Those were the days my friend. We thought they’d never end.

History is about  “what happened.” Politics is too often about what politicians want you to think happened. If you think that Obamacare is a problem because government has done too much, what did you think about those days when government did too little about insurance companies?

Anyone old enough to read this is old enough to remember those days. It was not that long ago that health insurance companies canceled policies willy-nilly whenever someone actually got sick or denied coverage altogether if an applicant had a hint of a “pre-existing condition.”

Think getting on healthcare.com is tough. Remember the days when you had to call a variety of companies, meet with agents, decipher sales pitches, read the fine print on brochures and pray their jive matched the legalese crafty lawyers wrote into the policy itself.

Those were the days my friend. We thought they’d never end.

Before the Affordable Care Act, the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations actually investigated insurance company fraud and abuses. A committee investigation in 2009 showed that one health insurer canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period. The committee proved some insurers “targeted policyholders with breast cancer, lymphoma and more than 1,000 other conditions…for rescission and that employees were praised in performance reviews for terminating the policies of customers with expensive illnesses.”

In the not so distant past, it was the national pastime for insurance companies to hire doctors to search your medical records when you filed a claim. They were looking for any little event on which they could hang a claim that you had been less than fully honest about your medical history.

One of countless examples was uncovered, as many were, in a courtroom, the only refuge in those days for people who had been badly mistreated by an insurance company. The LA Times reported an employee of California Blue Cross (now Anthem Blue Cross, a subsidiary of WellPoint Inc.) testified his company “routinely canceled policies of sick members after looking for inconsistencies—not fraud—in their applications.”

Some insurance companies were found to have paid bonuses to employees who found reasons to cancel policies when a policyholder dared to actually get sick and file a claim.

Those were the days my friend. We thought they’d never end.

In the days before the ACA, simply being a woman was a pre-existing condition allowing insurers the opportunity to discriminate in premium rates, claims handling, and policy cancelation. “Please keep up the good work with the marketing reps of not trying to sign up pregnant women.” That 2001 “thank you” email was sent to company managers by Amerigroup Corp.’s medical management head in Illinois.

In 2008, the NY Times reported, “Striking new evidence emerged of a widespread gap in the cost of health insurance, as women pay much more than men of the same age for individual insurance policies providing identical coverage.”

Under the ACA, insurance companies are required to actually spend most of your premium dollars on your health and not their own welfare. Not so in the good old days. In 2003, Peter Babin, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana’s CEO, could get by calling legislators and their constituents “petty” when they complained about his $1.4 million dollar compensation package. 

And what was to complain about when premiums increased as he received dog-sitting services, first-class travel for him and his wife, and a $2,500 annual dining expense account.  

Today and as a result of Obamacare, companies with excessive administrative costs must refund the excess to their policyholders.

Memory loss is a terrible problem among politicians and those who elect them. Forgetting history is what allows it to be repeated. Some politicians rely on our ability to forget even recent history. The next time you hear a complaint about Obamacare or its website, ask the complainer to recount what life was like in the good old days of a year or two ago.

Why are we paying multi-millionaires to serve in Congress?

Congressional leaders have begun acclimating voters to “means-testing” Medicare and Social Security. It’s a bipartisan conspiracy to set us up for the inevitable.

The Senate’s number two Democrat, Richard Durbin said, “I think (means testing is) reasonable and consistent with my view that our taxes as well as our programs should be progressive.” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Montana) said he considers Medicare means testing “somewhat attractive.”  

In the past, both senators Mike Enzi and John Barrasso have voted for applying means testing to Medicare.  House Speaker John Boehner is willing to apply the concept to social security.  "If you have substantial non-Social Security income while you're retired,” Boehner said, “why are we paying you at a time when we're broke?"

Those who paid into these programs should ask Boehner and the others, "If you have substantial outside income while you're a member of Congress, why are we paying you at a time when we're broke?"

Why are we paying salaries to multi-millionaires so they can serve in Congress? If means testing makes such good sense for the elderly, why isn’t what’s good for the goose not also good for the gander?

Seriously. These folks refer to themselves as “public servants.” But the net worth of the “public” they claim to “serve” dropped 8 percent during the past six years, while the “public servants” in Congress got, on average, 15 percent richer, according to a New York Times analysis of financial disclosure.  Their net worth is $913,000, compared with about $100,000 for the country at large. Most are richer now than when they were first elected. Almost half of them are millionaires, while only 5 percent of us can say the same.

Cynthia Lummis’ 2010 disclosure reported her net worth between $5.5 and $24 million, ranking her 29th richest member of the U.S. House.

Lummis’ reported wealth exceeds that of both Senators John Barrasso and Mike Enzi. The Center for Responsive Politics ranked them as the 34^th and 66^th wealthiest senators, respectively. 2010 statements filed with the Senate clerk show Barrasso's net worth between $2.7 and $8.7 million. Enzi is a piker at between $440,067 to $1,878,000. 

Compare their numbers to yours. The median 2010 Wyoming income was $51, 371, down nearly 5% over the last three years. The 30 wealthiest members of Congress report a combined total of more than one-and-a-third billion dollars in assets, greater than the total GNP of 57 sovereign countries.

And they want to means test the rest of us? Plans to do so are gaining steam in Congress. David John of the Heritage Foundation says one plan under consideration targets individual retirees with more than $55,000 of non-Social Security retirement income. Their monthly benefits would be reduced 1.8% for every $1,000 income over $55,000. Non-Social Security retirement incomes of $65,000, would see an 18% reduction. Retirees with income over $110,000 would receive no Social Security benefits.

Why not apply the same notion to those who want to apply it to us? Why should, for example, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) who is worth $355 million be paid another $174,000 per year by taxpayers, using John Boehner’s words, “at a time when we're broke?" Ask the same question of Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) whose worth is $101.9 million, or Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) at $88.5 million, or Sen. John D. Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), $83.8 million, or Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), $76.6 million.

Why should taxpayers pay $174,000 to Rep. Lummis who is worth as much as 24 million dollars?  By the time you get down the list to Barrasso at $2.7 and $8.7 million or Enzi’s at between $440,067 to $1,878,000, the law could provide the same scale as congress now imposes on social security recipients under 66. For every dollar net worth over, say 5 million, they’d lose one dollar in congressional salary.

Seems like a reasonable sacrifice for those who say we need to sacrifice. But to jumble an old adage, “them that makes the rules get the gold.”

Turn out the lights and vote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3xsDv6yCnY

Political reformers and First Amendment advocates are always calling for more openness in the legislative process. “Let the sunshine in” they cry. Did you ever ask yourself whether we might end up with better laws if there were less sunshine?

An early December vote in the US House is an example. Using a procedure that prevents constituents from knowing which Republicans voted in favor of a ban on plastic guns, the House extended the Undetectable Firearms Act for another ten years Tuesday. The law, banning weapons that cannot be detected by airport x-ray equipment, is the only gun legislation to get a vote in the U.S. House this year. If a roll call vote had been required, do you really think the GOP controlled House would have allowed a vote?

Less sunshine on the legislative process actually produced a beneficial result. 

A 2012 Center for Public Integrity report ranked Wyoming 48th out of 50 states when it comes to accountability in state politics. The failing grade was mostly attributable to the lack of regulation of conflicts of interest and inability of citizens to access financial disclosure information about legislators.

Yet there is another perennial proposal some reformers think would enhance the credibility and accountability of Wyoming’s legislature. With great frequency they propose electronic voting as a means of providing voters with better information about how their legislators vote on all matters.

Consider the US House vote on the plastic gun ban and ask whether a similar cloak of secrecy might not produce a better result on any number of issues, particularly social issues.

I recall the early days of the abortion debate. It was the early 70s and I served in the Wyoming House with Al Simpson when one of the first bills seeking to undue Roe v. Wade was debated. The rhetoric was heated. The galleries were packed. As time to vote neared, Al rose to his feet and said something to the effect of, “I suspect I know how this vote will go. However, it would be a far different result if we were to cast our votes with the lights turned off.”

Nothing has changed. With the lights out, there would be little doubt the legislature would reject some of the rightwing bills attacking women’s reproductive rights. What’s true for abortion is just as true for same-sex marriage. Many legislators understand the meaning of equal protection and civil rights. They know the law that denies homosexuals the government benefits available to heterosexual couples is wrong. They don’t buy the argument that a loving relationship between people of the same sex threatens any “traditional” marriage. But, they are unwilling to risk the wrath of a minority.

Today the odds of marriage equality clearing either house of the legislature are slim to none. But if the lights were turned out for the vote, I’d give you even money that the bill would pass.

Darkness may not be a good substitute for political courage, but without it, terrorists would be able to board airliners with plastic guns in their pockets.  I’d sacrifice the right to know how my legislator voted for the right result. Knowing how they voted hasn’t made them accountable anyhow.

Both parties don't "do it!"

“Both parties do it” is shorthand for, “I’m not willing to do my own thinking.” It’s just easier to blame everybody rather than dig into the facts and take the time to think critically.

Even brief reflection and study will lead to the conclusion that there is a considerable difference between what the two parties do and believe. One party embraces diversity, encourages tolerance, demystifies capitalism, and accepts science. The other doesn’t.

US Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) hit the trifecta when asked about his favorite scripture. “My favorite is Genesis 8:22 which is ‘as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night,’ you know, God’s still up there. There’s another which I should’ve mentioned, the smartest thing the activists did is try to get the evangelicals on their side, so they hired a guy named Cizik. He’s been exposed to be the liberal that he is. The other scripture I use quite frequently on this subject is Romans 1:25, ‘They give up the truth about God for a lie and they worship God’s creation instead of God, who will be praised forever.’ In other words, they are trying to say we should worship the creation.”

Relying on Genesis 8:22 (Noah and the flood) to reject climate change science, allows Inhofe and other deniers to take money from coal companies and do their bidding by abusing scripture as the basis for intolerance of those who think differently.

Senator Inhofe cast in stone the difference between the two parties. Republicans conflate literal interpretation of scripture with disdain for science and a willingness to displace social and environmental justice with an “Ayn Rand” view of our responsibilities to the “least of these.”

The “Cizik” Inhofe called (oh no, not that!) a liberal is former vice -president for governmental affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals.Richard  Cizik is a “Reagan conservative” and a strong supporter of George W. Bush. Cizik was the evangelical’s key advocate on issues like opposition to abortion and gay marriage. So why does Inhofe cast Cizik into purgatory as a “liberal”? Because Cizik has done what most republicans refuse to do. His heresy is to accept that the Bible is not a science. Cizik acknowledged that while life may start at conception, it doesn’t end at birth.

 Ciziks’ heresy, in the view of many Republicans is this statement. “There is a debate going on within evangelical circles as to what is the highest priority.  Is it to care for human life, unborn human life, first? It is to care about the poor? And how much place should we give Creation Care, concern for environmentalism? I believe the inevitable conclusion will be that all the issues are important and they’re inter-related.  For example, mercury pollution from coal burning utility plants in the US falls from the atmosphere into our rivers and is consumed by fish.  This in turn impacts our children, because now one out of six women in America has unduly high levels of mercury in their systems, impacting unborn children.  It’s a “sanctity of human life issue.”  When evangelical Christians make the connection between the call to protect the innocent, the unborn, and the call to be stewards of the world that God has created, when they make the connection between the two, there will be no hesitation to speak out on environmental concerns.”

Deuteronomy 29:29 says, “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the revealed things belong to us and to our children forever, to observe all the words of this law.” Science has revealed some of the secrets unrevealed to those who lived 6000 years ago.

The difference between the two parties is that one believes a literal interpretation of scripture serves the interests of its contributors. The other party believes “the revealed things belong to us and to our children forever” and we have a responsibility to apply the revelations to contemporary life on the planet.