President Perry

I think there are some informative nuggets in here, Zig, so I'm not inclined to say it should be deleted. (As in, some of the Texas policy and politics under Perry, and the question of what that indicates for someone (proposed to be) running a huge federal government that serves rural and urban, north & south, immigrant and brahmin. Personally, elections are like my SuperBowl -- I love a good reasoned debate (hard to come by, I know.) If you want to be cynical, then why even pay attention, since you know Goldman Sachs elects our presidents, not the citizen rabble? ;)

I'd love to see this space (SPP) be used to really discuss and debate the net effect of major policy initiatives, and how they relate to the values that are shared by the people who choose to hang out on this forum. To me, that's juicy! There is much opportunity to find blanket characterizations, and nit-picking beside-the-points from the major news channels, bloggers, radio pundits, and preaching-to-the-choir forums.

What can I read here that would help me articulate these policy issues to others who aren't "simple", in my attempt to constructively engage them in the very important national debate that needs to happen? Where is the common ground in our personal and national concerns, that illustrates why the different proposed solutions may be important to seriously consider? How can "the other side" help me to hone MY solutions to meet the concerns of the maximum people, to the maximum good, for the longest possible timeframe?

Well, there goes the neighborhood. :(

Once we limit the Reviews forum to simplicity books and movies, engage only in simple hobbies and simple finance and only celebrate simple holidays, we'll run out of discussion points pretty fast.

In the absence of a spirited point/counter-point, free-range discussion, I may as well play solitaire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

Well, there goes the neighborhood. :(

Once we limit the Reviews forum to simplicity books and movies, engage only in simple hobbies and simple finance and only celebrate simple holidays, we'll run out of discussion points pretty fast.

In the absence of a spirited point/counter-point, free-range discussion, I may as well play solitaire.

---

You think there isn't opportunity for a spirited point/counter-point in talking about how public policy influences/shouldn't influence, enables/shouldn't enable, mandates/shouldn't mandate simple living? Especially in a presidential election campaign? HA! I beg to differ, and if you don't believe it Alan, I'm sure I can bait you into very spiritedly counter-pointing some of my points. !pow!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rozie

You think there isn't opportunity for a spirited point/counter-point in talking about how public policy influences/shouldn't influence, enables/shouldn't enable, mandates/shouldn't mandate simple living? Especially in a presidential election campaign? HA! I beg to differ, and if you don't believe it Alan, I'm sure I can bait you into very spiritedly counter-pointing some of my points. !pow!

---

With only 24 posts in a dozen threads over a 9 month period, you're gonna have to up your game a bit to keep things interesting. ;)

I see simplicity as an ideology of sorts, just like a political ideology, and one we all share. We are all attracted to this, and are living/want to live/need this center in our lives. But i think most of us can't really compartmentalize and keep simplicity over here and the 'rest' of our selves over there. What happens politically does affect me, in all aspects of my life, whether directly or indirectly through my country, town, neighbors or family. No one exists in a bubble, nor can the actions of our elected leaders. Those actions will, ultimately, affect all of us.
Sure, we can discuss individual political actions, and often do. But it won't mean anything if we don't first discuss WHO is making those decisions. We have to discuss Perry as a potential candidate because, after all, if this bozo is elected it will definitely affect us all. And that WILL affect my simple life.
He wants to do away with SS. How simple do you think that will make it for the elderly? And, as much as I hate to admit it, we will all be that person someday. He wants to repeal the health care reforms. That certainly affects our financial planning, and unsimplified that which Obama was trying to simplify.

I wouldn't worry about the often spirited debate we engage in here. I know it sometimes seems like we are disintegrating into chaos, but we've been here before and survived. We've done this before, and believe me it will get even more 'spirited', but no one really seems to hold a grudge for very long, and those who can't take the heat and stay civil, usually leave this kitchen.
Personally, I believe it's because we all share this ideology of simplicity that we can disagree in other areas without disengaging completely. We are who we are, and even 'simple' people can hold complicated political views and discussions.

Peggy, I can't remember the last time I agreed with you, but on this point (minus the gratuitous political hyperbole) I think we're kindred spirits.

Seriously, I believe that if everyone would simply adhere to the guidelines regarding personal attacks on members as well as public figures, the administrators wouldn't have reason to suggest we limit our discussions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

Peggy, I can't remember the last time I agreed with you, but on this point (minus the gratuitous political hyperbole) I think we're kindred spirits.

Seriously, I believe that if everyone would simply adhere to the guidelines regarding personal attacks on members as well as public figures, the administrators wouldn't have reason to suggest we limit our discussions.

---

Well let's mark this date Alan, since I'm pretty sure we won't agree again until after this election! At least politically.;)
But, I do believe public figures are fair game for derision and ridicule. After all, they put themselves up there to be judged, and are in fact asking for the ultimate judgement, a vote. So, no one should be surprised if we do judge them. And I won't be easy on them either, including those I vote for. Too often people forget, including those elected leaders, that in the end, whoever wins is supposed to represent us all, We the People, and what they do affects us all.
Bush was my President, and what he did to this country will be felt for generations. And Obama is your President, which is why I expect you to be hard on him.

Okay, here's a lob out to ya'll for spiritedness (perhaps more for those more anti-Perry than you, Alan):

As a basic tenet of my simplicity, I believe that if capital and jobs don't know borders anymore, people should have freedom of movement too (actually believed this before capital and jobs lost all their restrictions.) Perry signed a law that called for a STUDY (love laws that merely study - a great dodge, but hey, it's also good to look before you leap) on allowing private health plans licensed in Texas to cover services in Texas AND in Mexico. Those plans would then be available to any Mexican national or American citizen working within 62 miles of the Texas-Mexico border. Seems to me this is a grand idea, and the study claimed it would dramatically decrease both costs in the tax-funded SCHIP program, and make it easier on immigrants who are supporting families cross-border. Since 72 percent of Mexico-born residents of the United States would be interested in a product that covered medical services in Mexico (2005 study) could this dramatically alter Texas' abysmal rate of insured? rrrrr

Granted, we simple folks don't partake much of allopathic medicine, but isn't that because allopathic medicine in the US generally sucks, more than it is about simplicity? Could one reasonably argue that my SO should be able to go to, say, Germany, for spinal surgery on that impinged disk that threatens paralyzation, and have Blue Cross (or Medicare for that matter) cover it? Might a Republican candidate like Perry by more amenable to this idea than a Dem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rozie

Perry signed a law that called for a STUDY (love laws that merely study - a great dodge, but hey, it's also good to look before you leap) on allowing private health plans licensed in Texas to cover services in Texas AND in Mexico. Those plans would then be available to any Mexican national or American citizen working within 62 miles of the Texas-Mexico border. Seems to me this is a grand idea, and the study claimed it would dramatically decrease both costs in the tax-funded SCHIP program, and make it easier on immigrants who are supporting families cross-border. Since 72 percent of Mexico-born residents of the United States would be interested in a product that covered medical services in Mexico (2005 study) could this dramatically alter Texas' abysmal rate of insured?

Might a Republican candidate like Perry by more amenable to this idea than a Dem?

---

From my exposure to the Republican way of thinking, I seriously doubt that the issue of making it easier on immigrants supporting families with regard to healthcare would even enter the equation. As most of the country knows Texas has the highest percentage of uninsured in the nation. However, the one factor that immediately get GOP attention is "business interests".

I found this Policy Research Project Report by the LBJ School of Public Affairs interesting.

In the late 1990s, California took steps to legitimize the sale of cross-border health insurance, and the resulting policies and market structure can serve as an example for Texas.

In 1999, the Texas Legislature examined legislation to legalize cross-border HMOs for residents along the border in an effort to decrease the number of uninsured and alleviate the strains put on
hospitals due to the high costs associated with indigent care. Instead, an Interim Committee on Binational Health Benefit Plan Coverage was created to study the issues. Although it issued a report in early 2003, there was little interest in moving forward due to opposition, primarily of organized medicine.

Despite the lack of progress, there is still an interest by employers, insurers, and workers
in Texas for cost-saving, cross-border plans.

I'm not sure our healthcare system will ever be focused on "health" instead of "profit" in a Republican world.

Peace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zigzagman

From my exposure to the Republican way of thinking, I seriously doubt that the issue of making it easier on immigrants supporting families with regard to healthcare would even enter the equation. As most of the country knows Texas has the highest percentage of uninsured in the nation. However, the one factor that immediately get GOP attention is "business interests".

Peace

---

From a 2001 speech by Governor Perry at a US/Mexico border summit:

Quote:

---

There are other challenges that require a unified approach, especially in the area of health care. A lack of preventative medicine means conditions that could have been eliminated through childhood immunizations show up in disturbing numbers later in life. Limited availability of medical specialists means conditions like heart disease and diabetes go untreated at alarming rates. In Texas, we recently placed a strong emphasis on preventative care when we expanded access to Medicaid for more low-income children by making the Medicaid enrollment process simpler. We allocated an additional $4 billion to the Medicaid program, and more than $900 million to the Children's Health Insurance Program. I urged legislators to pass a telemedicine pilot program that will enable, through technology, a sick border resident of limited financial means to receive care from a specialist hundreds of miles away. But the effort to combat disease and illness requires greater cooperative efforts between our two nations. It is a simple truth that disease knows no boundaries. An outbreak of drug-resistant tuberculosis, for example, endangers citizens of both our nations. We have much to gain if we work together to expand preventative care, and treat maladies unique to this region.
Legislation authored by border legislators Pat Haggerty and Eddie Lucio establishes an important study that will look at the feasibility of bi-national health insurance. This study recognizes that the Mexican and U.S. sides of the border compose one region, and we must address health care problems throughout that region. That's why I am also excited that Texas Secretary of State Henry Cuellar is working on an initiative that could extend the benefits of telemedicine to individuals living on the Mexican side of the border.

---

Granted, the study has yet to yield results, but it seems like he was actively promoting a bi-partisan approach to a local problem. Do you think the very fact that he is a Republican kept this from going anywhere? If so, does the fact that the Texas House of Representatives was controlled by Democrats at the time have anything to do with it? I understand that the Texas legislature is one of the most powerful bodies of it's kind in the US. I wonder why they didn't just approve it and move on?