Idaho Capitol Building

I spent 3 months interning for the House Democrats during the 2006 legislative session in Boise and had a great experience. I really love that building though I'm glad it's been remodeled. My office was in a windowless basement cave and I attended many committee meetings where there weren't enough chairs for more than 10 members of the public to attend. I can't wait make it back to Boise and see the changes they've made.

Health Reform

I have a confession to make: I'm burnt out on health reform. I know, it's terrible since I'm getting a PhD on the politics of health services. I don't know everything about health policy, but I know enough to realize that the debate has been twisted and distorted tremendously by both sides. What a complex issue! Suddenly, health reform turned into a debate about abortion; what a mess. I'm also hoping that we can finally put to rest the idea that health reform is a government takeover, that is a real big stretch.

As you have probably heard, 60 Senators have supposedly agreed to support health reform (the cloture vote is tonight at 1am). Although a major breakthrough, there are still many hurdles that have to be passed before a passed bill arrives on Obama's desk. The biggest question will be what compromises will come out of the conference bill between the Senate and the House. Does anyone know if the conference bill needs 60 votes as well, or is that step automatically skipped?

Although I'm a bit burnt out, I will be really interested to see what happens at this point. I don't know enough of the details to know whether I would prefer the House version (which includes a public option plan) or the Senate version (which doesn't include a public option, but does include an opportunity to buy into a privately run plan that is monitored by the same people who monitor the plan for federal employees). Either one seems fine to me.

Have you read David Brooks' latest column on health reform? I think it's one of the most balanced (brief) discussions I've seen. I agree with a rebuttal I read elsewhere that his arguments against reform aren't really that strong, but I still think people have some legitimate concerns.

Lamaze International

I was recently quoted in a parent.com article about our experience taking Lamaze-certified prenatal classes before Olivia's birth and the way it helped us feel prepared. Here's the link to the full article: http://features.parents.com/natural-birth-methods.html

Here's my quote:

“When my wife, Sarah, and I had our first child we felt we were in many ways better prepared than most. I was working on a master's degree in public health and she is a registered nurse. However, we had a lot of questions about pregnancy and the birth process, and we wanted to be able to make informed choices. Thus we signed up for and attended an eight-week childbirth preparation class with a Lamaze Certified Instructor.

“This instruction gave us more confidence in my wife’s body and ourselves. During labor, many things our Lamaze Instructor taught us were useful, such as the labor position my wife used: on her hands and knees. We were taught that she should move around and be in positions that were the most comfortable for her. My wife refused to have continuous fetal monitoring because she found labor so much more painful on her back. We also stayed home longer, because I felt more confident supporting my wife through early labor and thus she was never confined to a bed.” —David K. Jones, husband to Sarah Sacuto

Phish Fall Tour

It's so great to have Phish back! Here's a couple clips from one of their recent shows at MSG in NYC (no, we didn't make the trip). The above clip is the Rolling Stones song "Shine a Light," and the below clip is of their song "First Tube," (also from one of their MSG shows).




Sarah and I did get to the first show of the tour in Detroit (my 19th and her 2nd Phish shows). Thank you to our babysitters who made the evening possible! Here's a brief clip of the jam after the song "46 Days." There's nothing like the light show at a Phish concert!

Comments on public option

There have been a few interesting comments made in response to my post on the public option a few weeks ago. Thank you for your perspectives! I think the two Jeffs have posted very valid criticisms of the public option and it's kind of refreshing to be having the debate on this level instead of the death panel level. It's obvious now as I reread this post that I was swept up in the moment and wasn't thinking through all the examples perfectly clearly. Unfortunately there is no real good parallel withthe health care industry. The imbalances are so severe that it really doesn't seem like a market to me. In that respect, I think it's interesting/ironic that this is the main selling point used by democrats - that it will create competition for private insurance companies who often otherwise have none. Despite the irony, I still think it would be a good step.

As far as I can tell, this debate centers on two issues: 1) what is the role of government, and 2) is health care a right or a commodity. If you are skeptical of government's ability to solve problems and think of someone's ability to have quality health care as a commodity in the same vein as someone's ability to buy a nice house, then you are understandably opposed to the public option. If you think government is the ideal way to solve societal problems and you feel so strongly that everyone should be able to buy a nice house that you're willing to have the govt spend tax money on it, then you probably don't think the public option is enough.

I come down somewhere in the middle on both of these issues. I am cautiously optimistic that the government can play a positive role in alleviating suffering and helping people create opportunities and take advantage of them. But I share some of the concerns expressed by my friends that I don't think a "government takeover" of the health care industry would solve the problems. As much as I love Canada and admire aspects of their system, I don't think it would work in the US right now and I am glad we're not going that route. Although not specifically stated in our constitution, I lean closer to viewing health care as a fundamental right that everyone should have access to as opposed to strictly viewing it as a commodity. Just as I don't think everyone has a right to own a very nice house (to the degree that the government should give everyone a four bedroom home), I don't think everyone has a "right" to get as much health care as they want. But I do think everyone should have access to some basic level of services at an affordable price.

With this frame in mind, I think the public option is a good compromise solution that deserves a chance. There is no reason to trust the insurance companies will help keep costs low and provide some basic coverage. The fact that they're increasing their prices so dramatically right now because of fear of health reform strikes me as circumstantial evidence that they are committed to doing their job - maximizing profits. Believing that health care is more a right than a commodity, I don't think it's wise to completely rely on companies whose job is to make money by denying just enough services. I think a non-profit option should be included.

All that being said, I'll be honest (since I'm more an academic than a politician) that I understand the concerns expressed by the Jeffs and am sympathetic. I don't think it will be perfect and I don't think it will solve all the problems, and it won't do as much as it's advertised to do. I think it's better than the status quo and I'm afraid that without the public option we're much more likely to end up with the status quo. Even still, if the public option gets defeated from the final bill, I still really hope that the other reforms are passed and implemented.

Public Option

Heather Graham's sex appeal and the public option: effective?

AL East Champs

It's been a pretty long time since I've had something exciting to say about the Yankees, but as September turns into October I'm feeling optimistic for the first time in many years. As you probably know, over the weekend the Yankees clinched the division by sweeping the Red Sox at home. The question now is who they'll play. If Detroit holds on, then it's possible I'll get to see the Yanks in my new backyard during the first round. I love this video, showing the team in a fun mood last night as they gave Pena the silent treatment after he hit his first career home run. It seems like it's much easier to have fun when you're winning.

8 Years Later

For a week I thought about what I'd want to say on my annual post about 9/11 (can you believe it would have been my 5th year?). Ultimately, the most interesting thing I have to say is that I didn't really have anything interesting to say. Some might see that as emblematic of how quickly we've forgotten the dangers we face and how horrible 9/11 really was, but I see it as a healthy part of the healing process. I didn't feel compelled to search youtube for the worst videos I could find or revisit the photos. I didn't feel the need to cry this year. Even still, the subject almost surprised me in how it found its way into the talk I gave at church on Sunday (in our church, members take turns giving 15-20 minute lectures/sermons on various topics. Each person gets an opportunity every couple years depending on the size of their congregation). I shard my mom's axiom that "only good comes from God," to make the point that God doesn't cause the tragedies in our lives to teach us a lesson, although there are lessons to be learned in each tragedy and He is able to help us learn them. To some this might seem like splitting hairs, but it's an important distinction that liberates me from wanting to blame God for the bad things that happen to me.

If you're interested, you can read my previous 9/11 posts here: 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005.

Pres. Obama's Speech

After reading and watching the speech this morning, I thought Pres. Obama did a great job last night before Congress. I wish I could have watched it with some of my conservative friends so I could have heard their response. My experience has been that once I explain in simple terms what Pres. Obama is actually proposing (compared with what his opponents say he is proposing), they are generally impressed and seemed confused that there is so much controversy. As the President clearly said last night, in no way is he proposing a government take over of the entire health care industry. A Canadian-style single payer system would not work in America. What we want is choice and competition. What Democrats are proposing is that one of these choices include an insurance plan that would receive initial support from government funds but would otherwise be self-sufficient and paid for by premiums. First of all, despite what you'd think from watching Glenn Beck, a majority of Americans actually supports a public option. Even still, some very smart friends of mine have expressed concern that private companies couldn't compete on an even playing field with a government plan and that government would be overstepping it's bounds. I have four responses that usually alleviate these concerns:

1) Are you opposed to state-run public universities? Of course no one is. They provide a fantastic education at a fraction of the cost. Yet those who choose private universities are free to do so. Are you opposed to using a government run mail system to deliver your packages? Often it's cheaper, though you do have the option of using UPS or Fedex to take advantage of their particular services. Not only is there enough room for these private companies, but I suspect that their prices are lower because of the competition with the public company. As a result, consumers are better off.

2) I support a public option because I believe it will lower costs and increase access. Have you ever considered the job of an insurance company? They make money by not paying for services. Plain and simple. This requires tremendous administrative costs and overhead to deny claims, sometimes with disastrous consequences for people whose health care is delayed (as described early in Pres. Obama's speech). I have met many people who work at insurance companies, including some very powerful CEOs and I do not think they are bad people. They are businessmen and women who are doing their job to maximize profits. This is their legal responsibility to shareholders and their primary concern. In principle I am ok with that, but I would love to have an insurance option that operated as a not for profit with the mission of providing care instead of making money.

3) Let me say this third point carefully: A public option is nothing like socialism and not even close to a government takeover of health care. According to Pres Obama's speech, the CBO estimates that only 5% of Americans will sign up. But, if it does work well, and some people switch over from their private plans, that is fine with me. If everyone decided that the US Postal Service provided vastly superior service to UPS or FedEx, and these companies did not innovate, reduce costs, or improve services to compete with the public option, why would we want to protect their profit margins? I don't think we would and I don't think we should in health care either. Put another way, I think the strangest argument I've heard against the public option is that it will work so well that no one will want a private plan. I am not THAT optimistic about the plan, but if it does, why stop it?

4) Finally, I generally don't like to insert religion into these kinds of debates, but it's worth mentioning a scripture that has helped shaped my feelings. It describes a society using its prosperity to ensure that everyone was cared for. "And thus, in their prosperous circumstances, they did not send away any who were naked, or that were hungry, or that were athirst, or that were sick, or that had not been nourished; and they did not set their hearts upon riches; therefore they were liberal to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, whether out of the church or in the church, having no respect to persons as to those who stood in need," (Alma 1:30, Book of Mormon).

Obama before Congress

I am so relieved August is over and Congress is coming back into session so we don't have to keep hearing about these town halls in which moderate Senate Democrats are threatened with the judgment of God for wanting to increase access to affordable health care. Pres. Obama is scheduled to speak before a joint session of Congress next week to advocate a more detailed approach. Is it just me or does this sound a little like 1993 when President Clinton spoke to Congress in September of his first year to resurrect support for dwindling support on health reform and shift focus away from the economy. Although I support the creation of a public option, I hope President Obama doesn't wave his pen and threaten to veto any bill that doesn't not include it (that didn't go too well for Clinton).

Historic Win Against Spain

Last night the US Men's Soccer Team pulled off what might be considered one of the biggest wins in American soccer history. Having won the tournment for all North American, Central American, and Carribean countries last year, the US earned the right to play in this exclusive competition against the winners of each other continent, including Brazil, Spain, Iraq, Egypt, New Zealand, and world cup winners Italy.

The US got walloped by Brazil and Italy in their first two matches of the group phase, and to advance to the semi-final they needed the near impossible task of winning their last game by at least three goals and having Italy lose by at least three goals. Amazingly, the impossible happened as US beat Egypt 3-0 and Brazil beat Italy 3-0. Their reward was to play Spain, currently the highest ranked team in the world; a team that hasn't been beaten in over 35 matches, a period spanning multiple years. Once again, the US team did the impossible, beating Spain 2-0 with a gritty effort from many players, including important saves by Tim Howard in goal. Now it's on to the final against either Brazil or South Africa. No matter what, this tournment has to be considered a success for the US, a great preparation for next summer's world cup. It would be a mistake to get to confident however, as we did get trounced on pretty badly by Brazil and Italy.