Last night, President Obama gave an excellent speech. He was clear; he was passionate. I did not expect him to draw a line in the sand regarding the public insurance option. That would only have given his opponents a clear target. The decision about the public option will be made at the very end of this process when the House and Senate bills are reconciled. There were no real surprises in the president’s speech. What stood out was the reaction to what he said:
“You lie!”
Representative Joe Wilson’s unprecedented outburst underlined the extraordinary hostility that President Obama faced last night.
In recent weeks, many have felt free to call the president of the United States a liar. In each case, they have been wrong. Last night, Wilson was responding to the president’s assurance that illegal immigrants will not be insured. The truth is that No One—including the president—has suggested covering immigrants who are here illegally.
There was absolutely no basis for Wilson’s claim. But that did not deter him. His goal was to confuse—to create uncertainty, and fear. As the president noted in his speech, this has been the conservative strategy throughout the health care debate.
Virtually everyone denounced Wilson—and yet he was not the only person in the room who showed a complete lack of respect for the president. Stony-faced Republicans expressed open contempt by scanning their BlackBerrys or holding up copies of GOP bills during the speech.
And following the speech, the Associated Press took it upon itself to publish a “Fact-Check” of the president’s speech. Once again, we are told that the president lies. AP insisted that health care reform will add to the deficit—even though the truth is that neither the Congressional Budget Office nor anyone else can measure how much health care reform will cost—and how much it will save over the next ten years. Inevitably, these 10-year projections are, at best, “informed wild guesses.”
AP then quoted the president saying, “Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have,” and again, suggested that the president was distorting the truth: “That's correct, as far as it goes. But neither can the plan guarantee that people can keep their current coverage. Employers sponsor coverage for most families, and they'd be free to change their health plans in ways that workers may not like, or drop insurance altogether.”
Of course employers will be free to drop or modify benefits—as they are now. AP then quotes another bogus estimate from CBO which “analyzed the health care bill written by House Democrats and said that by 2016 some 3 million people who now have employer-based care would lose it because their employers would decide to stop offering insurance.”
Here CBO was not “scoring” legislation; it was pretending to read minds. No one knows how many employers might decide to drop benefits if the House bill passed. What we do know is that, if we do nothing, health-care spending will continue to spiral. And if costs rise as sharply as they as they have over the past ten years, by 2019 premiums will double. At that point, we can be certain, a great many employers will be forced to get out of the benefits business.
Why are so many people so quick to insist that our president is not telling the truth? For eight years, President Bush misled us—about weapons of mass destruction, about the war, about the economy—yet in all of those years I don’t think he was “called out” as often as this president has been in the last few months.
Each day, it becomes clearer. Those who oppose healthcare reform have but one goal: to destroy this administration. The hate that you have heard throughout the healthcare debate is fueled, not so much by fear of reform, but by conservative rage that Barack Obama is president of the United States.
Political realities dictate that proposed legislation exclude illegal immigrants, but to do cannot be justified morally and probably makes little sense economically. The notion that if you are seriously ill, we should make it difficult for you to receive potentially life-saving treatment violates all ethical standards for how humans should treat each other, nor is it a standard we apply to imprisoned American felons who become ill, many of whom are deprived by law of other rights of citizenship. From an economic viewpoint, ER visits by uninsured illegals are probably more likely to be unreimbursed than are ER visits by other U.S. residents, with a consequent increase in healthcare costs for the rest of society, and so the notion that excluding illegals is a significant cost saver is very probably fallacious.
As a practical matter, most illegals exclude themselves from venues where their undocumented status can come to light. They get sick and die in the shadows, and so the possibility that on exceptional occasions we may inadvertently end up helping to heal the sick among them in a timely fashion is not great enough to seriously threaten the lifestyle of anti-reform obstructionists, however potent its political impact.
Maggie, I was wondering if you could comment on the GOP’s proposal about opening up health insurance competition across state lines? Also, what is your opinion on tort refrom? I apologize if you have covered these topics elsewhere and I’d appreciate it if you directed me to these posts if this is the case.
I was embarassed by the outburst of Mr. Wilson. Personally, I thought the speech was well delivered and honest. The fact that people do not believe hardly anyone in that room last night is based on previous experience with outcomes. If there is not a true laying aside of agendas on both sides, then there will not ever be a solution. As my grandmother used to say,”Where are the true statesmen?”
I was thrown into the medical arena in 1999 when my 15 year old son, Brad, was diagnosed with cancer. Ten years total reearch now and I have personally seen the waste and therapies that do not work, have been proven to cure only a few and the overburden of the cost of chemo and all the problems associated with that form of treatment.
There are alternative protocols that have been proven on mice to be successful enough to go on with further steps of the clinical trial process. Imagine, 10 years of cancer patients dying when they had a better chance with inexpensive treatments.
Why inexpensive? Because they can not be patented and what does not turn a monumental profit does not have priority on the research list.
If you have doubts in what I say, look at the clinical trials of our health institutiions. Enough could be saved by letting other proven ideas in to treat cancer to finance health care for every American.
All arguments would be null and void concerning who will be insured, how, when.
Linda Kimball
http://www.bradkimball.com
Fred: re illegals dying in corners. Some may, but many don’t. I’ve seen illegals come into the ER and pull out big wads to cash to pay their bill on the way out. They either borrow or save the money for when they come to the doctor, because that’s what they are used to at home. I’ve also seen many illegals borrow the Medi-Cal cards of legal residents and use that to obtain illegal care.
Such fraud will continue no matter what we do. The question of how do we pay for the care of illegals will not be solved until we tackle the issue of immigration reform, and that won’t happen this year or next.
Maggie,
The GOP will not see power for the next 2 decades if meaningful health care reform is enacted. They know it, Obama knows it.
Hence, they’ll go to extraordinary length to avoid this outcome.
Simple as that.
Personally, I was underwhelmed by what the President had to offer this nation. But I’ve been spoiled by several years of practice in Canada, so I’m pretty demanding when it comes to health care for all.
Indeed, it is a matter of trust, and the public has little trust in government and its ties to industry, healthcare, wall street, unions, activists, big oil, etc. etc.
Trust is earned and the current group is not doing what it takes to earn trust. Lets see Obama et. al. toss as many greedy types under the bus ASAP, especially a greedy gus or two who supported his election.
He’s gotta do it simply to prove he is different.
Oh, and my earlier comment, Axelrod needs to not be a spokesperson, he is ineffective. If there ever was a Czar to have, its Wendell Murray.
Maggie:
Indeed, no truer words can be uttered than ‘Inevitably, these 10-year projections are, at best, “informed wild guesses.’
Washington DC is essentially drowning in think tank, and other beltway bandit models attempting to forecast the projected impact of various legislative ‘works in progress’.
The Peter G. Peterson Foundation, commissioned a Lewin group study that essentially attests to the President’s claims that the net cost of H.R 3200 is essentially a ’rounding error’ i.e., $39 billion over 10 years.
Their concerns are in out years, 2019-2029, where the net outlays swell to $1.01 trillion.
Yet, how can one even consider the predictive validity of such a long term ‘variable static’ forecast?
Not being privy to the model’s key assumptions, I very much doubt they’ve factored in the net cost reductions of a (mayov. McAllen) restructured delivery system that integrates both clinically and financially, and drives out excess capacity. Price Waterhouse Coopers estimates $1.2 trillion in waste, fraud & abuse in 2008 alone!
It’s rather miraculous to me that Lewin (a wholly owned sub of United HealthGroup) is in fact supporting Obama’s claim over 10 years (the CBOs frame of reference).
I guess the key irony to me is the razor’s edge context in which these undisciplined ‘drunken sailors’ in Washington (see:http://www.iousathemovie.com, it really doesn’t matter which party is at the helm from a trending standpoint), are willing to grandstand as to which party has a monopoly on ‘truth’ – if you will.
Pogo’s insight may apply here: ‘we have met the enemy, and they are us’.
“AP insisted that health care reform will add to the deficit—even though the truth is that neither the Congressional Budget Office nor anyone else can measure how much health care reform will cost—and how much it will save over the next ten years. Inevitably, these 10-year projections are, at best, “informed wild guesses.”
So we can agree – we have no idea HOW BIG the cost will be? We are only arguing the magnitude? Has there ever been a time in US government entity has reduced cost for their operations?
Cost reduction is never going to happen – it is a Obama dream.
>>> “The truth is that No One—including the president—has suggested covering immigrants who are here illegally.”
They are already covered, and nothing in HR3200 removes them from health care coverage. Yes, we should solve our immigration problem, but not by refusing care to immigrants or their children.
Make no mistake about it, we have a health care crisis. But few people realize why, and that our politicians want to cover it up. They are the source. It isn’t because of ideology or political philosophy or party; it’s because America has this thing called campaign contributions. Cash bribes for favors returned. The public wants health care reform and the insurance industry wants exactly the opposite, and they gave $46 million in campaign cash and the public gave peanuts. Who do you think is going to win?
Yes, it’s political corruption by both political parties, and it affects all Americans and now all countries. Health care is only a small part of it. Because the bankers gave loads of cash, congress in the 1990’s started eliminating banking regulations and caused an international crisis. Big corporations gave cash for a hands-off immigration policy, and then availed themselves of cheap labor. What jobs weren’t taken by immigrants were outsourced. Businesses gave campaign cash that stifled any attempt to limit outsourcing of jobs, and our nation’s economy trashed in the process. Money that should be spent on children’s schooling and health, and on police and fire protection, is spent instead on special interest giveaways.
No, our corrupt political system is the cancer, our politicians are tickled pink, and we Americans apologize to the world.
Jack Lohman
http://MoneyedPoliticians.net
http://SinglePayer.info
One wonders if America’s political leaders will ever notice the connection between the quality of the food supply and the status of the public health. For example, in the Preface to “Food for Nought” (1973), biochemist, teacher, and author Ross Hume Hall, observed “Nourishment of the American populace has undergone a startling transformation since World War II. A highly individual system of growing and marketing food has been transformed into a gigantic, highly integrated service system in which the object is not to nourish or even to feed, but to force an ever-increasing consumption of fabricated products. This phenomenon is not peculiar to the American scene and occurs in every industrialized country. The United States, however, has progressed furthest in the transformation. Man can never be more than what he eats, and one would expect that a phenomenon with such profound effects on health and well-being as a radically changed system of supplying nourishment would be thoroughly documented and assessed by the scientific community. Such is not the case. The transformation has gone unmarked by government agencies and learned bodies. Government agencies, recipients of the public trust charged with protecting and improving the public’s food, operate as if the technology of food fabrication rested in pre-World War II days. Scientific bodies, supported by public funds and charged with assessing and improving the public’s health, ignore completely the results of contemporary methods of producing and marketing food.”
For a while there I thought our new president had recognized the need to change the face of agriculture. For in an October 2008 interview with Joe Klein he said, “I was just reading an article in The New York Times by Michael Pollen about food and the fact that our entire agricultural system is built on cheap oil. As a consequence, our agriculture sector actually is contributing more greenhouse gases than our transportation sector. And in the mean time, it’s creating mono cultures that are vulnerable to national security threats, are now vulnerable to sky-high food prices or crashes in food prices, huge swings in commodity prices, and are partly responsible for the explosion in our health care costs because they’re contributing to type 2 diabetes, stroke and heart disease, obesity, all the things that are driving our huge explosion in health care costs.”
Apparently, President Obama and his political advisers have lost interest in reforming agriculture and improving the quality of the food supply.
Jim Thompson, Jack Lohman
Jim Thommpson–
I wrote “AP insisted that health care reform will add to the deficit—even though the truth is that neither the Congressional Budget Office nor anyone else can measure how much health care reform will cost—and how much it will save over the next ten years. Inevitably, these 10-year projections are, at best, “informed wild guesses.”
You replied: “So we can agree – we have no idea HOW BIG the cost will be? We are only arguing the magnitude? ”
What you ignored, of course, is that we also can’t project, with great accuracy, how much money will be saved.
But we do know that as Medicare the public plan and at least some private insurers begin to steer patients and phsycians away from unncessary tests and treatmenst (using lower co-pays to steer patinets toward more efficetive treatments, which often (not always) are less expensive and using lower fees to steer doctors away from treatments that provide little or no benefit to patients, we will save money.
It’s already happened in communities around the nation that made a conscious decision to lift quality while reducig costs. See this post:
https://healthbeatblog.com/2009/08/proof-that-american-physicians-and-hospitals-can-lift-quality-and-reduce-costs.html
Jack Lohman–
Yes, corporate lobbyists are fighting heathcare reform– particularly those who represent Pharma (they fear that the provision in the House bill that allows Medicare to negotiate for discount will be approved) device-makers, some very-well paid specialsits, and certain brand-name and for-profit hospitals.
But you are wrong when you write that
“The public wants health care reform and the insurance industry wants exactly the opposite”
The insurance industry desperately wants and needs new customers. The 47 million uninsured who might enter the market, government subsidies in hand, would bail out an industry that is now scraping along on a 3% profit margin.
Even if we have a public sector option , private insuerrs would get a large chunk of thsoe 47 million new customers.
(Many people won’t sign up for a government plan because it’s an unknown. Even if they are told it will be “like Medicare” they won’t trust it because, at this point (after 8 years of the Bush administration, and much frustration during the Clinton administration, many people just don’t trust government to ever get anything right.
So, of course the private insurance industry is supporting universal coverage.
and they gave $46 million in campaign cash and the public gave peanuts
Ed, Frankie, Panacea, Linda, Brad,Matt,Fred
Ed -In 1980, Ronald Regan began to pave tFhe way for a corporate takeover of the country. Reagan honestly believed that “the market” is the best solution to all problems, and so for-profit corporations became the model for efficiency. Universities, hospitals, government itself, all were supposed to follow the model of the for-profit-corporation and let the market decide what is best.
The theory was that people would work hard only if they stood to make a large profit. Thus CEO salaries soared into the millions of dollars. Reaganites argued that you couldn’t expect non-profit organization to do a good job—people wouldn’t be motivated if they weren’t earning huge salaries and profits.
Thus, they believed that a private-sector for-profit corporation would always do everything better than government (which is non-profit) ever could They encouraged for-profit hospitals and for-profit HMOs. They hoped to turn Medicare into a for-profit enterprise run by private insuers. They wanted to turn Social Security over to Wall Street.
Meanwhile, for-profit corporations made huge contributions to Congress –buying Congressmen to ensure that the trend continued.
This has been going on since 1980—for 29 years.
It is unrealistic to expect the Obama administration to undo all or this corruption in one year—lor in four years. If he has eight years, he might make a start.
Trying to reform healthcare—and insisting on a public plan option, forcing for-profit insurers to compete with the public plan would be a huge accomplishment. I hope he sticks with the public sector option. But the forces allied against him are very, very powerful.
They include some in his own party, and I am afraid that there is more than a hint of racism in some of the opposition. I don’t think there is a president who has been so hated since FDR. (There was more of a hint of racism in the opposition to FDR too. Eleanor Roosevelt was particularly concerned about the rights of black people, and the opposition spread rumors that she was sleeping with a black man—in many states, that would have been a crime at that time.
See Fred’s link to –14 Things You Need to Know about Obama Heckler Joe Wilson below.
Nevertheless, Obama is going to have to take this one step at a time. First, healthcare.
Then focus on the larger economy—and think about getting new financial advisers.
Frankie—
You write: “The GOP will not see power for the next 2 decades if meaningful health care reform is enacted. They know it, Obama knows it.Hence, they’ll go to extraordinary length to avoid this outcome.”
This is true. This is what the GOP fears. Though I would add, even if we enact meaningful reform, not everyone is going to be happy.
You have practiced in Canada—and understand the strength of their system. But in the U.S., some physicians really don’t want government involvement in health care. They don’t’ like the idea of evidence-based national guidelines for best-practice. They don’t want to be asked to collaborate with each other and with hospitals in accountable care organizations. They like doing things the way they have always done them, without anyone looking over their shoulder.
Many hospital CEOs don’t want government suggesting that we’re not going to pay them 15% to 20% more than it costs to efficient care for their patients so that they can pay invest in hotel-like amenities, redundant very expensive equipment, that the community doesn’t need etc.
Many patients won’t like being told that they don’t need an MRI. That the fact their brother-in-law had an MRI isn’t a reason why they should have one. Or that angioplasty is only going to provide a short-term answer that their angina. That what they need to do is exercise, take medication, change their diet. . .Yet this is what the medical evidence shows.
It’s going to be a big adjustment very everyone. And its going to take a while—probably years—for people to being to understand that less expensive, less aggressive care is often better care.
Panacea—I live in NYC where there are many illegal immigrants.
Trust me, few have big wads of cash.
And by the way, how could you tell that they were “illegal immigrants” just by looking at them?”
The only folks in NYC who tend to have big wads of cash are a) drug-dealers and b) people who own cash businesses and don’t take credit cards (Some restaurants, for instance, that don’t want to report their full income to the government and pay the taxes they owe.
Very few illegal immigrants are dealing drugs on the corner. Perhaps in Miami, but not here. They don’t want high visibility and we have home-grown drug-dealers who would not welcome the competition.
And very few illegal immigrants own restaurants. Being illegal makes it very, very hard to get a liquor license.
Linda—
I do believe that researchers are more interested in cancer treatments that could be highly profitable. There was a time when most medical research was done by academics who would not profit from in it. They were motivated by a love of science, a desire to help patients, and of course the enormous prestige that comes with being part of a medical break-through. But they weren’t going to make a fortune on it. So whether it could be patented and whether it would sell was not a prime concern.
But the Bayh-Dole legislation changed all of that. (I write about Bayh-Dole here http://www.healthbeatblog.org/2008/05/bayh-dole-and-t.html )
I’m not an oncologist and don’t know enough about alternative treatments for cancer to know whether there really are relatively inexpensive, viable treatments out there. If there were treatments that saved lived that we weren’t using I think we would have heard about them from other countries, like Sweden, where medicine isn’t profit-driven.
That said, I recently spoke with a very intelligent woman whose mother and sister both died of the same type of cancer. The mother died in the U.S., the sister lived in the Netherlands and was treated there. The sister’s experience was much, much better. She was able to work and lead a fairly normal life until just before the end.
The mother suffered greatly. I suspect the mother was exposed to treatments that her little good. Perhaps she lived a few months longer than the sister, I don’t know. But the family (which is medically sophisticated) felt the sister received much better treatment.
Brad—
Yes, where are the statesmen? I’m afraid that there are very few left in Congress.
The responsible intelligent Republicans were driven out of Congress by the neo-conservatives, Karl Rove, et.al.
And many responsible, intelligent progressives—people like Bill Bradley gave up, discouraged by the corruption and how hard it had become to accomplish anything, particularly after the conservatives took over Congress –from the mid-nineties, through the 8 years that GWB was in office.
I’m hoping that the 2010 Congressional elections will bring some new blood to Congress. I don’t care whether they are Democrats, Independents or Republicans as long as they are honest, intelligent and show spine. Though I would add that Republicans who fit that description would probably have trouble getting support from a national party still dominated by the Cheneys of the world. But, eventually, this may change. Over time, everything changes.
Kristi—
No apologies needed. I welcome new readers to HealthBeat, and don’t expect them to read through two years of often lengthy posts before joining the conversation. (I only mind if I provide links on the topic, they don’t bother to read it, and then keep on making an argument based on misinformation.)
Anyway, here’s the two-part post that I’ve written on malpractice URL URL
I would add only that in states that have passed “tort reform” that puts caps on malpractice awards, we haven’t seen a reduction in over-treatment (Texas is a good example.) So it doesn’t seem that tort reform solves that problem.
In his recent speech President Obama suggested pilot projects in various states to try to find out what would work. I think legislation that protected doctors who engaged in “shared-decision making” would really help. The state of Washington has already passed such legislation. And the House bill now under consideration would pay medical professionals for the time it takes to let patients share in the decision-making. (I’ve written about shared decision-making here) http://www.healthbeatblog.org/2008/05/medical-malpr-1.html
On opening up health insurance competition so insurers can complete across state lines, I believe the goal is to get around the regulations in some states that say that private insurers cannot deny coverage because of a pre-existing condition and cannot charge a patient more because of a pre-existing condition (known as guaranteed issue and community rating.) In states that have these regulation, premiums are higher—because sick people are allowed into the insurance pool.
This is the way it should be.
Matt—
I agree, morally, it is wrong to deny healthcare to any human being who is sick or dying. In particular, it makes no economic sense to deny care to the children of illegal immigrants.
The child did not make the decision to break the law. Moreover, most likely the child is going to grow up here and live here throughout his adult life.
If he doesn’t receive the immunizations and other care that he needs as a child, we threaten the health of the entire population.
And if he is in poor health, he is more likely to wind up in an ER –or in the hospital—suffering from an expensive, catastrophic illness.
As a society, we are not willing to let people die in the street (though you are right, some illegals die in the shadows because they fear being caught by immigration and “sent back”)
I believe that children and pregnant women should receive care, no questions asked. And anyone who needs emergency care should receive it, no questions asked.
The only place where we probably should draw a line is in cases where someone comes to the country illegally because he or she is already sick and is seeking free medical care.
Though I would like to see us make a real effort to provide healthcare in poor, bordering companies like Mexico. The French have created “Doctors without borders” and they provide free health care all over the world.
It would seem that the U.S. could provide our own “Doctors without Borders” and provide care in Mexico, Central America, Latin America, the Dominican Republic, etc.
I know that we do some of this , but I’m thinking of a larger scale effort—a large non-profit like “Doctors Without Borders” I’d offer loan-forgiveness for med students willing to join for two or three years.
Fred—
Thanks very much for the links. I urge everyone to click on them.
In particular 14 things you should know about Joe Wilson. I was going to cross-post form that piece –but then saw your comment.
Maggie:
When we discuss for-profit and not-for profit, we need to remember that not-for profits are allowed by law to pay their employees reasonably.
Yes, much of the CEO compensation would be considered unreasonable in the not-for-profit sector.
But the fact still remains that employees of all organizations need to be compensated reasonably.
This reasonable pay suggests that employees need to make a profit, i.e., have enough disposable income to survive and even have a little fun.
Even if we did away with for-profit insurers, and had only the government left as an insurer, the government employees as well as the doctors and hospitals would have to be paid reasonably.
That being said, even reducing the waste and fraud, we are still left with an expensive not-for profit system.
That, of course, is assuming the government does not operate at a loss as an insurer, which is a huge assumption, based on its history.
Don Levit
Well Maggie, I had given up, but I see you as too valuable to just give up on you. I decided I will try and try again. Call me an optimist.
My point, again, is that this is a trust issue that is determined by opinion. I am not saying that corruption needs to be fixed first before healthcare. I am saying that the prosecution of corruption can be a trust builder.
Tossing a few well known bad-doers under the bus, individually or as part of investigations of certain providers, payors, or producers would do WONDERS for trust.
The worst of the worst are low hanging fruit, and likely have been investigated already to some extent. There have been some pretty high profile Pharma busts lately (largely based on the ineffective whistleblower laws we have). RICO or Sherman anti-trust are much better tools I believe than qui tam.
Now its time to put some healthcare systems and insurers on the front page for being greedy and careless with people’s lives. Best if they were donors to winning politicians in the last election.
This is needed for public confidence building, the trust that we can believe that things have changed. And it needs to happen now, its too slow if it doesnt.
Its is trust building that will resound with all citizens, whatever their political party. We all can agree that corruption and greed in healhcare is wrong and that some real enforcement is needed.
Frankly, this is what gets me about the progressives (of which I am not, although I do agree with many of the progressive left).
Just because the idea is not invented by the progressives does not make it bad or not important.
In hopes,
Maggie, thanks for the kind response. I think you should do an entire post on the whole opening up competition across state lines argument as this seems to be where Republicans are trying to push healthcare reform. Given their lack of congressional seats they are unlikely to succeed, but I do think this particular argument deserves a thorough/detailed rebuttal.
Ed,
Ed –I do appreciate the fact that you feel I’m worth the effort.
And I mean that seriously.
I certainly woudl like to throw some Pharma exectuives and others under the bus.
And I agree that this would help restore faith the president among many progressives–and idependents who just can’t stand the corruption in our government.
I’m just saying that it’s not going to happen because:
1)By temperament, Obama is just not a confrontational person.
During the primary, I originally supported Hillary because: she understands just who the Cheney/Conservatives are and she would understand that even in defest, they will make this a bloody battle. When necessary, Hillary could be ruthless.
I was afraid Obama just wasn’t enough of a fighter.
Certainly, he’s not a street-fighter.
But, as Cheney would say in a very differnt context, “we have to work with the [president] we’ve got.”
In many ways I admire Obama: he is very intelligent, thoughtful, fair-minded, articulate, capable of making a truly passoinate speech.
But at this moment in time, I have to admit that it would be useful to have someone more like LBJ in the White House. (When it came to civil rights, LBJ
was ruthless. )
I was hoping that Rahm Emanuel would be this admiistration’s LBJ. But
I am concerned that Rahm might more inclined to make deals with lobbyists–
raising money for the party.
I hope I’m wrong.
Finally, and most importantly, you are expecting Obama to undo 29 years of American history in 8 months.
I don’t konw if you’re old enough to remember fight for civil rights. It went on for years.
It involved people outside of govt’ (Martin Luther King , Malcomn X, thousands of people who were willing to give their lives and risk their lives to support them ) as well as Robert Kennedy (no friend of LBJ), as well as LBJ.
What needs to be done in this country today is as huge as civil rights.
One president can’t do it alone.
How may Americans would be willing to “sit-in” at Pfizer headquarters?
Would you be willing to do it if you knew there was a chance (not a huge chance, but a chance) that you might be beaten, beatn to death, or shot by a policeman trying to restore order?
Those are the chances that people took when supporting civil rights.
Don’t expect Obama to somehow, miraculously, undo 29 years of America history without some help from the many people who are criticizing him.
Natt–
Thanks for your comment.
So much is happenig right now, that I’m trying to focus on the things that
are on the table –and likely to happen.
But I agree that this across-state-lines argument needs to be addressed.
Just a limit to what I can do, even when working 24/7.
Maggie, thanks for responding to me again. I completely understand, but I hope you can address it eventually. Keep up the good work.
OK Maggie, point well taken. Then a congressperson needs to take up the charge and lay low some of the biggest offenders. Hospitals not just Pharma and Insurers. The “non-profits” who care more about money than patients.
Waxman, Frank, lots of them are not afraid of confrontation. Have one of them pick on the low hanging fruit with hearings. Do that and they will gain 100% respect, even from Fox News.
This isn’t just about Obama, its about anyone who can help. We folks will believe that he is for it if it happens.
I repeat, this is a trust issue, and we need some examples.
I just don’t understand why this isnt happening, and if it isn’t, what does that mean? To the average citizen, it prompts us to wonder who much friend protection is going on in DC.
We believe the worst unless we see differently.
Ed–
I agree that Waxman and Frank would be more than willing to stand up against the lobbyists.
But they can’t call for hearings unless others on the commitees that they serve on on will vote for hearings. (One legislator can’t od that)
And, these days, there are very, very few Congresspeople willing to stand up
Many in the Black Caucus, will– but they don’t have that much power. Too few people, too spread out.
Maybe one on a powerful commmitte–not enough to call for a hearing.
Meanwhile many strong Democrats just gave up and dropped out of Congress in the 1990s. (I think of Bil Bradley)
And many basically honest, very intelligent Repulicans and independents were drivem out of Congress by Karl Rove et. al.
I hope that after the 2010 election we will have more very strong people in Congress.
Obama was elected by a new coalition.
Those people discovered that their votes actually do make a difference. I think they might come out in large numbers in 2010.
We need to rebuild the group of people who are willing to stand up.
Clearly, you’re one, I’m one. . . . But so many people don’t understand the issues.
If they did, they would join us
That’s why I spend so much time on this blog.
Maggie wrote:
“I hope that after the 2010 election we will have more very strong people in Congress.
Obama was elected by a new coalition.
Those people discovered that their votes actually do make a difference. I think they might come out in large numbers in 2010.”
—————-
I think the teaparty and town meeting desperation efforts by conservatives are an indication that their party, the Republican party, knows that if Obama turns around the economy and passes some beneficial healthcare reform, the Repubs may not see power again for decades! I believe that fear and that knowledge is what drives the Repub party right now!
Interesting discussion happening here. I just want to chime in from the perspective of the “people willing to stand up” and I can say I am one and I know many, many others.
The reality is this many of us has tried and tried again to do the types of things you’re talking about. Organizing, marching, protesting. The reality is this type of activity costs big bucks. I want you to know at least 5 years ago I read several books on the history of the civil rights movement, because I recognized overhauling healthcare would be no less challenging. Lots and lots and lots of people were working on civil rights long before Rosa Parks took her seat. There’s plenty of us, myself included, who have tried to organize, have gone to great lengths and great personal expense to do it…to no avail for the most part. These heated “town hall debates” that got so much media attention, there’s no doubt in my mind those were somewhat staged and very likely somebody with deep pockets organized those protesters and planted the PR with the media. Where’s our Rosa Parks? Well, years ago another advocate and I came to the conclusion that our Rosa Parks was going to be someone “important” when somebody high profile was finally in our shoes, we’d finally get some traction. We thought that person was Dennis Quaid at long last but that turns out to not be the case, Dennis Quaid just isn’t angry enough to step up and be our Rosa Parks.
The single payers well they sure have been impressive, how did they do that? SICKO had a lot to do with it, they tried to get me on their bandwagon but single payer obviously isn’t the solution, as others have said on this blog before if they would just “get over” themselves and quit trying to win a losing arguement, we could all band together. But I fear those militants are a lost cause.
In any event, we thought we were speaking when we voted for Obama, now he’s in office and it’s all about lobbyists. I keep getting emails “From President Obama” that want money from me. Sorry Mr. President, I don’t have any more damn money, I spent it all darting all over the country over the years trying to band together with my colleagues protesting health care!!! So we do what we can as individuals moving in the circles we can move in. My long, rambling point is, there’s plenty of people willing to “stand up” what exactly and realistically do you think we should do? Form a human chain around the Texas Medical Center and prevent incoming our outgoing traffic? Sure, I’m there, who’s buying the plane tickets for all the others from coast to coast? I can do the math and figure out how many human bodies that would take, and I know I can find enough willing bodies, but physically getting them to Houston is another problem altogether. Plenty of people willing to “stand up” very few with the ability.
NG–
I agree. Those who have held power for most of the past 29 years are scared, and fear has turned to rage.
I go to the doctor, pay a copay and then wait for the paperwork to arrive from the insurance company. Between my copay and what the insurance company pays we are looking at from $140.00 and up for a routine and extremely short visit.
I have looked up GP’s on the property appraisers website in the county in which I live and I have yet to find a GP living in middle class neighborhoods as they did when I grew up. Any physician that complains about the money they are not making can be put into the greedy category.
Linda Kimball
http://www.bradkimball.com
Linda, touche!
I looked at your website…you might be interested in the blog Maggie wrote about the Bayh-Doyle Act if you’re not already familiar with it:
http://www.healthbeatblog.org/2008/05/bayh-dole-and-t.html
Oh I guess I should have read everything before I commented. Well anyway, yes, Linda, we believe you!!