Congressman Andy Barr at Lexington, KY Town Hall Obamacare v ACHA

Notes on KY 6th District Congressman Andy Barr Town Hall in Beeler Auditorium, Lafayette High School, Lexington, KY 4/24/17

I have been thinking about this meeting since I left it about 90 minutes ago.  The questions in my mind are why was it so raucous and is there any way it could have been different?  I will try to be as unbiased as I can, given that I was among the raucous.  The stated reason of having the town hall was to explain why he supports the American Health Care Act (ACHA) to replace current provisions of the American Care Act (ACA), known as Obamacare.  I suppose for as many as 2/3 the participants that would be reason enough to be raucous.  I am by no means justifying the noise.  However, there is something almost racist in the call for to repeal the ACA.  It appears that, if they could, Republican Leadership, symbolized by Senator McConnell, would erase “Barack Obama” from the list of presidents or give any credence to the overarching victory of enacting health care for Americans.  So it appears the Republican Leadership wants to steal Obama’s plum by reducing it's effect and giving ACA the H. 

Second, in his responses, Congressman Barr was unable to assure people that their concerns would be met to their satisfaction.  He repeatedly referred to the glowing but unsubstantiated remark in his presentation.  He was unable to answer or simply ignored calls for “Yes” or “No”.  He repeatedly said he is our Representative and is seeking our best interest and referred to the presented benefits of the ACHA which are no better than the so called “promises” of ACA that have not yet been met.  I call it hand waving or “smoke and mirrors”.  These are not criticisms just observations of why there might have been noise.  In short, I’d say he didn’t listen, he is tied to the ACHA as it was when it didn’t get to a vote and he desperately wants to be supported in that by his constituents.  The ones in Beeler Auditorium couldn’t do that. At one point he said “I don’t have to do this [town hall].

Apparently it hurts when a lot of people don’t appreciate the hard work he has done trying to meet the needs of Republican Leadership and his interpretation of the majority opinion of the 6th district as shown in the last election.  I'd say he genuinely sees himself as working with Democrats to find a compromise.  He says that is not like it was when the ACA was passed.  Dems just did it, he asserted. I just wonder how it was that Republicans didn't participate, their choice?  Maybe I could ask former Congressman Ben Chandler, ah that's past this is now.  I appreciate he believes that he is working across the aisle.

As a result House Republicans have brought forward a plan that attempts to mollify some Democrats while not giving in completely to the more conservative Republican members.  As a result Rep Barr is doing his best to sell it at home.  In his presentation he decried the shortcomings experienced thus far with ACA and lauded the presumed benefits of the ACHA.  Unfortunately, there was no acknowledgement of presumed less attractive aspects of the ACHA nor acknowledgment of the benefits of the ACA.  Nor was he able to address key questions head on with a guarantee that certain desired benefits experienced under ACA would remain under ACHA.  In fact the only thing the ACHC does is guarantee health care policies would be accessible, not that anyone would be able or willing to buy them.

From my point of view the advantages of the ACA are partially immediate and largely long term.  There are several forces that will have beneficial effects over a long term.  One complaint is the rising cost of policies under ACA.  We must recognize that we have injected many, but not yet all, uninsured into the insured category.  Since these people are likely to have untreated chronic conditions, it makes sense that claims would be higher among this class.  The Insurance industry provided low rates based on standard population data and the expectation of many healthy people joining the insurance pool.  Hence the rates had to climb to make it profitable for the Insurance Companies.  Economists would call this a market driven correction.

Such market fluctuations will taper off and, long term, premiums should drop as people become healthier in general.  But for health care coverage, as more become insured and the population becomes healthier, we may be expect a steady decline in dollars spent, reduced need per capita for emergency room use, insurance payments reducing loss to medical suppliers leading to lower overhead costs in those institutions and, finally, even steady or reduced premiums or even lower health costs.  These are just the more obvious to me as a casual observer.   That is if, as Andy might say, we let the market work.

There are other issues not addressed by the ACHA, such as the myth that we are not all interconnected.  When a young healthy person stays out of the insurance pool, those who are in it are left holding the health care system up at a higher cost so it is ready to care for him/her when he needs it.  We often ignore this aspect of our national society.  Repeated references to letting the states do it make me wonder if I could wind up in a third world hospital while traveling across the great USA.  Ah well, I guess this isn’t a simple question - this health care business - maybe I should leave it to the overworked and under staffed politician I didn’t vote for.  He doesn’t seem interested in hearing objections.  He just needs to make his boss happy.  Wait a minute aren’t I one of his bosses?  Hmmm, he doesn’t seem to think so.

Oh and I’ll just mention his ineffective attempt to color himself as Henry Clay.  His red face was more akin to Georgia clay.

Guns and America's Myth

In addition to the myth of the middle class, is the right to bear arms.  We would be as farmers in the French Revolution with their hay forks facing the black powder rifles.  Initially, the freedom to bear arms in the US Amendment to the Constitution came as a view to preventing Government from holding all the firepower, the National Guard was the State's army and the citizens of the state became the soldiers.  Now it is foolish to pretend that this right provides any such guarantee of our ability to liberate us from a truly overbearing government. The Government holds and manages not only firepower but also weapons of mass destruction. These deter any legitimate attempt to take government back by any group of people.  If you don't believe me, look at Wisconsin.  

But of course what's even more disturbing to many of us, is the claim we should be able to buy tanks and, I suppose, laser guided rockets, and other weapons of modern warfare.  And we who do not can trust those who do to protect us from an overzealous government, of course.  Right.  This logic scares me and my logic that I'd rather trust a government that I actively help elect seems to scare others.  I don't know the better answer but I hope we find one before our grandsons and granddaughters get caught in the crossfire.

The right to bear arms currently provides only the following potential outcome.  If the government stays out of a civil war, as they did in Egypt, then the ones most likely to lose in that civil war are those of us most likely to support the ones who are most hurt by the current system.  My belief is that more people who have what is termed "liberal" or "progressive" leanings are less likely to own guns.  I also believe that the very rich and the super Corporations, who seem to be doing very well right now, are more likely to to possess or have access to weapons.  

These are the same ones who have financed the recent "conservative" agenda.  Have you noticed how much money they have spent to elect friendly Tea Party types?  For some reason the Tea Party movement appeals to many who I believe with lose the most from their policies.  These are not the ones who have financed teh movement.  Instead it is mostly financed by major money, see a recent NY Times article on the Koch Brothers.  I guess some of the genuinely idealistic new Tea Party types haven't figured out they will just be cannon fodder when it comes to overthrowing the Democracy for a Plutocracy.   The rest are making sure they become part of the New Plutocracy.
 

I do not apologize for my stereotypical comments below but warn you that they are such.  I know there are many ways to argue the fallacy of stereotypes, but I also know that there is a grain of truth in the human experience as there is in both our perspectives.  Here is an exaggeration of my perspective. 

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. He drives a Hummer and there are AK-47's in the gun rack.  The reindeer are in the freezer ready for Christmas dinner.  The antlers are proudly displayed on the Hummer's hood and also at his hunting lodge nestled in the woods near the former coal cache known as the Appalachian Mountains. It's OK, you can sit in his lap. Yes, I know he's scary, but he's a good Christian. And honey, don't worry about the acid rain, it's worse in China.   Oh yes, there's a Tea Party bumper sticker on the back.  So next time you see King George III you'll see him with a Tea Party sticker on his lapel.  He's getting revenge.

Tea Parties and King George III

This is what generated the start of a blog - I was thinking last night about the state of affairs and I don't mean marrieds doing it with others to whom they are not married.  This gets more press and media attention than it's worth already.  No I mean the strange thought stream we Americans, oh, sorry, I apologize to the rest of the American continents, that is we US Citizens seem to be in that blames everyone else for the trouble we've seen. well I can see I'm starting another rant.  So here's the thoughts I had regarding Tea Parties and King George:

If I had a picture of George III, against whom some British-American Colonist citizens rebelled in 1773 by staging a raid on a ship throwing bales of tea into the Boston Harbor, I would post it with a title of the “New” Tea Party.  For, you see, while the current tea party favorites fashion themselves as contrary to big government and taxation they ally themselves with the very image of King George III – the major Corporate entities. It is they who now determine: the price of goods; who gets put into today's version of debtors prison; who represent “you” in this government.

You see, King George was only one of a line of kings that had come into power over the years as a result of the feudal system.  All the dukes and other “nobles” were constantly bickering, OK, raiding, raping, pillaging, and killing each other, vying to become the most rich and powerful in the land.  As years passed the vigorous prosecution of rape, plunder and pillage began to threaten the whole fabric of society as they knew it.  Therefore the lords of the feuds came together and agreed that they would all give allegiance to one king who would adjudicate disputes among them and presumably keep the status quo retaining stability and enhancing the ability to ward off threats from other cultures (like those nasty French and Germans).  

The analogy to these competitions over the last two centuries is the shift from independent farmers and businessmen to collectives and trades and large scale industries which are now in the process of congealing into the new kingdoms that span the globe, no longer limited to a geographical region.  Against these, Governments become mere regional inhibitors to their behaviors and that only to the extent that they cannot be convinced that what's good for business is good for the people, i.e., those having political influence or the ruling party.  

Yes, the Tea Party and allies in the Grand Old Party (Good Old Pals), have become the Lords guarding the banks and merchants of England who in 1773 advised King George to hide the tax on tea to teach the irresponsible colonists their proper place.  The current Tea Party has no respect for the millions whose farms have been replaced by factories no longer making anything, whose self reliance on their ability to provide for themselves has been replaced by allegiance to businesses that no longer exist and whose Government  is likely to remove their rights to collective bargaining for the wages and benefits necessary to life in a complex society.  The tax on tea was deliberately reduced by the Parliament for the colonists as an attempt to subvert the colonists' claim they were not obliged to pay taxes enacted by a Parliament in which they had no representation.  Ultimately their intent was for the colonists to pay the bill for the seven years war so the Lords in London who import the tea wouldn't have to.

Today's Tea Party movement is more about having the common citizens pay for the wars and reprehensible financing of America. I say common citizens because it's no longer the middle class. That is a label misapplied to those above poverty and below wealthy which account for maybe 30% of the US population instead of the 60-80% it used to be. According to the Business Insider on Yahoo Finance posted July 15, 2010, “the bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth.”  If the top 1% or 2% own 80% of the wealth that doesn't leave much of a middle class.  In my book the middle class no longer exists and it is only the political intent to avoid the truth that keeps us from saying so.  We have steadily transferred the wealth of the middle class to the hands of “Wall Street” in our mortgages and credit cards.  Now, many of us are facing the loss of our homes, many have already lost them.  The only ones left to buy them are those who don't need them.  Many of the new residents of our political houses now promote and press for policies that further enhance the economic station of those that have it, not those that have lost it.  I find that sad and self serving.    (more tomorrow)

Introductions

I am an older male, one of the first official baby boomers and like all of us a Chip off the old Cosmic block.  I grew up in a time when everything was getting better.  Looks to me as though that's no longer true from a comfort and consumer point of view. If you think of getting better as resulting not from creature comforts but from authenticity, honesty and self-awareness of our connection, then perhaps we are still progressing.  Many in my circle believe there is a new consciousness dawning.  This is what we like to hope. It still comes down to this - "We come into the world alone and we leave the same way.  What we do in between is up to us."  We can call it what we want - getting better, suffering, lonely, crowded, a mess, beauty unparalleled.

Once in a while I get upset, or grateful concerning what I see in the world.  Some of the stuff I come up with is deeply reflective and worthwhile, some of it is superficial and facetious.  Whatever you find it, I hope you'll find it helpful or disturbing.  Most of all I hope it will stir you to think about who you are and what you want to create in your life and even to take action to become or shall I say express, as in pressing out, more of your self.

Now that I've given you a little of my self perhaps you could give me and our one reader a little of your self.