Monthly Archives: September 2009

Pulling the Plug on Art?

Get ready for the Right flank to reinvigorate their long-standing effort to eliminate federal funding for the arts.  I just saw this on Huf-Post and all of the alarm bells went off in my head:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…

Since the eighties, there has been steady pressure on the NEA not to fund controversial projects no matter how valid peer review found them to be. They already reduced public television to a shadow of its former self. I predict that in the anti-intellectual furor that has overtaken the Right, the next big target will be any remaining public funding for the arts.  This is just the opening salvo.

I have taken a personal interest in this because my sculptor husband was the target of censorship efforts by right-wing groups in 1970’s Toronto.  In both of those cases, the law finally came down on the side of freedom of expression, but not before it cost us all a lot of time, money and anxiety.  

We may be approaching a dangerous time for arts and artists in fully-armed America, where apparently one may now carry an assault weapon into a crowded room.  

Obama’s overated speech

There has been much fanfare of Obama’s speech in front of Congress last night from liberals. I read the first six or so blog posts on the speech Huffington Post last night, and they were a bit absurd in their romanticism of the event.  

Paul Begala explained “Why I Loved Obama’s Health Care Speech.”

Jacob Heilbrun claimed he had “come out swinging” and made the “single most persuasive case for government intervention in decades.”

From Bill Cunningham: “Tonight, we saw a leader, unafraid to stand and deliver…not a political document, but a platform that all who care about real reform, can support and amend and work for.”

And it wasn’t just on Huffington Post. Katrina vanden Heuvel (who I interned for and have co-written pieces with) was more enthusiastic than I would have expected, saying Obama showed his progressive “spine.”

On MSNBC, Steve Hilderberg, a former Obama campaign staffer who has been organizing with others former staffers to demand a public option, seemed unperturbed that Obama, for all practical purposes, caved to the Blue Dogs who oppose the idea, and not the progressives that elected him.

When asked by Kieth Olberman if Obama’s speech was strong enough, he said “For sure. I never had any doubt, this favor is on side of American people and not in bed with special interests … he hit it out of the ballpark.”

Now, I know there is a desire to defend Obama, given that he has been subject to absurd lies and distortions from a right-wing base that has become more delusional and vitriolic than in recent memory.

But progressives have got to get past the glowing rhetoric, and notice something very important: Obama is going to pass a pretty shitty bill.

Sure, the bill will be better than the status quo; there will be some subsidies for lower middle class people. But also dreaded mandate — a gift to insurance companies, who love that 46 million people must purchase poor and overpriced healthcare plans that still leave them open to financial ruin.

There will almost assuredly be no public option. Even with 59-60 seats in the Senate, Democrats will not so much as accept a minuscule public option to insure just a tiny fraction of the population.

This idea that Obama is restating the case for liberalism is an absurd overstatement. There are huge majorities, and a self-described progressive president with a mandate for change, and we going to end up with a bill dictated largely by what Blue Dogs and insurance companies want (a mandate and no public option).

As Ezra Klein noted, there are not so much changes, but merely improvements.

Anyway, in today’s Christian Science Monitor, I make the case that the disappointing nature of the healthcare package outlined by Obama is a reason that advocates of universal healthcare, need to focus, not on Washington — which is so impervious to change — but in state houses across the country. http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/…

There has been tremendous work on this issue done in Vermont, as I note in the piece.  

EDITORIAL: GOP’s Behavior During Obama Speech a Boorish Disgrace

Republicans’ Unprecedented Show of Contempt During President’s Address on Heath-Care Reform is Captured by TV Cameras; GOP Congressman is Booed Loudly After Calling Obama a Liar While Another Republican Challenges President on ‘Death Panels’

(Posted 8:00 a.m. EDT Thursday September 10, 2009)

NOTE TO READERS: Due to a computer crash, today’s edition of The ‘Skeeter Bites Report is being posted three hours later than normal. We apologize for any inconvenience this delay might have caused.

===============================

A ‘SKEETER BITES REPORT EDITORIAL

===============================

The television images were startling: As President Obama addressed Congress and the nation on health-care reform Wednesday night, the cameras showed many Republican members of Congress displaying their contempt for the president’s reform push, with some holding up signs reading “What Bill?” and “What Plan?” and copies of GOP-sponsored bills rejected by majority Democrats, while others were scanning their BlackBerrys while Obama spoke.

Then the House chamber’s microphones picked up the voice of a previously little-known Republican from South Carolina openly heckling Obama — the first time in memory that a sitting member of Congress showed such blatant disrespect for a president while he addressed the lawmakers — calling Obama a liar after the president said his reform plan would not cover illegal immigrants.

But that’s not all. According to a report on HuffingtonPost.com, another Republican congressman challenged Obama when the president told the lawmakers that claims by his right-wing opponents that his proposal would establish so-called “death panels” on end-of-life matters was “a lie” by demanding that he “Read the bill!” — a common chant used by opponents at lat month’s explosive town hall meetings.

And a third Republican congressman loudly dismissed with a sarcastic “Ha!” the president’s assertion that he had “no interest in putting insurance companies out of business,” the Web site reported.

WILSON BOOED LOUDLY; HE QUICKLY APOLOGIZES

Apparently emboldened by the fierce condemnation of the president’s health-care reform proposals displayed by opponents at town-hall meetings across the country on the matter, House Republicans, in particular, were in no mood to back down from their own united — and apparently implacable — opposition.

But Wilson’s outburst clearly crossed the line, according to HuffPost. He was booed loudly by Democrats and Republicans alike. “Shame on you!” shouted one spectator. “Throw him out!” shouted another. First Lady Michelle Obama, who was seated above and behind Wilson in the visitors’ gallery, was overheard shouting “Damn!” as she shook her head in disgust.

Within an hour after the president’s address. Wilson issued an apology. “This evening I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the president’s remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill,” he said. “While I disagree with the president’s statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the President for this lack of civility.”

Wilson also called the White House to apologize.

BIPARTISAN CONDEMNATION OF WILSON

Wilson’s outburst was roundly condemned by Republicans and Democrats alike. Appearing on CNN’s “Larry King Live” minutes after the president’s address, Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) said he found Wilson’s remarks “totally disrespectful — [there’s] no place for it in that setting or any other and he should apologize immediately.”

On the same program, Representative Jeff Flake (R-Arizona) said, “I thought that was unfortunate. [Obama’s] the president. He deserves more respect than that.”

Democrats were furious. “Nineteen years [in the House and] never, never have I seen anything like this,” said an angry Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut).

“I thought it was very inappropriate behavior, to hold up signs. None of us ever would have done that,” said Representative Henry Waxman (D-California). “I don’t think in the Congress of the United States there ought to be catcalls, or people standing up and yelling comments or holding up signs.”

Representative John Dingell (D-Michigan), the House’s longest-serving member — whose father, John Sr., introduced a health-care reform bill as far back as 1943 — said he was not impressed by the GOP’s antics. “Well, you’ve got to understand: They’re Republicans. They’re just doing what comes natural,” he told HuffPost.

But by far the most barbed reaction came from MSNBC morning host Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman. “Whoever shouted out that the president was lying is a dumbass who should show the president some respect!” Scarborough wrote in a posting on Twitter.

GOP’S DISRESPECT OF OBAMA UNPRECEDENTED — IS IT RACIALLY TINGED?

It’s pretty clear by now that Republicans — especially those in the House — are in no mood to back down from their fierce and increasingly implacable opposition to health-care reform.

But their boorish behavior during the president’s speech strongly suggests to The ‘Skeeter Bites Report that the Republicans also might be emboldened by something far uglier: A refusal to accept the decision last November by a 54 percent majority of the American electorate to entrust, for the first time in the nation’s history, the the most powerful job in the world to a black man.

Are we the only ones who noticed from viewing the TV images that the Republicans who displayed such open contempt for the president were all white male Southerners? Is it merely a coincidence that Wilson, the GOP congressman who made the “You Lie!” outburst, is a conservative white male Southerner from South Carolina?

Can anyone recall any of Obama’s predecessors — including George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon — ever receiving this kind of treatment by members of the opposition party while addressing a joint session of Congress? We can’t.

We are, therefore, forced to ask this question; Partisan loyalties aside, would the Republicans have displayed this much contempt for the president of the United States if Obama were white?

We seriously doubt it.

As much as the Republicans despised Clinton, they never subjected him to that kind of open display of disrespect even as they impeached him in 1999 — and remember, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress back then.

Likewise, the Democrats, for all of their dislike of Nixon, never resorted to such open displays of contempt — not even when Congress began impeachment proceedings against him over the Watergate scandal in 1974.

HOW ELSE TO EXPLAIN GOP MOVING FARTHER AND FARTHER TO THE RIGHT?

It is becoming more and more difficult to avoid coming to the conclusion that there is more than partisan motivation behind the Republicans’ hardening opposition to Obama’s health-care proposals.

This is, in fact, a hardening of the GOP’s opposition to Obama’s entire presidency, based on their nearly unanimous opposition to his emergency economic stimulus package and the solid opposition to his plans for dealing with climate change and energy independence.

The reason for the hardening opposition should be as plain as day: The Republicans have for months now been sucking up to the rabid demagogues of right-wing talk radio, led by Rush Limbaugh, and of a certain right-leaning cable news channel that’s having to deal with a growing advertiser boycott against one of its rising stars, Glenn Beck.

Of course, there’s more to it than that: The Republican Party’s voting base has shrunk to where it’s now where the Democratic Party’s voting base was for much of its history prior to the end of World War II: almost lily-white, mostly Southern, overwhelmingly male and fiercely conservative — and moving ever farther rightward, away from the American political mainstream.

Indeed, the GOP is moving so far to the right that it is at the point where the party is in danger of becoming a xenophobic, neo-fascist fringe party similar to the British National Party, France’s National Front, Austria’s Radical Party, Germany’s National Democratic Party and the Netherlands’ Freedom Party.

The GOP cannot remain viable with the majority of the American people if it continues on its rightward trajectory.

Sincerely,

Skeeter Sanders

Editor & Publisher

The ‘Skeeter Bites Report

Copyright 2009, Skeeter Sanders. All rights reserved.

OPEN THREAD: HEALTH CARE SPEECH

Now that we’ve had overnight to think about it, what are your reactions to Obama’s speech?

A couple of initial thoughts:

1. Good for him calling the death panel lie exactly what it is.

2. I was glad to see him hold onto the public option. We’ll see how long that lasts, but it’s safe to say he needs pressure.

3. Anyone want to call Republican thug Joe Wilson to tell him he should resign after disrespecting the President, the Congress, and the American people? His number is (202) 225-2452.

4. I’m concerned about his signal that he might be willing to cave in to the insurance companies on tort “reform”. Hint: just because it’s change doesn’t mean it’s reform, especially when the point of that change is to protect wealthy insurance companies from having to compensate horribly injured victims of medical malpractice.

5. On tort liability. Why isn’t anyone but me calling defensive medicine what it is:

the unethical prescribing of unnecessary medical procedures and the fraudulent billing of insurance carriers and the government?

6. Does anyone get what the hell these “insurance exchanges” are?

7. Does anyone see how he’s going to significantly bring down health care costs without getting rid of the parasites–I mean insurance companies?

What are your thoughts?

Obama and the public option …

Did Obama commit to a public option? Or did he waver enough to let it be dropped? While reading his remarks from last night I noticed Obama was very direct about calling out some of the lies; but I also noticed he was somewhat circumspect regarding a government run insurance program.

Text of last night’s Presidential remarks follows:

Remarks of President Barack Obama – As Prepared for Delivery

Address to a Joint Session of Congress on Health Care

Wednesday, September 9th, 2009

Washington, DC

Madame Speaker, Vice President Biden, Members of Congress, and the American people:

When I spoke here last winter, this nation was facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month. Credit was frozen. And our financial system was on the verge of collapse.

As any American who is still looking for work or a way to pay their bills will tell you, we are by no means out of the woods. A full and vibrant recovery is many months away. And I will not let up until those Americans who seek jobs can find them; until those businesses that seek capital and credit can thrive; until all responsible homeowners can stay in their homes. That is our ultimate goal. But thanks to the bold and decisive action we have taken since January, I can stand here with confidence and say that we have pulled this economy back from the brink.

I want to thank the members of this body for your efforts and your support in these last several months, and especially those who have taken the difficult votes that have put us on a path to recovery. I also want to thank the American people for their patience and resolve during this trying time for our nation.

But we did not come here just to clean up crises. We came to build a future. So tonight, I return to speak to all of you about an issue that is central to that future – and that is the issue of health care.

I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last. It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for health care reform. And ever since, nearly every President and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has attempted to meet this challenge in some way. A bill for comprehensive health reform was first introduced by John Dingell Sr. in 1943. Sixty-five years later, his son continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session.

Our collective failure to meet this challenge – year after year, decade after decade – has led us to a breaking point. Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the uninsured, who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare. These are middle-class Americans. Some can’t get insurance on the job. Others are self-employed, and can’t afford it, since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer. Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or expensive to cover.

We are the only advanced democracy on Earth – the only wealthy nation – that allows such hardships for millions of its people. There are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get coverage. In just a two year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point. And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage. In other words, it can happen to anyone.

But the problem that plagues the health care system is not just a problem of the uninsured. Those who do have insurance have never had less security and stability than they do today. More and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job, or change your job, you’ll lose your health insurance too. More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won’t pay the full cost of care. It happens every day.

One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn’t reported gallstones that he didn’t even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it. Another woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne. By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer more than doubled in size. That is heart-breaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America.

Then there’s the problem of rising costs. We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren’t any healthier for it. This is one of the reasons that insurance premiums have gone up three times faster than wages. It’s why so many employers – especially small businesses – are forcing their employees to pay more for insurance, or are dropping their coverage entirely. It’s why so many aspiring entrepreneurs cannot afford to open a business in the first place, and why American businesses that compete internationally – like our automakers – are at a huge disadvantage. And it’s why those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it – about $1000 per year that pays for somebody else’s emergency room and charitable care.

Finally, our health care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers. When health care costs grow at the rate they have, it puts greater pressure on programs like Medicare and Medicaid. If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined. Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close.

These are the facts. Nobody disputes them. We know we must reform this system. The question is how.

There are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada’s, where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everyone. On the right, there are those who argue that we should end the employer-based system and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.

I have to say that there are arguments to be made for both approaches. But either one would represent a radical shift that would disrupt the health care most people currently have. Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn’t, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch. And that is precisely what those of you in Congress have tried to do over the past several months.

During that time, we have seen Washington at its best and its worst.

We have seen many in this chamber work tirelessly for the better part of this year to offer thoughtful ideas about how to achieve reform. Of the five committees asked to develop bills, four have completed their work, and the Senate Finance Committee announced today that it will move forward next week. That has never happened before. Our overall efforts have been supported by an unprecedented coalition of doctors and nurses; hospitals, seniors’ groups and even drug companies – many of whom opposed reform in the past. And there is agreement in this chamber on about eighty percent of what needs to be done, putting us closer to the goal of reform than we have ever been.

But what we have also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have toward their own government. Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge. And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned.

Well the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed. Now is the season for action. Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together, and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do. Now is the time to deliver on health care.

The plan I’m announcing tonight would meet three basic goals:

It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance to those who don’t. And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government. It’s a plan that asks everyone to take responsibility for meeting this challenge – not just government and insurance companies, but employers and individuals. And it’s a plan that incorporates ideas from Senators and Congressmen; from Democrats and Republicans – and yes, from some of my opponents in both the primary and general election.

Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan:

First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.

What this plan will do is to make the insurance you have work better for you. Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick. And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies – because there’s no reason we shouldn’t be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives.

That’s what Americans who have health insurance can expect from this plan – more security and stability.

Now, if you’re one of the tens of millions of Americans who don’t currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage. We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange – a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices. Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers. As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage. This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance. It’s how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it’s time to give every American the same opportunity that we’ve given ourselves.

For those individuals and small businesses who still cannot afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we will provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need. And all insurance companies that want access to this new marketplace will have to abide by the consumer protections I already mentioned. This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right. In the meantime, for those Americans who can’t get insurance today because they have pre-existing medical conditions, we will immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become seriously ill. This was a good idea when Senator John McCain proposed it in the campaign, it’s a good idea now, and we should embrace it.

Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those – particularly the young and healthy – who still want to take the risk and go without coverage. There may still be companies that refuse to do right by their workers. The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don’t sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for those people’s expensive emergency room visits. If some businesses don’t provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors. And unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek – especially requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions – just can’t be achieved.

That’s why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance – just as most states require you to carry auto insurance. Likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers. There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still cannot afford coverage, and 95% of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements. But we cannot have large businesses and individuals who can afford coverage game the system by avoiding responsibility to themselves or their employees. Improving our health care system only works if everybody does their part.

While there remain some significant details to be ironed out, I believe a broad consensus exists for the aspects of the plan I just outlined: consumer protections for those with insurance, an exchange that allows individuals and small businesses to purchase affordable coverage, and a requirement that people who can afford insurance get insurance.

And I have no doubt that these reforms would greatly benefit Americans from all walks of life, as well as the economy as a whole. Still, given all the misinformation that’s been spread over the past few months, I realize that many Americans have grown nervous about reform. So tonight I’d like to address some of the key controversies that are still out there.

Some of people’s concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.

There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up – under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.

My health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a “government takeover” of the entire health care system. As proof, critics point to a provision in our plan that allows the uninsured and small businesses to choose a publicly-sponsored insurance option, administered by the government just like Medicaid or Medicare.

So let me set the record straight. My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90% is controlled by just one company. Without competition, the price of insurance goes up and the quality goes down. And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly – by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking up rates.

Insurance executives don’t do this because they are bad people. They do it because it’s profitable. As one former insurance executive testified before Congress, insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop the seriously ill; they are rewarded for it. All of this is in service of meeting what this former executive called “Wall Street’s relentless profit expectations.”

Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable. The insurance reforms that I’ve already mentioned would do just that. But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. Let me be clear – it would only be an option for those who don’t have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5% of Americans would sign up.

Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don’t like this idea. They argue that these private companies can’t fairly compete with the government. And they’d be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won’t be. I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers. It would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.

It’s worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I’ve proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn’t be exaggerated – by the left, the right, or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and should not be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles. To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage affordable for those without it. The public option is only a means to that end – and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal. And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have.

For example, some have suggested that that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others propose a co-op or another non-profit entity to administer the plan. These are all constructive ideas worth exploring. But I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can’t find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice. And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.

Finally, let me discuss an issue that is a great concern to me, to members of this chamber, and to the public – and that is how we pay for this plan.

Here’s what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. Period. And to prove that I’m serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don’t materialize.

Part of the reason I faced a trillion dollar deficit when I walked in the door of the White House is because too many initiatives over the last decade were not paid for – from the Iraq War to tax breaks for the wealthy. I will not make that same mistake with health care.

Second, we’ve estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system – a system that is currently full of waste and abuse. Right now, too much of the hard-earned savings and tax dollars we spend on health care doesn’t make us healthier. That’s not my judgment – it’s the judgment of medical professionals across this country. And this is also true when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid.

In fact, I want to speak directly to America’s seniors for a moment, because Medicare is another issue that’s been subjected to demagoguery and distortion during the course of this debate.

More than four decades ago, this nation stood up for the principle that after a lifetime of hard work, our seniors should not be left to struggle with a pile of medical bills in their later years. That is how Medicare was born. And it remains a sacred trust that must be passed down from one generation to the next. That is why not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan.

The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud, as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies – subsidies that do everything to pad their profits and nothing to improve your care. And we will also create an independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead.

These steps will ensure that you – America’s seniors – get the benefits you’ve been promised. They will ensure that Medicare is there for future generations. And we can use some of the savings to fill the gap in coverage that forces too many seniors to pay thousands of dollars a year out of their own pocket for prescription drugs. That’s what this plan will do for you. So don’t pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut – especially since some of the same folks who are spreading these tall tales have fought against Medicare in the past, and just this year supported a budget that would have essentially turned Medicare into a privatized voucher program. That will never happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare.

Now, because Medicare is such a big part of the health care system, making the program more efficient can help usher in changes in the way we deliver health care that can reduce costs for everybody. We have long known that some places, like the Intermountain Healthcare in Utah or the Geisinger Health System in rural Pennsylvania, offer high-quality care at costs below average. The commission can help encourage the adoption of these common-sense best practices by doctors and medical professionals throughout the system – everything from reducing hospital infection rates to encouraging better coordination between teams of doctors.

Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan. Much of the rest would be paid for with revenues from the very same drug and insurance companies that stand to benefit from tens of millions of new customers. This reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies, which will encourage them to provide greater value for the money – an idea which has the support of Democratic and Republican experts. And according to these same experts, this modest change could help hold down the cost of health care for all of us in the long-run.

Finally, many in this chamber – particularly on the Republican side of the aisle – have long insisted that reforming our medical malpractice laws can help bring down the cost of health care. I don’t believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I have talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs. So I am proposing that we move forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine. I know that the Bush Administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these issues. It’s a good idea, and I am directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward on this initiative today.

Add it all up, and the plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years – less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration. Most of these costs will be paid for with money already being spent – but spent badly – in the existing health care system. The plan will not add to our deficit. The middle-class will realize greater security, not higher taxes. And if we are able to slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of one percent each year, it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term.

This is the plan I’m proposing. It’s a plan that incorporates ideas from many of the people in this room tonight – Democrats and Republicans. And I will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open.

But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it’s better politics to kill this plan than improve it. I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what’s in the plan, we will call you out. And I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time. Not now.

Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result. We know these things to be true.

That is why we cannot fail. Because there are too many Americans counting on us to succeed – the ones who suffer silently, and the ones who shared their stories with us at town hall meetings, in emails, and in letters.

I received one of those letters a few days ago. It was from our beloved friend and colleague, Ted Kennedy. He had written it back in May, shortly after he was told that his illness was terminal. He asked that it be delivered upon his death.

In it, he spoke about what a happy time his last months were, thanks to the love and support of family and friends, his wife, Vicki, and his children, who are here tonight . And he expressed confidence that this would be the year that health care reform – “that great unfinished business of our society,” he called it – would finally pass. He repeated the truth that health care is decisive for our future prosperity, but he also reminded me that “it concerns more than material things.” “What we face,” he wrote, “is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country.”

I’ve thought about that phrase quite a bit in recent days – the character of our country. One of the unique and wonderful things about America has always been our self-reliance, our rugged individualism, our fierce defense of freedom and our healthy skepticism of government. And figuring out the appropriate size and role of government has always been a source of rigorous and sometimes angry debate.

For some of Ted Kennedy’s critics, his brand of liberalism represented an affront to American liberty. In their mind, his passion for universal health care was nothing more than a passion for big government.

But those of us who knew Teddy and worked with him here – people of both parties – know that what drove him was something more. His friend, Orrin Hatch, knows that. They worked together to provide children with health insurance. His friend John McCain knows that. They worked together on a Patient’s Bill of Rights. His friend Chuck Grassley knows that. They worked together to provide health care to children with disabilities.

On issues like these, Ted Kennedy’s passion was born not of some rigid ideology, but of his own experience. It was the experience of having two children stricken with cancer. He never forgot the sheer terror and helplessness that any parent feels when a child is badly sick; and he was able to imagine what it must be like for those without insurance; what it would be like to have to say to a wife or a child or an aging parent – there is something that could make you better, but I just can’t afford it.

That large-heartedness – that concern and regard for the plight of others – is not a partisan feeling. It is not a Republican or a Democratic feeling. It, too, is part of the American character. Our ability to stand in other people’s shoes. A recognition that we are all in this together; that when fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand. A belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play; and an acknowledgement that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise.

This has always been the history of our progress. In 1933, when over half of our seniors could not support themselves and millions had seen their savings wiped away, there were those who argued that Social Security would lead to socialism. But the men and women of Congress stood fast, and we are all the better for it. In 1965, when some argued that Medicare represented a government takeover of health care, members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, did not back down. They joined together so that all of us could enter our golden years with some basic peace of mind.

You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom. But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, and the vulnerable can be exploited. And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter – that at that point we don’t merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.

What was true then remains true today. I understand how difficult this health care debate has been. I know that many in this country are deeply skeptical that government is looking out for them. I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road – to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one more term.

But that’s not what the moment calls for. That’s not what we came here to do. We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it. I still believe we can act even when it’s hard. I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility, and gridlock with progress. I still believe we can do great things, and that here and now we will meet history’s test.

Because that is who we are. That is our calling. That is our character. Thank you, God Bless You, and may God Bless the United States of America.  

Poetry Slam Open Thread

Blessed by birthright, Lil’ Tom has well-fared.

But for prime time, he’s seemed ill-prepared.

With Jim’s other good boys,

He’s tried hard to make noise

But in the end, turns out nobody cared.

Douglas, you are the one who is out of touch!

Jim Douglas was quoted in the Free Press saying that Tom Salmon’s switch to the Republican Party should be seen as a wake up call to the Democratic Party. Douglas said that Democratic Party members are out of touch with ordinary Vermonters. First of all, doesn’t the Left alliance of Democratic and Progressive Party members hold a super majority in the state legislature? Isn’t it true that Vermonters voted Democratic for every state office except for Governor and Lt Governor? Isn’t it true that our entire Federal Delegation is in the Democratic caucus? Surly this isn’t all a coincident. I could see maybe a seat or two being a coincident, but not a super majority it the legislature, almost every state office and the entire Federal Delegation. The other question one should ask is would Salmon have been able to get elected in the first place as a Republican or Independent? And will it be possible for Tom Salmon to win re election as a Republican, given Vermont’s voting record? If I were Jim Douglas I would ask myself these question before I ask the opposition party to ask themselves why they are out of the main stream. With all due respect Governor Jim Douglas, it’s not a coincident that the majority of elected offices are held by the Democratic Party. It’s also not a coincident that Douglas isn’t running again, I wouldn’t want to be the third Governor voted out of office in Vermonts history either.

THE FIRST VERMONT PRESIDENTIAL STRAW POLL (for links to the candidates exploratory committees, refer to the diary on the right-hand column)!!! If the 2008 Vermont Democratic Presidential Primary were

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Guardian: Obama’s health care path looking self-destructive

My latest for the Guardian UK’s “Comment is Free” website sort of overwrites my previous one, as the Obama Administration and its centrist allies seem primed to do the impossible after all – unite the tea party right and progressives against them on health care – unless Congressional Dems can save them from themselves:

Obama has lost his way on healthcare

His strategy has been reduced to crude political horse-trading, and is not grounded in a reasoned discussion of public policy

[…] Consider: a bill with a serious public option brings the progressives on board. A bill without a public option, but with reforms such as community rating and support for primary care brings most progressives on board, albeit grudgingly.

But the ideas being discussed now split the difference in the worst possible way. The centrist option may in fact include the worst of all possible worlds; an “individual mandate” that citizens purchase health insurance without a government administered option that could be fine tuned to meet the needs of low and middle class Americans squeezed out by prohibitively expensive (and wholly inadequate) private coverage.

To the progressives, such a bill supplants concerns of altruism and empathy with Singerian utilitarianism. Simply forcing the uninsured into private plans, already virtually unaffordable for many, and without any meaningful cost containment or regulatory scheme, is as crazy as it sounds, particularly when one considers the twin realities of recession, and the fact that health care spending is projected to be fully double 2007 levels in just over eight years.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day …

The radical right wing has one thing correct about Obama … he is adamantly opposed to individual freedoms.

This has been well reflected in Obama’s love of the Kennedy/Bush massive federal mandate on local schools known as No Child Left Untested/Behind/Whatever and Obama’s willingness to mandate we all purchase health insurance that supports the well heeled CEO’s of corporate Unamerica.

Here’s  bit more:

The new federal steps, which do not require congressional action, include:

_ Making it easier for small companies to set up 401(k) retirement savings plans in which all workers are automatically enrolled unless they ask to be omitted. Employers can set default amounts of each worker’s pay – perhaps 3 percent – to automatically be deposited into the accounts without being taxed. Workers can raise or lower the contribution levels, and they choose how to invest the money. They will pay taxes on the money only when they withdraw it as retirees, when their tax rates are likely to be lower than when they are working full-time. A similar process would apply to savings plans called SIMPLE-IRAs.

_ Allowing such plans to automatically increase the amount that workers save over time unless the workers object.

(Obama expands workers’ retirement savings options, RawStory, 09/05/09)

(Yeah: love the headline about expanding choice over an article describing the degradation of such.)

Obama is doing a fine job of carrying on with the cheney/bush administration: expanded war, Wall Street/bank/insurance co bailouts, governmental secrecy, all the above and more.

The wing nuts are correct … Obama is about militant and controling government melding with corporate leadership … the definition of fascism. They just haven’t figured out that Obama is their very own.