It's Just Joe

This is my birth month, so the issue of how the aging are viewed hits much closer to home than it used to. Is ageism in the Presidential race a thing?

It has certainly focused attention on Joe Biden in particular, largely because of his occasional verbal stumbles and his seeming to be not quite fast enough on the draw when responding to challenges such as that presented by fellow candidate Kamala Harris in one of this summer’s debates. Some feel that these are signs that he’s a bit past it now.

Like anyone with a long track record in politics, Mr. Biden has his share of twists and turns in position to explain. If he now demonstrates a change of heart or mind, is it evolution or a flip-flop? We can only go back to that long track record for clues. As for the gaffes, they have been going on for a long time, perhaps well before anyone would link them to getting older.

Among those qualities we appreciate in a President are authenticity and the ability to absorb new information, especially from experts focused on a particular knowledge base. But we also appreciate a President who chooses words carefully, mindful of the enormous impact they have on the country’s mood and that of the rest of the world. I am not endorsing Joe Biden nor discouraging support for him here,  I’m just saying that occasional gaffes are his thing.

The media are merciless. Remember when President Ford, at a considerably younger age, said in a debate that there was no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe? He was also famous for a physical stumble. George W. Bush was infamous for  “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job!” after Hurricane Katrina, and the "Mission Accomplished" banner on the ship after the invasion of Iraq. When it comes to unfortunate utterances or phrases associated with Presidents, this list is longer than we like to think. The point is, it’s not about aging. It’s about being human, and sometimes, being just plain wrong.

At my age, I have some issues. I repeat stories I have told before. I try to tell them to new people or audiences, but am not always successful. People I have known for a while have blanket permission to cut me off if they’ve heard something already, and they do.

I’ll leave you with this little story. Some years ago, my wife and I were out to dinner at a Chinese restaurant with a colleague of mine, who is white like me, but his wife is Asian. The restaurant brought us many dishes, and she graciously served us from them. She served me first, which was a surprise. “You are the wisest,” she explained, which I wanted to take as a compliment, but that’s not quite it. In her native country, the custom is that the oldest one at the table is served first. By the way, I apologize to those of you who have heard this one before. I’ll shut up now.

Cracking the Nut

No question about it. The two hardest legislative nuts that seem to defy cracking are healthcare and immigration. I want to talk about the first one today.

To start with, I do agree with those who feel that the business model of insurance is the avoidance of paying claims. But are voters ready to wipe out the private health insurance industry with Medicare for All? No, not yet.

I am old enough now to be on Medicare myself, and it is not a magic bullet that covers all medical costs. It’s just another form of insurance. Not all providers accept it, and even if they do, plain Medicare is not sufficient to pay for everything, so supplements are necessary, and there are choices to be made. Medicare itself has standard supplements available at different premium levels. Healthcare providers offer their own plans, called Medicare Advantage, which pay for more stuff but restrict the user to a particular health network, like an HMO.

Why is health insurance tied to employment? This is not exactly sacred tradition. It stems from a time during World War II when there were salary caps, and to attract workers, employers had to offer health benefits to get around them. These employer subsidies were exempted from taxes. The salary caps are long gone, but the exemption remains. To receive these benefits, however, employees generally have to be full-time workers. So yes, some people stick with jobs they hate, largely for the insurance.

I also agree with those who say that employer contributions to an employee’s health insurance premiums are income and should be taxed as such. This would help level the playing field. But there still needs to be some kind of reasonable plan available to those working in the gig economy or in between jobs. If there’s a gap to be filled by government, that  would seem to be the one.

Whatever we do, we can’t bring back the good old days when most healthcare was affordable, based on fee-for-service, and insurance was needed only for catastrophes. These days, almost any health issue can be catastrophic when it comes to cost, so insurance is a utility. Obamacare was a step in the right direction, but it hasn’t been much help with cost. Fixing this will require balancing business models with patient needs and deciding who pays for what. That’s where the policy wonks have to pick up the ball.

It may seem impossible, but as I often say, there are plenty of smart lawyers in Congress, who could figure out how to crack this nut. It may be unlikely, but I believe  it IS possible.

The "Can't Do" Attitude

I’m a little hesitant to talk about assault weapons, for fear of not saying anything new, and the arguments against gun control are all the same: You can’t ban assault weapons because there are too many of them out there. Buy-back programs don’t work, what gun owner is going to give the weapon up? You can’t write a good law because the definition of “assault weapon” will always leave something out. If you ban them, there will just be a black market, and the crooks, the crazies, and the home-grown terrorists will be able to get them anyway. You can write all the bills you want, but Mitch McConnell will just kill them in the Senate. It’s all feel-good legislation, it will accomplish little. We hear similar things when it comes to the rants of white supremacists. There’s the First Amendment, you can’t do anything about it.

I’m getting tired of hearing what can’t be done, and I would welcome feeling good about something these days. When it comes to an assault weapons ban, there are a lot of eminent attorneys in Congress, some of whom maybe went to the law schools at Harvard or Stanford or places in between. They could write legislation to cover most of these weapons and modification techniques. Didn’t we already have such a ban on the books once before? As for buy-backs, we spend hundreds of millions of military dollars on one bomber; do you think we could spare something that might save at least a few domestic lives?

As for free speech, the First Amendment says Congress shall make no law to abridge it, but there are limits. The most famous example is, you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater. Heck, I bet those smart lawyers could find a way to broaden the definition of both “fire” and “theater.” The Amendment does not prohibit media (conventional or social), search engines and other providers from blocking hate speech. That isn’t illegal censorship. I believe that’s called “editing.”

No law covers everything. There will always be a crazy who can get an assault weapon., just like a drunk who can get behind the wheel of a car. But is there anything we can do to make it just a little more difficult for those things to happen?

On the gun culture, there will likely come a time when guns just don’t seem as necessary. Remember when smoking used to be cool? How many decades has it taken for that to change? These days, the sheer expense caused by taxes heaped on tobacco has made it more difficult for smokers, who also have fewer and fewer places they can legally, or socially, do it.

When it comes to gun legislation, the perfect, as they say, should never be the enemy of the good, or even the pretty good. There is one greater enemy than perfection: doing nothing.

What We Need to Know

To start with, this isn’t about gun control. I want to talk about media coverage of mass shootings, and the information we need and don’t need. To their credit, the major media in general are aware of the role they play in these incidents and are trying to make adjustments.

First, there is the response right after the incident. The pressure is on to hit the air or the Internet live, with anchors at the mercy of the waves of constantly changing data coming at them. That information arrives in spurts. The anchors have little to fill the spaces in between but platitudes and speculation and, of course, social media phone videos.

It is amazing to me, when there’s a shooting and people are running for their lives, how many have enough presence of mind (or as a colleague calls it, stupidity) to record the whole thing on their phones, with jerky pictures, as they flee. What are the poor anchors to do but run them as they arrive? The trouble is, they don’t stop. The videos run for hours, even for days, in spilt-screen, even while authorities are providing real facts about what happened. Enough, already.

Then there is the issue of the shooter’s name. Some media won’t use it at all, for fear of glorifying the individual. The problem with this is, we do need to know who it is, their background, what the motive may have been, and whether they worked alone.

In this regard, I’m in favor of more information rather than less. It’s increasingly clear that while each case is individual,  most of these incidents seem to follow a pattern. Working with patterns is how weather forecasters have learned to predict storms with more and more accuracy, and provide better warning. The same is true of earthquakes. There are more sensors around, and while each quake is unique, they also tend to follow patterns, allowing the provision of even a few seconds of warning now. These principles could apply to mass shooting incidents, where the red-flagging of certain individuals might prevent tragedy.

I’m not suggesting here that the media start calling out suspicious people before they commit crimes. But digging into the motives of perpetrators when these incidents do happen results in educating the rest of us about why they get so frickin’ angry, as the Gilroy guy apparently said he was.

Each one of us is like one of those earthquake sensors. I hope we can develop some kind of reasonable red-flag laws to stop shooters before they start, but for these laws to work, we all have to know what the red flags look like in the first place, and through telling us these stories, the media can help us do that.