvassing of the neighborhood, as well as make some phone calls from the comfort of my own home.

Gotta get the word out… gotta get the vote out.

Free Market? Only when it works…

Published
by
seanb
on 17 September 2008
in Biden, Obama and Society
. 1 Comment

I’m not a proponent of markets completely unregulated. 

While an unregulated market may run efficiently and effectively, rarely does it operate with the broader society’s “best interests” in mind.

Why?

If one looks at a market, one understands that its purpose is for the seller of a good to sell that good at the highest possible price they can get for the good, while the buyer’s goal is to pay the lowest possible price they can get for that good.  This goes without saying, for it is the fundamental purpose of any market.  It’s also a very basic model of a market.  This model precludes any longitudinal forethought to be undertaken prior to decisions.  In other words, markets operate instantaneously. 

Money and goods change hands at that moment, without regard for what happened previously, or what will happen next.

Perhaps this is the origin of the phrase “caveat emptor,” roughly translated to “buyer beware”.

Was it right for the government to step in to take over Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae?  Was it right for the government to step in to shore up Bear Stearns?  Was it right for the government to provide $85 billion in loan guarantees in return for an 80% equity stake in an insurance company that may or may not survive?

These are definitely complex questions.  Questions that I have no business attempting to answer, because I don’t have the expertise to do so.  However, I do have the expertise to say that in a free market economy, of the sort that Bush has operated, and that McCain/Palin still propose operating (if not expanding), these organizations should have been allowed to collapse without taxpayer intervention, for we have no business being in these businesses AFTER they’ve made their bad decisions, if we weren’t there providing the regulation to try to prevent those bad decisions from being made in the first place.

I’m not suggesting that an Obama/Biden administration would have handled this crisis any differently; in fact, I suspect given the gravity of the financial black hole that would be created should these institutions fail, that they would have made exactly the same decisions to rescue.  What I am suggesting is that perhaps with more oversight, of the sort that would likely be proposed by an Obama/Biden administration, these situations would be rarer.