DennisDeery.com

We hear a lot of talk around election time about term limits for Congresspersons. People are concerned about long-serving elected officials losing touch with their constituents, and about the difficulty of unseating incumbents due to the advantages of running as an office-holder. I’ve never been a fan of the idea of term limits. I think there’s much to be gained from some of the long-time office-holders developing a large skill base in dealing with issues. I think if the American people bothered to be more informed and active in elections then the issue of long-serving incompetents would decrease. I do realize that’s not likely to happen, but a guy can hope.

With that in mind, an idea occurred to me. Perhaps, instead of instituting hard term limits, we could institute a super-majority requirement. For example, for any Representative running for a 3rd term, require them to gain 60% of the votes cast for the office rather than 50%. The same could be done for Senators. We could even look at increasing the super-majority threshold for each additional term – say, 65% for a 4th term, 70% for a 5th term. With such a system popular (and hopefully effective) office-holders could serve more terms, while incompetents would find a much harder threshold to cross. Ideally, this lower threshold for opponents would stimulate more challengers to get involved.

What do you think? I’ll admit I’ve not looked at the numbers to see what these changes might mean based on past election returns, but it’s something to think about.

So, did you bother to read the Congressional Budget Office scoring of the health care reform bill passed this weekend? Did you know that this bill could actually reduce the deficit? Funnily enough, many opponents will say they don’t believe the CBO numbers. Somehow though, when pressed, those opponents don’t seem to have any numbers of their own. You think this will bankrupt the nation? Show me your numbers!

There is an incredible lack of perspective on this issue, in my humble opinion. People have trouble with all the numbers bandied about. Sure, it’s a complex issue. But let’s break it down. The CBO estimates this bill will cost us $940 billion over the next ten years. The CBO also estimates that increased taxes, costs savings and other revenues will amount to a net savings of $138 billion over ten years.

But just for giggles, let’s pretend that those offsets and revenues don’t happen. Let’s pretend that all this reform gives us is a $940 billion bill to pay over the next ten years. Where does that fit in the general scheme of things?

Since the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001, the United States has spent something just over $974 billion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. $108 billion per year. Hmmm…

For the fiscal year 2010, the Defense Department has a budget of $533 billion. Yes, for one year. No, that does not include the $130 billion budgeted for Iraq and Afghanistan this year.

Yep. We’re talking about spending $94 billion per year (IF there are no cost savings or additional tax revenues!) providing health care for people. 17% as much as we spend on our military budget. Really sounds like Armageddon to me.

Our local newspaper editor was kind enough to consider a submission from me. The following article appeared in the November 25, 2009 edition of the Dunn County News.

Health-care reform is the hot topic in the United States these days. I’ve been encouraged by the number of people discussing the issue while I’m out and about, at the store, the pizza joint, the post office.

Sadly, too much of our focus has been on the small number of screaming matches that have erupted in various forums. I believe people resort to shouting and name-calling because there’s a serious lack of knowledge surrounding health-care in the United States and around the world.

Why reform, why now? The U.S. spends approximately $7,300 per person per year on health care. In comparison, Norway, the #2 highest spender on health care, spends approximately $4,800.

We spend 53% more per year on health care than any other nation in the world. The industrialized nations of the world spend, on average, $2,964 per person per year. Of the 30 member nations of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), only 5 spend more than half of what we spend on health care.

Viewed another way, we spend 16% of our total gross domestic product on health care. From 1990 to 2004 our health care spending increased by 123%, while personal income increased by only 32% and our gross domestic product increased only 104%. Spending on health care has been increasing at an average rate of 9.9% per year, 2.5 percentage points faster than our GDP, which means we’re constantly increasing the portion of our spending on health care, which requires us to spend less on other necessities.

What do we get for our spending? We hear a constant refrain that the United States has the best health-care system in the world. A quick look at some basic stats shows that’s not the case.

The United States has a life expectancy of 78.1 years, placing us #23 within the 30 nations of the OECD. In Japan and Norway, the leaders within the OECD, citizens live roughly four years longer. Of course, a number of factors influence life expectancy at birth, not just health care.

For that reason, a common comparison of health-care systems is infant mortality, because proper pre-natal care is one of the largest determinants of infant health. The United States has an infant mortality rate of 6.7 deaths per 1,000 live births. Eight nations of the OECD have infant mortality rates less than half ours. If we could cut our infant mortality rate in half we would save the lives of 14,000 infants every year.

Another common comparison is mortality rates from treatable diseases such as cancer. Opponents of health care reform will often, rightly, point out that cancer patients in the United States have a higher chance of surviving cancer than patients in countries such as Canada or the United Kingdom. Those opponents however cherry-pick their countries, attempting to ignore the fact that the United States ranks 7th in the OECD in cancer mortality rates – again, while spending far more than any other nation in the world. For breast cancer we rank 11th, and for lung cancer a dismal 20th.

So do I mean to disparage our hospitals and doctors and nurses with these statistics? Not at all. We do indeed have some of the best medicine in the world, if you can access it.

What’s broken is the way that we provide access to and pay for health care. If you have money or a good insurance plan, the doors of American hospitals are open to you. But in this time of recession, where 7.4 million people have lost their jobs, more and more people are faced with either losing their insurance or having to find the thousands of dollars needed to cover their own insurance.

Around 46 million people in this country don’t currently have insurance, many of them prohibited from purchasing it due to pre-existing conditions. A recent study found that 45,000 people per year die due to lack of access to medical care because they don’t have insurance. The uninsured lack access to basic preventive health care and treatment for chronic conditions.

We often hear that government is inefficient while the marketplace makes private industry more efficient. However, the government Medicare system includes costs of about 3% for administrative overhead, i.e. paperwork. Private insurance companies, on the other hand, spend 20-30% of our health care dollars on administrative overhead.

Part of the insurance company’s overhead is a system of assessing claims and choosing which to deny. A recent study of California insurance companies found 20-30% of all claims are denied. This is the rationing we hear so much fear-mongering about in a government plan.

We need to understand that this rationing is going on now, in the private system. However, in a for-profit system like ours, rationing is done not to ensure that everyone is cared for, but to inflate the profits of private insurance companies.

It’s clear to me that there are financial and logistical reasons for our government to be more involved in the provision of health care. However, I think the far greater argument is the moral argument.

We read nearly every week in the pages of this newspaper letters touting that “We are a Christian nation.” I believe we are far greater than that. We are a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a nation of all faiths. And all major faiths have as their most basic tenet that we should care for our fellow man.

We have too often, especially these past few years, fallen short of these expressed ideals. But the greatness of this nation is in our never-ending striving for the better. The American dream supposes that we can all improve our station in life, our quality of life.

I believe our government should reflect our values. We currently provide basic education, fire and police protection, national defense, all through our government. Every industrialized nation in the world provides basic health care for every citizen, and all of them do it at far less cost than us, many of them with much greater effectiveness.

We don’t have to reinvent the wheel. We can look to nations like Germany and Switzerland who use private, non-profit insurance companies and private hospitals to ensure basic care for everyone. Now is the time. Please, take the time to become informed, then contact your elected representatives and make your views known.

For good information on the issue, check out the web sites of the Kaiser Family Foundation and Consumer Reports.

I recently attended the Midwest Rural Assembly in Sioux Falls, SD. I wrote a short guest post on the Wisconsin Rural Partners web site describing the conference.

I just sent the following to the Obama White House:

Dear President Obama,

I’d like to offer a perhaps radical suggestion for remaking the health-care town hall discussions. The town hall meetings you’ve held thus far are a start. But they’ve not substantially moved the debate, and I suspect in their current form they’re unlikely to. Perhaps it’s time for some new thinking?

Schedule some more town hall discussions. Give away tickets through the White House as you have been. But hold 20-30 seats open, front-and-center. Upon arrival for the town hall, you’ll no doubt be greeted by angry protesters. Stop your motorcade and greet the protesters, especially those opposed to your plans. Using a bullhorn if necessary, tell the protesters that you want to have a frank and open discussion about health care with them. Explain to them that you have 30 seats in the front row of the hall for those among them who are willing to put down the signs and have an honest debate. Welcome them to the debate, show the country that you believe in openness.

Once in the hall, focus on a discussion with these people. Ask them for their fears, ask them why they’re angry. Confront them with the basic facts of health care in this country and ask them for solutions. Ask them what they would have you do. And explain to them why it is you’re pushing for reform. You know the facts, you know WHY this reform is so desperately needed. This debate can be won on the facts, which is why the opposition is spending most of their time shouting hatred and slurs. If they debate you on the facts you’ll win, and if they resort to shouting in your town hall I believe the American people will begin to see that there is nothing but anger on the opposite side.

Mr. President, you’ve done this! In your time as a community organizer you’ve gone into church basements to face fear and anger and you’ve responded with calm words of reason. As a college professor you’ve stood in classrooms and debated the finer points of Constitutional law with some of the brightest students in this country. You traveled this country during your campaign and you spoke to all comers, like Joe the Plumber, with honesty and respect, hearing their side and explaining your side. Now is the time for this kind of debate, this kind of bravery.

There are no doubt many, many reasons not to take this approach. The single best reason to try it is that it CAN change the debate, it CAN move people. It is exactly the kind of administration that your supporters hoped for in supporting you. We need you to win this debate!

Dennis Deery
Menomonie, WI

A lot of people have been showing up at town hall meetings these days screaming about the inevitable ineptitude of any government-run health care system. I wonder how many of those same people spent the last eight years (or their whole lives) screaming about how our military is the best in the world? Why do people in this self-proclaimed Christian nation believe that our government power can create the best military in the world, a force for killing, while that same government power cannot possibly run a health-care system? Oh, and if government health-care is so awful, why do these patriots accept that all our military personnel are provided government-run health care through the VA system?

It’s time. Finally we’ve reached the end. Even for a political junkie like me this campaign has run on far too long. Get out and vote today. When you’re done, call a friend and remind them. I’m going to spend a good chunk of the day knocking on doors for the Obama campaign, reminding people to get out and vote. And at the end of the day, I hope, home to celebrate. I’ve got a good feeling about this.

The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation has a great summary of the technology policies of the two major-party presidential campaigns posted on their web site.