Archive for September, 2009

Let me preface this by stating that I completely support an effort to reform the current state of health insurance; any effort that legitimately seeks to introduce an environment that creates a more open and competitive market will get a resounding, “Aye!” from me.

With that said, I will not, and cannot support the reform measures being pushed in Congress, touted by the President, and expounded upon by many a celebrity. The introduction of a government plan will ultimately fail to produce the sort of competition being promised, and I have a sneaking suspicion this is just fine by them. The other factor that makes support difficult is the long term cost of the plan; if projections are to be believed the solvency of the United States is at stake.

I won’t guess at, or talk about, what I think their goals are for introducing this sort of legislation, but you know the reason is hardly related to competition when they reject the notion that allowing insurance companies to offer insurance across state lines would breed at least part of the competitive reform they’re seeking in a way that benefits businesses and individuals. Watch them weasel their way out of that conversation. It doesn’t go well.

It’s incredibly hard to pass the plan they seem hell bent on passing. The support isn’t there.

But here’s the real kicker. You absolutely cannot, and really should not, blame Republicans for the possible failure of this reform. Democrats have no excuses with majorities in both houses of Congress, and a Democrat President ready to sign whatever plan they produce.

I started cutting exercises last Thursday and was basically told that if I could get through that day and into the next without added, new pain, then I could add it to my workout. I will have one more PT session next Friday, then I’m done with that part of my recovery.

The only caveat here is that I’m dealing with a bit of tendinitis where the tendon was harvested for the new ligament–I’m one of a small number of people “lucky” enough to experience this sort of pain–and it has hindered my efforts at strengthening that quad. I’ve been told I’ll experience probably up to a year post-op. The good news, however, is that the pain I’ve experienced in various exercises has decreased significantly over the past two months, so I’m confident that I’ll get back to soccer in the next two months, as long as I can get back to full out sprinting and squatting/leg pressing a bit more weight without pain.

I don’t feel completely comfortable with my leg strength for my return, but I imagine my first year of getting back to sport will be a little shaky at best in the beginning. My speed is gone, as I have to relearn how to run, as well as get those muscles firing quickly again. I’ve done some kicking, dribbling, passing, etc. and those things seem OK, except for various types of kicks and the sort of one-legged squat position my affected leg (my plant leg) gets in when I wind up for a big shot.

BUT, these things are minor. The pain is not excessive and neither my doctor, nor my physical therapist feel too concerned about what I’m experiencing right now.

So, this is progress, and it feels pretty good.

We are constantly assaulted–verbally bloodied, really–by the message that we are not beyond the issue of race in this country—that racism/sexism/et al runs rampant in the system, and that we have very little chance of progressing positively on this matter. In light of these facts, it is claimed that we must positively discriminate in order to make up for our past wrongs. ¹

And boy, are our past wrongs terrible. Don’t get me wrong on that point, we have certainly not afforded liberty to individuals who should have had it, but I must ask: how in the world are we ever expected to move beyond race, when it is such an obvious factor in determining anti-discriminatory discrimination? That sort of logic is a hell of a thing to figure out.

I don’t believe that we can realistically eliminate the discriminating nature of individuals, however wrong their conclusions may be, simply because we’re wired to do so. We judge situations, we judge ourselves, and we judge others based on actions, our surroundings, and past experience. You cannot eliminate that through legislation, no matter how badly you would like to do so.

To compound matters, we are dealing with a class of individuals who use such language (crying, “Racist!”) in a way that stifles debate on the matter; by many accounts, and by my own experience, I believe we are beyond race or gender being a realistic barrier to any sort of future opportunities. There is an equality of opportunity that surely exists, and there is no question about that. Unfortunately, not all individuals are born rich, well off, in the right neighborhood, attend the right school, etc. but we cannot possibly rely on the government to provide a level playing field in that regard.

Today, I learned of former President Jimmy Carter’s statements concerning opposition to the agenda of President Obama. He feels deep down that any opposition can primarily be attributed to racism, and racist attitudes. Mr. Carter refuses for a single moment to consider that it is opposition to the man’s policies, and not his color or creed, that causes individuals to refuse to support his agenda.

But, once it is claimed that we are racist in our thinking, it becomes difficult to defend our position in a debate–frankly, it is impossible to do so–and thus the debate is ended. In spite of the vitriolic way in which this is done, it is often brushed aside or given legitimacy as an argument against any opposition.

I find it difficult to believe this sort of rhetoric concerning race. In my own life I have not seen the effects of racism on others–though I attended a racially diverse high school–but what I have seen is the unequaled tolerance for diversity my generation has shown.

In brief, the United States seems unwilling to have an open, honest discussion on race simply because it is convenient to maintain the status quo; convenient only because of what it offers in terms of drumming up votes and maintaining the power of the few who would use race, gender, and identity to do so. We will never eliminate discrimination, but we’ve certainly created an environment of equal opportunity, and that is all that we can do in a society that favors liberty.

Lame headline, right? Deal with it, because this made my day a little bit brighter.

Total Eclipse of the Heart Flowchart, via Flowing Data

Yep, it’s Friday again. Enjoy the rest of it.

It was certainly a day I’ll remember more than any other, however hazy the memories become, simply because of the intense emotion surrounding what we all witnessed. But the intensity I felt is merely a shadow of what anyone would have experienced in New York that day, the 11th of September, 2001.

When I first heard of Project 2,996 I felt that I needed to participate in some way in order to honor the memory of those who lost their lives. I was assigned Lizette Mendoza, and I must admit that finding information on this individual seemed like an extremely daunting task simply because I did not want to dishonor her memory. So here goes.

Lizette was in New York on that crisp, clear morning, at work on the 105th floor of the WTC where the Aon Corporation was located; this is where she disappeared. She began her day as usual, on this Tuesday, without knowing that it might be her last. Afterall, it was a Tuesday, the week was really just beginning.

What more we might gather about her disappearance is not important, but what is important is that those who knew her, loved her dearly and enjoyed her passion and devotion to her children.

I know that she graduated from High School the year I was born, putting us at vastly different ranges of life experience, perhaps at the low end of being old enough to have been my mother.

She died at the age of 33, when I was just nearing the end of my high school career. I would go on that day and finish classes, attend football practice, and go on to play Friday night with a touching tribute to the events of that previous Tuesday. But, I did not have a connection to that day, until now, that made it real for me at that time.

I will honor Lizette today, in the hopes that her memory, and the memory of everyone else who lost their lives that day and in the war to follow, will not be forgotten.

Editor,

I submitted a letter to the editor in the past few weeks concerning the numbers of the uninsured in this country as well as the cost of the program to the government.

The primary point of contention with that letter seems to have been with the numbers I cited, (and it didn’t help that the Herald Palladium gave the letter a headline of “phony numbers”) but the crux of my argument was not the numbers in question those were to merely point out that it is disingenuous to use them in order to say that the problem is extreme and needs our attention immediately, the real point I wanted to make in that letter concerning health care is that it is too costly for our government to fund a public option.

The congressional budget office has run numerous reports citing the deficits our government must run in order to fund the plan being considered. We mention sustainable spending and activity constantly, and it’s pretty clear that continuing to run and fund programs that require massive deficits won’t send our government into the black, but into the territory of not meeting its financial obligations. That is clearly not a sustainable state of affairs.

The only way to decrease deficit spending in that scenario would be to craft and implement new or increased taxes. In our progressive income tax structure the brunt of the burden likely will fall on the small percentage of the population making the most money. In many cases that means small businesses, or other providers of jobs. Taxes are to innovation, progress, and chances of employment what bleach and ammonia are to bacteria. An extreme comparison, but you get my point.

But, taxes will also be raised for the poor; not only directly through income taxes but also through increased taxation on various vices, luxury items, et cetera that create a regressive tax structure. These sorts of taxes (not relating to income) are more likely to be felt by lower income earners than those earning a higher income.

I agree, the costs of health care are indeed extremely high, and reform is needed to make the insurance market more open and competitive, but the option currently on the table is too large, too expensive, and not deliberated well enough for me to say that this is the reform we need; this option does not breed competitiveness or control costs in a way that is beneficial to the future operation of this nation or the well-being of its people; it creates a future tax obligation that will be impossible to meet.

So, let’s continue the discussion, let’s critique each other’s facts and ideas and hash out some kind of solid, truly sustainable reform, but let’s remember to not disparage one another simply because we cannot agree; instead let’s figure out why we do, and see if we can find some common points of concern to address in any future healthcare legislation.

Mike Mattner

Update: I was told this was published in the rag of record in our region, however I never saw it and was never informed of it being published. Oh well.