How To Write A Rough Draft

I've written lots in my life.  Between majoring in English and going to law school and being a lawyer and inexplicably keeping up this blog, I've written thousands of documents in my life.  So I've developed a few strategies I find useful to help the process along.  One of these strategies is the Rough Draft.  In the Rough Draft I'll outline an argument, throw in a few sentences that hit on major ideas I need to flesh out, and generally set the course for what I want to say.  From there I will polish and shine.  But a good Rough Draft is indispensable.

Which bring us, of course, to the Daily Herald, which believes so fully in this writing strategy that they use it exclusively in their publishing activities.  The Rough Draft, in their capable hands, becomes the Final Draft.  Case in point, this little gem called Utah ponders fed handout (lack of capitalization in the title after first word: theirs).

I often make unsupported claims in a Rough Draft with little notes to myself to verify this or find examples or add citation.  This way I can plot out the argument I want to make up front but fill in the detail after some more research and thought.  If I find my unsupported claim remains unsupported after research, I drop it and work around it.  But when the Rough Draft is your Final Draft, as in this "article," no such follow up work is required, which is convenient.  I've recreated this article in proper Rough Draft form:

Urban Sprawl and the Utah Lake Bridge

A group of groups, led by the Sierra Club, recently offered their idea regarding a potential bridge that would span Utah Lake: Don't build it.  The Daily Herald, in typical fashion, offered a poorly thought-out rebuttal to the rebuttal, on which I would like to comment.

They were first offended that Marc Heileson of the Sierra Club called it a bridge to nowhere, saying:

Bridge to nowhere? That's quite a slam. Utah Valley is nowhere?  One end of the bridge would land near 800 North in Orem. That's not only at the heart of the valley, it's likely to be even more bustling in the future. Close by is the planned transportation hub for the Frontrunner train line and the Bus Rapid Transit project.

He didn't say a bridge from nowhere, he said a bridge to nowhere.  Clearly Orem is somewhere.  A lot of people live there.  The other side of the proposed bridge, however, is nowhere, and that is a good thing, and it should stay that way.  Unfortunately, there are developers eying the west side of the Utah Lake like Utah Republican lawmakers eye fifteen year old girls in hot tubs (too soon? low blow? I couldn't resist.  I take it back).

The Daily Herald Shanks Its Health Care Manifesto

It's time to head back into the Utah County psyche and contemplate the gymnastics of logic and and reasoning of the Daily Herald. With the Senate voting to allow full debate over the health care reform bill, conservatives are apocalyptic. In a robust showing of a lack of undemocratic principles, every single Senate Republican voted against allowing debate of the bill. They don't even want the bill debated. The Daily Herald tackled the health care reform discussion with: Outright Fraud in the Health Bill.

So what is this outright fraud to which the Herald is opposed?

Consider the literal bill itself: the Senate version is numbered HR 3590, a tag that normally refers to a House Resolution. Confused? Harry Reid and his minions gutted an already passed House bill and crammed their own scheme into it.
Why? Because if the bill is OK'd by the Senate, it would go back to the House as if it were the original bill, already passed. That could bypass a conference committee and speed its passage.
It's outright fraud.

The Merriam Webster definition of fraud: "an act of deceiving or misrepresenting." This is such a common tactic in legislation that it barely warrants a sliver of a thought, and it certainly, under no detonation or connotation of the word, amounts to fraud. No one is disguising anything from anybody. If the lowly Daily Herald can spend two minutes surfing the web to come up with this open-for-all-to-see tactic, then it isn't fraud. Daily Herald: look words up before using them. Moving on:

Now consider the costs. The Democrats and some in the media will say the bill cuts costs. Baloney. Any "cuts" are achieved by shifting costs into other bills, or pushing them down the road a few years.

Now, I understand that the Daily Herald has a team of crack economists crunching numbers and sussing details, but lets turn to the fair and balanced Fox News to rebut this:

The Senate bill, which includes a government-run insurance plan that would allow states to opt out, would extend health care coverage to more than 94 percent of the population, or 31 million additional Americans. It also would cut the federal deficit by $127 billion over the first 10 years and as much as $650 billion over the next 10 years, according to the analysis by the nonpartisan CBO.

It will cut the federal deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars. Hundreds of billions. Over the next twenty years. Why is this so hard to accept? Why does this blind spot exist in the collective conservative field of vision? This is a bill that will extend coverage to nearly all Americans and cut costs. Extend coverage. Cut costs. The Daily Herald is either lying to its readers or has a basic reading comprehension disability. Which is more charitable to assume? Anyway:

You will become a statistic, an unwelcome expense for a flat-broke U.S. government.

This is oddly placed off by itself with no further reasoning or explanation. One thing I will miss about our current system, though, is the way my insurance provider treats me like a true human being. How I am called regularly just to see how I'm doing and to ask if they can do anything for me. How they send cards and flowers for major life events. How they don't run actuarial tables to determine if I am eligible for certain rates or coverage at all. Oh, and the government is not broke, and this bill will save us hundreds of billions of dollars.

Health-care rationing has been pooh-poohed. Well, a government panel announced this week that women younger than 50 or older than 75 should no longer should get routine mammograms. Why? The panel says the mammograms are not necessary -- an interesting change, and coincidental. It also saves boatloads of money.
This is a harbinger of how you can expect the government to whittle away at your health options once bureaucrats run things.

First, a recommendation based on scientific studies from a non-partisan panel is not rationing or whittling away your health options. Go and have as many mammograms as you'd like, no one will stop you. But if you want to use your resources wisely, you may consider following this recommendation. Second, it is an interesting change, and is in no way coincidental of anything. This is a study that has been going on for years and is in no way linked to the health care reform bill. Third, of course it saves money, with very few risks to women. The entire health care system is built on inefficiencies and bloated costs, so we should be applauding when a careful, thoughtful study of the system comes up with ways to save money while not endangering our health. But, whatever, Daily Herald, if you can only see rage in regards to all things government, continue on and don't let facts get in the way.

The principle concern from conservatives, it seems to me, is that the government is going to start forcing health care decisions on Americans. But we have Medicaid, Medicare, and the health insurance system that all federal government employees use that show otherwise. There is simply no evidence, beyond the bad feelings conservatives are getting about a public option, that any of this will occur. The Herald points to none, in any case.

The Herald then quotes the dean of the Harvard Medical School, who opposes the current bill. There are dozens and dozens of equally impressive people who support it. The AMA endorsed it, for instance. Quoting one smart person does not end the debate.

Then there is some talk of a Republican health care bill which no one has ever heard of, which, get this:

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the Republican House alternative would lower Americans' insurance premiums, while also cutting the federal deficit by $68 billion.

Thank goodness we have the Republicans to introduce a bill which would save Americans hundreds of billions of dollars less than the current bill. Nicely done. And thank you to the Herald for ignoring the CBO when its studies are inconvenient, citing when its studies are convenient, and undercutting your entire argument. The Republican bill would do the following:

It would let people shop for the best values by allowing companies to sell policies across state lines. It would put the brakes on runaway malpractice awards and bolster the private insurance market while encouraging employers to offer cheaper policies for people who follow healthier lifestyles. It would expand Health Savings Accounts.
Bottom line: give people more control in a free market while reining in costs.

Malpractice costs make up less than two percent of health care costs. Maybe tort reform is something to consider, but to make it the basis of health care reform is like walking into a room full of murderers and asking the teenage shoplifter to please leave because he's making you uncomfortable.

Encouraging employers to offer cheaper policies? I laughed out loud when I read that. Problem solved, America! We're going to encourage employers to offer cheaper policies! That is sure to fix the problem. Please, employers? I mean, come on, health insurance is expensive. Please lower costs?

Finally, the underregulation of the insurance companies to begin with was what created the crisis we're facing right now. Insurance companies have proven themselves to be completely irresponsible and manipulative, so I don't think giving them more freedom is the answer. They need tight regulation and Americans need true choices, which includes the ability to opt into Medicare before age 65. This will lower costs and cover nearly all Americans. This is the Democratic plan, and it represents real progress in America's health care.

The Provo Daily Herald Illustrates Irony

When I am in the mood to read something that combines terrible writing with bad ideas I often will turn to the Opinion page of the Provo Daily Herald. The latest beauty is ironically titled "You Really Can't Make This Up." They proceed to make up a bunch of ridiculous claims about health care reform and make analogies that make no sense. You know when just the title contains a healthy amount of cliches and colloquialisms that you are in for something magical.

The article starts off thusly:

It's sometimes charged that those of us who are skeptical of Democrat health care plans are relying on myths and outright lies.

That's because many of those that of skeptical of Democrat health care plans are relying on myths and outright lies. But let's avoid getting slowed down by facts and jump right into the meat of the article.

For instance, advocates of a wholesale health overhaul reject any idea that the government would meddle in the most intimate personal issues ... that is, until the government does just that.

Definition of "meddle": To intrude into other people's affairs or business; interfere. Now the example given in the article of how the government will meddle in our personal affairs if we pass health care reform:

Last month word leaked out that the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were thinking of recommending circumcision for baby boys in the U.S. even though the American Academy of Pediatrics has held since 1999 that it's a personal matter, not a medical one.

Two things. First, how does a recommendation from a scientific body, based on facts and research, amount to meddling? Is there a hoard of rampaging CDC employees roaming the countryside circumcising baby boys? Is there any indication that the CDC will require, by law, circumcision? Or is this just a recommendation? This is a case of some paranoid conservative twisting any announcement or action by the government into a scary story about government control of our lives. Next time, look up words like "meddle" before using them.

Second, what does this have to do with the health care reform debate? The article states that it is appropriate because "It's a reminder that medical issues remain incredibly complex." So the article brought up a scary story about government circumcisions just to make the point that medical issues are complex? I believe they will continue to be complex with or without health care reform, so this analogy is moot, and ill-conceived.

The article is also interested in a book co-authored by a science adviser to President Obama, John Holdren, written in the 70s in which there is a section devoted to population control. Somehow, and I won't try to tease out the logic because I doubt it exists, we are supposed to be afraid of "mandatory sterilization or even forced abortion" from the health care reform because of this book. I believe this is what we refer to as a "scare tactic," only this is so laughably insane that it isn't so scary.

Next, the PDH wants us to know that government-run health care will treat people callously. This is because in England (which, as you know, will administer whatever health care reform Americans enact) there is something called the Liverpool Care Pathway. It is a set of recommendations for English physicians and care-workers to use during end-of-life scenarios. No matter how awful this seemingly benign program actually is, it has nothing to do with American health care reform. We are not enacting the Liverpool Care Pathway, despite the lies there is no death panel or anything even approaching it, government officials are in no way empowered to choose who dies and who lives. It's all just lies. Lies.

Yet the article ends darkly with conspiracy theories:

Instead what happens is that year after year the bureaucracies spew out regulations. Year after year bureaucrats accumulate power. There's no big announcement. Just thousands of pages of regulation, and government officials following orders. A casual comment here, some whispers there and maybe a few nods and meaningful glances. With all that, a program's goals slowly and subtly evolve.

I love the image of government bureaucrats passing each other in the halls of some scary looking secret government building giving furtive looks and nods, whispering things to each other that they suddenly cut off when a stranger approaches, plotting to use health care reform to kill sick people.

Sure, it is sold as a program to provide affordable health care to the tens of millions of Americans that can't afford it. It is sold as a program to end insurance company atrocities like charging more for women, withholding payment of blatantly covered procedures and medications, and denying coverage because of some vague notion of "pre-existing conditions." It is sold as a program to help average, everyday Americans live a higher quality of life. But we all know it is all just ruse to give power-hungry government bureaucrats power over our lives.

It turns out you can make this stuff up.