Scott Porad

I’ve been meaning to jot this down for a few weeks now, but keep on forgetting.

As, you, my loyal readers know, the night before the election, I wrote a sort of snarky running diary of how I voted.

Then, a few days later, I read Ben’s post, Waited 32 Years to Vote. And I Almost Didn’t Make It.  Honestly, I sort of feel bad, just a little bit, for how for granted I took my civic duty.

Go ahead, read the whole thing…it will make you smile!

Guest Post Week continues with Danny Thomas
Danny and I first met as 3-year olds in preschool, and I haven’t stopped looking up to him ever since.  He is an intellectual, an artist, a musician and a dreamer.  Although, I suspect if you asked him what he is that he’d say, “I’m a Father”.  When I asked him to write a piece for this blog, he sent me this note which—in his usual way of having his finger on the pulse of humanity—expresses exactly how I feel.

Politics, this current election, the whole system…

It’s got me feeling pretty disillusioned…

I mean look, I love this country, I love civics, there are things that make me swell with pride about America, but I am reading a book right now about how fat white men robbed this country – the black hills of South Dakota, in particular – from the First Nations people….

It has a dark side.

And worse than that – it’s just hard to believe or invest in the dogma any more – the system is broken, democracy and capitalism, it turns out may be just as susceptible to human frailty and dysfunction as any other thing that came along before…

I mean the election a couple years ago gave me Hope, it really did.  And, I really do believe in Obama, and his intentions.  I am just so afraid he is a great man with great ideas stuck in a system that is so mired down, so broken, so crooked and cached out that it can’t be fixed.  That all the great ideas, best intentions, reasonable compromise, and rational discussion in the world is only going to be either bought out by corporate power and money, or drowned out by loud-mouthed divisive pundits and extremists who claim to have the interest of the country at heart but, as far as I can see are in it for themselves…

The day after the election a friend had a status on Facebook that went like this:

Which person’s body inhabits a given political office is so totally irrelevant.

That totally resonated with me, but I needed clarification so I wrote this:

why? do you mean, because they are cogs? and pawns, and like that?

She replied:

With the system of partisan politics that exists – it renders any individual politician impotent – What might Obama have accomplished had he not had such opposition from the Republicans in the houses of government. We might have actually had health care reform that actually meant something, for one…

It really got me going…

throw in the p.a.c.’s special interest groups, lobbyists, campaign contributors, corporate $$$$$$$ and it’s become a money-filled gridlock…. tis hard not to give up on the system…

I continued;

it seems like corporations and the “money people” have exploited the two party system to gridlock it and serve themselves…i think the american people have fallen for this binary system and the black and white kind of thinking it produces…it’s an oversimplification of what i think an ideal democracy should be…but it’s easy to sell, and buy…it’s much harder to listen to, and empathize with people who think differently than you, it’s much harder to compromise…giving a little is a hard pill to swallow – painting the other person as an ignorant bigot moron makes it easy to ignore their point of view, that said, i am terrified of some of the ignorant bigot morons out there spouting ridiculous hateful bullshit in the guise of punditry and political analysis…

The thing that saddens me is that I feel we are losing or destroying the things that make a democracy strong – debate and discussion and empathy and compromise and compassion, diversity and differing viewpoints…

It seems like all the stories about the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were filled with heated debates that took days and days to resolve.  We are supposed to argue, we are supposed to disagree but that is not an end in and of itself – the idea is to come to a conclusion…thru empathy and compromise and compassion…

What is missing here is a loud moderate voice – we need an Abbey Hoffman for Centrists…

Jon Stewart is kind of close – there were moments in his speech at the Rally to Restore Reason and/or Fear that brought tears to my eyes, in particular the words, “…we live now in hard times, not end times. And we can have animus and not be enemies.”

But even a voice as great and calm and reasonable as his becomes part of this gross machine…

I don’t know how we overcome it – after a decade of divisive, fear mongering leadership, that was on the tail of a decade of greed fueled avaricious leadership, the gap just seems too great.

I include myself in this – I really have a hard time even listening to, let alone being empathetic with someone who I feel has beliefs that not only differ from mine but that, in essence are a threat to my rights…

I have a hard time even listening to their viewpoint, I guess I owe it to them as Americans, and to America itself, to find a way to empathize with their viewpoint so that a compromise can be reached…

Or, maybe we just get out our sticks and stones and tear this mutherfucker down and start over…

Greetings, Americans!  Welcome to my First Ever Filling Out My Voting Ballot Running Diary.

When I was a kid, I remember my parents telling me how who or what you voted for was a secret.  That when you went into the ballot booth you got to vote your conscience and you didn’t have to tell anybody.  That the privacy of your vote was what made America great.

Well, you know what, F-that…I want to tell you how I’m voting.

So, I have my No. 2 pencil sharpened up, and am ready to Rock The Vote!  Enjoy!  (P.S.  I live in Washington State.)

• We’re starting off with a softball.  I’m voting a big fat no on Initiative 1053, Tim Eyman’s initiative that would require 2/3rds vote of the legislature for tax increases.  Uh, bad idea.  Have you seen California?
• Initiative 1082 would privatize workers compensation insurance.  Who do you trust more: an insurance company or the government?  Easy: no.
• A-ha!  The first curveball of the night.  Should Washington State introduce an income tax on high-income earners.  This is a tricky one for me.  The liberal progressive side of me wants to vote for it, but the self-interested side of me realizes that when you work in technology startups they’re typically funded by angel investors who have high-incomes.  The tipping point: I don’t trust the legislature to not to lower the threshold from high-income to medium-income…and then from medium- to low-income.  Once the genie is out of the bottle, it never goes back, so I vote no.

Oooh…I just saw that I’m supposed to use a pen instead of a pencil.  Not having my votes count would suck, so I’m switching to a Sharpie.

• Another curveball: the two initiatives that would allow liquor sales at private stores.  (Background for my non-Washingtonians: in Washington State liquor can only be bought at state-operated stores.)  Now, the logical side of me see absolutely no reason why the government should be running food and beverage stores.  The argument most opponents make is that this will make it easier for kids to get alcohol.  Since I think the drinking age should be lowered to zero (and that most, if not all drugs should be legal), then I don’t really care about that.  Plus, does it seem like kids have a hard time getting alcohol?  The argument that sways me is this: this entire thing was spawned and funded by big businesses that stand to make big profits as a result.  These days, I’m thinking the less economic power we consolidate in the hands of a few, then the better off we are.  Verdict: no.
• Okay, hypocrisy time: Initiative 1107 would repeal the tax on sugared drinks and candy.  Sugar is poison and we’re suffering from an obesity epidemic.  Let’s keep the tax: I vote no.
• Ugh!  Why do we elect legislators if they’re going to “refer” the tough questions back to us, for example Referendum 52: a bond measure to raise money to upgrade schools.  Bottom line: the single most important factor for a healthy economy is a well-educated populous,so I’m going to vote for schools: yes!
• I’m starting to get tired.  More referenda in the form of amendments to the state constitution.  What do I know?  Isn’t this why we elect legislators?
• Ah, we’re done with the state…now on to the county.  In the voters pamphlet, nobody has opposed the first two items which are…yes, like referenda! Wasn’t it Mark Twain who said something like, “when everybody is agreement, be afraid”?  Whatever.  Yawn.
• Here’s a puzzler: should we raise the sales tax for more police and fire services?  On the one hand, shouldn’t government have to make do like the rest of us?  On the other, I would like to have essential services.  I don’t know.  Again, it seems like these are the decisions we elect people to make.  I’m leaving it blank for now.

Whew!  We’re at the half way mark, and I’m going to get a drink of water before moving on to the actual political races!  Hooray!

Okie doke…back to the good stuff…here we go!

• US Senator.  Easy as pie: Patty Murray, Democrat.  In fact, I’ll be voting for all Democrats this election.  Why?  Because after the last 10 years there is no way that any person who considers themselves serious and responsible can vote for the Republican Party in good conscience.  You might like their ideas…great, I’ll have an honest debate with you about ideas.  But, as a governing party…well, almost any attempt to compare their words to their actions is laughable.  The Republican Party, at present, is an embarrassment to our country; and insult to intelligent people everywhere.
• Okay, this one is fun…for real, not making this up: I have had 10 former direct bosses in my career.  That is, 10 people whom I reported to directly.  If Susan DelBene is elected to the US House of Representatives, then two of them will be currently serving in Congress.  Am I going to put that on my resume?  You betchya!  (Wink.)
• Democrat.
• Democrat.
• Democrat.
• Uncontested, so I wrote myself in for Prosecuting Attorney.  I wonder if you actually have to be a lawyer to have that job.  Hmmm…I just scratched my name out and penciled in my friend Alan who is an attorney at Microsoft.  He couldn’t be any worse than this guy, right?
• Judges: there are 13 judges running for office and 10 of them are uncontested.  Personally, I don’t believe we should be voting for judges.  What on Earth do I know about judges?  I am going to write in some more of my lawyer friends: Lew, Ronen, Kim, Jeff, Robin, Aaron and…I’m out of lawyer friends, I guess, so I’ll just leave these blank.

Well, friends…that was fun.  Clocking in at 1 hour and 22 minutes, my ballot is complete.  Until next time!

I don’t live in California, but if I did I would vote Yes on Prop. 19.

I encourage you to tell all your friends in California to vote yes.  And, tell all your friends to tell all their friends to vote yes.

What is Prop 19?  Simply put, it will bring the use of cannabis under the same laws alcohol.  Click here to read the details about Prop 19.

What drives me crazy is how ridiculously illogical it is for cannabis to be illegal.  I simply cannot stand the hypocrisy.  Alcohol and tobacco are drugs, arguably more harmful drugs, yet they’re legal.  It just makes no sense.

When you look at who’s opposed to Prop. 19…well, it turns out that it’s all people who have a vested financial interest in keeping it illegal.  For example, beer companies who don’t want to lose market share.

As I said, read the details about Prop. 19.  And, Tim Egan does a good job of explaining, via The Big Lebowski:

If you take out the special interests, the entrenched groups, with any of these issues — whether it’s energy, the financial sector, or legalized marijuana — it’s always very clear what the right thing to do is.

I encourage you to read his article too, because The Dude is right.  Our political system is basically corrupt—money and greed cause politicans to make decisions that are illogical and irrational for the benefit of a few.

I was puzzled by something I read today in The New York Times about so-called “public option” in the proposed health care reform plan:

[Opponents] argue that a public plan would invariably drive private insurers out of business and prompt employers to drop private coverage, pushing people who are already insured onto a plan run by the government.

How would it drive private insurers out of business?  It would offer equal plans at a lower cost, that’s how.  I don’t see what’s wrong with that.  If we can get the same health care at a lower cost, isn’t that good?  Isn’t that one of the major objectives of reform…to reduce costs?

I suppose it could be argued that there would be job losses if private insurers closed, but wouldn’t the public system pick up a large portion of those jobs.  Plus, wouldn’t the dollars saved by consumers be spent elsewhere thereby creating jobs elsewhere?

What about the part where employers drop coverage thereby forcing their employees on to the private plans: what’s the problem with that?  Well, I suppose you could say that the public plan could be of lower quality than a private plan, so employees would suffer.

But, wouldn’t that present a competitive disadvantage to the employer who doesn’t offer a private plan?  In other words, a company would be at a disadvantage in attracting the best employees if they didn’t offer a competitive plan, private or public.

From my point of view, hiring the best people is the number one indicator of success, so I don’t see why a company would choose to offer benefits that don’t ensure they get the best of the best.  (What about companies that don’t need or want to hire the best?  Well, I doubt they offer gold-plated benefits presently, so it’s unlikely that a public plan will be lower quality.)

Seems to me that there is an irrational fear of a public plan.  Yet, the fact is that almost half the country already has a public plan–it’s called Medicare–so I don’t see why we shouldn’t open it up to everyone.

My friend Todd and I had a discussion about healthcare reform today.

My understanding of Todd’s point of view was he believes that a) the only way to achieve both comprehensive coverage and cost control is to ration care, b) the government (any government) is not capable of rationing healthcare effectively because it is inherently a personal, not public, decision, and c) that the market is the best way to deliver healthcare because allows individuals to make their own healthcare choices.

1. Tragedy of the Commons

Fundamentally, the issue with healthcare is a Tragedy of the Commons issue. In other words, all the actors in the system know that it needs reform, but none of them individually have an incentive to actually reform it. Like all Tragedy of the Commons issues, a regulatory entity with the rule of law (i.e. the government) is the only entity with the power to cause reform to occur.

While on the one hand I’m not thrilled about government bureaucrats creating regulations that ration care, I am willing to make that choice because I believe that is actually the only scenario where change can occur.

Likewise, the market cannot solve this problem because in a market individuals have no incentive for change. In a market, individuals act in their own best interests which is how a Tragedy of the Commons occurs in the first place.

2. FUD: Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt

The core of the rationing argument is FUD–Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Arguments based on FUD fundamentally smell fishy to me, but this one particularly doesn’t make sense to me. “Do I want a government bureaucrat deciding if I get <insert medical care here>?” goes the argument.

No, I do not. However, a government bureaucrat doesn’t get to make that decision–I do. If my doctor and I think <insert medical care here> is necessary, then I can choose to go to the medical provider of my choice to have <insert medical care here>. As they say, it’s a free country.

The real issue is not whether I can get the care I want, but who will pay for it. Really, we’re not talking about health care–we’re talking about health insurance which is an important distinction to keep in mind.

3. Rationing and Capitalism

When we talk about government-run health care we’re really talking about government-run health insurance. In other words, the government is going to get into the business of issuing health insurance policies just like private companies do now. (In fact, the government is already in this business in a very big way: 46% of health care is currently paid for by government insurance policies known as Medicare and Medicaid.)

Let’s consider how this works: when you go to your doctor for medical services, he or she charges for that service. Someone has to pay, right?

Most people have a health insurance policy, just like auto, home or life insurance, that pays a benefit against claims allowed under the terms of the policy. Your car gets hit, the insurance company pays to get it fixed. Your leg gets broken, the insurance company pays to get it fixed. Same, same.

Of course, other people, the minority of people, simply pay for their medical services. They break their leg, and since they don’t have a policy, they just pay for it.

Notwithstanding the FUD, here’s what doesn’t make sense to me about the rationing argument: if the government policy doesn’t cover the medical services you want, then a) you are still free to pay cash, and b) given that we live in a capitalist society, there will be private companies that will sell policies you can buy instead if that’s what you prefer.

Actually, this isn’t really so different than how health care works today. Many private policies don’t provide certain benefits. For example, recently I needed a test that my policy didn’t cover. I still wanted the test, so I paid for it myself; it cost $99 + tax. In addition, with respect to the existing government run health insurance programs, many private companies sell policies that cover the benefits where Medicare and Medicaid do not.

In other words, the argument about rationing is a complete red herring. There is no government entity rationing services, nobody is will tell you what health care you can or cannot have. These decisions are completely, 100% up to you and your doctor. You will be able to get whatever health care you want to get. Period. Don’t let anybody tell you otherwise.

It’s simply a matter of who is going to pay for it–you, your private insurance plan or a government insurance plan.

4. Status Quo is Not Really an Option

My final thought is not in response to Todd, but a thought in general: the status quo is not really an option.

Yes, as a country, we could choose to continue down the current path, but that path is an illogical choice. Rising costs are a drag on our economy. Increasingly people cannot afford to pay for care or insurance which is a drag on our economy and morality. Per capita, we pay more and get less than any other industrialized nation. Our path is simply not sustainable.

The bottom line is that when you do the math, maintaining the current course is a certain disaster. Choosing to do nothing is a choice we are free to make, but it is an irresponsible decision, and as a society we cannot afford the consequences of that choice, both figuratively and literally.