Would that the Simple Man had a Place at the Table of Discussion

   As the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services came to town, I couldn't help but think how the visit could have gone, if only America was the America we'd like it to be.
   Why invite primarily just business leaders in to participate? Was that posturing for future campaign donations? Why not invite the general public? I would guess the answer, at least in part, is that they wanted to lock out protesters and naysayers.
   Let me tell you about the America I think would be wonderful. What if before Secretary Tom Price showed up to discuss the Better Care Reconciliation Act, his visit were well advertised? What if the public were invited? What if Price didn't have to fear protesters. Oh, do let those opposed to the plan come, and let them speak against the plan. But, in an America as the America we'd like it to be, let everyone be civil, exchanging ideas, not venom.
   What an opportunity this would have been: to hear the nation's top official on health care explain the plan, and take questions and advice. What if simple Americans sat at the table of government, their advice being as valued as that of the business leaders? What if we actually could sit down and discuss these things civilly with our leaders?
   I guess that's the America I wish we had.

Can the Republicans Afford to Write off 23 Million Voters?

   By winning the battle, they may lose the war. If Republicans do come up with a replacement for Obamacare, it might prove their undoing. A news article says a recent poll suggests only one in four Americans favor one of the proposals for replacement.
   That doesn't bode well if the idea is to earn votes in November. The Republicans are in a little bit of a pinch here. The vowed to get rid of Obamacare, but when it came time to do it, they were forced to realize that doing away with some of the things in Obamacare will be unpopular.
   An estimate 23 million people's insurance could be impacted. Can the Republicans afford to write off 23 million voters? And, I suppose there are other features in the proposed law that could be unpopular.
    The lesson to be learned is that once you give something to the public, it is a hard thing to take it away.

Government Places Money on the Table, and They Sweep it Up

Place money on a table, and someone will surely sweep it off.
Hospice, surely, does have a lot to be said for it. Comforting the dying is as about as honorable a thing as there is. And, a fair share of the care is nursing care, doing things for the patients such as washing them, helping them to the bathroom, and doing other such things to meet their needs. Both the love and the physical care are certainly wonderful things.
But, I wonder if we haven't created a program allowing people to plug into people's deaths as a way to make a buck. In 2014, Medicaid spent $15.1 million on hospice. That amounts to $11,393 for each hospice patient.
Who got the money? Did it go to the patients? Did it go to the families of the patients? Surely, some did, when family members were hospice workers. But, by far and away, the large share went to the hospice industry, an industry that makes a living off people's deaths.
I do not fault the workers. Bless them for what they do. But, I wonder about the industry.
I ran into a lady in the store tonight. She told me how her daughter had been on hospice for two-and-a-half years. I wondered how that had happened, since hospice is for those who are terminal and not expected to live but maybe six months. She answered that she is a hospice worker, herself, and that the program has evolved since its inception. Originally, only those whose lives were weeks from ending were allowed on the program.
But, that changed. Now, even after six months, you can get extensions.
Before I ran into this lady, I had already been thinking about writing on how hospice is an example of how, if you leave money on the table, someone will come along and sweep it up. If you have a government program where money is placed on the table for anyone who wants it, someone will sweep that money away.
Bless the hospice workers. Nothing is more honorable that comforting the dying. But, as for the industry itself, I have reservations. A record 1.65 million patients were on hospice in 2011. That was 2011. I can only imagine how the program has grown in the past six years.
Can we afford to have our government paying $12,000 for every projected death? Can we afford to do that when the money is going not to the families of the dying, but to corporations set up just to receive the money?
They see the money sitting on the table, and say, "We'll take that money. What do we have to do to qualify?"

Republicans and Democrats set the Rules for their Competition

   Would we let GM and Ford set the rules for the creation of automobile companies seeking to compete against them? Then, why do we allow the Republicans and Democrats (most all legislators belong to one of the two parties) to set the rules for the creation of new political parties? If this were happening in the corporate world, we would call it an unfair business practice.
   I understand the Elections Office has ruled the United Utah Party does not qualify to be on the ballot for electing Jason Chaffetz's successor because, by law, new parties must organize about 11 months before an election.
    Such a burdensome rule. It clearly puts a dampener on creation of new parties. The supposed reasoning behind the law might be that it prevents a candidate from organizing a party just to get his name on the ballot.
   I would ask, what is so wrong if he or she does do that?
   Yes, I can see that if a candidate lost the nomination in convention, and he was free to form a new party and run on it, he might choose to do just that.
    But, I'm afraid I just don't see the wrong of it all. Yes, I can see that there just might be some high-profile deflections from the two parties and perhaps a proliferation of new parties. That wouldn't be good for the Republicans and Democrats, of course, but I don't see how it would harm the electorate or the public.
   Laws should serve the electorate and public, not the Republicans and Democrats. If monopolies are not always good in business, they are never good in politics.

Let Parties form Right up to the Moment the Ballot is Printed

   I'm told Utah law says a new political party must be formed all but a year before it fields candidates in an election. I have not seen this in the media, and it seems a large omission.
   If it is true, then the United Utah Party has no rightful claim to placing a candidate on the ballot in the upcoming election to replace Jason Chaffetz in the House of Representatives.
   Such a law seems a burden to justice, at least. Parties should be allowed to form much closer to the election. If the purpose of such a law is to prevent candidates from forming parties just to gain easy entrance on the ballot, it is a poor way to handle that situation. Most parties are not going to form just for that purpose. So, such a law unfairly burdens the great proportion of parties that might like to form.
   Why we must make parties jump through hoops and climb high ladders just to form is beyond me. I would say let them form right up to the moment the ballot is physically created. And, what then of the candidate who might form a party just to get his name on the ballot? Off top, I'd say, let him. If he can gather the 2,000 signatures needed to get his party registered, let him. It would be an avenue to the ballot available to all. So, no one would have an advantage because of this.
 

Reopen the Watergate Investigation

   It doesn't need to be a long investigation, but reopen the Watergate investigation. We still don't know why the five or so burglars broke into the Democratic Party offices. Some of them are still alive. Call in as many of those involved from Watergate as are still alive, and ask them to come clean.
   It needn't be a long investigation. But, call them into a congressional hearing, and plea in the name of patriotism for them to come clean. Once they've all died, their secrets may well be lost. What is the saying, Dead men don't talk? The living years are when secrets can be revealed. We should call the participants in before they are all lost to their graves.
 

Do the Muscles of the Child and of the Elderly differ in this?

  I turned to Tom on the elliptical next to me. Maybe the muscle knows three conditions: contracted, expanded and relaxed, I said.
  I think of my grandson, he replied. He knows run, run, run and carry me.
  As I left the workout, I wondered if maybe Tom's answer didn't contain the reason as to why stiffness and lack of muscle use is associated with growing old. Run, run, run equates with expanded muscles and carry me is the equivalent of relaxed muscles. That leaves out contracted muscles. Does the child not have contracted muscles? Are contracted muscles the result of stress and pressure and wear,  things the child has yet to know?
   And, I wondered whether the old have relaxed muscles. If we picked one up while they slept, how fast would their limbs bend? Would their knees bend immediately and fully when we lifted them? Or, would there be some stiffness that would keep their legs from bending so quickly and completely?
  Does the child know contracted muscles at all? Does the elderly person know relaxed muscles? How often does an older person have expanded muscles?
  I wondered but what expanded muscles are not what we should seek, if we were searching for some fountain of youth extending our lives. Are expanded muscles, with them perhaps relaxing when we sleep or at other periods, to be associated with long life? I do not mean the expanded muscles of a weightlifter. Rather, I mean just muscles that have a little ballooning effect, just enough to make them productive.