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.”
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
