I sent this note to the White House today. There's not a soul in that building who gives a tenth of a shit what I think, but I did what I could. Maybe if enough of us do, it will matter.
I see by today's Washington Post online that the administration will stop implementing the CLASS Act, and that the Prevention and Public Health Fund may be in a tenuous position. Abandoning key provision of the ACA so quickly while extracting so little from its opponents in return doesn't say much for the administration's commitment to its own legislative "high points."
I was fooled in 2008; I'll not be fooled again next year.
Showing posts with label Health care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Health care. Show all posts
Monday, October 17, 2011
Monday, November 08, 2010
How We Got Here
As usual, The Onion nailed it. The greatest strength of a democracy such as ours is the potential to have the government we want. The greatest weakness is that we get the government we deserve.
Let’s leave aside how many people do or don’t vote. Voter levels aren’t really the problem. I’ll all for making it a little harder to register to vote in the first place, as someone too lazy to do even that probably isn’t going to extend himself when it comes time to have his say. Too many sheeple (as the Beloved Spouse calls them) on both sides of the aisle do this.
Disagree? That’s your right, but I dis-disagree back atcha. Consider health care reform, probably the most controversial law passed by the current Congress. The people are about evenly divided. About 47-48% are for it, and 47-48% are against it. (The other 5-6% don’t understand the question.) Here’s where it gets complicated. Individual components of the law are overwhelmingly popular, ebven with those who want to get rid of it.
Should your insurance provider be allowed to drop you because you actually got sick? No one wants that. How about doing away with lifetime caps? People like that, too. Allowing children to remain covered under their parents’ policies up to age 26 if the kids’ employers don’t pick them up? Sounds good to most folks. How about lowering health care costs by standardizing forms and lowering administrative overhead? No one complaining about that.
No one thinks kids should be denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition. People who are trying to eat healthier want to be able to see the nutritional information on what they’re considering at a restaurant. Despite overwhelming approval of these (and other) aspects of the law, the polling numbers show many of the people who like these things still want to repeal the law that provides them.
There are people today who are paying for, or reluctantly doing without, end-of-life planning, who know it’s a good thing, and yet screamed foul words at their congressman two summers ago because of the “death panels.” These folks didn’t realize the death panels they were so upset about were the same end-of-life care and advice they’re so worried about now. All they knew was that attention whore Sarah Palin told them these were bad. I don’t know what to say about those who became hysterical over the idea of the government running Medicare; Medicare is, and has always been, a government program, and, as the level of vitriol indicated, a highly popular one.
People argue there will be fraud. Of course there will; it can’t be helped. There has never been a large program, in either the public or the private sector, that didn’t have fraud. There’s Social Security fraud, and we know well how people feel about shutting down that government program. (Socialist government program, no less.) The trick is to weed it out as well as we can, while understanding you can’t eliminate it. No one is served if 99 people are hurt just so one guy can’t get over.
American voters aren’t bad people. They are short-sighted and gullible. Looking two steps down the road seems to be beyond most of them. They see Problem A and Glenn Beck proposes Solution B, and no one cares that it will not only not eradicate the problem it was intended to solve, but will also create Condition C, which is almost as bad as A, but just not to me personally.
Think, people. Others can advise you, but only you can do the actual thinking. And it’s way past time we got busy about it.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Not a Proud Day
Michelle Obama got a lot of flak in 2008 for saying, ""For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback." It was, at best, poorly phrased; at worst, stupid. The immediate Conservative reaction, expressed within seconds by Cindy McCain, was, "I have and always will be proud of my country."
Let's not get carried away with that "always" business.
The United States and its citizens are not immune from doing things that should inspire any emotion but pride. The end game of the recent health insurance reform legislation offers many examples where nothing but shame should be applied.
How about the protesters taunting the Parkinson's victim as a freeloader? The racial, gay, and female epithets hurled at House members as they came and went? Even worse, the actions of some--some--Republican representatives to rile the crowd up more than they already were, instead of acting like the mature, cooler heads leaders are supposed to me.
As an American, I'm proud to see this nation accept some responsibilities toward its citizens the rest of the "advanced" world took on decades ago. (And without falling into totalitarianism or communism or having death panels, unless Great Britain, Germany, Canada, and many other industrial nations are hiding it awfully damn well.) I am also ashamed to live in a country where people not only condone, but take pride in the actions described in the previous paragraph.
Considering how often we like to call ourselves a Christian nation, we sure have a lot to learn about treating our fellow man.
Let's not get carried away with that "always" business.
The United States and its citizens are not immune from doing things that should inspire any emotion but pride. The end game of the recent health insurance reform legislation offers many examples where nothing but shame should be applied.
How about the protesters taunting the Parkinson's victim as a freeloader? The racial, gay, and female epithets hurled at House members as they came and went? Even worse, the actions of some--some--Republican representatives to rile the crowd up more than they already were, instead of acting like the mature, cooler heads leaders are supposed to me.
As an American, I'm proud to see this nation accept some responsibilities toward its citizens the rest of the "advanced" world took on decades ago. (And without falling into totalitarianism or communism or having death panels, unless Great Britain, Germany, Canada, and many other industrial nations are hiding it awfully damn well.) I am also ashamed to live in a country where people not only condone, but take pride in the actions described in the previous paragraph.
Considering how often we like to call ourselves a Christian nation, we sure have a lot to learn about treating our fellow man.
The United States Joins the Industrial World
President Obama signed the health insurance reform bill today. My friend Charlie Stella will disagree with me, but I think this is the most significant piece of legislation to be enacted during my adult life. (I was none when Medicare passed.)
The bill doesn't go far enough, but it's a start. History has shown what was enacted today is more likely to be added to than to be repealed. (Good luck trying to take its beneficial provisions away from people once they actually get to experience those benefits.) The public option was lost, but that was a big step for a country as polarized as we are right now. I truly believe we will have a single payer system--or exchanges that closely mimic one--possibly in my lifetime.
There are key provisions we must not forget when lamenting what could have been accomplished. Once it's fully implemented, people should no longer have to worry about losing their homes or forfeiting their children's education because they got sick. They won't have to worry about an insurance provider arbitrarily denying them coverage because of a pre-existing condition. They won't have to worry about losing their coverage because it looks like their care is going to get expensive, or because they lost their job and can't afford the COBRA payments.
Systemically, this law should start to put the brakes on the unchecked growth of health care spending. Rather than Republicans crying doom because the government is taking over 1/6 of the economy--which it isn't--they should be happy that this bill may help to make health care only 1/7 of the economy some day. Payments will be made on the efficacy of care, not the frequency.
A flawed bill? Of course; in someone's eyes, every bill is flawed. The perfect legislation has yet to be conceived. Still, it's a good start, and it's only fair for critics such as I to give due credit to Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and, maybe most, Nancy Pelosi for getting it done.
The bill doesn't go far enough, but it's a start. History has shown what was enacted today is more likely to be added to than to be repealed. (Good luck trying to take its beneficial provisions away from people once they actually get to experience those benefits.) The public option was lost, but that was a big step for a country as polarized as we are right now. I truly believe we will have a single payer system--or exchanges that closely mimic one--possibly in my lifetime.
There are key provisions we must not forget when lamenting what could have been accomplished. Once it's fully implemented, people should no longer have to worry about losing their homes or forfeiting their children's education because they got sick. They won't have to worry about an insurance provider arbitrarily denying them coverage because of a pre-existing condition. They won't have to worry about losing their coverage because it looks like their care is going to get expensive, or because they lost their job and can't afford the COBRA payments.
Systemically, this law should start to put the brakes on the unchecked growth of health care spending. Rather than Republicans crying doom because the government is taking over 1/6 of the economy--which it isn't--they should be happy that this bill may help to make health care only 1/7 of the economy some day. Payments will be made on the efficacy of care, not the frequency.
A flawed bill? Of course; in someone's eyes, every bill is flawed. The perfect legislation has yet to be conceived. Still, it's a good start, and it's only fair for critics such as I to give due credit to Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and, maybe most, Nancy Pelosi for getting it done.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Give 'em Hell, Harry
I have been (justifiably) harsh in my comments about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for his unwillingness to stand up to Republicans and use the authority vested in the majority by the Constitution and voters. Therefore, it is only fair and right to give credit when Harry gets one right.
Today he sent a letter to Minority leader Mitch McConnell. The jist of it is below, taken from Ezra Klein's blog on the Washington Post website:
Though we have tried to engage in a serious discussion, our efforts have been met by repeatedly debunked myths and outright lies. At the same time, Republicans have resorted to extraordinary legislative maneuvers in an effort not to improve the bill, but to delay and kill it. After watching these tactics for nearly a year, there is only one conclusion an objective observer could make: these Republican maneuvers are rooted less in substantive policy concerns and more in a partisan desire to discredit Democrats, bolster Republicans, and protect the status quo on behalf of the insurance industry.[...]
60 Senators voted to pass historic reform that will make health insurance more affordable, make health insurance companies more accountable and reduce our deficit by roughly a trillion dollars. The House passed a similar bill. However, many Republicans now are demanding that we simply ignore the progress we’ve made, the extensive debate and negotiations we’ve held, the amendments we’ve added (including more than 100 from Republicans) and the votes of a supermajority in favor of a bill whose contents the American people unambiguously support. We will not. We will finish the job. We will do so by revising individual elements of the bills both Houses of Congress passed last year, and we plan to use the regular budget reconciliation process that the Republican caucus has used many times.
I know that many Republicans have expressed concerns with our use of the existing Senate rules, but their argument is unjustified. There is nothing unusual or extraordinary about the use of reconciliation. As one of the most senior Senators in your caucus, Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, said in explaining the use of this very same option, “Is there something wrong with majority rules? I don’t think so.” Similarly, as non-partisan congressional scholars Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein said in this Sunday’s New York Times, our proposal is “compatible with the law, Senate rules and the framers’ intent.”
Reconciliation is designed to deal with budget-related matters, and some have expressed doubt that it could be used for comprehensive health care reform that includes many policies with no budget implications. But the reconciliation bill now under consideration would not be the vehicle for comprehensive reform – that bill already passed outside of reconciliation with 60 votes. Instead, reconciliation would be used to make a modest number of changes to the original legislation, all of which would be budget-related. There is nothing inappropriate about this. Reconciliation has been used many times for a variety of health-related matters, including the establishment of the Children’s Health Insurance Program and COBRA benefits, and many changes to Medicare and Medicaid.
As you know, the vast majority of bills developed through reconciliation were passed by Republican Congresses and signed into law by Republican Presidents – including President Bush’s massive, budget-busting tax breaks for multi-millionaires. Given this history, one might conclude that Republicans believe a majority vote is sufficient to increase the deficit and benefit the super-rich, but not to reduce the deficit and benefit the middle class. Alternatively, perhaps Republicans believe a majority vote is appropriate only when Republicans are in the majority. Either way, we disagree. Keep in mind that reconciliation will not exclude Republicans from the legislative process. You will continue to have an opportunity to offer amendments and change the shape of the legislation. In addition, at the end of the process, the bill can pass only if it wins a democratic, up-or-down majority vote. If Republicans want to vote against a bill that reduces health care costs, fills the prescription drug “donut hole” for seniors and reduces the deficit, you will have every right to do so.
That's about as close to "We're going to shove this bill up your ass if we have to" as any letter between senators is likely to get.
Today he sent a letter to Minority leader Mitch McConnell. The jist of it is below, taken from Ezra Klein's blog on the Washington Post website:
Though we have tried to engage in a serious discussion, our efforts have been met by repeatedly debunked myths and outright lies. At the same time, Republicans have resorted to extraordinary legislative maneuvers in an effort not to improve the bill, but to delay and kill it. After watching these tactics for nearly a year, there is only one conclusion an objective observer could make: these Republican maneuvers are rooted less in substantive policy concerns and more in a partisan desire to discredit Democrats, bolster Republicans, and protect the status quo on behalf of the insurance industry.[...]
60 Senators voted to pass historic reform that will make health insurance more affordable, make health insurance companies more accountable and reduce our deficit by roughly a trillion dollars. The House passed a similar bill. However, many Republicans now are demanding that we simply ignore the progress we’ve made, the extensive debate and negotiations we’ve held, the amendments we’ve added (including more than 100 from Republicans) and the votes of a supermajority in favor of a bill whose contents the American people unambiguously support. We will not. We will finish the job. We will do so by revising individual elements of the bills both Houses of Congress passed last year, and we plan to use the regular budget reconciliation process that the Republican caucus has used many times.
I know that many Republicans have expressed concerns with our use of the existing Senate rules, but their argument is unjustified. There is nothing unusual or extraordinary about the use of reconciliation. As one of the most senior Senators in your caucus, Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, said in explaining the use of this very same option, “Is there something wrong with majority rules? I don’t think so.” Similarly, as non-partisan congressional scholars Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein said in this Sunday’s New York Times, our proposal is “compatible with the law, Senate rules and the framers’ intent.”
Reconciliation is designed to deal with budget-related matters, and some have expressed doubt that it could be used for comprehensive health care reform that includes many policies with no budget implications. But the reconciliation bill now under consideration would not be the vehicle for comprehensive reform – that bill already passed outside of reconciliation with 60 votes. Instead, reconciliation would be used to make a modest number of changes to the original legislation, all of which would be budget-related. There is nothing inappropriate about this. Reconciliation has been used many times for a variety of health-related matters, including the establishment of the Children’s Health Insurance Program and COBRA benefits, and many changes to Medicare and Medicaid.
As you know, the vast majority of bills developed through reconciliation were passed by Republican Congresses and signed into law by Republican Presidents – including President Bush’s massive, budget-busting tax breaks for multi-millionaires. Given this history, one might conclude that Republicans believe a majority vote is sufficient to increase the deficit and benefit the super-rich, but not to reduce the deficit and benefit the middle class. Alternatively, perhaps Republicans believe a majority vote is appropriate only when Republicans are in the majority. Either way, we disagree. Keep in mind that reconciliation will not exclude Republicans from the legislative process. You will continue to have an opportunity to offer amendments and change the shape of the legislation. In addition, at the end of the process, the bill can pass only if it wins a democratic, up-or-down majority vote. If Republicans want to vote against a bill that reduces health care costs, fills the prescription drug “donut hole” for seniors and reduces the deficit, you will have every right to do so.
That's about as close to "We're going to shove this bill up your ass if we have to" as any letter between senators is likely to get.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
A Matter of Perspective
Michael Shear had an interesting and entertaining chat in Today's Washington Post. The last question and answer deserves notice:
Dale City, VA: There were over a thousand protesters marching in SUPPORT of the health care bill in Washington yesterday. Why wasn't that on the front page of the Post the same way as the Tea Party protests were? The Tea Party fringe seem to get a lot more coverage than the left gets.
Michael D. Shear: These things are a day-to-day decision (and not mine.) But keep in mind, we put the president on the front page virtually every day, including, as I recall, just two days ago giving a blistering speech in favor of health reform.
Shear's right: the President is on the front page stumping for health care daily. That's not the essense of the question. When a Tea party demonstration, however small, is covered, the implied message is it is the voice of the people. When a pro-health care demonstration is ignored because the President has already received the daily allotment of health care ink, the impression created is that politicians are cramming this down people's throats. That's not true; there is genune disagreement about the bill, but there are a lot of citizens who are strongly in favor of it.
The Post should be more careful in the context of its coverage; merely equalizing the number of pro and con inches devoted to any issue doesn't serve its readership well.
Dale City, VA: There were over a thousand protesters marching in SUPPORT of the health care bill in Washington yesterday. Why wasn't that on the front page of the Post the same way as the Tea Party protests were? The Tea Party fringe seem to get a lot more coverage than the left gets.
Michael D. Shear: These things are a day-to-day decision (and not mine.) But keep in mind, we put the president on the front page virtually every day, including, as I recall, just two days ago giving a blistering speech in favor of health reform.
Shear's right: the President is on the front page stumping for health care daily. That's not the essense of the question. When a Tea party demonstration, however small, is covered, the implied message is it is the voice of the people. When a pro-health care demonstration is ignored because the President has already received the daily allotment of health care ink, the impression created is that politicians are cramming this down people's throats. That's not true; there is genune disagreement about the bill, but there are a lot of citizens who are strongly in favor of it.
The Post should be more careful in the context of its coverage; merely equalizing the number of pro and con inches devoted to any issue doesn't serve its readership well.
Why People Oppose Health Care Reform
The polling on health care reform is somewhat confusing and misleading. A recent Gallup poll shows a small plurality are against the bill's passage, though sizable majorities are in favor of the individual components.
Among the reasons cited for not wanting the bill to pass:
- Insurance premiums will go up. (based on the Congressional Budget Office's scoring, premium costs will actually decrease.)
- They don't want the government deciding what health care they can have. (This isn't in the bill.)
- They're against the public option. (Also not in the bill.)
Left out of most discussions is the real reason why most people who oppose health care reform are against it.
Among the reasons cited for not wanting the bill to pass:
- Insurance premiums will go up. (based on the Congressional Budget Office's scoring, premium costs will actually decrease.)
- They don't want the government deciding what health care they can have. (This isn't in the bill.)
- They're against the public option. (Also not in the bill.)
Left out of most discussions is the real reason why most people who oppose health care reform are against it.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Another Steny-gram
I know I'm preaching to an empty church here, but there's not much else to do at this point.
Dear Majority Leader Hoyer,
I see in today's Washington Post that the President's political advisers are inclined toward letting health care reform linger while moving on to other topics. This is disappointing, as health care is more likely to die from lack of attention than from losing a key vote.
Democrats have gone 99% of the distance needed to pass this historic legislation. The bill is flawed, true, but it is an important step forward, not only as being the first real attempt to get health spending under control and ensure more Americans have fair and equitable coverage, but as a value statement going forward, acknowledging health care reform as a matter of grave national interest, even national security.
Losing a vote would be bad enough; to walk away from legislation Democrats have long asserted to be a core component of their beliefs is to cast doubt on the willingness of the party to govern. Politics is the art of the possible, not the art of the easy. American voters elect representatives and senators and pay them well, with substantial perquisites and pensions--including health care--so that difficult decisions are made, not avoided. It's time for the party to stand up.
The Democratic Party is in danger of losing more than a legislative fight here; its core constituency is at risk. I resigned my party affiliation last fall over my dissatisfaction with how the party did business. (Or failed to do it.) I still align myself with its alleged principles. If the party walks away from this now, I swear I'll never vote for a Democrat for national office as long as any current members are seated. Given my age, that means never.
Sincerely,
Dana King
Dear Majority Leader Hoyer,
I see in today's Washington Post that the President's political advisers are inclined toward letting health care reform linger while moving on to other topics. This is disappointing, as health care is more likely to die from lack of attention than from losing a key vote.
Democrats have gone 99% of the distance needed to pass this historic legislation. The bill is flawed, true, but it is an important step forward, not only as being the first real attempt to get health spending under control and ensure more Americans have fair and equitable coverage, but as a value statement going forward, acknowledging health care reform as a matter of grave national interest, even national security.
Losing a vote would be bad enough; to walk away from legislation Democrats have long asserted to be a core component of their beliefs is to cast doubt on the willingness of the party to govern. Politics is the art of the possible, not the art of the easy. American voters elect representatives and senators and pay them well, with substantial perquisites and pensions--including health care--so that difficult decisions are made, not avoided. It's time for the party to stand up.
The Democratic Party is in danger of losing more than a legislative fight here; its core constituency is at risk. I resigned my party affiliation last fall over my dissatisfaction with how the party did business. (Or failed to do it.) I still align myself with its alleged principles. If the party walks away from this now, I swear I'll never vote for a Democrat for national office as long as any current members are seated. Given my age, that means never.
Sincerely,
Dana King
Friday, January 22, 2010
Bait and Switch
The edifice of health insurance reform is crumbling, and Democrats are swinging the wrecking ball. The logical path would be for the House to pass the Senate bill, then for each house to pass “clean up” bills to address the differences; the Senate can pass these through the budget reconciliation process to avoid a filibuster. Since this time would normally be spent negotiating differences in conference committee, there’s no real downside.
Except the House doesn’t trust the Senate to do the right thing and wants the Senate to go first. Harry Reid can’t even get 51 of the 58 senators he allegedly leads (not counting Joe Lieberman) to sign a letter pledging to address the House’s concerns after the fact. Their attitude is, “We passed our bill. We’re not going to spend three weeks on some other bill.”
Passing bills is not the purpose of a legislature; governing is. That means doing more than the bare minimum of work calculated not to interfere with fund raising. Members of both houses say how hard they’ve worked on these bills. Bullshit. Some members have worked hard. The great majority have been doing whatever it is they do, waiting for the relevant committees to send them a bill they won’t read so they can check their polls and lobbyists to tell them how to vote.
What is President Obama’s response to the crumbling status of health care reform? He says he’s going to get tough on the big banks. The MO of this administration is now clear, based on its handling of the stimulus and health care battles: lay low, commit to nothing, claim victory if it passes, and walk away if it doesn’t.
Health care reform has been a cornerstone of Democratic philosophy for as long as I can remember, which is a considerable length of time. For all three branches of elected “leadership” to walk away from it this close to success, when success is still within reach, is unconscionable. To paraphrase Ezra Klein in the Washington Post (because I can’t find the link), this is like taking the ball to the one yard-line in an overtime football game, fumbling, then conceding the game. Given the current Democratic majorities, this attitude is prima facie evidence of an inability to govern.
Ted Kennedy’s endorsement was key to putting Obama over the top in the 2008 nomination campaign; Democratic senators will push each other away from microphones to tell what a great friend he was to them. Abandoning the legislative goal most dear to him in the manner in which they’re doing it is shameful, and shows health care reform was only ever important to them when it became convenient to trot it out at campaign time. To abdicate their professed commitments to it, and to him, is disgraceful.
Except the House doesn’t trust the Senate to do the right thing and wants the Senate to go first. Harry Reid can’t even get 51 of the 58 senators he allegedly leads (not counting Joe Lieberman) to sign a letter pledging to address the House’s concerns after the fact. Their attitude is, “We passed our bill. We’re not going to spend three weeks on some other bill.”
Passing bills is not the purpose of a legislature; governing is. That means doing more than the bare minimum of work calculated not to interfere with fund raising. Members of both houses say how hard they’ve worked on these bills. Bullshit. Some members have worked hard. The great majority have been doing whatever it is they do, waiting for the relevant committees to send them a bill they won’t read so they can check their polls and lobbyists to tell them how to vote.
What is President Obama’s response to the crumbling status of health care reform? He says he’s going to get tough on the big banks. The MO of this administration is now clear, based on its handling of the stimulus and health care battles: lay low, commit to nothing, claim victory if it passes, and walk away if it doesn’t.
Health care reform has been a cornerstone of Democratic philosophy for as long as I can remember, which is a considerable length of time. For all three branches of elected “leadership” to walk away from it this close to success, when success is still within reach, is unconscionable. To paraphrase Ezra Klein in the Washington Post (because I can’t find the link), this is like taking the ball to the one yard-line in an overtime football game, fumbling, then conceding the game. Given the current Democratic majorities, this attitude is prima facie evidence of an inability to govern.
Ted Kennedy’s endorsement was key to putting Obama over the top in the 2008 nomination campaign; Democratic senators will push each other away from microphones to tell what a great friend he was to them. Abandoning the legislative goal most dear to him in the manner in which they’re doing it is shameful, and shows health care reform was only ever important to them when it became convenient to trot it out at campaign time. To abdicate their professed commitments to it, and to him, is disgraceful.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
My Letter to Congress
As luck would have it, my representative is House Majority Leader. He just received the following email, and will get a similar phone call later today.
Dear Majority Leader Hoyer,
The sounds of dismay coming from Democratic members of Congress in the aftermath of the Massachusetts special election are disturbing. True, that seat was the 60th vote against a filibuster. Democrats still have sizable majorities in both houses, and the nation needs this bill. Now is the time for our elected officials to show the leadership implied by their positions, not wring their hands.
Republicans have more or less had their way for over twenty years, in large part because they have shown will. I truly believe their goals are misguided and selfish, but they have shown the will to get their way. Now it’s time for the Democrats to show they, too, have will.
I understand the political realities. The bills that have been passed, especially by the Senate, do not, in my opinion, go far enough. They are still great improvements in the system that exists now. Go to your peers and ask which of them would be willing to tell a parent his child will die because the parents can’t afford insurance, or tell a child he will soon be orphaned because a nation with our wealth refuses to take care of its less fortunate. Health care is not an abstract concept. People die from its lack every day.
Many Democrats say the Massachusetts loss means it’s time to dial back their legislative ambitions. I would remind them the nation gave Democrats their substantial majorities precisely because of those ambitions. To abandon them now would be to repudiate the mandate handed you in 2008, and leave the field open for the Republicans, who are at least willing to act forcefully for what they want to do.
This can be the Democrats’ finest moment, as I truly believe health care reforms will become as popular as Social Security and Medicare, both of which Democrats enacted over Republican opposition. Speak out. Twist some arms. Use the legislative power available to the majority. Not to continue on the course we were promised is to abdicate your responsibilities, making the party not worthy of re-election. History remembers fondly those who dare.
Sincerely,
Dana King
Laurel MD
Dear Majority Leader Hoyer,
The sounds of dismay coming from Democratic members of Congress in the aftermath of the Massachusetts special election are disturbing. True, that seat was the 60th vote against a filibuster. Democrats still have sizable majorities in both houses, and the nation needs this bill. Now is the time for our elected officials to show the leadership implied by their positions, not wring their hands.
Republicans have more or less had their way for over twenty years, in large part because they have shown will. I truly believe their goals are misguided and selfish, but they have shown the will to get their way. Now it’s time for the Democrats to show they, too, have will.
I understand the political realities. The bills that have been passed, especially by the Senate, do not, in my opinion, go far enough. They are still great improvements in the system that exists now. Go to your peers and ask which of them would be willing to tell a parent his child will die because the parents can’t afford insurance, or tell a child he will soon be orphaned because a nation with our wealth refuses to take care of its less fortunate. Health care is not an abstract concept. People die from its lack every day.
Many Democrats say the Massachusetts loss means it’s time to dial back their legislative ambitions. I would remind them the nation gave Democrats their substantial majorities precisely because of those ambitions. To abandon them now would be to repudiate the mandate handed you in 2008, and leave the field open for the Republicans, who are at least willing to act forcefully for what they want to do.
This can be the Democrats’ finest moment, as I truly believe health care reforms will become as popular as Social Security and Medicare, both of which Democrats enacted over Republican opposition. Speak out. Twist some arms. Use the legislative power available to the majority. Not to continue on the course we were promised is to abdicate your responsibilities, making the party not worthy of re-election. History remembers fondly those who dare.
Sincerely,
Dana King
Laurel MD
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Small States and Filibusters
Fred Hiatt, with whom I agree about as often as Dick Cheney admits error, has some good points in a recent Washington Post op-ed. Fred being Fred, he still manages to annoy me with the following comment:
The advent of the 60-vote rule in the Senate has magnified the already formidable checks and balances built into the Constitution, with the disproportionate blocking power it awards small and rural states.
Health insurance reform advocates have lamented for months the influence of small and rural states on crafting the legislation, as Max Baucus’s Gang of Six was wholly made up of senators from small, rural states. Dissing small and rural states is a recent phenomenon, and reflects poorly on those—mostly progressives—who put it forward.
Small states are still states. Just because most of them are in what the MSM thinks of as “fly-over country,” not part of either coast, doesn’t make them any less worthy. They are just as likely to produce fine lawmakers as larger states. The problem with the Gang of Six wasn’t that they were from small or rural states; it was that Charles Grassley was a duplicitous bastard who did his best to sell Baucus out, and Mike Enzi was essentially a mole who never wanted to make a deal in the first place. Is their behavior unique to small states? Are the senators of larger states immune to such duplicity?
The “disproportionate blocking power” of these states is on people’s minds now because of the 60 votes needed to halt a filibuster. Ezra Klein, with whom I agree several times a day, advocates doing away with the filibuster here. Contrary to what Klein says, the filibuster provides a potentially valuable role by keeping public policy from swaying with the winds of public opinion. The last thing the country needs is to have large swaths of legislation changing from Congress to Congress. Some stability is needed, if only to sort things out and give them time to work.
The problem we have today is not the filibuster; it’s the misuse of the filibuster. I’m old enough to remember a time when the Senate routinely passed bills with less than 60 votes. (And no, that’s not because there weren’t as many senators then.) Senators used to be able to say they didn’t want a bill to pass, but that it deserved to come to a vote and the majority could rule.
No more. Now virtually everything that won’t stop the government dead (and is thus subject to the reconciliation process, which bypasses filibusters) requires 60 votes. That’s not the purpose of the filibuster. It’s designed to keep the majority from running roughshod over the rights or interests of a sizeable minority.
Some would say that’s why using the filibuster is a legitimate means to kill health insurance reform. Maybe. Let’s line up everyone who is threatening to vote against cloture and survey them on past positions, or on the reason they’re voting to kill the bill. I’m willing to bet at least a dozen will cite reasons that are at best disingenuous, or, at worst, downright dishonest. Those senators, as individuals, are misusing the filibuster. That’s where the problem lies, not in how big or small their states are or whether the filibuster serves a useful purpose in its proper place.
The advent of the 60-vote rule in the Senate has magnified the already formidable checks and balances built into the Constitution, with the disproportionate blocking power it awards small and rural states.
Health insurance reform advocates have lamented for months the influence of small and rural states on crafting the legislation, as Max Baucus’s Gang of Six was wholly made up of senators from small, rural states. Dissing small and rural states is a recent phenomenon, and reflects poorly on those—mostly progressives—who put it forward.
Small states are still states. Just because most of them are in what the MSM thinks of as “fly-over country,” not part of either coast, doesn’t make them any less worthy. They are just as likely to produce fine lawmakers as larger states. The problem with the Gang of Six wasn’t that they were from small or rural states; it was that Charles Grassley was a duplicitous bastard who did his best to sell Baucus out, and Mike Enzi was essentially a mole who never wanted to make a deal in the first place. Is their behavior unique to small states? Are the senators of larger states immune to such duplicity?
The “disproportionate blocking power” of these states is on people’s minds now because of the 60 votes needed to halt a filibuster. Ezra Klein, with whom I agree several times a day, advocates doing away with the filibuster here. Contrary to what Klein says, the filibuster provides a potentially valuable role by keeping public policy from swaying with the winds of public opinion. The last thing the country needs is to have large swaths of legislation changing from Congress to Congress. Some stability is needed, if only to sort things out and give them time to work.
The problem we have today is not the filibuster; it’s the misuse of the filibuster. I’m old enough to remember a time when the Senate routinely passed bills with less than 60 votes. (And no, that’s not because there weren’t as many senators then.) Senators used to be able to say they didn’t want a bill to pass, but that it deserved to come to a vote and the majority could rule.
No more. Now virtually everything that won’t stop the government dead (and is thus subject to the reconciliation process, which bypasses filibusters) requires 60 votes. That’s not the purpose of the filibuster. It’s designed to keep the majority from running roughshod over the rights or interests of a sizeable minority.
Some would say that’s why using the filibuster is a legitimate means to kill health insurance reform. Maybe. Let’s line up everyone who is threatening to vote against cloture and survey them on past positions, or on the reason they’re voting to kill the bill. I’m willing to bet at least a dozen will cite reasons that are at best disingenuous, or, at worst, downright dishonest. Those senators, as individuals, are misusing the filibuster. That’s where the problem lies, not in how big or small their states are or whether the filibuster serves a useful purpose in its proper place.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Questions We Should Ask
To any elected representative who opposes health insurance reform:
Why should your constituents not be able to get the same coverage you get?
To anyone who opposes gay marriage:
Can you cite one way in which allowing gays to marry will adversely affect your marriage, or anyone else’s?
To any member of the religious right who protests gay rights or abortion with venom and vitriol:
Is this what Jesus would do?
To pro-lifers who would argue that abortion is the killing of innocent babies and should be banned, except in the case of rape or incest:
Are those babies any less innocent than others?
Other situations and questions are invited in the comments section.
Why should your constituents not be able to get the same coverage you get?
To anyone who opposes gay marriage:
Can you cite one way in which allowing gays to marry will adversely affect your marriage, or anyone else’s?
To any member of the religious right who protests gay rights or abortion with venom and vitriol:
Is this what Jesus would do?
To pro-lifers who would argue that abortion is the killing of innocent babies and should be banned, except in the case of rape or incest:
Are those babies any less innocent than others?
Other situations and questions are invited in the comments section.
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
It's About Time
Interesting, though not unexpected, article in today’s Washington Post. Minority groups have been curiously quiet so far in the health care debate, apparently because “they had been reluctant to make race and ethnicity a central issue because the topic is so controversial.”
"There are some people who would like to defeat this bill by tagging it to the issue of race," said Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
Are these organizations limited to addressing only issues of race, or more broad-based issues solely through the lens of race? This should have been an easy one for them. Minorities are disproportionately hurt by the current system because so many of them fall through the cracks. This is more due to class than to race. Still, it’s a matter of right and wrong. Is it in their organizational charters that they can’t stand up for something that will benefit their constituency just because it’s right, and just not promote it because they’re black. Or Hispanic. Or whatever other group you care to name?
Will some on the other side use their input to cast the debate in more racial tones? Almost certainly. That’s probably a good thing for reform advocates, as it will expose more of this demagoguery for exactly what it is: obstructionism without a factual leg to stand on.
As has been noted, I’m safely defined by contemporary standards as a liberal. I think health care reform is imperative, and I favor some form of a public option. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with every “liberal” or “progressive” organization because they’re right-thinking people with altruistic motives. Right is right. Get out in front of it, or quit asking people to think of you as leaders.
"There are some people who would like to defeat this bill by tagging it to the issue of race," said Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
Are these organizations limited to addressing only issues of race, or more broad-based issues solely through the lens of race? This should have been an easy one for them. Minorities are disproportionately hurt by the current system because so many of them fall through the cracks. This is more due to class than to race. Still, it’s a matter of right and wrong. Is it in their organizational charters that they can’t stand up for something that will benefit their constituency just because it’s right, and just not promote it because they’re black. Or Hispanic. Or whatever other group you care to name?
Will some on the other side use their input to cast the debate in more racial tones? Almost certainly. That’s probably a good thing for reform advocates, as it will expose more of this demagoguery for exactly what it is: obstructionism without a factual leg to stand on.
As has been noted, I’m safely defined by contemporary standards as a liberal. I think health care reform is imperative, and I favor some form of a public option. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with every “liberal” or “progressive” organization because they’re right-thinking people with altruistic motives. Right is right. Get out in front of it, or quit asking people to think of you as leaders.
Friday, October 02, 2009
Struggling for a Topic
I try to post something here at least once a week so my legion of regular readers have something to look forward to when they adjourn from their meetings in a carnival photo booth. It’s been hard lately. I try to stay timely, but look at the options:
Health Care
I’m getting Carpal Tunnel Syndrome from typing about health care, and I’m not positive I’m insured for it.
Politics
As this column shows, writing about politics is currently beneath even me, which is kind of like saying someone is such a low-life, not even Rod Blagojevich will drink with him. Even if he buys. Things are officially bad when one becomes nostalgic for such statesmen as C. L. Schmidt and Bill Scranton.
Chicago’s Failed Olympic Bid
Good for Rio. South America’s first Olympics and a time zone ahead of us for a change, so NBC won’t too badly butcher the concept of “plausibly live.” That’s about all there is to say about that, and it’s not worth an entire post. Obama’s trip to Copenhagen? Bad PR, insignificant otherwise. See above comment.
Sports
The most exciting baseball news for me this summer is the Pirates’ heroic chase to avoid 100 losses. Last night’s rainout helped their chances as much as a win. Still too early in the Steelers’ season to get worked up, and the Penguins don’t start until tonight.
At least the baseball playoffs start next week. I may be sleep deprived, but I’ll be interested. Since the Pirates have kept their seventeen year streak of ineptitude alive, here are my rooting interests for baseball’s post season, in decreasing order.
NATIONAL LEAGUE
Colorado Rockies – The Sibling Correspondent and his family are Rox fans. That’s good enough for me. Who could root against a team with a player named Tulowitzki?
St. Louis Cardinals – Maybe the best baseball town in America. Tony LaRussa’s kind of a tool, but Albert Pujols is the shit.
Philadelphia Phillies – A tough choice. They could have been second—I like a lot of their players—but they’re from Philadelphia. The schadenfreude potential of watching their obnoxious fans lose drops them to third.
Los Angeles Dodgers – Again, a lot of players to like, and Joe Torre. Man Ram outweighs them all.
AMERICAN LEAGUE
Detroit Tigers – Jim Leyland was the last Pirate manager to win more games than he lost for even a single season, and that was in 1992. He gets it, too. Told the players early in the year things were tough in Motown, so running out ground balls would be a good idea. Owner Tom Ilitch has also done what he can with ticket prices and promos. Be nice for Michigan to win one after Michigan State (college basketball) and the Red Wings (hockey) came so close. (No sympathy for the Wings. Pens rule!)
Boston Red Sox – Normally the Number One choice for a card carrying fan of Red Sox Nation, but the Tigers have a lot of intangibles, and the Sox payroll and revenues have turned them into Yankees Lite. The David Ortiz revelations don’t help, either, no matter how much he denies them.
Los Angeles California Anaheim Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim – I’ve always been a Mike Scioscia fan, and I love the way they play the game. I almost put them Number 2, but realized they’ll play the Sox in the first round, and I’d wind up rooting for the Sox without thinking about it just out of habit.
New York Yankees – Yankees suck.
The World Series? National League always trumps the American League, unless they send the Dodgers, or the Junior Circuit sends the Sox. (Maybe the Tigers.) If the Dodgers play the Yankees, it’s time to check the hockey listings.
Health Care
I’m getting Carpal Tunnel Syndrome from typing about health care, and I’m not positive I’m insured for it.
Politics
As this column shows, writing about politics is currently beneath even me, which is kind of like saying someone is such a low-life, not even Rod Blagojevich will drink with him. Even if he buys. Things are officially bad when one becomes nostalgic for such statesmen as C. L. Schmidt and Bill Scranton.
Chicago’s Failed Olympic Bid
Good for Rio. South America’s first Olympics and a time zone ahead of us for a change, so NBC won’t too badly butcher the concept of “plausibly live.” That’s about all there is to say about that, and it’s not worth an entire post. Obama’s trip to Copenhagen? Bad PR, insignificant otherwise. See above comment.
Sports
The most exciting baseball news for me this summer is the Pirates’ heroic chase to avoid 100 losses. Last night’s rainout helped their chances as much as a win. Still too early in the Steelers’ season to get worked up, and the Penguins don’t start until tonight.
At least the baseball playoffs start next week. I may be sleep deprived, but I’ll be interested. Since the Pirates have kept their seventeen year streak of ineptitude alive, here are my rooting interests for baseball’s post season, in decreasing order.
NATIONAL LEAGUE
Colorado Rockies – The Sibling Correspondent and his family are Rox fans. That’s good enough for me. Who could root against a team with a player named Tulowitzki?
St. Louis Cardinals – Maybe the best baseball town in America. Tony LaRussa’s kind of a tool, but Albert Pujols is the shit.
Philadelphia Phillies – A tough choice. They could have been second—I like a lot of their players—but they’re from Philadelphia. The schadenfreude potential of watching their obnoxious fans lose drops them to third.
Los Angeles Dodgers – Again, a lot of players to like, and Joe Torre. Man Ram outweighs them all.
AMERICAN LEAGUE
Detroit Tigers – Jim Leyland was the last Pirate manager to win more games than he lost for even a single season, and that was in 1992. He gets it, too. Told the players early in the year things were tough in Motown, so running out ground balls would be a good idea. Owner Tom Ilitch has also done what he can with ticket prices and promos. Be nice for Michigan to win one after Michigan State (college basketball) and the Red Wings (hockey) came so close. (No sympathy for the Wings. Pens rule!)
Boston Red Sox – Normally the Number One choice for a card carrying fan of Red Sox Nation, but the Tigers have a lot of intangibles, and the Sox payroll and revenues have turned them into Yankees Lite. The David Ortiz revelations don’t help, either, no matter how much he denies them.
Los Angeles California Anaheim Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim – I’ve always been a Mike Scioscia fan, and I love the way they play the game. I almost put them Number 2, but realized they’ll play the Sox in the first round, and I’d wind up rooting for the Sox without thinking about it just out of habit.
New York Yankees – Yankees suck.
The World Series? National League always trumps the American League, unless they send the Dodgers, or the Junior Circuit sends the Sox. (Maybe the Tigers.) If the Dodgers play the Yankees, it’s time to check the hockey listings.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Remembering What's Important
The reckoning is coming for health care reform is near, and there’s one group of vocal whack jobs who need to get their minds right in a hurry if anything worthwhile is going to get accomplished: the extreme left. To be precise, those on the left who claim they’d rather have no bill than a bill without a public option.
Frankly, I think a public option would be a good idea. People can opt in if they want, then time will decide whether it’s a viable alternative. (Private insurers and those who think the government can’t run anything should be in favor of it; according to them, it should be bereft of customers in a couple of years.) That doesn’t mean we can’t live without it. What’s needed now is to ensure everyone gets coverage, that no one loses their coverage because they have the bad manners to need it, and that no one lose everything because they got sick and their bills went over an arbitrary insurance cap. That’s what is important.
But no, these left wing loons have decided they’ve been on the outside looking in long enough. Obama won the election! Everything is completely different! Grow up, people. Even if he was some kind of messiah—which he’s not—he can’t rule by fiat. Bills still have to be passed the old-fashioned way. Too many of these vocal lefties forget the object is to do the most good for the most people. They’ve decided they want it all, or nothing. If they’re not careful, nothing is what they’ll get, and 46.5 million people will still be uninsured. Preferring ideological purity to effectiveness is what got the Republicans in their current state; Democrats aren’t immune.
If they want to get into a pissing contest about something, insist on the end-of-life counseling provisions. The “death panels” were pulled back because of brazen cowardice on the left after despicable misrepresentations by the right. You want to stand up for something, here’s your chance.
It’s not like a failure to get a public option now creates a Constitutional amendment against one. (There isn’t a Constitutional amendment against health care, no matter how creatively Michele Bachmann interprets her copy.) You can come back in five years if the current bill doesn’t work well enough. No law is immutable, except for those accounting for stupidity and cupidity on either extreme of the political spectrum.
Frankly, I think a public option would be a good idea. People can opt in if they want, then time will decide whether it’s a viable alternative. (Private insurers and those who think the government can’t run anything should be in favor of it; according to them, it should be bereft of customers in a couple of years.) That doesn’t mean we can’t live without it. What’s needed now is to ensure everyone gets coverage, that no one loses their coverage because they have the bad manners to need it, and that no one lose everything because they got sick and their bills went over an arbitrary insurance cap. That’s what is important.
But no, these left wing loons have decided they’ve been on the outside looking in long enough. Obama won the election! Everything is completely different! Grow up, people. Even if he was some kind of messiah—which he’s not—he can’t rule by fiat. Bills still have to be passed the old-fashioned way. Too many of these vocal lefties forget the object is to do the most good for the most people. They’ve decided they want it all, or nothing. If they’re not careful, nothing is what they’ll get, and 46.5 million people will still be uninsured. Preferring ideological purity to effectiveness is what got the Republicans in their current state; Democrats aren’t immune.
If they want to get into a pissing contest about something, insist on the end-of-life counseling provisions. The “death panels” were pulled back because of brazen cowardice on the left after despicable misrepresentations by the right. You want to stand up for something, here’s your chance.
It’s not like a failure to get a public option now creates a Constitutional amendment against one. (There isn’t a Constitutional amendment against health care, no matter how creatively Michele Bachmann interprets her copy.) You can come back in five years if the current bill doesn’t work well enough. No law is immutable, except for those accounting for stupidity and cupidity on either extreme of the political spectrum.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Be Careful What You Ask For
In 2004, alarmed at the prospect of Mitt Romney appointing a replacement for John Kerry should he become president, the Massachusetts legislature passed a law stripping the governor of the power to fill vacant Senate seats, demanding a special election to be held no fewer than 145 days after the seat becomes vacant. The law never had to be applied.
Now Ted Kennedy has asked the legislature to amend the law to allow Governor Deval Patrick to appoint an interim Senator to fill the gap between the time Kennedy may be unable to serve and the election, so the “Commonwealth [will] have two voices speaking for the needs of its citizens and two votes in the Senate during the approximately five months between a vacancy and an election."
Of course, it’s health care reform that’s on Kennedy’s mind. He’s the magic 60th vote the Democrats need to invoke cloture in the event of a Republican filibuster. That vote won’t wait five months. Even if Kennedy resigned today, it would be too late.
This is why it’s never a good idea to change established law to accommodate a temporary situation. Massachusetts panicked at the prospect of Republican Romney appointing Kerry’s replacement; their remedy now prevents Democrat (and Obama supporter) Patrick from appointing Kennedy’s.
Republicans who were hot to do away with filibusters several years ago would do well to remember this. No political situation is permanent. Without the threat of filibuster in the Senate, they’d be powerless to stop a health care bill they’d like even less than any of the current options. Not saying whether that’s a good things, or a bad thing. Just that it’s wise to remember the sun doesn’t shine on the same dog’s ass every day.
Now Ted Kennedy has asked the legislature to amend the law to allow Governor Deval Patrick to appoint an interim Senator to fill the gap between the time Kennedy may be unable to serve and the election, so the “Commonwealth [will] have two voices speaking for the needs of its citizens and two votes in the Senate during the approximately five months between a vacancy and an election."
Of course, it’s health care reform that’s on Kennedy’s mind. He’s the magic 60th vote the Democrats need to invoke cloture in the event of a Republican filibuster. That vote won’t wait five months. Even if Kennedy resigned today, it would be too late.
This is why it’s never a good idea to change established law to accommodate a temporary situation. Massachusetts panicked at the prospect of Republican Romney appointing Kerry’s replacement; their remedy now prevents Democrat (and Obama supporter) Patrick from appointing Kennedy’s.
Republicans who were hot to do away with filibusters several years ago would do well to remember this. No political situation is permanent. Without the threat of filibuster in the Senate, they’d be powerless to stop a health care bill they’d like even less than any of the current options. Not saying whether that’s a good things, or a bad thing. Just that it’s wise to remember the sun doesn’t shine on the same dog’s ass every day.
Friday, August 14, 2009
An Open Letter
I just sent the following letter to my Congressman and both Senators:
Dear [Majority Leader Hoyer/Senator Mikulski/Senator Cardin],
I am a constituent who lives in Laurel, though no longer a registered Democrat. I changed my affiliation to Independent last month in disgust over the party’s ineffectiveness after over thirty years as a loyal Democrat. How the Republican minority is able to derail essential legislation after larger Democratic minorities were unable to act as more than inconveniences to the previous Republican majorities is disheartening. Health care legislation s an opportunity to show Democrats not only have their hearts and heads in the right place, but are willing to take some risks to stand up for their beliefs.
The protesters who have disrupted town hall meetings do not represent the mainstream of American thought. Their arguments are not just wrong; they’re nonsensical. Many of their comments don’t even relate to the issue. Saying they “don’t want we love taken away from us” implies the America they love is unconcerned that our children and the elderly die from diseases and conditions that are routinely treated in other, less “developed” countries. Don’t just stand there, shocked at their incivility. Call them on it.
The radio hosts and pundits who speak of “death panels” and “rationing of care” aren’t just mistaken; they lie. Their comments are not different interpretation of the facts; they are, at best, gross distortions. At worst, they are lies. Call them on it
American voters elected a Democratic president and solid majorities in each house of Congress because they wanted things to be different. Bipartisan agreement is much to be desired, but we didn’t vote Democratic in the interests of bipartisanship. We voted for results, and we’re not getting them.
I see in today’s news the “death panels” have been removed from consideration because of the furor surrounding them. Shame on you. Are you so concerned with what is politically expedient you have lost touch with what is right? Let some of these “controversial” points come to the floor for argument. Force the opposition to make their comments for the record, so history may judge them, as it will judge you if this opportunity is allowed to pass.
The majority of the American people have handed you a great opportunity. Please do not let a vocal, unrepresentative fringe deny us what so many around the world take for granted.
Sincerely,
Dear [Majority Leader Hoyer/Senator Mikulski/Senator Cardin],
I am a constituent who lives in Laurel, though no longer a registered Democrat. I changed my affiliation to Independent last month in disgust over the party’s ineffectiveness after over thirty years as a loyal Democrat. How the Republican minority is able to derail essential legislation after larger Democratic minorities were unable to act as more than inconveniences to the previous Republican majorities is disheartening. Health care legislation s an opportunity to show Democrats not only have their hearts and heads in the right place, but are willing to take some risks to stand up for their beliefs.
The protesters who have disrupted town hall meetings do not represent the mainstream of American thought. Their arguments are not just wrong; they’re nonsensical. Many of their comments don’t even relate to the issue. Saying they “don’t want we love taken away from us” implies the America they love is unconcerned that our children and the elderly die from diseases and conditions that are routinely treated in other, less “developed” countries. Don’t just stand there, shocked at their incivility. Call them on it.
The radio hosts and pundits who speak of “death panels” and “rationing of care” aren’t just mistaken; they lie. Their comments are not different interpretation of the facts; they are, at best, gross distortions. At worst, they are lies. Call them on it
American voters elected a Democratic president and solid majorities in each house of Congress because they wanted things to be different. Bipartisan agreement is much to be desired, but we didn’t vote Democratic in the interests of bipartisanship. We voted for results, and we’re not getting them.
I see in today’s news the “death panels” have been removed from consideration because of the furor surrounding them. Shame on you. Are you so concerned with what is politically expedient you have lost touch with what is right? Let some of these “controversial” points come to the floor for argument. Force the opposition to make their comments for the record, so history may judge them, as it will judge you if this opportunity is allowed to pass.
The majority of the American people have handed you a great opportunity. Please do not let a vocal, unrepresentative fringe deny us what so many around the world take for granted.
Sincerely,
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
A Rational Voice in the Wilderness
The health care debate is too important for name calling and lies, yet that's what a lot of the opposition has come to. Sarah Palin recently wrote on her Facebook page:
The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
There's no other way to say it: her comments about "death panels" is a lie. It's not a difference of opinion. It's not a matter of perspective or context. She made it up out of whole cloth for her own political purposes, which is reprehensible, no matter which side she comes down on. Downright evil, even.
For the facts of this aspect of the health care debate, here's the transcript from today's Washington Post of an interview between Post blogger Ezra Klein and Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA). That's right; he's a Republican.
EK: Is this bill going to euthanize my grandmother? What are we talking about here?
JI: In the health-care debate mark-up, one of the things I talked about was that the most money spent on anyone is spent usually in the last 60 days of life and that's because an individual is not in a capacity to make decisions for themselves. So rather than getting into a situation where the government makes those decisions, if everyone had an end-of-life directive or what we call in Georgia "durable power of attorney," you could instruct at a time of sound mind and body what you want to happen in an event where you were in difficult circumstances where you're unable to make those decisions.
This has been an issue for 35 years. All 50 states now have either durable powers of attorney or end-of-life directives and it's to protect children or a spouse from being put into a situation where they have to make a terrible decision as well as physicians from being put into a position where they have to practice defensive medicine because of the trial lawyers. It's just better for an individual to be able to clearly delineate what they want done in various sets of circumstances at the end of their life.
EK: How did this become a question of euthanasia?
JI: I have no idea. I understand -- and you have to check this out -- I just had a phone call where someone said Sarah Palin's web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You're putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don't know how that got so mixed up.
EK: You're saying that this is not a question of government. It's for individuals.
JI: It empowers you to be able to make decisions at a difficult time rather than having the government making them for you.
EK: The policy here as I understand it is that Medicare would cover a counseling session with your doctor on end-of-life options.
JI: Correct. And it's a voluntary deal.
EK: It seems to me we're having trouble conducting an adult conversation about death. We pay a lot of money not to face these questions. We prefer to experience the health-care system as something that just saves you, and if it doesn't, something has gone wrong.
JI: Over the last three-and-a-half decades, this legislation has been passed state-by-state, in part because of the tort issue and in part because of many other things. It's important for an individual to make those determinations while they're of sound mind and body rather than no one making those decisions at all. But this discussion has been going on for three decades.
EK: And the only change we'd see is that individuals would have a counseling session with their doctor?
JI: Uh-huh. When they become eligible for Medicare.
EK: Are there other costs? Parts of it I'm missing?
JI: No. The problem you got is that there's so much swirling around about health care and people are taking bits and pieces out of this. This was thoroughly debated in the Senate committee. It's voluntary. Every state in America has an end of life directive or durable power of attorney provision. For the peace of mind of your children and your spouse as well as the comfort of knowing the government won't make these decisions, it's a very popular thing. Just not everybody's aware of it.
EK:What got you interested in this subject?
JI: I've seen the pain and suffering in families with a loved one with a traumatic brain injury or a crippling degenerative disease become incapacitated and be kept alive under very difficult circumstances when if they'd have had the chance to make the decision themself they'd have given another directive and I've seen the damage financially that's been done to families and if there's a way to prevent that by you giving advance directives it's both for the sanity of the family and what savings the family has it's the right decision, certainly more than turning it to the government or a trial lawyer.
The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
There's no other way to say it: her comments about "death panels" is a lie. It's not a difference of opinion. It's not a matter of perspective or context. She made it up out of whole cloth for her own political purposes, which is reprehensible, no matter which side she comes down on. Downright evil, even.
For the facts of this aspect of the health care debate, here's the transcript from today's Washington Post of an interview between Post blogger Ezra Klein and Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA). That's right; he's a Republican.
EK: Is this bill going to euthanize my grandmother? What are we talking about here?
JI: In the health-care debate mark-up, one of the things I talked about was that the most money spent on anyone is spent usually in the last 60 days of life and that's because an individual is not in a capacity to make decisions for themselves. So rather than getting into a situation where the government makes those decisions, if everyone had an end-of-life directive or what we call in Georgia "durable power of attorney," you could instruct at a time of sound mind and body what you want to happen in an event where you were in difficult circumstances where you're unable to make those decisions.
This has been an issue for 35 years. All 50 states now have either durable powers of attorney or end-of-life directives and it's to protect children or a spouse from being put into a situation where they have to make a terrible decision as well as physicians from being put into a position where they have to practice defensive medicine because of the trial lawyers. It's just better for an individual to be able to clearly delineate what they want done in various sets of circumstances at the end of their life.
EK: How did this become a question of euthanasia?
JI: I have no idea. I understand -- and you have to check this out -- I just had a phone call where someone said Sarah Palin's web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You're putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don't know how that got so mixed up.
EK: You're saying that this is not a question of government. It's for individuals.
JI: It empowers you to be able to make decisions at a difficult time rather than having the government making them for you.
EK: The policy here as I understand it is that Medicare would cover a counseling session with your doctor on end-of-life options.
JI: Correct. And it's a voluntary deal.
EK: It seems to me we're having trouble conducting an adult conversation about death. We pay a lot of money not to face these questions. We prefer to experience the health-care system as something that just saves you, and if it doesn't, something has gone wrong.
JI: Over the last three-and-a-half decades, this legislation has been passed state-by-state, in part because of the tort issue and in part because of many other things. It's important for an individual to make those determinations while they're of sound mind and body rather than no one making those decisions at all. But this discussion has been going on for three decades.
EK: And the only change we'd see is that individuals would have a counseling session with their doctor?
JI: Uh-huh. When they become eligible for Medicare.
EK: Are there other costs? Parts of it I'm missing?
JI: No. The problem you got is that there's so much swirling around about health care and people are taking bits and pieces out of this. This was thoroughly debated in the Senate committee. It's voluntary. Every state in America has an end of life directive or durable power of attorney provision. For the peace of mind of your children and your spouse as well as the comfort of knowing the government won't make these decisions, it's a very popular thing. Just not everybody's aware of it.
EK:What got you interested in this subject?
JI: I've seen the pain and suffering in families with a loved one with a traumatic brain injury or a crippling degenerative disease become incapacitated and be kept alive under very difficult circumstances when if they'd have had the chance to make the decision themself they'd have given another directive and I've seen the damage financially that's been done to families and if there's a way to prevent that by you giving advance directives it's both for the sanity of the family and what savings the family has it's the right decision, certainly more than turning it to the government or a trial lawyer.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
The Best Defense of the Public Option I've Seen Yet
From a chat in today's Washington Post:
In colonial Philadelphia, there was no fire department. Each fire insurance company had its own private fire department. When you bought insurance, you got a medallion to put on your house. If a fire truck from the Green Tree company came to a burning house that had a Penn Mutual medallion, they would let it burn to the ground. After this happened a few times, a municipal fire department was established, a socialized fire department
What Conservatives fail to realize is that some things like health care are best done by cooperation, by government, while some things are best done by individuals. Their problem is that they cannot distinguish one from the other.
In colonial Philadelphia, there was no fire department. Each fire insurance company had its own private fire department. When you bought insurance, you got a medallion to put on your house. If a fire truck from the Green Tree company came to a burning house that had a Penn Mutual medallion, they would let it burn to the ground. After this happened a few times, a municipal fire department was established, a socialized fire department
What Conservatives fail to realize is that some things like health care are best done by cooperation, by government, while some things are best done by individuals. Their problem is that they cannot distinguish one from the other.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Negotiating With Himself
I voted for Barack Obama in November not as a misty-eyed True Believer, but as someone convinced this country needed substantive change we weren’t going to get from John McCain. Obama’s record to this point has inspired mixed emotions. I think he understands the social and fiscal problems before us. The added deficit worries me, but it is probably a necessary evil to make up for years of fiscal malfeasance. His decisions about what to do with the Guantanamo prisoners and the Bush Administration’s legacy of illegal searches and torture are woefully inadequate.
The most surprising and disappointing aspect of the still young Obama presidency is his unwillingness to stand up for what he seems to believe in. For example, he has spoken out eloquently on more than one occasion for the need for a public option for health care. During yesterday’s (June 23) press conference, he responded to the question, “Wouldn't [a public option] drive private insurance out of business?” with the following comment:
Why would it drive private insurance out of business? If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care; if they tell us that they're offering a good deal, then why is it that the government, which they say can't run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That's not logical.
He’s right: it’s not a logical argument, and this should be brought to bear on anyone who argues against a public option. Unfortunately, today he undercut his own position:
We have not drawn lines in the sand other than that reform has to control costs and that it has to provide relief to people who don’t have health insurance or are underinsured. Those are the broad parameters that we’ve discussed.”
Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman summed it up best in his blog:
My big fear about Obama has always been not that he doesn’t understand the issues, but that his urge to compromise — his vision of himself as a politician who transcends the old partisan divisions — will lead him to negotiate with himself, and give away far too much.
Obama’s post-partisan goals are admirable, but they should not obscure the message of the last election. Americans made a dramatic change in government, producing a Democratic president and sizable Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. Bi-partisan support for any legislation must include an acknowledgement of the people’s will for those laws to be worth anything. Extend a hand, but if the minority doesn’t want to take it and work with you—which many Republicans still refuse to do—then let’s remember who has the votes, and how they got them.
The most surprising and disappointing aspect of the still young Obama presidency is his unwillingness to stand up for what he seems to believe in. For example, he has spoken out eloquently on more than one occasion for the need for a public option for health care. During yesterday’s (June 23) press conference, he responded to the question, “Wouldn't [a public option] drive private insurance out of business?” with the following comment:
Why would it drive private insurance out of business? If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care; if they tell us that they're offering a good deal, then why is it that the government, which they say can't run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That's not logical.
He’s right: it’s not a logical argument, and this should be brought to bear on anyone who argues against a public option. Unfortunately, today he undercut his own position:
We have not drawn lines in the sand other than that reform has to control costs and that it has to provide relief to people who don’t have health insurance or are underinsured. Those are the broad parameters that we’ve discussed.”
Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman summed it up best in his blog:
My big fear about Obama has always been not that he doesn’t understand the issues, but that his urge to compromise — his vision of himself as a politician who transcends the old partisan divisions — will lead him to negotiate with himself, and give away far too much.
Obama’s post-partisan goals are admirable, but they should not obscure the message of the last election. Americans made a dramatic change in government, producing a Democratic president and sizable Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. Bi-partisan support for any legislation must include an acknowledgement of the people’s will for those laws to be worth anything. Extend a hand, but if the minority doesn’t want to take it and work with you—which many Republicans still refuse to do—then let’s remember who has the votes, and how they got them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)