cathythom@mac.com

Feb

2021

We Must Reject the GOP Politics of Intimidation, Violence, and Hate

The acquittal of Donald Trump by the United States Senate for inciting an insurrection, largely on technical grounds, does not bode well for our country going forward. Not only does it provide precedent for future presidents to act with impunity during their final days in office without constitutionally required consequences, it also emboldens the mob he inspired and sends the message that the Republican party negotiates with and harbors domestic terrorists. Because their terrorist tactics are working on Republican leaders even though Trump has left office, his most violent supporters are now even more of a threat to the safety of our lawmakers and public officials who dare to publicly oppose Donald Trump. Even the vote to acquit, for many Republican Senators, was made more out of personal fear than belief in his actual innocence or any false constitutional “technicality.”

Why do I assert this? It has been said by a number of reporters, Republican pundits, and even Republican officeholders that since the November 3, 2020 election Republican members of the House & Senate increasingly feel they can neither speak nor vote their true consciences due to fears for their own and their families’ safety. They say that if key votes were taken by secret ballot, the results would be quite different. This fear of publicly opposing Trump proved true during the February 3, 2021 internal Republican caucus vote to censure and remove U.S. Representative Liz Cheney from her House Republican party leadership position. That vote was taken by secret ballot and tallied overwhelmingly in her favor despite Trump’s calls for her removal. When their votes can be cast in secret, a majority of Republicans actually do the right thing. But because most votes of the House and Senate must be public, the politics of intimidation and mob rule have taken over the Republican party.

Whatever happened to the mantra that the United States does not negotiate with or capitulate to terrorists? Because that is what we need to call these insurrectionists, and those who supported, and continue to support and make excuses for them – including and especially Donald Trump – because that is what they are: domestic terrorists. Who because of their proximity and freedom to live, move, and plot among us with all of the privileges that citizenship allows, make them a bigger threat right now than most foreign terrorists. Is this really what we want America to be? Where anyone who may want to be an agent of necessary change and run for office needs to weigh those aspirations against attracting death threats directed at themselves and their families? And as is the case today – those death threats are the direct result of statements made by a sitting or former POTUS?

We are better than this. And certainly better than Donald Trump. We need to stand up as a country to say once and for all that documentable truth matters over rumor and ambition driven opinion, and that threatening those and the people they care about with harm who may disagree with you is never okay. We cannot continue to succumb to the politics of intimidation. I personally know what that feels like because I myself was subject to intimidation and harassment just running for a local city council seat. The level of intimidation ratchets up proportionally with the level of office one seeks. How are we going to recruit good, normal people to run for public office if doing so carries such a high level of risk? It is time to say NO – we are done with that scenario.

This past week’s news cycle was dominated by the Trump impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate. Despite overwhelming evidence proving Trump’s essential role in inciting the insurrection, both before and on January 6, only seven Republican Senators voted to convict Donald Trump. Some Republican party leaders still claim that Trump was not responsible for the riot. But others now – after they voted to acquit him – say Trump was indeed responsible and what he did was clearly wrong, but that self-imposed, nonexistent “constitutional” constraints mean that it is up to the criminal justice system, not the Senate, to prosecute and judge the probable crimes of Donald Trump. All but 17 Republican members of the House and Senate lacked the moral courage to do the right thing and publicly vote to impeach and convict Trump for inciting an insurrection that endangered all of their lives and our federal republic itself.

After selling their souls to avoid the wrath of those who continue to worship a false god, a large majority of Republican leaders now want to simply pass the buck of that impending wrath to others and “move on.” As if we should all just forgive and forget their four years of complicity with Trump’s crimes now that they have completely forfeited their role as judges of it. Nope – those of us who watched with growing dread as Republican leaders repeatedly gambled that sociopathic thinking writ large can be contained by anything other than universal condemnation will never forgive any but the 17 who voted to impeach and convict Trump – despite serious and violent threats to themselves and those they care about. They did not negotiate with terrorists, and neither will we.

The Republican party’s repeated collective refusal to condemn and hold accountable the actions of Donald Trump and the extremists that he inspires, and on January 6 willfully and knowingly incited, is why we are where we are now. From a historical perspective it is unprecedented and unconscionable. Shame on the Republican party as a collective political body. Which is saying a lot, since they were the original party of the abolition of slavery. It is shocking how far they have reversed themselves and fallen prey to political and financial expediency and the politics of intimidation, violence, and hate. Lincoln would disown them.

At some point, every Trump supporter – and by extension the Republican party – is going to need to ask themselves: do you support our country, or do you just support Trump? Because that is what it comes down to. When Senators and members of Congress fear for their and their families’ safety if they do not vote Trump’s way, we no longer have a federal republic. Is that what you really want? If not – let Trump go, relegate him to the past, and start rebuilding your party for the 2022 elections. Because in the current climate, Republican calls to Democrats for “unity” even as its own representatives and party officials fear for their safety rings hollow. Nope – not willing to hug it out with Republicans until their party changes its attitude towards unacceptable actions and rhetoric. We do not negotiate with terrorists nor those who would give them comfort or assistance.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/people-will-try-to-kill-us-says-gop-lawmaker-on-going-against-trump.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/-afraid-for-their-own-safety-why-some-lawmakers-may-have-voted-with-trump-99228229932

https://www.vox.com/2021/1/13/22229052/capitol-hill-riot-intimidate-legislators

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/republicans-trump-impeachment-boogeyman/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/cheney-refuses-apologize-voting-impeach-trump-during-closed-door-gop-n1256670

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/02/06/how-liz-cheney-survived-attempt-oust-her-house-leadership/

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/11/trump-impeachment-trial-day-3-468588

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/02/13/us/impeachment-trial

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/02/09/trump-impeachment-trial-sides-debate-if-trial-constitutional/4422669001/

Feb

2021

Don’t Defend Trump – History Will Not

After the compelling case presented by U.S. House Impeachment Trial Managers over the past two days, even those Donald Trump voters who accept Joe Biden’s victory as legitimate – including Republican Senators who for purely political reasons plan to acquit Trump of the impeachment charges no matter the evidence presented – often repeat the Trump mantra that the nation must heed the voices of the 74 million Trump voters and continue to cater to their opinions. But I must ask: why are the opinions of 74 million Trump voters so much more important and deserve so much more consideration than those of the 81 million who voted for Biden? The people who rallied for Trump and stormed the U.S. Capitol building on January 6 have such an outsized sense of entitlement that they could not accept that Biden won by over 7 million votes then, and many still do not accept it even now. Why should we continue to cater to them when they will not even accept the truth?

Biden won the election by the exact same Electoral College margin as Trump won the presidency in 2016 – and the popular vote was not even close, as Biden’s 7 million popular vote margin exceeded Hillary Clinton’s 2016 margin by 4 million votes. Current Trump supporters are so insulated within their own self-indulgent information streams and social circles that they continue to support a malignant narcissist who was so desperate to cling to power that he did something that no President of the United States has ever done before: called for a mob to march on the U.S. Capitol to stop lawmakers’ certification of a free and valid presidential election, violently if necessary.

White House aides told a New York Magazine reporter that Trump was “excited,” even delighted at the violence he saw playing out on TV. His only concern or expression of “disgust” was “over how ‘low class’ his supporters looked.” That is what Trump thinks of his most ardent supporters: low class. And yet they continue to adore him anyway as they cling to an abusive false god. And even while lawmakers and Vice President Mike Pence were in danger and hiding for their lives, Trump and his cronies were still trying to call freshman Senator Tuberville to confirm that he was still going to do his part to stop the certification process permanently.

Most of the people present at Trump’s rally on January 6 were peaceful, of course. But the inciters were still Trump supporters, and a good number of the supposedly otherwise peaceful folks adopted the mob mentality of those leaders with violent intent and followed right along – leaked cell phone data indicates that 40 percent of White House Ellipse attendees marched to the U.S. Capitol. Even if they were not the ones breaking the Capitol building windows, beating Capitol and D.C. Metropolitan police officers, nor hunting down Vice President Pence and lawmakers with violent intent, they helped push against the barricades and lines of police officers and followed those who broke into the Capitol to wander the halls. By the hundreds, even thousands to hear them brag about it on social media during and immediately after the insurrection.

When Trump won the presidency in 2016, Trump critics were told by Trump supporters to “deal with it or leave.” They did not leave – and instead marched peacefully in pink hats on January 21, 2017, went home, and “dealt with it” by mobilizing politically, and won back the U.S. House of Representatives in 2018. They also elected a record number of women to offices up and down the ballot, while the number of Republican women in office decreased. They mobilized some more after that and won back the U.S. Senate and the White House in 2020. None of those marching in 2017 were neo-Nazis, nor did they march elbow to elbow with them, nor befriend them on Facebook. None of them stormed the U.S. Capitol hunting then Vice President Biden, nor then House Speaker Paul Ryan, to prevent Trump from taking office. They did not erect gallows on the Capitol lawn. They marched peacefully by the millions and then went home to win future elections.

It is clear that many Trump supporters are angry, or at least quite unhappy. Others express regret about the insurrection and violence but still insist that impeachment is “divisive,” “futile,” and/or “wasteful” (as if violent insurrection is not?) and that we should all just “move on” and listen to the opinions – based on lies the President told – of 74 million Trump voters. What – are Biden voters supposed to treat Trump supporters who continue to defend the man who incited an insurrection with the kid gloves that few Trump supporters have treated Trump critics for four years? Many Trump supporters did not care about anyone else’s opinions in 2017 – then and even now, all they want to do is “own the libs,” to the point where some of them attempted to violently overthrow an election out of devotion to a cult of personality. If they were willing to toss away our entire federal republic through violent insurrection just because their candidate lost the election, then they never really loved the United States of America – they just love Trump. Sorry, but no – Trump supporters do not now get to play victims after over four years of calling everyone else “snowflakes.”

People need to stop defending Trump and excusing the very real damage he has done to our country. History certainly will not, and that is the perspective that I most often take – how will history most likely view all of this after passions fade and time passes? History will vilify Trump, as well as his supporters and enablers whose complicity is even now plain for all to see.

https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/2020

https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-2020-election-results

https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/president/2

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/01/capitol-riot-senior-trump-official-calls-him-a-fascist.html3

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/11/tuberville-pences-evacuation-trump-impeachment-4685724

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/05/opinion/capitol-attack-cellphone-data.html5

https://fortune.com/2017/01/23/womens-march-crowd-estimates/

Oct

2020

Restricting Registered Votes is Not Patriotic

As you contemplate casting your vote this election cycle, you need to ask yourself: Does every registered voter’s vote actually need to count? I think that every rational person would agree that “yes” is the appropriate answer to that question.

One cannot become a “registered voter” without proof of citizenship. Which means that every registered voter should be allowed to vote, and should have every reasonable expectation that their vote will actually count. This has become especially acute and complicated in this year so fundamentally affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Cue the recent myriad nationwide efforts to curtail not just the circumstances by which registered voters can cast their ballots, but also the circumstances under which those legally registered votes will be allowed to be counted. In Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and myriad other states, the Republican party has sought, via state legislation and the courts, to restrict the voting rights of not just those who may vote fraudulently, but those legally registered voters who seek to cast their ballots by mail in a uniquely dangerous time in regard to public health.

It leads one to ask: Why are Republicans so afraid of allowing more people to cast their votes outside of the traditional in-person, election day setting? They cite fraud, fraud, fraud. For which there is scant evidence, evidence, evidence. The true answer is that more votes cast mean less chance the increasingly reactionary Republican party can remain in power. When you can no longer compete in the free marketplace of ideas and you refuse to change, the only other option is to restrict the voices of those who may decide that your ideas are bad. Voter suppression, gerrymandering, and racist scare mongering and scapegoating are the Republican fall back strategies – their own party level Custer’s last stand.

America is better than this. Republicans are absolutely correct when they proclaim that the USA is the best and greatest country ever founded on the face of the earth. What they are wrong about is that “patriotism” is equivalent to blind denial of where America has failed to live up to its promises to *all* of its citizens. Those who seek to deny America’s shortcomings in regard to how it sometimes fails to live up to its own ideals are not patriotic. Blind loyalty is not patriotism, but worship, and leaves no room for improvement. America is better than that, and so are its citizens. No political party can claim a monopoly when it comes to American patriotism, and we should all keep that in mind when casting our votes this election cycle, as well as while those votes are being counted.

Jul

2020

Implicit Bias Is Not About Character – It’s About Consciousness

If you have trouble as a white person understanding the perspective of a person of color, consider this:

As parents, we try to teach both our sons and daughters about being safe. Lock your doors, when you go out be aware of your surroundings, try not to walk alone, especially after dark. But even as we tell our daughters they have the same rights and can do anything that boys do, we still tell our daughters these things with extra urgency, and even add a few more things for them to do – don’t leave your drink unattended, don’t drink too much, don’t go into a room alone with guys you don’t know – carry pepper spray.

If boys and girls truly have the same rights and our society is supposed to, in theory, treat them the same, then why are we as parents still so much more worried about our daughters and thus teach them differently about how to interact with the world?Because we know from experience and in our bones that the world is more dangerous for our daughters. We wish it weren’t true – but it just is. Because of systemic sexism and misogyny that, although much less than it was in the past for ourselves and our mothers and grandmothers, still hasn’t been completely eradicated.

Now – take that worry you have for your daughter (or granddaughter, sister, step-daughter, niece, close friend, wife, or whoever) in certain situations and multiply it by thousands, and by tens of thousands of more situations, and you get a better idea of how people of color often have to approach the world and teach their own children to approach the world, simply because of how the world can too often treat them. People of color are not asking for you to apologize for this – they simply want you to acknowledge it and understand why they would like things to finally change in a meaningful and lasting way, & they ask your help in making that happen.

So if your first “go to” in discussions about race is to get defensive and start insisting how you are not a racist, and citing your “non-racist resume” about how many people of color you know or have helped, you need to stop and take a breath. Realize and accept, without defensiveness, that it’s not about you. Instead it’s about recognizing, communicating, and fixing the systemic attitudes and structures that have impeded true and meaningful change for people of color (even those you know and love) thus far, and doing what you can in your own corner of the world to bring about that meaningful and lasting change – that actually sticks this time.

Implicit bias is not about character – it’s about consciousness.

May

2020

The Silent Majority Must Speak Up For Unity and Justice

As a person on the just to the left-of-center position on the political spectrum, I am often assailed by the right as a “bleeding heart” and a “libtard,” yet also accused by those further left as being “too compromising,” “uncommitted,” or my favorite, a “sell-out.” To be clear, my positions run the gamut depending on the issue, but when taken altogether, I fall moderately to the left of center. And I know from experience and a general sense of decency that most people across the racial and socio-economic spectrum in America don’t hold radical political views.

These days people on the far-right and far-left dominate most political conversation, but still react with wonder when moderate candidates still seem to win nominations, especially within the Democratic party in statewide and national elections. There is a reason for that – most people (i.e. voters) do fall somewhere in the middle, they just aren’t out shouting their positions in social circles or on social media. Why? Because it’s too exhausting and both personally and professionally perilous to constantly have to defend yourself from a two-front assault from both the left and right, especially as you are spending all your time trying to keep yourself and your family afloat in times of uncertainty or crisis. So, most moderates stay largely silent, and often ignore invitations to participate in political polls, preferring instead to speak anonymously with their votes. Hence the surprise from those on the political fringes at the results of elections with a more broad-based electorate, because they don’t understand the message and power of silence wielded by those who are weary of constant discord.

But the brutal, cruel death caught on video of George Floyd at the knee of an entitled Minneapolis police officer calls for moderates to end their silence and speak out against excessive force, police and criminal justice reform, and systemic racism. And the ensuing burning of our cities – particularly in Minneapolis, not far from where I went to college and increasingly proven to be largely instigated by political fringe outsiders – requires that moderates speak up even louder:

In support of our communities of color, in support of our urban business owners, and also in support of our good and dutiful law enforcement personnel who do try to serve and protect all residents every day and are undermined and endangered by bad cops like Derek Chauvin and non-Minnesotan riot agitators that have infiltrated the ranks of our grieving protesters.

Silence is no longer an option, folks. It appears that the radical right and the radical left have dominated the conversation and activity to the point of violence and chaos. It’s time to take back the conversation and silence the radical fringes for a change so that true and lasting systemic change has a chance to be enacted and actually stick this time.

May

2020

A Love Letter to the Waconia High School Class of 2020

Born in the shadow of 9/11, you began your school-aged years as the Great Recession loomed, and now have had your senior spring experience cancelled by the Covid-19 pandemic. The Class of 2020 can’t seem to catch a break.

When I joined the Waconia School Board during your 1^st grade year, there were state funding freezes and gaps that have not been made up for even now as we both “graduate” from the district – you seniors this spring, and me on December 31^st when I will retire from the school board after serving three four-year terms. Your entire school career happened during a time of school funding shortfalls.

Here in Waconia ISD 110, you were the first kindergarten class to be offered an all-day attendance option, and the last to attend the “old” high school as 9^th graders. You entered school in kindergarten just as all buildings had expanded, but within a few years you once again began to feel a space crunch worse than any classes before you. And although you have enjoyed abundant space since moving to the new high school as sophomores, you attended Clearwater Middle School during its four most crowded years. You were freshmen at the “old” Waconia High School (now Waconia Middle School) during its most crowded year – where you learned to walk patiently, literally shoulder to shoulder, with your peers and upperclassmen through the hallways, rarely using lockers because it was just not practical to get to them nor open them in crowded conditions. You learned to weigh the value of a possession by whether it was worth “risking it” to pause traffic flow to pick it up in a crowded hallway during passing time. And don’t even mention the after-school parking lot crunch . . .

You accommodated construction. You initiated and embraced new programs like Bring Your Own Device, Wild Time, and new sports and clubs. You excelled academically, in activities, and community service, represented our community admirably regionally and nationally, and cared for one another above all. And after all of that, you are now because of the pandemic prevented by circumstance from coming together as a class to say – yes, we did this, together – “We are ONE10.”

But even if you cannot be physically together as a senior class with your peers and families in this unprecedented graduation year, that doesn’t mean you didn’t accomplish what you accomplished. It doesn’t mean you aren’t graduating and moving on to the next phase of your lives. It doesn’t mean that you don’t deserve to be acknowledged, congratulated, and honored.

From 9/11 to the Great Recession to now – one thing is certain for the Class of 2020 – the times since you were born are constantly changing, and you all need to develop agility and resilience. You need to question authority, but do your homework, and ruthlessly vet your sources to make sure you are making your own decisions based on the best, most credible and timely information. Let’s be honest – many adults currently are not fulfilling some crucial obligations to the next generation. So – it might just come down to you. Are you up to the challenge? I think you are, because I have known a lot of you personally, some since as far back as preschool – and I believe in you.

You are unique as a class in regard to your experiences. My hope is that will also make you unique in your character and propel you forward to achieve whatever goals you have set for yourselves – personally, professionally, and collectively. You as a class have been asked to “make do” more than any other class in recent memory. I know you – I love you – I hope and pray for you, Waconia High School Class of 2020. I know that you will ascend beyond “making do” to “making history.” Go forth together and make it so.

Cathy Thom
3-Term Waconia ISD 110 School Board Director
Mom of Sarah – Waconia High School Class of 2020

Mar

2020

5 Wasteful Things People Buy

In a time of pandemic crisis, here are five semi-tongue-in-cheek suggestions to cut wasteful spending from your budget.

Leaf Blowers

A rake, broom, mulching lawn mower, or vacuum cleaner will do the same work, and most of us who would buy a leaf blower have those anyway. Leaf blowers are expensive, redundant, wasteful, and unnecessary power tools for lazy people who like to wake up their neighbors on Saturday mornings.

Convertibles

Maybe it’s because I live in Minnesota, but I don’t like the idea of spending extra for a car where the entire interior gets wet in the rain or any loose items within it are free for the taking to passersby unless I take the time and effort to put the cloth top up before I leave it. On the plus side, it would likely make for a less trash filled car interior . . . I also don’t like the fact that the cloth top up is a permanent fixture eight months of the year because it’s too cold to have it down, and four of those months are so cold in Minnesota that the car heater can’t maintain a temperature above 55 degrees underneath the cloth top no matter how much you crank it. It’s also unnerving that if I were to get into a roll-over accident my skull would be the hardest thing between my brain and the ground.

Designer Purses

I have never understood the female obsession with designer purses. I use just one purse – a small black microfiber cross-body one I bought from a travel store that carries only my essentials – I slip it inside a larger tote bag if I need to carry something larger to hold my computer or other extras. I do have a couple of more decorative clutches for special occasions, but they spend most of their time in a drawer in my closet that also holds the pashmina someone got me as a gift that I say I’m going to wear but never do, and a few pairs of pantyhose that I wish I never had to wear but sometimes must. The one purse accessory item on which I will spend money to get just the right one – although I still don’t care what brand it is, nor even what color – is a high quality, small-size bifold wallet that holds my ID, credit cards, and currency yet still fits inside my trusty small black purse. But to have a closet full of designer purses that I constantly have to switch my essentials between in order to “match” my shoes or my outfit, many of which cost more than the monthly payment on my first ever new car? Um, no.

China & Crystal Dishware

On holidays and other special occasions it’s customary for many families to set out the “good china,” and the “crystal glassware,” which otherwise sits unused and displayed in a special piece of dining room furniture called a “china cabinet” or “hutch.” The thing about “good china,” and crystal stemware is that it is so fragile that even if your automatic dishwasher has a “china” wash setting, it is best to wash it by hand. And crystal stem ware will develop unsightly water spots if you don’t hand dry it right away. All of this must be done with extreme care – setting it out, eating & drinking with it, washing and drying it, and putting it back in the china cabinet – so that no piece gets marred by even the slightest chip. It’s a nerve-wracking process that takes much of the joy out of the meal, and I think one reason that there is so often a “kids’ table” at these meals is because children and “good china” simply don’t mix well.

It’s always been this way – pioneer women often packed only two dresses and one pair of shoes to take across the prairie in a rough-hewn wagon. But by gosh, they packed the entire set of china dishware they got as a wedding gift. We can forgive them their obsession because back then they didn’t have as many decorative dishware options as we have now. So – what’s our excuse for continuing to obsess about buying, passing down, storing, and breaking out the “good china?” Why do we even need it anymore? My attitude is that unless it’s a daily use workhorse like a cast iron pan, if it can’t go in my dishwasher it doesn’t belong in my house. I most certainly won’t spend tons of money on expensive dishware that requires its own storage furniture, creates more work for me, and gives me anxiety to use.

Expensive Brand Name Diapers

This should be self-explanatory considering what diapers are used for. Yet people must still buy Pampers Premium and Huggies Supreme diapers for their babies and toddlers or they wouldn’t still be on the shelves. Both of my daughters wore much less expensive Luvs diapers, and they didn’t have any more rashes or leaks than any other child that I knew of. All parents know that there is no diaper – premium, supreme, or otherwise that can handle the “back blow” leak that happens when a child has an explosive bowel movement while sitting in a car seat. And Luvs got smart by the time my second daughter came around and put fun pictures on their diapers too – so then I was even more unsure why people still bought the more expensive ones. In any case – considering the nature of their one-use purpose, it’s amazing how much parents are still willing to pay for the “right” brand of diapers. But then again, because our kids’ disposable diapers will still be sitting, completely intact, in landfills long after their former wearers are dead and gone, maybe it’s a long-term investment?

Mar

2020

How to Make a Public Option Work

Even before the Covid-19 crisis hit the United States, I had been terribly frustrated by the health care debate because it doesn’t focus on the fact that our system of employer-provided private health insurance evolved in the immediate post-World War II era completely by accident. Employers started providing private health insurance to employees as a way to attract and retain workers, and strong unions negotiated health insurance plans as part of their bargaining strategies. It was the failure of the federal government to pass publicly funded health care when it created the Social Security system in 1937 that necessitated this trend, and Congress again missed its chance to provide universal publicly funded health care when it created Medicare in 1967 – it provided Medicare only for senior citizens, and no one else, and Medicaid was added as an option of last resort for the poor and disabled.

But that 75-year-old employer-provided private insurance system has eroded and failed us in the years since 1967, and it is long past time for a switch to universal publicly funded health care. Unfortunately, it likely cannot be done all at once, and it must be done in phases and carefully, because we will only get one shot at it and if we mess it up the backlash will be severe and we will end up with the status quo or worse for another decade or more.

I have studied all of the Democratic candidates’ health care plans, from moderate “public option for those who want it” plans to Bernie’s “Medicare for All, ” and I believe that none of them can realistically achieve publicly funded universal health care as written because they all forget one of two essential considerations.

1. It would be economically disruptive to completely end private insurance all at once. Not just the insurance and pharmaceutical industries will object, but also other businesses and the public will be resistant to radical change being forced upon them with a sudden mandated shift of everyone to Medicare for All.

That is where Bernie Sanders’ plan goes wrong, even though he proposes a phase-in period of a few years. It is still a forcible option that will be resisted strongly by the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies, and other business sectors and members of the public will lack the incentive and confidence to support it enough for it to pass into law. It also does not do enough to mitigate the economic disruption and employee displacement created by the rapid dismantling of the private insurance industry.

2. The second essential consideration is that a pathway to universal publicly funded health care must include an extremely good public option that people will want, but the pool of people within it must be large enough to make it as cheap or cheaper than current private plans while still providing high enough provider reimbursements to support specialty care. Just adding a public option while saying all private plans should remain intact if people want them (as suggested by Biden, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar) won’t achieve that. How to create a large enough pool of people while minimizing disruption and mitigating insurance and pharmaceutical industry resistance?

Do this: When rolling out a good, comprehensive public option – even one as generous as the one Sanders proposes – simultaneously release all employers with 1000 employees or less from the ACA obligation to provide insurance to their employees. In exchange, have those small businesses pay a nominal subsidy amount towards their employees’ public option premiums. This group of America’s smallest businesses would jump at the chance to unburden themselves from their current mandated and onerous health insurance and administrative costs. Most would likely not renew current private insurance contracts once they expire and tell their employees to switch to the public option.

If that option is good enough, premiums cheap enough, and providers find its reimbursements to be fair enough, then word will spread and individuals and families currently on more expensive ACA private plans will also switched to the public option. Larger employers will in turn start requesting to allow their own employees to make the switch. So then we could release all employers with 1001 to 5000 employees from the ACA obligations to provide employee insurance, and their employees can then also make the switch. After they are successfully onboarded into the public option system, release employers with 5001 to 10,000 employees, and so on until all employers of all sizes no longer are obligated to offer private health insurance to their employees. And if the public option is good enough and cheap enough, there will be many employees of even larger employers who are guaranteed employer provided plans who will opt out of their employers’ plans in order switch to the public option on their own just to save out of pocket costs for premiums and deductibles.

At first the public option will have to be taxpayer subsidized to keep premiums low enough and provider reimbursements high enough for viability. But as the pool of people opting for the public option grows, subsidy amounts will decrease. Once the pool of people on the public option is large enough, both Medicare and Medicaid can be folded into it and the public option can become a true prenatal to death health care system for all. Private insurance should not be outlawed – employers and individuals could still offer or purchase supplemental private plans if they want to, but the goal should be for the public option to be comprehensive enough that most people would not need supplemental options.

As for provider and manufacturer reimbursements, they should be set at a rate of fair return for what it actually costs to provide any particular service, treatment, or product. Medicaid and Medicare already do this, but reimbursement rates are currently set too low, especially for Medicaid. But these two sub-pools of people tend to be older and sicker than most, and folding them into the younger and healthier general population public option pool will allow for higher reimbursements while still keeping premiums as low as possible.

The Covid-19 pandemic debacle shows that the USA must achieve universal publicly funded health care. But it must be done in a phased manner that minimizes economic disruption and mitigates employee displacement and industry and public resistance to the switch. Phased release of employers from small to large size from their ACA mandates to provide insurance to employees can help facilitate that process as long as the public option is good enough, cheap enough, and its provider and manufacturer reimbursements high enough to make it a viable, if not preferred option for the vast majority of people.

Mar

2020

Why Shelter in Place?

There are several states that have instituted mandated shelter in place orders due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Minnesota may be among them soon. There are those who object to shelter in place practices either because they don’t think they are necessary, or because they feel that they infringe upon the individual right to freedom of movement. Because of the success of vaccines and other aspects of modern medicine that make pandemics such a rare event, pandemic and quarantine case law is relatively sparse within the United States. But a key part of that success has been mandatory vaccine laws. It is through that lens which we should view the shelter in place issue.

One of the most feared childhood diseases was diphtheria, which was often called the “children’s plague” and the “great strangulator” because it literally killed the tissues inside the throat until the dead tissue built up enough to close off the airway. It also caused tissue cellulitis and necrosis in other areas of the body, sometimes leading to permanent nerve, tissue, organ and brain damage, gangrene, amputation, coma, and death. Diphtheria infected 1 in 5 children each time a wave came through every 3-5 years, and 1 in 7 of those infected children died. That’s a 3% death rate – similar to that of Covid-19, but it’s not at the moment killing children. We now mandate DPT vaccinations (the D stands for diphtheria, P for pertussis – whooping cough, and T for tetanus) because a 3% diphtheria death rate was considered unacceptable. If we had a vaccine for Covid-19 we could mandate that vaccine. But we don’t have one yet – so to protect the population this one time, for a temporary amount of time, we have to mandate social distancing and staying home unless you have an essential need to go out.

It’s more inconvenient than a vaccine shot, but even at a 40% infection rate across the entire US population of 300 million people and a 2% death rate, if we did nothing we would be looking at 2.4 million deaths. But because Italy’s health care system is overwhelmed and they are rationing ventilators and other treatments, their death rate is closer to 5%. Our curve currently looks similar to theirs, which means if we do nothing more than they did at this same point in their trajectory, we are looking at 6 million deaths – a number similar to the Jews of the Holocaust. And half of that 6 million will have died unnecessarily simply because there wasn’t enough critical care (especially ventilators) to go around. Largely because some people don’t want to stay home for a few weeks to do their part to flatten the curve. Shelter in place is temporary – in the absence of widespread testing, we must assume everyone is contagious and make the sacrifice to stay home and practice social distancing as much as we possibly can until we flatten the critical care curve and develop more testing capacity.

There was recent news that the Justice Department was seeking to detain individuals indefinitely without trial during the crisis, but it is currently getting bipartisan pushback and is going nowhere in Congress. And when Italy’s example shows us what happens when people deny the severely infectious nature of this disease and the unusual lethality of it for certain categories of people, panicking about potential civil liberties violations stands in stark contrast to the correspondingly callous disregard for the welfare of the vulnerable. Any civil liberties lawsuits due to citations for willful violation of shelter in place orders will seem like small irritations when the families of people who die sue health care providers who denied their loved ones necessary critical care simply because there was not enough to go around.

Remember that shelter in place is a temporary measure necessary only because we lack a vaccine and adequate testing. Once we have rapid and widespread testing, we can shift back to less stringent social distancing practices, and once we have a vaccine it will become a non-issue. Until the next pandemic – for which we had better be more prepared. The silver lining of this crisis is that it could show us in stark detail the flaws in our current health care system and increase the political and economic will to finally fix it once and for all. But that is another post for another day. In the meantime – please voluntarily do the right thing and shelter in place as much as you possibly can. Be patient and kind, lend a hand when you can safely do so, thank our neighbors who work in essential front-line jobs, and stay safe.

Mar

2020

Calling for a Coronavirus New Deal

As the US Congress & Senate continue to ponder economic stimulus packages, the sticking points between the parties appear to be direct aid to regular folks and small businesses versus bailout payments and loans to large industries hurt by the pandemic fallout. Pandemic aside, we’ve been here before – crashing markets, sharply reduced demand for many goods and services, and sudden rising unemployment – in 1929.

For three years after the crash, President Herbert Hoover refused to provide any significant stimulus, keeping United States currency on the gold standard and rejecting increased federal deficit spending, and calling on private charities to fill the needs of struggling Americans – charities that were soon overwhelmed as the unemployment crisis spread. It was not until Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office in 1933 that the gold standard was abandoned in favor of flexible currency and a massive experimental public jobs program called the New Deal was enacted by Congress. At least we know that after the Covid-19 pandemic subsides, most of those jobs currently lost will come back. FDR in 1933 had no such assurance. We also now have governmental and fiscal measures in place that allow for federal emergency deficit spending to spur and maintain the economy to keep a temporary recession from becoming a full blow depression.

But our current President and Congress remain reluctant to use these measures, and much of what they are willing to do is either insufficient or ill-targeted. Covid-19 has created tremendous pressure to ramp up certain parts of our economy – such as health care services, and the manufacture of health care equipment, groceries, and sanitary supplies – while depressing other parts of the economy such as travel/hospitality, bars & restaurants, and in-person entertainment venues. We need a Coronavirus New Deal jobs program to hire companies and people to fulfill the needs in areas most stressed, while saving unemployment and other direct payments for those least likely to be able to pay any such assistance back. We should provide zero or low interest loans to those who will be fine once the crisis is over and they can get back to work.

For instance, hire current nursing students and medical students to join health care teams and gain valuable experience by working on the front lines. In exchange for putting their educations on hold during the crisis, forgive their student loans and pay for the rest of their educations when they return to school. That would also free up their teachers to join the front lines as well. Hire appropriate companies both small and large who already manufacture similar items and provide funding for them to convert their production to items of shortage, such as ventilators and PPE equipment. After the crisis is over and they have returned to making their usual products, pay them a nominal amount to maintain the ability to convert their manufacturing back to health care products in the future if another pandemic seems eminent. Pay medical research companies to research and pro-actively develop treatments and vaccines for other anticipated pandemic illnesses. Incentivize public benefit over profit. Because if you don’t prioritize and incentivize public interests during normal times, you will be caught woefully behind the curve again and have to mandate it in times of crisis, which is what we are likely facing now.

Hire restaurants to deliver meals to high risk people and families in need who are financially stressed and trips to the grocery store or the food bank are risky or impractical. Hire pharmacies to fill pricey prescriptions for free so that unemployed people don’t have to forego their medications, and courier services to deliver needed medications to at-risk people. Hire counselors to provide free video consults to people who have mental health issues that are exacerbated by the virus and need extra attention and can refer those at high crisis risk to the appropriate local resources. Hire broadband crews to extend high speed internet infrastructure to places currently without it so that remote work and education options become more readily available to all. These are just a few ideas, but the point is that we should pay to hire companies and workers to fill necessary gaps, and save payments and loans for those who simply must ride it out.

In regard to large industries now asking for bailouts – make any taxpayer assistance, both direct payments and loans, dependent on future stock buy-back and executive compensation limits. And then pass comprehensive tax reform that makes large companies pay their fair share of taxes, start enforcing anti-monopoly laws, and enact campaign finance reform to make sure at the very least that there is transparency about exactly who is paying who how much, and for what. When it comes to assistance to the hotel industry, absolutely no payments should be made to Trump properties until a full disclosure of exactly how much taxpayer money has already been spent at those properties due to the Trumps’ own travel. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin has refused to disclose the full amount, estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars, until after the November election.

Using a New Deal-like jobs program model to fulfill current societal needs while stimulating the economy is not 21^st century rocket science – it’s a method that was improvised during the years 1933-1941, when the CCC, WPA, PWA, & TVA employed millions of Americans to build roads, dams, electric grids, and parks, as well as fight fires, do research, and embark on historical and artistic projects for public benefit. Given what we know now and our progress since then, we could do so much better during this crisis if we applied the same jobs and public need prioritization methods to the Covid-19 health and economic crises. Some of this funding and hiring could be funneled through the states, but we should pay companies and people to make and do the things most currently needed, and subsidize others hurt by the crisis according to their needs both now and projected for a time even after the crisis ends. In short, we need to incentivize the provision of what we need, and subsidize only what has been drastically put on hold according to ability to ride it out until the crisis ends.

cathythom@mac.com

A Love Letter to the Waconia High School Class of 2020

5 Wasteful Things People Buy

How to Make a Public Option Work

Topics

Recent Posts

Subscribe to Cathy’s Corner