Health Care Reform (My Ass)

JW,

I came to a point of resignation about the health care bill some weeks ago. (I'd point you to it, but the hyperlink system can't handle a document that size.) Sadly, the groundswell of conservative and populist opposition that might have toppled it peaked too early and couldn't be sustained. The success of the bill depends upon conservative Democrats, and they seem to feel that they've done enough by shaping it into what it is.

Which is a monstrosity. As MSNBC reported on Friday afternoon (a story-killing maneuver called Taking Out the Trash by political operatives), the bill being considered by both legislative bodies will cause health care spending to "grow somewhat more rapidly than if Congress does nothing." Their source isn't a Conservative think tank, mind you, but the Department of Health and Human Services. Obama promises to "root out the waste, fraud, and abuse in our Medicare program" to help pay for the new entitlement, but anyone who believes that Congress will allow a cut in services should probably worry about raising the ol' IQ a bit before Obama's death panels get cranking.

Despite all, I might be able to swallow this debacle of a bill as a run-of-the-mill political loss if it weren't for one thing. As Atul Gawande writes in a fascinating article in The New Yorker this week, the bill currently under consideration has a number of pilot programs that very well could provide models for huge savings down the line. The one idea left out? Tort reform.

That's right, America. Go f--k yourselves. Love, Democrats.

-GM

GM,

I once knew a girl, the extent of whose physical beauty was surpassed only by that of her liberal agenda. Tragic really, and she's not even alone in that regard--among women I know! While trying to convince me that we should socialize health care, she told me about a summer in Ireland in which she was given the free care she needed when she got sick. And by "sick," she meant pregnant. And by "care," she meant abortion.

Just kidding.

Let's talk about your last point--tort reform. Former NBA star and New Jersey democratic senator Bill Bradley wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times in late August, suggesting that tort reform should be included in the health care bill as a way to unite Republicans and Democrats on the issue. After all, frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits have terrible effects:

1. Doctors have to pay lawyers to defend them and insurance companies to cover them should they lose. This increases the cost of health care because doctors have to pass the costs along to the customer.

2. The cases themselves are costly to the American taxpayers. Experts must often be brought in and compensated for their time, as must juries and judges, who could probably be presiding over something more important.

3. Rather than pursuing practices for the right reasons (like wanting to fight certain medical conditions or having an interest in a particular field), doctors are now avoiding certain types of practices--even certain states in some instances--because the fear of being sued is so great.

But then there was this response from Tom Baker, a professor at Penn's law school who wrote The Medical Malpractice Myth, a book that claims that medical malpractice claims don't significantly add to the cost of health care. In his Times interview with Anne Underwood, Baker accuses people like you, GM, of trying to obstruct change in the system by using tort reform as a red herring. As a rare request for a two-parter, what is your rebuttal?

-JW

Brian Kelly Leaves Dead-End Job for New Dead-End Job

JW,

Any claim the Big East had to being a serious football conference disappeared yesterday when Cincinnati coach Brian Kelly agreed to leave the undefeated, Sugar Bowl-bound Bearcats for Notre Dame. Forget the fact that Kelly is a member of the Catholic church and that Notre Dame is the premiere Catholic university in America. Forget that the Irish offered him a reported three million a year. Kelly's move is about neither of those things. Deeper than sectarian loyalty, deeper than money is a truth that the Big East should have recognized with the departure of Rich Rodriguez. When it comes to controlling your own football destiny, you're just another Boise State.

Like any truth, this one has consequences. First and foremost, the national perception that the Big East has no destination jobs has been reinforced, perhaps permanently. If your undefeated conference champion isn't invited to play for the national championship--would that ever happen to Florida, Alabama, USC, Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, or (of course) Notre Dame?--your coaches will always move on. Second, the Sugar Bowl (and by extension the Fiesta, Rose, and Orange Bowls) has been further exposed as a meaningless joke of a game. Rather than coach in only the second BCS bowl in Cincinnati's history, Kelly prefers to spend the next few weeks recruiting. And who can blame him?! The real "prize" of the Sugar Bowl is the money and television exposure that goes equally to winner and loser. Hell, it goes equally to the winner's and loser's conferences. Kelly understands that in ten years' time--in ten months, really--no one will remember who won the 2010 Sugar Bowl. But they'll remember for decades if he takes the Irish to the national championship game. Which he will if he ever goes undefeated there. Bet your life on it.

Nevertheless, we're going to hear some anti-Kelly whining over the next few days. (We're already hearing it from Mardy Gilyard, who clearly fails to recognize the futility of Cincinnati's efforts.) Fans and journalists alike will likely slam Kelly's "opportunism," "greed," and "lack of loyalty." If our readers have been paying attention at all, though, they know exactly where those complaints should be sent. Not to Brian Kelly but to BCS boss Bill Hancock.

-GM

GM,

I only want to know if this is true. Did Kelly really tell the team he was there to stay? If so, did he do so before the Pittsburgh game just to motivate them?! I won't be rooting for Notre Dame anyway, but if we find out that happened, I'll make a special, concentrated effort to root against him. Nick Saban may have lied about staying with the Dolphins, but at least--as far as we know--he didn't use that lie to get the team up for a big game.

I hate many, many things about college football. Bad postseason, bad replay officiating, bad clock management, the Big Ten, and the coaching turnover. I don't necessarily think there's too much turnover, but it's a travesty that Brian Kelly, the guy who made the Cincinnati football program, the guy who players looked up to and wanted to play for and were able to go undefeated for, has ignored an invitation to a high-profile bowl game so that he can recruit for a program worse than his own. The fact that he's willing to leave--that it won't even matter that he doesn't coach in the Sugar Bowl or the practices preceding it--is the biggest incrimination on the sport.

It's possible that an undefeated Notre Dame wouldn't have played in the national championship game this year, but it's not worth thinking about. The program is destined for mediocrity regardless of its coach. Funny you should mention Rich Rodriguez; he's experiencing the same thing at Michigan. Both schools are excellent academic institutions, but the type of student they recruit hardly resembles the type of athlete all coaches want to recruit. There are only so many Tim Tebows, Colt McCoys, Jordan Shipleys, and Toby Gerharts to go around--if you catch my drift. Something tells me Notre Dame Heisman Trophy winner Paul Hornung does.

It's funny that so many coaches would kill to go to historically great programs. Too bad for them five-star 17-year-olds don't share the sentiment.

-JW

White Man's Burden, Black Man's Strategic Positioning

GM,

CNN anchor Lou Dobbs stepped down last month, and he's out to make new friends. The self-proclaimed populist used to be about ridding the nation of illegal immigrants. Now, out of nowhere, he seems pretty focused on letting them know just how much he cares about their incorporation into American society--particularly those of Latin-American heritage. It should be noted, of course, that he may run for a New Jersey State Senate seat or even the presidency as a third-party candidate in 2012. It may be important for him to shake the image of a "racist," the favorite word of the American Left.

Since we're on the subject, I need to ask you what's acceptable to think and say in this country these days. Maybe I should ask a more liberal-minded person. After all, they're the ones who would accuse me of being backwards if I were to break the "rules." Still, I'm hoping you have more insight than I do. Here's the question: Is it considered racist to oppose illegal immigration? Is is considered racist to support the illegality of some types of immigration? Is it considered racist to prefer my own language to others? Is is considered racist to want to limit the number of people who represent a protected class and therefore have an advantage in employment over me?

A Google search of "Lou Dobbs racist" brings fascinating results. Take, for instance, the remarks made by this mastermind. In case you didn't watch the whole video, the creator (well, editor) accuses Lou Dobbs of being racist because he almost used the term "cotton-pickin'." What obviously happened is that Dobbs began to say "cotton-pickin'," an adjective used to replace profanity in the South, in referring to politicians of no particular race or party. He then realized that there were simpletons out there who would assume that, because black slaves often picked cotton in this country, the term was racist. He then resisted. If you ask me, that's going the extra mile to accommodate those who don't deserve accommodation! The editor, whose homepage can be seen here, sees differently: "And some people still say he's not a Racist... LOL." As a lifelong Southerner, I know two people who've claimed to have picked cotton: my dad and his grandfather. It's unpleasant from what I hear.

Sure, Dobbs is a birther. He's from Texas. He might even be a xenophobe as his accusers say. But now he's having to "change his mind" on immigration so the woefully misled won't hate him. A cotton-pickin' shame, if you ask me.

-JW

JW,

Your questions would be sweet if they weren't almost certain to keep you from ever getting a job. Yes! Of course it's racist to oppose illegal immigration. National borders are discriminatory. Of course it's racist to prefer English to other languages. All cultures are morally equal. Of course it's racist to deny historically persecuted groups an advantage in today's marketplace. Your whiteness and that of your fathers must be atoned for.

Joking aside, it is absolutely true that the white male's tightrope walk is getting wobblier. Consider the following truths, internalized during my time at Famous Northern College:

1) To acknowledge, or even to be aware of (see Orwell: doublethink), a non-white person's race is racist, unless you are doing so for the purpose of giving that person positive race-based consideration.

2) To assert the superiority of American or pre-Muslim-invasion European culture is racist, as all cultures are equal. Paradoxically, however, any given white person is morally inferior to any given non-white person.

3) All white misbehavior is the result of flaws in white culture. All black misbehavior is the result of flaws in white culture. All hispanic misbehavior is the result of flaws in white culture.

4) White people have an obligation to help non-white people. However, it is racist when they do so.

Can these "truths" endure the inevitable backlash? With the Lou Dobbses of the world being co-opted (and thus neutered) by the political system, I suspect they can, at least for a few more generations.

And yet here's Pulitzer Prize-winning writer David Mamet suggesting otherwise (and literally talking his way out of the Nobel):

"For just as personal advantage was derived by whites from the defense of slavery and its continuation as Jim Crow and segregation, so too personal advantage, political advantage and indeed expression of deeply held belief may lead nonwhites to defense of positions that, though they may be momentarily acceptable, will eventually be revealed as untenable."

Bold stuff. But we're unlikely to live to see it.

-GM

Bulls--t Championship Series: A Complaint

JW,

The Cowboys Stadium timekeeper had the right idea. Let that last second tick off the clock and watch as the BCS crumbles. It was a hopeful gesture--the kind of heroism that makes legends--and if the replay evidence hadn't incontrovertibly placed one second back on the board, we might be telling our grandchildren about the guy.

As it stands, we're set for another year of crowing from BCS apologists, whose rapture at a "clear" 1 vs. 2 in Pasadena (a bulls--t notion) hinged not just on a very close Texas field goal but on the mere milliseconds longer that Colt McCoy's insane third down pass needed to stay in the air to ensure bedlam. And that's before we get to Nebraska kicker Adi Kunalic's out-of-bounder that set up the game-winning drive in the first place. Even if you accept the premise that the unexplained, uncodified, and likely illegal hierarchy of BCS conferences places undefeated Texas over undefeated Cincinnati, you've got to admit that any system that requires year after year of miracles cannot forever endure.

As for McCoy, has any college athlete since Chris Webber displayed such a stunning lack of clutchness? Moments after watching him scramble to the very brink of losing, Musburger and Herbstreit speculated that McCoy was looking at the playclock rather than the game clock. I say he was having a flashforward to his future as the last man in a lonely NFL Draft green room. Take a look at last night's numbers and tell me if anybody's taking this guy with an early pick. Teams already know about the Heisman curse. The last thing they need is the I-Didn't-Deserve-the-Heisman curse.

And yet it will be McCoy rather than Tony Pike (whose fourth quarter performance Saturday defined clutchness) who advances, an injustice whose reversal would still leave out TCU and Boise State, teams for whom no amount of excellence, no matter how sustained, will ever be sufficient under the current rules. Like the annual season-ending injury for Greg Oden, the annual BCS debacle manages somehow to fulfill our worst expectations while still surprising us. I thought Auburn's 2004 screwing was the worst that could ever occur in a major sport. Now I know that 2004 was just a warm-up.

-GM

GM,

In 1997, the following was a novel concept--one met with great resistance.

"Let's match the two best teams against each other regardless of what conference they're in."

College football isn't run by normal, functioning people like you and me; it's run by unimaginative, unreasonable, traditionalist buffoons whose response to playoff talk is typically something as compelling as, "It just wouldn't work." A month ago, an SEC president looked me in the eye and said the SEC and Big Ten were "head and shoulders" above the rest of the football conferences. Not only do we allow these people to make decisions about college football; we allow them to breathe our air, eat our food, make way more money than we'll ever make, and decide what's in the best interest of America's youth!

Somehow, they were persuaded to go along with an idea called the Bowl Championship Series. Brilliantly, an actual committee was created to use already-existent bowls, already-existent polls, and already-existent computer formulas to select two teams to play in an actual national championship game. Well, sort of. The AP poll's voters could crown any national champion they wanted, but that could never be an issue, right? With the exception of this obvious mistake, this is the idea third graders would have come up with, and you wouldn't have to pay them to operate as an entire organization. If you were to ask someone what they did for a living, you might be astonished if they responded like this:

"I do a job anyone could do for a company no one wants, all the while blocking the progress of the entire industry."

If you meet that person, though, you've just met the most honest member of the BCS committee.

-JW

An Inconsistent 'Truth'

JW,

By far the most significant underreported story of the year is the leaked email exchange between scientists at Britain's East Anglia University. News of the leak broke in late November to about as much fanfare as my sock selection, and though the Internet has aided in the story's longevity, it's perfectly conceivable that most people aren't aware of it.

Nevertheless, this is big news. Here is The Wall Street Journal:

In [the leaked emails], scientists appear to urge each other to present a "unified" view on the theory of man-made climate change while discussing the importance of the "common cause"; to advise each other on how to smooth over data so as not to compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to "hide the decline" of temperature in certain inconvenient data.

Unified view. Common cause. Hide the decline. It's not Conservative obstructionism or pigheadedness. It's liberals describing their motives and actions in their own words, and it's almost comically grotesque. After all, we're only two days away from the famed Copenhagen U.N. Climate Change Conference, and Barack Obama has already made a provisional pledge regarding the United States' cooperation. Congress is considering nation-altering measures even as we write, and the "fact" of man-made climate change is now so ingrained in the American consciousness that a scandal ten times this size could hardly shake it.

But consider what we can say with certainty:

1. Liberals are far more likely than Conservatives to use words like "profit" and "corporation" pejoratively;

2. Solutions to global warming are anchored to rationing methods that will make profit far more difficult and increase government control over business;

3. Academics who depart from global warming orthodoxy are routinely disciplined or denigrated (here's a particularly funny example);

4. All of our global warming information comes from scientists, and whatever peer-review mechanisms they have can clearly be perverted.

What we can't know for certain is whether or not the entire global warming concept is a minor hiccup in the Earth's history hijacked for partisan and ideological reasons. But we now know that it's not impossible. And that's news.

-GM

GM,

The scientific community's semi-collaborated position on global warming reminds me of why we now have a Democratic president--a very liberal one at that. African-Americans, feminists, immigrants, Jews, college kids, people with white guilt, and actual liberals got together and said, "We may not all know what we want--or even agree about what we want, but we sure as hell don't want another Republican president."

In this case, it was a bunch of scientists who think they know what's best for the planet electing to get their story straight, whether they have matching data or not, for the greater good--as they see it. I suppose this is why conservatives reject utilitarianism. Lying is almost universally regarded as wrong, but if you really, really believe that conservative Americans are destroying our planet, I suppose a few white lies could only help matters. And to clarify, even lying about what you believe should be considered wrong.

This brings us to NBA Commissioner David Stern , who recently said he believes a woman will be playing in the NBA within the next 10 years. If I had my way--and if Stern were to make the best business decision--there wouldn't be a woman playing in the WNBA in 10 years! Stern knows without question that this could never happen. His statements actually prove the opposite of his conclusion:

"If you look at world records, let's say in track and field, you'll see how the women have moved up to what would have been records several decades ago for men," said Stern. "And you watch [the WNBA] and you see the shooting percentages, the passing and the like."

Need I point out the utter lack of logic? "Women may now be as good at basketball as men used to be!" Sure, Commish, but what does that have to do with their ability to compete now? Stern knows a woman will never play in the league unless the liberals really get their way and the legal concept of BFOQ (bona fide occupational quality, meaning in this case that you have to be good at basketball to avoid being discriminated against in the hiring process) loses adherence. He knows what we know, but he also knows that he'll be better off if even one more person watches a WNBA game now--even to make sure women wouldn't stand a chance in the Association. I, for one, won't give him the satisfaction.

-JW