More Than Half a Century is Too Fast

If you want to get an idea of how Democrats have been working to reform our healthcare system, hop a link over to the Truman Library. There, you'll find an entry titled "This Day in Truman History, November 19, 1945: President Truman's Proposed Health Program," which all seems eerily familiar. Only 7 months into Truman's presidency, he wrote congress asking them to provide healthcare for all citizens. " We should resolve now that the health of this Nation is a national concern," he wrote, "that financial barriers in the way of attaining health shall be removed; that the health of all its citizens deserves the help of all the Nation."

It didn't go well.

President Truman's health proposals finally came to Congress in the form of a Social Security expansion bill, co-sponsored in Congress by Senators Robert Wagner (D-NY) and James Murray (D-MT), along with Representative John Dingell (D-MI). For this reason, the bill was known popularly as the W-M-D bill. The American Medical Association (AMA) launched a spirited attack against the bill, capitalizing on fears of Communism in the public mind. The AMA characterized the bill as "socialized medicine", and in a forerunner to the rhetoric of the McCarthy era, called Truman White House staffers "followers of the Moscow party line". Organized labor, the main public advocate of the bill, had lost much of its goodwill from the American people in a series of unpopular strikes. Following the outbreak of the Korean War, President Truman was finally forced to abandon the W-M-D Bill. Although Mr. Truman was not able to create the health program he desired, he was successful in publicizing the issue of health care in America. During his Presidency, the not-for-profit health insurance fund Blue Shield-Blue Cross grew from 28 million policies to over 61 million. When on July 30, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Medicare bill into law at the Harry S. Truman library & Museum, he said that it "all started really with the man from Independence".

There's a lot there that's eerily familiar, isn't there? It was Harry Truman who ordered the deployment of nuclear weapons in Japan, arguably ending the war, and his political opponents still not only felt comfortable questioning his patriotism, but succeeded in killing his plan. It took twenty years for even a sliver of Truman's plan to get through and it's become a tremendous success. Today, the most popular healthcare plan in America is Medicare -- what Truman's (and Johnson's) political opponents derided as "socialized medicine."

Fifty-nine years later, another Democratic president is being accused of trying to "jam" a healthcare reform bill through congress. Fifty-nine years is just too fast.





So here we are now, doing the same damned thing with the other side making the same damned non-arguments. For his part, Obama seems to be getting worn out by the fight, ready to make concessions to get something passed. For their part, the Senate has been no help at all. Majority leader Harry Reid has been doing what he does best -- trying to please everyone and failing miserably. He's running third in his re-election effort as a result of "anemic support among Democrats." Reid really does seem to believe that politics is all about not rocking anyone's boat. If he doesn't win his race, it'll be hard to mourn the loss.

But the story is different in the House of Representatives -- the "People's House." Here's Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi:

Any real change requires the inclusion of a strong public option to promote competition and bring down costs. If a vigorous public option is not included, it would be a major victory for the health insurance industry.

President Obama has said that a public option will keep the insurance companies honest. If someone has a better idea for promoting competition and reducing health care costs, they should put it on the table. But for the past month, opponents of health insurance reform have demonstrated that they are afraid of the facts. They have only offered distortions, distractions and misrepresentations to try to kill this historic legislation.

A bill without a strong public option will not pass the House. Eliminating the public option would be a major victory for the insurance companies who have rationed care, increased premiums and denied coverage.

Some are reading that "If someone has a better idea" statement as being open to options. I read it as sarcasm; "You got a better idea? Yeah, I didn't think so..."

For their part, the house has become the final defenders of the public option -- at least, in government. Speaking for house liberals, Reps. Lynn Woolsey and Raul Grijalva have sent a letter to the president asking him to stand firm on a government plan. "Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, a public option built on the Medicare provider system and with reimbursement based on Medicare rates -- not negotiated rates -- is unacceptable," they wrote, echoing Speaker Pelosi. In the People's House, a public option isn't negotiable.

"A health reform bill without a robust public option will not achieve the health reform this country so desperately needs," the two wrote. "We cannot vote for anything less." Outside government, others are saying the same thing.

"The question is what's he gonna do in a week," says Richard Kirsch, campaign director for Health Care for America Now. "He's giving his address next Wednesday. We have to see what the President says." And what he says will have a lot to do with his future influence (and support) among liberals.

"You win by rallying your supporters and convincing the middle," Kirsch says. "You don't win by disappointing your supporters and confusing the middle."

No, you don't. And you don't win by playing for a draw. There are two sides in this fight, insurance corporations and the people. The people shouldn't be allowed to lose. If we don't get what we want now, we can look back at history and see that it may be twenty years before we get even a fraction of needed reforms. We can also look back at history and see that the non-profit co-ops don't make a difference; Blue Cross became more like other corporations than those corporations became like Blue Cross. For a lot of people in this country, it's now or never. For the rest of us, it's another generation down the road.

"Millions of our citizens do not now have a full measure of opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health. Millions do not now have protection or security against the economic effects of sickness," one guy in the know has said. "The time has arrived for action to help them attain that opportunity and that protection."

It was Harry Truman and that time arrived 59 years ago.

-Wisco


Get updates via Twitter

Can the Healthcare Reform Debate be Shocked Back to Sanity?

No one would argue that August has been good for the cause of healthcare reform. There was some momentum on the side of reform in July, but Harry Reid decided that Republicans were right -- we had to wait until September to take up the issue again. Rather than work through the August recess, the Senate would go home to their districts, put on their thinking caps, and give this all some serious thought.

"It's better to have a product based on quality and thoughtfulness rather than try to jam something through," Reid said. It was at this point that things took a turn for the stupid. "Quality and thoughtfulness" were a no-show. What we got was lunacy and lies. Republicans decided this would be a good time to lose their damned minds and Blue Dog Democrats decided it would be a good time to pretend to be Republicans. Nothing that's happened over the past five weeks had to happen. But Senate majority leader Harry Reid took his hands off the wheel and the car predictably veered off the road and into the ditch.

See, this was supposed to be the summer of bipartisan love. The Senate Finance Committee's Gang of Six was supposed to knock something out. "The decision was made to give them more time and I don't think it's unreasonable," Reid said. But the Gang of Six has barely met at all. Instead, led by the two-faced Chuck Grassley, Republicans in the gang have done everything in their power to derail the whole project. To a certain extent, they've succeeded.

Yay for the visionary leadership of Harry Freakin' Reid...





While it's tempting to lay all the blame for the basket case that the healthcare debate has become on the shoulders of the minority leader, President Obama has to shoulder his share. You don't hand off your most ambitious project to congressional leadership who've already proved their incompetence by rolling over every time George W. Bush asked them to. And that's exactly what he did. Seeking to avoid the problems Clinton faced in his failed healthcare reform push, Obama decided to present goals, rather than legislation. Congress would reach those goals under their own steam and the White House would sit back and watch the garden grow.

And, of course, congressional leadership blew it. For his part, Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus screwed up his very first step by declaring a single-payer plan -- similar to Canada's -- off the table. It wouldn't even be discussed. And this left democrats without any fallback position. The public option is the compromise between a great system and the status quo, but Baucus made it the starting point of negotiations -- practically guaranteeing that Republicans and Blue Dogs who like things just fine the way they are would attack it. Had Max Baucus been a general in WWII, we'd all be speaking Japanese today, desu ka? Mostly because he would've tried to fly the entire US military to Tokyo for a single, do-or-die battle.

It's tempting to say that Obama watched this August Bonfire of the Idiocies burn without doing anything about it. But that wouldn't be true. Greg Sargent points us to a piece by the neocon columnist Fred Barnes mapping out just what Obama has done:

Between July 20 and July 30, President Obama was a busy man, barely out of the public eye while campaigning furiously for his health care initiative. He did four town hall events, spoke at two hospitals, delivered a radio address, was interviewed on two network TV news shows, and held a prime time press conference–all devoted to promoting his health care plan. On this issue as on no other, Obama personally took his case to the people.

And this has gone on through August. But the media has, for whatever reason, declared the president irrelevant on this issue and his efforts haven't gotten a lot of press. What's newsworthy is ratings-based, not reality-based; given a choice between a reasoned case for healthcare reform and a fruitloop with a gun who's screaming that Obama's a socialist -- like Hitler -- it really isn't much of a choice. Crazy, historically-challenged Hitler guy gets the camera time.

So the president has finally concluded that he has to force the media to pay attention. Like congressional leadership, news organizations can't be counted on to do their jobs. Where Reid and Baucus failed to think even a half-step ahead, the media can't be counted on to inform. A CBS News poll found recently that all this coverage of crazy people has surprisingly failed to inform many people at all. According to that poll, only 31% say they aren't confused about the issue. The rest of us have no idea what the hell is going on. Great job there, CBS News. You've managed to put out a poll proving you suck.

Failed by the media and Democratic leadership, Barack Obama is finally going to try to get this runaway train back on the rails.

Politico:

President Barack Obama will address a joint session of Congress on health care reform in prime time on Wednesday, Sept. 9, a senior official tells POLITICO.

Obama will receive House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at the White House the day before for a previously scheduled sit-down.

The last time a president addressed a joint session of Congress that wasn’t a State of the Union, or the traditional first address by a new president, was Sept. 20, 2001, when President George W. Bush spoke on the war on terrorism following the 9/11 attacks.

The reports are that the president will lay down what the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder calls "deal-breakers." Unfortunately, it doesn't sound like a public option is one of those deal-breakers. That's the bad news.

The good news is that, in a separate post, Ambinder reports that the White House is considering a "trigger" which would kick in a public option if whatever alternative to it the senate cooks up fails to bring down costs -- which anything else would be almost certainly fail to do. But a backdoor public option isn't likely to fool defenders of the status quo, who are already floating the idea that non-profit co-ops -- the leading alternative to a public option -- are identical to a public option. So that "good news" isn't as good as you'd first assume. It's a retreat that opponents will pretend isn't a retreat at all.

As he goes into congress next week, President Obama will find the healthcare reform debate has become a babbling lunatic. This thing has been mismanaged from the get-go and it's going to take a Herculean effort to get it back into the realm of sanity.

This better be one hell of a speech.

-Wisco


Get updates via Twitter

The Flawlessness of the GOP Officeholder

Have you ever found yourself in this situation? You're talking with someone about something and it quickly becomes apparent that you're wrong. Not just a little wrong, but wrong about pretty much everything. Maybe you misunderstood some basic point and this was what you thought was the logical foundation of the whole thing. Maybe you got some bad information -- someone told you one thing, while the opposite was true. Maybe you thought you'd figured it out, but the real answer turned out to be counterintuitive. But, for whatever reason, you're about as wrong as it's possible to be.

Normally, you'd just readjust your understanding of what you're talking about. After all, you're human, this sort of thing happens. It's impossible to go through life without getting something all balled up. You just slap your forehead, laugh, and get on with your life.

Unless, of course, you're a Republican. Especially a Republican in elected office. Then you aren't wrong. Ever. Invading Iraq is still the smartest thing anyone's ever done for the cause of freedom, for example. If someone points out the facts -- no WMD, no ties to al Qaeda, no "imminent threat" to the United States -- you just jam your fingers in your ears and shout, "La! La! La! La! I can't hear you! La! La! La! La!" Because it's absolutely impossible for you to be wrong. If there's a disagreement between reality and an elected Republican, reality automatically loses. Every time.

Kansas Rep. Lynn Jenkins found herself in this situation recently when, during a town hall meeting, one of her constituents confronted her with the impossible; the American system of healthcare delivery was failing her. It's an article of faith that the US has the "best healthcare in the world" -- mostly because it's America and everything we have is the best in the world -- and saying otherwise is just unpatriotic. The only thing wrong with the US, in Republican eyes anyway, is that taxes are too high for rich people. Otherwise, perfect.

Jenkins found herself the target of an unfair and un-American attack by reality, when a member of the audience told her about her situation. "I'm a 27 year-old single mother. I work full-time," constituent Elizabeth Smith told her. "I do not have health insurance. My employer does not provide health insurance to me and I cannot afford it privately. Why shouldn't my government guarantee all of its citizens health care?"





See, in Republican World, the only uninsured are young people -- like Smith. So far, so good. But the reason these young people aren't insured isn't because they can't get insurance, but because they don't want it. See, young people these days believe they're indestructible; ah, the folly of youth. Elizabeth Smith, single Kansas mom, couldn't possibly be uninsured. Not if she wanted to be, anyway. So Jenkins proceeded to set her straight:

Jenkins: Thank you. I’m sorry, maybe you missed my opening remarks, but absolutely. That’s why we have Medicaid in the current system and that’s why under the alternative proposal we have an option for low-to-modest-income people to be able to afford health care and then we’ve got the SCHIP program for children. I think we’ve got all of the bases covered.

Audience member: She’s not covered under SCHIP!

Jenkins: OK, if you’re not then you’re the perfect example for why we need reform and why we need it now but we have to do it right and if we can do an alternative proposal, as I’m suggesting, give you the money to go buy it in a reformed marketplace where it is affordable, that’s my preference rather than to saddle the nation with yet another government program when they can’t afford the government run programs we have.

Elizabeth Smith: I want an option that I can pay for. I work. I pay my bills. I’m not a burden on the state. I pay my taxes. So why can’t I get an affordable option. Why are you against that?

Jenkins: A government run program (laugh) is going to subsidize not only yours (laugh) but everybody in this room. So I’m not sure what we’re talking about here.

Jenkins: I think it comes down to the whole discussion of...

(The crowd erupts. At this point, it's safe to say even they aren't buying Jenkins position...)

Lynn: OK folks. Let’s be respectful. UH-OH (talking over crowd). We’re gonna make time for everybody. We’re gonna all listen to each other respectfully, even if we disagree. I think we can agree we need reforms, again it’s just how we gonna do it. I believe people should be given the opportunity to take care of themselves with an advanceable tax credit to go be a grown-up and go buy the insurance.

Be a grownup. See, that's the "indestructible young person" theory coming back. She seriously can't wrap her head around the fact that this woman can't get health insurance. Elizabeth Smith claims to be falling through the cracks in a world that Lynn Jenkins seems to believe doesn't have any cracks. We've got Medicaid and SCHIP, after all. In her defense, she admits that "we need reform," but then she advocates something that's most definitely not reform. Tax credits don't change the industry, they change the industry's customer base. In Republican World, it's not insurance companies that are the problem, it's you. You need to be reformed. You're not being a grown up.

The crack Smith fell through isn't the only crack in the system. In 2007, an America Journal of Medicine study [PDF] found that most bankruptcies in the US are caused by medical emergencies. Of those, most were insured.

Telephone interviews identified 639 patients whose illness contributed to bankruptcy: the debtor or spouse in 77.9% of cases; a child in 14.6%; and a parent, sibling or other adult in 7.5%. At illness onset, 77.9% were uninsured; 60.3% had private insurance as their primary coverage; 10.2% had Medicare; 5.4% had Medicaid; and 2% had Veterans Affairs/military coverage. Few of the uninsured lacked coverage because of a preexisting condition (2.8%) or the belief that coverage was unnecessary (0.3%); nearly all cited economic reasons.

How's a tax credit going to fix that? How's making coverage more affordable going to fix that? When 60.3% of those bankrupted by medical costs have private insurance anyway, how is covering more people going to make any damned difference at all? Healthcare consumers don't need to be reformed, the industry does.

But that's contrary to Republican myth. That 0.3% who are uninsured by choice make up nearly 100% of the uninsured under GOP math. They aren't being grown ups and that's the problem. The insurance industry is perfect, because America is flawless. If you think healthcare has problems, then that means you hate America.

Given the facts, it's hard to see how Republicans can think they're right on this issue. But when you try to set them straight, all you get is, "La! La! La! La! I can't hear you! La! La! La! La!"

They're committed to being wrong.

-Wisco


Get updates via Twitter

Let Them Eat Dust

Live in America's breadbasket? I've got bad news for you. Don't live in America's breadbasket? I've still got bad news for you. In fact, if you eat, I've got bad news for you.

USA Today:

The Midwest will see the most dramatic temperature rise in upcoming decades due to global warming, according to a new analysis of U.S. climate data released Thursday by the Nature Conservancy.

In just the next 40 years, if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise at their current rate, average temperatures are expected to rise by more than 5 degrees across much of the USA, with the greatest temperature increases expected in Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri and Illinois.

"The surprise was that the biggest changes were in the Heartland and the Great Plains," says Jonathan Hoekstra, director of climate change for the Nature Conservancy. So far, he said the western USA has been the area that has seen the most warming.

The changes will be even more dramatic by the end of the century. "In many states across the country, the weather and landscapes could be nearly unrecognizable in 100 years," he adds. By 2100, states such as Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa and South Dakota could see average temperature increases of more than 10 degrees.

The United States produces roughly 10% of the world's wheat, on average. Most of that comes from the midwest. Global warming is about more than just being hot, it's about your belly.





USA Today reports, "The analysis was based on data from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and was produced in conjunction with the University of Washington and the University of Southern Mississippi." The findings aren't pretty. "America's $200 billion agriculture industry could face serious threats as higher temperatures dry out soil and shift production patterns," we're told. "The dairy industry could suffer significant declines, since dairy cow productivity starts decreasing above 77°F."

What will that mean? Let's face it, this is America. We can buy our way out of a food shortage if we want to. What it'll mean for us is that food will get a lot more expensive. And, since the climate won't return to "normal," will continue to get more expensive. At a certain point, food production worldwide will fall and people will starve.

But not everyone will starve. There will be enough food for a smaller population and that population won't be chosen for their worth, but because of their money. The wealthy will be able to buy themselves out of crisis. So for the rich, there will be no crisis. They'll be fine. So what do they care?

Not much, it turns out. The LA Times reports that the US Chamber of Commerce has a plan to deal with climate change -- make it go away through the courts.

The nation's largest business lobby wants to put the science of global warming on trial.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, trying to ward off potentially sweeping federal emissions regulations, is pushing the Environmental Protection Agency to hold a rare public hearing on the scientific evidence for man-made climate change.

Chamber officials say it would be "the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century" -- complete with witnesses, cross-examinations and a judge who would rule, essentially, on whether humans are warming the planet to dangerous effect.

"It would be evolution versus creationism," said William Kovacs, the chamber's senior vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs. "It would be the science of climate change on trial."

Is a court of law the best place to settle a matter of science? Obviously not, since John Scopes was found guilty of the crime of teaching evolution. In the Scopes trial, truth lost. At least, initially.

Of course, Kovacs and the Chamber don't really care about truth. All they know is that reducing carbon emissions is going to cost money. "The goal of the chamber, which represents 3 million large and small businesses, is to fend off potential emissions regulations by undercutting the scientific consensus over climate change," the paper reports. "If the EPA denies the request, as expected, the chamber plans to take the fight to federal court."

The comparison to creationism is actually very apt. Both global warming denial and creationism are based entirely in a rejection of the facts -- neither offers evidence for their own position. All they really do is dispute the evidence that's presented. No creationist has ever presented evidence for creationism; for the obvious reason that none exists. The entire creationism industry is based entirely on "debunking" evolution. For their own case, they offer absolutely nothing.

And here's the global warming denying US Chamber doing exactly the same thing. The evidence is presented and summarily dismissed. We can take some comfort in the fact that denial in its purest form -- that global warming isn't happening at all -- is pretty much dead. The Chamber doesn't deny the warming itself, but the fact that humans are doing it or that it's even a bad thing. "The Chamber of Commerce cites studies that predict higher temperatures will reduce mortality rates in the United States," we're told. This is an insane argument.

"The need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable," heads of the top science agencies in 13 of the world's largest countries wrote to world leaders recently. The Environmental Protection Agency predicts that warming will result in "the increased likelihood of more frequent and intense heat waves, more wildfires, degraded air quality, more heavy downpours and flooding, increased drought, greater sea level rise, more intense storms, harm to water resources, harm to agriculture, and harm to wildlife and ecosystems."

In addition, International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World Conservation Congress issued a report in 2008 that found that an increase in infectious disease would be the "most immediate consequence" of a changing climate. Diseases that would flourish in a warmer world include "Lyme disease, yellow fever, plague, and avian influenza, or bird flu," in addition to "babesia, cholera, Ebola, intestinal and external parasites, red tides, Rift Valley fever, sleeping sickness and tuberculosis."

Tell, how will that "reduce mortality rates in the United States?"

But the point isn't to prove anything. The point is to sow doubt. Like creationists, climate deniers don't hold themselves to the same rigid logical framework that scientists do. As a result, they're free to cherry-pick data and intentionally misread findings. They can just make things up and declare them true. Dishonesty has an advantage over honesty, in that you can be as creative and strategic as you need to be. Science can't lie -- once you start lying, it's not science.

If the Chamber succeeds in slowing progress on global warming, what do they care? The consequences will likely occur after they die and they're pretty sure their kids will be able to spend a stupid amount of money for an apple. And, if they make even more money now, those kids will be able to afford even more expensive apples down the road.

I suppose the irony here is that they're using the same tactics as creationists to advance economic Darwinism. The rich will be able to adapt to a changing world -- at least, for a while -- and the poor will go extinct.

-Wisco


Get updates via Twitter