Mountain Views News          Saturday, November 27, 2010

10

LEFT TURN / RIGHT TURN

 Mountain Views News Saturday, November 27, 2010 

Senator Huff Thanks Chino Hills Resident for 
Legislative Contribution

Mr. James M. Dorn won Senator Huff’s 2010 There Ought To Be A Law contest 

HOWARD Hays 

As I See It


Last week I wrote about the 
disappearance of "news", and 
referred to the weeknight 
shows on MSNBC. On one 
such show, Rachel Maddow 
has a segment called "Talk Me Down", in 
which a disturbing assertion is addressed - 
and a reasoned explanation given to allay 
concerns and fears. 

Greg tried to do just that in his column last 
week in the matter of healthcare reform, 
addressing concerns regarding rescission of 
coverage due to discovery of "pre-existing 
conditions." He "talks us down" and eases 
those concerns by explaining ". . . just how 
ridiculous was the claim that the insurance 
industry was denying insurance to people 
who had pre-existing conditions". 

And it's a good thing he did. I, for one, had 
been troubled by a recent Kaiser Family 
Foundation report that over the past three 
years 12.6 million non-elderly adults, 36% 
of those trying to purchase health insurance 
directly in the individual market, were denied 
coverage because of a pre-existing condition. 
One in ten with cancer were denied coverage, 
and 6% of already-enrolled, premium-paying 
cancer sufferers lost coverage once the cancer 
was diagnosed. Company whistle-blowers 
have reported incentive offers pegged to the 
number of customers they're able to kick off 
the rolls.

Whole categories of illnesses are exempted 
from coverage if the enrollee has experienced 
an illness related to that category. Whole 
families have lost coverage when a single 
family member has been found with a pre-
existing condition. In a number of states, 
being a victim of domestic violence qualifies 
as a pre-existing condition, making victims 
reluctant to report abuse for fear of forever 
losing health coverage. 

But Greg "talks us down" and assures that 
such rescissions are instead the result of 
"reckless behavior".

I became concerned when I read in Greg's 
column of Nobel economist Paul Krugman's 
"admission . . . that death panels will in fact 
be convened". To "talk me down" on this one 
I turned to Krugman himself. In August 2009 
he wrote that any suggestion of "death panels" 
in the healthcare legislation was "a complete 
fabrication". (He also pointed out it was a 
Republican, Sen. John Isakson of Georgia, 
who introduced the provision requiring 
Medicare to pay for voluntary end-of-life 
counseling, and who himself described any 
connection to euthanasia as "nuts".)

Krugman cited the "death panels" smear as 
evidence that "opposition to reform was basic 
fear-mongering, unconstrained either by the 
facts or by any sense of decency", pushed by 
the "lunatic fringe" of those supporting an 
unsustainable status quo. The quote from 
ABC THIS WEEK Greg cited was a response 
to panelist Jake Tapper's suggestion that if 
Republicans want cost savings, "death panels" 
could certainly do the trick. Referring to 
what's in the bill, Krugman explains, "(t)he 
advisory path, which has the ability to make 
more or less binding judgments on saying 
this particular expensive treatment actually 
doesn't do any good medically and so we're 
not going to pay for it, that is actually going to 
save quite a lot of money."

The difference is that while Democratic 
proposals sought to ensure taxpayers' money 
goes to medically beneficial care, Republicans 
sought ways to divert public funds to private, 
corporate profit - as with Medicare Part D 
(with its "Medicare Advantage") enacted 
during the Bush Administration. That 
plan, whose $395 billion cost over ten years 
estimated at the time it was debated in 2003 
jumped to $724 billion by the time it was 
enacted in 2006, was rammed through by 
Republicans not bothering to come up with a 
way to pay for it.

Somebody needs to "talk me down" because 
I can't make sense of Republicans preaching 
fiscal discipline while pushing that bill, 
borrowing hundreds of billions to subsidize 
multi-million dollar CEO salaries and 
shareholder dividends. For that we can 
turn to disclosure records, where we find 
that insurance, health and pharmaceutical 
industries contributed over $106 million 
to federal candidates and parties over the 
past two years alone - no doubt more than 
was contributed by those who must rely on 
government subsidies for their medical care.

I doubt anybody could "talk me down" form 
my concern that my congressman, Rep. 
David Dreier, doesn't know what he's talking 
about. Last June Dreier signed a petition "to 
repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable 
Care Act." In an interview a week ago on 
NPR, though, Dreier stated, "We have said 
all along that we want to make sure that 
provisions there that are in fact beneficial in 
ensuring that people have access, without a 
huge expansion of government, we don’t want 
to repeal."

Did Dreier remember what he'd signed? "We 
have said all along " there are "provisions . . 
. we don't want to repeal". But the petition 
refers to a bill to repeal the Act "as if such 
Act had not been enacted". And who is "We"? 
The drive was led by Rep. Pete King (R-IA), 
who vowed to repeal "lock, stock and barrel". 
Dreier was joined by 172 House colleagues in 
signing the petition.

What's changed? For one thing, it's clear the 
public likes a lot of what's in the Affordable 
Care Act. A Kaiser Health Tracking Poll 
from earlier this month reports 78% want to 
keep the provision giving tax credits to small 
businesses for covering their employees, 72% 
for closing the Medicare prescription drug 
"doughnut hole", 71% for helping low- and 
moderate-income Americans who can't get 
insured through their employers, and 71% for 
prohibiting denial of coverage due to those 
"pre-existing conditions". More importantly, 
insurance companies have made clear they 
want to hang on to that provision mandating 
coverage for everybody - bringing in millions 
of new customers.

My congressman dismisses the concerns of 
those unable to secure decent medical care for 
themselves and their families, but defends the 
corporate interests which fill his campaign 
account. He supports total repeal to bring the 
tea-party crowd to the polls, then falls into 
line once the election's over.


Sacramento — Senator Bob Huff (R—
Diamond Bar) yesterday had lunch with Mr. 
James M. Dorn, this year’s “There Ought To 
Be A Law” contest winner, to present him 
with a California State flag that had been 
flown over the Capitol.

Senator Huff introduced Mr. Dorn’s winning 
idea as a part of his 2010 legislative package. 
Senate Constitutional Amendment 30, based 
on Mr. Dorn’s idea, would have established a 
mandatory 72-hour public review period on 
all legislation prior to a vote in any committee 
or on the floor of either house of the California 
Legislature.

“It was a pleasure to meet with Mr. & Mrs. 
Dorn and to thank him for his important 
contribution,” said Senator Huff. “Although 
his idea was defeated by the majority party in 
Sacramento, Mr. Dorn helped bring awareness 
to the need for greater transparency in the 
Legislature.”

The flag and accompanying certificate are 
“rather rare honors,” said Mr. Dorn. “I really 
enjoyed hearing what happened to the idea; 
… I doubt that many of our legislators would 
have taken the time to tell me the tale.”

The “There Ought To Be A Law” contest is 
underway again this year. All submissions 
must be received by Friday, December 3, 2010. 
Like Mr. Dorn, the winner will be invited to 
join Senator Huff for lunch and will receive a 
California State flag that has been flown over 
the Capitol. Proposals can be submitted by 
filling out a simple form on Senator Huff’s 
website at www.senate.ca.gov/huff.

“With only 10 days left to enter, I hope to 
hear from small business owners, educators, 
parents and any constituent with an idea to 
improve California through my 2011 ‘There 
Ought To Be A Law’ contest,” said Senator 
Bob Huff.

The contest winner will be announced in 
January 2011.

Senator Bob Huff serves as the Senate 
Republican Caucus Chair and represents 
portions of Los Angeles, Orange and San 
Bernardino counties.


MARY Carney

From The Inside Out


From 
conception we’re in a space of never-
ending movement, as mother’s blood 
pumps through her body with its subtle 
pressure changes whether she’s sleeping 
or “up and moving around.” When awake, 
other vibrations / pressures vary as she 
walks, bends, stretches, drive or rides in 
vehicles: we experience 24/7 movement, 
within which we freely move and stretch 
in this marvelous liquid environment 
whenever we wish.

The birthing shock of pressure, light 
and air, hands touching us and suddenly 
being constricted by clothes and blankets 
and winding up alone on a non-moving 
surface separates us from the warm and 
surrounding pulsations during our nine 
months’ gestation. 

Even in primitive cultures, parents 
find ways to provide gentle, ongoing 
movement for babies – often just being 
carried on back, or by older children. In 
yesterday’s world, we tucked babies in 
cradles, keeping our adult hands free for 
seated tasks, while a foot pressed/ released 
(i.e., rocked) the cradle with rhythmic 
movement that soothed and comforted 
baby. Today’s parents quickly acquire 
motorized swings to soothe babies while 
parents “get on with life’s duties.” And 
how many of the youngest babies’ parents 
drive for hours during the night while 
the baby in back sleeps only as long as 
movement continues – and wakes up 
screaming at every stop? 

Movement is life – the absence of 
movement stresses our bodies in so many 
ways that we literally cannot count them. 
And so we are encouraged to exercise – 
walk, jog, run, play one of many kinds 
of ball, bicycle, climb, gymnastics, yoga, 
swim … keep moving, keep active, keep 
toned, keep strong, keep going.

Which brings me to swings. Who among 
us does not have a fond childhood 
memory of some kind of outdoor swing 
– a rope with a couple large knots or 
a tire tied to a tree? A swing set in the 
back yard, or at the nearby playground? 
Parents often take their kids to a park, 
plop the kids in the “baby swings” and 
(maybe) talk with other adults. 

Wait! What happened to the adult-sized 
swings in Memorial and Turtle Parks? 
Where we find swings, how come they’re 
only for babies? Aren’t our parks for all 
ages? Why can’t we adults have swings 
with seats large enough and comfy 
enough for our posteriors, so we too 
can sit and swing gently and talk with a 
friend, or pump strongly to get up a good 
movement for a few moments until we let 
“the cat die down” again? 

Occasional visits to the Public Works 
office at City Hall over the last 10 years 
elicited: “Oh, swings are too dangerous. 
Toomuch liability. We can’t have swings 
for adults.” The current General Plan 
Parks and Recreation Committee says – 
“Oh, there’s not enough clearance room 
for adult-sized swings in Memorial Park. 
We’d have to take out 3 trees.” 

Horse-feathers! We certainly can have 
adult swings in our town’s several area 
parks. A city council member on Sunday 
I pointed out that there are 4 “older 
children” swings to the YAC’s rear on the 
east side. So I tried one out. Obviously 
they are swings for really tall kids - 6’ tall, 
or taller. At 5’5” I had to struggle to get up 
on tip-toe to get even one hip on the seat 
(although I eventually managed). And 
yes, there was certainly enough space 
around them so I wouldn’t hit anyone on 
either forward or backward swing, and 
yes, it was quiet, and I had a good swing. 

However, while we’re looking at updating 
our city’s 5-Year General Plan – let’s get 
“larger children / adult” swings back in 
Memorial Park, plus more elsewhere – the 
open space south of the library? Goldberg 
Park? Bailey Canyon? Turtle Park? Beside 
the Post Office? Every adult I’ve talked 
to, while understanding safety concerns, 
recognizes this hole in Sierra Madre’s 
outdoors life – and the corresponding 
hole in their hearts because there’s no 
swings for them. Some residents stopped 
taking their children, because there was 
“nothing for us”. A good swing is one of 
life’s special moments. Just because we’re 
“adults” doesn’t mean we don’t like feeling 
young from time to time.

With only 5 minutes (or even just 90 
seconds) of swinging (which rhythmically 
pressure-exercises every cell just like it did 
when we were still inside mommy) we re-
experience what it was like to be young 
and free, to revel in the delight of soaring 
toward the sky – back and forth, back and 
forth, back and forth until the desire to 
fly is soothed, we slow down, and - once 
more at peace with life - we move on.

For the Swingers Amongst Us – let City 
Council, our Parks and Recreation folks, 
and our Public Works department know 
how much we want our “older child / 
adult” swings back again in the open 
space areas near us! 

What DO You Think? 

We’d like to hear from you! Contact us at: 

editor@tnviewsnews.com 
or 

www.facebook.com/
mountainviewsnews