Seeing the Round Corners

July 10, 2017

The debate on health care in America is one that has gone on for it seems decades. As we look back over those decades, perhaps the most “poignant” and most memorable for this writer is the infamous bus tour(s) of America undertaken when former President Bill Clinton and wife Hillary took up the issue of health care. Does anyone have a clue of what their ideas were for health care?

Elected in November of 1992, former President Bill Clinton made health care a major issue of his campaign for the presidency, and intended to make health care the focal point of his first term as president. Little did the Clintons expect what was immediately labeled “”Hillarycare” to be the fiasco it turned out to be.

Even the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries strongly opposed the plan. Those same pharmaceutical companies were the mega contributors to Hillary Clinton’s now infamous campaign for her own presidency.

The arrogance of the Clintons at the time seemed to blindside them to the audacity of a presidential spouse being put in charge of such a major issue. The Clintons viewed the idea as primarily a furtherance of Bill Clinton’s personal commitment to a national health care plan.

Just as Obamacare was dogged by litigation, so was “Hillarycare,” but readers are asked this question, did Hillary Clinton address the plan during her 2016 campaign for presidency? The official name of the health care bill from Bill Clinton’s administration was the “Health Security Act,” (November 20, 1993).

The anti opeds and advertising at the time are way too numerous to repeat here, but one is telling of the Clinton plan. The Washington Post oped carried this statement: 

  • “In many years of studying American social policy, I have never read an official document that seemed so suffused with coercion and political naivete… with its drastic prescriptions for controlling the conduct of state governments, employers, drug manufacturers, doctors, hospitals and you and me.”

   Even back in those days, the Clintons were adept at behind the scenes tactics. Hillary Clinton was successful in fighting litigation filed against the Health Care Act. The litigation was filed on the basis that it violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) which required openness in government. The ruling in favor of Hillary Clinton was a narrow one, but in effect said she could be a government official (not a private citizen) “for the purpose of not having to comply with the procedural requirements of FACA.”

All the above discussion brings to mind this question.  Have things in Washington changed one iota since the Clinton 1993-94 attempt at a health care plan for America? Makes you wonder if Hillary Clinton learned anything in all these ensuing years.

   And now, for the column from the writer’s archives.

May 27, 2013


Ever wonder why so many solutions to today’s vast array of problems just seem to never work? Perhaps the definition of the title for today’s edition is the answer.

Ineptocracy:  “A system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.”

The Keystone XL pipeline as previewed in last week’s edition is a prime example. Those pushing the approval want the American people to believe it is the most urgent issue facing this country, and refuse to look at alternatives. The prime alternative to us ordinary citizens is for Canada to build their pipeline in their country to their east coast or west coast. End of all the international red tape. Of course, ordinary Canadian citizens do not want their pipeline built across their country because of the environmental damage it would wreak!

The marijuana industry has perpetuated the same urgency on the State of Colorado, while trying to keep the goal of being “first in the nation,” or “leading the nation” as the reason off the radar. The “vote of majority” again trumps us ordinary citizens – our safety and quality of life and the future of our children.

Technology has meant phenomenal changes to our lives, but ignored is the downside for ordinary Americans. Not arguable is the complexity technology brings to everyday life. Seldom is anything attempted without the admonition, “go to our website . . .” The assumption is every human being in this world has access to a computer which is certainly not the case!

Left in the dust is what the advance of technology means, the unintended consequences. Plain and simple, it exponentially widens the gap between the “haves” and “have nots.”

Regardless of what side of the immigration issue you the reader are on, ask yourself the simple question, “Why do the citizens of Mexico risk their lives to get into this country?” It certainly is not to live in fear of being discovered, it certainly is not to give up their heritage and values, their traditions and way of life. Yet, that’s what becomes necessary far too often when they get to this country.

Large cities afford some solace in the “community-within-a-community” which is a two-edged sword. There is a certain stigma, but certainly not what can be described as “living free in the land of the brave.” A guest-worker program would allow travel to and from Mexico by those who want nothing more than to make a decent living, provide for their families and live their heritage proudly, no longer live in fear.

If it is not already there, America is fast approaching the point of claiming the name of ineptocracy, all in the quest of advancing/leading technology, no matter the trampling of the “have nots.” How often we hear the refrain as each horrendous event befalls us, “What’s happening to our country?”

Is America about to join the long list of societies – the Romans, the Mayans, the Chinese, several American Indian tribes – that collapsed when political and economic structures literally disintegrated? Our agricultural society no longer exists as we knew it since the founding of this country. Monsanto’s win in the seed patent case is hard core proof of what is to come. The end of small farmers, one of the founding principles of this country is on the horizon. Is this the beginning of America’s collapse as a society?

   Mark Twain once said:  “The rule is perfect – in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane.” 

The reader's comments or questions are always welcome. E-mail me at