"It's About Coalitions, Not Purity" Part Forty-Two

"Medicare Prescription Benefit"

Before I move directly to George W. Bush's second term, I want to touch on the Medicare changes enacted in late 2003, which resulted in a great deal of prescription drug coverage being added to the program, but the law didn't fully take effect until 2006, during Bush's second term. The 2003 Medicare reform law pushed by President Bush had many complexities and not all prescriptions were covered under all circumstances. The bill was controversial on both sides of the aisle. While most Democrats had favored providing a prescription coverage element to Medicare for some time, they also generally charged the Bush proposed legislation gave too much power to the pharmaceutical and insurance industries,* and that it further pushed "a move toward privatization," ** with the Medicare Advantage segment. Hardline conservatives generally opposed any expansion of Medicare, citing the costs and the deficits being run in the federal budget. Prior to the congressional vote, the Bush administration released a projected cost of $400 billion dollars for the prescription plan over ten years, but within weeks of passage, the administration released a new cost projection of more than $500 billion over the same time period, especially bringing more criticism from conservatives. The final bill was passed and signed into law by President Bush. The vote in Congress: House of Representatives vote: 220 for (204 R-16 D) and 215 against (25 R-189 D- 1 I) and the Senate vote: 54 for (42 R-11 D-1 I) and 44 against (9 R-35D), 2 not voting (2-D).***

* The law prohibited Medicare from negotiating with drug companies for lower prices, and the law required seniors to choose an insurance company or HMO for the prescription benefit, but that participation in the prescription program was purely by individual choice; that is, it was voluntary.

** Like with everything medical, changes to Medicare in 1997 were complex and to try to keep this as simple as possible, the law introduced "Medicare + Choice," which generally allowed seniors the option of having a private insurance company (or HMO) plan to cover their basic part of Medicare (hospital stays, physicians and outpatient tests and procedures), "plus" other coverage and pricing structures beyond those of traditional Medicare, but with Medicare paying a standard fee to the private companies for each senior. The insurance companies "could" charge seniors a monthly premium or higher copays for certain services, in addition to their premiums going directly to Medicare. The 2003 changes to Medicare brought prescription coverage to traditional Medicare, which the private plans usually already offered, which brought changes to how the private plans were to be compensated by Medicare. The "Medicare + Choice" program was renamed "Medicare Advantage." Critics of both the 1997 and 2003 changes argued that with seniors who were better off financially able to essentially pay for extra services outside of Medicare, that eventually only the poor and sickly seniors would be left in traditional Medicare, making them vulnerable to cuts in medical benefits, and perhaps an eventual abandonment of Medicare altogether by politicians, as healthier seniors and those with more financial means could actually save money and get better coverage by going to private plans. Remember, private companies have to make a profit and the easiest way to do so is to insure people who are healthier and thus "less likely" to use expensive medical services. Of course this was before the health care reforms of 2010.

*** Just a note: Later, Republicans Paul Ryan and Rick Santorum criticized "entitlements," but both voted "for" the Medicare expansion in 2003. Former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who was no longer in Congress at that time, offered support for the legislation, later to join in the criticism of entitlements.    

WORD HISTORY:
Shave-This word goes back to Indo European "skahb," which meant "to scrape, to scratch." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "skaban(an)," with the same meanings, which then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "sceafan/scafan," meaning "to shave, to scrape." These then became "shaven" (meaning "to shave"), before the modern version. Later the noun form, "a shave," was derived from the verb from the notion "something shaven" or "something shaved off." Both "shaven" and "shaved" are used for participle forms, with "shaven" especially used as an adjective, as in, "The witness said the man has a clean shaven face." "Shaved" is also the past tense form, shared with the now archaic "shove" (long "o"). By the way, English also once had the noun "scafa," which meant "plane;" that is, "tool for planing, shaving wood," but modern "shaver" "seems" to be derived or patterned after it. The other Germanic languages have: German "schaben" ("to scrape," "to plane," also somewhat less often, "to shave"), also the German noun "Schaber" ("scraper"); Dutch and Low German "schaven" ("to plane"); West Frisian "skave" ("to scrape, wear down"); Swedish "skava" ("to scrape"); Icelandic "skafa" ("to scrape"). Neither Danish nor Norwegian "seem" to use a form of the word in their standard modern languages.

Greed For The Moment

Throughout our lives we hear about the need to think ahead, but I'm not sure we can really do that, most of us anyway, at least not enough of us or far enough into the future. When I was in school in the 1960s, there was talk of computers being the way of the future and that students needed to choose training for that future. Some heeded that advice from those with the foresight into the developing computer advances, but too few, in my opinion, including myself, took the advice. It's a tough sell telling people, especially when we're young, that we need to do such and such for the future. For young people the future is the next school dance, the next school sporting event or the next legal holiday when school will be closed. With the wealthiest of Americans, some people ask, "Can't they see where their greed is leading?" So will greed for the moment threaten to later bring down dog-eat-dog capitalism? No question about it, the money is going to the top of the income ladder, but is there a point where that top rung of the ladder collapses from the weight of all the wealth up there?

Technology and the sending of sectors of the economy out the country for cheap labor and ways to get around workplace and environmental regulation can only go so far, as the resulting consequences of stagnant or declining wages for so many Americans come home to roost. It's a vicious cycle, with lower wages requiring cheaper goods for lower paid workers to be able to afford to buy them, but with the increased profits going to the top, where few seemingly can see, or want to see, from that lofty perch, that the Titanic is heading for an iceberg.

The growing income gap is not just about technology and the decline in manufacturing, but also about the  financial sector, which has expanded as a part of the economy for the last several decades. As finance expanded, it began to need more income to sustain the big and increasing salaries in the industry, as well as its growing workforce. The financial sector makes money a number of ways, two of which obviously are through fees for various services and commissions on transactions. How do you collect more commissions? By selling more stocks and bonds. How do you get people to invest more in stocks and bonds? You show them profits. How do you show them more profits? By selling more of something and by cutting costs to increase margins. As you can see, it's not a big leap to "cutting wages and benefits by shipping jobs and production to places where costs are low, thus increasing profits." If true wealth is measured by tangible items; that is, things we can actually touch and which usually have some endurance, what does the financial sector produce for Americans? Not a hell of a lot, although it can be involved in helping produce wealth and it IS important. We've seen a similar situation with the growth in lawyers, as a number of Americans poured into law schools to be trained in legal matters, a profession that typically pays well above average income. What happened? Lawsuits went wild, as the expanding legal profession needed more business to pay for all of the added lawyers and incomes. The action of the financial and legal sectors is not a terribly tough one to figure out folks, as at its heart, it is about self interest.  

Hm, I don't know about you, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the need for more income brought about risky ventures in the financial sector, especially after protections against nonsense were removed in the 1999/2000 era.  If such risky ventures pay off, those involved can make big money, but when they fail or are so misguided, as was the mortgage fiasco, LOOK OUT, but it was greed for the moment, "we want money NOW!" Few, if any, at the top paid no real penalty and they certainly did not spend any time in prison, although their schemes almost brought down the entire world economy. In the end, to halt a potential collapse of world finance, governments, including the U.S., first under George W. Bush and then under Barack Obama, stepped in with money; that is, taxpayer money, to bolster the teetering financial system. So the rewards up to that point went to millionaires and billionaires, but the losses were covered by that dreaded entity ... GOVERNMENT; that is, society. Amazingly, many in the upper class speak against socialism, but I guess that only counts when they aren't the ones getting "socialized." (In fairness here, a good deal of the "bailout money" has been paid back.)

Most Americans can't save the necessary amount, if anything, for retirement. It's easy for the wealthy to talk about people needing to save money for retirement, they have money ANY TIME.* There is a high proportion of Americans living essentially paycheck to paycheck, a very dangerous situation (some say 3/4 of all Americans, but even if that's a bit high, and it's "only" 2/3, that's still not great either). Lack of savings makes Social Security mandatory, as it's the only thing to keep many older Americans from being totally destitute, and Medicare and Medicaid, both targets of the superegos and their right wing allies, provides needed medial care to the elderly, the poor and the disabled. Many Americans fiddle while their own personal Rome burns, oblivious to the scheming of the rightists and fascists who can't stand the fact that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are shared national programs. They want control and their cut of the action. Don't be fooled by "privatization" talk, meant only to open the door to the treasure chest for the wealthy interests. They always seek to make matters about money with the euphemism "free markets," because then they can control it; "free markets"=control by the wealthy, not anything else, there's no other definition. To the wealthy, Social Security just can't be right because it is in part financed by lower interest rate securities. To wealthy and financial people who love to talk about "yields" on stocks and bonds, that's almost criminal, because their own personal sense of business, driven by human greed (we all have it to some extent) just can't accept that. They lack the ability to grasp anything that isn't solely about making money.** They have to be regulated by us, because they can't self regulate; many lack the perspective necessary to do so. It often tends to be "greed for the moment." In one episode of "Gilligan's Island," the castaways are threatened by an active volcano. When the Professor needs a timing device for a bomb to act as a counter to the volcano, super millionaire Mr. Thurston Howell III SELLS him a clock. Even in the face of danger or death, he just couldn't give up that business idea of making a profit on something. It may only have been a television comedy, but there's an underlying truth there. All well and good to talk about the future, but people live in the present.

* America really took off as a "consumer" driven nation in the 1920s. Mass production of various goods needed a market to sell those goods, which brought investment in mass marketing to "encourage" Americans to buy products. Consumer credit (often called "charge accounts" back then) expanded tremendously to allow Americans to buy products on credit and pay for them in installments. The increasing spread of electricity and the invention of several electrical devices, like refrigerators, radios and mixers, saw sales skyrocket, and profits for companies soared too, but wages did not soar so much. After an intense run-up, the whole thing took a major nosedive in a little event termed the Great Depression. So when I say Americans cannot always save for retirement, what I mean is, many people make bad choices, buying things to "keep up with the Joneses," but then again, there are pulls and tugs at us going on all of the time. Self esteem is certainly in play, as some folks try hard to be seen as "cool" and part of "what's happnin'." On the other hand, those preaching for Americans to save are trying to have it both ways; that is, they want us to spend, spend, spend to buy their products and services, but then they preach about too much credit and too little savings. What the right balance is, I don't know, but I believe I'm safe in saying, "we aren't in balance, nor have we been, for quite some time."

** To add some balance, the opposites can't understand about human greed, let alone big money greed, and they seem to think things get financed from thin air. There is balance here somewhere, folks, but finding it is often difficult, especially in the last several decades of  the "greed is good" mentality.  

WORD HISTORY:
Wight-This ultimate origin of this now generally archaic word is unknown, and "apparently," besides forms in the Germanic languages, it has some connection with Slavic (Russian "vesc" and Old Church Slavonic "vesti," both meaning "thing, matter"), but it is related to English "whit," (small object, particle).^ Old Germanic had "wihktiz," which seems to have meant "substance, matter." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "wiht," with the meaning "person, being, creature." Other forms in Germanic are: German "Wicht" (small child, rascal, imp, little creature); Low German "Wicht" (young girl); Dutch "wicht" (child, small creature); Swedish "vätte" (imp, gnome). I did not find a form in Frisian, but sources on this close relative of English are not exactly abundant, so such a form may well exist, or like English, it could now be archaic. Further I could not find forms in Danish, Icelandic or Norwegian.  

^ Now more commonly used in an expression like, "I don't even care one whit about it."   

^^ For the use of "wight" as part of the word that became modern "not," see:  http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2013/08/success-not-excess.html

NASA Revenue Stream From The Wealthy

This was first published in August 2013, but like food and water, this article never goes out of style.

There's not enough money on this planet for some of the wealthiest of the wealthy, who are also the greediest of the greedy, and often the most ruthless of the ruthless. NASA could fund some of its operations by selling spaceship rides, because the greediest of the greedy are going to want to see if there's gold or some other valuable substance out there in the great somewhere. Since they don't need money, a better thing would be if they devoted their lives to helping others far less fortunate than themselves, but whether they could EVER do ANYTHING without wanting financial reward to try to satisfy their insatiable egos, is a question to which I'm afraid I already know the answer. Don't fall for their patriotism acts either, as the only insignia they support is this one, "$$$." As to any religious claims, their lives are devoted to their true religious book; that is, to their bank book.

We all know that at times there are true shortages of various products. In the last couple of years, abnormally heavy rainfall in some parts of the country damaged some crops, like the peanut crop, for instance, which drove up the price of these American favorites and the derived peanut butter, although it appears prices have now been declining. Then there was tremendous drought in parts of the country, which affected a number of crops, which in turn affected meat prices.* We may complain, but I think most people understand some of this. The thing I've noticed, as I'm sure you have, is that we're paying more, or the same amount, but for smaller quantities. I just bought a jar of seasoned salt. It was the same brand I've been using, but when I picked it up, I thought, "Why does this seem to be different?" Well, when I got home, I looked at the almost empty jar I still had, and at the new jar, and it was the same price, but for about an ounce less.** I look at eggs, and they're all so old, I'm beginning to wonder if you can get fresh eggs anymore, without some connection to a local farm. So you get old eggs, but they don't want those prices to come down to try to move them faster, until they've virtually hit the expiration date, which is sometimes two months after the eggs were packed! So help me, some eggs are so old, I cracked one and a chicken flew out. 

Anyway folks, something is going to have to give eventually. Widening income disparity is going to bring about another crisis, as the wealthy interests can't keep charging us higher prices when incomes for the poor and middle class are stagnating, or actually declining in many cases. Some of the wealthy reactionaries want to take the country way back in time to keep control of it, as they did up until the 1930s, although of course, they don't want to go back to when many executives made 20 or 30 or 40 times what their workers made, instead of today's executives who make hundreds of times more than the average worker. Remember too, the larger the percentage of income that goes to the wealthy, the less money that goes into Social Security and Medicare. Why? Because contributions to these two programs stop at about $110,000. Income above that amount is not subject to paying into Social Security or Medicare. You see, there are lots of problems that stem from income disparity, but they aren't going to tell you that. Selling NASA space trips sounds better and better, especially since the greed of some of these folks is out of this world.

* As most people know, grains of various types, including corn, are often used to feed animals. When the cost of grain rises, the farmers/ranchers have to pay more to feed their livestock and poultry. Put simply, this increases the price of the meat from these animals, or for products from animals, like eggs or dairy products. Most of these meat/agricultural products are on commodity markets, where the overall prices are set, but many of these products are also subsidized by the government, usually by what are called "price supports." Subsides for such products goes back about a hundred years to a time when there were literally millions of American farms and something like a quarter to a third of Americans either lived on farms or were directly tied to agriculture in some way. The terrible state of American agriculture in the 1920s was one of the causes of the Great Depression, as so many Americans were linked to agriculture, including banks, which collapsed in record numbers in agricultural communities. Today, as with many other businesses, there are far, far fewer farms (see note), and the percentage of Americans living on or tied directly to agriculture now "appears" to be in the single digits. The thing is, with prices determined on commodity markets, that means, like it, not like it, the wealthy are setting prices. Surprise, surprise! (Note: It's a bit difficult to find a reliable number for farms in the U.S., although I didn't exactly wear myself out trying to find such a number, either, but as compared to the millions from the days of the 1920s and 1930s, the number "appears" to be in the hundreds of thousands now, but that likely counts consolidation; that is, big farms bought up smaller neighboring farms.)

** In my younger days, there was a little quip about the rock salt companies raising their prices like ten cents a bag (a dime was worth far more back then than today's dime), because the salt mines raised salt thirty cents a ton. Get it? If not, the point was, salt went up thirty cents a ton (2000 lbs.), but the price of a bag of rock salt went up a dime on a 5 lb. bag! You do the math.

WORD HISTORY:
Stream-This noun goes back to Indo European "sreu," which had the idea of "flow." This gave Old Germanic "straumaz," which meant "flow, flowing water, current of water." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "stream" (pronounced stree-am), meaning "flowing water, a current;" thus, "stream." This then became "streem," before the modern version. The verb developed from the noun in the 1200s. The other Germanic languages have: German "Strom" (also used for electrical current), Low German Saxon "Stroom," Dutch "stroom," Frisian "stream" and "streamke," Danish and Norwegian "strøm," Icelandic "straumi" and "straumur," and Swedish  "ström." 

Reform Entitlements For Those 'Moochers,' The Rich

With the nation undergoing seemingly endless battles over the budget, some Republicans have targeted programs they like to call "entitlements;" that is, programs, they say, people feel entitled to receive, with the further connotation that these programs and their recipients are bleeding the country of its wealth and financial stability. Also there seems to be this belief by some that this supposed dependence on government is just somehow awful, but that being at the mercy of greedy businesspeople is just so much better. The 2012 election showed us just what the use of the term "entitlements" meant for Republicans, as their presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, clearly spelled it all out in what became perhaps THE defining moment of the campaign, as he spoke to wealthy campaign donors who paid $50,000 a plate for dinner one day at a mansion in Florida.* In his remarks, Romney said that 47% of Americans would automatically vote for President Obama, because they were dependent upon government through various "entitlements." ** Reaction was swift and generally negative, even from many Republicans, who distanced themselves from the remarks, but right wing supporters tended to rally to Romney's defense, with the term "moochers" working its way into the discussion as a term for recipients.

We often now hear Social Security and Medicare mentioned in the context of "entitlements," which is incorrect. Americans pay into both.*** Now you can argue we don't pay enough, or we haven't paid enough, into the programs, or that some Americans receive too much or too little, but these are totally different arguments. The idea with Social Security when it was established, was that if everyone paid in, there would be broad-based support for it, rather than having some sort of "means testing," which would make it more of an entitlement, as everyone would pay, but not everyone would receive benefits. So, very wealthy people, age 65 and up, receive a Social Security check each month, regardless of the fact that they don't need it. By law, they cannot give it back, or cancel it. So has the premise about broad-based support held up? Yes, in the sense that polls show a large majority of Americans support Social Security, but since wealthy people don't need Social Security, even to supplement their incomes, the idea that they will necessarily view Social Security in the same light as the rest of us is mistaken, although there are many wealthy folks, I'm sure, who recognize the need for the program. There are also those who are pretty much opposed to Social Security, and over time, there has been a concerted effort to discredit the program and have people invest money for their own retirement. That assumes people would do so on their own, or that everyone could be an investment genius (if there is such a thing). This takes us back to more survival of the fittest (actually of the luckiest), with some of the true beneficiaries being the big banks and Wall Street investment firms, in general.**** So what happens to people who make bad investments? When they get older, what, do we throw them out on the street or just what should happen to them? With falling or essentially stagnant wages for many Americans over the last few decades, what about people who can't invest much? Let's face it, left on our own, if an emergency pops up, real or perceived, many folks will choose NOT to invest if they feel they need the money at the moment to deal with whatever it is, including necessities like buying the latest IPhone, HDTV or some other gadget. Social Security has been a bugaboo for many Republicans dating back to the mid 1930s when it was voted into existence (many Republicans voted FOR Social Security back then, but there were opponents, including some Democrats, but the two political parties were not as ideologically divided back then). Further, Social Security does NOT contribute to the budget deficit; in fact, if anything, it has helped to mask deficits, as it has run a surplus for a number of years, and Social Security does not get money directly from Uncle Sam's general revenues anyway.***** I point this out only because some Republicans have muddied the deficit waters by saying Social Security has to be dealt with now, perhaps bringing some Americans to the misinformed conclusion that Social Security is part of the current problem, which is totally untrue, something the opponents of Social Security seem loathe to make clear. There will be issues about Social Security in the future, if current projections hold up, and people on both sides of the aisle agree on that. The sooner the potential problems are dealt with is undoubtedly better, but Americans should not be stampeded into changes that are NOT in their, and thus the nation's, overall interest, but are very favorable for wealthy business interests.  

As often happens with me, I intended this to be just one article, but it will take at least another installment. Hey, I'm verbose. That's okay, because these are very important issues, and I seriously doubt many Americans really even understand the basics about the debate, let alone the finer points. So I'll continue in "Part Two." 

* Candidates from both major political parties take money from wealthy donors.

** Mr. Romney said more, but that was the key line, although his further remarks elaborated about people who believe themselves to be victims, who feel it is the responsibility of government to care for them with food, housing, medical care, and "you name it."

*** I believe it is more appropriate to say "Americans contribute to both programs," rather than to say "Americans are taxed" for these programs. Opponents of both programs like to use the word "tax," because of its negative connotation, but we are paying into these programs for our own potential benefit, as well as sharing a common responsibility as a nation. If you have health insurance, I'll bet you don't go around saying, "I paid my tax to the insurance company." Or if you have some type of retirement policy or investment plan, you don't say, "I paid my tax for my 401 K." Also, contributions to Social Security are paid on up to just south of $114,000 in income and not above. All adjusted income is subject to the 1.45% rate for Medicare. Employers contribute an equal share on both rates, but their contributions to employees is a business expense, and the self employed pay the full rate on themselves, but they get to use the "employer amount" as an expense.  

**** I've told this many times before, but it's certainly relevant again here. My father was a staunch Republican, who, like many Republicans back then, criticized Social Security. Then he retired and started receiving his Social Security. A while later the Republicans took over Congress in the mid 1990s and the talk of privatizing part or all of Social Security became part of the national debate. Then my father saw it all VERY differently, even bluntly criticizing Republicans, saying big business people just wanted to get their greedy hands on the Social Security money. My father and I often had ... ah ... disagreements on politics, but in this case, he hit the nail on the head.  

***** Social Security gets money from Uncle Sam, but only because the program holds U.S. Treasury securities, just as anyone holding government bonds does. This means Social Security buys U.S. government debt in the form of these special securities. Interest is paid on the securities. Bonds, whether issued by some government entity or by private companies, are a form of debt for the issuer.

WORD HISTORY:
Dull-This word goes back to Indo European "dhwul/dhwel," which had the notion "to obscure, to dim," and seems to have also been applied to things that caused something to be obscured or dimmed, such as "swirling smoke or dust." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "dulaz," which used the "obscured, dimmed" notion in another manner; that being, "foolish;" that is, "unclear, dimmed thoughts." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "dol," which meant "stupid, foolish, silly." This then became "dul(l)," before finally settling on "dull." The meaning of "dim of mind" took on the figurative meaning "blunt" for knives and other implements, and the primary "stupid" meaning began to recede, although we still use "dull witted." A verb form developed form the adjective, meaning "to lose sharpness or sheen;" thus still today we talk about "colors dulled" by the sun, weather, or washing, usually in the case of clothing. Forms in the other Germanic languages have generally maintained the connection with "unclear in thought" or "in some manner obscured," and as their English cousin, they all once pretty much meant "dimwitted" in some sense:: German has "toll," which usually means "crazy, wild," but has the every day language meaning "great, super, fantastic" (from the idea that when you like something, you go crazy, wild); Low German Saxon has "dull" (angry, fantastic); some Low German dialect has "doll" (mad); Dutch has "dol" (mad, wild), West Frisian has "dwylsinnich" (crazy, wild); Icelandic has "dulur" (secretive; that is, obscuring something). I could not find modern versions of the word in Danish, Norwegian, or Swedish. 

The Sequester Pinches An "Essential" Service

First published in March 2013


Both political parties, or factions within those two parties, often make dire predictions of what will happen if the other side gets its way. Recently it's been the Obama administration and Democrats telling the public that the country might just dry up and blow away if the so called "sequester" went into effect, although previously Republicans predicted the whole thing would be terrible, mainly because of defense cuts. The reality of the situation then saw the Democrats back away from the terrible predictions they had been foretelling. There will be consequences due to the sequester, but unless you're one of the people apt to lose your job quickly or have your hours trimmed, there won't be excruciating pain for most Americans, at least not right away, and maybe never. Just as tax cuts and stimulus programs take time to have a positive effect, cuts take time to have a negative effect. What effect the 85 billion in cuts will have on the economy remains to be seen, and it may take a couple of months or so before we have some inkling of an answer. Presently, the most visible sign of the cuts is the halt to White House tours, a plan that has drawn the ire of some Republicans. You know the Republicans, right? They're the party that seems to want government to go away, except to fight wars. Government can't regulate Wall Street, can't protect consumers from predatory banks and credit card companies, can't help uninsured Americans with health care, can't tax the wealthy, can't regulate pollution, and a number of other cant's. Well now they're saying those "cant's" are superseded by another "can't;" that is, the government "can't" stop giving tours of the White House, obviously a life or death program, seemingly right up there with fighting wars.

After their defeat in the 2008 election, the GOP opposed President Obama at every step on the economy, predicting dire consequences if he/we didn't do what they recommended, which was what they had been recommending and practicing since Ronald Reagan took office in 1981; that is, tax cuts, especially for the "sit on their ass class," I mean, "the job creators," as they have terrible concerns for the plight of millionaires and billionaires, and they seek to help them pile millions on top of more millions on top of billions, including by blatant attempts to destroy America's unions. You know unions, don't you? They schemed to market securities backed by bad mortgages, mortgages they knew to be bad, sending the world into a financial crisis. Oh ... wait a second. That wasn't unions, was it? Well, but then of course there are those damned poor people. Can't they just go away? Wealthy people wouldn't have to listen to all this stuff about the income gap and inequality. Now there's a new Pope known for being an advocate for the poor. Look out Donald Trump, you might have to pay a little more in taxes if this Pope starts to speak out for more equality. No wonder Trump can't get his hair done right, he's overwhelmed with taxes. The Pope should be saying, "Be a Christian and help a millionaire."   

The Republicans of the 1960s were nowhere near as vicious as those of today, but some then too vehemently opposed the implementation of Medicare for America's seniors, just as some opposed the passage of Social Security in the 1930s, another program that has just bugged the absolute hell out them. The problem for them and their big business, egomaniac allies has been, the public, including many Republican voters, came to embrace these two programs wholeheartedly. Still, today's hardcore Republican opponents of these programs haven't given up on destroying things they can't get their hands on. On top of everything else, now no White House tours. The country is in dire peril!    

WORD HISTORY:
Can-This is the verb meaning "to be able to do something, to know how to do something, have the knowledge to do." My guess is, most English speakers are unaware that "can" is closely related to "know." It goes back to Indo European "gnoh," which had the notion of "to have knowledge." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "kunnanan," with the same general meaning. This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon), "cunnan," which later became "connen," with the first and third person singular present being "can." The infinitive form then changed to the shorter "can." Common throughout the other Germanic languages: German and Low German Saxon have "können" (1st & 3rd person singular present tense "kann"); Dutch has "kunnen/kan;" West Frisian has "kinne," Icelandic has "kunna/kann," Danish has "kunne/kan," Norwegian has "kunne/kan," and Swedish has "kunna/kan." 

Dangers For Both On Medicare, Part Two

In the 1960s when Medicare came into existence, opponents virtually screamed "the end of civilization is near." All of this because elderly people would receive government supported health care. Now, all of these years later, a person 65 is not really seen as elderly anymore, as life expectancy has increased because of improved medical treatments, and at least in part, because of the delivery of those improved treatments to older Americans by Medicare. To some, Medicare's success has added to its problems. By helping people live longer, more people remain on Medicare (and Social Security) for a longer period of time. To hear some critics, maybe we all should just die by 65 to save them the worry of having to deal with the problem, especially when the modern critics are funded by super wealthy interests who are more concerned with making more money, than saving people's lives. Any volunteers to die by 65 out there? Don't everyone shout at once now! Ah, what, you've all got laryngitis? Well, this isn't working out too well, so let's try this: how about you folks over 65? Any volunteers to kick the bucket... I mean, pass on, as soon as possible to keep from bothering the money makers? Let's face it folks, this is not realistic, and I hope you make sure your tootsies touch Mother Earth every day. On the other hand, I have read about some who want certain procedures or care eliminated.or curtailed, especially for the terminally ill, or for people who are much advanced in years, with the idea that we can't afford such things. The interesting thing is, some of the advocates for this seem to be some of the very ones who screamed about "death panels" when end of life counseling was proposed. Okay, let's limit the things you say you want, but who will decide who gets what treatment? Who will tell Ms. Daisy, an 88 year old, she can't have such and such a treatment to ease pain  or help help her walk better? Call them "death panels" or whatever you want, someone will have to make those decisions. And guess what else, there won't be total freedom, since someone will tell us the answers! You want total freedom? Go far away from EVERYONE, all by yourself; then you can have total freedom. Add just one person, and your total freedom stops at that other person's nose.

Of course, when it suited their purpose, these same opponents used the term "death panels" to scare people into opposing President Obama's health care reforms. Yes, the President's plan has flaws, just like anything involving human beings. Let's face it, we're imperfect, or things just don't go the way we intend for them to go all the time. My guess is, when humans crawled out of caves and made huts for living, someone said, "Yikes, huts catch on fire or let in the elements. I told you we should stay in our natural habitat." I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm damned glad most humans persisted over the millenniums and that we have graduated to the homes we have today, especially with air conditioning, 'cause its been a hot summer!

Now more seriously, in Part One I said the Republicans can't win the current debate on Medicare the way it is framed. Yes, there are problems with Medicare, but most Americans want the problems dealt with, and they don't want their family or friends to die early or suffer needlessly or go totally broke on medical care because some politicians are too ideologically driven to work on those problems, or others are too worried about making more money they couldn't spend in a hundred or more life times. On the other side of this, people must recognize and acknowledge that there are problems, and that those problems are not going to go away with just a little dab of plaster here and a touch up paint job there. There are structural problems. These structural problems are the already noted increase in the age of the population, as well as aspects of the health care system that are increasingly outdated. While I wasn't all that crazy about the final Obamacare package, I also noted back then that it was a start. Like it, not like it, the President brought a discussion to the fore about a VERY complex issue that cannot be fixed in the blink of an eye. And there will be problems with implementing the new health care law. We damned humans just can't do anything right! All of this ties together though; the health care law, Medicare, how to deliver health care to Americans, how to control costs. And the idea that we can have a nation without laws is nonsense. The debate over what those laws should be is certainly valid, but there must be laws, and we must have revenues to pay for things we want, not just health care.

The Republicans now support a voucher system for Medicare, that, if passed, would go into effect in ten years. Under this system, seniors would receive a specified amount to "help them buy" private medical insurance. The key here is "private" insurance. Remember, if you own an insurance company, you will need to MAKE money, a profit. The problem becomes, what if good insurance costs more than the voucher? The answer is, you'll have to make up the difference. Further, you'll have to be astute enough to know which plan is best for you. In other words, you're on your own and good luck! This plan, based so much upon the private sector for such an important part of our lives, makes the Republicans highly vulnerable, in my opinion, and that makes Paul Ryan a big gamble. Further, the Republican plan would supposedly give American seniors the "option" to remain in "traditional" Medicare. The "fear," correctly or incorrectly, mainly by Democrats, is that basically healthy well off seniors will be able to buy the insurance they need, leaving poorer or less healthy seniors in a withering Medicare program. Unfortunately to me, this all comes back to "we're not a country, we're a group of individuals only interested in our own personal lives. I've got mine, the hell with you! Oh....unless of course there's a war, and you just better support it and be patriotic, because we'll bomb just about any country that doesn't like us. And we LOVE the term 'boots on the ground,' it sounds so John Wayne-like.' "

Now, the Democrats have potential problems too. If they make the defeat of the Republicans the only issue about Medicare, they stand to face a backlash when changes to the program in fact need to be made, which will be sooner, rather than later. As I've noted before, the question really is, who, or which party, do you want adjusting Medicare? Trust me, changes will need to be made, not because of the laws of the political right, not because of the laws of the political left, but because of the laws of arithmetic. By the way, one idea floated by some, I'm not sure if by Republicans or by Democrats, is that doctors and other health care providers be paid fixed salaries to limit payments for extra tests, procedures, or prescriptions, which are considered a part of the escalating cost problem.

I know I'll be visiting this issue again, but currently I'm doing a little research on the overall Medicare system (and the health care system in general), especially as compared to other nations. Do some nations do certain aspects of health care or care for the elderly better than us? If so, how do we change? If nothing else, I hope these articles make you think about this issue. .
 
WORD HISTORY:
Frank-This is the word meaning "speak freely, bluntly," as in "a frank statement."  The adverbial form is "frankly," as in the famous Rhett Butler statement to Scarlett O'Hara in "Gone With the Wind," "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn." Also there is a less common verb form used about free mail, in America often used more about political representatives sending free mail to constituents and called "franking privileges." The various forms go back to the Germanic tribe, the Franks. This name then goes back to Old Germanic "franko," which meant "javelin, spear, lance,"^ but its origins beyond that are unknown. The Franks conquered much of what is today France, a country thereafter named for them. As the conquerors, they were "free men;" thus, the term "Frank" came to be associated with "being free," including the related "speak openly." English borrowed the term in the late 1200s or so in that context from French, but Old English had both "Franca," as the name for their kindred Germanic tribe,^^ and "franca," with the "spear" meaning. The notion of "speak openly" eventually even took on the more emphatic meaning "speak bluntly or outspokenly."  

^ This is not a certainty, as the Franks also used a throwing ax called a "francisca/franciska." Some linguists, therefore, believe the two weapons were named FOR the people who used them, rather than the people being named for one of their weapons.

^^ It is believed by a number of historians from archaeological evidence that some Franks participated in the invasion of Britain in the mid 400s A.D. by the Germanic tribes the Angles and the Saxons, which also included some Frisians, another Germanic tribe.

Dangers For Both On Medicare, Part One

Mitt Romney's selection of Congressman Paul Ryan to be his running mate has made Medicare THE issue of the moment, and perhaps THE issue for the duration of the campaign. The way the debate is now structured, the Republicans cannot win this debate. Medicare is a hot-button issue, if there ever was one, and with so many voters either already on the government-run medical plan, or planning to be on it in the next few years, the concerns for the program are considerable. I can remember 40 or more years ago when rising medical costs were a concern, a concern that has not abated since those times. We have an aging population, and with those aging members of society comes more strain on the nation's Medicare program. Since Medicare's enactment into law, medical care has changed considerably, with fewer hospital stays and more medications prescribed. This change in care prompted the addition of a prescription drug benefit in a law passed in 2003. While the new law was a recognition of the changes in medical care, it was not paid for, and it should be noted, Congressman Ryan voted "Yes" on this legislation, and (then) Senator Joe Biden voted "No," in a final vote in the Senate on November 25, 2003.

In some fairness to both Ryan and Biden, it is always easy to say someone voted "for" or "against" a particular proposal, and that's what you get in political ads, but I like to know why legislators vote the way they do on any given issue, if possible, and there were philosophical differences between many Democrats and Republicans on the issue of Medicare prescription drug coverage, although as I noted above, the demographic shift to an older electorate made members of both parties want to do something about a drug benefit. "Generally" speaking, however, Democrats had been pushing for such coverage in some form, while Republicans had been either against it, or lukewarm at best, always seeking a way for private insurance to be involved. Many Democrats argued that by passing an unfunded liability onto Medicare, it would weaken the overall system, in spite of the good intention of covering senior prescriptions. Further, the added cost of the program was much in debate, with the Bush administration's cost estimates revised higher, AFTER the bill was passed and signed into law. Republicans pushed for incentives to get insurance companies to offer Medicare patients private insurance, and further they got a provision included that prevents the government from negotiating for lower prices from drug companies. Nine Republican senators voted against the bill, "generally" because of its cost, and eleven Democrats voted for it, although "generally" with misgivings about some shortcomings. The final bill barely passed in the House of Representatives on November 22, 2003 by a vote of 220 to 215. So while there was general consensus within both parties to offer prescription drug coverage to seniors, the philosophical split of the role of government and free markets was still there, although obscured by political self interest (that age demographic I keep mentioning).

With a subject like Medicare, it will take at least another article. So, more in Part Two, including the "dangers"  to both parties.

WORD HISTORY:
Yoke-This word is used for the (usually) wooden device fastened around a pair oxen for drawing a cart or wagon; and it is also used for the pair of oxen. It traces back to Indo European "yeug/yewg," which had the notion of "join together, unite." This gave its Old Germanic offspring the derived "yukan," meaning "yoke." This then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "geoc," with the same meaning. A verb form "geocian" was derived from the noun and meant "to put a yoke on animals, primarily oxen." The "ge(o)" letter combination in Old English was not pronounced with a hard "g," thus the sound was similar to our more modern "y," which is also what happened to the Old English form of "yellow," also spelled with a "geo" beginning. Common in the other Germanic languages: German has "Joch" (German "j" is pronounced like English "y"), Low German Saxon has "Jück," Dutch has "juk," West Frisian has "jok," Danish has "åg," Icelandic has "ok," Norwegian has "åk," and Swedish has "ok." Notice the North Germanic languages (Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic and Swedish) have lost the beginning "y" sound.

The Right Gets Its Man: Paul Ryan

This was first published in August 2012


The American right wing now has its man, Paul Ryan, as the number two pick on the GOP ticket. Since the economic collapse of the Great Depression and the resultant relatively mild attempts to rein in certain business practices, and the attempts by government to provide basic protections for America's elderly, sick, disadvantaged and poor, the political right has fumed at how to return things to a society totally committed to greed and survival of the fittest. Little by little over the decades they have succeeded in getting laws changed and programs modified to accomplish their goals, at times with complicity from some Democrats. Shame! Shame! One of the major bugaboos of the right has been Social Security since its inception in the 1930s. Why well to do people are so obsessed with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is beyond me. I understand the desire of many Americans, including some of the very wealthy, to keep these programs solvent, but there has been a desire by the hard right wing in this country to destroy these programs, then giving themselves control over a vast new source of income, as if they didn't have enough money already. Don't be fooled by the right wing propaganda that without their proposals being enacted, these programs will go under. Let me tell you, if these programs ever go under, we won't have a country anymore. The idea of privatization and insurance vouchers should scare the absolute hell out of you, no matter your political affiliation. Some members of the GOP are finally bailing out, like one of our local more moderate Republicans, Cleveland area Congressman Steve LaTourette. Understand, these programs are not perfect and they will require adjustments, but whom do you want in charge of the surgery, Doctor Kildare or Jack the Ripper? Remember folks, the wealthiest Americans are NOT hurting. Many are making more money than EVER, and in an economy that is growing moderately, at best. They are working and spending huge sums to convince YOU to effectively dismantle programs that can help YOU at some point in YOUR life. Don't let them get away with it!
 
Now one Paul Ryan, a congressman from Wisconsin, has been picked by Mitt Romney as his running mate. Polls show many Americans, perhaps you're one of them, don't know who Ryan is, but let me tell you something, they're about to find out; hopefully not the hard way; that is, if these two win the election. Democrats need to spell out what Ryan stands for, plain and simple, no exaggerations or falsehoods. Just tell it like it is. The man has a long record in Congress and in speaking engagements and interviews, and his budget ideas are well known to people who follow politics to any degree.Political parties and philosophies tend to eventually go too far, and the political right, financed by wealthy interests, is at that point in my opinion, having dodged a bullet with the severe economic downturn coming so late in George W. Bush's term. They were then able to shift the focus of a part of the country away from themselves, and onto the new President, Barack Obama, who provided them with a new angle of attack, RACE! Criticizing Obama does NOT automatically make a person a racist or bigot, but it gave the right a floor of political support at a time when their own money grubbing itself was under attack. I personally know a couple of people who were Democrats, but who voted Republican for the sole reason (by their own admission) that Obama was a man of color. The charges against Obama of "socialism" are almost comical, coming from a bunch that bet on mortgage-backed securities. Why? Because they wanted the profits for themselves, but when the thing blew up, the losses then became something to be shared by EVERYONE; "government help;" that is, the very "socialism" they claim to detest.* "Too big to fail" became the new slogan to garner support.

I've noted here before, "if" the climate ever dramatically changes and Americans turn on these greediest of the greedy, it will not be pretty. Reason and common sense go out the window in such circumstances. The potential irony is, the wealthy interests have used "globalization" to extract more wealth for themselves, but unlike years ago, they will have nowhere to hide. Popular movements have sprung up all over the world in support of a fairer society in their respective countries, and in reaction to their own monied interests. Once events shift, where will the wealthy be able to run for protection? China? That would be THE ultimate irony, but China is not exempt from popular movements either, as events since the late 1980s have shown, and my guess is, there is a seething volcano of popular discontent in China. Still, what an irony! The wealthy right wing running to Communist China! Hm, I'll bet Romney would say he's been for Obamacare all along, and that it's real name is "Romneycare."

* This is "socialism" in the sense that everyone (taxpayers) would pitch in to help save their rotten asses.  

WORD HISTORY:
Rise-The origins of this word are uncertain, but Old Germanic had "risanan," which meant "to go up, to stand up." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "risan," meaning "to rise, to stand up." This then became "risen" (long "i" sound), before the modern form. The noun form, most common in the topographical "elevated terrain," developed from the verb. The Old Germanic notion of "stand up" gave many of the modern Germanic languages the meaning "travel," from the idea of "rising from sleep to make a journey." German has "reisen" (to travel), Low German Saxon "raisen" (to travel), Dutch has both "rijzen" (to rise, to climb) and "reizen" (to travel), West Frisian has "reizgje," East Frisian "risa" (rise, arise), Swedish "resa" (to travel), Norwegian "reise" (to travel), Danish "rejse" (to travel) and Icelandic "risa" (to rise, arise).

Fear Drives The Political Ads, But...

Politics is always about "fear" to some degree, often to a large degree. All political parties use it, especially America's two main parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. Fear can make people behave irrationally, and at times, both parties would prefer that you would just listen to their ads, panic, and not "think." The question is, is one party really playing more on irrational fear than the other? My answer is "yes." Americans of the right or the left have always had skepticism of government; after all, the nation was founded in revolution against rule by England, but interestingly, the collective scandals of Republican Richard Nixon's administration* made the country even more skeptical, with many folks seemingly seeing conspiracies in just about every event thereafter. Some skepticism is one thing, overload on conspiracies isn't good for your mental health, folks. Take a deep breath or two and THINK.

Since Ronald Reagan won the presidency in 1980, there has been a growing ultra-conservative, anti-government movement that has gradually taken over the Republican Party. Even some Republicans have noted that Reagan would not be able to win his party's nomination in this day and age, as he was "too moderate." Twenty years ago President George Bush, Sr. was essentially held hostage by the extreme right wing of the GOP, a right wing that never really got behind him in his reelection bid. When Democrat Bill Clinton won the election, this ultra right movement attacked him in unrelenting manner, with some even accusing the President of murder.** By the mid to late 1990s, right wing militia groups had grown and a few extremists blew up a federal office building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people and injuring hundreds more. The poison has only grown since then, as George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq mobilized major opposition to his administration, as the "Iraqi weapons of mass destruction," the reason given by Bush for going to war, were not found.*** These examples and many more have left a dizzying number of conspiracy-like claims by people in both parties against one another.

When Barack Obama was elected as President of the United States, right wing and white militia membership rose as fear of the first African-American president gripped these people.**** Since that time, conservative groups, led by the rise of the "Tea Party," have stoked the fires of paranoia against Obama and Democrats, often charging or implying that the President would take away guns from all Americans, no matter how law abiding, or that he was not American born, or that he was a secret Muslim seeking to destroy the country from within, or that he was out to destroy religion, or that he was seeking to bankrupt the country (conveniently forgetting the debts piled up by his Republican predecessor, indeed, predecessors). As some of the saner elements of the "media world" have noted, there hasn't been any attempt to ban guns, and Ted Nugent's recent display was way out there, folks, although Ted's words seemed to almost indicate that Obama was on his way at that very moment to disarm all in the crowd. These folks and others need to get a grip on themselves. Sadly, few if any Republican leaders have stepped forward to squelch the nonsense or the hate mongering. Conservative talk radio or television hosts have become rather notorious for spewing venom and egging on an element of the population whose very sanity is in question.

On the other side, Democrats claim Republican budget cuts and program changes will result in the destruction of government programs necessary for elderly and poor Americans. Republicans say it is untrue, but when you talk about privatizing all or parts of these programs, that means lots of greedy people will try to get their hands on the tons of money used for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Will "free markets" care if you or your parents or your grandparents have dependable income or medical care? Do you trust for profit business people to make sure you don't live in abject poverty or in sickness or misery from serious illness?*****  The desire by many in the GOP for the elimination of Legal Aid will deprive poor folks of legal advice and representation in this complex legalistic society we have. What if YOU fall on hard times? We like to criticize "government bureaucrats," but would you prefer to seek assistance from a government employee who collects a salary in the work force, or from a business person interested in profit only?  

More in "Part Two-Angst"

* President Nixon was often under political fire for his policies, primarily regarding the Vietnam War, a war that had become increasingly unpopular and increasingly divisive. To keep this simple, some of Nixon's top administration officials were involved in orchestrating a break-in of the Democratic headquarters in one of the buildings in the Watergate complex in Washington. The burglars planted bugging devices and checked or photographed some documents. These officials then tried to cover up their misdeeds, as several of the actual burglars were arrested. The whole scandal would require a separate article, or series of articles, but in the end, Nixon resigned, having been accused in the cover up and obstruction of justice. A number of Americans felt the President was directly involved in authorizing the break-in.

** Vince Foster was a White House official during the first few months of Bill Clinton's administration. He was found dead in a park in suburban Washington D.C. in what various law enforcement agencies concluded was a suicide. Later, Special Prosecutor Ken Starr (a Republican) concluded the same. Right wing groups charged that Bill Clinton, or Hillary Clinton, or both, were really behind Foster's death, an allegation that lingers to this day. 

*** I guess I should say that the very close and contentious election of 2000 just laid a powder keg out waiting for a lit match to touch the fuse. For those too young or unaware, the 2000 election brought a razor-thin victory to George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore. In hotly contested Florida, Bush was awarded the state, and therefore the presidency, by only some 500 votes out of several million votes cast in that state.

**** Let me make one thing perfectly clear (ah, that might not be a great choice of words, but what the hell, I'll stick with it; after all, I mentioned Nixon), I'm NOT saying any or all criticism of Obama is racist or bigoted, and I have criticism of some things he's done myself. We need an open discussion of issues and criticism of political leaders' ideas is part of that discussion. However, there's no question in my mind that racism and bigotry lie behind a certain element in the country (interestingly, "a minority") who are willing to bring the whole country down to discredit Obama. They are NOT afraid he will fail, they are afraid he will succeed, thus making a case for another possible future African-American president.

***** I've noted in articles before that my father was a staunch Republican, but once retired, he began to see how important Social Security and Medicare were. After the GOP took control of Congress in the mid 1990s and Republicans began to talk about "privatizing" Social Security, he started to criticize their ideas, worrying that wealthy business people couldn't "wait to get their hands on that (Social Security) money," as he told me.  

WORD HISTORY:
Thing-The ultimate origin of this common word is unclear, but Old Germanic had "thengan" or "thingan," which meant "council or assembly of officials," but it also began to develop the secondary meaning "matters discussed by the assembly." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "thing," which kept the "assembly (meeting)" idea, as well as the "matters discussed" meaning. Gradually the secondary meaning became the primary meaning in the Germanic languages, as other words replaced the meaning "assembly," although traces of the original meaning survive, as Iceland's parliament is the "Althing." Over time, the idea of "matters discussed," broadened to "matters in general," and then even to "objects." Common in the other Germanic languages, all with the same basic meaning as their close English relative: German and Low German Saxon have "Ding," some Low German dialect has "dinkj, "West Frisian and Dutch have "ding," Norwegian, Danish and Swedish all have "ting," and Icelandic has "thing."

The German Question, Part One Hundred Eight

"The Rise of Hitler and The Nazis" Part One/E
"Hitler Finds a Political Party"

A number of groups and parties of many political persuasions arose with the defeat of the Kaiser's Germany, and with the change to a far more democratic form of governance. One of these parties began in Munich after the war and was called the German Workers Party (German: Deutsche Arbeiterpartei). It was a right wing party favoring strong German nationalism and "pan-Germanism,* as well as those who believed in the "stab in the back"** stories then circulating around the country. The "worker" part of the party name gave it a "socialist" tilt, mainly anti-capitalist, but also anti-Bolshevik. There were also anti-Jewish feelings espoused, as Jews were not seen as Germans by at least some elements of society. Apparently the party membership was quite small, perhaps fifty or less.

Hitler returned to Munich and chose to remain in the army after the war, as this was before the Versailles Treaty limited the size of German military forces. Hitler was part of a special unit of the army which quite literally spied on political groups. He was eventually sent to "spy" on the German Workers Party. He liked what he saw and heard, so he left the army and joined this new political party.

Next...."Hitler the Political Upstart"

* Pan Germanism supporters essentially wanted ALL Germans, regardless of their present country, to be united into one strong nation. It was an idea very much promoted by Hitler and the Nazis later on.

** The "stab in the back" legend, as it is usually called, was promoted by right wing army officers and politicians who claimed Germany had not been defeated on the battlefield, but had been "stabbed in the back" by socialist, Bolshevik, and Jewish led protests at home. It was all a bunch of absolute nonsense, but it played well with many Germans who were in denial about the country's defeat and who were devastated by the consequences of losing the war. Don't forget, whether you like the recent American health care reform or not, the charge of "death panels to kill Granny" was totally absurd, but a fairly substantial minority of Americans believed it, too. Like insurance companies don't make decisions every day affecting the life or death of Americans. If the Republicans get their way, and Medicare is essentially turned over to private insurance companies, talk about "death panels for Granny!" All part of what I call "the dumbing down of America." (10-8-22 note: This was written in 2011, when the health care law was still a hot issue.)

WORD HISTORY:
Dagger-The origins of this word are uncertain, but I'll take a "stab" at it. Much of the history of this word is so uncertain or speculative, I will be using words like "seems," "apparently," and "perhaps" in many instances. The beginning documentation on this word only goes back to just before 1300, but it "seems" Latin had "daca," with a long "a," a form of knife or short sword used in what is now essentially modern Rumania, but then called "Dacia," after the Dacians, whose language was Indo European (as is English). Linguists and historians speculate that the Dacian language died out in the 500s or 600s A.D. Exactly where the term "Dacian" comes from is not clear. Did the term for the knife transfer to the people who used it?^ Or did the name of the people already exist and the knife took the name from them? Some linguists believe the term (for the knife) may be of Celtic origin (Celtic is also Indo European), and the Celtic tribes were spread over a large portion of Europe at one time, including in that northern area of the Balkans; that is, southeastern Europe. Or did the Celts name the "Dacians?" While the Latin connection is somewhat shaky, it does come onto firmer ground as Latin's descendants had similar words: Old French, a Latin-based language, had "dague" and "daguard," and Old Italian had "daga." Apparently it was borrowed into some Germanic dialects from French in the late 1300s, as the English of those times had "daggere," German had "Degen," Dutch "dagge" and modern Dutch "degen," etc. The German and Dutch terms mean "light sword." Modern Welsh, a Celtic language has "dagr," but that could be a borrowing from English. There was also in Middle English a verb "dag," which meant "to stab, to skewer," and apparently this came from the noun, and was an English creation. German and some other Germanic languages, but obviously not English, use a form of Slavic "tulich" as their word for "dagger." This borrowing from Slavic gave German "Dolch," some Low German dialects have "Dorjch," and Dutch, Danish, Swedish and Norwegian all have "dolk."

^ While not everyone agrees, some believe the name of the Saxons came from the name of the ax they used.

Paying The Piper-Part 8/1-An Unpleasant Ticket To The Past

Sub Part: One

While America has many political parties, usually only the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are considered to be "major," but so called "third party" candidates have, at times, garnered more than just a small percentage of the votes for any given office, although third party candidates seldom win an election. Since we don't have a parliamentary system, where members are apportioned according to the percentage of the vote by the public for each political party, our two-party system has served us pretty well. In order to attract a broad spectrum of votes, candidates from the two major parties typically either "lean" conservative, or "lean" progressive, or they are so middle of the road they are, well, right in the middle, with the more extremist types being a distinct minority. Much of that has changed over the last few decades, as conservative elements, some being very to extremely conservative, have tended to support the Republican Party. In more recent times those very to extremely conservative elements have gradually taken over the party, even going so far as to label some Republican officeholders "RINO"s ("Republicans In Name Only"), and to even suggest that these people should leave the party.*/** In the last couple of elections, Republican members of both the House and the Senate have been whittled down, with only a few exceptions, to very conservative members. Former "maverick" John McCain has now abandoned long held positions (like on immigration and bipartisanship) to hold onto his Senate seat against a very conservative Republican primary challenger. In fact, McCain now says he was never a "maverick," in spite of all the film/video footage of him over the years claiming the "maverick" mantle.

All of this leads me to the present, where some Republican candidates have made statements against things like Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance. Since the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, pro-business Republicans have helped to give business and the wealthy interests a decided edge over anything, including common sense. All the while, income disparity has grown by leaps and bounds. With the election of George W. Bush, we saw certain parts of the economy go back to the days of the Wild West, where either there were no laws, or there was no one really interested in enforcing the scant laws on the books.*** President Bush began his second term with a push to privatize part of Social Security; an attempt that failed. The thing is, now we have some Republicans claiming Social Security, Medicare and unemployment are illegal!!!**** Many conservatives (in this case, I'm not always meaning Republicans) have had an obsession with Social Security since it became law in the mid 1930s. Some of the more modern conservatives have wanted some form of privatization, and I've written here before about my father's warning about it. My dad was a rock-ribbed Republican, but when he got older and found that Social Security did provide some "security," he told me that Republican attempts to privatize parts of it were misguided, and that business interests "can't wait to get their hands on that money!" To be continued.... (A Word History is below the notes)

* This is not to say that Democrats have not, at times, done similar, perhaps the most famous being Franklin Roosevelt's attempt to "purge" some Democratic members of Congress who hadn't been as supportive of his agenda in the 1930s. The major difference, however, is that the Democratic Party has always had such diverse segments, that Democrats have fought with each other, at times, as much as they have with Republicans. The late comedian Will Rogers said in one famous statement, "I don't belong to any organized political party; I'm a Democrat."

** This doesn't mean that all, or even a majority of, Republicans feel that way, but in our multifaceted ways of getting information these days, often times the loudest shouters, or the shrillest of the shrill, get the attention.

*** I've written many times that Republicans didn't do all of this themselves, as they had help from "some" Democrats in Congress, and within the Clinton Administration, although some of those Democrats eventually switched to become Republicans.

**** These programs are not perfect, and they will require adjustments, but the idea that they are illegal is pretty far out there to me, but look out for what's coming if these kinds of ideologues join Congress.

WORD HISTORY:
Poll-"Supposedly" this word goes back to an Indo European root, "boul," which had the notion of "round object." This gave Old Proto Germanic the offshoot "pulio," which meant "head, top." Apparently Anglo-Saxon/Old English did not have a form of this word (I couldn't find one), but it could have died out before it was ever recorded, likewise with some German dialects. English borrowed the word from Low German in the late 1200s as "pol/polle" (I found both spellings). In Low German it was "pol, poll, pole," and it not only meant "head," but also "hair of the head," and these meanings passed into English, too, although the "hair" meaning eventually died out, but it took awhile. By the 1600s (1625, according to one source) the meaning of "head" was used to mean "counting heads" during a public vote; thus "poll" and the meaning associated with elections to this day. During the early 1900s, it also came to be used for people giving opinions on various issues or candidates; thus "public opinion poll." A few centuries ago, a verb form meant "to cut hair." This then came to be applied to deeds, with a "deed poll" being a deed executed by only one person or party, and the deed copies were cut straight, and not indented. With indenture deeds/agreements, the agreement copies were cut with various jagged indentations. When legal issues arose, the copies had to fit together, showing that they were from the same agreement. (Get it?) Besides the Low German form mentioned above, Swedish dialect (not standard) has "pull," which means "head," and Danish has "puld," which means "crown of the head or hat."

YIKES! We're Already Socialists!

In 1935, Congress debated and voted on the establishment of Social Security. Of course, Social Security is a government run program, providing what is essentially a base pension for retired American workers, although even some supporters were/are reluctant to use the term “pension” regarding the monthly payments. The program has been amended various times, and since 1935, has added disability payments, among other things, to its support of many Americans. The program required payments into the system by both workers and employers.

Prior to its enactment, many older Americans were extremely vulnerable to the ravages of poverty, and company pensions were fairly rare in those times. Now, has it always been funded properly? No! Have company pension plans always been run properly? No! Remember, in recent years, the auto companies, for example, owed worker pension funds a bundle!

On April 19, 1935, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the legislation for the establishment of Social Security with the following vote total:

372 FOR (284 Democrats-81 Republicans-7 Other party affiliations)
32 AGAINST (15 Democrats-15 Republicans-2 Other party affiliations)
25 Not voting (20 Democrats-4 Republicans-1 Other party affiliation)
2 Republicans chose to vote “Present”

On June 19, 1935, the U.S. Senate passed the legislation with the following vote total:

77 FOR (60 Democrats-16 Republicans-1 Farm Labor)
6 AGAINST (1 Democrat-5 Republicans)
12 Not voting (8 Democrats-4 Republicans)

These tallies seem to indicate that there were 4 vacant seats in the House and 1 in the Senate.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the legislation into law in August 1935.

Thirty years later came the vote to establish Medicare, the health care program for the elderly, and Medicaid, the health care program for the poor. Both health care programs are run by the U.S. Government.

On July 27, 1965 members of the U.S. House of Representatives cast the following tally on the legislation:

307 FOR (237 Democrats-70 Republicans)
116 AGAINST (48 Democrats-68 Republicans)
10 Not Voting (8 Democrats-2 Republicans)
Apparently 2 seats were vacant.

The next day, July 28, the U.S. Senate voted:

70 FOR (57 Democrats-13 Republicans)
24 AGAINST (7 Democrats-17 Republicans)
6 Not Voting (4 Democrats-2 Republicans)

President Lyndon Johnson signed the legislation into law.

I took the following directly from the VA website, in the "History" part:

"The Continental Congress of 1776 encouraged enlistments during the Revolutionary War by providing pensions for soldiers who were disabled. Direct medical and hospital care given to veterans in the early days of the Republic was provided by the individual States and communities. In 1811, the first domiciliary and medical facility for veterans was authorized by the Federal Government. In the 19th century, the Nation's veterans assistance program was expanded to include benefits and pensions not only for veterans, but also their widows and dependents.
After the Civil War, many State veterans homes were established. Since domiciliary care was available at all State veterans homes, incidental medical and hospital treatment was provided for all injuries and diseases, whether or not of service origin. Indigent and disabled veterans of the Civil War, Indian Wars, Spanish-American War, and Mexican Border period as well as discharged regular members of the Armed Forces were cared for at these homes.
Congress established a new system of veterans benefits when the United States entered World War I in 1917. Included were programs for disability compensation, insurance for servicepersons and veterans, and vocational rehabilitation for the disabled. By the 1920s, the various benefits were administered by three different Federal agencies: the Veterans Bureau, the Bureau of Pensions of the Interior Department, and the National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers.
The establishment of the Veterans Administration came in 1930 when Congress authorized the President to "consolidate and coordinate Government activities affecting war veterans." The three component agencies became bureaus within the Veterans Administration."

Hmm, I'm telling you, that "creeping socialism!" Even infiltrated the VA. Got our veterans being treated by socialist doctors and nurses. They probably keep their red pins and badges hidden when they're on duty, but it wouldn't surprise me if they all have red handkerchiefs or something, just to signal each other. I'll bet they couldn't have fooled old Archie Bunker. No way! Old Arch knew those un-American folks when he saw them. I can imagine, too, that if Archie were in the VA and one of those "socialist" doctors came into him and said, "Well Mr. Bunker, I'm going to treat you for your ailment, and such treatment usually costs $50,000 in the private sector, but there will be minimal if any cost for you. Uncle Sam, by the goodness of the taxpayers, is paying for your care." I'll just bet old Arch would tell him, "Like hell you're going to treat me, you pinko quack with a medissintel degree! I want a REAL American doc to treat me. I WANT to pay the $50,000! None of this socialist stuff for me, Archie Bunker; no siree. I'll pay the 50 grand, because I'll be collecting Social Security soon."

Word History:
Straw-This goes back to Indo European "streh/struh," which meant "to spread." The Old Germanic offshoot was "strawam," seemingly pronounced "stray-wahm." (And don't make that "stay warm!") This meant, "something that is scattered about, strewn." And "strew," most commonly used in the past form in modern English ("strewn"), is indeed a close relative of "straw." The Old Germanic form evolved into Old English "streaw," and took on the meaning of "stems or stalks of plants," since long ago, such dried plants were "strewn" over floors as a covering. "Streaw" eventually came to be spelled "straw," and similar forms are "strewn" (I couldn't resist that!) throughout the modern Germanic languages: German and Low German Saxon have "Stroh," West Frisian has "strie," Dutch has "stro," Norwegian has "strå," Danish has "straa," and Swedish has "strå," and Icelandic has "strá." The use of the word to mean drinking implement developed in the mid 1800s. Let's see...who has to take out the garbage? We'll draw "straws" to determine the lucky one.

What Kind Of A Country Do We Want (Part Two)

Then there’s Medicare, which was created in the mid 1960s. Again, the well to do wrung their hands and called it “socialized medicine.” Labeling certain programs as “socialist” or “communist” has been a frequent tactic used by people in the upper reaches of the income scale. From all of the clamor, you would have thought that this time, DEFINITELY, the end of the Republic was near. Well, nearly 50 years later, the Republic is still here, and again, most elderly folks on Medicare don’t go around wearing little red flags pinned to their shirts or blouses, nor do they sing “The Internationale” on holidays, nor do they make pilgrimages to Lenin’s tomb. If you are elderly, just think where you or other family members, or neighbors and friends would be WITHOUT Medicare. Like many things in government, and in life generally, Medicare isn’t perfect, and I’m not claiming that it is. Times have changed a great deal in medical care since the 1960s, when hospitalization was considered a road to bankruptcy for many elderly people and their families. Since those times, thanks to the development of medicines and new procedures to treat many conditions, hospitalization is not required as often as in the past. I find that I have a good bit of agreement with George W. Bush on the need to update Medicare coverage. (Yes, you read that correctly!)

Capitalism is supposed to be about self-interest. The wealthy are VERY good at that, with some exceptions. Not only are they good at self-interest, they are good at convincing others that defending the interest of the wealthy is good for them, too, even if these other folks would be far better off looking out for their OWN self-interest. That’s just my opinion, not that I have many opinions. Anyway, if you’re on Medicare, please remember that MILLIONS of your fellow Americans have NO health insurance whatsoever! In fact, the number of uninsured Americans has been growing in the last few years at an alarming rate, as businesses continue to cut benefits for workers. Some of these cuts are attributable to trade agreements. American business couldn’t wait to open up free trade, but they didn’t seem to take into consideration the fact that most other countries have some form of national health insurance, often helping to keep the cost of goods produced in these countries lower than American produced items. In America, if you’re lucky, you may have employer provided health insurance, but the number of lucky people is shrinking. Plus, in the past decade or two, workers increasingly have to pay a portion of health care premiums, typically in the 20 to 30 percent range. Then there are some American workers covered by poor health care plans, which exclude many things, or seem to kick in only under certain circumstances, like there has to be a full moon and you have to have the left hind foot of a frog in your back pocket. Anyway, to get back to the subject of Medicare, I’m glad we have such a program in America, and I shudder to think what would happen to many people if we didn’t have it.