The Trojan Horse – Comments II (continued)

In my last post "The Trojan Horse – Comments II" I responded to only half of Leonard Levenson’s comment. My earlier response can be found by clicking on the title shown in brown above. Leonard Levenson’s full comment can be found here.

I will here continue with my response showing his arguments in quotations and my responses in the body.

Before negotiations got a full head of steam he made a public announcement that the 14th Amendment argument was not a winning argument. You say the public would not have supported such a move. The public is interested in results...not the niceties of the literal adherence to arcane provisions in the constitution. A strong argument by him to Boehner that he was prepared to use the 14th Amendment would have gotten him enormous public support and put the fear of god in the Republicans. Compared to the outrages to the constitution by Bush such as the institution of torture as official Government policy and Bush's bill signing declarations, Obama's threatened use of the 14th amendment have had the seriousness of spitting on the sidewalk in a Draconian Penal Code.

It would have been downright stupid for the President to announce in advance that he would rely on the 14th amendment, if the debt ceiling were not raised. That would have let Republicans completely off the hook. Negotiations would have come to a halt. Michelle Bachman would have announced her vindication, proving that she was right all along that failure to raise the debt ceiling would not resulted in default, and the President would have been on the defensive charged with abusing his office by ignoring the will of Congress in order to “continue his spending spree”. Thus a situation where the public was increasingly hostile to Republicans in general and the Tea Party in particular, would have been completely turned around.

Yes, the 14th amendment could have been used with the public's support, if the negotiations had broken down, default had occurred, the stock market had crashed, the economy was in shambles, and the President was acting in an emergency under the 14th amendment. But this was to be avoided at almost all costs, because by that time the economy would have been so damaged as to almost irreparable, something to be avoided at almost all costs.

Obama is a good man but naive in his belief that he could work with the Republicans. If he could make that realization today there might be hope for his Administration. But I fear that he has yet to learn how to play hardball, a skill that the Republicans excel at. Right now we need a nasty, hard-biting, backroom, dirty, skilled politician... not a Constitutional Law Professor. We need a Johnson, a Roosevelt, or a left wing Bush. Instead we have a Woodrow Wilson who couldn't sell ice in the Sahara.

Rah, Rah, --- but the fact is that Obama is a brilliant negotiator, who understands that there is a time for partisan rhetoric and a time to be low key. Yes, I too was disappointed with his inaugural address as Drew Weston complained in the New York Times. But Weston was nit picking almost three years after the fact when it had become fashionable to criticize the President. The President must be judged by results in a political climate unequaled in memory, and as I have pointed out the results would have been impressive even in a less hostile climate. That is what counts.

It should also be noted that in our system of government obstruction is much easier than positive accomplishments.

Lastly, perhaps you can explain why we still do not have relations with Cuba...a largely executive function;

I think Levinson knows why! For the same reason that the hero of the base, (I will be damned if I know why.) John F. Kennedy set this policy in motion. And every President since (I count eight) has continued this policy. Why does Levenson task this President for not doing what nine other Presidents have not done? That shows an unreasoned search for things to criticize.

why we still have troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, Japan, and Europe plus Military advisory personnel in virtually every right wing country on Earth. When do we learn that supporting Corrupt Governments fighting populist insurgent uprisings can never be successful? How many Vietnams do we have to go through in one lifetime? Do we really need an active military strength of 1.6 million and 200,000 in Europe, 70,000 in S. Korea and Japan, 475 in Honduras and 988 on Diego Garcia? Who are we afraid of? Distribution of our troops is a presidential function as is the size of our army.

That is a lot of lumping. South Korea, Japan, and Europe are Corrupt Governments fighting populist insurgent uprisings? “The size of our army” is a Presidential function? Not since the last time I read the US Constitution! Section. 8. “ The Congress shall have the Power… Clause 12: To raise and support Armies…”

Even in Afghanistan the Taliban can hardly be called a “populist insurgent uprisings.” And as for the rest, our troops have been spread to many countries since the WW II. Just like that – this President is supposed to magically make everything all right with the world. That is a fairy tale world. That is a world of magic wands that should be waved. It just is not the real world. And why didn’t Levenson raise this Banner when all the other Presidents were in office, counting how many since the end of Vietnam? Lets get real!

Would I rather have a Republican in the White House than Obama? Perhaps, if Abe Lincoln were reincarnated! But that doesn't mean we should stop pushing Obama to see reality.

I think it’s the other way around. Obama is very much in touch with reality. It is his critics, as I have demonstrated at length, who are out of touch with reality.

Nor should he believe that the Left has no place to go. We will always vote for him but we may not work for him with the old passion and enthusiasm so important in a campaign nor contribute our money.

It is all the same. Anything less than the most vigorous support of our President would risk turning the country over, not just to Republicans as we used to know them, but to the most extreme, radical and irresponsible bunch that have ever, (or at least since the Great Depression) threatened the welfare of our people. That threat alone should bring more vigor than ever before, This bunch makes G.W. Bush look like a responsible statesman. I contend that we have a President we should be enthusiastic about and one who has under the most difficult circumstances, compiled a record that other Democratic Presidents would have envied, but the threat of Tea party dominance should be enough to sound the bugle.

Since publishing my first installment of The Trojan Horse – Comments II I heard from Levenson again. He wrote:

Thank you for sharing your views with me with regard to Obama. You cannot be serious when you say that my views "represent a closing of one's eyes to facts which contradict preconceived ideas....” I had no greater political desire than to have Obama succeed. I contributed more money and work to his campaign than any other presidential campaign I worked on....including the Nixon McCarthy debacle. My views evolved after 2 1/2 years and evolved very reluctantly.

I will not respond to all of your comments other than to say that my vote (1 time) for Reagan is not a very powerful argument against the validity of my criticism of Obama. Additionally, I do not deny that Obama has been responsible for many worthwhile accomplishments such as the Health Care bill. But even the Health Care Bill must be looked at realistically. For example, most of its important provisions do not take effect until 2014 which make it vulnerable to repeal before its virtues can be shown to the public.

Let me conclude by suggesting that all those that criticize Obama are not his enemies but are merely trying to push from the Left so that he realizes that there is a constituency there that requires his attention.

To which my response was:

First, I probably owe you an apology for referring to your vote for Reagan. That was a cheap shot.

When you say that I can't be serious when I say that your views, (and more importantly the views of the pundits and the many who share your views) "represent a closing of one's eyes to facts which contradict preconceived ideas...." I refer to preconceived ideas of what Obama could be expected to accomplish and how. What I refer to as expecting that he had a magic wand. This is not at all at variance with your having been very enthusiastic about Obama and having worked your tail off for him. It fits right in with it.

What I am saying is that having worked so hard you had totally unrealistic expectations of what he could do, and when those expectations were dashed you became angry. Again I am speaking less about you individually, but rather the many for whom you speak.

On the Health Care law there is no chance of it being repealed even if Obama were to lose since any attempt at repeal would be subject to a filibuster. I can't answer why many of its effects were delayed until 2014 without spending more time than I am prepared to do, but I am sure that its authors felt that it was vital that other aspects had to be in place before others could go into effect. There has to be a modicum of trust that the people who made these decisions knew what they were doing. The greatest danger to the bill is the US Supreme Court, but that is something that no one can avoid.

The base, and you are part of that base, basically wanted Obama to take on the Right and not compromise. Maybe that would have been satisfying, but nothing would have been accomplished, and I mean nothing. Not the stimulus, not health care and very few of the many accomplishments I list.

You say: "I do not deny that Obama has been responsible for many worthwhile accomplishments" but that is exactly what you did in your last presentation to which I was responding.

Tell me, if you can, why are his Left wing critics so anxious to besmirch him that they are even resorting to outright lies about the compromise on the budget, which I think was a very favorable one if one looks at the details.

And I received a very satisfactory reply:

No apology is necessary for your reminding me of my Reagan vote. In fact, I found it funny. Of all the ad hominem attacks you could have used against me, the worst was "he voted for Reagan.” Words like "corrupt,” "stupid,” "racist" or "bigot" would not have hurt as much as saying that I voted for a Republican.

You may have a point when you suggest that my anger at Obama is really disappointment at the lack of progress that I hoped for. Perhaps no Democrat could have made any substantial progress against the know nothing Republicans. I think I would have preferred a battle royale (even a losing one) than accepting a weakened Health care Bill, an inadequate deficit reduction bill and the many other compromises, which Obama probably was forced to make.

Before I close I need to take cognizance of one other attack. It came from Herb Reiner of Clifton, NJ, but more important it was repeated in the New Yorker in an article by John Cassidy where he wrote: “In retrospect, the White House erred last December in not demanding a raise in the debt ceiling as the price of extending the Bush tax cuts.“ Well, in retrospect, like hindsight is always 20/20. So why pile on another criticism. But let us examine it. What good would it have done? These things always go to the deadline. Asking sooner would either have produced an extension too short or no extension until default was imminent. But what makes it even more ridiculous is that the Administration in fact did ask for an increase, not in December, but in January (Close enough). See here for Tim Geithner's letter to Harry Reid.

Why don’t these pundits at least check their facts before spilling ink on paper and ranting about things they don’t begin to understand? It does not serve the cause they pretend to serve and it does not even serve them when people finally begin to understand how much nonsense they have subjected them to.

The Politics of the Big Lie

Leaders of the Republican Party are bragging that more Americans are against the Health Reform legislation than are for it and while this is true they cannot resist exaggerating even when polls are in their favor.

Thus Senator Jim DeMint appearing on Face the Nation on March 28 says “Over sixty percent of Americans still want Republicans to fight to repeal this.” Bob Schiefer to his credit immediately corrects this saying, “a new poll…does not suggest that a majority of Americans are against this…It says forty-six percent support this, fifty percent oppose it.”

But before the program is over so many out-and-out lies are told that with all good intentions Schiefer cannot keep correcting the falsehoods.

It isn’t 50% who are against this bill. It is 50% who are against a bill (now a law) characterized by endless and baseless lies. If I believed the lies, as many Americans apparently do, I would be against the law as well. But most people assume that their leaders would not tell out and out lies. They assume that there must be at least some truth to what they say. Unfortunately, that is not the case. What is being circulated are baseless lies, without a shred of truth to most of them. I have spend a great deal of time and effort documenting many of these lies and rather than try to repeat myself refer the reader to earlier writings on this subject - Health Insurance Reform, Health Insurance Reform - Lies and Damned Lies, Health Reform - Reality, Health Care Reform – Facts and Fiction, Republican Talking Points on Health Care, Continuing the Health Care debate and Lying pays off!!!!! Smears succeed!!!! Obstructionism is rewarded!!!!.

But I return to this subject because I keep running into ever greater whoppers. I thought I had heard the worst of them when Sarah Palin claimed “Death Panels” without any basis whatsoever, and hoped that there were some Republicans who were responsible enough to repudiate it. But to my great disappointment not one Republican denounced it or distanced him/herself from it, and most even tried to justify it. What kind of a Party is it that would be so irresponsible?

Last Sunday I listened to the Sunday interviews and if anything the lies have gotten bigger, the claims more hysterical. The claim by Sen. DeMint mentioned above was minor compared to what followed in the form of wild claims of Rep. Michele Bachmann.

I reproduce part of the transcript from that interview with my comments in bold letters:

“Congresswoman--and we used a little clip of what you said in the beginning of this--you said last week that health care reform was dangerous, and-- and you equated it with tyranny. Do you really mean that?"

REPRESENTATIVE MICHELE BACHMANN (R-Minnesota): "I do, because now we have the federal government, Bob, taking over ownership or control of fifty-one percent of the American economy. This is stunning. Prior to September of 2008, one hundred percent of the private economy was private."

            I will return to the claim that the government has taken over 51% of the economy. At this point let me address the claim that prior to “September 2008 one hundred percent of the private economy was private.” Has she forgotten that the government ran & runs the military, the US Postal Service, Social Security, Medicare, etc. etc. But then I realize that she is right. She is playing three cards Monte. It was 100% of the “private economy was private.” But 100% of the “private” economy will always be private by definition.

So we have to look at the reference to 51% of the American economy which the government has taken control of since 9/08. But allow me to expand on this.

           "Today, the federal government has taken either direct ownership or control of banks, the largest insurance company in the United States, AIG, Freddie and Fannie."

            The only part of this that is true is that the government has taken control of Freddie and Fannie, which are relatively small companies. They loaned money to the other entities mentioned to keep them from going under and took Preferred, non-voting stock as surety, but have neither ownership nor control. This is a barefaced lie!

           "The federal government now owns, Bob, over fifty percent of all home mortgages..."

Since Freddie and Fannie own many mortgages, the government owns those mortgages, but it is nowhere near 50%. This is a barefaced lie!

"Now, the direct student loan industry..."

            The government didn’t take it over. It was always the government that was making the loans since the banks wouldn’t. Under the old system the banks acted as a middleman and took a large cut. The middleman has been eliminated with a substantial saving to the US taxpayer. This is a barefaced lie!

           "...Chrysler, GM. And with the health care industry that’s an additional eighteen percent of the private economy…"

            The government didn’t take any of these over. Chrysler and GM were both given loans and are not owned by the government and the health insurance reform did not take over the health care industry. The health insurance companies remain private but are now subject to certain regulations just as we regulate and have always regulated numerous industries. The rest of the health care industry i.e. doctors and hospitals are not even regulated. This is a barefaced lie!

"Remember, when President Obama told Congress you have to pass my trillion-dollar bailout or we could get unemployment as high as eight percent..."

            Again not true! What most economists and the Obama Administration said was that we faced a potential repeat of 1929 when unemployment went above 37% and that with the measures taken they hoped to keep unemployment under 8%. They were a little too optimistic, because they only succeeded in keeping it from going substantially above 10%, though it has now dropped below 10%.

"President Obama’s own numbers, his own economic advisor, Christina Romer, said that Obamacare..."

(it isn’t Obamacare - Congress drafted the legislation much to the chagrin of many Democrats who felt the President should have drafted it for them.) 

 "...could cost the economy five and a half million jobs lost. "

Christina Romer did not say anything of the sort & health care reform could create millions of jobs over the next ten years, another barefaced lie without the slightest basis for it!

BOB SCHIEFFER: "… Sarah Palin famously said last week that it is not time for Republicans to retreat. It is time to reload. Now, she has since modified that and said she wasn’t talking about guns. She was talking about getting out there and using the vote. Do you think Sarah Palin has overstated it here?"

            The fact is that Palin not only talked about reloading she published a map with gun sights “one for each of the Democrats targeted this year by her political action committee SarahPAC. Three of the gun sights, those where incumbent Democrats have already announced their retirement, are colored red.” 

While I am sure Bachman wouldn’t agree, I urge the Attorney General to impanel a grand jury and seek an indictment against Palin for incitement to commit murder.            

   Bachman continued:

“And again, the New England Journal of Medicine released a survey the week that President Obama signed Obamacare stating that the-- ov--over thirty percent of American physicians--would leave the profession if the government took over health care. That’s very serious going forward."

            It would indeed be serious, if true, but it is a lie! And this one is worse than all the others if that were possible, for this one is the result of a plan to give the appearance of truth to this lie. The story originated with CNS News, which Source Watch describes as “a subsidiary of the conservative news monitoring group the Media Research Center (MRC). Originally calling itself the "Conservative News Service," CNS changed its name to Cybercast in 2000. CNS posted an article on their website under the headline: “Nearly One-Third of Doctors Could Leave Medicine if Health-Care Reform Bill Passes, According to Survey Reported in New England Journal of Medicine” and then gave details of a purported article in the New England Journal of Medicine. This was given further credence by Fox & Friends where co-host Brian Kilmeade said: "The New England Journal of Medicine has published a report and did a survey, and they said the impact of reform on primary care physicians, 46 percent, they say, feel reform will force them out or make them want to leave medicine." But the New England Journal in a statement said that it neither conducted nor published the "survey." On their website they posted the following:

“Recruiting Physicians Today is a free advertiser newsletter published by the Worldwide Advertising Sales and Marketing Department in the publishing division of the Massachusetts Medical Society. Each issue of the newsletter features research and content produced by physician recruiting firms and other independent groups involved in physician employment."

“On December 17, 2009 The Medicus Firm, a national physician search firm based in Dallas and Atlanta, published the results of a survey they conducted with 1,000 physicians regarding their attitudes toward health reform. To read their survey results at The Medicus Firm website, click here."

“The opinions expressed in the article linked to above represent those of The Medicus Firm only. That article does not represent the opinions of the New England Journal of Medicine or the Massachusetts Medical Society.”

(Emphasis added)

Any legislation has a downside to it. Any legislation can be opposed or criticized on legitimate and valid grounds. Why don’t Republicans make such arguments? One can only surmise that they are not interested in legitimate debate. They want to incite, and reasoned debate does not provoke the kind of emotional demonstrations, which they rely on to advance their agenda.

We all have an obligation to set the record straight. These lies are not to be tolerated. They are to be denounced. Where are the great newscasters of yore, like Ed Morrow, to take on the liars and the provocateurs?

But what is even worse is that the media encourages such outrageous and inflammatory behavior, for why is Bachman getting all this publicity? Why is she on "Face the Nation"? She has no leadership position in the Congress. She is just one of 435 members of Congress, representing one small district in Minnesota. She get all this exposure because she makes outrageous statements. The media rewards this. Thus the media becomes an accomplice and a promoter of the lies and the outrageous. It is the way to get the media to make them into celebrities.

Doesn't Anybody Really Care?

Almost nine years ago, on March 8 2001, I posted a commentary entitled: “The Death Of Outrage."

I went on to discuss the agenda of the Bush Administration even in that early configuration and found them the most outrageous of any bar none. Their agenda made the Reagan “revolution” mild by comparison, but I did not get any sense of outrage among the American people, not even among its most progressive elements. Somehow that ability to be outraged even by the most egregious agenda, or for that matter the most anti-democratic tactics brings no emotion and no outrage.

The Right, seems to be able to mobilize a sense of “Outrage,” as can be seen from their ability to mobilize the “Tea-Party” demonstrators. But liberals do not seem to be able to bring that kind of emotion into their movement, except maybe against their allies.
My last commentary, was entitled, “Lying pays off!!!!! Smears succeed!!!! Obstructionism is rewarded!!!!."

In that I set forth the lies that Republicans have deployed against the President in general, and the Health Care bill in particular, and their use of the extra-constitutional filibuster to prevent an overwhelming majority from governing. I expected outrage primarily against Republicans, but also against the many liberal groups who have often been unintended allies of gridlock imposed by the filibuster.

But instead of outrage, I get the following comment from Bruno Lederer of Stamford, Conn.

“It is true that there were many smears and lies by the Republican and that had some influence on the outcome in Mass. However, the main reason for the voter revolt there and in NJ and Va. was the use of federal money to rescue the automobile companies, AIG, and the banks, coupled with the unemployment situation in the country, and the fear that the health bill would result in more taxes. The trouble with Obama's approach was not that it was wrong, but that there was no real attempt to educate the voters as to the reason for his policies. I know that it does not seem fair for voters to penalize the democrats for policies that are much more reasonable than those of the Bush administration but that is the way voters are. The fact that special deals were made with the senators from Louisiana and Nebraska rubbed many voters the wrong way, and confirmed their negative view of Congress and politics. It is now imperative to fashion a health bill that will be acceptable to Olympia Snow, if possible, though the road will be much rougher now. Moreover, there is still time for Obama to try to educate the voters.”

What Bruno says undoubtedly has some truth in it, but is totally unresponsive to what I wrote. I wrote about the misuse of the filibuster and he clearly finds nothing about it to upset him. He dismisses it with, “(It may have had) some influence on the outcome in Mass."

Whether it had an outcome in Massachusetts is beside the point. It prevented the Health Care Bill from passing; it caused the stimulus to be watered down. It kept innumerable other bills from seeing the light of day. And it gives the election of one Senator out of a hundred a significance, which it should not have on the legislative process

He shows no anger or even consternation at the smears that have been told and he clearly finds nothing about it to upset him.

It is totally unresponsive to the petty carping of the various liberal special interest groups who refuse to compromise. But for those liberal groups, who will not support the Senate bill, that bill could already have been passed, and can still be passed. All the House has to do is pass the Senate bill. But I have not seen one liberal columnist, commentator, or organization advocate that.

As for a health bill that will be acceptable to Olympia Snowe that is totally unrealistic. Snowe, said she would support the bill if there is no public option. There is no public option and she voted for the filibuster. She has never said what else she wants, and doesn’t say what would be needed to secure her vote. Furthermore whatever is given to Snowe, is likely to lose votes of liberals in the House.

But allow me to return to the “liberal” groups like moveon.org who savage the Administration for having rescued the banking system from collapse and thereby avoided a ’29 meltdown. Who write, “Pro-bank Democrats killed real mortgage reform; they watered down the financial regulations bill in the House and are poised to gut it in the Senate.” Not one word about how “Pro-bank” Democrats were empowered only by the Republican filibuster. They rant about the Auto company bailout - do they not care about the huge number of jobs it saved? - and very likely without any cost to the taxpayer in the long run, since it is expected that every penny will be repaid. They show some outrage – but at whom? They sound like an adjunct to the Republican Party.

Or Paul Krugman who I said in my last commentary had a short memory. He deliberately ignores the political realities.

Or boldprogressives.org who distributed an e-mail saying:

“Tonight, Democrats lost Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in a bitter special election… The Senate health care bill is not the change we we were promised in 2008, and it must be improved. The Senate must use 'reconciliation' to pass a better bill with a strong public option.”

Or Credo Action:

“The loss of Ted Kennedy's seat — due to a lack of enthusiasm among Democrats and Independents — sends a clear message to Congress. The Senate health care bill is not the change we were promised in 2008, and it must be improved. The Senate must use 'reconciliation' to pass a better bill with a strong public option.

Or NOW, the National Organization for Women:

“Tell members of your congressional delegation that throwing women under the bus in health care reform legislation is not acceptable. Contrary to what women's advocates have repeatedly been told, it now appears health care legislation allows gender rating after all. This, coupled with the anti-abortion rights language and other problems, renders the bill not worth passing unless these harmful provisions are removed.”

And Campaign for America’s Future:

“Let’s see. Obama packs his White House and economic team with former Clintonistas; devotes one-third of his stimulus plan to ineffective tax cuts; rescues the banks without reorganizing them; wastes months seeking bipartisan support on health care, jettisoning the public option along the way and insisting on taxing health care benefits rather than the wealthy.”

I don’t know from where the people who write these diatribes get their information, for they seem astoundingly out of touch and misinformed. A Health Care Reform bill cannot be passed by “reconciliation.” If that could have been done, don’t they think that this procedure would have been employed in the first place? Reconciliation under the rules is limited to taxes and expenditures. If a bill passes, reconciliation could be used to fix some of its rough spots. But for them to call for reconciliation on the whole bill is pure demagoguery.

As for NOW’s concern. It is understandable. But it is not a question of getting a bill with this provision or that provision. It is a question of getting a flawed bill or none at all. And there is no question that a flawed bill would be better for most women than no bill at all. The discrimination in rates exists now. The bill would not make it worse. It would reduce it by eliminating Pre-Existing Health Conditions and by increasing coverage for pre-natal care. It always comes down to allowing the perfect from being the enemy of the good.

As for Campaign for America’s Future, do they really think that turning the country back to the Republicans would serve their objectives better? As I said about Krugman, The Democrats didn’t have 60 votes when the stimulus was passed. To get the three Republicans, and even some of the Democrats from conservative states they had to have tax cuts, which were most certainly not totally ineffective. The banks, as unpopular as they were and are, had to be rescued or we would have had a ’29 meltdown. First the rescue – then the regulation-, which without 60 votes may no longer be possible - thank you very much. Since a unanimous Democratic vote on Health Care Reform was made necessary by Republican intransigence and the filibuster, and some Democrats wouldn’t accept the public option, it was again compromise or nothing and the Public option was made into a symbol which as long as we had adequate regulation, which the bill provided for, was far from essential, though it became a rallying cry for organizations more interested in raising money for themselves than in reform.

As for taxing some Health Care benefits – that, it is agreed, is one of the few means for controlling costs, and without controlling costs we will all lose out.

But as can be see all these “liberal organizations” train their attacks not on Republicans but on the people laboring to actually accomplish reform instead of grandstanding.

They seem intent on returning Republicans to power. Maybe that will further increase their fund raising, but it will not advance reform. I for one will no longer contribute to any of them.

But right or wrong, sincere or not, they show passion.

What bothers me about Bruno Lederer's comment is its total lack of passion, or even any indication that he cares. He appears to seek the position of an uninterested commentator.

Lying pays off!!!!! Smears succeed!!!! Obstructionism is rewarded!!!!

 Lying pays off!!!!! Smears succeed!!!! Obstructionism is rewarded!!!!

So many lies have been told and the truth never really catches up. We are warned about death panels, which is a boldfaced lie, and not one Republican stands up for the truth.

We are warned about rationing in Health Care, which is not contemplated in any versions of the pending bills, but not told about the rationing that exists now, that kills about 22,000 of our fellow Americans each year of treatable diseases because they lack insurance and can't afford a doctor which the reform bill would eliminate. That is more than four times as many people who die each year than were killed by terrorists in the US in the past ten years.

We are subjected to political discourse that consists of the “birthers” who without any basis whatsoever question Obama’s American birth even though his birth certificate is a matter of public record and shows his birth in one of the fifty states, (Hawaii) and even though while McCain was born outside the fifty states, no one questions his qualification under the Constitution.

Michele Bachmann, Republican congresswoman of Minnesota, said she was “very concerned” that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama “may have anti-American views,” and suggested that the American media “take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America?” and more vicious smears were propounded without repudiation by their brethren.

The lying and the smearing have succeeded and Republicans who practice them are in the ascendancy. Their win, in the Democratic state of Massachusetts, follows upon wins in Virginia and the Democratic state of New Jersey.

The people are angry because there is over 10% unemployment and even more underemployment.

During the eight years of the last Republican Administration the unemployment rate went from 4.2 per cent to 7.2 per cent and climbing; consumer confidence dropped to an all-time low; a budget surplus of two hundred billion dollars became a deficit of that plus a trillion; more than a million families fell into poverty; the ranks of those without health insurance rose by six million; and the fruits of the nation’s economic growth went almost entirely to the rich, while family incomes in the middle and below declined.

But Obama couldn’t undo all the damage in less than a year and so the people, in their wisdom, decided they preferred the party that brought us to this pass.

They voted for the party of Pat Robertson who saw God’s just punishment in 9/11 and in Katrina and now in the devastation of Haiti. I wonder does he think the same about the holocaust? They voted for the party of Bill O'Reilly who responded to a Jewish caller who objected to "Christmas going into schools" with “if you are really offended, you gotta go to Israel then” not to speak of Rush Limbaugh or the many segregationists the Republican party embraced when they defected from the Democratic fold. They voted for the party of Geoff Davis who referred to the President of the US as “that boy.”

The so-called Tea Party crowd cried, “We want our country back.” What makes them think it’s their country and whom do they want it back from. Is it from people who may not be white and Christian?

They thought it more important that the Democratic candidate in Massachusetts didn’t know that Curt Schilling was a pitcher for the Red Sox, than that aspiring Republican candidate for the Presidency and now a commentator for Fox News, Sarah Palin, didn’t know that Africa was a continent or why North and South Korea were separate nations and she did not know what the Federal Reserve did.

But what is worst than the lies and the smears from Republicans is the unfounded carping from the left. Thus ten days ago, nine days before the Massachusetts election, moveon.org wrote in the Washington Post, “2009: Washington stood by while Wall Street firms that had taken hundreds of billions of our tax dollars swiftly returned to practices that led to the meltdown. Pro-bank Democrats killed real mortgage reform; they watered down the financial regulations bill in the House and are poised to gut it in the Senate. Pharma and Big Insurance scored high-profile victories on health care, and while what's left will still help most Americans, this hasn't sunk in yet for voters. Likewise, the stimulus did some good, but it was overshadowed by the Troubled Assets Relief Program and the bailout of the auto companies.”

Not one word about the fact that the Republican filibuster on all matters made it impossible to pass anything except by a unanimous vote of the Democratic caucus in the Senate, a situation that would, of course, empower single Senators from conservative states, and that this would in turn require undesirable compromises, or that the money loaned in the Troubled Assets Relief Program would soon be repaid, possibly with a profit to the tax-payer. Or that the “bailout of the auto companies” may have prevented direct and indirect job losses of 2.5 million to 3 million. Even if that figure were to be an exaggeration, the economy at a moment of dire danger of a 1929 depression could hardly afford the loss of half that number.

Even the denouncing of the few Democratic Senators who have insisted on certain undesirable commissions or omissions in the Health Reform bill, which has become a sport in Liberal circles ignores the enormous difference between the parties, for the best of the Republicans is worst than the worst of the Democrats. Thus according to the National Journal’s ranking of Senators voting records on liberal v. conservative issues the Republicans who ranked the best were Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins who had a liberal voting record of 47.8 and 47.2 respectively. The only Democrat with a poorer score was Ben Nelson with 46.7 score. Every other Democrat scored better than the “best” Republicans and these moderate Republicans were not at the table. That much reviled Independent, Senator Lieberman, had a score 57.5, but he was at the table, even if he insisted on concessions that moveon.org or I may not like.

And Paul Krugman writing in the New York Times two days before the Massachusetts election in a column that is syndicated, and therefore read far more widely than the Times readership, wrote, “The stimulus was too small; … Mr. Obama’s top economic and political advisers concluded that a bigger stimulus was neither economically necessary nor politically feasible.” This is simply not true!! Obama, in fact, proposed a stimulus that was substantially bigger than the one that passed, but at that point he did not have 60 votes to overcome the Republican filibuster. To get it passed he had to get the votes of Susan Collins, Olympia Snow and Arlene Specter. They demanded a substantial cut in the stimulus as a condition of their support including a cut in the vital aid to states. How short Mr. Krugman’s memory is.

And then there are the liberal special interest groups who urged a vote against the Health Reform bill if this or that provision wasn’t to their liking, ignoring that a flawed bill was better than none.

The slander and lies from Republicans is to be expected, but the attacks from natural allies were foolish.

Well I say to these natural allies – are you satisfied now. Now nothing will get done! In Shakespeare’s words, "Et tu, Brute?"

Taking a Sabbatical

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.

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.

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:

“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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

War on the Middle Class

During most of the Republican Party’s history they have objected to programs for the poor, depicting them as the undeserving, whose shiftlessness and laziness has resulted in their sorry state. This attitude was best exemplified in Reagan’s fictitious “Welfare Queen” which he rolled out in 1976 with this description, “"She has 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names."

Now, however, Republicans attack Democrats for being for the middle class and not focusing enough attention on the poor. Thus Republican columnist, David Brooks, wrote in last Sunday’s NY Times, “Raising the minimum wage won’t be of much benefit to the working poor. Only 0.6 percent of all wage workers make the minimum (and) a mere 12.7 percent of the benefits of a federal minimum wage hike would go to poor families, while 63 percent would go to families earning more than twice the poverty line.” Even if this is correct, (Brooks gives no study to support this conclusion) his objection speaks worlds to the new Republican attitude. In 2005 the poverty threshold in the U.S. for a family of four was $22,951. Thus twice that, or $46,000 would place a family of four into the lower middle class. Is there anything wrong with extending a helping hand to people in this income category?

Possibly more striking is the approach to Health Care proposed in the President’s State of the Union Speech. Having again and again reduced taxes on the very wealthy and having vowed no tax increases for anyone, the Administration now proposes to penalize people who have health insurance through their employer by taxing this insurance. This would most certainly strike at the middle class. In his weekly radio address Bush did not address the inefficiency of the present system which is the most expensive in the world, but rather decried, the system for “unwisely encourag(ing) workers to choose overly expensive, gold plated plans…”

While proposing increased taxes on the middle class, he and his party continue their attack on Social Security, warning that unless “something” is done the system will go bankrupt, though whether that is true is debatable. According to the Social Security trustees the payroll tax revenues currently exceed benefit payments so that there is now a growing surplus that would allow present benefits to be paid in full for the next 28 years. After 2034 a problem is projected in that surpluses now building up will be exhausted. At that point the fund will only have enough income to pay 70 percent of benefit payments. However, these projections are based on the economy expanding at a rate of 1.5 percent per year over the next 75 years. This rate is about half the average rate of growth over the past 75 years. Therefore an assumption of rate of growth of 2.5% is reasonable. If that assumption is made Social Security is solvent and running a surplus ad infinitum.

So what is all the hullabaloo about? It has only one purpose and that is to justify the privatization of this system with “private accounts’, which in fact would quickly bankrupt the system. In other words we fix something that isn’t broken by abolishing it.

Caution does dictate some adjustments, which Republicans oppose because they mean higher taxes. Yet as can be seen, The Administration has no objections to higher taxes provided they are on the middle class and serve no useful purpose. Reagan, who initially also wanted to privatize Social Security, in the end agreed to a bill that increased the number of people covered by the program including members of Congress, and government employees, increased Social Security tax rates from 6.6% to 7.0 percent in 1984, and 7.05 percent in 1985, 7.15 percent in 1986-87, 7.51 percent in 1988-89 and 7.65 percent in 1990 and thereafter. At the same time he raised the age for eligibility for unreduced retirement benefits in two stages to 67 by the year 2027. Workers born in 1938 will be the first group affected by the gradual increase.

Nevertheless, as a precaution against Social Security running into difficulty the date when the 67 eligibility standard kicks in could be moved up to 2015, provided the cap on income to be taxed for Social Security is also raised. Under current law, Americans pay a 12.4% Social Security tax on all wages up to $94,200 in 2006, and the cap rises each year with inflation. (There is also an uncapped 2.9% Medicare payroll tax on top of that.) This cap could be lifted by $10,000 a year until it reaches $150,000. The trust fund should also be taken out of the budget where it masks a deficit much larger than the one shown and should be treated like state pension funds, allowing the trustee manager to make conservative investments of part of the fund in the stock market. An S&P Index Fund would be such a conservative investment and would entail very little in management costs. Then if we find that the income for the fund exceeds needs, an increase in Social Security payments, or a reduction in payroll taxes for the lower incomes, could be contemplated This is important at a time when corporations seem to be cutting pension benefits, forcing wage earners to rely ever more on their Social Security benefits. If needed it could be used to shore up Medicare, which is more vulnerable than Social Security.

What is particularly interesting in this hullabaloo is that a new rationale is being offered for destroying this treasured benefit. In December 2002 the Vice-President declared, “Reagan proved deficits don't matter.” Now, Republicans argue, deficits matter, but we must not stop cutting taxes for the rich-it is entitlement that we can’t afford. As shown above, the most important entitlement pays for itself. Rather than a drag on the treasury, it masks the size of the deficit.