Post with 1 note
Krugman’s NY Times Op-ed
“Fear Strikes Out”
The day before Sunday’s health care vote, President Obama gave an unscripted talk to House Democrats. Near the end, he spoke about why his party should pass reform: “Every once in a while a moment comes where you have a chance to vindicate all those best hopes that you had about yourself, about this country, where you have a chance to make good on those promises that you made … And this is the time to make true on that promise. We are not bound to win, but we are bound to be true. We are not bound to succeed, but we are bound to let whatever light we have shine.”
And on the other side, here’s what Newt Gingrich, the Republican former speaker of the House — a man celebrated by many in his party as an intellectual leader — had to say: If Democrats pass health reform, “They will have destroyed their party much as Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years” by passing civil rights legislation. I’d argue that Mr. Gingrich is wrong about that: proposals to guarantee health insurance are often controversial before they go into effect — Ronald Reagan famously argued that Medicare would mean the end of American freedom — but always popular once enacted. But that’s not the point I want to make today. Instead, I want you to consider the contrast: on one side, the closing argument was an appeal to our better angels, urging politicians to do what is right, even if it hurts their careers; on the other side, callous cynicism. Think about what it means to condemn health reform by comparing it to the Civil Rights Act. Who in modern America would say that L.B.J. did the wrong thing by pushing for racial equality? (Actually, we know who: the people at the Tea Party protest who hurled racial epithets at Democratic members of Congress on the eve of the vote.) And that cynicism has been the hallmark of the whole campaign against reform. Yes, a few conservative policy intellectuals, after making a show of thinking hard about the issues, claimed to be disturbed by reform’s fiscal implications (but were strangely unmoved by the clean bill of fiscal health from the Congressional Budget Office) or to want stronger action on costs (even though this reform does more to tackle health care costs than any previous legislation). For the most part, however, opponents of reform didn’t even pretend to engage with the reality either of the existing health care system or of the moderate, centrist plan — very close in outline to the reform Mitt Romney introduced in Massachusetts — that Democrats were proposing. Instead, the emotional core of opposition to reform was blatant fear-mongering, unconstrained either by the facts or by any sense of decency. It wasn’t just the death panel smear. It was racial hate-mongering, like a piece in Investor’s Business Daily declaring that health reform is “affirmative action on steroids, deciding everything from who becomes a doctor to who gets treatment on the basis of skin color.” It was wild claims about abortion funding. It was the insistence that there is something tyrannical about giving young working Americans the assurance that health care will be available when they need it, an assurance that older Americans have enjoyed ever since Lyndon Johnson — whom Mr. Gingrich considers a failed president — pushed Medicare through over the howls of conservatives. And let’s be clear: the campaign of fear hasn’t been carried out by a radical fringe, unconnected to the Republican establishment. On the contrary, that establishment has been involved and approving all the way. Politicians like Sarah Palin — who was, let us remember, the G.O.P.’s vice-presidential candidate — eagerly spread the death panel lie, and supposedly reasonable, moderate politicians like Senator Chuck Grassley refused to say that it was untrue. On the eve of the big vote, Republican members of Congress warned that “freedom dies a little bit today” and accused Democrats of “totalitarian tactics,” which I believe means the process known as “voting.” Without question, the campaign of fear was effective: health reform went from being highly popular to wide disapproval, although the numbers have been improving lately. But the question was, would it actually be enough to block reform? And the answer is no. The Democrats have done it. The House has passed the Senate version of health reform, and an improved version will be achieved through reconciliation. This is, of course, a political victory for President Obama, and a triumph for Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker. But it is also a victory for America’s soul. In the end, a vicious, unprincipled fear offensive failed to block reform. This time, fear struck out.
Krugman — ftw
Remember when Scott Brown was voted in as the vote to kill Health Care Reform…
point, Mr. President
Post with 1 note
NY Times Op-Ed
One way or another, the fate of health care reform is going to be decided in the next few days. If House Democratic leaders find 216 votes, reform will almost immediately become the law of the land. If they don’t, reform may well be put off for many years — possibly a decade or more.
So this seems like a good time to revisit the reasons we need this reform, imperfect as it is.
As it happens, Reuters published an investigative report this week that powerfully illustrates the vileness of our current system. The report concerns the insurer Fortis, now part of Assurant Health, which turns out to have had a systematic policy of revoking its clients’ policies when they got sick. In particular, according to the Reuters report, it targeted every single policyholder who contracted H.I.V., looking for any excuse, no matter how flimsy, for cancellation. In the case that brought all this to light, Assurant Health used an obviously misdated handwritten note by a nurse, who wrote “2001” instead of “2002,” to claim that the infection was a pre-existing condition that the client had failed to declare, and revoked his policy.
This was illegal, and the company must have known it: the South Carolina Supreme Court, after upholding a decision granting large damages to the wronged policyholder, concluded that the company had been systematically concealing its actions when withdrawing coverage, not just in this case, but across the board.
But this is much more than a law enforcement issue. For one thing, it’s an example those who castigate President Obama for “demonizing” insurance companies should consider. The truth, widely documented, is that behavior like Assurant Health’s is widespread for a simple reason: it pays. A House committee estimated that Assurant made $150 million in profits between 2003 and 2007 by canceling coverage of people who thought they had insurance, a sum that dwarfs the fine the court imposed in this particular case. It’s not demonizing insurers to describe what they actually do.
Beyond that, this is a story that could happen only in America. In every other advanced nation, insurance coverage is available to everyone regardless of medical history. Our system is unique in its cruelty.
And one more thing: employment-based health insurance, which is already regulated in a way that mostly prevents this kind of abuse, is unraveling. Less than half of workers at small businesses were covered last year, down from 58 percent a decade ago. This means that in the absence of reform, an ever-growing number of Americans will be at the mercy of the likes of Assurant Health.
So what’s the answer? Americans overwhelmingly favor guaranteeing coverage to those with pre-existing conditions — but you can’t do that without pursuing broad-based reform. To make insurance affordable, you have to keep currently healthy people in the risk pool, which means requiring that everyone or almost everyone buy coverage. You can’t do that without financial aid to lower-income Americans so that they can pay the premiums. So you end up with a tripartite policy: elimination of medical discrimination, mandated coverage, and premium subsidies.
Or to put it another way, you end up with something like the health care plan Mitt Romney introduced in Massachusetts in 2006, and the very similar plan the House either will or won’t pass in the next few days. Comprehensive reform is the only way forward.
Can we afford this? Yes, says the Congressional Budget Office, which on Thursday concluded that the proposed legislation would reduce the deficit by $138 billion in its first decade and half of 1 percent of G.D.P., amounting to around $1.2 trillion, in its second decade.
But shouldn’t we be focused on controlling costs rather than extending coverage? Actually, the proposed reform does more to control health care costs than any previous legislation, paying for expanded coverage by reducing the rate at which Medicare costs will grow, substantially improving Medicare’s long-run financing along the way. And this combination of broader coverage and cost control is no accident: It has long been clear to health-policy experts that these concerns go hand in hand. The United States is the only advanced nation without universal health care, and it also has by far the world’s highest health care costs.
Can you imagine a better reform? Sure. If Harry Truman had managed to add health care to Social Security back in 1947, we’d have a better, cheaper system than the one whose fate now hangs in the balance. But an ideal plan isn’t on the table. And what is on the table, ready to go, is legislation that is fiscally responsible, takes major steps toward dealing with rising health care costs, and would make us a better, fairer, more decent nation.
All it will take to make this happen is for a handful of on-the-fence House members to do the right thing. Here’s hoping.
Krugman — FTW
Today in history
Jan 24, 1972: Japanese soldier, Shoichi Yokoi, was discovered in Guam, having spent 28 years hiding in a jungle thinking World War II was still going on.
Apparently, the guy hid in a cave the whole time and refused to come out even after finding pamphlets that the war had ended..
Holy ess — part of me wants to remark at how dedicated he was, yet part of me wants to hit him over the head with a baseball bat…
The Empire Strikes Back
After watching MSNBC’s coverage of the Massachusetts special election, I feel like I’ve watched the end scenario of The Empire Strikes Back.
A grave period has fallen over the galaxy. The evil empire (The Republican party) has scored a great victory (Scott Brown’s destroying of the Democrat’s 60 seat majority in the Senate) against the Rebel Alliance (the Democratic party) and one of its’ heroes, Han Solo (Health Care reform), is stuck frozen in carbonite. With the Alliance’s back against the wall, hope rests with Luke Skywalker (President Obama), the young Jedi hero, to save his friend Han and return balance to the galaxy.
For Christ’s sake, Rebel Alliance effin’ grow some balls, save Han, pass that health care legislation, and lets make history. But please, no ewoks — they made Return of the Jedi the weakest entry into the original Star Wars trilogy and led to future stupid characters like Jar Jar.I can only imagine what havoc “ewoks” would reap upon health care reform.
NOTE: I suppose, based on your political persuasion, this could be Return of the Jedi and balance could be restored to the galaxy, but eff that ess this is my movie and my blog!
Plato and Health Care
I’ve recently had to read Plato’s Republic for one of my Political Science classes, and I have had problems with Plato’s arguments. Plato argues about how inefficient a democratic government is, and I’m starting to understand his argument more and more.
The debate over health care reform has been, to say the least, intense in this country. Conservatives argue the bill goes too far; liberals say the bill doesn’t go far enough, and moderates just kind of tread water and just want to pass some sort of reform.
The country has been struck by ridiculous town-halls sometimes resulting in violence, politicians saying the bill would give the government the power to create “death panels;” and “tea bagger” demonstrations in D.C. These claims by T.V. pundits and political figures has, in my opinion, led to a huge disinformation campaign and has led to a huge ignorance in the public over what is actually included in the bill. One of Plato’s arguments against a democratic form of government is the ignorance of the general population, which I feel is present here.
Another one of Plato’s points is illustrated in the Massachusetts senate race. The senate race for Ted Kennedy’s seat is turning into the be all and end all of the health care reform. The republican candidate is even claiming to be “the vote that will kill health care.” News anchors are saying this single race could change President Obama’s entire agendea — reducing his Democratic majority in the senate from 60 to 59. Basically, all hell will break loose if the Democrats lose this election. It just amazes me how much this one election could alter a bill that has required so much debate and labor.
Plato argued about the inefficiency of a democratic system. If a government body can not pass a reform in which they have a majority, I would call that system/body inefficient, as would Plato. The idea that one person makes a difference is a very noble and romantic idea, but the fact that one person can derail landmark legislation amazes me..
I guess it depends on your political persuasion, but I really hope this one election does not kill reform that has been called for since Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency. I do realize that even if the republican nominee wins the election health care reform is not dead, but the bill will be greatly altered if it passes at all. If the bill fails, I may be obliged to agree that a democratic system can at times be seen as inefficient and, to say the least, frustrating at times.
NOTE: This post is not to be an argument for a totalitarian government. I have read 1984. I love, value, and respect our system of republican democracy in this country and hope it continues to prosper. I just feel this development in health care reform has made Plato’s arguments easier to understand, swallow, and sympathize with.
Video with 1 note
Her lack of knowledge mesmerizes me. Not only could she not think of another founding father besides George Washington, but she gave an answer the average American could give at the age of 8.
Am I the only one that missed that Plato was somewhat of a fan of a totalitarian government? The use of totalitarian is bad here but that is the best I can come up with. He even called democracy the second worst form of government.
Plato favored a society structured into 3 classes with no means to move between the three. These classes would be selected by the highest of the social order the rulers. the rulers would also have the right to Lie to the public and use art as propaganda to further their own agenda.
“rhetoric…is a producer of persuasion for belief, not for the instruction in the matter of right and wrong. And so the rhetorician’s business is not to instruct a law court or a public meeting in matters of right and wrong, but only to make them believe”
Now Plato, I realize our system of democracy is a lot different than your own but WTF dude
Page 1 of 2
