Author: Ken Goetz

Neither Harris nor Trump would make an ideal president.

The Agonizing Harris-Trump Race

Posted on by Ken Goetz

The agonizing Harris – Trump race has created a dilemma for at least half of our country’s voters, I among them. Millions of us find both candidates unfit for the job. To summarize my own view, I rate these two nominees as the least desirable pair to run for the presidency throughout the 70 years I’ve been a registered voter. Each is scarred with worrisome deficiencies.

But this is politics, after all, so each also has swarms of partisan supporters, along with swarms of detractors, both sides being loud and raucous. And both sides screaming that our democracy will end if their opponent wins.  Could both sides be right? It’s worth noting that polls consistently have revealed that 60 percent of us believe our country is headed in the wrong direction. (Again, I’m in that majority.)

I’ve written about the agonizing Harris-Trump race before, specifically on Scientific American’s endorsement of one of the candidates. (See that post here.)

Here I will focus on only a sliver of the mass of information available, highlighting the markers of each candidates that worry me. If you nod your head vigorously when I focus on one candidate, and shake it angrily when I focus on the other, you may have confirmed your partisanship.

Former President Trump
Donald Trump

To start with the most obvious, Trump clearly is in love with himself. He is loud, boorish, and given to hyperbole regarding his accomplishments. And how he lies! Below is a quote I found on Wikipedia (See here). It summarizes the general consensus well.

Historian Douglas Brinkley stated that U.S. presidents have occasionally “lied or misled the country,” but none were a “serial liar” like Trump. Donnel Stern, writing in Psychoanalytic Dialogues in 2019, declared: “We expect politicians to stretch the truth. But Trump is a whole different animal,” because Trump “lies as a policy”, and “will say anything” to satisfy his supporters or himself.

So, reflecting on Trump’s personality, how effectively would he deal with Congress during his second term. And equally important, how effectively would he deal with foreign leaders? Would he be forceful and effective? Or might he foster increasing tensions and possibly be a factor in igniting World War III?

ChatGPT Summary:

I asked ChatGPT to summarize Trump’s style. Here’s the result:

Donald Trump’s leadership style was defined by an unorthodox approach that rejected traditional political decorum in favor of a populist, combative tone. While his supporters viewed this as a necessary disruption of the political establishment, critics argue that his divisive rhetoric deepened political and social fractures in the country, undermined democratic norms, and left a legacy of polarization. His focus on energizing his base, often through inflammatory language and a rejection of consensus, fundamentally reshaped the nature of political discourse in America.

Reason enough to worry about a possible second term for Donald Trump? The agonizing Harris-Trump race continues.

Candidate Harris
Kamala Harris

Harris presents herself with less flourish than Trump, and thus by most standards is personally less off-putting than her opponent. Nevertheless, she sets off worries for us undecided voters. Here are two that bother me. She frequently strings together combinations of words devoid of meaning, or at best vague, sometimes referred to as “word salad.” Does she do this intentionally to avoid a direct answer? Or is she unable to clearly analyze certain subjects? I don’t know, but her blabbering bothers me. Here’s an example from when she was asked by CBS’s Bill Whitaker why it seemed like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wasn’t listening to the U.S.  Her answer? Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of, many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region.”

You all clear on the above? By the way, Harris’s above answer was broadcast as a teaser on Face the Nation. Later, when Whitaker’s interview with Harris aired on 60-Minutes, another answer of hers was substituted for the one above. CBS, when editing the interview, changed her answer. The last I heard on this matter, which was yesterday, is that CBS refuses to release the full transcript of that interview.

Reason number two. Harris’s flip-flops. During this campaign, she has shifted from far left toward the middle, as did Obama and Biden before her. Here are three examples: In her brief 2020 presidential run, she said, “There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking.” In 2019, she was among a number of Democrats who would not “rule out” expanding the Supreme Court; she saw a crisis of confidence in the Court and said that “everything is on the table” to face that challenge. During her brief, last presidential effort she said in Las Vegas, “We have to have a buy-back program (for AR-15s and similar guns) and I support a mandatory buy-back program.”

ChatGPT Summary:

I asked ChatGPT to summarize her changes on the above issues. Here’s the result:

Kamala Harris’s changing positions on fracking, defunding the police, and expanding the Supreme Court reflect the pressures of balancing progressive and moderate factions within the Democratic Party. These shifts have fueled criticisms from both sides of the political spectrum, with opponents accusing her of political opportunism and lack of consistency. While some see her flexibility as pragmatic, others view it as indicative of a deeper issue with political authenticity.

Reason enough to worry about a possible Harris presidency?

What comes next?:

I’ll tackle more issues soon, and force myself to drill down and decide which of the sorry candidates pictured above I will vote against. The agonizing Harris-Trump race continues.  Stay tuned.

Discriminatory DEI

DEI is Dying

Posted on by Ken Goetz

DEI is dying in higher education, and in major businesses. To consider higher education first, an extensive article in today’s The New York Times Magazine describes the history of DEI at the University of Michigan. Written by Nicholas Confessore, an investigative reporter for The Times, the article’s title and subhead ably summarize one of its important discoveries.

The University of Michigan Doubled Down on D.E.I. What Went Wrong?

A decade and a quarter of a billion dollars later, students and faculty are more frustrated than ever.

 

Campus Scene

If you have access to The Times Magazine, I urge you to read the article carefully. It covers Michigan’s experience with DEI thoroughly, and it goes into multiple ramifications of that effort, far more than I will mention here. Below is a segment near the opening of that article.

A decade ago, Michigan’s leaders set in motion an ambitious new D.E.I. plan, aiming “to enact far-reaching foundational change at every level, in every unit.” Striving to touch “every individual on campus,” as the school puts it, Michigan has poured roughly a quarter of a billion dollars into D.E.I. since 2016, according to an internal presentation I obtained.  . . . Tens of thousands of undergraduates have completed bias training. Thousands of instructors have been trained in inclusive teaching.

The article also points out that DEI critics deplore that the program is strongly left-wing because it trains professors in “anti-racist pedagogy” and gives handouts on how to identify characteristics of white supremacy. The engineering school even promises a “pervasive education around issues of race, ethnicity, unconscious bias and inclusion.” And that, I ask, is what it takes to be a good engineer?

Michigan’s results? Not good!

Confessore writes, On campus, I met students with a wide range of backgrounds and perspectives. Not one expressed any particular enthusiasm for Michigan’s D.E.I. initiative. Where some found it shallow, others found it stifling. They rolled their eyes at the profusion of course offerings that revolve around identity and oppression, the D.E.I.-themed emails they frequently received but rarely read.

Michigan’s own data suggests that in striving to become more diverse and equitable, the school has also become less inclusive: In a survey released in late 2022, students and faculty members reported a less positive campus climate than at the program’s start and less of a sense of belonging. Students were less likely to interact with people of a different race or religion or with different politics — the exact kind of engagement D.E.I. programs, in theory, are meant to foster.

So, what do you think? Did the University of Michigan spend that $250,000,000 wisely?

DEI is dying in businesses

Businesses also are retreating from DEI. For example, an article earlier this month in The Advocate by Trudy Ring, listed eight major companies that have stopped DEI programs (see here). It is important to note however, that a good number of individuals still favor the concepts of DEI, even if its implementation often bumps into financial problems in business just as it has in higher education.

I think it is fair to say that most businesses that have lowered their DEI efforts, or have abandoned them entirely, have done so for the simple reason that they have been losing customers and thus losing revenue.

If you have been following my blog for a while, you may recall that I’ve written about DEI a couple of times before, explaining why I consider it to be discriminatory and unfair. (See those posts here and here.). So, for me personally, I am pleased that DEI is dying.

Future topic?

On the other hand, and on another subject entirely, I continue to be DIS-pleased by the two major candidates for our highest office. At the moment, I judge neither to possess qualities suitable to be our president. So, as I’ve said here before, my question probably will become frustratingly simple. Whom will I vote against?  I am so agitated that I may rouse myself to consider that worrying topic one more time on this site.

 

 

Present edidtion

Writerken.com is restored

Posted on by Ken Goetz

Writerken.com is restored. I learned yesterday that some readers logging on to my website were able to land on my home page but could not access any  posts from there. I alerted the tech guys at KC Web Specialists, and they soon had things back in order. So, for those of you who missed my last post on Scientific American’s presidential endorsement, it’s now available again (see that here). That post generated considerable interest. And Scientific American’s full article endorsing their candidate can be found here.

As my followers know, I write on a variety of topics here, but this year I’ve focused a bit more on politics and governmental Snafus. Why that focus? Quite simply, because of my concern over the unsettled state of our nation, not to mention the increasing tensions throughout the globe. The world is full of hostilities. Putin invaded Ukraine over two years ago, and that war has now slaughtered over a million people, destroyed cities and villages, and shows no signs of ending. Hamas attacked Israel almost a year ago, and violence in the Middle East is escalating, now spreading into Lebanon, where Hezbollah reigns. Just yesterday, Israel killed longtime Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, in an airstrike. China is saber rattling in waters in the Pacific. North Korea’s leader, and his nuclear arsenal, are unstable and dangerous. Iran, where one hears “death to America” shouts, soon will have the bomb.

America enters World War II
 Bombing of Pearl Harbor, 1941 (This was before the development of atomic and nuclear bombs)

World War III?

Is World War III in our future? That’s a scary thought, but a genuine possibility to consider, especially when one reads the special report of the Commission on the National Defense Strategy, which says The threats the United States faces are the most serious and most challenging the nation has encountered since 1945 . . . The United States last fought a global conflict during World War II, which ended nearly 80 years ago. The nation was last prepared for such a fight during the Cold War, which ended 35 years ago. It is not prepared today (see that detailed, and frightening, report here).

And how is our government responding? Not well, I would suggest. I intend to write my congressmen and women and ask them what they are proposing to remedy the lack of preparation of our country to defend itself should war break out. If you’re interested, perhaps you should do the same.

Neither Harris nor Trump would make an ideal president.
Our two main presidential candidates

And of course, there is our upcoming November election, a topic I imagine I will write more about now that writerken.com is restored. Here’s an idea, if you truly believe one of these two candidates is actually capable and well-suited to serve as the President of the United States of America, please write to me with your reasons for believing that. I would be happy to put some or all of your opinion on this site. As I’ve said here before, I find neither of these two to have the qualifications, or the character, that we need as our president in these crucial times.

 

 

Present edidtion

Scientific American’s Presidential Endorsement

Posted on by Ken Goetz

Scientific American‘s presidential endorsement disappointed me. As a person gritting my teeth about the upcoming election, I had hopes of finding some logical and reasonable arguments in this “scientific” article. You’ve probably heard about the endorsement, or maybe you’ve even have read it. It appeared a few days ago, accompanied by the rather proud boast that this was only the second time in its 179-year history that the editors are endorsing a candidate for president (read that endorsement here).

No matter what your political orientation is, I invite you to read to the end of this post. Why? Because I’ll focus on what I believe is the most fearsome danger our country now faces, a vulnerability not even mentioned by the magazine’s endorsement, and one that remains much under-reported by our national media. Nonetheless, it is a genuine peril that is becoming more ominous day by day.

I’ve read Scientific American sporadically in the past, and I actually expected to learn some interesting facts from that publication’s editorial, some insights concerning factors I might otherwise not have considered. (If you’ve followed my blog, you know that I believed our choice between Biden and Trump was dismal (see here for one example). Now, with the substitution of Harris for Biden, my opinion hasn’t changed. In fact, I think it’s possible that these two are the worst presidential candidates ever to run for office during the 179-year history of Scientific American. For this reason, I’ve been in a quandary trying to decide whom to vote against. Yes, you read that right. My goal is simple: to decide which one would do the most damage to our country. If I can figure that out, I’ll put an X in front of the other candidate. I know, that’s terrible, but it’s what I honestly believe.

Neither Harris nor Trump would make an ideal president.
Our two main presidential candidates

With that in mind, I read the arguments presented by Scientific American with some eagerness, expecting the piece to be relatively logical, possibly with a pro versus con format for each candidate. I was wrong! Both the tone and the arguments themselves disappointed. While reading it, I had the impression that it could have been written by a high school student who had just been fed Democrat talking points; or it could have been composed by an AI bot trained exclusively from leftist sources.

To illustrate, here’s the subheading of the article: Kamala Harris has plans to improve health, boost the economy and mitigate climate change. Donald Trump has threats and a dangerous record. That subhead pretty much previews what follows, which is plenty of opinions, along with scattered facts that are interpreted as positive when related to the Biden-Harris administration, and negative when related to Trump. If you want unbiased information, or in-depth analysis, you will find little of value in that piece.

Climate Change versus the Unnamed Peril

Scientific American of course mentioned climate change (Harris pro, Trump con), a topic that often is described in our media as an existential threat. That is almost laughable when you consider the following.  The fearsome worry I referred to earlier is a growing threat to the very survival of our country, and a danger far more terrifying than the possibility that our planet’s temperature could be increased by 2 or 3 degrees some fifty years from now. So, what exactly is this real threat? It is the likelihood that we soon could be embroiled in war, possibly with nuclear weapons (see below), and that we are unprepared. I’ve discussed the relative threats of global warming versus nuclear winter in an earlier post (see here).

The danger of war, and the unpreparedness of our country to engage in one, are not figments of my imagination. This potential recently was carefully analyzed by a select group of eight experts appointed by senior Democrats and Republicans in Congress. This elite and nonpartisan group waded through a huge range of both public and classified information. It then analyzed this massive trove and issued a unanimous report that is absolutely scary to read. That report can be found here, and I highly recommend that you take a look at it. When it came out in July, it should have been front page news in every major newspaper in the country, and the story should have been reported on every national TV news segment on the very day it was released. If that happened, I didn’t see it. I stumbled on it recently. See the teasers below.

Short Excerpts from the Report

A phrase from the Forward of that report: We also address our report to the American public, who have been inadequately informed by government leaders of the threats to U.S. interests—including to people’s everyday lives . . .

The first paragraph of the Summary: The threats the United States faces are the most serious and most challenging the nation has encountered since 1945 and include the potential for near-term major war. The United States last fought a global conflict during World War II, which ended nearly 80 years ago. The nation was last prepared for such a fight during the Cold War, which ended 35 years ago. It is not prepared today.

More to consider

WWI was started by an assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, although other factors were involved. WWII started abruptly when Hitler invaded Poland, although again there were other factors. Compare those events with what is going on today.

* Russia invaded Ukraine over two years ago, a war that still is causing death and destruction (over a million killed, and countless cities destroyed). That war is being escalated by contributions to Ukraine from the West, and contributions to Russia from the East.

* The Mideast is ablaze as the conflict between Israel and its enemies, Hamas and Hezbollah, intensifies daily. Again, certain other countries are supporting both sides.

And more

* China is flexing its might in the South China Sea: Here’s a recent quote from Time: Experts say that China appears to be baiting a military response from opposing claimants in the South China Sea (or their allies) that would trigger an even more dangerous but legally justifiable use of force on its part, but so far none of the nations involved have militarily engaged with China over the issue.

* Nine countries have nuclear weapons, including Russia and the USA who have nearly 6,000 each (Putin has threatened to use his against Ukraine, and the USA, you’ll remember, used two in WWII). Other countries ready with bombs ready to explode on potential enemies include China, France, United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, Israel, North Korea, and likely soon, Iran. Detonation of a few of those bombs could set in motion a cascade of deaths similar to, or possibly even exceeding, the one that marked the extinction of the dinosaurs.

 

Atomic bomb
Early Nuclear Blast

What do you think?

Should our selection of a presidential candidate include a consideration of how that candidate would build up our national defense (which recklessly has been allowed to weaken)? I think the answer can be nothing but an unequivocal YES. So, I still am gritting my teeth over that crucial selection. And that’s why is Scientific American presidential endorsement disappointed me.

A request

If you have friends or relatives who might find this information interesting, I ask you to consider forwarding this post to them. Thank you!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Important Differences between Democrats and Republicans (Part 2)

Posted on by Ken Goetz

Important differences between Democrats and Republicans were covered in my last post, with focus on the Democrats, and following the theme of Ezra Klein of The New York Times, who claimed that Democrats are united in their belief that the government can, and should, act on behalf of the public.

In contrast, Mr. Klein characterized the Republicans quite differently, The modern Republican Party, by contrast, is built upon a loathing of the government. Many would consider that a gross overstatement, but he did touch on a recognizable theme, especially when one considers certain quotes of perhaps the most popular Republican of the last half century, Ronald Reagan (President from 1981 to 1989). Reagan produced many quotes (see here). Four representative examples follow:

  • Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other. – 1965
  • Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives. – 1981
  • Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. (First Inaugural Address on January 20, 1981)
  • The nine most terrifying words in the English language are “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help. – 1986
Reagan in Oval Office
President Ronald Reagan

Just so there is no misunderstanding, I am in full agreement with Reagan’s concepts, but I believe they also are consistent with what I often reveal in this space, namely that my political base is also compatible with the views of perhaps the most popular Democrat of the last century, John F. Kennedy (President from 1961 to 1963), Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.

Kennedy in Oval Office
President John F. Kennedy

In my opinion, Mr. Klein of the Times overstated the Republican view of government. As I see it, most Republicans are politicians, not statesmen, as are their Democrat colleagues, but overall the Republicans have an edge in ineptness.

Some examples: Think of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, and contrast her with Republican members of the House Black Caucus. Think of the frequent changing of Republican leadership of House leadership (as opposed to the long tenure of Democrat Nancy Pelosi). Here’s one that made me smile, an incident described by Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska. When recently visiting his Nebraska congressional district, he joined a GOP meeting and told the group, “I am a Christian first, an American second, and then a Republican.”

An older gentleman immediately yelled out, “That is why we don’t like you!” Representative Bacon added, rather dryly, “I wondered what bothered him more, the Christian or the American part.”

Enough of that! I’ll cut this short because tonight is THE DEBATE between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. I dread tuning in, but of course I will. I wrote here earlier a number of times to give my views of the dismal upcoming election with then-candidates Biden and Trump (see here, here, and here). One candidate has changed, but for me the dreariness continues. Surely all voters have evaluated our present contenders and have come to a conclusion. Here’s mine: Kennedy and Reagan they are not!

 

 

Important Differences between Democrats and Republicans.

Posted on by Ken Goetz

Important differences between Democrats and Republicans were revealed recently by Ezra Klein in The New York Times (see here). Mr. Klein was laser-focused as he encapsulated the current Democratic party (see below).

Democrats according to Klein

Democrats are united in their belief that the government can, and should, act on behalf of the public. To be on the party’s far left is to believe the government should do much more. To be among its moderates is to believe it should do somewhat more. But all of the people elected as Democrats, from Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Senator Joe Manchin, are there for the same reason: to use the power of the government to pursue their vision of the good. The divides are real and often bitter. But there is always room for negotiation because there is a fundamental commonality of purpose.

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT? What grade does Mr. Klein deserve for his summary of the Democrats? I THINK HE EARNED A SOLID A. Next, let’s take a look at  his views of the Republican party (see segment below).

Republicans according to Klein

The modern Republican Party, by contrast, is built upon a loathing of the government. Some of its members want to see the government shrunk and hamstrung. This is the old ethos, best described by Grover Norquist, the anti-tax activist who famously said: “I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT? Please give Mr. Klein a grade. He seems to have sharpened his pen here, and even tossed in a bit of exaggeration. Nonetheless, he touched on some truths.  I AWARDED HIM WITH A C FOR HIS EFFORT.

Relevance of the above differences

As voters, I would argue, we have an obligation to examine diverging political views and actions, and to determine how they affect us individually, and our nation as well. Since we obviously can’t see into the future, the best we can do is to peek into the past to see how things have gone after government expands, or after it contracts. With this in mind, I’ll take a brief look at the impact of two examples of governmental expansion, specifically laws that were intended to act on the behalf of the public. In a later post, I’ll look at the obverse side of the coin.

Increasing costs of college students
Gathered Students

Governmental laws on behalf of college students

The government has acted generously on behalf college students. In 1965, Washington began providing eligible students with Federal Pell grants, which provided funds for expenses needed for students to attend colleges and universities. The establishment of Pell grants basically marked the beginning of a series of governmental laws (summarized here) intended to provide considerable cash as loans and whatnot for financially-strapped college students. How has that worked out?

Over 25 years ago, then Secretary of Education William J. Bennett, argued that, contrary to the intentions of policymakers, increased federal aid actually was making college less affordable (“Our Greedy Colleges,” New York Times, Feb 18, 1987). Bennett argued that the increases in financial aid had enabled colleges and universities to blithely raise their tuitions, confident that Federal loan subsidies would help cushion the increased burden. (For a detailed discussion of this topic, see my earlier post on exorbitant college costs (click here).

Since then, college tuitions and fees have continued to rocket upward to astronomical levels. According to USA Today, in June of this year the student loan debt balance in the U.S. totaled more than $1.77 trillion, having increased by 66% over the past decade. Individual students today not infrequently graduate indebted by hundreds of thousands of dollars, a result probably not intended by the legislators who authorized the funds.

Students’ loss, higher education’s gain

There also have been obvious winners, especially those employed in higher education. Increasingly flush with cash, many colleges and universities have doled out grossly inflated salaries to faculty and administrators. To cite one example from my alma mater, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the annual salary of Chancellor Donna Shalala in 1988 (a time when tuitions had already doubled from two decades earlier) was $95,000; by 2019, Chancellor Rebecca Blank’s salary was $582,607.

The upward swing persists. In mid-2022, the University of Wisconsin Regents hired Jennifer Mnookin to be the new chancellor at a base salary of $750,000. My quick adjustment for inflation revealed that Chancellor Shalala’s salary in 2022 dollars would be $235,365, thus the inflation-adjusted value of the chancellor’s salary has more than tripled since Donna Shalala presided there. Go Badgers!

The question for us common people to answer, I suggest, is whether we favor what Washington has done for college students, or not. Our answer conceivably could influence which party we affiliate with, and how we vote.

 

Health care
Doctor and patient

Governmental laws on behalf of medical patients

This is a second area in which the government has done much on behalf of citizens. Few, I think, would deny that. One can find a listing of the major “health” laws by clicking here. You probably know, from personal experiences and from reports of family and friends, how that legislation has worked out. Some examples follow.

If you’ve been on this earth for several decades, you’ll remember when your doctor looked at you during an appointment, rather than focusing on a computer screen. You will remember that your physician was in private practice (not a salaried employee), and that telephone calls to your physician were answered promptly by a receptionist or nurse employed by that doctor, and that you could get a medical appointment within days or even hours, not weeks or months as it usually takes today. In those past days, there was no “health care industry,” and a time when a visit to the emergency often cost under $100, not the $1,000s or more for brief visits so typical these days. It was a time when few people even carried health insurance because medical costs were reasonable, and individuals who couldn’t afford to pay their medical bills usually had them written off by doctors and hospitals. That’s the way it was when I graduated from medical school.

It’s worth knowing that more changes in our medical care may be coming. Certain politicians today are eager to pass even more laws on behalf of patients, for example, laws establishing a “single payer” system, and laws eliminating private medical insurance, and much more. Will the potential effects of these proposed changes be beneficial? That seems to be another key question that cannot be answered with certainty. What do you think? Do you favor further changes, or not?

Again, our views on the significant changes in our medical care and its soaring costs may also influence the party we affiliate with, and how we vote.

A broader view and final questions

Clearly, there are important differences between Democrats and Republicans. And the above two examples naturally represent only a fraction of governmental influences on our daily lives, many of them vital, such as those affecting our personal liberties, our public safety, our economy, and the security of our borders. Nonetheless, the examples I cited were enacted “on behalf of the public,” “to pursue their vision of the good” to use Mr. Klein’s phrases (their vision, of course, refers to the vision of “good” according to the Democrats).  Having considered all of that, I suppose it is a mysterious mix of these multiple governmental roles that somehow determines our own political views. If so, that raises interesting questions for all of us, which are: can we identify the specific factors that generated our personal political views? Do we know why we call ourselves a Democrat, a Republican, an Independent, a Socialist, or a Communist? Were we influenced by family views, or opinions of friends and colleagues, or our natural kindness for others, or our independence? Or have other factors influenced us? Have we carefully examined our current candidates, or what they promise, or do we automatically lean toward someone who represents the party we identify with? I’ve had a go at all of these questions. Believe me, it was a chore. If you give them a try, have fun!

Alert, next time I’ll continue my exploration of important differences between Democrats and Republicans, focusing on the party that loathes government.

 

 
Medicare advantage changes this interaction.

You Okay With This? I’m Not!

Posted on by Ken Goetz

You okay with this? I’m not! Health care costs have zoomed into the stratosphere. And what the government pays for Medicare and Medicaid ultimately comes from the pockets of us taxpayers. As I have argued here before (click here to see), increasing government involvement surely has been a major factor in the incredulous increase in health care spending.  For example, in 1975, health care spending was $550 per person compared with more than $11,000 per person in 2017. Yep, you calculated correctly, health spending increased by more than 2,000% over 42 years. Can you think of anything else that has gone up that fast? As I mentioned in the reference above, a profit-generating machine has taken over healthcare. Today I’ll focus on one part of that money grubbing machine.

Nurse Visits Made Insurers $15 Billion

Above is the headline of a front page article in today’s Wall Street Journal.  The article reveals how Medicare Advantage insurers employ nurses to visit their insured patients, and perhaps to collect extra government cash. Here’s how it works. The insurers send nurses millions of times each year into the homes of Medicare Advantage recipients, not to treat them, but to look them over, run tests, and ask dozens of questions. During this roughly hour visit, nurses also can add diagnoses to the patients’ records. From these new diagnoses, insurance companies collected an extra $1,818 per visit (on average from 2019 to 2021). (The more diagnoses a patient has, the more money the Medicare Advantage insurer collects from the government.)

Ironically, the Medicare Advantage system was thought to be a lower-cost alternative to traditional Medicare. For a government perspective on its insurance plans, click here. In this system, private insurers are paid a lump sum to provide health benefits for the seniors and disabled people in this federal program. This program now covers more than half of the 67 million seniors and disabled people on Medicare. But things haven’t gotten cheaper. They have zoomed upward. You okay with this? I’m not!

Medicare Advantage patient with nurse
Nurse home visit

As to be expected, adding nearly two grand per visit (had having lots and lots of visits) generates real money. According to a WSJ analysis, the added diagnoses during those nurses visits contributed about $15 billion to the insurance companies over the three years examined.

How are those diagnoses by nurses made? Here’s one example from the article. Nurse practitioner Shelley Manke, who used to work for the HouseCalls unit of United-Health Group, was part of that small army making home visits. She made a half-dozen or so visits a day, she said in a recent interview.

“Part of the routine”

Part of her routine, she said, was to warm the big toes of her patients and use a portable testing device to measure how well blood was flowing to their extremities. The insurers were checking for cases of peripheral artery disease, a narrowing of blood vessels. Each new case entitled them to collect an extra $2,500 or so a year at that time.

But Manke didn’t trust the device. She had tried it on herself and had gotten an array of results. When she and other nurses raised concerns with managers, she said, they were told the company believed that data supported the tests and that they needed to keep using the device.

“It made me cringe,” said Manke, who stopped working for HouseCalls in 2022. “I didn’t think the diagnosis should come from us, period, because I didn’t feel we had an adequate test.”

Other nurses interviewed by the Journal said many of the diagnoses that home-visit companies encouraged them to make wouldn’t otherwise have occurred to them, and in many cases were unwarranted.

A growth industry

As you might imagine from the above numbers, the home-visit conglomerate is expanding. United-Health’s subsidiary, HouseCalls, sent nurse practitioners to the homes of more than 2.7 million people last year. This was nearly matched by CVS’s Signify, which performed about 2.6 million home visits in 2023. But to make those visits, the insurance companies need to get Medicare Advantage recipients to agree to a visit, so call centers bombard those recipients with invitations for home visits, “In the case of Humana, auto-dialing them as many as ten times, according to former managers.”

As I was on my walk today, I spoke with an acquaintance in his front yard, telling him about the post I was planning to write. He told me he simply turns down all offers for a home visit from his Medicare Advantage insurer. Quite simply, he sees no reason for such visits.

The insurers, of course, have a reason. United-Health and CVS Health, owner of both Signify and Aetna, said the house calls help patients by, among other things, catching diseases early and making sure people are taking their medicine properly. The insurers said they relay home-visit findings to primary-care doctors.

A contrasting view

I think the program is a boondoggle. Remember that $15 billion mentioned above, the amount generated by home visit diagnoses in 2019 to 2021? Well, the costs actually were much more (see below). Why? Perhaps mainly because insurers can add diagnoses to ones that patients’ own doctors submit. Apparently this was incorporated so the insurers could catch conditions that doctors might have neglected to record. Is it possible that those insurers have discovered that adding diagnoses adds more income? (Don’t know why I thought of that.) Maybe one reason is the WSJ’s analysis. For example, it found many insurer-added diagnoses were for patients who received no treatment for that presumed disease, or one that contradicted their doctors’ views. Hmm! You okay with that? I’m not!

And the haul was much bigger. Insurers actually received nearly $50 billion in Medicare Advantage payments for those three years for the diagnoses they added to their insured members (and for conditions that no doctor or hospital treated). Many of the insurer-driven diagnoses were outright wrong or highly questionable, according to the WSJ. (The $15 billion from home visit diagnoses was included in the total $50 billion paid to insurers. It’s not clear to me who was responsible for the diagnoses that generated the extra $35 billion.) You okay with this? I’m not!

A lesson from this?

Perhaps this mess will aid you in your decisions as you go to the polls this November. If you believe that government funding and government control of much of the economy in these United States is salutary, I imagine you will find candidates who promise what you wish for. On the other hand, if you believe that we have become overly dependent on governmental handouts, not to mention restrictive laws galore, you likely will have difficulty finding candidates who fit your needs. After all, nearly all running for office these days are full of promises (and often much more).

As I’ve mentioned several times in this blog, I have been a Jack Kennedy Democrat since my university days. I think government had grown to be huge and unwieldy. Therefore, any candidate who offers reason and hope, and stands for a smaller government, will get my vote.

“Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”

 

 

Coming to America

Pop Quiz on Successful Immigrants

Posted on by Ken Goetz

Pop quiz on successful immigrants. I’m posting this because it goes against much current thought, and some of  the facts I’ve learned surprised me. More importantly, I believe there is an important take-home message from this pop quiz. Please continue reading.

After digesting the clues below, can you identify what country these immigrants came from? Admittedly, it is a relatively small group that makes up about 1.35% of our entire USA population (1). But this group has been astonishingly successful. Their median income amounts to nearly twice that of white households and three times that of black households (2).

Immigrants from this country are highly educated. Two-thirds have college degrees, and 40% have postgraduate degrees. Not surprisingly, they excel in many areas. For example, members of this group serve as CEOs of major companies, including those shown below. Can you name the country now? Below are more clues.

CEOs of these companies
Immigrants from ??? are CEOs of these companies

Here are more clues for solving this pop quiz on successful immigrants. These specific immigrants are highly represented in the professions. Many are lawyers or academics. According to one source (2), 1 in every 10 students entering medical school belongs to this ethnic group. This same source reports that this group has the lowest divorce rates of any ethnic group in the country, and that it owns 60% of all hotels (that astonished me!)

If you haven’t guessed by now, the answer is: Indian Americans! I learned this from today’s column by Tunku Varadarajan (“an ethnic Indian immigrant in the process of becoming an American“) in The Wall Street Journal (2). I was prompted to pass the word along because of the importance of Varadarajan’s take-home message, which is best expressed in his own words.

Take home message:

“Indian-Americans have achieved a breathtaking amount in this country in a couple of generations. What’s impressive is both the range of their success and that they have succeeded entirely on their own steam. No ethnic or racial favors have come their way from schools, colleges or government. At least until the recent Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action, it was a disadvantage to be an Indian student applying to an Ivy League school.

What Indians don’t specialize in is grievance. There is no Indian lobby pushing for increased “representation” in this or that economic or political sector, no pressure group ululating for ethnic enclaves, or for information to be provided in a language other than English. . . It is deeply unfashionable to speak these days of the American Dream. To do so marks you out, in certain circles, as anachronistic or sentimental. But if there’s one group that holds fast to its belief in the American Dream, it’s Indian-Americans. Unapologetic about their drive to thrive, they are rightly scornful of those who would say that America is a place that thwarts people on the basis of race.”

Question for readers:

What do you think of the Varadarajan’s statements, and of his opinions?

Biden – Trump Fallout

Posted on by Ken Goetz

Biden – Trump fallout. Multiple echoes from Thursday’s presidential debate continue to thunder loudly across the country, and across the entire world for that matter. No surprise there. The debate fanned sparks having international consequences. Because of my impression that most European leaders much prefer Biden over Trump, I took time to see what politicians in those countries thought of the debate. Here’s a representative sampling:

From Politico: Europe’s press was stunned by Joe Biden’s “near-catastrophic” performance. . . . Finland’s Yle called his performance a “disaster.” Italian newspaper Corriere della Serra said Biden acted “confused” with a “hoarse voice,” and Poland’s Onet declared that Trump “put [Biden] on his back,” calling it “sad to watch.” . . France’s Le Monde called Biden’s stumbling over his words a “shipwreck,” adding that Trump “was able to roll out lies without contradiction,” while Britain’s Economist said Biden’s “horrific debate performance casts his entire candidacy into doubt.”

Consequences of presidential debate: Biden versus Trump
Two aging pugilists

From CNN: “Hard to watch” is how multiple foreign diplomats described Thursday night’s debate between Biden and Trump to CNN. “It is a sad reality that Biden is old, and he is getting older. We saw it. I had difficulties understanding what he was saying, and I understand English pretty well,” said a second European diplomat. It was “a bad night for Biden,” said another.

From Financial Times: Concern over Biden’s age, mental acuity and ability to beat Donald Trump in November’s election has been steadily rising in European capitals this year. . .  That rose further on Friday morning as European officials watched Biden’s disastrous debate performance in horror, with many taking the rare step of openly criticizing a sitting US president.

U. S. Reaction

I’ll start the responses on our side of the pond with a bit of whimsy. Business mogul Mark Cuban reported on X that he had asked ChatGPT to select the best candidate based on “communication skills, clarity, problem-solving abilities, and overall professionalism.” How did that turn out? Here are parts of the “artificially intelligent” Bot’s response.

“It would be challenging to decisively hire either candidate without further evaluation of their professional capabilities and specific job fit.”  (Not many would disagree!) Regarding Biden, the AI Bot gave pros to Biden for “extensive experience in public service,” “empathy” and “social awareness.” It gave cons for the 81-year-old’s lack of “coherence and clarity” and “focus and consistency.”

Regarding the former president, ChatGPT liked Trump’s “assertiveness and confidence” and “economic focus,” while citing the 78-year-old’s emphasis on “financial performance and business acumen.” However, ChatGPT downgraded the former president for using “hyperbole and exaggeration,” and for his “grandiose claims” that might “raise concerns about his reliability.”

Will Biden withdraw as a candidate for the presidency?
President Joe Biden

More focus on Biden

From my perspective, and as I hinted in an earlier post (see that here) the debate has triggered more talk, and more written comments, about Biden than it has about Trump, especially questions regarding whether Biden might withdraw from the race. A select number of Democrats, and even newspapers such as the New York Times, have recommended that he drop out. That said, I see no sign that Biden’s camp is planning to throw in the towel. I’ve sifted through members of Biden’s inner circle, and I’ve detected mainly clenched jaws and stony, resistant expressions.

And here is even fresher evidence from just a few hours ago. The President reportedly joined a Zoom call today (July 3) with campaign and Democratic National Committee staff. A published report (see here) quotes Biden as follows: “Let me say this as clearly as I possibly can — as simply and straightforward as I can: I am running … no one’s pushing me out. I’m not leaving. I’m in this race to the end and we’re going to win.” 

Trusted reporting

Remember Carl Bernstein, one of the duo who exploded with the Watergate story? Well, the veteran journalist is still at it. He recently said that White House insiders have been aware of Biden’s limited cognitive abilities, and that over the past year several have taken their concerns to Ron Klain, the former White House chief of staff (and still one of Biden’s top advisors although he is now chief legal officer at Airbnb). According to Bernstein’s  report, Klain dismissed those concerns. I wondered why but I recently found what I consider to be a reliable source, and one that provided an encyclopedia of information. Please keep reading.

You may know the source: Politico: I checked out the reliability of Politico on MediaBias/FactCheck, which is summarized in the illustration below. Credibility looks good!

Politico is rated as a slightly left-leaning but trustworthy site
Report of Politico reliability

The Politico article I found rings with the sound of old-time journalism, the kind practiced by Carl Bernstein and at one time by thousands of others. This particular article reveals inside information pulled from multiple sources and details are reported in clear, declarative sentences. Those in the White House may (or may not) explode when they read it. Below is a sampling, and at the end I’ll provide the URL to the site so you can read the entire sizzling article. Some excerpts:

Over the course of his presidency, Joe Biden’s small clutch of advisers have built an increasingly protective circle around him, limiting his exposure to the media and outside advice. . . .  inside the White House, Biden’s growing limitations were becoming apparent long before his meltdown in last week’s debate. During meetings with aides who are putting together formal briefings they’ll deliver to Biden, some senior officials have at times gone to great lengths to curate the information being presented in an effort to avoid provoking a negative reaction.

“It’s like, ‘You can’t include that, that will set him off,’ or ‘Put that in, he likes that,’” said one senior administration official. “It’s a Rorschach test, not a briefing. Because he is not a pleasant person to be around when he’s being briefed. It’s very difficult, and people are scared shitless of him.”

The official said, “He doesn’t take advice from anyone other than those few top aides, and it becomes a perfect storm because he just gets more and more isolated from their efforts to control it.”

Shredding Biden’s inner circle

The article also shreds Biden’s inner circle, as shown in a few representative passages below.

Following the debate, the pervasive view throughout much of the party is of Biden’s inner circle as an impenetrable group of enablers who deluded themselves about his ability to run again even as they’ve assiduously worked to accommodate his limitations and shield them from view.

“The fact is, there wasn’t an open dialogue about whether he should run except for the people who would benefit from him running,” said a Democratic operative close to the campaign. They described the inner circle (as being) convinced “that this was going to be about Trump, not about Biden, and at the end of the day, people just wouldn’t vote for Trump. But here we are, we’re sitting in July, and the race is about Biden, and it’s about a trait you can’t fix.”

“I think the Biden team is pretty insular and doesn’t really care what anybody says,” said one senior House Democrat, who described a palpable and growing fear among vulnerable Democrats that they may lose because of Biden.

Group-think abounds

“There’s definitely groupthink,” one Democratic donor-adviser said about Biden’s inner circle. “They’ve known each other a long time. They’re kind of a team of rivals. But they’re not going to challenge him.”

Another operative painted a similar picture: “They don’t take dissent,” they said. “If you try, then you don’t get invited to the next call, the next meeting.”

Click here to read the entire detailed Politico article

 

 

 

 

 

My Biden-Trump Error

Posted on by Ken Goetz

My Biden-Trump Error. Wow! I did not see that debate coming. I thought I was on solid ground when I made my prediction about the aftermath of the Biden-Trump tussle. I would have given odds on it, but, to be honest, I missed by the proverbial country mile. Here’s what I said hours before the Biden – Trump clash. “After the debate, those with vested interests on either side will declare their combatant the victor.” See here for that post.

Biden versus Trump
Two elderly combatants

Well, the fight didn’t turn out the way I expected it would. I thought President Biden, with his week-long preparation aided by 16 advisers at Camp David, would manage to get through the bout with relatively few gaffs. And I doubted that former president Trump could slide through the 90 minutes without unseemly eruptions. I was wrong on both counts!

Biden’s mental deficits were more obvious to me than I had anticipated; his hesitations when losing the thread of his thoughts were painful to watch. Throughout the debate, I wondered how his Democrat supporters would defend his performance. More on that below.

Equally surprising to me was Trump’s relatively calm behavior. Nevertheless his hyperbole was annoying. “We had the greatest economy in the history of our country.” “He (Biden) caused the inflation and it’s killing black families and Hispanic families and just about everybody. It’s killing people. They can’t buy groceries anymore. They can’t.”

If you’ve read this far, your interest is obvious and I recommend you check out a more complete, and I think thoughtful, review of the debate by NPR. See here for that. And here’s another one well worth reading (see here).

After the debate ended (which I watched streaming on NBC Now), I switched to my local PBS station for instant analysis of the event. The most common expression among the row of commentators, mostly left-leaning, was funereal. And they quickly obliterated my prognostication, blowing it into tiny pieces. Rather than supporting Biden’s performance, they decried it, zeroing in on details of his poor performance. They also reported in some detail how their contacts had indicated that prominent Democrats were slipping into panic mode.

Does this raise the possibility that one of these two unpopular presidential candidates will somehow be sidetracked? That Democrat leaders will pressure President Biden to release his delegates at the Chicago convention so another candidate can emerge? I’ve learned my lesson. After my Biden – Trump error, I’ll refrain from giving political predictions, at least for now.