When politics worked

When politics worked

When this Retired Guy was a bit younger, politics used to work. It wasn’t that long ago. Politicians knew how to compromise and seemed to talk to each other rather than just at each other. They could disagree, yet still respect the other side.


There is a new book out which discusses those days. The book is called “Tip and the Gipper: When Politics Worked” and it is by Chris Matthews. I first became acquainted with this book via a column by Michael Smerconish in our Sunday newspaper.

For those too young to remember (after all this was about 30 years back), Tip was the Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill and the Gipper was President Ronald Reagan. They disagreed greatly but had great respect for each other and were friendly. Needless to say, today’s President and Speaker are not at all like that.

Tip and the Gipper seemed to work out their differences, were able to compromise, solved some pretty big problems, and did a good job runing the country. The current batch of politicians seem to have trouble doing that.

I haven’t read the book yet but plan to so this isn’t a review. Just commenting on how politics has changed in my lifetime

Ancestry buys Find A Grave

Ancestry buys Find A Grave

I’ve long been a fan of Ancestry and several other websites for genealogy which I’ve mentioned here but oddly one that I use regularly has not been mentioned here that I can recall.

That site is http://www.findagrave.com/ or Find A Grave. Frequently when I know the names of husband and wife and where they live, I can easily find date of death and often additional information and frequently an actual picture of the grave. Of course I check to see if the information there is consistent with everything else I know.

Or sometimes I know less than that and Find A Grave gives me the first hint on things to check out. It is a wonderful site and is run by volunteer genealogists. Now Find A Grave has been purchased by Ancestry.com. Apparently the site will remain free but have the support of Ancestry behind it so we can expect further improvements

What will change at Find A Grave?
•The short answer is: nothing. The site will remain free and continue to operate as it has for the last eighteen years. I (Jim Tipton, Find A Grave’s founder) will continue to run the website but will have the support of a full, dedicated Find A Grave team at Ancestry.com – so the pace of updates / improvements / new features should accelerate. The familiar administrators that many of you have come to know over the years will remain and continue in the same capacity.

This is from the announcement and FAQ on Find A Grave. Read it if you’d like to know more about it.

Shutdown is failure and a result of giving parties too much power

Shutdown is failure and a result of giving parties too much power

About a year ago, I wrote here about Political parties and government dysfunction.

I have been a believer that much of the problem in Washington Continue reading “Shutdown is failure and a result of giving parties too much power”

Government Shutdown and Security

Government Shutdown and Security

We are now in the second day of Government Shutdown which is causing many problems. I hadn’t even thought of the security issue. The easy assumption (that I, and probably many Americans, make) is that since essential personnel are still on the job, security is taken care of. But that is true only to a certain point.

“As each day goes by, the impact and the jeopardy to the safety and security of this country will increase,” Clapper testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee…

The quote is from a Washington Post article. Read Shutdown makes U.S. more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, Intelligence officials warn By Greg Miller in the October 2 Washington Post if you want the whole story.

Time to end this stand-off.

Find a credit card

Find a credit card

Just a short note today as I was totally surprised by this. I was looking a something else entirely on Amazon.com. I often buy books there but also a variety of other items.

Today I was looking and noticed they had a credit card category and wondered about it. So I looked and saw a sort of one stop credit card center which lists a variety of cards and their features, including customer reviews on some cards. Easy to look by type of card or various features including type of reward (if any). I prefer cash rewards but others may prefer travel rewards or points toward various gifts. Some cards include an Amazon gift card.

If your in the market for a credit card or even thinking that a rewards card might be useful, have a look at the Amazon credit card page .

Unjust prosecution for assisted suicide

Unjust prosecution for assisted suicide

What do you think?

This is the start of an article in yesterday’s Philadelphia Inquirer. And the opening sentence does sum it up well, but there is much more to it. It is Pennsylvania news but the issue is one that could happen almost anywhere and that is certainly worth thinking about.

The Philadelphia nurse charged with assisted suicide for giving morphine to her terminally ill, 93-year-old father has been suspended from her job without pay, run up legal fees of $90,000, and often can’t sleep because she feels so angry and hurt, her husband said in an interview.

In this case, the criminal act appears to be simply handing her terminally ill father his morphine with which he attempted suicide. The morphine had been prescribed for the terminally ill man for pain relief.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that patients have the right to self-administer as much medication as needed for pain, even if it hastens death. But it is apparently still not a right in Pennsylvania.

The suicide may have been successful if the state and not intervened to revive him despite his do-not-resuscitate order and the expressed desire of his health care proxy (his daughter, the Philadelphia nurse later charged with assisted suicide).

The patient did die after several days but I haven’t seen any evidence as to weather the cause of death was the suicide attempt, the treatment, the pre-existing terminal illness, a combination of these, or something else entirely.

This is from another account:

(Pottsville, Pa. – Sept. 17, 2013) Defense attorneys for Barbara Mancini, who faces up to 10 years in prison if convicted of “assisted suicide” for allegedly handing morphine to her dying father, today filed a motion to dismiss the case based in part on two U.S. Supreme Court decisions. In both cases, Washington v. Glucksberg and Vacco v. Quill, the nation’s highest court recognized that states cannot erect legal barriers to aggressive treatment of end-of-life pain and suffering, even when it advances the time of death (for more details, see pages 5-7 of the motion atwww.compassionandchoices.org/pennsylvania-v-mancini/).

I think the state is clearly in the wrong here and I don’t understand why the Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane is prosecuting Barbara Mancini. But what do you think about the rights of the patient and his daughter?

If you would like see or sign the online petition to stop this prosecution, please click here.

Fixing the ACA or Obamacare makes more sense than repeal

Fixing the ACA or Obamacare makes more sense than repeal

It seems that ever since the Affordable Care Act (aka ACA or Obamacare) was passed and then passed muster in court, nearly all Republicans have wanted it repealed. The latest efforts involve shutting down the government as we enter a new fiscal year and refusing to raise the debt ceiling so the government defaults on its debts.

Both efforts seem foolish and I have discussed them recently.

I live in Pennsylvania and get emails from Senator Toomey. He discussed his desire to compromise on the government shut-down stand-off by adding 3 amendments to the Senate bill. These amendments did not make it into the Senate bill. I do not think the debate on Obamacare should be part of the government shut-down or debt ceiling debates but these are good discussion points on the law.

The first would repeal the medical device tax that is costing Pennsylvania jobs; the second would provide relief from the infringement on religious liberty in Obamacare; the third would delay the individual mandate for one year.

I probably would back the repeal of the medical device tax. It seems to me the best way to do this would be a a separate bill but now seems a bit rushed. I don’t see much benefit to this tax since I would assume the tax would just be passed along as part of the cost of health care. So there is really no benefit since the users of heath care pay the tax and there well could be a job loss associated with this. But on the other hand with more people insured and using health care there may not be a job loss. I’d like to see more discussion on this point.

Regarding the second suggestion (infringement on religious liberty), I think this is inevitable as long as we insist on standards in health insurance. I think the employer mandate is problematic. The religious objection of an employer may or may not seem reasonable to others. One person may object to contraception and another may object to this or that aspect of health care. A public option would be much simpler here but I don’t think that is what the Senator had in mind.

As to the third point (a 1 year delay), there may be a problem. I assume the insurance companies took the widened risk-pool provided by the mandate into account when setting the rates for 2014. If this is not the case and we do not have additional delays such as a 1 year delay every year, it might be worth discussing this.

The ACA is a complex law with many parts. There are things I like and things I don’t. There seem to be things we could fix now and problems that would not be apparent until parts of the law are implemented. And we certainly could use a reasonable discussion of the pros and cons of parts of this law.

Rather than have a series of political stand-offs to attempt to repeal the law, maybe Congress could work to improve the law.

Fix Health Care, don’t just repeal the attempted reform

Fix Health Care, don’t just repeal the attempted reform

A few days ago, I remarked on the apparent public disapproval Affordable Care Act (aka ACA or Obamacare) although there are many clear benefits some of which seem quite popular.

I like some provisions and dislike others. I like the idea of universal coverage. The ACA doesn’t get us to universal health care but sure gets us closer. There are certainly things I don’t know and perhaps are unknowable until we try.

So my vote is for fixing the parts of the law that don’t work or cause problems. I think a repeal is foolish. And it is certainly foolish to shut down the government to try to force a repeal.

And even more foolish to fail to increase the debt ceiling and have the United States default on its obligations in an attempt to force the will of some Republicans on the entire county.

The House Republicans have shown the ability to manufacture a crisis when there is no need. It is a shame they can’t direct their efforts at solving the problems of the country.

Are Americans really opposed to Obamacare ?

Are Americans really opposed to Obamacare ?

It appears that there is considerable public opposition to the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). House Speaker John Boehner cited this opposition to Obamacare in calling the House bill to to fund federal agencies past Sept. 30 and defund Obamacare.

I think saying a majority of Americans oppose Obamacare is an over simplification and wrote a bit about that.

I find it rather hard to believe that a majority wants to go back to a system where insurers can deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions (or they believe the applicant is likely to make too many claims). Or a system that allows insurers to place caps on benefits so if you develop a serious condition the policy just pays until a certain point and you are stuck with any bills after that point.

How can we conclude that a majority oppose the law when other surveys show many people just don’t know much about the law?

National debt crisis solved

National debt crisis solved

It seems to be a repeat of recent events. Congress creates a crisis when there is no need.

Of course the manufactured crisis in the news now is the budget for next year, but that is soon to be followed by a more serious crisis when Congress needs to increase the debt ceiling so we can pay our national bills including interest on the debt and current expenses in excess of revenues.

I am of the opinion that an agreement between the President and Congress the best course but that the President can act by himself and ignore the debt ceiling but that is opinion.

We had a similar crisis just a few years ago. I think the President gave into Congress too easily then.

But are good arguments on both sides. And it could be that neither side really want to push their arguments too hard as they might lose the court case and be much worse off than having this ambiguous situation. So here are the Arguments:

Article 2 Section 3 of the Constitution says of the President:
… “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” …

So if Congress passes a budget that requires borrowing by spending more than revenues, the President has a duty to borrow so he may execute the laws. It would seem unfair and perhaps unconstitutional to limit his abilities.

The President has an obligation to execute the laws. It is impossible to execute all laws since the debt ceiling law denies him the money to execute many laws, and so he has no choice but to ignore the debt ceiling law unless Congress increases the debt ceiling. By failing to increase the debt ceiling in a timely manner, Congress is blocking his constitutional obligation.

So it seems to me there are 2 good arguments in favor of this. First, the President is in a situation where he cannot execute all the laws so he must pick either this one debt ceiling law or all the others. The second is that the debt limit law is unconstitutional since it prevents the President from carrying out duties specified in the Constitution.

On the other hand, Article 1 Section 8 of the same Constitution gives Congress the power “to pay the Debts” and “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States” so maybe there is a Constitutional case for the debt ceiling. But then nowhere does it say that Congress can refuse to pay debts or limit the ability of the President to carry out the laws that they passed.

But then we have Amendment 14, Section 4:

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. …

Here is a part of the Constitution that would seem to suggest that this should not be an issue.

Trying a new way for medicaid expansion in Pennsylvania

Trying a new way for medicaid expansion in Pennsylvania

I have previously written about the governmental see-saw on medicaid expansion in Pennsylvania. My understanding was the Feds paid 100% for 3 years, eventually falling to 90% (so the state is stuck with 10% in the long-term). But whether or not the state participates the residents still pay the tax for medicaid expansion in the other states.

As far as I could tell Gov. Corbett was against the Medicaid expansion in Pennsylvania but had not reached a final decision. The legislature went back and forth on it. It seemed to me the needy in Pennsylvania would be the losers. But things may be looking up!

Gov. Corbett would like to use these funds to provide private health coverage rather than add to the state’s Medicaid program. But this requires federal approval. Read the full article here. And more details are to follow.

It seems to me that it a good idea to try different methods of delivering services. If this works our well, it could be a model for other states to deliver medicaid services. So I’m eagerly awaiting more details and hearing the federal response.

The Trolley Problem, or Would You Throw the Fat Guy Off the Bridge? by Thomas Cathcart

The Trolley Problem, or Would You Throw the Fat Guy Off the Bridge? by Thomas Cathcart

A simple question and a complicated answer. Most of us think we have a clear sense of right and wrong but how do we think about these things>

About 50 years ago Continue reading “The Trolley Problem, or Would You Throw the Fat Guy Off the Bridge? by Thomas Cathcart”

I decided to renew GenealogyBank for a year

I decided to renew GenealogyBank for a year

I’m impressed with GenealogyBank. I took a trial for a month and impressed with the number of old newspapers on the website and the ease of finding information.

I like the newspaper search but I’m still learning. Continue reading “I decided to renew GenealogyBank for a year”

Asking the wrong questions: polling and Obamacare

Asking the wrong questions: polling and Obamacare

There has been quite a bit in the news lately about public opposition to the Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare). It seems that most recent polls indicate most are opposed (see http://www.realclearpolitics.com/).

But are the polls asking the right question? It seems to me you could oppose the law because you think it goes too far. Or you could oppose the law because it doesn’t go far enough.

Or you could generally agree with the aims law and disagree with parts. (And either support the law or not.)

You could want total repeal or perhaps just a modification of what you don’t like. You could want total repeal and replaced with no reform at all. Or you could want it repealed and replaced with a single payer system or another system.

This is really too complicated to just look at one number as a gauge of public opinion.

Another question would be does public opinion really reflect problems in the law or just how effective one side or the other is in presenting the case to the public.

Cash for Freedom

Cash for Freedom

I don’t think carrying cash is a crime.

I don’t think driving out of a major city is a crime. Even if that city happens to be “a known point for distribution of illegal narcotics” and the destination is a town known to receive the same. I would suspect that many places are involved with either the first or second or both. But even if these where the only 2 cities in the US that deal in drugs, it would not be a crime to drive between the two.

There were also children in the car. The couple making the trip indicated these were their children. But the police apparently believed that the children were just decoys to mask the illegal movement of drugs. By the way, they found no drugs, just several thousand in cash.

The police seized the car, cash and occupants. The District Attorney offered a deal where that could sign over the money and gain freedom for both they and the children. If they did not take the deal, the would face several felony counts and get jail-time and lose the children. (No pressure there).

It turns out this is not an isolated incident. These cash for freedom deals are not uncommon. Several of these cases are presented in The New Yorker. It is a good article, read it.

The link above works for me but then I subscribe to The New Yorker. If the link doesn’t work for you, but you can get The New Yorker, try to find the August 12, 2013 magazine. The article is just called “Taken”, the author is Sarah Stillman and it begins on page 48.

I find it amazing that seizures like the can occur. I have no problem with seizing assets of convicted crimes. But these folks were not convicted of any crime. Indeed, they were not even charged but their stuff was still seized.