Health Insurance Limits

When people talk about limits & health insurance, it usually refers to a particular coverage limit.  The health insurance limits I'm concerned about are those of well-intentioned people limited by their baseline ignorance of the real-world, real-time impact of being poor.  If only the poor had a K Street lobbyist with the ability to get the ear & action of politicians & policy makers, or at least each congressional office including one genuinely person on staff whose sole purpose was to chime in with reality checks!

Yeah....

It's great that the ACA offers considerably broader, more affordable premiums.  Thanks to Obamacare,  I'll be able to access & afford health care coverage for the first time in over ten years.  Just one fly in that soothing ointment - those pesky co-pays.  20% ain't chicken feed. 

My costs for blood work labs has been $1500 (without contracted health care coverage?  providers can - and do - charge whatever they wish), which means I'd face a $300 co-pay. 


Just for lab work.

Trust me - as someone who couldn't access (pesky pre-existing condition!) let alone afford coverage, availability & an affordable premium is wonderful.  If I could get "gap" coverage like John has for Medicare, it'd be workable.  But anyone in a genuine financial bind - even if just temporarily - will wince at co-pays. 

The first limitation people who hope to reform our nation's health care have to get rid of - -  the pair of blinders limiting their ability to understand that providing access & affordable premiums are just two, far from only steps.  

TV, Social Media & the Civil War

Imagining the impact of television & social media back in 1820, when Congress passed the Missouri Compromise.  The reaction of an ante-bellum Fox News handled debate on the Compromise of 1850.  Or the response of a mid-18th century MSNBC to the Fugitive Slave Act.  How might a mid-1800s CNN profiled Dred Scott & SCOTUS Chief Justice Roger B. Taney?  How long would Uncle Tom's Cabin graced the NY Times best-seller list and what would readers' comments shared on an 1850s' version of Amazon? 

WALK a MILE

“Before  you judge a person, walk a mile in her shoes,” is an old & still apt adage.  So, will try to walk a mile in Ted Cruz’ shoes. 

1949  &  1970 – to grasp a core challeng within the GOP, all you have to do is consider those two numbers:  the years John Boehner & Ted Cruz were, respectively, born.  Not just different generations, but radically different ones.   Pre-Information Age & Post.  Struggles to program a vcr & able to balance Facebook, Twitter, Instagram & whatever new app comes along.   Interprets & parses language, uses it as action.  Practiced politician, passionate ideolog. 

Ted Cruz strikes me as a man who stakes out his principled goal, with possibly no clear endgame in sight - other than never ever swerving from his course.  Where a John Boehner expects to coerce where he can't cajole, Cruz invites others to participate in a righteous fight.  BIG difference between him & his and the Old Guard.   A rigidly principled, utterly unyielding stand instead of dealing quid pro quo.   

While Ted Cruz may be perceived by politicos &  pundits as undeveloped in the ways of national governing,  it seems he views them as  hopelessly undeveloped in the ways of principled action, warped by the environment in which they work, unlike the fresh faces of himself, Mike Lee & Mike Kelly. 

Does he feel that the Old Guard’s expertise is utterly ill suited for current day politics, managed by people  inside the Beltway but outside America’s id?  He acts like a man who doesn’t see our country as lacking the time for the Boehners & McConnells to unlearn out-dated knowledge & entrenched habits and get up to speed. 

Cruz may be undeveloped, but to him that would be a key advantage, unschooled in the archaic while open to what works in the here & now.  He, perhaps more than any other Republican, has grasped that our world culture is changing, opening  unimagined opportunities for a new approach to… well – everything. 

The old standard was for newly elected members of Congress to be “backbenchers,”  learning the ropes & soaking up the ways of governing, seeing how to develop unity around their issues, how to get bills passed.  Get the tools & learn the lessons now, so they could play their proper role later. 

Many GOP senators & representatives elected since 2010 came to Washington to toss out this tried & true script.  Instead of creating performances within a given norm, they improvise  as things come along, as opportunities open up.   Established leaders  - in & out of government – seem horrified that Ted Cruz can point to no predetermined endgame, can’t express the ultimate HOW to achieve his utterly principled, won't-be--compromised goal. 

Cruz shouts from the rooftops that he was sent to the Senate in order to TOTALLY undo Obamacare,  by whatever means possible.  He’s determined to accomplish the first, will figure out the second when it comes along.  For a Ted Cruz, it’s not necessary to envision the means before setting the action in motion, just to be ready when opportunities appear - as he is sure they will – and grab them. 

He will never compromise, never bend, never waiver from his determination to obliterate the ACA, by whatever means possible. 

The Old Guard - in government, business, media - may look for a subtext to Ted Cruz' statements, for nuance or shadings to his stand, not realizing that he is a man who uses words for action, not for messaging.  To him, clear words & clear actions are one & the same. 

STILL in denial

It can take a long, long time to work your way out of denial, especially after a severe trauma such as the GOP suffered in Nov 2012.  Proof positive is Senator Lindsay Graham's continued insistence that come the next bout with the White House, the GOP will regain its upper hand.  I don't know which Republican congressman said that his party had to swallow some bitter pills with the deal that averted the fiscal cliff, so now it's the Dems turn to do the same. 

Hmmmm.... Sen. Graham thinks the GOP is the powerhouse party of beltway politics  ~and~  the other guy argues that democracy means a fundamental tit-for-tat system (one that was utterly unheard of when the GOP had the perceived clout).

Can almost understand their line of thought  -  doesn't feel like core realities have changed much since 2010 ~ ~ the president is a Dem, the Senate is controlled by Dems, the House is controlled by Republicans.  

But since the election, there's a sense that the power has clearly - albeit unexpectedly to many Americans, to most Republicans - and decisively shifted to the Dems, who find themselves in a better governing position in 2013 than they ever were, even in the president's first two years.  

Just don't tell the GOP - they're still sailing their ship of state on a river of denial.

Boehner's Boner

As in being bone headed, making "a clumsy or stupid mistake."  

Pundits have been debating for months how fiscal cliff negotiations could put his speakership in jeopardy - at least two lean & hungry-looking young men are eyeing his oversized gavel - and his own lack of basic civility in the most public place in our nation will only add fuel to that pyre...  I mean to the fire.