"Will It Go Round in Circles..."

" The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself"
Archibald MacLeish - American poet and Librarian of Congress


I've spent the past several days trying to educate myself on the recently passed Health Care Act. Sadly, in all too typical fashion, response to this legislation has been heavy on partisan political rhetoric and light on honest and thoughtful discussion of it's pros and cons. Just try, as I have done recently, to find an unbiased and factual presentation of the content of this bill - it's practically impossible.

My intention was to record some of my thoughts on the merits and drawbacks of this monumental bill. But along the way I found myself more struck by the inability of so many to do anything more than toe a particular party line. Being a political conservative myself, it's been frustrating to hear one conservative mouthpiece after another proclaim the end of America as we know it, the socialization of our country, or a prediction of the economic collapse that this bill will bring.

When did the land of the free become the wasteland of independent thought?

I know that most of us are smarter than to be swayed by the hyperbole that comes from the media. Sensational sells - rational thought does not. The likes of Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, et al, make their living by providing the sensational, not by providing measured and reasonable analysis of issues. Surely we all know and understand this. Surely...

Our federal government has looked seriously at the prospects of national health insurance throughout most of the 20th century. President Roosevelt called for a study of a national health insurance plan in the 1930's as part of the legislation that would eventually become the Social Security Act of 1935.

President Truman won re-election in 1948 in part by campaigning on a pledge to provide medical insurance to all citizens. At that time the AMA was a chief opponent, being one of the first to label such a program as "socialized medicine." That campaign, along with a then growing anti-communist sentiment pushed a national health insurance plan to the side.

In the 1960's, President Johnson's "Great Society" directed health insurance concerns towards the needs of the growing population of senior citizens and the indigent poor and disabled. Despite continued opposition from the AMA, this ultimately led to the establishment of Medicare and Medicaid as part of the Social Security Act.

President Nixon attempted to establish a national health plan in the 70's called the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan, but proved unsuccessful in large part because of his failed presidency in light of Watergate.

Successive Presidents have each attempted, in one manner or another, to incorporate some type of national health plan. President Carter actually proposed a plan to have corporations provide insurance to all employees, continued national coverage for the elderly and disabled, and the creation of a public corporation to sell to all others. President Clinton attempted the Health Security Act which would have provided coverage to all Americans.


The point to the history above is that the idea of health coverage for all Americans has been around for nearly a century. This new legislation is not so new in concept, just new in the fact that it was successfully passed.


The new bill is not perfect. Even the Obama administration have admitted that much. But it is a strong and bold step in the right direction. The sensationalistic charges against it are just that. Which of these aspects of this legislation can any of us rightfully have significant problems with?

• The immediate end to lifetime and annual caps on coverages.
• The end of coverage being denied due to pre-existing conditions.
• Tax credits for small businesses to help with the cost of providing coverage to employees.
• Young adults being covered under parents policies until the age of 27.
• Check-ups and preventive care provided at no cost or co-pay.
• The end of discontinuing coverage due to onset of sickness.
• A requirement that insurers reveal overhead costs.
• Senior prescription costs shortfall is cut in half.
• Medicare coverage expanded to smaller hospitals and clinics.
• Negotiated insurance made available to uninsured on a sliding pay scale.

These are good things it would seem to me. All things that most of us should be glad to see happening.

That does not mean the bill is perfect or even without flaws. I personally am opposed to the requirement that all citizens must have insurance. I'm also not convinced that this plan will in fact lead to savings rather than an increase in our already substantial national debt.

But the fact is that this plan is a start. And, on the whole, I would say it's a pretty good start.

But maybe that's just the dissenter in me talking...

"It's coming around again..."

Let's call it cautious optimism...

President Obama recently announced his intention to overhaul the No Child Left Behind law. Just about any current educator would applaud an effort to redirect a law that has gone terribly wrong since it's inception. A law that punishes those who struggle, rather than focus on rewarding those who find ways to succeed never really had a chance to do what it was intended to do. That our current administration has recognized this, is encouraging to those teachers who are the front lines of educating our youth.

But punishment versus reward was not the most glaring fault of NCLB.

No two children are the same. Each has unique needs and abilities, and each have different futures that they are headed towards. NCLB was designed to treat each student exactly the same, to have the same educational goals for each student, and to assume the same future plans for every student. This fundamental flaw virtually ensured that many schools would be classified as underperforming.

Now President Obama talks about the need to adequately prepare students for either college or career. Finally! Common sense has long told us that not all students are bound for or interested in college. Yet NCLB all but insisted that all students be treated by our schools as though they were preparing for a college education. Student after student has been forced into an academic track in our schools in order to satisfy a goal that was never realistic.

It strikes me as a bit ironic that if President Obama's intentions are clearly expressed in his recent announcement, we may find ourselves moving back towards more what things were like when I was in school.

During my high school years, we were asked to choose an academic path for our education. We could choose Advanced Academic Prep, Academic Prep, or Vocational. Advanced was for those students who were likely to pursue at least four years of college and preparation for a professional degree. Academic Prep was a slightly less demanding course of study that would still prepare a student for the option of post-secondary education. And Vocational programs were offered for those students who intended to enter the workforce after graduation. A nearby Vocational School offered programs in construction, auto mechanics, cosmetology and other career fields.

It was a good system, and one that allowed students to use their high school years to best prepare them for their post-diploma years.

Somewhere along the way, we got caught up in worrying about how well the U.S. students were doing in competition with their counterparts around the world. Suddenly the ranking of our 8th graders with other 8th graders around the world on an academic test caused us to believe that we needed to lead all students towards an academic course of study. In the process we lost track of the fact that all students are unique, and that, in treating all students the same, we did a disservice to both the non-academic and academic students.

Throughout the years of NCLB, vast resources have been used to attempt to bring what would typically have been career minded students up to an academic prep level in their studies. This has been tantamount to beating our proverbial academic heads against the brick wall. It turns out that parents and students have known what was best for the individual student all along, but, because of NCLB and its expectations, schools were unwilling and unable to listen.

Here is to the hope that President Obama's recent announcement means a return to allowing parents and their children to decide what the best approach to a students individual education should be. And here is to the hope that we will slowly but surely see a return of the secondary education that prepares all students to do what is best for them to do.