All Life Is Problem Solving

It’s popular to appeal to the idea of free choice when defending one’s position on health insurance reform. President Obama says that he wants to give people the freedom to choose a public option or some other form of affordable insurance in addition to the insurance choices available now. The insurance companies talk about the importance of avoiding a health care system where “Government-run health care” or “socialized medicine” is the only choice, and the tyranny involved in such a system. Senators like Ron Wyden talk about the importance of having a free choice among insurance carriers in the context of a nation-wide web-based exchange. And others talk about the importance of being free to choose one’s health care providers. But appeals to “freedom” in the health care area need to be viewed very carefully and skeptically because one’s person’s freedom is another person’s tyranny. Let’s see some examples of how that works.

First, the insurance companies want to be free of Government regulation, and, if they could, would like to maintain the status quo in health insurance. But for people who are denied coverage, whose policies are rescinded, who experience denial of claims and continual increase in costs one’s health insurance company is like an unpredictable, rapacious, and tyrannical government; and authority that without a moment’s notice can destroy one’s life: physical, financial, or social. [Read more →]

The people of America have an important business decision to make. Right now, we’re paying roughly $2.4 Trillion per year for medical products and services. It is said that we could save roughly $450 – $600 billion of that per year if we eliminated the private for profit health insurance system and replaced it with a Medicare for All insurance system funded by taxes.

Now my simple question is this: What social value in addition to the funding of health care providers, which can also be performed by Medicare for All, is produced by the private health insurance system that is worth $450 – $600 billion per year? [Read more →]

Two nights ago (September 14), Rachel Maddow, on MSNBC, during coverage of the DC tea baggers demonstration against health insurance reform, played a satirical clip called “Billionaires for Wealthcare,” in an attempt to give the alternative point of view to the demonstration. After commenting on it, she brought in Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont for an interview. The subject of tea baggers’ free floating anger and rage became the central focus of discussion. Bernie Sanders said:

“The truth is that people have a right to be angry. The fact that Wall Street has plunged this country into such a deep recession that 17% of the people are either unemployed or underemployed. People are angry and they have a right to be angry. And what disturbs me very much is that you see many of these right wing folks, they’re not angry at the insurance companies that are ripping us off. They’re not angry at the drug companies that are charging us the highest rates in the industrial world. They’re not angry at the Wall Street guys who have made hundreds of millions of dollars, and then, through their and illegal behavior, have caused this deep recession. [Read more →]

Two nights ago (September 14), Rachel Maddow, on MSNBC, during coverage of the DC tea baggers demonstration against health insurance reform, played a satirical clip called “Billionaires for Wealthcare,” in an attempt to give the alternative point of view to the demonstration. Just after the clip she made the point that Billionaires for Wealthcare had found the “antidote to the fact-free scream-and-holler syndrome that has disabled the debate about what to do to fix health care.” And that when people talk about a plan for putting Republicans in concentration camps, creating death panels for old people, and using mysterious interpretations of the Tenth Amendment to declare health care unconstitutional, “maybe singing satirical songs to the tune of the Battle Hymn of the Republic is the most appropriate way to counter that.”

Well, I, and I’m sure many others found the clip and Rachel’s point very amusing. But I also found myself thinking that such satire wasn’t going to persuade tea baggers or discredit their fables among those who find them plausible. They’ll just look at “Billionaires for Wealthcare” as another attempt by smart-ass, over-educated “liberals” to discredit their legitimate concerns by marginalizing them, and by insulting the tea baggers themselves. So, I guess I don’t think satire is the best way to answer the tea baggers’ increasingly ridiculous claims about pending health insurance reform legislation. I think a much better way to counter that is for the Administration and its supporters to stop promoting legislation that is so complex and difficult to read and understand that any silly story can be circulated about it, and also for them to explain the reasons why the health care legislation they are backing will solve the problems it is supposed to solve. Yes, I am saying that a more “rational,” though not unemotional, and also simpler approach to communication of health care reform, is the way to counter the tea baggers’ “screaming and hollering.” [Read more →]

I think Republicans and Blue Dogs understand the power of “no.” But I’m afraid the progressives in Congress don’t understand it, and that’s why they’re losing the fight for health insurance reform, have sustained partial defeats on the stimulus package, and credit card reform bills, and are moving toward a partial defeat on the cap-and-trade bill.

From where I sit, the situation is a strange one, because the situation in Congress is a favorable one for progressives, if they will only grasp the leverage available to them if they would “just say no.” As we all know the Republicans are just saying no to anything offered by the Administration. And it is this that makes the situation favorable to progressives. In years gone by, Republicans mixed in their “nos” with frequent “yeses,” and it was then possible for “moderate” Republicans and centrist and even conservative Democrats to pass legislation over the objections of progressives. But now the Republicans’ determination to say “no” on everything prevents them from joining with blue dogs to run things, unless progressives play into their hands by compromising with themselves and the blue dogs, which, of course, is what they have been doing, thus far, giving Republicans influence over policy disproportionate to their numbers in Congress. [Read more →]

Maybe my memory fails me; but I can’t remember when two members of the WaPo columnist in-group got into a public disagreement. It all began when Eugene Robinson, WaPo’s pulitzer prize-winning columnist, praised Eric Holder for re-opening nearly a dozen cases of alleged prisoner abuse and appointing a special prosecutor to carry out the investigation, and initiate prosecutions, if necessary. Robinson called for Holder and John Durham, his special prosecutor to:

”. . . work their way up the chain. In some instances, it may be a mid-level employee who overstepped clear boundaries and ordered subordinates to perform acts that might have taken place in a medieval dungeon. In other cases, illegal acts apparently were approved at the highest levels. Investigators need to be allowed to follow the evidence all the way to the top — into the White House, if that is where the trail leads.” [Read more →]

The right-wing-nuttery continued its nattering today with its claims that the President’s speech to American schoolchildren would be biased and ideological and that he should not be speaking to them. Here’s an answer for Rush, the Michelles (Malkin and Bachmann), Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, and all the other scoundrels, male and female, who are spewing out their nonsense in the various right-wing organs funded by the plutocrats, whose real interest is in overthrowing our democracy, not in safeguarding anyone’s freedom. [Read more →]

This past Sunday, the New York Times ran an editorial supporting the plan of some Democrats to use the reconciliation procedure to by-pass a filibuster of health insurance reform in the Senate by Republicans. Reconciliation requires only 50 votes from Senators plus an additional tie-breaking vote from the Vice-President to pass in the Senate. To have the Times taking this position was not, in itself, surprising. But the editorial agonized an awful lot over the contemplated move by the Democrats, and it is worth commenting on various aspects of this agonizing over the Democrats using reconciliation. [Read more →]

I get furious when the punditocracy doesn’t recognize that Cheney’s position on accountability for torture makes the Constitution a dead letter, and the President a dictator who can define what the law is by fiat. By extension, to refrain from prosecuting and convicting those who violated the law by engaging in torture, is to legitimate the claim that each President is a dictator who cannot be prosecuted for his unlawful acts and who can insulate his minions from prosecution and convictions, as well.

We cannot maintain a constitutional democracy without refuting such claims through the necessary investigations, prosecutions and convictions. So, up till now, we must say that the President, through his inaction, has continued to place the survival of our democracy in jeopardy. It is the most important and the most egregious thing he is doing. And if this failure to investigate and prosecute goes on for long enough it will be grounds for impeachment. [Read more →]

Is it time for progressives to push the reset button yet? The strategy of supporting the Public Option idea in hopes that Republicans, Conservatives, Blue Dogs, and the health insurance industry would be more friendly to it than they would be to a Medicare for All Government Health Insurance Plan has certainly failed. The opposition to the PO is every bit as hysterical and intense as we might have imagined it would be for Medicare for All. However, in supporting it, progressives have certainly sacrificed the clarity of their ideas and legislative proposals and also the enthusiasm of supporters of health insurance reform who still believe in Medicare for All. So, now entering the days of climactic conflict over health insurance, when Democrats must rely on the progressive base of the Party to pressure Congress into voting for a worthwhile health insurance industry reform bill, that base is hanging back, reluctant to enter the fight. [Read more →]