Roseyland

I was going to tell you all about Villa Borghese and the ancient Roman ruins today, but who wants to hear about that? Instead, we can talk about politics, everyone loves politics. I made the mistake of listening to the radio the other day, and they were talking about something called Prop C. According to the voices on my radio, a vote for Prop C will save freedom, strengthen families, and prevent the impending socialist take over of our country. Awesome! I’ll take two.

Being slightly more serious for a second, you can read a good summary of Prop C at Ballotpedia.org here. Make sure you read the opposition section. I know it’s all the way at the bottom, but you can do it. Basically Prop C bans the government from mandating that individuals purchase health care or penalize individuals for not purchasing health care. Prop C is mainly a protest vote against the recently passed federal healthcare reform bill, and since federal law trumps state law, Prop C will accomplish little, if it passes.

If the Prop C supporters want to make it more interesting, they should propose a law that forces employers to reimburse employees who opt out of their employer provided group health care. I get great health insurance through my employer, and I feel very fortunate to have it. According to my employer, my health insurance cost around $450 a month. I pay none of that. I could opt out of the coverage, but I would not get to keep any of the $450. So basically my employer mandates that I either accept their group health care plan or I am essentially fined $450. Prop C aims to prevent the government from doing this to you, but if Prop C supporters were truly sincere in their intentions, they would also ban employers from mandating health care.

I know what you are thinking, you can choose your employer, so it’s not the same thing. I can see that point, but I highly doubt I could find comparable employment with a company that didn’t also effectively mandate health care coverage. Companies do this, because it’s a good plan. It provides excellent affordable health care to all employees and their families regardless of medical history or preexisting conditions. Is there anybody out there that doesn’t want this? Would you rather have an extra few hundred dollars in your paycheck and tell your coworker’s kid with asthma to suck it? Because that is what you would be doing, and it’s exactly what Prop C attempts to do.

I absolutely believe that group health care plans in the United States offer the best health care in the World. Unfortunately, a lot of people can’t get into a group plan and are denied coverage or have to pay much more for much less. We need to ensure that every citizen of this country can benefit from the structure and protections of group health care plans, and the only way to do this is to mandate health insurance. I don’t like being told what to do by the “guvermint” any more than anybody else, but your “freedom” to not have health insurance is also your freedom to go into medical debt bankruptcy and pass your debt on to society, or your freedom prevent someone who really needs it from obtaining coverage. I don’t want these freedoms.

In summary, Prop C is dumb, vote against it.

Now that health care reform is done, settled, and assured to never be an issue again (#sarcasm), I’m writing one last health care reform post. This debate has taken a toll on me. There are a few people out there whom I thought I would always hold in highest regard, and well, now I don’t. They probably feel the same way about me. Oh well, that’s life.

This is my problem. I love systems. I love to analyze systems. I like to break them down into parts, understand how the parts interact, and look for potential improvements. Few things make me happier than a clean elegant design. Not so simple as to be ineffective, and not so complex as to be inefficient. I don’t care who comes up with it, when I see a well designed system, I get excited.

Nothing excites me about the United States health care system. It’s ridiculously complex. Look at the chart above. The U.S. spends 45% more on health care than any other country. Our health care is not 45% better. No, seriously, it’s not. Don’t get me wrong, the U.S. has world class health care capabilities, but our distribution system sucks.

Most people in the U.S. get some form of group insurance from their employer. I contend that this is “socialized” health care, because everyone in the group pays the same rate regardless of their sex, age, or state of health. If you leave your job, you can continue your health care for up to 18 month under COBRA. If you are self employed or your employer doesn’t offer a group plan, you can buy an individual insurance plan. This will probably cost you more for less coverage, and if you have a pre-existing condition, you will likely be denied coverage. If you are over 65, you can get Medicare, which is a government run single payer system. If you are poor or have certain disabilities, you might be able to get Medicaid, which is a system run by individual state governments. There are a number of different insurance companies, and a number of different health care providers. Every employer negotiates it’s own rates with insurance companies, and every insurance company negotiates it’s own rates with health care providers. In addition, every state has a unique set of regulations that insurance plans must abide by. To summarize, in the United States, we have employer provided group insurance plans, individual insurance plans, COBRA, Medicare, Medicaid, and a big giant patchwork of regulations.

Do you know what the U.K. has? The National Health Service (NHS). None of this one plan for you, another plan for you, or one rate for this insurance company at this provider, and another for another. They have the NHS, and that’s it. It doesn’t matter how old you are, who you work for, or what health conditions you have, you are covered by the NHS. I am sure the U.K.’s system isn’t perfect, no system is, and I do not think the U.K.’s system would be a good model for the U.S., but…. You have to admit, the U.K.’s system is exponentially simpler than the U.S. system, and it essentially produces the same results. This is a big reason the U.K. bar on the chart above is nearly half the size of the U.S. bar.

If I were King of the World, and I should be, I would transition the U.S. away from employer provided health insurance. Employer provided group insurance plans are by far the best health care options in the U.S. I love the insurance my employer provides, and I feel very grateful to have a job I enjoy with an employer that can provide me with said insurance. Still, I would rather not have my health insurance tied to my employer, and I don’t think the fact that I work for a fairly large company means I deserve better insurance than someone who is self employed or works for a small business. We should work towards taking the structure and benefits of employer provided group insurance plans and extending them to the country as one big group. To me, this is by far the most rational and “common sense” approach. It keeps the best aspects of our current system and simplifies it at the same time.

The recently passed Health Care Reform Bill isn’t perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but at least it’s a step in a direction, which is actually pretty amazing at this point. I can’t say that it does much to simplify the current system, but it does fix the pre-existing condition issue and I am hopeful that the national insurance exchange will lead to nation wide group insurance plans similar to what large employers provide today.

The thing that’s frustrating about all this is that I get the feeling nobody really cares about anything I just said. Few people want to analyze our system, compare it to other systems, think of potential improvements, and evaluate the pros and cons. Most people just want to agree with the people around them. People are tribal, they perceive themselves as being members of a particular team, and that membership comes with a whole host of emotional entanglements. People love drama. People don’t make decisions based on a sincere attempt to understand reality, they just do what feels good. I realize that ranting about irrational and imaginary fears brings about certain emotional rewards, but those rewards have very real costs. I’m tired of paying those costs.

Okay, end rant. I’m never discussing healthcare again.

Hello everyone. Today is a big day. It’s my 100th blogging anniversary. Well, it’s my 100th post. That’s the same thing right? Regardless, this is a big deal, and I’ve decided to get you something. I know, I know, I shouldn’t have. It’s you who should be showering me with gifts and admiration. If it helps, consider this a gift for all of us to share. Without further ado, here it is:

Do you like it? I do. Boxing day is my new favorite holiday. I have no idea what Boxing day is, but judging from the picture above, it’s awesome. You are probably wondering where I got her, I mean it, the picture. I got it at istockphoto.com. That’s right, I paid for her, I mean it, the picture. Here’s another:

I think this picture is cool, but I can’t remember, are you supposed to walk towards the light or away from it? I was going to do this whole long post on where I find images for my blog, but then I thought that just posting a bunch of images would be more fun. I’ll give you the list version though:

• I feel like every post should have a picture. Pictures help set the mood and convey much more information than words alone.
• You can’t just grab any picture you want from the web and put it on your blog. You have to have permission from the content owner. Don’t steel, it’s bad.
• Whenever possible, I try to use my own images, but shockingly, I don’t have a picture of everything.
• If I can’t use my own picture, I try to find a creative commons licensed image. These are images that people allow you to use for free. There are different licenses, but most commonly the images are free for non-commercial use with attribution to the author. All of the images on my Flickr account are licensed under creative commons. The only thing I don’t like about creative commons is the attribution part. It isn’t exactly clear to me what attribution means. If it was just a link on the photo, that would be cool, but I think you are supposed to put a caption under the image, and captions suck. I’ve yet to find a caption scheme that I’m happy with. Currently I use tables, but the code for that is ugly. I feel like there should be a more elegant solution.
• When it comes to celebrities, or commercial products, or any type of image that is all over the web anyways, I just download the picture and use it. I don’t know if this is right or wrong, but if the image is everywhere anyways, I figure it doesn’t really matter.
• After all that, I’ve started using istockphoto.com. You have to pay for these pictures, but you don’t have to attribute them to anyone. It’s feels weird to pay for a picture, but the photos in this post only cost a $1.50 each. I certainly waste more money on less important things. Plus, I love browsing the images. Its fun. Seriously, you should try it.

Here is another picture. I already have lots of pictures of a cat, but I thought this image was particularly striking.

Here is a political picture for you. It’s a tea party with Alice and the Mad Hatter. Hmm. The Mad Hatter is crazy. A crazy person at a tea party. Interesting.

Just for fun, I thought I’d throw in the meaning of life, which is clearly defined in the equations below. I’d explain it, but it’s so obvious. I don’t want to insult your intelligence.

I both love and hate this next picture. I love Buddhism and the whole complex human relationship with spirituality and suffering and stuff. This image would be an awesome illustration of all that, except that it’s fake. The problem with a lot of istockphoto.com images is that they usually use models. Which is fine for some things, but I can tell that the woman in this photo is striking a pose rather than expressing any real experience. That sucks, because if this was a real picture, it would be amazing.

One more image just because I love you. You’re welcome.

See, sometimes models are good. This post cost me $10.50. I think that makes it my most expensive post ever. I doubt I’ll use istockphoto.com images very often, but it’s a nice option to have, if you can’t find the perfect picture any other way. So, what did you get me?

Wikimedia Commons : ChrisnHouston

Yesterday I blogged about what I would change in the U.S. Government if I could. Today, I’m going to talk about the answer a lot of other people would give. Eliminating the Electoral College. In case you don’t know, and seriously, you should know, but in case you don’t, the Electoral College is how the United States elects a President and Vice President. Each State is given one elector for each Senator and Representative in the House. Washington D.C. get’s three electors. There are 538 electors in total. Each State decides how to split up their electoral votes depending on the popular vote in that State. Most states use a winner take all system, where whichever candidate wins the popular vote wins all of the State’s electoral votes. So, if a candidate wins a large state with a slim margin in the popular vote, he or she still takes home a large number of electoral votes. This is how George Bush was able to lose the popular vote by 500,000 in the 2000 election, but still win more electoral votes and thus win the election.

Many people believe that George Bush stole the election in 2000 because of our flawed electoral college system. This isn’t really fair though, because candidates campaign to win the most electoral votes. Had George Bush been campaigning to win the popular vote, it is entirely possible that he would have done so. Of course Al Gore wasn’t trying to win the popular vote either, and yet he managed to do it. Regardless, the point is, we don’t know what would have happened in a popular vote election.

I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who didn’t think the Electoral College should be eliminated. It’s just that it takes a constitutional amendment to change it, and it hardly ever makes a difference anyways, so why bother? The Electoral College does have it’s good points. It is supposed to protect the rights of small states. Which I think is a fair argument. There is a lot of group think going on in elections. I think most people vote for who their peers vote for, rather than making up their own mind. Just because some groups have more people in them, doesn’t make their opinions any more valid.

All in all, if it were up to me, I would probably eliminate the Electoral College. It doesn’t actually do much to protect the rights of small states, and to a small extent, it undermines the credibility of our democracy. It is interesting to think about how Presidential elections would change if we went to a popular vote system. Under our current system, candidates spend a vast majority of their time in a few key swing states, while a lot of other states are completely ignored. If we went to a popular vote system, I imagine that candidates would spend most of their time in major population centers, and the more rural areas would be ignored. This would probably be an improvement, since candidates would have to pay attention to a lot more of the country.

Wow, you have no idea how boring this blog post is. Oh wait, yes you do, you just read it. Why didn’t you stop and do something better with your time. I’m sorry. You have no idea how many times I stopped while writing this and thought, oh God, this is so boring, just post a Haiku or something. Oh well, at least I checked another NaBloPoMo day off. I’ll post pictures of my cat tomorrow. Everybody loves cat pictures.

Once upon a time, I was senior in High School. As a senior, I had to take a class called American Government. In my high school, everyone was required to take American Government as a senior, which sucked. The nice thing about senior year was that different types of people had self selected themselves onto different paths. Some of us were taking AP classes and applying to college, and some of us were doing other things. American government was the exception to this though, because it threw us all back into one big collective high school student pot. Wonderful. Do I come off snobbish in this paragraph? Oh well, just calling it like I vaguely remember it.

None of what I just said is important. What is important is that in American Government, we learned all about the constitution and the legislative process. At the end of the class, our teacher asked us what change we would make to our government, if we could. My answer at the time was pretty lame. I think I said that I would give Washington D.C. a senator and house representative, since D.C. had no representation in the U.S. congress, which does seem unfair.

Today I have a better answer. Prepare yourself, are you ready to digest my radical ideology??? Wait for it… If I could change one thing about the United States government, I would eliminate the primary election system. For all national elections, there would be a run-off election in May. In this election, every voter would vote among every candidate. There would be no partisan elections. Then, the top two candidates from the run-off election would move on to the general election in November.

This solves a few problems. First, we no longer have the third party candidate problem. I hate the fact that people are forced to choose between the candidate they love, and the candidate they just like, but has a realistic shot of being elected. Under this new plan, you can vote for whomever you want in the run-off election to let your voice be heard. Then, in the general election, you choose the remaining candidate you like the most. If the remaining candidates are two republicans, fine. If they are two democrats, fine. If they are two independents, fine.

Another benefit to this plan, in my mind at least, is that it gives the most power to the moderate majority of America. Under the current primary system, the most conservative segment of society chooses one candidate, and the most progressive segment chooses the other. Then the rest of us are left to choose between two extremes in the general election. If we had a run-off election system, we could choose between two different but moderate candidates. This would do wonders for our sanity.

To be fair, I think our system works well, it could just be better. In my probably biased view, most Democratic candidates are actually fairly moderate. The Republicans on the other hand, ehh, not so much. John McCain is fairly moderate, and would have been a decent President. Sarah Palin on the other hand? She’s a whack job. I should probably say something more diplomatic, but sorry, that’s how I see it. I feel like today’s moderate Republicans are being held hostage by the tea partiers. This is unfortunate, and I believe our country would benefit from a system that prevents these unhealthy relationships.

So, what do you think? Am I crazy? I mean because of this blog post, not because of anything else you may have read (or heard, or witnessed). If I could change another thing about the American government, I would probably eliminate the electoral college. Which is an interesting thought experiment. How would U.S. elections change if there was no electoral college? Maybe I’ll blog about that tomorrow.

I always have trouble coming up with Christmas gift ideas for myself. What can I say? I have everything I need. Well, at least I thought I did, until I came across this Facebook fan page. This year for Christmas, I want high speed rail service between St. Louis and Chicago. By high speed, I mean 220 mph with a two hour trip time. No need to wrap it. You can find more information at the Midwest High Speed Rail Association page.

I’ve be a fan of all forms of rail transportation for a long time. I love big cities where you can take the subway/metro/L/tube anywhere. Few things would make me happier than being able to take the Metrolink to work. I also recently took a train from London to Paris. You might have read about it here. It was awesome. So much better than an airplane for regional travel.

A great annoyance of mine is that Chicago is so close, yet so far away. It’s a 5 hour drive, which is just a little too long, plus traffic and parking in Chicago is hell. Chicago is only a 1 hour flight, but you have to leave for the airport 2 hours ahead of time, then fly in a cramped airplane, then wait for your luggage, and then take a 45 minute taxi or L ride downtown. Door to door, traveling from St. Louis to Chicago by air takes about 4 hours. Boooooo!

A train to Chicago would be perfect. You would only have to leave for the train station 1 hour (at most) before the departure time, the trip would take 2 hours, and since your luggage stays with you and the train takes you right downtown, once you are there, you are there. A three hour trip. Okay, so I might have idealized the situation a little bit, but even if the train isn’t that fast, the experience of riding a train is so much better. You can get up and walk around, the food is better, the food selection is better, the view is better. Dude, the train is awesome.

Okay, so now you know what I want for Christmas. I don’t ask much of you, so please just get me what I want this year, okay? Also, I’ll be needing a gift idea from you. I’m not psychic you know.

I have a thing for documentaries, and possibly my favorite documentary ever is Jesus Camp. Jesus Camp follows the lives of a group of children from evangelical christian homes. A lot of the documentary focuses on a summer “Jesus” camp the children attend.

I’ve always been fascinated by evangelical religion. Not being that religious myself, evangelical religion is very foreign to me. I like to think that I can always understand another person’s perspective and why they feel the way they do, but evangelicals are a tough nut to crack. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll all about the importance of community, and incorporating some sense of spirituality into your life, but I don’t get blind faith. I can’t shut off the logical/rational side of my brain. I need my beliefs to be compatible with factual reality.

I could ramble on about evangelical religion forever, but we don’t have time for that. In this post, I want to focus on my favorite scene from Jesus Camp. This scene isn’t even in the movie, it’s a deleted scene, and it’s awesome. Check it out:

Let’s recap what we just saw. The leaders of the camp have called a meeting to discuss contingency plans in the event that any of the children become possessed by demons. I imagine if you are running a summer camp, you have to have a lot of back-up plans. You know, things like what to do if it rains, what if one of the kids gets sick, oh, and also, what if the children become possessed by demons. Because you know, that could happen. I think what I love most about this clip is the way nobody is surprised when the head pastor announces that they will probably have to deal with “demonic manifestation”. It looks like there are about 15-20 people in that room. You would think at least one person would be like “wait, wait, this is a joke right?”, but no, they all act like this is a completely normal meeting. Given that nobody thinks this is a joke though, why aren’t they more freaked out? I mean if I believed in demonic possession, and someone told me it was likely to happen, I’d probably lose my cool a little. Aren’t demons supposed to be fallen angels who follow Satan? That sounds bad.

Another thing I want to point out in this scene is the description of a demonically possessed child. In the words of “Uncle Leon”, a demonically possessed child might be “a child doing funny things with their hands or whatever”. Dude, demonically possessed children are EVERYWHERE! It’s an epidemic worse than the swine flu, from now on, I’m throwing holy water on every child I see. Better safe than sorry.

I’m going to leave you with one more scene from Jesus Camp. I’ll let it go without comment, because well, I wouldn’t know where to begin.

I got things I want to say. Here they are:

• Look! It’s a picture of a cat being all cute! This will probably be your favorite part of this post.

Never before have so many known so little about so much.

I saw the line above in this article by Daniel Gross. It’s a play on a Winston Churchill quote, and I think it describes the current health care debate perfectly. A few weeks ago I was definitely in the “knows so little” category, and I probably still am, but I have made an attempt to learn more. I know that I am strongly in favor of health care reform. I discussed health care a while ago in this post, but let me summarize my general beliefs:

• Insurance companies should not be allowed to discriminate based on the health of individuals. There should be a nationalized set of standards/regulations that govern all health care sold in the United States. This does mean that health care cost is spread out over people with varying degrees of health. I am fine with this.
• Everyone who can afford health insurance should be required to purchase it.
• Caps on maximum benefits paid by insurance companies should be eliminated.
• A basic level of health care should be provided to those who can’t afford it.
• Health insurance should be decoupled from employment.

I don’t believe that we should completely reinvent the wheel. We need to adjust our health insurance business model to better align profits with benefits to society. We can not continue with a system that denies care to those who need it most and allows so many people to go bankrupt due to medical expenses. This only hurts us all whether we realize it or not.

Right about the time people started hysterically screaming about death panels, I figured that I should try to understand just what was in the currently proposed health care bills. I did some Googling, and I found the article Your Handy Health Care Cheat Sheet by Alec MacGillis in the Washington Post. This article is a great summary of the proposed health care bills. Let me summarize the summary, the health care bills currently before congress include:

• A national health insurance exchange or market place where different health care plans can be easily compared. Initially this will only be for people who do not get health care through their employers. Insurance companies are not required to put their plans on the exchange, and individuals are not required to buy on the exchange. However, anyone getting a subsidy to purchase health care can only use it on the exchange (I think). All insurance plans, whether they are on the exchange or not, will have to abide by the same regulations, such as not discriminating based on an individual’s health. For a better description of what the health care exchange might look like, check out the New York Times article A Health Insurance Exchange: The Fine Print by Anne Underwood.
• Individuals who can afford it will be required to purchase health insurance or pay a fine/tax.
• Subsidies will be provided to those who can not afford health insurance.
• Some of the bills include a public plan on the health insurance exchange and some do not. This is the most controversial item.

All in all, I’m pretty happy with the bills before congress. They mesh well with my beliefs except for the decoupling of health insurance from employment, but I could see that happening in the future if the exchanged was opened up to everyone. I’ve been back and forth on the public plan a million times. On one hand it is a good way to ensure that that all insurance plans on the exchange meet basic standards. On the other hand, I don’t think it’s completely necessary and we could always add it later. If I had to choose, I would prefer a public option, but I think it would be dumb to let this point prevent the passage of meaningful health care reform.

So what about the alternative plans? I did some searching, and the first alternative plan I came across was The Patients’ Choice Act. I read the summary, and it sounded like a decent plan to me, but then I read this analysis of the act. Apparently, the Patients’ Choice Act doesn’t require insurance companies to participate in the the health insurance exchanges that it sets up, but it only regulates the insurance plans that do participate, which makes the exchanges pretty much pointless and provides no protections for people with preexisting conditions. It looks like this plan is a lot of talk and little action. I’m going to count this as a big FAIL.

The more interesting alternative is the idea of high deductible insurance mixed with some type of health savings plan. In these plans, individuals pay for the first few thousand dollars of their health care before insurance kicks in. Often times employers that offer these plans also make contributions to their employees health savings plans to cover some of the out of pocket cost. The idea is that since individuals are spending their own money, they will make more fiscally responsible health care decisions, which will drive down cost. At the same time, individuals still have insurance for protection from large unexpected health care expenses. A big proponent of these plans is John Mackey the CEO of Whole Foods. He wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal titled The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare, which I consider a must read. So go read it. Other good articles advocating for these types of plans are How American Health Care Killed My Father by David Goldhill and How to Fix the Health-Care “Wedge” by Arthur B. Laffer.

There is a lot to like about these plans. I definitely know people who treat their employer provided health insurance as some type of all you can eat health care buffet. When you don’t pay the bills, there isn’t much incentive to spend responsibly. However, I ultimately feel that these plans fall short. For one, the most fiscally responsible health care decision is not necessarily the most healthy health care decision. Another issue is that, to my knowledge, no other country has tried these types of plans on a large scale, so we don’t really know how well they will work in the real world. I think some version of these plans could be work, but most of the people advocating for these plans are also asking for much less government regulation. Meaning that people with preexisting conditions will have no protections. In his op-ed, John Mackey says:

Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care—to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?

To be honest, I almost agree with John Mackey. I don’t really believe in intrinsic human rights, but health care isn’t about human rights. It’s about infrastructure. We have a habit of taking things like public education, national defense, transportation networks, communication networks, etc… for granted, but it’s this infrastructure that provides a stabilizing force for our communities and holds our society together. Health care should be a part of this infrastructure. It isn’t about giving anyone some sort of “entitlement”, it’s about ensuring that nobody is held down by forces out of their control. There is too much lost potential in this country, and we are all paying the price.

I think a lot of people are wondering why we need any reform at all. Most of us, me included, have excellent health care under the current system, so why change? For the answer to this question, I would refer you to the article The Most Outrageous U.S. Lies About Global Healthcare in Foreign Policy magazine. Here is an excerpt from the article:

There is one yardstick by which U.S. health care distinguishes itself: cost. The United States spends more — in total dollars, percentage of GDP, and per capita — than every other country on Earth.

On virtually every other broad metric, the claim that U.S. health care stands for global excellence is demonstrably false. The United States doesn’t take a top spot in either the World Health Organization or nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund rankings. The American health-care system is not best in terms of coverage, access, patient safety, efficiency, or cost-effectiveness. It does not produce the best outcomes for diseases such as cancer, heart disease, or diabetes; for the elderly, the middle-aged, or the young; or in terms of life expectancy, rates of chronic diseases, or obesity.

Which countries do come out on top? Often — France, Switzerland, Britain, Canada, and Japan. On the World Health Organization’s list, the United States comes out 37th.

We spend the most, and we come out 37th. I find this a little embarrassing and I’d like it fixed.

Admittedly, after reading all this, it still isn’t clear to me what the magic solution is. Of course there is no magic solution, and no system will ever be perfect. I do however find comfort in the fact that Switzerland and the Netherlands have recently moved to a health care system a lot like what is being considered by our congress. I also hear that Japan has a similar system. I’m not saying that we should just follow some other country, but these are countries with similar economies and standards of living. I think we would benefit from a few lessons learned by them.

If you were wondering what my thoughts on health care are, now you know. I think it’s abundantly clear that we need reform, and serious reform, not just a little window washing. I’m also very supportive of the plans currently before congress. They aren’t simple or easy solutions, but they are well thought out and backed up by the experiences of other industrialized countries. I hope that we don’t let political ideologies or just plan craziness stand in the way of taking a significant and much needed step forward.

Other things I wanted to include in this post but didn’t include:

• This American’s Experience of Britain’s Healthcare System <– This is a great blog post, you should read it.
• This summary of health care systems around the world at Electoral-Vote.com
• The book The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care <– I haven’t read this book, but I saw the author interviewed on BBC America World News, and it sounds very interesting.
• This cartoon video gives a good and fun to watch description of why we need health care reform. It proposes a more government run solution than I think is practical for the US, but it still makes some good points.

In my heaven, there is a special room where you can punch Glenn Beck in the face. It’s very popular. The room is fairly simple. It contains Glenn Beck and a button. When you press the button, Glenn Beck says something like, “I’m not saying Obama is racist, I’m just saying he has a deep-seated hatred of white people”. Then you punch him in the face. After you punch Glenn Beck, he falls to the ground and has a sudden moment of realization where he truly feels the consequences his words and actions have on other people. When you press the button again, he jumps right back up and says something else stupid, and you can restart the whole process. To be honest, it isn’t the “real” Glenn Beck. It’s just a very realistic simulation. The “real” Glenn Beck isn’t allowed in my heaven. Not even as a punching bag.

A quick disclaimer. We here at Roseyland do not advocate punching anyone or violence of any form. We’ve never punched anyone in real life and we don’t think you should either. We are just trying to be funny, and the thought of Glenn Beck getting punched in the face is hillarious. But don’t do it.

Here in the United States we are in the middle of a raging debate on the future of health care in our country. This is where half of the country sees major flaws in our current systems an tries to fix them, and the other half tells old people they are going to be euthanized. Apparently some people see such radical ideas as decoupling healthcare from employment and making it possible for people with pre-existing conditions to get healthcare as the first steps toward the total annihilation of all good.

The craziness of the healthcare debate has sent my mind off in a million different directions, but the thought I keep coming back to is: What motivates people like Glenn Beck and his followers? I wish I could just say that they are all stupid, and to be honest, that is part of the answer, but it’s not the whole answer. I think the sad reality is that we are all addicts. We are addicted to feeling good. Unfortunately, feeling good does not equal doing good. Do you watch Penn & Teller’s show Bullshit on Showtime? You should. Penn & Teller did a great show on world peace that you can watch here –> (part1, part2, part3). Yeah, you probably didn’t watch it, but if you had, you would have seen Penn & Teller make a convincing argument that many anti-war organizations like Code Pink accomplish nothing more than providing extracurricular activities for crazy people. In other words, they are all about feeling good, and little about doing good. This same statement can be said of any number of activist groups for any number of causes on both ends of the political spectrum. Ultimately, Glenn Beck’s followers are no different than the hippies of Code Pink.

There is nothing wrong with feeling good, the problem is we confuse feeling good with being right. Lots of things can make you feel good. Drugs and alcohol can make you feel good. Being on team can make you feel good. Being popular and loved can make you feel good. Having your emotions stirred can make you feel good. Sex can make you feel good. Religion can make you feel good. Unfortunately, none of these things will make you right. If you want to be right, you need balanced solutions determined by significant amounts of analytical study and critical thinking. I’ll admit that rational thought doesn’t have the same thrill as evangelical mob mentality, but it does far more good and leads to real progress. People like Glenn Beck are drugs that offer easy ways to avoid our problems and feel morally superior doing it, but we all know that drugs don’t solve anything. They only create more problems. Just say no.