What Does the Mid-Term Election Mean?

It never fails. After every election the pundits sit around wringing their hands agonizing over the results and what it all means. In part, it is because they need something to talk about. In part, their livelihood depends on adding their input.

It also always happens that the winners try to read as much as possible into the election results. They want to convince themselves and the public at large that they have a mandate to push their agenda. The losers try to downplay the outcome and find as little reason to change direction as they can. Wherever possible the losers will blame other factors rather than admit a repudiation of their policies.

It falls to the electorate at large to separate the truth from the spin. Sadly, the electorate is generally so fed up with campaigning they don't want to think about it any more. They would much rather move on to their holiday shopping.

What do I think the Republican gains and Democrat loses in the most recent election means? Several things:

• Obviously, it will be harder for Democrats to push reform and investment in our nation's future. It will require substantially greater effort to find common ground with the Republicans for anything to be accomplished legislatively. Progress will have to take smaller steps.
• Since the number of political moderates in office is being reduced, compromise will be more difficult than before. Immigration policy reform is probably dead.
• The United States was not exempted from the current global phenomenon. The general result of this election was predictable even a year ago as one by one western democracies suffered loses for whichever group was in power. The global economic recession took a toll on the leadership in power in country after country no matter who was in charge when the downturn began.
• The predictability of this outcome vindicates the significant push the Obama administration made for major reform in the most difficult areas in the first few months of the term. The best (perhaps only) window of opportunity was in the first two years.

As a final comment on the predictability of the election outcome, I actually had the majority of this blog entry written in my head months ago. I even considered posting it well ahead of election day. But, I held out for the chance that I could be wrong.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
November 7, 2010

Thank You for Health Care Reform

Health care reform is now law. Thank you! Thank you to all those who had a part in making that happen. Thank you to Presidents Truman, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Clinton and others who urged health reform they never got passed during their administrations, but they kept the discussion going.

Thank you to the Congressional Representatives and Senators who voted for the passage. Thank you to President Obama for his exhaustive support. Thank you to all who lobbied, blogged and campaigned for its passage. Thank you to all the citizens who called or wrote their Senators and Representatives in favor of its passage. Thank you to those who gave money to get the message out.

The week the bill was signed into law I paid a visit to my Congressman's local office to thank him for his vote.

The Gospel of Luke reports an account of Jesus healing ten men of leprosy, but only one of them bothered to come back and thank him. I don't want to be one of those who fail to express gratitude.

So, this entry is dedicated to thanking all of you.

That's Wade's Two Cents.

Wade Houston
April 18, 2010

Health Care Battle Not Over

The battle for health care reform is not over -- far from it. Like many others in this country, I feel the current bill before the House of Representatives does not go far enough in reforming our health care system. At the top of my list of dissatisfactions is the fact that some of its most important provisions don't even take effect before 2014. Even so, I think it helps to draw an analogy from the sport of mountain climbing.

If ever there was a task that could be compared with scaling a monstrous mountain, health care reform has got to be that task. Even expert climbers scale difficult mountains in stages. At certain points along they way, they may even drive a piton into the side of the mountain to fasten a safety rope to protect themselves from falling back below that point. In recent years, there has been an emphasis on "clean climbing" which uses no pitons, but even the clean climbing devotees acknowledge that the most difficult mountains still require piton use.

Passing the current health care reform bill represents driving a piton into the health care reform mountain. It is not the summit, but it preserves the progress to this point. There is still much more to be done, but it is dangerous to continue without a safety rope. Clearly, we have come as far as we dare without locking in the progress to this point. The current health care reform legislation needs to pass.

That's Wade's two cents.


Wade Houston
March 20, 2010

The Furor Over a Government Run Public Health Insurance Option

Health care reform is being pushed like never before. Nearly all sectors of our society are clamoring for it. The medical profession wants it. The insurance industry wants it. The business community as a whole wants it. The President wants it. Most important of all, I want it.

Even the people who have health insurance coverage are seeing their costs are higher than they would be otherwise if it were not for the burden of all the uninsured individuals who drive up prices for everyone else. Surely, this is the year health care reform will be passed.

Not so fast! Lots of people want something done, but they don't all agree on what is to be done. Most agree that the ideal would be some form of health care coverage for everyone. The one's who don't support this are the people who would rather exclude anyone who might get in line for medical services ahead of them if they have the opportunity. Instead of admitting their selfishness, they find more socially acceptable reasons to oppose the idea.

A major focus of opposition for many of these people seems to be around a government provided public health insurance option. There are several points they make which on the surface seem reasonable.

* They say a government venture into health insurance would be an unfair competitor to the private insurance industry. The very size of the government insurance would put that program in a position to command price concessions for health care services that private industry could not rival.

* They say the government is attrociously inefficient and a bureaucratic nightmare. They point to the typically long lines of people applying for drivers licenses or car registrations at the Department of Motor Vehicles in most states.

* Some people are simply philosophically opposed to anything that expands the role of government. They are fond of saying that a government big enough to give you whatever you want is also capable of taking everything you've got.

As I said, on the surface, many of these arguments seem reasonable. But look more closely.

First, the government's running of mail and package delivery service in the form of the postal service did not stop other companies like Federal Express, United Parcel Service and other couriers from getting a foothold and thriving. What was once a virtual monopoly in the hands of government lost considerable marketshare to private industry. It could certainly be argued that those private companies are actually all the better for having to compete against the government.

Second, comparing a possible government run public health insurance program to most states' Department of Motor Vehicles is a false analogy. Every vehicle owner or driver is required to go through their department of motor vehicles and only there to obtain appropriate licenses and registrations. There is no private option. When it comes to health insurers, there are lots of options. The DMV analogy resonates with a lot of people because we all hate those long waits. But it is a smokescreen because it does not really apply.

Third, people who embrace the philosophy that the government that governs least governs best are not thinking things through. One example: only government can really look after the nations highway system. It would be a sad state of affairs if it did not. We all benefit because government does take care of our roads. Yet the government does not tell us where to drive or ration how much we can drive. We are at liberty to traverse any open public road available. It is still a personal choice. There are other examples that come to mind, but I won't mention them here.

I am not married to the idea of a government administered health insurance program. If the objectives of having such a program can be fully met in some other reasonsable way, I am fine with that. But that other way needs to be put on the table and discussed. Meanwhile, lets steer clear of scare tactics and false analogies to demonize the public option.

Unfortunately, it seems most Republicans and some Democrats are more interested in opposing any health care reform that contains a government administered health insurance program instead of offering a viable alternative. That is dead end thinking.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
June 19, 2009

Why Require Every Adult to Carrry Health Insurance

Before I begin, in the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that I spent four years of my life working in the insurance industry. Initially, I was an insurance agent and later became the agency coordinator for the Quaker Life Insurance Company in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Jim Inhofe, a current Republican senator from that state was the company president. But in those days, he was the mayor of Tulsa and had not yet gone to Washington.

One of the items that was an integral component of the health care proposals made by both John Edwards and Hillary Clinton was a mandate that all individuals have and maintain health insurance. This would be similar to the requirement for vehicle insurance that exists in most states. Naturally, the insurance industry supports such a mandate.

At first glance, one might think the insurance industry's support for requiring everyone to have health insurance would be motivated by the lure of big profits. Actually, that potential cannot be entirely ruled out. However, there is another, more important reason.

Insurance companies operate by collecting money from all their customers and paying claims to those who need them. The company decides what to charge their customers based on how much they expect to need to pay the claims. They spend a lot of time and effort on statistical analysis to balance keeping their respective company's policies competitive while still reaping a profit for their investors. This actuarial science is what separates insurance plans from fraudulent ponzi schemes.

Most of the health care reform proposals call for eliminating the right of insurers to exclude people or to charge them higher premiums because of their existing health insurance problems. This is desirable for everyone except the insurers. As has been mentioned, insurance companies make their money by collecting money from all their insured while paying out as little as possible. Those people who have health conditions that cost more to treat than they pay in for health insurance premiums actually cost the insurance company money. Currently, the only way to control this loss is for insurance companies to be able to exclude offering coverage to those people or to charge them much higher rates. This also provides provides something of an incentive for healthy people to lock in their health insurance before something adverse happens.

If you eliminate the right of insurance companies to exclude the unhealthy, then many healthy people will wait until their expected medical expenses are greater than than the insurance premiums before getting coverage. It makes perfect sense from a personal financial management perspective. But, it will bankrupt the insurance companies!

Only requiring everyone to have insurance as a matter of law whether they are healthy or not will enable insurance companies to remain in business even if they accept people with health conditions at the sames rates as everyone else. That will guarantee the insurance companies have the money to pay the claims for those who need it. You can argue the politics, but some things are what they are regardless of how you feel about it. You cannot make health insurance available to everyone without requiring it for everyone.

That's Wade's two cents!

Wade Houston
June 18, 2009

Stimulating Lies

I support a healthy debate. I believe in honest dialogue. But Republicans in the United States Senate and House are in many cases telling outright lies about the stimulus bill. Some keep repeating those falsehoods over and over with ever louder voices as though doing so would turn a lie into the truth. Chief among the lies they seem to be telling is that this bill will not keep or create jobs. Why?

I think they know that if you repeat a lie often enough some people begin to believe it. Since the American people gave control of both the legislative and executive branches of our government to the Democrats, the Republicans are shouting all the louder to make up for what they lack in numbers. They seem to be counting on the recession lasting well into 2010 regardless of what the government does. In that case, they expect the fickle voter will turn against those in power and reward the vocal opposition at the polls.

On the surface, this seems to be quite a gamble. If the stimulus should have a significant positive impact on the economy by mid 2010, the Republicans will have been definitively on record as having been on the wrong side of the issue. However, the American people are notoriously forgiving when everything turns out alright in the end. Perhaps that is what the GOP is counting on. I am cynical enough to believe they put their collective heads together and decided they have nothing to gain from bipartisanship. Partisan bickering may not cost them much in the end and holds the possibility of greater political reward.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
February 13, 2009

Why I Chose Not to Vote Early

The 2008 election is now over (except for a few runoffs). My state had one of the longest early voting periods in the nation. There was a lot of encouragement to vote early. I thought about it, but I held out. I did not vote until the final election day, November 4th.

Why did I wait? Well, it was not because of any indecision on my part. I knew I was going to vote for the candidates who came closest to my own position on health care. I knew those were all Democrats. I knew how I was going to vote a few months before the election. So indecision had nothing to do with my delay.

No, my issue was that I had little confidence in the early voting system in my state. Historically, there have been many instances of problems with counting absentee ballots. I was not convinced those difficulties had been resolved. Furthermore, for the non-absentee touch screen early voting, there was no paper trail. I wanted my vote to count and felt safest placing it in the mainstream of votes on election day. There was still no paper trail, but I had greater confidence the system would work smoothly that day. I was amused to see that the presidential candidates themselves waited until that final day to cast their own votes.

Since I had made a donation to Barack Obama's political campaign, I was on their e-mailing list. I kept getting one message after another encouraging me to vote early and to get others to vote early as well. I was considering putting my concerns aside and doing exactly that when the news reports started coming in of long long lines at the early polling places. Some in my state had to wait as long as seven hours to cast their votes.

At first I thought it was just temporary. After a few days of people voting early surely the numbers would taper off to a trickle with maybe a slight rise on the last early voting day. I was wrong! It became something of a feedback loop. The reports of such long lines made some people fear they needed to go ahead and vote lest they find the lines impossibly long on election day. So more people voted early making the lines still longer.

I pondered requesting an absentee ballot which could be mailed in but really hesitated because of the history of these ballots. Sure enough, in a few days it was in the news that faulty absentee ballots had been mailed out. The problem with these ballots was that the ovals were the wrong size and shape for the optical scanners to read. In Hamlet's words, "Oh, my prophetic soul!" New ballots were mailed out, but all those that had been marked and already returned were going to have to be manually transcribed onto new ballots.

(Here we are days after the close of the election and my state, Georgia, is still counting absentee ballots. The outcome of a U.S. Senate race is hanging in the balance. Perhaps by Tuesday the Georgia Secretary of State will be able to certify the election results.)

There continued to be issues with voting machines not working properly. Some of the voting machines were not properly calibrated and were registering votes for the wrong candidates. There were computer voter verification delays, etc. until the early election period finally ended. My hope was that all the kinks in the system got worked out. Maybe with all the normal polling places open on the regular election day there would be enough facilities in operation that the wait to vote would not be hours upon hours. I took that gamble.

I considered getting up early so I could be at the polls and in line by 6 a.m. Ultimately, I decided against that. I understand that others in my precinct who did go early had a wait of about an hour and a half. A local church serves as the polling place for my precinct and the poll workers had people queue through the pews in the sanctuary. People who waited until just before the polls closed also had to wait for a while.

I went to vote just before noon. If it had not been for the signs pointing where to vote, I would have thought the polling place had been moved. I experienced absolutely no wait to get my voting machine key card. After that, I actually spent more time trying to get through all the elections and issues on the ballot than I did waiting for an available machine.

I thanked the poll workers who volunteer their time and energies to make the operation work. I did not realize until recently that most of that work was voluntary. I am grateful to all those who voted early. They got their votes out of the way so my own voting experience went much more smoothly. (Gratitude feels so much better than any sort of guilt for the painlessness of my own voting experience.)

More needs to be done to improve the integrity of the balloting process in this country. We must have confidence in the way the will of the people is tabulated to believe that we really have "government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

We also need to do more to make voting less burdensome. My parents went to vote on one of the early days, but the line they encountered was about three hours long. With their health issues, that was not going to work. So, they went home.

Still, I am proud of our elections in this country. I am proud to be an American.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
November 8, 2008