The Health Care Reform (HCR) debate has been rattling around in my head all day today, as you can tell by this record output. Anyway, I have a couple of thoughts on HCR that deserve attention.
1) The Pearl Harbor Analogy is off Lindsey Graham, Senator from South Carolina, referred to the HCR vote as Democrats drinking sake in preparations for Pearl Harbor. . .and obviously I think this is a bad analogy. The Health Care Reform bill(s) weren't designed as gambits to destroy a potential threat, but rather, they are the first step in reforming health care services in this country. Accordingly, the GOP and their allies weren't protesting the parts of the bill (which were vague), but rather, they were protesting the idea of health care reform in any way, shape or form.
In other words, they were trying to prevent the Democrats from establishing a beachhead. Thus, its completely possible that Congress could take up the public option (or, as I like to refer to it, the Medicare buy-in) in the future. After all, with a bill this big, you're going to tweak it over the years. So, really, the better analogy is establishing a beachhead on Normandy.
2) Nancy Pelosi deserves a lot of credit Someone, somehow, found some spine on the Democratic side, and from most accounts, it was Nancy Pelosi. After Scott Brown won in the Massachusetts Senate race, everyone thought HCR was dead, and the Democratic centrists were pushing an incremental approach. At that moment, essentially said, "Fuck that," pushed for reconciliation, and put most of the deal together, and delivered the votes.
3) Obama became a leader of the Democratic Party While Pelosi worked her ass off to get the votes, Obama crystallized the cause to a lot of House members. At one point, he told Democratic lawmakers to look back and ask themselves why they became Democrats to begin with. In that way, the Democratic Party is going to be defined for the next 20 years by this legislation, and by Barack Obama as President.
For me, this goes beyond the terms of the typical debate. For the first time in a long time, the Democratic Party, as a whole, stood up for something, and spoke with one voice. They didn't just sign onto the bill, but they signed onto the very reason for the bill's existence, even if doing so meant electoral defeat. Not only did they pass the bill, they were proud to do it. Bill Clinton, for all of his skills, could never do that.
That's what makes Barack Obama so different from any Democratic President we've had in a long, long time. He doesn't want to follow public opinion, he wants to shape it, and it was through HCR that Obama learned how to be a President.
Showing posts with label Nancy Pelosi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nancy Pelosi. Show all posts
Monday, March 22, 2010
They Finally Did It. . .
I actually had no real plans to write anything tonight, but one of my neighbors held control over the laundry room until late, and I am drying my sheets now. But since I am up, I figured I should comment on the passage of health care reform. So without further ado, here are my thoughts:
1) I actually have little idea what's in the bill. I do know that insurers can't fuck people over preexisting conditions, can't pull the recission bullshit, and nonprofit co-ops can be set up in all fifty states. Outside of that, I am not sure of everything in the bill. Oh, wait, no aid for immigrants, and no publicly funded abortions.
2) The Democrats finally showed some spine. What's amazing here is that this is probably the first bill that was passed without a single Republican vote. In the face of truly ridiculous Republican opposition (to the point the Republicans were just making shit up, i.e. "Death Panels"), and so-so polling, and the fact that every Democratic Administration since Truman tried to pass some kind of health care reform, the Democrats sacked up. To be honest, I didn't think they had it in them.
3) The Republicans overplayed their hand. On a purely political note, the GOP strategy for defeating health care was brilliant, and they masterfully played the Democrats against each other. HCR was even polling badly (of course, if you told people what's actually in the bill, it polls a lot better). They, by all rights, should have won this one, but suddenly, the Democrats showed spine they didn't know they had. That said, the Republicans overplayed their hand yesterday. Calling John Lewis, a civil rights activist from the 50's, the "n-word," and calling Bart Stupak a "babykiller" only got the Democrats mad. The townhall storm of the summer was also ridiculous.
4) The Public Option is dead-ish. Its too bad that the public option didn't make it. That said, not having the public option in the final bill means it can come back later, and much cleaner.
5) I have no idea what the political ramifications of this bill will be, and neither does anyone else. For the first time, the Democrats can point to doing something unpopular for the good of the country - this couldn't be further from the Clinton days. Plus, the measures within the health care reform bill will be popular. At the same time, the opposition is totally and completely nuts. Anything is on the table here.
So what are the lessons to be learned? Having a spine is a good thing, and let's hope for the good of the country, these reforms will work.
1) I actually have little idea what's in the bill. I do know that insurers can't fuck people over preexisting conditions, can't pull the recission bullshit, and nonprofit co-ops can be set up in all fifty states. Outside of that, I am not sure of everything in the bill. Oh, wait, no aid for immigrants, and no publicly funded abortions.
2) The Democrats finally showed some spine. What's amazing here is that this is probably the first bill that was passed without a single Republican vote. In the face of truly ridiculous Republican opposition (to the point the Republicans were just making shit up, i.e. "Death Panels"), and so-so polling, and the fact that every Democratic Administration since Truman tried to pass some kind of health care reform, the Democrats sacked up. To be honest, I didn't think they had it in them.
3) The Republicans overplayed their hand. On a purely political note, the GOP strategy for defeating health care was brilliant, and they masterfully played the Democrats against each other. HCR was even polling badly (of course, if you told people what's actually in the bill, it polls a lot better). They, by all rights, should have won this one, but suddenly, the Democrats showed spine they didn't know they had. That said, the Republicans overplayed their hand yesterday. Calling John Lewis, a civil rights activist from the 50's, the "n-word," and calling Bart Stupak a "babykiller" only got the Democrats mad. The townhall storm of the summer was also ridiculous.
4) The Public Option is dead-ish. Its too bad that the public option didn't make it. That said, not having the public option in the final bill means it can come back later, and much cleaner.
5) I have no idea what the political ramifications of this bill will be, and neither does anyone else. For the first time, the Democrats can point to doing something unpopular for the good of the country - this couldn't be further from the Clinton days. Plus, the measures within the health care reform bill will be popular. At the same time, the opposition is totally and completely nuts. Anything is on the table here.
So what are the lessons to be learned? Having a spine is a good thing, and let's hope for the good of the country, these reforms will work.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
I think I have Obama figured out. . .
As I ride the train back to San Diego from Orange County (a great way to travel, by the way), I have had time to ponder about Obama during the past few weeks. I’ve often wondered: what the hell is this guy thinking? And I’ve filled this blog with discussions about the failures in health care, etc.
But after the State of the Union and the “question time” deals, I think I finally figured it out. Obama is, at heart, a classicist, and he wants to restore the Republic. Now, this might sound a bit out of “I, Claudius” but hear me out. For the past several decades, the power of the Federal Government has increasingly been concentrated in the hands of the Executive. Not only is the President the Commander in Chief, and running the operations of government, but he’s also pushing legislation, dictating budgets, and otherwise controlling Congress. This concentration of power was most evident under the Bush Administration which, under the theory of the unitary Executive, acted more or less with impunity, and Congress went along with it.
Obama’s actions have shown an interest in changing the dynamic to an earlier time when the Administration might set the agenda, but lets Congress legislate. Thus, to my great annoyance, Obama has left Congress up to its own devices on health care reform. Unfortunately, Democrats are by nature disorganized, and so this approach only makes things worse. But it appears that Obama is trying to strengthen Congress by purposely not stepping in. At least, I hope that’s what he’s doing.
This reestablishment of the Congressional independence also appears to be in line with Obama’s empowerment of the independent regulatory bodies. Under Bush, regulatory agencies were told, more or less, to fall in line with Bush’s conservative ideology. So the EPA refused to regulate Greenhouse gases, even after a conservative Supreme Court issued an order requiring it to do so. And that’s just one example of many. Anyway, Obama’s Administration has quietly gone about reestablishing the independence of these agencies.
Ironically, at the same time Obama is trying to devolve power from the Presidency, the power of the federal government is expanding due to the financial ruin of the economy. And typically, power is concentrated in the hands of an executive during moments of crisis. The takeaway here is that the whole thing is one big mess because Obama is trying to buck way too many trends at once.
Still, one can appreciate what he’s trying to do. When the U.S. government was perfected in the Constitution, there were three equal co-branches of government for a reason. It would be nice to go back to that.
But after the State of the Union and the “question time” deals, I think I finally figured it out. Obama is, at heart, a classicist, and he wants to restore the Republic. Now, this might sound a bit out of “I, Claudius” but hear me out. For the past several decades, the power of the Federal Government has increasingly been concentrated in the hands of the Executive. Not only is the President the Commander in Chief, and running the operations of government, but he’s also pushing legislation, dictating budgets, and otherwise controlling Congress. This concentration of power was most evident under the Bush Administration which, under the theory of the unitary Executive, acted more or less with impunity, and Congress went along with it.
Obama’s actions have shown an interest in changing the dynamic to an earlier time when the Administration might set the agenda, but lets Congress legislate. Thus, to my great annoyance, Obama has left Congress up to its own devices on health care reform. Unfortunately, Democrats are by nature disorganized, and so this approach only makes things worse. But it appears that Obama is trying to strengthen Congress by purposely not stepping in. At least, I hope that’s what he’s doing.
This reestablishment of the Congressional independence also appears to be in line with Obama’s empowerment of the independent regulatory bodies. Under Bush, regulatory agencies were told, more or less, to fall in line with Bush’s conservative ideology. So the EPA refused to regulate Greenhouse gases, even after a conservative Supreme Court issued an order requiring it to do so. And that’s just one example of many. Anyway, Obama’s Administration has quietly gone about reestablishing the independence of these agencies.
Ironically, at the same time Obama is trying to devolve power from the Presidency, the power of the federal government is expanding due to the financial ruin of the economy. And typically, power is concentrated in the hands of an executive during moments of crisis. The takeaway here is that the whole thing is one big mess because Obama is trying to buck way too many trends at once.
Still, one can appreciate what he’s trying to do. When the U.S. government was perfected in the Constitution, there were three equal co-branches of government for a reason. It would be nice to go back to that.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
On the State of the Union, and Deficit Spending
So, as a disaffected liberal, I had no real intention of watching the State of the Union. At least, not all the way through. But old habits die hard, and I turned on the State of the Union to catch a few minutes. Well, a few minutes turned into the full hour and ten minutes, plus the post-speech commentary. I did skip the Republican response, but it looked like it didn't suck, so the GOP has that going for it.
Anyway, my quick thought was similar to the iPad - if you're an Obama fan, there was a lot to be happy with. For the first time in a long time, I was reminded of why I voted for the guy. I loved that he told the Democrats to stop being pussies, that he told the GOP that they're going to own the obstructionism, and most of all, I loved that he chastised the Supreme Court for its decision. That Justice Alito reacted was all the better. If ever there was a President who would make a good Supreme Court Justice, it would be Obama.
Now, if you're not an Obama fan, this speech probably pissed you off. It was combative, and sarcastic, and worst of all, really, really good. Obama in a formal speech setting is like Peyton Manning just before the two minute warning: you know he's going the score, and there's not much you can do about it.
That said, I have a nit to pick with Obama - the budget freeze. Per everyone's macroeconomic course, we all know that the GDP is made of up three things: consumer spending, business spending, and government spending. Because of the current economic conditions, consumer spending and business spending is down. Also, local and state governments have cut back their spending as well. So, the only thing that can prop up the economy right now is the Federal Government, and increasing overall spending. Freezing domestic spending in this climate is dumb.
Now, I understand why the GOP wants to prevent any government spending - once the government starts spending money on something, its hard to stop. That's why the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress spent like crazy. And when asked what to cut, most Republicans sound like this.
So, what to do? I think rather dramatic spending on infrastructure is called for, but with clear sunset provisions. The beauty of infrastructure spending is that once the infrastructure is built, the spending stops. However, the benefits last for 10-20 years after. So, let's keep spending for a short period of time.
Anyway, my quick thought was similar to the iPad - if you're an Obama fan, there was a lot to be happy with. For the first time in a long time, I was reminded of why I voted for the guy. I loved that he told the Democrats to stop being pussies, that he told the GOP that they're going to own the obstructionism, and most of all, I loved that he chastised the Supreme Court for its decision. That Justice Alito reacted was all the better. If ever there was a President who would make a good Supreme Court Justice, it would be Obama.
Now, if you're not an Obama fan, this speech probably pissed you off. It was combative, and sarcastic, and worst of all, really, really good. Obama in a formal speech setting is like Peyton Manning just before the two minute warning: you know he's going the score, and there's not much you can do about it.
That said, I have a nit to pick with Obama - the budget freeze. Per everyone's macroeconomic course, we all know that the GDP is made of up three things: consumer spending, business spending, and government spending. Because of the current economic conditions, consumer spending and business spending is down. Also, local and state governments have cut back their spending as well. So, the only thing that can prop up the economy right now is the Federal Government, and increasing overall spending. Freezing domestic spending in this climate is dumb.
Now, I understand why the GOP wants to prevent any government spending - once the government starts spending money on something, its hard to stop. That's why the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress spent like crazy. And when asked what to cut, most Republicans sound like this.
So, what to do? I think rather dramatic spending on infrastructure is called for, but with clear sunset provisions. The beauty of infrastructure spending is that once the infrastructure is built, the spending stops. However, the benefits last for 10-20 years after. So, let's keep spending for a short period of time.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Why I'm Pissed About the Health Care Bill. . .
Under the recent Senate bill, 30 million uninsured Americans will have access to health insurance, and preexisting conditions will be covered. While all of that is great, here's my problem with the bill: what happens if your insurance company screws you?
Currently, every single American is at risk. Make a claim for a serious illness, and the insurance company could very well find something left off the application and use that to rescind coverage. As of right now, cancer is the number one cause of bankruptcy (and most of those who declare bankruptcy have insurance). And insurers will do just about anything to drop insurance coverage.
And let's face it, as corporations, profit-motivated entities, insurance companies are supposed to do this. To improve profitibility, insurance companies can either raise rates or cut coverage. In most areas, there's competition to keep companies honest. But insurance companies have government sanction to become monopolies, so there is no competition.
The public option was supposed to fix this. The reason why it was so popular (over 60% of the public supported the public option, without it, health care reform is favored by 32%), is that the public option was a safety net. Get screwed by your insurance company, get the public option. Private insurance too expensive, get the public option. Quit your job and can't get individual coverage? Get the public option. In other words, the public option was a get-out-of-jail card that would've protected everyone. So, naturally, it was phenomenally popular, and couldn't be enacted into law.
For the record, my ideal public option is simple - a full-cost Medicare buy-in. A friend of mine gets Medicare (she's permanently disabled and gets healthcare through SSI), and loves it. At the same time, not everyone wants government health care, so let's make it optional.
Unfortunately, doing what's popular and what's good policy is simply too much for the Democrats too bear. I will now go light myself on fire. Ugh.
Currently, every single American is at risk. Make a claim for a serious illness, and the insurance company could very well find something left off the application and use that to rescind coverage. As of right now, cancer is the number one cause of bankruptcy (and most of those who declare bankruptcy have insurance). And insurers will do just about anything to drop insurance coverage.
And let's face it, as corporations, profit-motivated entities, insurance companies are supposed to do this. To improve profitibility, insurance companies can either raise rates or cut coverage. In most areas, there's competition to keep companies honest. But insurance companies have government sanction to become monopolies, so there is no competition.
The public option was supposed to fix this. The reason why it was so popular (over 60% of the public supported the public option, without it, health care reform is favored by 32%), is that the public option was a safety net. Get screwed by your insurance company, get the public option. Private insurance too expensive, get the public option. Quit your job and can't get individual coverage? Get the public option. In other words, the public option was a get-out-of-jail card that would've protected everyone. So, naturally, it was phenomenally popular, and couldn't be enacted into law.
For the record, my ideal public option is simple - a full-cost Medicare buy-in. A friend of mine gets Medicare (she's permanently disabled and gets healthcare through SSI), and loves it. At the same time, not everyone wants government health care, so let's make it optional.
Unfortunately, doing what's popular and what's good policy is simply too much for the Democrats too bear. I will now go light myself on fire. Ugh.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
What to do with the Health Care Bill
As a progressive. . .fuck that. I'm not a progressive, I'm a liberal. I believe that the free market/capitalism system is a good system, but the real world being what it is, we need government intervention when the market breaks down. I believe that women should have full autonomy over their own bodies, and that everyone should be free to spend their money on what they want, so long as it doesn't affect anyone else. My previous work in housing rights was primarily correcting the market inefficiency of housing discrimination.
Anyway, as a liberal, and someone who cares deeply about the status of health care in this country (which I've blogged about ad nauseum), I'm left to wonder what to do about the Senate Health Care Reform bill. Sure, there are a number of good things in the bill, but there are huge corporate giveaways. For instance, under this bill, everyone has to get health care insurance or face government sanction. But health insurance companies still get anti-trust exemptions, and can dump people for forgetting to disclose even the most trivial of medical issues. So, the bill guarantees corporate profit.
Moreover, the bill doesn't have a public option or a Medicare buy-in, both of which are critical to bringing down the cost of health care insurance. In the ideal world, people at risk - small business owners, people with preexisting conditions, kids out of college - would have a place to go for relatively inexpensive insurance. I believe the best provider of that kind of insurance is the government (I'll spare you the details as to why).
Without a public option, should liberals and progressives deep six the bill? If I had to guess, I'd say that they won't but strategically, maybe we should. The health care negotiations were largely made between moderate and conservative Democrats, with liberal/progressives left out in the cold. The reason for this is that the Democratic leadership assumed they'd have our vote. And traditionally, they would.
Here's the problem that the Democratic leadership doesn't get that Republicans do - its all about turnout. Right now, the parties are more or less balanced, with the Democrats doing better now. Independents swing back and forth based on the conditions of the day and based on the general enthusiasm of the two bases. The party that gets its base to turnout wins. And so while liberals might not vote for Republicans, they will simply not vote, and the GOP comes back into power. Of course, the Democratic leadership doesn't understand this because those voters have been so disaffected for so long that the Democratic leadership didn't believe these votes existed until Obama convinced them to vote.
To get the Democratic leadership to understand the importance of keeping their base happy, maybe its time to kill something big, like health care reform. Let me expand by drawing an analogy. Anyone who's listened to Jim Rome on the radio knows that, for the most part, he gives softball interviews. His guests are given plenty of latitude to speak their minds, and he doesn't go the jugular. At the same time, Jim Rome has the reputation of being a tough interviewer. Why? Because in 1994, Rome called quarterback Jim Everett, "Chris Everett," to Everett's face, and almost got his face punched in. That's all it took for Rome to be considered a tough interview, and guys still duck his show.
Maybe that's what we progressives should do with the health care bill. Kill it to make it clear to the Democratic Party leadership that we're no longer going to accept getting shit on.
Anyway, as a liberal, and someone who cares deeply about the status of health care in this country (which I've blogged about ad nauseum), I'm left to wonder what to do about the Senate Health Care Reform bill. Sure, there are a number of good things in the bill, but there are huge corporate giveaways. For instance, under this bill, everyone has to get health care insurance or face government sanction. But health insurance companies still get anti-trust exemptions, and can dump people for forgetting to disclose even the most trivial of medical issues. So, the bill guarantees corporate profit.
Moreover, the bill doesn't have a public option or a Medicare buy-in, both of which are critical to bringing down the cost of health care insurance. In the ideal world, people at risk - small business owners, people with preexisting conditions, kids out of college - would have a place to go for relatively inexpensive insurance. I believe the best provider of that kind of insurance is the government (I'll spare you the details as to why).
Without a public option, should liberals and progressives deep six the bill? If I had to guess, I'd say that they won't but strategically, maybe we should. The health care negotiations were largely made between moderate and conservative Democrats, with liberal/progressives left out in the cold. The reason for this is that the Democratic leadership assumed they'd have our vote. And traditionally, they would.
Here's the problem that the Democratic leadership doesn't get that Republicans do - its all about turnout. Right now, the parties are more or less balanced, with the Democrats doing better now. Independents swing back and forth based on the conditions of the day and based on the general enthusiasm of the two bases. The party that gets its base to turnout wins. And so while liberals might not vote for Republicans, they will simply not vote, and the GOP comes back into power. Of course, the Democratic leadership doesn't understand this because those voters have been so disaffected for so long that the Democratic leadership didn't believe these votes existed until Obama convinced them to vote.
To get the Democratic leadership to understand the importance of keeping their base happy, maybe its time to kill something big, like health care reform. Let me expand by drawing an analogy. Anyone who's listened to Jim Rome on the radio knows that, for the most part, he gives softball interviews. His guests are given plenty of latitude to speak their minds, and he doesn't go the jugular. At the same time, Jim Rome has the reputation of being a tough interviewer. Why? Because in 1994, Rome called quarterback Jim Everett, "Chris Everett," to Everett's face, and almost got his face punched in. That's all it took for Rome to be considered a tough interview, and guys still duck his show.
Maybe that's what we progressives should do with the health care bill. Kill it to make it clear to the Democratic Party leadership that we're no longer going to accept getting shit on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)