Recently the President gave his speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo. It was hailed by most observers as one of his greatest.
The full speech which is well worth listening to, and which has been hailed as a seminal one, can be seen and heard here.
To hear an excellent discussion of it by Shields and Brooks I urge you to listen to a segment from the PBS Newshour. On the left of that site you will find a listing of recent videos. Look for those under 12/11, scroll down until you find the heading, "Shields and Brooks Dissect Obama's Nobel Speech" and click on that.
With that I must once again regretfully take a sabbatical of uncertain duration.
I say regretfully because so many issues that I feel I could beneficially address, remain.
Health Care Reform is so complicated that even though I have addressed this issue more than once, there is still so much I have not covered and which I believe I could shed light on.
Immigration reform is another; Same Sex marriage, the so called war on drugs, end of life issues, lobbyists and election reform, the filibuster and the state of our Democracy, to name a few that immediately come to mind.
Senator Lieberman has become an increasingly controversial figure and there is much to be understood, both about the man and the pragmatism that applies in dealing with him, or for that matter with other issues that divide Democrats in the face of adamant and united Republican opposition and the need for 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.
The issue of torture and rendition and how we should deal with this legacy deserves focus.
Unfortunately, to address these or other issues, not just with of the top of the head opinions, but with carefully researched facts, which is the only way I care to do it, is extremely time consuming. In addition to distributing these commentaries to some 500 people by e-mail I also publish them in my local newspaper and the ensuing debate distributed as comments takes up more research and more time, not to speak of the time it takes for distribution and posting the comments on my blog, where I now have an extensive archive of past commentary along with extensive comments. I intend to keep adding to that archive.
For better or for worse I do have another life which often becomes neglected in my singular focus on my political commentary. Periodically I must attend to personal matters. And so I take temporary leave.
Until then - See you later! Arrivederci, Au revoir, Auf Wiedersehen, ω˙¯‡Â˙¨ 안녕히, 가세요 and До свидания.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
The War in Afghanistan
As I write this it is before the President has announced his policy. This is deliberate because I did not want my views to be influenced by the President's decision.
What disturbs me is that it is a very complicated decision and yet most people, whether Left or Right hold strong opinions lacking nuance or even real understanding.
Thus Cheney, our former V-P who dithered for eight years about having a real strategy in Afghanistan, or about adequately sourcing it, accuses our President of dithering because, unlike our previous President, Bush, he has a deliberative consultative way of reaching decisions. Instead of going, as the former President did, “by his gut”; he takes two month to reach a considered conclusion. To the former V-P it seems everything is a no-brainer, whether it is torture or escalating the commitment of our overstretched troops, and his Republican allies in the Congress are no different.
The hawks even go so far as to argue that we could have and should have won in Vietnam. See the article in Newsweek of November 16 by Evan Thomas and John Barry but that is so unhinged from reality that it is hardly worth time and effort in refuting, for it assumes that it was important for us to win in Vietnam, which subsequent developments have disproved. Losing did not affect our security (the domino theory was wrong) and today we have friendly relations with that regime. In fact it seems that losing in Vietnam had more positive results than winning in Korea, for N. Korea is a hostile state while Vietnam is an important trading partner. As for “we could have won” assumes infinite patience on the part of the American Public and a level of military firepower that might well have inflamed the region in a conflagration, (we dropped more explosives on little Vietnam than on all the axis countries in WW II) which could have set off the 3rd World War.
On the other hand many in the liberal camp, such as Bob Herbert, writing in the New York Times of November 8, 2009, without evaluating the security aspects of the Afghanistan war, seem to feel, in his words that, “We’re worried about Kabul when Detroit has gone down for the count.” That is a wrong and simplistic, though a populist analysis. When we have problems at home it does not follow that we should ignore the problems away from home, and our security can never be dismissed so easily. Would Herbert take similar attitude toward the people of Porto Prince in Haiti. Would he reject, for example, Obama's inspirational words in his inaugural address, "To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds." Would he also say, “We’re worried about Porto Prince when Detroit has gone down for the count.”
Others are ready to equate Afghanistan with Vietnam and to call for a quick end to our involvement."
As I see it, neither conclusion is obvious and those who see ‘the right course so easily” have not considered all its ramifications.
I have heard that we need not commit more troops to Afghanistan because there is actually no real danger to our security from there and that if Al QAEDA does not find a sanctuary there, they will find it elsewhere, in one of the failed states on the African continent. But if that were so they would have already moved, because they have not had a safe haven in Afghanistan for years, are wandering without real bases, as they roam in the mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan. So the argument that withdrawing from Afghanistan and letting the Taliban/Al QAEDA return does not appear to be valid. Of course, The Taliban and Al QAEDA are not one and the same, but until the Taliban chooses to break the link it might as well be, and there is no indication that they are prepared to do so.
There is also the danger that the Taliban, which now uses Pakistan as a safe haven to attack in Afghanistan, could if in power in Afghanistan use that area as a base to destabilize Pakistan, and that is a far greater danger, though Pakistan, at least for now, seems not very enthusiastic about our stepped up activities in its neighboring state, arguing instead that the more pressure that is brought to bear on the Taliban, the more they are pushed into Pakistan with destabilizing results. This leaves the issue in the grey area to say the least. We are in a situation where we are damned if do and damned if we don’t.
And yet it seems that if we could succeed in keeping the Taliban from overrunning that poor country at a cost that is not excessive in lives and/or treasure it would appear to be the wise thing to do.
But in Shakespeare’s words, “There’s the rub,” for at the moment the Taliban are in the ascendancy. On the other hand that is the direct result of the neglect and inattention given this vital theater while resources where devoted to the wrong place, in Iraq.
Should we not now at least for a limited period see if we can retrieve some limited success from that neglect?
Thus I discount as nonsense the hawks as represented by Cheney and Thomas, but that does not resolve the issue of withdrawal or for that matter a surge. Certainly, the dishonesty and corruption of the Karzai regime does not bode well.
Nor do I join those who feel that the President should be bound by his generals’ recommendations. Our founding fathers, wisely made the President Commander in Chief, not as Bush/Cheney claimed, to enhance the President’s power over the Congress, but to make sure that such important decisions are not made by generals, who have been wrong time and time again, (Lincoln had to keep changing commanders) they misled us in Vietnam, and have never been known for not wanting anything but more troops.
I conclude that it is too dangerous and too early to give up on Afghanistan, but that we must have, if not time lines, performance tests, so we do not get bogged down in an endless and fruitless war. The benefits of a successful pacification of the area are too great not to allow for one last and limited effort.
This view will not earn me kudos from Right or Left, but there are times when the middle is not a straddle, but the right place to be.
What disturbs me is that it is a very complicated decision and yet most people, whether Left or Right hold strong opinions lacking nuance or even real understanding.
Thus Cheney, our former V-P who dithered for eight years about having a real strategy in Afghanistan, or about adequately sourcing it, accuses our President of dithering because, unlike our previous President, Bush, he has a deliberative consultative way of reaching decisions. Instead of going, as the former President did, “by his gut”; he takes two month to reach a considered conclusion. To the former V-P it seems everything is a no-brainer, whether it is torture or escalating the commitment of our overstretched troops, and his Republican allies in the Congress are no different.
The hawks even go so far as to argue that we could have and should have won in Vietnam. See the article in Newsweek of November 16 by Evan Thomas and John Barry but that is so unhinged from reality that it is hardly worth time and effort in refuting, for it assumes that it was important for us to win in Vietnam, which subsequent developments have disproved. Losing did not affect our security (the domino theory was wrong) and today we have friendly relations with that regime. In fact it seems that losing in Vietnam had more positive results than winning in Korea, for N. Korea is a hostile state while Vietnam is an important trading partner. As for “we could have won” assumes infinite patience on the part of the American Public and a level of military firepower that might well have inflamed the region in a conflagration, (we dropped more explosives on little Vietnam than on all the axis countries in WW II) which could have set off the 3rd World War.
On the other hand many in the liberal camp, such as Bob Herbert, writing in the New York Times of November 8, 2009, without evaluating the security aspects of the Afghanistan war, seem to feel, in his words that, “We’re worried about Kabul when Detroit has gone down for the count.” That is a wrong and simplistic, though a populist analysis. When we have problems at home it does not follow that we should ignore the problems away from home, and our security can never be dismissed so easily. Would Herbert take similar attitude toward the people of Porto Prince in Haiti. Would he reject, for example, Obama's inspirational words in his inaugural address, "To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds." Would he also say, “We’re worried about Porto Prince when Detroit has gone down for the count.”
Others are ready to equate Afghanistan with Vietnam and to call for a quick end to our involvement."
As I see it, neither conclusion is obvious and those who see ‘the right course so easily” have not considered all its ramifications.
I have heard that we need not commit more troops to Afghanistan because there is actually no real danger to our security from there and that if Al QAEDA does not find a sanctuary there, they will find it elsewhere, in one of the failed states on the African continent. But if that were so they would have already moved, because they have not had a safe haven in Afghanistan for years, are wandering without real bases, as they roam in the mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan. So the argument that withdrawing from Afghanistan and letting the Taliban/Al QAEDA return does not appear to be valid. Of course, The Taliban and Al QAEDA are not one and the same, but until the Taliban chooses to break the link it might as well be, and there is no indication that they are prepared to do so.
There is also the danger that the Taliban, which now uses Pakistan as a safe haven to attack in Afghanistan, could if in power in Afghanistan use that area as a base to destabilize Pakistan, and that is a far greater danger, though Pakistan, at least for now, seems not very enthusiastic about our stepped up activities in its neighboring state, arguing instead that the more pressure that is brought to bear on the Taliban, the more they are pushed into Pakistan with destabilizing results. This leaves the issue in the grey area to say the least. We are in a situation where we are damned if do and damned if we don’t.
And yet it seems that if we could succeed in keeping the Taliban from overrunning that poor country at a cost that is not excessive in lives and/or treasure it would appear to be the wise thing to do.
But in Shakespeare’s words, “There’s the rub,” for at the moment the Taliban are in the ascendancy. On the other hand that is the direct result of the neglect and inattention given this vital theater while resources where devoted to the wrong place, in Iraq.
Should we not now at least for a limited period see if we can retrieve some limited success from that neglect?
Thus I discount as nonsense the hawks as represented by Cheney and Thomas, but that does not resolve the issue of withdrawal or for that matter a surge. Certainly, the dishonesty and corruption of the Karzai regime does not bode well.
Nor do I join those who feel that the President should be bound by his generals’ recommendations. Our founding fathers, wisely made the President Commander in Chief, not as Bush/Cheney claimed, to enhance the President’s power over the Congress, but to make sure that such important decisions are not made by generals, who have been wrong time and time again, (Lincoln had to keep changing commanders) they misled us in Vietnam, and have never been known for not wanting anything but more troops.
I conclude that it is too dangerous and too early to give up on Afghanistan, but that we must have, if not time lines, performance tests, so we do not get bogged down in an endless and fruitless war. The benefits of a successful pacification of the area are too great not to allow for one last and limited effort.
This view will not earn me kudos from Right or Left, but there are times when the middle is not a straddle, but the right place to be.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
The Achievements of Barack Obama
From the viewpoint of Republicans, who lately have chosen to dress themselves in the mantle of Independence and pretended bipartisanship, Obama has achieved nothing worthwhile, and every act of his and every achievement has been a detriment. That is not surprising.
But what we are increasingly finding is that it is his base that is complaining, “too slow” and some of his acts are a betrayal of their agenda and of his promises. It's strange, but it wasn't so long ago that the complaints were "Too Much To Soon?" prompting me to write a commentary by that name on April 9, 2009 rebutting that fallacious viewpoint.
I think that the criticism is factually wrong and strategically counterproductive. It ignores that Obama has done more in his first year in office since any President, save for FDR or Lyndon Johnson.
So what has he done so far? I will list some of these at random.
He saved this country, and arguably the whole world from an economic meltdown on the scale of the ’29 depression and he did it in record time. On October 12, 2009, eight months after his inaugural Fox Business reported, “The recession, which began in December 2007, (almost a year and a half before his inaugural) has ended…” On November 25, 2009 Reuters reported, “U.S. consumer spending rises, jobless claims tumble."
If he had accomplished nothing more in his first year than this, it should have marked his Administration as one of solid achievement. Instead both Left and Right are complaining about an unemployment rate, a lagging indicator, as being at 10.2%. When the Reagan Administration without having to cope with an incipient meltdown, allowed unemployment to become almost as bad at 9.7%, I do not recall either the Left or the Right indulging in the kind of hand wringing we see now. In economic terms there are still certain laws. The economy must revive, and job growth will inevitably follow. The economy has revived, and only the disgruntled and those disconnected from reality will do other than applaud.
The awarding of the Nobel Peace prize was derided by both Left and Right on the ground that he had not yet accomplished anything, but his success in changing the standing and the image of the US throughout the world, and in fostering diplomacy instead of endless confrontation with friend and foe alike, was a major accomplishment.
He started the process to reform our Health Care System and has succeeded in getting it through the House. Even if it eventually flounders in the Senate, it is his leadership that has brought it to a point never before reached in American history.
But a number of things have already been accomplished in the Health Care area through the stimulus package, e.g. $19 billion has been allocated to help implement an electronic medical record system.
On infrastructure the Department of Transportation has approved 2,500 highway projects.
A $2,500 tax credit to help offset the cost of tuition (among other expenses) for those seeking a college education has been enacted. Nearly five million families are expected to save $9 billion.
He has saved the jobs of untold numbers of teachers and in the process saved the primary educational system in many states throughout the country.
He saved the auto industry and untold millions of jobs in the process.
He allocated $2 billion in stimulus cash for advanced batteries systems. One high-ranking Hill aide called battery technology "the next big frontier" in the automotive world.
Appropriated $5 billion in aid commitments "to bolster Pakistan’s economy and help it fight terror and Islamic radicalism" within the country.
Set up an office of Urban Policy in the White House.
Through the Recovery Act, DOJ secured $2 billion for Byrne Grants, which funds anti-gang and anti-gun task forces. The money, cut during the Bush years, should have massive ramifications on inner-city crime and violence.
Signed Schip legislation giving health coverage to millions of children by a bipartisan vote.
Pushed for and got unemployment insurance extended more than once by a bipartisan vote.
The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 put under federal protection more than two million acres of wilderness, thousands of miles of river and a host of national trails and parks.
He signed into law the Lilly Led-better Fair Pay Act, designed to make it easier for workers to sue over gender-based pay discrimination.
He cut taxes for 95 percent of American workers in his stimulus package.
Tightened limits on interrogation tactics by Central Intelligence Agency officers.
Removed financing restrictions on groups that provide or discuss abortion overseas.
Granted California a waiver to regulate automobile tailpipe emissions linked to global warming.
Ordered the Transportation Department to issue guidelines that will ensure that the nation's auto fleet reaches an average fuel efficiency of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, or earlier.
The day after pill to stop unwanted pregnancies was approved by a new science based FDA.
Dealt effectively with a standoff with Somali Pirates.
Changed Cuba policy allowing Cuban Americans unlimited travel and money transfers to relatives there.
Signed an executive order reversing the ban on federal funding for embryonic-stem-cell research.
Restarted nuclear arms reduction talks with Russia.
Released the Bush Torture Memos, almost without redactions.
Announced a new policy on medical marijuana raids by the federal government.
EPA adopted the position that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse-gas emissions pose a danger to the public's health and welfare.
Stopped the deployment of an ineffective missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.
Took away from perpetrators of 9/11 the positive appellation of enemy combatants and treats them as mass murderers and common criminals, bringing them before the bar of justice.
Put Sonya Sotomayor on the Supreme Court.
I have no doubt that there are many accomplishments that I have overlooked, but anyone who says the Administration’s accomplishments are meager, has a short memory or a convenient one. Carping from the Right is to be expected. Carping from the base is foolish and counterproductive.
But what we are increasingly finding is that it is his base that is complaining, “too slow” and some of his acts are a betrayal of their agenda and of his promises. It's strange, but it wasn't so long ago that the complaints were "Too Much To Soon?" prompting me to write a commentary by that name on April 9, 2009 rebutting that fallacious viewpoint.
I think that the criticism is factually wrong and strategically counterproductive. It ignores that Obama has done more in his first year in office since any President, save for FDR or Lyndon Johnson.
So what has he done so far? I will list some of these at random.
He saved this country, and arguably the whole world from an economic meltdown on the scale of the ’29 depression and he did it in record time. On October 12, 2009, eight months after his inaugural Fox Business reported, “The recession, which began in December 2007, (almost a year and a half before his inaugural) has ended…” On November 25, 2009 Reuters reported, “U.S. consumer spending rises, jobless claims tumble."
If he had accomplished nothing more in his first year than this, it should have marked his Administration as one of solid achievement. Instead both Left and Right are complaining about an unemployment rate, a lagging indicator, as being at 10.2%. When the Reagan Administration without having to cope with an incipient meltdown, allowed unemployment to become almost as bad at 9.7%, I do not recall either the Left or the Right indulging in the kind of hand wringing we see now. In economic terms there are still certain laws. The economy must revive, and job growth will inevitably follow. The economy has revived, and only the disgruntled and those disconnected from reality will do other than applaud.
The awarding of the Nobel Peace prize was derided by both Left and Right on the ground that he had not yet accomplished anything, but his success in changing the standing and the image of the US throughout the world, and in fostering diplomacy instead of endless confrontation with friend and foe alike, was a major accomplishment.
He started the process to reform our Health Care System and has succeeded in getting it through the House. Even if it eventually flounders in the Senate, it is his leadership that has brought it to a point never before reached in American history.
But a number of things have already been accomplished in the Health Care area through the stimulus package, e.g. $19 billion has been allocated to help implement an electronic medical record system.
On infrastructure the Department of Transportation has approved 2,500 highway projects.
A $2,500 tax credit to help offset the cost of tuition (among other expenses) for those seeking a college education has been enacted. Nearly five million families are expected to save $9 billion.
He has saved the jobs of untold numbers of teachers and in the process saved the primary educational system in many states throughout the country.
He saved the auto industry and untold millions of jobs in the process.
He allocated $2 billion in stimulus cash for advanced batteries systems. One high-ranking Hill aide called battery technology "the next big frontier" in the automotive world.
Appropriated $5 billion in aid commitments "to bolster Pakistan’s economy and help it fight terror and Islamic radicalism" within the country.
Set up an office of Urban Policy in the White House.
Through the Recovery Act, DOJ secured $2 billion for Byrne Grants, which funds anti-gang and anti-gun task forces. The money, cut during the Bush years, should have massive ramifications on inner-city crime and violence.
Signed Schip legislation giving health coverage to millions of children by a bipartisan vote.
Pushed for and got unemployment insurance extended more than once by a bipartisan vote.
The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 put under federal protection more than two million acres of wilderness, thousands of miles of river and a host of national trails and parks.
He signed into law the Lilly Led-better Fair Pay Act, designed to make it easier for workers to sue over gender-based pay discrimination.
He cut taxes for 95 percent of American workers in his stimulus package.
Tightened limits on interrogation tactics by Central Intelligence Agency officers.
Removed financing restrictions on groups that provide or discuss abortion overseas.
Granted California a waiver to regulate automobile tailpipe emissions linked to global warming.
Ordered the Transportation Department to issue guidelines that will ensure that the nation's auto fleet reaches an average fuel efficiency of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, or earlier.
The day after pill to stop unwanted pregnancies was approved by a new science based FDA.
Dealt effectively with a standoff with Somali Pirates.
Changed Cuba policy allowing Cuban Americans unlimited travel and money transfers to relatives there.
Signed an executive order reversing the ban on federal funding for embryonic-stem-cell research.
Restarted nuclear arms reduction talks with Russia.
Released the Bush Torture Memos, almost without redactions.
Announced a new policy on medical marijuana raids by the federal government.
EPA adopted the position that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse-gas emissions pose a danger to the public's health and welfare.
Stopped the deployment of an ineffective missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.
Took away from perpetrators of 9/11 the positive appellation of enemy combatants and treats them as mass murderers and common criminals, bringing them before the bar of justice.
Put Sonya Sotomayor on the Supreme Court.
I have no doubt that there are many accomplishments that I have overlooked, but anyone who says the Administration’s accomplishments are meager, has a short memory or a convenient one. Carping from the Right is to be expected. Carping from the base is foolish and counterproductive.
Monday, November 09, 2009
Obama Walks on Water
Many thought Obama walked on water as in November of 2008 he swept to an election victory by the greatest margin in the popular vote in twenty years, gaining his victory by a margin of 53.41% compared to George H.W. Bush's victory of the hapless Michael Dukakis by 53.9%, though Obama brought out a far larger total vote, gaining almost 57 million votes compared to Bush’s just short of 49 million.
His resounding triumph was not entirely due to his charisma or his political appeal, for he ran at a time when the incumbent President and his Republican majority in the Congress had brought the country to the brink of a repeat of the great depression of ’29, where the unemployment rate had gone from 2.5% in 1926 to 35.5% in 1933, when Roosevelt took office. When Roosevelt finally took measures to stem the downturn it took four years to bring the unemployment rate down to just over 20%. See my post from March 12, 2009 and the graph displayed.
Now let us imagine what would have happened if like in the period preceding and following the market crash of ’29 the same policies had been followed as they had in the ‘20s. It is not inconceivable that similar disastrous unemployment would have resulted. Fortunately, it was recognized even by the incumbent President Bush that we were having a banking crisis, which in many ways resembled that of the 20’s, and Bush, who had always preached laissez faire capitalism, took vigorous steps to stem the looming disaster despite his own party in the Congress deserting him. At the same time the long time Chairman of the Fed, Allan Greenspan, long an apostle against regulation, said with disarming frankness “ I was partially wrong" and "I have found a flaw,” but the members of The Republican Congress who correctly have a reputation for “ having never forgotten anything” and “having never learned anything” show that they have learned nothing.
Last week the unemployment rate hit 10.2% and the public has discovered that Obama does not walk on water and has no magic wand. He is being hit with a populism from both left and right that denounces him for helping the banks instead of main street, ignoring the fact that the first thing Roosevelt dealt with was also the banking crisis, with his bank holiday and then guaranteeing deposits. Unfortunately, unlike in Roosevelt’s time when banks were many and small, we now have the behemoths that are “too big to fail.” But of course he is helping main street when he helps the banks, and his stimulus program directly aids main street, its principle weakness having been that it did not allocate enough money to the states to help them out of the crisis, forcing them to either raise taxes or cut back on programs desperately needed in this recession. 50 billion dollars was cut from the stimulus program to aid the states to get the three Republican votes needed to stop the Republican filibuster.
Both Left and Right denounce Obama for not having stopped unemployment from rising as though there were a magic wand that would turn things around by the mere waving of it. As Obama has pointed out the Ship of State does not turn like a motor boat and measures taken nine month ago, which is when the stimulus bill was passed, can not be expected to already affect the unemployment rate, since as all economists tell us that the employment always lags in an improving economy. While for the moment it is little comfort to those unemployed (of course those unemployed take little comfort even when unemployment is low) the economy has now turned around and Reuters, among others, reports, “Productivity surge signals Job Growth to follow. But the agitation about the high unemployment rate is difficult to understand in any case, for the unemployment rate under the Republican hero, Ronald Reagan, was even higher, and I don’t remember the hand wringing then, nor is there much emphasis in our media (Liberal media?) that Reagan presided over a slightly higher unemployment rate, with the unemployment rate then having reached 9.7% more than a year after he was inaugurated, as compared to Obama in office a mere nine month. See the graph and comments on Mark J. Perry's web site.
But as I said he is being attacked from both Left and Right with, e.g. David Brooks in the New York Times of November 6, writing he is doing too much and Paul Krugman writing he is doing too little. It may be that what he is doing is just right, though I would like to see the $50 billion cut from aid to the states restored.
But Obama is also being hit with complaints from the Left that his promises during the campaign are not being fulfilled fast enough, which ignores that our system of government is not designed for fast action with its checks and balances (See Anna Quindlen in Newsweek of November 2) and the non-constitutional requirement of 60 votes in the Senate, a Clinton era Republican invention. But the extent of the obstacles facing Obama are misunderstood and understated even by the above referenced article of which, e.g. incorrectly states with respect to the military policy dubbed, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Transformation is within his grasp, in a pen, a signature, an executive order” which is patently untrue, for it is enshrined in a statute of the Congress which was passed on November 30 1993 in response to President Clinton’s attempting to abolish discrimination against Gays in the Armed Forces by executive order.
As for Obama’s paucity of accomplishments in his first nine months, that too is an invention, or at least a misconception, that I will address hereafter.
As for understanding why the voters turned to Republicans in New Jersey and Virginia in the the last election, thus turning to the very people responsible for the present crisis, I leave that to the pundits.
I can analyze issues. I do not pretend to understand voters.
His resounding triumph was not entirely due to his charisma or his political appeal, for he ran at a time when the incumbent President and his Republican majority in the Congress had brought the country to the brink of a repeat of the great depression of ’29, where the unemployment rate had gone from 2.5% in 1926 to 35.5% in 1933, when Roosevelt took office. When Roosevelt finally took measures to stem the downturn it took four years to bring the unemployment rate down to just over 20%. See my post from March 12, 2009 and the graph displayed.
Now let us imagine what would have happened if like in the period preceding and following the market crash of ’29 the same policies had been followed as they had in the ‘20s. It is not inconceivable that similar disastrous unemployment would have resulted. Fortunately, it was recognized even by the incumbent President Bush that we were having a banking crisis, which in many ways resembled that of the 20’s, and Bush, who had always preached laissez faire capitalism, took vigorous steps to stem the looming disaster despite his own party in the Congress deserting him. At the same time the long time Chairman of the Fed, Allan Greenspan, long an apostle against regulation, said with disarming frankness “ I was partially wrong" and "I have found a flaw,” but the members of The Republican Congress who correctly have a reputation for “ having never forgotten anything” and “having never learned anything” show that they have learned nothing.
Last week the unemployment rate hit 10.2% and the public has discovered that Obama does not walk on water and has no magic wand. He is being hit with a populism from both left and right that denounces him for helping the banks instead of main street, ignoring the fact that the first thing Roosevelt dealt with was also the banking crisis, with his bank holiday and then guaranteeing deposits. Unfortunately, unlike in Roosevelt’s time when banks were many and small, we now have the behemoths that are “too big to fail.” But of course he is helping main street when he helps the banks, and his stimulus program directly aids main street, its principle weakness having been that it did not allocate enough money to the states to help them out of the crisis, forcing them to either raise taxes or cut back on programs desperately needed in this recession. 50 billion dollars was cut from the stimulus program to aid the states to get the three Republican votes needed to stop the Republican filibuster.
Both Left and Right denounce Obama for not having stopped unemployment from rising as though there were a magic wand that would turn things around by the mere waving of it. As Obama has pointed out the Ship of State does not turn like a motor boat and measures taken nine month ago, which is when the stimulus bill was passed, can not be expected to already affect the unemployment rate, since as all economists tell us that the employment always lags in an improving economy. While for the moment it is little comfort to those unemployed (of course those unemployed take little comfort even when unemployment is low) the economy has now turned around and Reuters, among others, reports, “Productivity surge signals Job Growth to follow. But the agitation about the high unemployment rate is difficult to understand in any case, for the unemployment rate under the Republican hero, Ronald Reagan, was even higher, and I don’t remember the hand wringing then, nor is there much emphasis in our media (Liberal media?) that Reagan presided over a slightly higher unemployment rate, with the unemployment rate then having reached 9.7% more than a year after he was inaugurated, as compared to Obama in office a mere nine month. See the graph and comments on Mark J. Perry's web site.
But as I said he is being attacked from both Left and Right with, e.g. David Brooks in the New York Times of November 6, writing he is doing too much and Paul Krugman writing he is doing too little. It may be that what he is doing is just right, though I would like to see the $50 billion cut from aid to the states restored.
But Obama is also being hit with complaints from the Left that his promises during the campaign are not being fulfilled fast enough, which ignores that our system of government is not designed for fast action with its checks and balances (See Anna Quindlen in Newsweek of November 2) and the non-constitutional requirement of 60 votes in the Senate, a Clinton era Republican invention. But the extent of the obstacles facing Obama are misunderstood and understated even by the above referenced article of which, e.g. incorrectly states with respect to the military policy dubbed, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Transformation is within his grasp, in a pen, a signature, an executive order” which is patently untrue, for it is enshrined in a statute of the Congress which was passed on November 30 1993 in response to President Clinton’s attempting to abolish discrimination against Gays in the Armed Forces by executive order.
As for Obama’s paucity of accomplishments in his first nine months, that too is an invention, or at least a misconception, that I will address hereafter.
As for understanding why the voters turned to Republicans in New Jersey and Virginia in the the last election, thus turning to the very people responsible for the present crisis, I leave that to the pundits.
I can analyze issues. I do not pretend to understand voters.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
John Corzine for Governor of New Jersey.
I am going to vote for John Corzine for governor of NJ on Tuesday November 3 for many reasons, but the most important is that he is not a Republican, and that a vote for him is the only vote that will prevent the election of the Republican candidate.
There was a time when I might have voted for a Republican. There was a time when there were some decent Republicans around, like Senator Case of New Jersey, or Senator Javits of New York, or Senator Morse of Oregon. But the big tent Republican Party is no more. They have systematically purged all who do not fit the ideological bent of the party.
To be sure the Republican Party had its genesis in the election of Lincoln and the abolition of slavery, but by 1877 less than a dozen years after the martyrdom of Lincoln, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes sold out the newly freed slaves in order to gain the Presidency. The website Travel and History put it this way: “To the four million former slaves in the South, the Compromise of 1877 was the ‘Great Betrayal.’ Republican efforts to assure civil rights for the blacks were totally abandoned. The white population of the country was anxious to get on with making money. No serious move to restore the rights of black citizens would surface again until the 1950s.”
Thereafter, Republicans and their big business allies dominated the political landscape with such “luminaries” as Chester A. Arthur, Benjamin Harrison, William McKinley, William Howard Taft, Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover representing a dominant Republican Party. Lincoln must have been revolving in his grave. This sorry lot were were interrupted only by the ascendancy of Teddy Roosevelt, who became the only distinguished Republican during this whole era leading up to the Great Depression, and he was never the choice of the Republican establishment. After being elected governor of New York, he was kicked up to the Vice-Presidency to get him out of the way, and much to the dismay of the Republican establishment became President upon the death of McKinley. The Great Depression was not the sole fault of Herbert Hoover. It became inevitable through the policies of three Republican Presidents from 1921 to 1929, eight years, which in many ways resembled the eight years of the Bush Administration. Fortunately for the US and indeed the world, Bush who was only the head of the monster, realized in the last year of his Administration that we were facing a potential repeat of 1929 and took drastic steps to avert disaster, which true to form were opposed by the majority of his party. Also happily, while it took four years between the onset of the Depression in 1929 and the inaugural of FDR, it took only one year between the beginning of the recession of 2008 and the inauguration of Barack Obama in 2009.
To be sure the Democratic Party for most of the years after the Civil War was identified as the party of racism and the Republican party continued to bask in the image of Lincoln, but this was the result of the Democratic Party being a House divided against itself, with the part from the old South hanging on to the vestiges of slavery, and the Northern part becoming increasingly the party of emancipation and Civil Rights. Such Democratic Senators as Bilbo and Eastland of Mississippi, and Richard Russell of Georgia along with Strom Thurmond of South Carolina were determined to hold onto the quasi slavery that continued in the Unreconstructed South while northern Democrats like Lehman of New York and Humphrey of Minnesota worked for reform. Thurmond even ran for President in 1948 on the Dixiecrat Party. But the Nixon Administration’s Southern strategy changed that and invited such segregationists into the Republican fold. Thurmond became a Republican in 1964, and as late as 2002 the Republican about to become majority leader of the Senate, Trent Lott, hailed Thurmond with these remarks, “I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years either." See The Nation for more background on Lott.
The Republican Party gave us McCarthyism in the 1950’s and torture in this century and even the relatively benign Eisenhower ordered the CIA to overthrow the democratically elected President of Iran, Mohammed Mosedegh, and installed the hated Shah, which was directly responsible for the ascendancy of the present theocracy in that poor country.
But what of New Jersey? The Star Ledger endorsed the 3rd party candidate, Chris Daggett, but the latest poll shows Daggatt garnering 9% of the vote, so a vote for Daggett is a wasted vote. The Republican candidate, Chris Christie, stands for all the Bromides of the National Republican party. He would be a disaster for the state and his election would be interpreted as a repudiation of Obama. His main attack on Corzine is that NJ has the highest property taxes in the nation, but he forgets to tell us that neither the governor nor the State legislature has any control over property taxes, which are levied by the many towns and villages that dot New Jersey, and that New Jersey had the highest property taxes long before Corzine became governor. He tells us about the high unemployment rate of New Jersey, but he forgets to tell us that it is no higher than the National average and is the product of the Republican induced recession. He also forgets to tell us that New Jersey has the 2nd highest personal income per capita in the nation. As for the income tax, which is under State jurisdiction, New Jersey is 23rd in tax revenue as a % of personal income.
There are only two ways to reduce property taxes. One, with which I fully agree, was suggested by the NJ Chamber of Commerce in a Letter to the Editor in August of 2006. They wrote, “Property tax reform will only happen when there is consolidation of some of the more than 1,000 layers of government that currently have taxing authority” but only Governor Corzine of the three candidates has made any proposal that would further this objective. He has suggested that money should be put into a fund to incentivize municipal and school consolidations. This is the only sound idea on the table.
The other is to raise the income tax and finance our schools with those taxes. Since the main purpose for local property taxes is to fund local schools, changing the funding formula so that schools are funded by state taxes would lower property taxes and remove a major inequity in school funding.
But the biggest problem that New Jersey faces is its huge deficit, which is the direct result of the popular but shortsighted Republican penchant for tax cuts. When Republican Christie Whitman became governor in 1994, she cut the income tax by 1/3 but never found the savings that would offset this loss of revenue. The result, NJ is saddled with huge debt, the interest that goes with it, and no end in sight. Christie promises more of the same, but like all Republicans will not say what programs he will cut, or how he will finance the debt. If Christie is elected NJ will not long continue to be second in per capita income.
There was a time when I might have voted for a Republican. There was a time when there were some decent Republicans around, like Senator Case of New Jersey, or Senator Javits of New York, or Senator Morse of Oregon. But the big tent Republican Party is no more. They have systematically purged all who do not fit the ideological bent of the party.
To be sure the Republican Party had its genesis in the election of Lincoln and the abolition of slavery, but by 1877 less than a dozen years after the martyrdom of Lincoln, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes sold out the newly freed slaves in order to gain the Presidency. The website Travel and History put it this way: “To the four million former slaves in the South, the Compromise of 1877 was the ‘Great Betrayal.’ Republican efforts to assure civil rights for the blacks were totally abandoned. The white population of the country was anxious to get on with making money. No serious move to restore the rights of black citizens would surface again until the 1950s.”
Thereafter, Republicans and their big business allies dominated the political landscape with such “luminaries” as Chester A. Arthur, Benjamin Harrison, William McKinley, William Howard Taft, Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover representing a dominant Republican Party. Lincoln must have been revolving in his grave. This sorry lot were were interrupted only by the ascendancy of Teddy Roosevelt, who became the only distinguished Republican during this whole era leading up to the Great Depression, and he was never the choice of the Republican establishment. After being elected governor of New York, he was kicked up to the Vice-Presidency to get him out of the way, and much to the dismay of the Republican establishment became President upon the death of McKinley. The Great Depression was not the sole fault of Herbert Hoover. It became inevitable through the policies of three Republican Presidents from 1921 to 1929, eight years, which in many ways resembled the eight years of the Bush Administration. Fortunately for the US and indeed the world, Bush who was only the head of the monster, realized in the last year of his Administration that we were facing a potential repeat of 1929 and took drastic steps to avert disaster, which true to form were opposed by the majority of his party. Also happily, while it took four years between the onset of the Depression in 1929 and the inaugural of FDR, it took only one year between the beginning of the recession of 2008 and the inauguration of Barack Obama in 2009.
To be sure the Democratic Party for most of the years after the Civil War was identified as the party of racism and the Republican party continued to bask in the image of Lincoln, but this was the result of the Democratic Party being a House divided against itself, with the part from the old South hanging on to the vestiges of slavery, and the Northern part becoming increasingly the party of emancipation and Civil Rights. Such Democratic Senators as Bilbo and Eastland of Mississippi, and Richard Russell of Georgia along with Strom Thurmond of South Carolina were determined to hold onto the quasi slavery that continued in the Unreconstructed South while northern Democrats like Lehman of New York and Humphrey of Minnesota worked for reform. Thurmond even ran for President in 1948 on the Dixiecrat Party. But the Nixon Administration’s Southern strategy changed that and invited such segregationists into the Republican fold. Thurmond became a Republican in 1964, and as late as 2002 the Republican about to become majority leader of the Senate, Trent Lott, hailed Thurmond with these remarks, “I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years either." See The Nation for more background on Lott.
The Republican Party gave us McCarthyism in the 1950’s and torture in this century and even the relatively benign Eisenhower ordered the CIA to overthrow the democratically elected President of Iran, Mohammed Mosedegh, and installed the hated Shah, which was directly responsible for the ascendancy of the present theocracy in that poor country.
But what of New Jersey? The Star Ledger endorsed the 3rd party candidate, Chris Daggett, but the latest poll shows Daggatt garnering 9% of the vote, so a vote for Daggett is a wasted vote. The Republican candidate, Chris Christie, stands for all the Bromides of the National Republican party. He would be a disaster for the state and his election would be interpreted as a repudiation of Obama. His main attack on Corzine is that NJ has the highest property taxes in the nation, but he forgets to tell us that neither the governor nor the State legislature has any control over property taxes, which are levied by the many towns and villages that dot New Jersey, and that New Jersey had the highest property taxes long before Corzine became governor. He tells us about the high unemployment rate of New Jersey, but he forgets to tell us that it is no higher than the National average and is the product of the Republican induced recession. He also forgets to tell us that New Jersey has the 2nd highest personal income per capita in the nation. As for the income tax, which is under State jurisdiction, New Jersey is 23rd in tax revenue as a % of personal income.
There are only two ways to reduce property taxes. One, with which I fully agree, was suggested by the NJ Chamber of Commerce in a Letter to the Editor in August of 2006. They wrote, “Property tax reform will only happen when there is consolidation of some of the more than 1,000 layers of government that currently have taxing authority” but only Governor Corzine of the three candidates has made any proposal that would further this objective. He has suggested that money should be put into a fund to incentivize municipal and school consolidations. This is the only sound idea on the table.
The other is to raise the income tax and finance our schools with those taxes. Since the main purpose for local property taxes is to fund local schools, changing the funding formula so that schools are funded by state taxes would lower property taxes and remove a major inequity in school funding.
But the biggest problem that New Jersey faces is its huge deficit, which is the direct result of the popular but shortsighted Republican penchant for tax cuts. When Republican Christie Whitman became governor in 1994, she cut the income tax by 1/3 but never found the savings that would offset this loss of revenue. The result, NJ is saddled with huge debt, the interest that goes with it, and no end in sight. Christie promises more of the same, but like all Republicans will not say what programs he will cut, or how he will finance the debt. If Christie is elected NJ will not long continue to be second in per capita income.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Continuing the Health Care debate
In my last commentary I took time off from the Health Care Debate to focus on the power of money in politics, and my concern with an impending Supreme Court decision, which would allow corporate and union money to dominate our political discourse. My article can be found on the web under the title: "Money and Politics". Before that I addressed Republican Talking Points on Health Care focusing primarily on McCain’s purported proposal.
Now I want to return to the Health Care debate where there continues to be a great deal of deliberate misinformation (lies) and also a great deal of just plain misunderstandings. Some of these can be found in the fears engendered in my own generation who have the best overall health insurance of any segment of the American population and it is a “Government plan” – in fact it is a single payer plan. But it was vigorously opposed by the same groups who now oppose reform for the rest of Americans and who now try to convince us that reform will either undermine Medicare or that somehow Medicare is in fact bad. Thus when we look at the Letters to the Editor column in the NY Times of October 6, we find, e.g. this, “Medicare, is riddled with fraud and waste, has trillions in unfunded liabilities and is not accepted by many of the best doctors.” I think this would be news to most Americans and particularly those over 65. Let me take that reverse order.
1.) Without doubt some doctors don’t take Medicare, though in my personal experience I have not encountered one. On the other hand most doctors don’t take one or more of the private insurance companies and I constantly see signs in doctors offices to the effect that they no longer take United Health Care or Aetna or some other private insurance carrier.
2.) “It has trillions in unfunded liabilities”. That is simply not true. Medicare is now having some relatively small short falls and the same people who oppose reform of the whole system, oppose taking the steps that will make Medicare viable for the foreseeable future. The Bush Administration imposed an unsustainable burden on the Medicare fund when it instituted Medicare Advantage.
Here is what one of my Libertarian physician friends, one Gerry Wachs had to say about it:
I frankly question the $9,000 as an exaggeration, but whatever it is, this windfall for insurance companies cannot be sustained, but it is trumpeted as an attack on Medicare. In fact the reform plan, while cutting back on payments to insurance companies, increases payments to doctors to make sure they stay in Medicare
3.) “Riddled with fraud and waste.” It is well established that the costs of administering Medicare are way below those for private insurance, and while there surely is fraud and waste, that is unfortunately true in every plan, more so in private insurance than in Medicare.
Another letter to the Times from an ophthalmologist that Medicare doesn’t reimburse him for a cheap off label drug so he uses a more expensive one, which costs the government millions. He doesn’t say what items the private insurance companies refuse to reimburse, and examples of insurance companies refusing life saving cancer treatments are legion. He doesn’t even tell us whether private insurance companies reimburse for the drug, which Medicare has removed from its formulary, nor does he tell us what, “off label” means. An “off label” use of a drug means that the drug is being used for a purpose, which has not been proven to be efficacious and has not been approved by the FDA. Physicians use such off label drugs on the basis of their own anecdotal experiences or sometimes obscure articles in Medical Journals.
Finally, I come back to that favorite hobbyhorse of Republicans, Malpractice claims. In previous articles I have pointed out that none of the reforms that have been proposed or have been enacted in the states do anything to prevent or discourage frivolous claims. In fact we have protection against such claims at the present. If the facts proven at trial don’t support it judges can throw the case out and not let it go to the jury. If the judge finds the case to be frivolous he can penalize both the claimant and the attorneys. If that is not enough we could set up special courts, so malpractice cases would be tried before a panel of experts, but that is not what is being proposed. Reform in the states has meant, and means to its advocates in the Congress, limiting awards to “economic damages”, plus a maximum of $250,000 for pain and suffering, which as I have pointed out in the past, means that those who earn large incomes get millions, while a bank clerk who has lost his eyesight only gets that small amount which his/her earning capacity justifies, plus what is left otf the $250,000 after fees and expenses. This is not justice except to those who believe that only the rich have rights, and those who have less are the flotsam of our society to be discarded and disregarded.
The NY Times had an interesting article on the subject on August 31 entitled, “Would Tort Reform Lower Costs?” which is definitely worth reading. It quotes a law professor at the Pennsylvania School of Law as describing tort reform as “a red Herring” and points out that, “As the cost of health care goes up, the medical liability component of it has stayed fairly constant. That means it’s part of the medical price inflation system, but it’s not driving it. The number of claims is small relative to actual cases of medical malpractice.” He adds, “Medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. He adds: “We have approximately the same number of claims today as in the late 1980s. Think about that. The cost of health care has doubled since then. The number of medical encounters between doctors and patients has gone up — and research shows a more or less constant rate of errors per hospitalizations. That means we have a declining rate of lawsuits relative to numbers of injuries.” He adds: “…studies looked at the rate of claims and found that only 4 to 7 percent of those injured brought a case. That’s a small percentage. And because the actual number of injuries has gone up since those studies were done — while claims have remained steady — the rate of claims is actually going down.”
What we need is less medical malpractice – not a cap on the ability to be compensated for the harm done.
Now I want to return to the Health Care debate where there continues to be a great deal of deliberate misinformation (lies) and also a great deal of just plain misunderstandings. Some of these can be found in the fears engendered in my own generation who have the best overall health insurance of any segment of the American population and it is a “Government plan” – in fact it is a single payer plan. But it was vigorously opposed by the same groups who now oppose reform for the rest of Americans and who now try to convince us that reform will either undermine Medicare or that somehow Medicare is in fact bad. Thus when we look at the Letters to the Editor column in the NY Times of October 6, we find, e.g. this, “Medicare, is riddled with fraud and waste, has trillions in unfunded liabilities and is not accepted by many of the best doctors.” I think this would be news to most Americans and particularly those over 65. Let me take that reverse order.
1.) Without doubt some doctors don’t take Medicare, though in my personal experience I have not encountered one. On the other hand most doctors don’t take one or more of the private insurance companies and I constantly see signs in doctors offices to the effect that they no longer take United Health Care or Aetna or some other private insurance carrier.
2.) “It has trillions in unfunded liabilities”. That is simply not true. Medicare is now having some relatively small short falls and the same people who oppose reform of the whole system, oppose taking the steps that will make Medicare viable for the foreseeable future. The Bush Administration imposed an unsustainable burden on the Medicare fund when it instituted Medicare Advantage.
Here is what one of my Libertarian physician friends, one Gerry Wachs had to say about it:
“The government pays the companies a fortune to offer them to Medicare beneficiaries. I pay $0 (that is free) each month and get doctor co-pays, $2500+ in free medications, twice a year free dental cleaning, a health club membership… free glasses, free hearing aid etc, etc. That replaces all the ancillary plans out there for backup coverage. The government was paying my plan administrator, Oxford, $9,000/year to cover me so of course they could offer all these benefits.”
I frankly question the $9,000 as an exaggeration, but whatever it is, this windfall for insurance companies cannot be sustained, but it is trumpeted as an attack on Medicare. In fact the reform plan, while cutting back on payments to insurance companies, increases payments to doctors to make sure they stay in Medicare
3.) “Riddled with fraud and waste.” It is well established that the costs of administering Medicare are way below those for private insurance, and while there surely is fraud and waste, that is unfortunately true in every plan, more so in private insurance than in Medicare.
Another letter to the Times from an ophthalmologist that Medicare doesn’t reimburse him for a cheap off label drug so he uses a more expensive one, which costs the government millions. He doesn’t say what items the private insurance companies refuse to reimburse, and examples of insurance companies refusing life saving cancer treatments are legion. He doesn’t even tell us whether private insurance companies reimburse for the drug, which Medicare has removed from its formulary, nor does he tell us what, “off label” means. An “off label” use of a drug means that the drug is being used for a purpose, which has not been proven to be efficacious and has not been approved by the FDA. Physicians use such off label drugs on the basis of their own anecdotal experiences or sometimes obscure articles in Medical Journals.
Finally, I come back to that favorite hobbyhorse of Republicans, Malpractice claims. In previous articles I have pointed out that none of the reforms that have been proposed or have been enacted in the states do anything to prevent or discourage frivolous claims. In fact we have protection against such claims at the present. If the facts proven at trial don’t support it judges can throw the case out and not let it go to the jury. If the judge finds the case to be frivolous he can penalize both the claimant and the attorneys. If that is not enough we could set up special courts, so malpractice cases would be tried before a panel of experts, but that is not what is being proposed. Reform in the states has meant, and means to its advocates in the Congress, limiting awards to “economic damages”, plus a maximum of $250,000 for pain and suffering, which as I have pointed out in the past, means that those who earn large incomes get millions, while a bank clerk who has lost his eyesight only gets that small amount which his/her earning capacity justifies, plus what is left otf the $250,000 after fees and expenses. This is not justice except to those who believe that only the rich have rights, and those who have less are the flotsam of our society to be discarded and disregarded.
The NY Times had an interesting article on the subject on August 31 entitled, “Would Tort Reform Lower Costs?” which is definitely worth reading. It quotes a law professor at the Pennsylvania School of Law as describing tort reform as “a red Herring” and points out that, “As the cost of health care goes up, the medical liability component of it has stayed fairly constant. That means it’s part of the medical price inflation system, but it’s not driving it. The number of claims is small relative to actual cases of medical malpractice.” He adds, “Medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. He adds: “We have approximately the same number of claims today as in the late 1980s. Think about that. The cost of health care has doubled since then. The number of medical encounters between doctors and patients has gone up — and research shows a more or less constant rate of errors per hospitalizations. That means we have a declining rate of lawsuits relative to numbers of injuries.” He adds: “…studies looked at the rate of claims and found that only 4 to 7 percent of those injured brought a case. That’s a small percentage. And because the actual number of injuries has gone up since those studies were done — while claims have remained steady — the rate of claims is actually going down.”
What we need is less medical malpractice – not a cap on the ability to be compensated for the harm done.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Money and Politics
I have been devoting my energies to writing about the ongoing health care debate and will continue to do so hereafter, but we are faced with a situation that so fundamentally changes the character of our Democracy, that I must digress to alert my readers.
As early as the 19th century Mark Twain said, “We have the best government that money can buy.”
This was dramatically illustrated when in 1896 the champion of the masses, of the debtor classes, William Jennings Bryan, ran against the champion of the entrenched business interests, corporations, and the banking industry, William McKinley. McKinley, who outspent Bryan by an estimated 10 to 1, won handily, proving Hanna’s famous dictum: “There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money, and I can’t remember what the second one is.” By 1904 the popular outcry was so great that the then losing Democratic candidate declared, “The greatest moral question which now confronts us is shall the trusts and corporations be prevented from contributing money to control or aid in controlling elections?” In 1907, Congress passed the Tillman Act, the first federal law barring corporate campaign contributions. States adopted similar laws. Since then, Congress has repeatedly ratified the federal ban. In 1925, it folded the Tillman Act into the Federal Corrupt Practices Act. In 1947, it made clear that the ban included not just corporate contributions, but corporate expenditures on campaigns — and that it also applied to labor unions. In the 2002 McCain-Feingold law, Congress once again underscored that corporations cannot contribute to campaigns. See here.
Thus this principle has stood the test of time, having been affirmed by the people’s elected representatives in Congress time and time again and by the Supreme Court as well.
But now with a court dominated by these same interests, it appears that they are getting ready to strike down these essential restrictions and open the floodgates to the domination of the political process by the billions upon billions contained in corporate treasuries.
The Los Angeles Times summarized potential result when they wrote: “If the justices were to issue such a ruling in the next few months, it could reshape American politics, beginning with the congressional campaign in 2010…
“For example, the health insurance industry would have a much greater ability to target for defeat lawmakers who supported a so-called public option for medical insurance. Banks and investment firms could oppose representatives who favored stricter regulation of the financial industry…And far more money could flow into elections. Last year, the political parties spent about $1.5 billion on campaigns, while corporations earned more than $600 billion in profits.” See here.
Justice Scalia and his brethren on the Right by their questions during argument suggested that in their view corporations are no different from individuals or association of individuals and are entitled to the same rights, but for one who claims to be an “originalist” he ignores that the constitution gives no such rights to “artificial persons” and that Jefferson in 1816 even expressed the hope to, “crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” See here.
To suggest that corporations are no different from associations of individuals they would not have the many rights that are unique to them, such as limited liability or as the Solicitor General put it, “Corporations are artificial persons endowed by the government with significant special advantages that no natural person possesses,’’ or as the Boston Globe wrote, “publicly traded business corporation, driven to maximize profits by market competition and its own charter, can’t rise above that mission any more than it can dance nude. Corporations aren’t “voluntary associations’’ with republican intentions, as Justice Antonin Scalia claims; in a civic sense, they’re mindless, because their shareholders change with every stock-price fluctuation.” See here.
But last, but not least, corporations don’t even represent the views of their stockholders. As I wrote on my blog in another context, “Unfortunately, it is not shareholders who decide on compensation. It is the Board of Directors! And who chooses the Board of Directors? Usually the CEOs. To be sure Shareholders get a chance to vote at shareholder meetings for the Board, and whatever issues are placed before them, but the only choices they really have is to vote yes or no on whatever the management chooses to let them vote on. And increasingly, shareholder meetings are held at out of the way places so as to discourage shareholders from attending. God forbid, they might ask embarrassing questions. They are asked to send in their proxies to confirm what has already been decided. The Chinese communist voting system is not much different.” See here. Thus Corporate CEOs, a small select group would have the power to spend untold billions to further whatever their political predilections may be.
A few years ago in a dissenting opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia sought to counter concerns by reform advocates about the potential corrupting influence of money in politics. Justice Scalia alluded to the signers of the Declaration of Independence as pledging their "fortunes" as well as their "sacred honor."
The solicitor General commenting on this put it very well when she said, "John Hancock pledged his own fortune, …When the CEO of John Hancock Financial uses corporate-treasury funds for electoral advertising, he pledges someone else's."
The impending decision of the Supreme Court may well be the most important event of a century. It could well end Democracy in the US as we know it. Instead of “power to the people” we may have “power to a few oligarchs.”
As early as the 19th century Mark Twain said, “We have the best government that money can buy.”
This was dramatically illustrated when in 1896 the champion of the masses, of the debtor classes, William Jennings Bryan, ran against the champion of the entrenched business interests, corporations, and the banking industry, William McKinley. McKinley, who outspent Bryan by an estimated 10 to 1, won handily, proving Hanna’s famous dictum: “There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money, and I can’t remember what the second one is.” By 1904 the popular outcry was so great that the then losing Democratic candidate declared, “The greatest moral question which now confronts us is shall the trusts and corporations be prevented from contributing money to control or aid in controlling elections?” In 1907, Congress passed the Tillman Act, the first federal law barring corporate campaign contributions. States adopted similar laws. Since then, Congress has repeatedly ratified the federal ban. In 1925, it folded the Tillman Act into the Federal Corrupt Practices Act. In 1947, it made clear that the ban included not just corporate contributions, but corporate expenditures on campaigns — and that it also applied to labor unions. In the 2002 McCain-Feingold law, Congress once again underscored that corporations cannot contribute to campaigns. See here.
Thus this principle has stood the test of time, having been affirmed by the people’s elected representatives in Congress time and time again and by the Supreme Court as well.
But now with a court dominated by these same interests, it appears that they are getting ready to strike down these essential restrictions and open the floodgates to the domination of the political process by the billions upon billions contained in corporate treasuries.
The Los Angeles Times summarized potential result when they wrote: “If the justices were to issue such a ruling in the next few months, it could reshape American politics, beginning with the congressional campaign in 2010…
“For example, the health insurance industry would have a much greater ability to target for defeat lawmakers who supported a so-called public option for medical insurance. Banks and investment firms could oppose representatives who favored stricter regulation of the financial industry…And far more money could flow into elections. Last year, the political parties spent about $1.5 billion on campaigns, while corporations earned more than $600 billion in profits.” See here.
Justice Scalia and his brethren on the Right by their questions during argument suggested that in their view corporations are no different from individuals or association of individuals and are entitled to the same rights, but for one who claims to be an “originalist” he ignores that the constitution gives no such rights to “artificial persons” and that Jefferson in 1816 even expressed the hope to, “crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” See here.
To suggest that corporations are no different from associations of individuals they would not have the many rights that are unique to them, such as limited liability or as the Solicitor General put it, “Corporations are artificial persons endowed by the government with significant special advantages that no natural person possesses,’’ or as the Boston Globe wrote, “publicly traded business corporation, driven to maximize profits by market competition and its own charter, can’t rise above that mission any more than it can dance nude. Corporations aren’t “voluntary associations’’ with republican intentions, as Justice Antonin Scalia claims; in a civic sense, they’re mindless, because their shareholders change with every stock-price fluctuation.” See here.
But last, but not least, corporations don’t even represent the views of their stockholders. As I wrote on my blog in another context, “Unfortunately, it is not shareholders who decide on compensation. It is the Board of Directors! And who chooses the Board of Directors? Usually the CEOs. To be sure Shareholders get a chance to vote at shareholder meetings for the Board, and whatever issues are placed before them, but the only choices they really have is to vote yes or no on whatever the management chooses to let them vote on. And increasingly, shareholder meetings are held at out of the way places so as to discourage shareholders from attending. God forbid, they might ask embarrassing questions. They are asked to send in their proxies to confirm what has already been decided. The Chinese communist voting system is not much different.” See here. Thus Corporate CEOs, a small select group would have the power to spend untold billions to further whatever their political predilections may be.
A few years ago in a dissenting opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia sought to counter concerns by reform advocates about the potential corrupting influence of money in politics. Justice Scalia alluded to the signers of the Declaration of Independence as pledging their "fortunes" as well as their "sacred honor."
The solicitor General commenting on this put it very well when she said, "John Hancock pledged his own fortune, …When the CEO of John Hancock Financial uses corporate-treasury funds for electoral advertising, he pledges someone else's."
The impending decision of the Supreme Court may well be the most important event of a century. It could well end Democracy in the US as we know it. Instead of “power to the people” we may have “power to a few oligarchs.”
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Republican Talking Points on Health Care
In my series of posts on this blog, I have dealt with the crucial need for reform of our health care system, and have decried the inexcusable outright lies and libels deployed against the reform attempts.
While Republicans, their allies, and cohorts have brought all their energy into the attempt to block all meaningful change, they have on occasion pretended that they do want reform, but an examination of their “positive” proposals shows them to be sham.
Thus Senator McCain in addressing his Town Hall Meetings always begins with an attack on the Public Option, which as most of us know is a government sponsored insurance plan, like so many other government insurance plans such as Medicare, which are run much more efficiently than private insurance plans, but which unlike Medicare, which is a single payer plan, would be but one among many plans, and would compete on an equal footing with private plans. But McCain does not discuss the merits or demerits of the public option, he hold forth with “the Public option is the “government option” using a sound in his voice clearly intended to make it sound sinister. That is not discussion – that is not debate – that is in keeping with the attack line of innuendo and distortion.
But then McCain goes on to talk about “his plan” and I think it is necessary to examine what it is that purports to be “his plan.”
He starts by having a large poster on an easel that supposedly summarizes it as follows:
1.) Focus on what we can afford-don’t burden the future. 2.) Insurance Reform to improve access. 3.) Reform Medical Malpractice 4.) Tax Reforms/incentives to purchase insurance ($5,000 advanced, refundable tax credit) 5.) Increase freedom and real competition to choose the best plan in any state. 6.) Risk pools for those with difficult conditions. 7.) Address long term cost reductions 8.) Incentives for Wellness and fitness.
1.) I have listened again and again to McCain perorations and I have never heard him set forth what he thinks we can afford. What McCain forgets to tell us is that the one thing we cannot afford is the status quo.
2.) Insurance Reform – Again it is hard to fathom what this means to McCain. He apparently does not want to force insurance companies to stop discriminating against those with pre-conditions, or against women, or to have lifetime limits, or to drop people when they are become sick. It is only clear what he does not want. What he is for is a mystery.
3.) Reform Medical Malpractice. This is the only area where he is clear but he does not want to focus on preventing malpractice, which is rife in our medical system. Nor does he want to set up procedures to more effectively weed out non-meritorious claims. What he wants is to put limits on how much injured people can recover so that only those who have large incomes could recover significant amounts. What he want is to limit recoveries to economic damages, i.e. if someone who earned millions was injured and could not work for a year they could recover millions, but someone who earned $30,000 a year could recover only $30,000. He would disallow all non-economic damages. Thus if medical malpractice caused an unemployed person to lose his eyesight, or lose a leg, or become paralyzed, they could recover zilch. That is what is meant by Medical mal-practice reform.
4.) As for incentives to purchase insurance it is hard to understand how this would cover the uninsured. It would give a $2,500 tax credit to every person in the US ($5,000 per family) toward buying health insurance. The rich, who don’t need it, would get it. The poor, and indeed the middle class who still could not afford insurance with the $2,500 subsidy toward a $5,000 or $6,000 premium would get nothing and would continue without insurance. How this would move toward universal coverage is hard it envision but it would be another windfall for those who don’t need it.
5.) Increase freedom and real competition to choose the best plan in any state.” What does that mean. Well during the campaign he expressed it this way: “Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products, less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.” McCain would actually bring the banking debacle to our health insurance system. Instead of regulating them – he would free them from regulation. He would make a bad situation worse. Has he learned nothing at all? But there is a reason why insurance companies can’t operate across state lines and it is explained in a post found here. It prevents a race to the bottom. It does not create better choice.
6.) And how would he deal with people who are sick and who now can’t get or can’t afford insurance. He would create “Risk pools.” In other words take all the ones who need health care and put them all in the same insurance pool where the cost of their insurance, rather than being spread over a diverse risk population, would contain only those with existing health problems. Can anybody imagination what the cost of such insurance would be. Only the very wealthy could afford it. People like McCain. This is reform?
7.) Address long term cost reductions. How would he do that? He opposes all attempts to rationalize health care so that only effective treatment would be reimbursed.
8.) And finally incentives for Wellness and fitness. How would he do this? Again he opposes all attempts to get people to lead healthier lives, such as a tax on high calorie beverages, which would go along way to reduce obesity and improve health outcomes,
But there is no substance to anything on the positive side of McCain or the other naysayers. All they really have in their bag of tricks is “NO” and lies intended to sow fear.
Why does the viciousness and deception never stop?
While Republicans, their allies, and cohorts have brought all their energy into the attempt to block all meaningful change, they have on occasion pretended that they do want reform, but an examination of their “positive” proposals shows them to be sham.
Thus Senator McCain in addressing his Town Hall Meetings always begins with an attack on the Public Option, which as most of us know is a government sponsored insurance plan, like so many other government insurance plans such as Medicare, which are run much more efficiently than private insurance plans, but which unlike Medicare, which is a single payer plan, would be but one among many plans, and would compete on an equal footing with private plans. But McCain does not discuss the merits or demerits of the public option, he hold forth with “the Public option is the “government option” using a sound in his voice clearly intended to make it sound sinister. That is not discussion – that is not debate – that is in keeping with the attack line of innuendo and distortion.
But then McCain goes on to talk about “his plan” and I think it is necessary to examine what it is that purports to be “his plan.”
He starts by having a large poster on an easel that supposedly summarizes it as follows:
1.) Focus on what we can afford-don’t burden the future. 2.) Insurance Reform to improve access. 3.) Reform Medical Malpractice 4.) Tax Reforms/incentives to purchase insurance ($5,000 advanced, refundable tax credit) 5.) Increase freedom and real competition to choose the best plan in any state. 6.) Risk pools for those with difficult conditions. 7.) Address long term cost reductions 8.) Incentives for Wellness and fitness.
1.) I have listened again and again to McCain perorations and I have never heard him set forth what he thinks we can afford. What McCain forgets to tell us is that the one thing we cannot afford is the status quo.
2.) Insurance Reform – Again it is hard to fathom what this means to McCain. He apparently does not want to force insurance companies to stop discriminating against those with pre-conditions, or against women, or to have lifetime limits, or to drop people when they are become sick. It is only clear what he does not want. What he is for is a mystery.
3.) Reform Medical Malpractice. This is the only area where he is clear but he does not want to focus on preventing malpractice, which is rife in our medical system. Nor does he want to set up procedures to more effectively weed out non-meritorious claims. What he wants is to put limits on how much injured people can recover so that only those who have large incomes could recover significant amounts. What he want is to limit recoveries to economic damages, i.e. if someone who earned millions was injured and could not work for a year they could recover millions, but someone who earned $30,000 a year could recover only $30,000. He would disallow all non-economic damages. Thus if medical malpractice caused an unemployed person to lose his eyesight, or lose a leg, or become paralyzed, they could recover zilch. That is what is meant by Medical mal-practice reform.
4.) As for incentives to purchase insurance it is hard to understand how this would cover the uninsured. It would give a $2,500 tax credit to every person in the US ($5,000 per family) toward buying health insurance. The rich, who don’t need it, would get it. The poor, and indeed the middle class who still could not afford insurance with the $2,500 subsidy toward a $5,000 or $6,000 premium would get nothing and would continue without insurance. How this would move toward universal coverage is hard it envision but it would be another windfall for those who don’t need it.
5.) Increase freedom and real competition to choose the best plan in any state.” What does that mean. Well during the campaign he expressed it this way: “Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products, less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.” McCain would actually bring the banking debacle to our health insurance system. Instead of regulating them – he would free them from regulation. He would make a bad situation worse. Has he learned nothing at all? But there is a reason why insurance companies can’t operate across state lines and it is explained in a post found here. It prevents a race to the bottom. It does not create better choice.
6.) And how would he deal with people who are sick and who now can’t get or can’t afford insurance. He would create “Risk pools.” In other words take all the ones who need health care and put them all in the same insurance pool where the cost of their insurance, rather than being spread over a diverse risk population, would contain only those with existing health problems. Can anybody imagination what the cost of such insurance would be. Only the very wealthy could afford it. People like McCain. This is reform?
7.) Address long term cost reductions. How would he do that? He opposes all attempts to rationalize health care so that only effective treatment would be reimbursed.
8.) And finally incentives for Wellness and fitness. How would he do this? Again he opposes all attempts to get people to lead healthier lives, such as a tax on high calorie beverages, which would go along way to reduce obesity and improve health outcomes,
But there is no substance to anything on the positive side of McCain or the other naysayers. All they really have in their bag of tricks is “NO” and lies intended to sow fear.
Why does the viciousness and deception never stop?
Monday, September 14, 2009
Health Care Reform – Facts and Fiction
In a series of commentaries I have set forth the misconceptions, the distortions and the outright lies to which the American Public has been subjected.
It is difficult to understand why this is being done. There are some business groups that have a stake in the status quo and I can understand their struggle to protect their profits and increase them, even if it is at the expense of the Nation's needs.
The Republican Party stands opposed, as they oppose all Democratic initiatives, because they see obstruction and denunciation as the means to further their own political fortunes. These positions are unpatriotic for even a “loyal opposition” should put the Nation’s needs ahead of their parochial ambitions.
It is harder to understand the rank and file Republicans who write columns and who write Letters to the Editor distorting the facts, for they have no “horse in the race.” They remind me of the Communists of the ‘30s and even the ’40s who followed the party line no matter where it led them.
In my posting entitled “Health Insurance Reform” posted on August 11, 2009, I set forth unassailable facts and figures to show that we do not have the “best medical care in the world.” In fact dollar for dollar we have one of the worst.
In my commentary, “Health Insurance Reform - Lies and Damned Lies” posted on 8/19/09, I called attention to some of the lies being circulated and the viscous attacks being orchestrated against reform, running the gamut from unfounded claims of “death panels”, the use of swastikas and the word “Nazi”. I waited for some Republicans out of some sort of decency, some sort of honesty, some sort of responsibility to denounce these lies but instead found them using weasel words to defend them, and sadly this included that “maverick” John McCain. I looked for Republican columnists and Letter to the Editor writers to distance themselves from the worst of these outrages, but their loyalty apparently is to their party and not their country.
In my posting, “Health Reform - Reality” posted on August 25, 2009, I quoted at length from a major brokerage house that pointed out that if nothing is done about reforming our present system, we face economic disaster.
Among the commentaries to Health Reform Realities there are three particularly worth reading. Tanya Keith and her husband, professionals, and middle class earners who had insurance set forth the disasters that befell them because of our crazy quilt system.
Nicole Scheller, a recent mother, in another comment to Health Reform Realities related her horrific experiences with trying to gain coverage from her insurance company after she had her baby. No facts, no personal disasters, move these opponents. They keep inventing dangers from reform that must emanate from their own nightmares, or from the Right wing nut factory, for they have no basis in reality.
Roger Berkley is a small business man but with a business much larger than Tanya’s. He employs about 200 people. He tells at length what is happening to him under the present system. His is in the form of a podcast and I particularly commend the antepenultimate message entitled: Healthcare: The Great American Boondoggle, though the two following are also worth listening to.
One widely circulated e-mail about that the Democratic bill, claims that it “would cede vast powers to a “Health Choices Commissioner”. Where do they get such nonsense? I investigated these claims on the web. It appears that this one is just another one of the endless e-mails on all kinds of subjects that are circulated, and I have received many, that are out and out lies, but which naïve people are impressed with, and they hit the forward button. Snopes.com is a web site that specializes in exposing such e-mails. I suggest to the reader that they go here for the top 25. If nothing else it will be good for a laugh. But what about the “Health Choices Commissioner”? This one is dealt with at length by PolitiFact.com that won the Pulitzer Prize in 2009, and they point out that this lie originated in what may be the “longest chain e-mail ever received” filled completely with falsehoods about the bill pending in Congress.
The only part of this e-mail that is true is that the bill provides for the creation of a Health Choices Commissioner. This is part of the Health insurance exchange that is to be set up to create a market place for insurance shoppers. The bill says that a Health Choices Commissioner will run the exchange, and that he or she will make sure that insurers are offering basic benefits and adhering to the regulations. Individuals then choose their own plan from offerings on the exchange. To the extent that insurance plans have to meet basic requirements, those instructions are ultimately coming from Congress. See here for a discussion of this, and for those who want to really know what is and what is not in the bill.
But as usual the liars are ahead of the game. The truth has to always play catch-up, and for many people the truth never catches up with the fears engendered.
I have been wanting to discuss the merits and demerits of the few suggestions that have been offered by Republicans, but so much space has to be devoted to rebutting lies, that there is little left for an honest discussion.
Is a public option desirable? What are the true pros and cons? But even beyond this, if this is the Republican main concern, as it appears to be, let them say, “if you take this off the table we will join you in reform.” But if no concessions will bring them on board, then action must proceed without them, or with such few as allow patriotism to trump partisanship.
If medical malpractice reform is the hang-up, Obama has already met them more than halfway. But except for space limitations, I could show this to be a red herring. What we need to do away with is malpractice, not the right to recover for those injured. This is not a right of lawyers, though to be sure they benefit; it is a right of the injured. If a surgeon amputates the wrong leg am I to be denied an adequate remedy?
Are we all agreed that people with medical pre-conditions should not be discriminated against? If not, let’s debate that.
But stop the lies! Stop the smears! Stop the innuendo!
Debate is good. But opponents of reform don’t want to debate, they don’t want to discuss, they don’t want to compromise. They want delay till hell freezes over. They want the status quo, and the status quo is not sustainable. The status quo spells disaster for the country.
Finally, I commend to the reader the article by Hendrick Herzberg in the curreent issue of the New Yorker.
It is difficult to understand why this is being done. There are some business groups that have a stake in the status quo and I can understand their struggle to protect their profits and increase them, even if it is at the expense of the Nation's needs.
The Republican Party stands opposed, as they oppose all Democratic initiatives, because they see obstruction and denunciation as the means to further their own political fortunes. These positions are unpatriotic for even a “loyal opposition” should put the Nation’s needs ahead of their parochial ambitions.
It is harder to understand the rank and file Republicans who write columns and who write Letters to the Editor distorting the facts, for they have no “horse in the race.” They remind me of the Communists of the ‘30s and even the ’40s who followed the party line no matter where it led them.
In my posting entitled “Health Insurance Reform” posted on August 11, 2009, I set forth unassailable facts and figures to show that we do not have the “best medical care in the world.” In fact dollar for dollar we have one of the worst.
In my commentary, “Health Insurance Reform - Lies and Damned Lies” posted on 8/19/09, I called attention to some of the lies being circulated and the viscous attacks being orchestrated against reform, running the gamut from unfounded claims of “death panels”, the use of swastikas and the word “Nazi”. I waited for some Republicans out of some sort of decency, some sort of honesty, some sort of responsibility to denounce these lies but instead found them using weasel words to defend them, and sadly this included that “maverick” John McCain. I looked for Republican columnists and Letter to the Editor writers to distance themselves from the worst of these outrages, but their loyalty apparently is to their party and not their country.
In my posting, “Health Reform - Reality” posted on August 25, 2009, I quoted at length from a major brokerage house that pointed out that if nothing is done about reforming our present system, we face economic disaster.
Among the commentaries to Health Reform Realities there are three particularly worth reading. Tanya Keith and her husband, professionals, and middle class earners who had insurance set forth the disasters that befell them because of our crazy quilt system.
Nicole Scheller, a recent mother, in another comment to Health Reform Realities related her horrific experiences with trying to gain coverage from her insurance company after she had her baby. No facts, no personal disasters, move these opponents. They keep inventing dangers from reform that must emanate from their own nightmares, or from the Right wing nut factory, for they have no basis in reality.
Roger Berkley is a small business man but with a business much larger than Tanya’s. He employs about 200 people. He tells at length what is happening to him under the present system. His is in the form of a podcast and I particularly commend the antepenultimate message entitled: Healthcare: The Great American Boondoggle, though the two following are also worth listening to.
One widely circulated e-mail about that the Democratic bill, claims that it “would cede vast powers to a “Health Choices Commissioner”. Where do they get such nonsense? I investigated these claims on the web. It appears that this one is just another one of the endless e-mails on all kinds of subjects that are circulated, and I have received many, that are out and out lies, but which naïve people are impressed with, and they hit the forward button. Snopes.com is a web site that specializes in exposing such e-mails. I suggest to the reader that they go here for the top 25. If nothing else it will be good for a laugh. But what about the “Health Choices Commissioner”? This one is dealt with at length by PolitiFact.com that won the Pulitzer Prize in 2009, and they point out that this lie originated in what may be the “longest chain e-mail ever received” filled completely with falsehoods about the bill pending in Congress.
The only part of this e-mail that is true is that the bill provides for the creation of a Health Choices Commissioner. This is part of the Health insurance exchange that is to be set up to create a market place for insurance shoppers. The bill says that a Health Choices Commissioner will run the exchange, and that he or she will make sure that insurers are offering basic benefits and adhering to the regulations. Individuals then choose their own plan from offerings on the exchange. To the extent that insurance plans have to meet basic requirements, those instructions are ultimately coming from Congress. See here for a discussion of this, and for those who want to really know what is and what is not in the bill.
But as usual the liars are ahead of the game. The truth has to always play catch-up, and for many people the truth never catches up with the fears engendered.
I have been wanting to discuss the merits and demerits of the few suggestions that have been offered by Republicans, but so much space has to be devoted to rebutting lies, that there is little left for an honest discussion.
Is a public option desirable? What are the true pros and cons? But even beyond this, if this is the Republican main concern, as it appears to be, let them say, “if you take this off the table we will join you in reform.” But if no concessions will bring them on board, then action must proceed without them, or with such few as allow patriotism to trump partisanship.
If medical malpractice reform is the hang-up, Obama has already met them more than halfway. But except for space limitations, I could show this to be a red herring. What we need to do away with is malpractice, not the right to recover for those injured. This is not a right of lawyers, though to be sure they benefit; it is a right of the injured. If a surgeon amputates the wrong leg am I to be denied an adequate remedy?
Are we all agreed that people with medical pre-conditions should not be discriminated against? If not, let’s debate that.
But stop the lies! Stop the smears! Stop the innuendo!
Debate is good. But opponents of reform don’t want to debate, they don’t want to discuss, they don’t want to compromise. They want delay till hell freezes over. They want the status quo, and the status quo is not sustainable. The status quo spells disaster for the country.
Finally, I commend to the reader the article by Hendrick Herzberg in the curreent issue of the New Yorker.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Health Reform - Reality
In my previous commentaries I talked about Health Insurance Reform because I saw the problem as being primarily one of insurance. Too many people are uninsured. Those who are insured often don’t get coverage when they most need it. The expense of insurance is astronomical and going up.
But as I study the problem in ever greater depth I have begun to realize that I have been looking at the tip of the iceberg. Insurance is only a part of the problem and I have concluded not the major one.
I have concluded that the cost of our medical delivery system is astronomically expensive and going up and while the inefficiencies of the private insurance companies are contributing to the problem they are not the primary cause. But the situation has been a problem since the time of Teddy Roosevelt and has now become nothing short of a crisis, which unless dealt with endangers the economy of the United States. If nothing is done health care is on a path where in a relatively short time it will bankrupt the country.
Let me repeat: If nothing is done health care is on a path where in a relatively short time it will bankrupt the country.
This is truly not a Republican or a Democratic problem it is in words of our President “an American problem.”
Fidelity Investments, a brokerage and Mutual Fund company, is not a political organization and certainly not a Democratic or a liberal one. Its mutual funds total $1.57 trillion in assets.
They write on their web site:
“The rising cost of health care in the United States represents a significant threat to the competitiveness of U.S. businesses and the fiscal sustainability of government finances.
“Reform that reduces the rate of health care inflation is critical to the long-term prospects for the U.S. economy.”
They go on to say:
“Health care expenditures have risen at more than twice the pace of overall inflation since 1970, …the United States spends far and away more money on health care …than any other country in the world. Health care spending makes up 15.3% of GDP compared to an average 8.8% for developed countries.
“…aggregate health statistics, such as life expectancy or infant mortality, are worse in the United States than other developed countries despite the extra expenditure. This is the essence of the problem: health care costs are rising more quickly than GDP, tax revenues, business sales, employee wages or any other measure of national, public, or private incomes. At this pace, health care will continue to consume an ever larger share of public and private sector resources. …it represents a large expense with inflation rates that are unsustainable.”
For Republicans to oppose change is irresponsible. To oppose reform by the use distortions and lies is inexcusable. To resort to comparisons to the Nazis or to euthanasia is despicable.
We probably should consider one of the systems that work, whether the British, the Canadian or the Swiss or any other as long as it controls costs. For an article that debunks some of the lies and myths about these systems see here.
For reasons that are incomprehensible to me, that is politically impossible.
An American single payer system like Medicare is the next best solution! A public option follows close behind. But, and this is directed at my liberal friends, reform of some kind is essential and the proposal, which seems to have support in the Senate, that if state co-ops or other programs failed to meet certain cost and coverage goals in five years, the president could create a public plan on a fast track without threat of a Senate filibuster has a lot to commend it as a compromise.
It is not sensible to adopt the Republican approach of “My way or the highway.” Reform may have to be piecemeal, but we cannot forgo a start because it falls short. Time is short and neither inaction nor delay is an option.
The insurance companies, who have been the most effective entity in blocking reform in the past, make good villains. But they are doing what all business entities do in our capitalist system. They will fight to protect their profits and a review of their profits shows them not to be outrageously profitable. What they are is outrageously inefficient. According to Locker Gnome, Aetna, United Health and Tenet have profit margins of 3.85%, 4.1%, and 2.63% respectively, compared to e.g. Microsoft at 24.93%, Exxon 8.98% and Apple at 14.97%. But their inefficiency is most likely due to the huge amount spent cherry picking healthy people, denying insurance and claims to people with pre-conditions, and finding other causes for not paying claims. If the Health Reform legislation forbids these practices we will not only get people who are now uninsurable, insured, and get insured people reimbursed for their expenses, but we will have taken a huge step forward toward a better system.
It doesn’t solve all the problems, but a half loaf is better than none, and we must guard against the perfect being the enemy of the good. Fighting for a public option is one thing, but making it the sin qua non of health reform, serves only to strengthen the hand of the enemies of all reform. Sometime it is better to win a battle and live to fight another day, than to gloriously go down to defeat, and lose the best opportunity for reform we shall see for a very long time. Right now liberal forces in sniping at the President are doing a disservice not only to Health Reform, but to all the other reforms that will follow once this battle is behind us.
But as I study the problem in ever greater depth I have begun to realize that I have been looking at the tip of the iceberg. Insurance is only a part of the problem and I have concluded not the major one.
I have concluded that the cost of our medical delivery system is astronomically expensive and going up and while the inefficiencies of the private insurance companies are contributing to the problem they are not the primary cause. But the situation has been a problem since the time of Teddy Roosevelt and has now become nothing short of a crisis, which unless dealt with endangers the economy of the United States. If nothing is done health care is on a path where in a relatively short time it will bankrupt the country.
Let me repeat: If nothing is done health care is on a path where in a relatively short time it will bankrupt the country.
This is truly not a Republican or a Democratic problem it is in words of our President “an American problem.”
Fidelity Investments, a brokerage and Mutual Fund company, is not a political organization and certainly not a Democratic or a liberal one. Its mutual funds total $1.57 trillion in assets.
They write on their web site:
“The rising cost of health care in the United States represents a significant threat to the competitiveness of U.S. businesses and the fiscal sustainability of government finances.
“Reform that reduces the rate of health care inflation is critical to the long-term prospects for the U.S. economy.”
They go on to say:
“Health care expenditures have risen at more than twice the pace of overall inflation since 1970, …the United States spends far and away more money on health care …than any other country in the world. Health care spending makes up 15.3% of GDP compared to an average 8.8% for developed countries.
“…aggregate health statistics, such as life expectancy or infant mortality, are worse in the United States than other developed countries despite the extra expenditure. This is the essence of the problem: health care costs are rising more quickly than GDP, tax revenues, business sales, employee wages or any other measure of national, public, or private incomes. At this pace, health care will continue to consume an ever larger share of public and private sector resources. …it represents a large expense with inflation rates that are unsustainable.”
For Republicans to oppose change is irresponsible. To oppose reform by the use distortions and lies is inexcusable. To resort to comparisons to the Nazis or to euthanasia is despicable.
We probably should consider one of the systems that work, whether the British, the Canadian or the Swiss or any other as long as it controls costs. For an article that debunks some of the lies and myths about these systems see here.
For reasons that are incomprehensible to me, that is politically impossible.
An American single payer system like Medicare is the next best solution! A public option follows close behind. But, and this is directed at my liberal friends, reform of some kind is essential and the proposal, which seems to have support in the Senate, that if state co-ops or other programs failed to meet certain cost and coverage goals in five years, the president could create a public plan on a fast track without threat of a Senate filibuster has a lot to commend it as a compromise.
It is not sensible to adopt the Republican approach of “My way or the highway.” Reform may have to be piecemeal, but we cannot forgo a start because it falls short. Time is short and neither inaction nor delay is an option.
The insurance companies, who have been the most effective entity in blocking reform in the past, make good villains. But they are doing what all business entities do in our capitalist system. They will fight to protect their profits and a review of their profits shows them not to be outrageously profitable. What they are is outrageously inefficient. According to Locker Gnome, Aetna, United Health and Tenet have profit margins of 3.85%, 4.1%, and 2.63% respectively, compared to e.g. Microsoft at 24.93%, Exxon 8.98% and Apple at 14.97%. But their inefficiency is most likely due to the huge amount spent cherry picking healthy people, denying insurance and claims to people with pre-conditions, and finding other causes for not paying claims. If the Health Reform legislation forbids these practices we will not only get people who are now uninsurable, insured, and get insured people reimbursed for their expenses, but we will have taken a huge step forward toward a better system.
It doesn’t solve all the problems, but a half loaf is better than none, and we must guard against the perfect being the enemy of the good. Fighting for a public option is one thing, but making it the sin qua non of health reform, serves only to strengthen the hand of the enemies of all reform. Sometime it is better to win a battle and live to fight another day, than to gloriously go down to defeat, and lose the best opportunity for reform we shall see for a very long time. Right now liberal forces in sniping at the President are doing a disservice not only to Health Reform, but to all the other reforms that will follow once this battle is behind us.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Health Insurance Reform - Lies and Damned Lies
In my last commentary, entitled: ”Health Insurance Reform," I addressed some misconceptions about our health care. I pointed out that it is far from the best system in the world. Depending on the criterion we use it ranks 24th, 72nd and 30th according to our own CDC. Lately the UK system has come in for some bashing but it comes in 14th on life expectancy, a lot better than the US, but it is severely under funded.
According the conservative British newspaper, The Guardian that has a cross-reference under the heading, Data: health spending around the world the per capita expenditure on health in the UK is $ 2,784. For the US it is $6,714 and when measured by total expenditure on health as a percentage of gross domestic product, we find that the UK spends 8.4% while the US spends 15.3%. We spend two to three times what Britain spends and get poorer result and then critics of US reform bash the British. Nobody is proposing adopting the British system but we could do worst. It is certainly better than the one we have.
The bashing of the British system got to be such a sport that Investor's Business Daily wrote an editorial saying, “People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.” When Stephen Hawking, upon hearing of this, pointed out that he is British, and it is the British Health Service that has kept him alive, the paper pulled this nonsense from its pages and blog. But the right wing, Rupert Murdoch-owned NY Post, stuck to the lie by writing:
“One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration."
Scary, and a boldface lie, despite the reference to page numbers in the bill. The section referred to according to the Associated Press was authored by Republican Reps. Charles Boustany of Louisiana, Geoff Davis of Kentucky and Patrick Tiberi of Ohio and would authorize Medicare to pay for counseling if desired in the preparation of Living Wills. The AP article goes on to point out that “just a year ago, Congress overwhelmingly approved legislation requiring doctors to discuss issues like living wills and advance directives with new Medicare enrollees. And the government already requires hospitals and nursing homes to help patients with those legal documents if they want support, under a 1992 law passed under Republican President George H.W. Bush.”
But just about any lie will do to stop reform because in the words Republican Senator Jim DeMint "If we are to stop Obama on this, (referring to Health Care Reform) it would be his Waterloo. It will break him."
What is good for the country doesn’t matter. What matters is “breaking Obama.” They wouldn’t debate on the merits. On the merits they lose. And we know they don’t have a case when they start putting out boldface outrageous lies. And so what used to be something they were for, now becomes something that is euthanasia. And they all jump on the bandwagon. It started with that sterling Republican leader Sarah Palin when she put on her Facebook page, “The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.”
Such a system would be downright evil, but no such system is, was, or ever will be considered. What is evil is the lie. One might hope other Republicans would immediately repudiate it, but no, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich defended the bizarre claim by Palin.
Well, I don’t know if such outlandish lies will stop needed reform, but they have succeeded in killing the provision that would allow being reimbursed for the cost of getting advice from your physician on what provisions you want in a Living Will, that, by the way, can provide that you want to live no matter what the state of your health is. If you want to live in a vegetative state for decades you can provide for that in a Living Will. All it does is tell providers what your wishes are when you are not able to do so any more. It avoids the situation that occurred in the infamous Schiavo case.
But the outrageous get even worse, if that is possible. Glen Beck on Fox News actually went into detail on the Nazi extermination programs suggesting the Health reform mimics the Nazis and Rush Limbaugh proceeded to describe the ways Democrats are like Nazis -- a list that included their dedication to animal rights and their opposition to smoking and pollution.
Jewish groups including the Israeli lobby, AIPAC were outraged, but nothing seems to be too low for people whose only allegiance is to the insurance companies and the drug companies and who will use any tactics to defeat what is not an option but a necessity.
I have questions about the cost of the bill and how it will be paid for. We all have questions of one kind or another. Some, particularly the very rich, the insurance companies and the drug companies, may be better off without reform and they are entitled to be against it. But when outrageous lies are used, we know that the opposition is bankrupt. An honest and civil debate is called for. Lies, smears, and scare tactics have no place in a discussion of such a crucial subject.
According the conservative British newspaper, The Guardian that has a cross-reference under the heading, Data: health spending around the world the per capita expenditure on health in the UK is $ 2,784. For the US it is $6,714 and when measured by total expenditure on health as a percentage of gross domestic product, we find that the UK spends 8.4% while the US spends 15.3%. We spend two to three times what Britain spends and get poorer result and then critics of US reform bash the British. Nobody is proposing adopting the British system but we could do worst. It is certainly better than the one we have.
The bashing of the British system got to be such a sport that Investor's Business Daily wrote an editorial saying, “People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.” When Stephen Hawking, upon hearing of this, pointed out that he is British, and it is the British Health Service that has kept him alive, the paper pulled this nonsense from its pages and blog. But the right wing, Rupert Murdoch-owned NY Post, stuck to the lie by writing:
“One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration."
Scary, and a boldface lie, despite the reference to page numbers in the bill. The section referred to according to the Associated Press was authored by Republican Reps. Charles Boustany of Louisiana, Geoff Davis of Kentucky and Patrick Tiberi of Ohio and would authorize Medicare to pay for counseling if desired in the preparation of Living Wills. The AP article goes on to point out that “just a year ago, Congress overwhelmingly approved legislation requiring doctors to discuss issues like living wills and advance directives with new Medicare enrollees. And the government already requires hospitals and nursing homes to help patients with those legal documents if they want support, under a 1992 law passed under Republican President George H.W. Bush.”
But just about any lie will do to stop reform because in the words Republican Senator Jim DeMint "If we are to stop Obama on this, (referring to Health Care Reform) it would be his Waterloo. It will break him."
What is good for the country doesn’t matter. What matters is “breaking Obama.” They wouldn’t debate on the merits. On the merits they lose. And we know they don’t have a case when they start putting out boldface outrageous lies. And so what used to be something they were for, now becomes something that is euthanasia. And they all jump on the bandwagon. It started with that sterling Republican leader Sarah Palin when she put on her Facebook page, “The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.”
Such a system would be downright evil, but no such system is, was, or ever will be considered. What is evil is the lie. One might hope other Republicans would immediately repudiate it, but no, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich defended the bizarre claim by Palin.
Well, I don’t know if such outlandish lies will stop needed reform, but they have succeeded in killing the provision that would allow being reimbursed for the cost of getting advice from your physician on what provisions you want in a Living Will, that, by the way, can provide that you want to live no matter what the state of your health is. If you want to live in a vegetative state for decades you can provide for that in a Living Will. All it does is tell providers what your wishes are when you are not able to do so any more. It avoids the situation that occurred in the infamous Schiavo case.
But the outrageous get even worse, if that is possible. Glen Beck on Fox News actually went into detail on the Nazi extermination programs suggesting the Health reform mimics the Nazis and Rush Limbaugh proceeded to describe the ways Democrats are like Nazis -- a list that included their dedication to animal rights and their opposition to smoking and pollution.
Jewish groups including the Israeli lobby, AIPAC were outraged, but nothing seems to be too low for people whose only allegiance is to the insurance companies and the drug companies and who will use any tactics to defeat what is not an option but a necessity.
I have questions about the cost of the bill and how it will be paid for. We all have questions of one kind or another. Some, particularly the very rich, the insurance companies and the drug companies, may be better off without reform and they are entitled to be against it. But when outrageous lies are used, we know that the opposition is bankrupt. An honest and civil debate is called for. Lies, smears, and scare tactics have no place in a discussion of such a crucial subject.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Health Insurance Reform
Health Insurance Reform appears to be in trouble, or at least that is what the media is telling us.
Should we care? Or is the present system fine for most of us?
These are questions that are legitimate and should be asked by all. After all we are told we have the best medical care in the world. For example Senator Shelby (R-Ala.) told Chris Wallace in June on "Fox News Sunday" that President Barack Obama's proposed health care plan is the "first step in destroying the best health care system the world has ever known" and Senator Mitch McConnell on July 19 said on Meet the Press: “They don't seem to grant that we have the finest health care in the world now. We need to focus on the two problems that we have, cost and access, not sort of scrap the entire healthcare system of the United States.”
These comments are very important because they set up certain premises that if true should give us all pause. Do we have the best health care system in the world? We all would like to think so. We like to think the U.S. is Number I in everything. That is something we should strive for, but in a sense we all come from Missouri, we ask is it true?
Well the World Health Organization has stopped doing these studies, so the latest figures we have date to 1999, but there is no reason to think that much has changed. On the basis of life expectancy the U.S. ranks #24. Japan Ranks #1, France #3, Sweden #4, Canada #12, UK #14. When the rankings are by eight relevant measures the U.S. comes in – hold your breath – comes in at #72.
But many Americans don’t trust the statistics of these “foreigners.” Well the American CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention) does a ranking on infant mortality rates. The latest one done as of 2005 shows the U.S. in 30th place.
So much for the claim that we have the best medical care in the world.
It is true, as some Republicans have contended, that the rich, the prominent often come to the U.S. for treatment - the Shah of Iran, with terminal cancer, came to the U.S., but all that shows is that if you have unlimited money excellent care is available in the US. Very few come from Germany or Italy or Canada, etc. Only a very few of us have unlimited money and whether people know it or not, even the insured don’t have unlimited coverage as so many are discovering.
We keep hearing about the uninsured and their lot is indeed serious. But the same goes for most of the insured who don’t know that when they need their insurance most they will discover that they forgot to read the small print. It doesn’t cover the most expensive procedures or they find the condition is a pre-existent one, even though they didn’t know that, and their insurance exempts pre-existent conditions. And then there are the co-pays. They can bankrupt you if you need an expensive procedure even if the procedure is covered by private insurance.
But let us remember what else McConnell said: he doesn’t want to “sort of scrap the entire healthcare system of the United States.” Well who does? What an outrageous setting up of a straw man. The discussion revolves around the insurance system, not the medical delivery system. The most controversial part of the reform is whether to have a government insurance system alongside private insurance and they treat that as though it were the most outrageous idea in the world. Well, Senator McConnell has government run health insurance along with every member of Congress. They all love it. Every American over 65 has a government run health insurance. Its called Medicare. All are very happy with it. Children who are not insured in a private health insurance plan have access to a government health insurance plan. Its called SCHIP. Parents whose children are covered by this plan are very happy to have it. The poor have a government health insurance plan, its called Medicaid. They are grateful to have it even though in many states it is under funded. As for veterans who are insured under the Veterans Administration program, a government program, they wouldn’t exchange it for private insurance.
None of these American Health insurance plans has turned us into a Socialist state and the insurance companies are still in business.
But now they tell us that Medicare may look good but it under-reimburses doctors. It is true that Medicare pays doctors less than they charge their un-insured patients*, but so does every private insurance company. According to Ethical Health Partnerships, “No matter how much we pay for private insurance, their payment to physicians is either slightly above Medicare rates (for better insurance companies) or BELOW Medicare rates. It is not uncommon for some insurance companies to pay 10-20% LESS than Medicare.”
It is no wonder that I have yet to find a notice posted in a doctor’s office that says we no longer take Medicare, though undoubtedly some don't. However, I do frequently find notices, “We don’t take United Health Care” or some other carrier, anymore. That means you lose your choice of doctor, and your choices of doctors are limited, with most private insurance companies having in-plan and non-plan doctors.
But one of the scare tactics used by the opponents of reform, and don’t be fooled by the claim that they want reform but “only the right kind,” is that you will lose your choice of doctor. They turn the facts on their head. Your choice of doctor is limited by the private insurance industry - it is not likely to be limited under any government program.
I realize that there are other issues that are troubling. Most important is cost. I will try to address all of them, or as many of them as I can, in future presentations.
* who are not only subject to the burden of having to pay all their medical expenses out of pocket, but are charged at a substantially higher rate then the insurance companies, so that they end up subsidizing the insured.
Should we care? Or is the present system fine for most of us?
These are questions that are legitimate and should be asked by all. After all we are told we have the best medical care in the world. For example Senator Shelby (R-Ala.) told Chris Wallace in June on "Fox News Sunday" that President Barack Obama's proposed health care plan is the "first step in destroying the best health care system the world has ever known" and Senator Mitch McConnell on July 19 said on Meet the Press: “They don't seem to grant that we have the finest health care in the world now. We need to focus on the two problems that we have, cost and access, not sort of scrap the entire healthcare system of the United States.”
These comments are very important because they set up certain premises that if true should give us all pause. Do we have the best health care system in the world? We all would like to think so. We like to think the U.S. is Number I in everything. That is something we should strive for, but in a sense we all come from Missouri, we ask is it true?
Well the World Health Organization has stopped doing these studies, so the latest figures we have date to 1999, but there is no reason to think that much has changed. On the basis of life expectancy the U.S. ranks #24. Japan Ranks #1, France #3, Sweden #4, Canada #12, UK #14. When the rankings are by eight relevant measures the U.S. comes in – hold your breath – comes in at #72.
But many Americans don’t trust the statistics of these “foreigners.” Well the American CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention) does a ranking on infant mortality rates. The latest one done as of 2005 shows the U.S. in 30th place.
So much for the claim that we have the best medical care in the world.
It is true, as some Republicans have contended, that the rich, the prominent often come to the U.S. for treatment - the Shah of Iran, with terminal cancer, came to the U.S., but all that shows is that if you have unlimited money excellent care is available in the US. Very few come from Germany or Italy or Canada, etc. Only a very few of us have unlimited money and whether people know it or not, even the insured don’t have unlimited coverage as so many are discovering.
We keep hearing about the uninsured and their lot is indeed serious. But the same goes for most of the insured who don’t know that when they need their insurance most they will discover that they forgot to read the small print. It doesn’t cover the most expensive procedures or they find the condition is a pre-existent one, even though they didn’t know that, and their insurance exempts pre-existent conditions. And then there are the co-pays. They can bankrupt you if you need an expensive procedure even if the procedure is covered by private insurance.
But let us remember what else McConnell said: he doesn’t want to “sort of scrap the entire healthcare system of the United States.” Well who does? What an outrageous setting up of a straw man. The discussion revolves around the insurance system, not the medical delivery system. The most controversial part of the reform is whether to have a government insurance system alongside private insurance and they treat that as though it were the most outrageous idea in the world. Well, Senator McConnell has government run health insurance along with every member of Congress. They all love it. Every American over 65 has a government run health insurance. Its called Medicare. All are very happy with it. Children who are not insured in a private health insurance plan have access to a government health insurance plan. Its called SCHIP. Parents whose children are covered by this plan are very happy to have it. The poor have a government health insurance plan, its called Medicaid. They are grateful to have it even though in many states it is under funded. As for veterans who are insured under the Veterans Administration program, a government program, they wouldn’t exchange it for private insurance.
None of these American Health insurance plans has turned us into a Socialist state and the insurance companies are still in business.
But now they tell us that Medicare may look good but it under-reimburses doctors. It is true that Medicare pays doctors less than they charge their un-insured patients*, but so does every private insurance company. According to Ethical Health Partnerships, “No matter how much we pay for private insurance, their payment to physicians is either slightly above Medicare rates (for better insurance companies) or BELOW Medicare rates. It is not uncommon for some insurance companies to pay 10-20% LESS than Medicare.”
It is no wonder that I have yet to find a notice posted in a doctor’s office that says we no longer take Medicare, though undoubtedly some don't. However, I do frequently find notices, “We don’t take United Health Care” or some other carrier, anymore. That means you lose your choice of doctor, and your choices of doctors are limited, with most private insurance companies having in-plan and non-plan doctors.
But one of the scare tactics used by the opponents of reform, and don’t be fooled by the claim that they want reform but “only the right kind,” is that you will lose your choice of doctor. They turn the facts on their head. Your choice of doctor is limited by the private insurance industry - it is not likely to be limited under any government program.
I realize that there are other issues that are troubling. Most important is cost. I will try to address all of them, or as many of them as I can, in future presentations.
* who are not only subject to the burden of having to pay all their medical expenses out of pocket, but are charged at a substantially higher rate then the insurance companies, so that they end up subsidizing the insured.
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Originalism - A Constitutional doctrine without validity
In my last three commentaries I have been demonstrating how the doctrines propounded by the Right for judicial interpretation are fallacious and downright dishonest. I strongly urge my readers to reread these articles
I would also urge readers to read my analysis on the meaning of a Right wing Supreme Court which I published in October of 2005 under the title, “The Supreme Court - Consequences As New Appointees Shift Its Balance and the short add-on entitled, “The Debate About Supreme Court Nominees”
In these articles I demonstrated that the term activist judges more appropriately applies to the Right Wing of the court which strike down acts of elected legislatures with far greater frequency than the liberal judges and that “calling balls and strikes” is a misnomer which has no place in a realistic understanding of how the Constitution and the laws passes by Congress are interpreted.
Another favorite catch phrase used by the Right is that of “Originalism” by which the Right of the Court and in the Congress claim that they strive to interpret the Constitution by the original intent of the founders. I may be wrong but I believe that the term had its origin with Robert Bork, that highly controversial Reagan nominee to the Court who was denied confirmation by the Senate as being far, far too Right. Yet Bork himself admits that it is a doctrine that in the real world cannot be applied. In a book that he co-authored he writes in its Introduction:
“Regrettably, but perhaps inevitably, ‘[t]he ink was not yet dry on the Constitution when its revision began.’ Almost immediately, Congress began pressing beyond specifically enumerated powers granted it in Article I. As a result, today, Americans encounter a national government far more expansive than the Framers and men of their generation could ever have imagined…
“Uncertainty stems, in part, from the recognition that the scope of the commerce power has expanded so far beyond the original understanding of that power's boundaries that any attempt to adhere strictly to its original meaning today would likely be futile and inappropriate… “There is no possibility, today, of adhering completely to the original constitutional design. Such a daring plan would require overturning the New Deal, the Great Society, and almost all of the vast network of federal legislation and regulation put in place in the last two-thirds of the twentieth century. It appears that the American people would be overwhelmingly against such a change and no court would attempt to force it upon them.”
And at a later point he goes on to say: “When the world has changed but the underlying constitutional principle remains, the task for those ‘in this generation [is] to discern how the framers' values, defined in the context of the world they knew, apply to the world we know.’ The world we know includes the long-standing jurisprudence on the commerce power because ‘[w]hen there is a known principle to be explicated the evolution of a doctrine is inevitable."
So much for the claim that liberals on the court are activists and that Right-wingers are originalists. It is a phony paradigm. As I have stated before, judges are human and what they read into the vague text of laws or the Constitution, whether Left or Right, is informed by their backgrounds and their political philosophy. To argue otherwise is either insincere or naïve.
As for the loud cries against using references to foreign law in interpreting the Constitution that too is a misplaced argument. First it is not only the liberal Justices who make such references. Justices Kennedy and O’Connor both appointed by Reagan have supported this.
Secondly when we look to the Declaration of Independence we find the phrase, “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind” and the Constitution’s Bill of Rights in amendment VII refers to the “common law” which every lawyer knows is a reference to the decisions of British courts preceding the founding of the U.S.
It is again a tempest in a teapot without reason.
Just how little respect for due process the present five Justices of the Right have can be seen in their recent decision in DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT ET AL. v. OSBORNE which held that a state is not obligated to allow DNA testing where it would conclusively show whether a man convicted of rape was, in fact guilty. See the Washington Post’s story on it here.
In that case the District Court granted Osborne summary judgment, concluding that he had a limited constitutional right to the new testing under the unique and specific facts presented, i.e., that such testing had been unavailable at trial, that it could be accomplished at almost no cost to the State, and that the results were likely to be material. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, relying on the prosecutorial duty to disclose exculpatory evidence under, e.g., Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83.
Finally, I strongly urge those who have an interest in these issues to listen to Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island on Sotmayor nomination, which can be listened to in full here. The speech is 21 minutes long but I think that the investment of your time will be more than rewarded, though the first minute or two will not hold the reader spellbound.
The issues involved in these court decisions in many ways outweigh those pending in the Congress, and I urge you to take the time to read and listen, if you desire an understanding of the forces at work.
I would also urge readers to read my analysis on the meaning of a Right wing Supreme Court which I published in October of 2005 under the title, “The Supreme Court - Consequences As New Appointees Shift Its Balance and the short add-on entitled, “The Debate About Supreme Court Nominees”
In these articles I demonstrated that the term activist judges more appropriately applies to the Right Wing of the court which strike down acts of elected legislatures with far greater frequency than the liberal judges and that “calling balls and strikes” is a misnomer which has no place in a realistic understanding of how the Constitution and the laws passes by Congress are interpreted.
Another favorite catch phrase used by the Right is that of “Originalism” by which the Right of the Court and in the Congress claim that they strive to interpret the Constitution by the original intent of the founders. I may be wrong but I believe that the term had its origin with Robert Bork, that highly controversial Reagan nominee to the Court who was denied confirmation by the Senate as being far, far too Right. Yet Bork himself admits that it is a doctrine that in the real world cannot be applied. In a book that he co-authored he writes in its Introduction:
“Regrettably, but perhaps inevitably, ‘[t]he ink was not yet dry on the Constitution when its revision began.’ Almost immediately, Congress began pressing beyond specifically enumerated powers granted it in Article I. As a result, today, Americans encounter a national government far more expansive than the Framers and men of their generation could ever have imagined…
“Uncertainty stems, in part, from the recognition that the scope of the commerce power has expanded so far beyond the original understanding of that power's boundaries that any attempt to adhere strictly to its original meaning today would likely be futile and inappropriate… “There is no possibility, today, of adhering completely to the original constitutional design. Such a daring plan would require overturning the New Deal, the Great Society, and almost all of the vast network of federal legislation and regulation put in place in the last two-thirds of the twentieth century. It appears that the American people would be overwhelmingly against such a change and no court would attempt to force it upon them.”
And at a later point he goes on to say: “When the world has changed but the underlying constitutional principle remains, the task for those ‘in this generation [is] to discern how the framers' values, defined in the context of the world they knew, apply to the world we know.’ The world we know includes the long-standing jurisprudence on the commerce power because ‘[w]hen there is a known principle to be explicated the evolution of a doctrine is inevitable."
So much for the claim that liberals on the court are activists and that Right-wingers are originalists. It is a phony paradigm. As I have stated before, judges are human and what they read into the vague text of laws or the Constitution, whether Left or Right, is informed by their backgrounds and their political philosophy. To argue otherwise is either insincere or naïve.
As for the loud cries against using references to foreign law in interpreting the Constitution that too is a misplaced argument. First it is not only the liberal Justices who make such references. Justices Kennedy and O’Connor both appointed by Reagan have supported this.
Secondly when we look to the Declaration of Independence we find the phrase, “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind” and the Constitution’s Bill of Rights in amendment VII refers to the “common law” which every lawyer knows is a reference to the decisions of British courts preceding the founding of the U.S.
It is again a tempest in a teapot without reason.
Just how little respect for due process the present five Justices of the Right have can be seen in their recent decision in DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT ET AL. v. OSBORNE which held that a state is not obligated to allow DNA testing where it would conclusively show whether a man convicted of rape was, in fact guilty. See the Washington Post’s story on it here.
In that case the District Court granted Osborne summary judgment, concluding that he had a limited constitutional right to the new testing under the unique and specific facts presented, i.e., that such testing had been unavailable at trial, that it could be accomplished at almost no cost to the State, and that the results were likely to be material. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, relying on the prosecutorial duty to disclose exculpatory evidence under, e.g., Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83.
Finally, I strongly urge those who have an interest in these issues to listen to Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island on Sotmayor nomination, which can be listened to in full here. The speech is 21 minutes long but I think that the investment of your time will be more than rewarded, though the first minute or two will not hold the reader spellbound.
The issues involved in these court decisions in many ways outweigh those pending in the Congress, and I urge you to take the time to read and listen, if you desire an understanding of the forces at work.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Distortions and Contradictions in the Discussion of the Firefighter Case.
In my last commentary entitled Philosophical and Life Experiences in the Shaping of Supreme Court Views, which I distributed on July 21, I concluded with the comment, “Next time I will discuss the much-maligned Ricci (aka the firemen’s) case.
This case needs discussion because it is the one case out of the hundreds that came before Judge Sotomayor in the years that she was on the bench that most raised the ire of her critics.
These critics were the ones who screamed that empathy had no place in the law, that decisions must be based on the law and only the law. They then turned around and attacked the decision in the Ricci case by citing the poor dyslectic firefighter who having bought all the books and studied extra hard did not get his promotion, even though he scored high enough on the test to be entitled to it. Without question we can have empathy for this firefighter. But what about the law? Did all these strident voices, who loudly denounced the concept of empathy, once discuss the law? Anybody who followed the debate knows that the law was the last thing they were interested in. See here.
But let us look what in fact happened. I assume that at least some are interested in some degree of consistency and in examining the facts. It has no bearing on the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor for she will be confirmed. But if we are to have any kind of intelligent discourse about the law we need to step back and examine the real facts.
The strident voices have denounced Sotomayor for her decision. But, of course it wasn’t her decision. It was a decision of a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals and it was unanimous. Three judges all reached the same conclusion. If we count the decision of the District Court it makes it four judges. After the panel handed down the decision a petition was filed for the whole Court of Appeals to hear the case known as a “rehearing en banc.” According to Rule 35 of the Court “A majority of the circuit judges who are in regular active service and who are not disqualified may order that an appeal or other proceeding be heard or reheard by the court of appeals en banc.” There are a total of 12 active judges on the Court. So when the hearing en banc was denied it meant that at least 6 judges decided it did not warrant such a rehearing. Thus we can see that a total of at least 10 judges did not feel the decision was wrong. Doesn’t that suggest that at the very least there was a basis in the law for the decision? What is the law that the court was interpreting? It was Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For the text of the act click here. But to listen to the braying one wouldn’t even have known that there was a law passed by the elected Congress that the court was interpreting. That this law provides in Section K 1A: “An unlawful employment practice based on disparate impact is established under this subchapter only if-
(i) a complaining party demonstrates that a respondent uses a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and the respondent fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity…”
Ever since that law was passed a test which has a disparate impact on race must be discarded unless it can be shown that the questions asked are “job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity;…”
Apparently the District Court, which is the trier of the facts, found it had not been demonstrated that many of the questions on the test were job related. It then surveyed the law and in an opinion 48 pages long analyzed the facts and the law, cited and reviewed at least 19 previous decisions, including prior Supreme Court decisions, and decided the examination violated the statute. For those few who may actually want to read all the decisions cross references can be found here.
Now the critics of Judge Sotomayor argue that judges who are reversed by the Supreme Court should not be elevated to the High Court, ignoring of course that this would eliminate most, if not all, judges sitting on our courts. Furthermore, The Supreme Court decision was by its common 5-4 majority that chose to ignore its own precedents and changed the law, as it has existed since the passage of the statute.
I will grant that we can argue the wisdom of the statute; we can argue the wisdom of the policy, but to suggest that Sotomayor or the three judge panel which adopted the opinion of the district court as being sound on all counts, is in some way not applying the law, is nothing less than deliberate distortion, sophistry and demagogy.
The dishonesty of Judge Sotomayor's critics is apparent. And what makes the attacks even more deplorable is that one of her severest critics was Senator Sessions of Alabama, who was rejected by the Senate when Reagan nominated him for a district court in Alabama, because he was a known racist. According to the Huffington Post he “once quipped that he ‘used to think [the KKK] were OK’ until he found out some of them were ‘pot smokers;’ and he routinely referred to an African-American attorney who worked for him as ‘boy’ -- even once warning that attorney to ‘be careful what you say to white folks’ after Sessions overheard him chastising a white secretary.”
This is typical of the crowd that tries to represent itself as being in favor of a non-racist society.
This case needs discussion because it is the one case out of the hundreds that came before Judge Sotomayor in the years that she was on the bench that most raised the ire of her critics.
These critics were the ones who screamed that empathy had no place in the law, that decisions must be based on the law and only the law. They then turned around and attacked the decision in the Ricci case by citing the poor dyslectic firefighter who having bought all the books and studied extra hard did not get his promotion, even though he scored high enough on the test to be entitled to it. Without question we can have empathy for this firefighter. But what about the law? Did all these strident voices, who loudly denounced the concept of empathy, once discuss the law? Anybody who followed the debate knows that the law was the last thing they were interested in. See here.
But let us look what in fact happened. I assume that at least some are interested in some degree of consistency and in examining the facts. It has no bearing on the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor for she will be confirmed. But if we are to have any kind of intelligent discourse about the law we need to step back and examine the real facts.
The strident voices have denounced Sotomayor for her decision. But, of course it wasn’t her decision. It was a decision of a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals and it was unanimous. Three judges all reached the same conclusion. If we count the decision of the District Court it makes it four judges. After the panel handed down the decision a petition was filed for the whole Court of Appeals to hear the case known as a “rehearing en banc.” According to Rule 35 of the Court “A majority of the circuit judges who are in regular active service and who are not disqualified may order that an appeal or other proceeding be heard or reheard by the court of appeals en banc.” There are a total of 12 active judges on the Court. So when the hearing en banc was denied it meant that at least 6 judges decided it did not warrant such a rehearing. Thus we can see that a total of at least 10 judges did not feel the decision was wrong. Doesn’t that suggest that at the very least there was a basis in the law for the decision? What is the law that the court was interpreting? It was Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For the text of the act click here. But to listen to the braying one wouldn’t even have known that there was a law passed by the elected Congress that the court was interpreting. That this law provides in Section K 1A: “An unlawful employment practice based on disparate impact is established under this subchapter only if-
(i) a complaining party demonstrates that a respondent uses a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and the respondent fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity…”
Ever since that law was passed a test which has a disparate impact on race must be discarded unless it can be shown that the questions asked are “job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity;…”
Apparently the District Court, which is the trier of the facts, found it had not been demonstrated that many of the questions on the test were job related. It then surveyed the law and in an opinion 48 pages long analyzed the facts and the law, cited and reviewed at least 19 previous decisions, including prior Supreme Court decisions, and decided the examination violated the statute. For those few who may actually want to read all the decisions cross references can be found here.
Now the critics of Judge Sotomayor argue that judges who are reversed by the Supreme Court should not be elevated to the High Court, ignoring of course that this would eliminate most, if not all, judges sitting on our courts. Furthermore, The Supreme Court decision was by its common 5-4 majority that chose to ignore its own precedents and changed the law, as it has existed since the passage of the statute.
I will grant that we can argue the wisdom of the statute; we can argue the wisdom of the policy, but to suggest that Sotomayor or the three judge panel which adopted the opinion of the district court as being sound on all counts, is in some way not applying the law, is nothing less than deliberate distortion, sophistry and demagogy.
The dishonesty of Judge Sotomayor's critics is apparent. And what makes the attacks even more deplorable is that one of her severest critics was Senator Sessions of Alabama, who was rejected by the Senate when Reagan nominated him for a district court in Alabama, because he was a known racist. According to the Huffington Post he “once quipped that he ‘used to think [the KKK] were OK’ until he found out some of them were ‘pot smokers;’ and he routinely referred to an African-American attorney who worked for him as ‘boy’ -- even once warning that attorney to ‘be careful what you say to white folks’ after Sessions overheard him chastising a white secretary.”
This is typical of the crowd that tries to represent itself as being in favor of a non-racist society.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Philosophical And Life Experiences In The Shaping Of Supreme Court Views
In my last commentqry entitled, “Judges Do More Than ‘Call Balls And Strikes’” which I posted on my blog July 13, I pointed out the complexity of dealing with vague language in the Constitution and also pointed out that the concept of originalism is nothing but obfuscation, and that in reality no judge follows such a doctrine nor could they do so, without bringing our whole system of government to its knees.
I do not, however want to give the impression that it follows that any of the judges, be they Right or Left, and there is no longer a true center, simply make up the law to suit their own predilections. Thus in my essay, entitled, “The Supreme Court - Consequences As New Appointees Shift Its Balance” which I wrote in October of 2005 and which can be found in full here, I quoted a number of Justices on the subject of deciding cases in ways which as a matter of policy they disapproved of, e.g. Justice Stevens, in referring to some conclusions he had reached, explained that he believed that as a matter of policy that the outcomes were: "unwise…. (but) I was convinced that the law compelled a result that I would have opposed if I were a legislator…”
But that does not mean that judges are not influenced in reaching their conclusion by their political philosophy and their background.
The Ledbetter case, which involved interpretation of a law passed by Congress rather than the Constitution is a case in point. The law provided that women may not be paid less than men for equal work.
After working for Goodyear for almost 20 years Lilly Ledbetter was by far the lowest-paid employee in her position. She proved that this disparity was due to sex discrimination, and a federal district court in Alabama found Goodyear liable. On appeal, Goodyear countered it hadn't discriminated against Ledbetter—recently. (Emphasis added) Title VII, of the federal law requires suit to be filed within 180 days "after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred." In essence, Goodyear argued that the discriminatory decision it made about Ledbetter's pay were made long ago and that since pay raises were a percentage of previous pay, the pay discrepancy kept getting larger and larger. But they argued that except for the first deliberate discriminatory act, the later smaller raises were not the result of any gender discrimination, but simply the result of the much earlier act. Ledbetter's low salary might have merely reflected her earlier, discriminatorily low pay, rather than more recent pay increases.
The Supreme Court in a 5 to 4 decision held that the suit was not filed within the required 180 days and dismissed the suit. The decision turned on the interpretation of the meaning of “unlawful employment practice.” The minority of four held that the intent is not controlling-it is the effect of the decision that controls, and since later smaller pay increases had the effect of sex discrimination, the suit was filed in time. Jeffrey Toobin in his book on the Supreme Court, “The Nine” points out at page. 330 that “for years, the court said that if a women sued within 180 days of her last offending paycheck,” she is entitled to recover for the entire period. But now with a change in the courts personnel the view was different. Alito had replaced O’Connor. Fortunately, since this involved an act of Congress, that body was able to amend the law to make its meaning so clear that even the Supreme Court could no longer misunderstand its intent.
Now I don’t suggest that the Right wing justices did not intend to follow the law, but their philosophy, their backgrounds, were not sympathetic to the objective of the law passed by Congress, and so they interpreted it narrowly. The four liberal justices, and the departed O’Connor, showed their sympathy by interpreting it broadly. They all felt that they had the correct interpretation, but they could not and cannot escape their biases, or their background. In the end it is what instructs them.
The same is true in interpreting the Constitution. In interpreting Roe v. Wade the court had set a standard (actually O’Connor had) that a law restricting abortions must not place an undue burden on women. Pennsylvania had passed a law putting various restrictions on the right of a woman to an abortion including one that she must notify her husband before having one. Alito, then on the Court of Appeals, dissented from the majority on the court finding this to be a reasonable burden. When the case reached the Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, O’Connor was livid over Alito’s view. Not only was such a requirement an undue burden under Roe, but it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The fact that she was a woman clearly was not an insignificant factor in her strong reaction. She declared, “Women do not lose their Constitutional protected liberty when they marry.”
If we look at the decisions it becomes obvious that judges who hold a high regard for the protection from unreasonable searches and seizures will find more situations as unreasonable than those who don’t; those who put a high value on free speech will interpret that broadly, while those who hold the right to use ones wealth to influence elections will have a view that reflects this world view.
It is for that reason that the court functions best when it has on it justices with different backgrounds and philosophies. A woman often will see things differently from a man. Someone who has had to struggle may see things differently from one who was born with a silver spoon in their mouth.
For that reason Shell Haas and Gary Schwartz had it wrong when they wrote in the Suburbanite a few weeks ago that ethnicity (and presumable gender) has no place in choosing a justice for the court. Did they or their predecessors in this type of thinking express a concern when during the first 178 years of the court every justice was a white man. We did not have a justice of another color until 1967 and did not have a woman until 1981. No one wants to bar white men from serving on the court, but it is strange that people object at the idea that at this late date we might want to see some with other backgrounds and experiences, such as Justice Marshal, or Justice O’Connor who upon graduating from law school was offered a job as a secretary in a law firm. Even now, until Justice Souter resigned, we had seven white men out of nine on the court. Do Haas and Schwarz think that these seven white men had some special qualification that those of another ethnicity, gender, or race do not possess?
I reproduce the letters from Haas and Schwartz below:
Next time I will discuss the much-maligned Ricci (aka the firemen’s) case.
I do not, however want to give the impression that it follows that any of the judges, be they Right or Left, and there is no longer a true center, simply make up the law to suit their own predilections. Thus in my essay, entitled, “The Supreme Court - Consequences As New Appointees Shift Its Balance” which I wrote in October of 2005 and which can be found in full here, I quoted a number of Justices on the subject of deciding cases in ways which as a matter of policy they disapproved of, e.g. Justice Stevens, in referring to some conclusions he had reached, explained that he believed that as a matter of policy that the outcomes were: "unwise…. (but) I was convinced that the law compelled a result that I would have opposed if I were a legislator…”
But that does not mean that judges are not influenced in reaching their conclusion by their political philosophy and their background.
The Ledbetter case, which involved interpretation of a law passed by Congress rather than the Constitution is a case in point. The law provided that women may not be paid less than men for equal work.
After working for Goodyear for almost 20 years Lilly Ledbetter was by far the lowest-paid employee in her position. She proved that this disparity was due to sex discrimination, and a federal district court in Alabama found Goodyear liable. On appeal, Goodyear countered it hadn't discriminated against Ledbetter—recently. (Emphasis added) Title VII, of the federal law requires suit to be filed within 180 days "after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred." In essence, Goodyear argued that the discriminatory decision it made about Ledbetter's pay were made long ago and that since pay raises were a percentage of previous pay, the pay discrepancy kept getting larger and larger. But they argued that except for the first deliberate discriminatory act, the later smaller raises were not the result of any gender discrimination, but simply the result of the much earlier act. Ledbetter's low salary might have merely reflected her earlier, discriminatorily low pay, rather than more recent pay increases.
The Supreme Court in a 5 to 4 decision held that the suit was not filed within the required 180 days and dismissed the suit. The decision turned on the interpretation of the meaning of “unlawful employment practice.” The minority of four held that the intent is not controlling-it is the effect of the decision that controls, and since later smaller pay increases had the effect of sex discrimination, the suit was filed in time. Jeffrey Toobin in his book on the Supreme Court, “The Nine” points out at page. 330 that “for years, the court said that if a women sued within 180 days of her last offending paycheck,” she is entitled to recover for the entire period. But now with a change in the courts personnel the view was different. Alito had replaced O’Connor. Fortunately, since this involved an act of Congress, that body was able to amend the law to make its meaning so clear that even the Supreme Court could no longer misunderstand its intent.
Now I don’t suggest that the Right wing justices did not intend to follow the law, but their philosophy, their backgrounds, were not sympathetic to the objective of the law passed by Congress, and so they interpreted it narrowly. The four liberal justices, and the departed O’Connor, showed their sympathy by interpreting it broadly. They all felt that they had the correct interpretation, but they could not and cannot escape their biases, or their background. In the end it is what instructs them.
The same is true in interpreting the Constitution. In interpreting Roe v. Wade the court had set a standard (actually O’Connor had) that a law restricting abortions must not place an undue burden on women. Pennsylvania had passed a law putting various restrictions on the right of a woman to an abortion including one that she must notify her husband before having one. Alito, then on the Court of Appeals, dissented from the majority on the court finding this to be a reasonable burden. When the case reached the Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, O’Connor was livid over Alito’s view. Not only was such a requirement an undue burden under Roe, but it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The fact that she was a woman clearly was not an insignificant factor in her strong reaction. She declared, “Women do not lose their Constitutional protected liberty when they marry.”
If we look at the decisions it becomes obvious that judges who hold a high regard for the protection from unreasonable searches and seizures will find more situations as unreasonable than those who don’t; those who put a high value on free speech will interpret that broadly, while those who hold the right to use ones wealth to influence elections will have a view that reflects this world view.
It is for that reason that the court functions best when it has on it justices with different backgrounds and philosophies. A woman often will see things differently from a man. Someone who has had to struggle may see things differently from one who was born with a silver spoon in their mouth.
For that reason Shell Haas and Gary Schwartz had it wrong when they wrote in the Suburbanite a few weeks ago that ethnicity (and presumable gender) has no place in choosing a justice for the court. Did they or their predecessors in this type of thinking express a concern when during the first 178 years of the court every justice was a white man. We did not have a justice of another color until 1967 and did not have a woman until 1981. No one wants to bar white men from serving on the court, but it is strange that people object at the idea that at this late date we might want to see some with other backgrounds and experiences, such as Justice Marshal, or Justice O’Connor who upon graduating from law school was offered a job as a secretary in a law firm. Even now, until Justice Souter resigned, we had seven white men out of nine on the court. Do Haas and Schwarz think that these seven white men had some special qualification that those of another ethnicity, gender, or race do not possess?
I reproduce the letters from Haas and Schwartz below:
"To the Editor:
In the editorial “ Supreme Court nomination is a win for all” there was no mention of judicial qualifications. With decisions overturned, Ms. Sotomayor’s really does not exemplify the cream of the crop of potential candidates. She is not the first Hispanic to be named for the court. The Honorable Justice Cardozo has that distinction. It is wonderful to pursue the American dream, but as Martin Luther King Jr. put it, it is by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin. He should have added “not by their ethnicity either.” No one is excluded by society in America today, except those individuals and groups that desire not to be included. We must think of ourselves as Americans, not hyphenated Americans. America has always had ethnic diversity, but that diversity merged with the willingness to subvert that pride to a greater pride- that of being an American.
Shel Haas
"To the Editor:
A Supreme Court nomination is win for all. I wonder, forgive me but somehow I believe it’s wrong to pick a judge because of ethnic background. I mean Justice (whatever that is) should be blind. Race and religion that should be irrelevant for a judge. No, I think judges should be judged on their judgement, nothing else. And of course, it’s important for people to believe Judges are fair and race card muddies up that perception.
Gary Schwartz"
Next time I will discuss the much-maligned Ricci (aka the firemen’s) case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
