Politics or Poppycock

A Look From the Left At Politics, Politicians, Policies and Issues of National Concern

Archive for August 18th, 2009

House GOP Leader Vows To Stop Spreading Health Care Falsehood After Local Paper Busts Him

Posted by James O'Rourke on August 18, 2009

The Plum Line

8/17/09 10:16 AM Greg Sargent House Republicans health care political media

GOP Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri has promised to stop spreading a health care falsehood that’s been widely bandied about on the right after his local paper fact-checked his claim and called him out for fibbing.

Blunt claimed to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that he wouldn’t be able to get his hip replaced in countries with socialized medicine, prompting the paper to respond aggressively in an editorial:

Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Springfield, knows a thing or two about health care. But some of what he knows just isn’t true.

“I’m 59,” Mr. Blunt said last week during a meeting with Post-Dispatch reporters and editors. “In either Canada or Great Britain, if I broke my hip, I couldn’t get it replaced.”

We fact-checked that. At least 63 percent of hip replacements performed in Canada last year and two-thirds of those done in England were on patients age 65 or older. More than 1,200 in Canada were done on people older than 85.

In a subsequent conversation with the paper, Blunt claimed: “I’m glad you pointed that out to me. I won’t use that example any more.”

The kicker: Blunt, as it happens, is the head of the House GOP Health Care Solutions Group, something Dems are likely to seize on in the context of his new admission of, er, error.

Posted in Issues | Leave a Comment »

Grassley Retracts Claim That Government Could “Pull The Plug On Grandma”

Posted by James O'Rourke on August 18, 2009

The Plum Line

8/17/09 7:34 AM Greg Sargent Senate Republicans health care political media

This passed unnoticed, but it’s a big deal: Over the weekend, and very quietly, Senator Chuck Grassley completely retracted his widely-reported claim last week that people have “every reason to fear” that the House health care proposal would create a “government program that determines if you’re going to pull the plug on grandma.”

The retraction was buried deep in this Washington Post article on Grassley’s role, with a spokesperson admitting Grassley doesn’t really believe what he said about “grandma”:

Grassley says he opposes that counseling as written in the House version of the bill, but a spokesman said the senator does not think the House provision would in fact give the government such authority in deciding when and how people die. The House bill allows patients to decide for themselves if they would like such counseling.

Let’s be clear: By clarifying that Grassley doesn’t think the House bill would “give the government such authority in deciding when and how people die,” his spokesperson completely repudiated his widely discussed claim. This goes much farther than Grassley did in a statement released Friday clarifying he’d never used the words “death panel” and was merely worried about “unintended consequences.”

So, either Grassley made his claim about “grandma” to a crowd in his home state last week and didn’t believe it; or he changed his mind since then.

Grassley’s retraction will get nowhere near the coverage his initial statement did. False or outlandish claims are “controversial,” so they get rewarded with media attention; their subsequent retractions tend to pass unnoticed, because the press has moved on to the next false or outlandish claim. The big news orgs blared Grassley’s initial assertion at the electorate for days, but almost no one will ever learn that Grassley didn’t really mean it.

Posted in *Healthcare Issues, Poppycock | Leave a Comment »

Was Grassley’s “Death Panel” Talk Obama’s Wake Up Call?

Posted by James O'Rourke on August 18, 2009

Campaign for America’s Future

generic_user.png

By Jonathan Walker

August 16, 2009 – 10:17pm ET

by Jonathan Walker | August 17, 2009

Obama has long tried, and so far failed, to reach a bipartisan agreement on health care reform. He has given incredible leeway to Max Baucus to come to some kind of agreement with Chuck Grassley. Obama has been very malleable, willing to concede on several important issues to gain some Republican support.

Until this last week, the concessions demanded by Grassley at least seemed to have an ideological basis. They seemed to be on issues where there was a real philosophical difference on the role of government. The issue of the government run public option, the issue of an employer mandate, the size of subsidies, what new taxes should pay for reform, etc…

But everything changed on Wednesday when Grassley told people to be afraid the Democrats had a secret plan to kill grandmothers. He was attacking a small end-of-life counseling provision which Sarah Palin dubbed “death panels.” Until last week, end of life counseling has never been a partisan or ideological idea. It has been long championed by dozens of Republicans over the years.

Grassley was not fighting against an idea for ideological reasons. He decided to shamelessly fear monger about what should have been a completely noncontroversial proposal. I think Grassley showed that day that he is not and has never been an honest broker during the health care negotiations.

Yesterday at a town hall, Obama made a statement which seemed to be directed squarely at Senator Grassley. Obama said,

So when I have people who just a couple of years ago thought this was a good idea now getting on television suggesting that it’s a plot against grandma or to sneak euthanasia into our health care system, that feels dishonest to me.

To my knowledge this is the first time Obama has criticized one of the Republicans who are part of Baucus’ “Gang of Six.” This could be the wake up call Obama needed. Proof that Grassley was not delaying reform for ideological reason but to simply hurt Democrats.

PS, it appears that Grassley knows Obama was directly going after him

Posted in Issues, Politics As Usual | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Health Care Decision: Who Does Government Help?

Posted by James O'Rourke on August 18, 2009

Campaign for America’s Future

picture-12912.jpg
By Dave Johnson
August 17, 2009 – 11:56am ET

The health care debate is bringing America’s division out into the open: Is America going to work for the benefit of its people or for the few who benefit from concentrated ownership of large corporations? Who is our economy FOR, anyway?

The argument over health care comes down to a clear choice: will the government provide a public choice that offers good health coverage to citizens for a low cost, or instead leave only a private system where the government promotes and subsidizes insurance companies (and their CEOs)?

The “public option” is an attempt to offer a choice between private insurance that is about maximizing profit for a few and a system designed to maximize benefits for the many. That is the difference between private companies and government. Government is We, the People banding together to empower and protect each other. Private companies are about systems that get money from people and try to deliver back as little as possible in return. The private system can work very well to incentivize innovation in consumer and other products. But health care delivery is not a “product” it is a human need and profit has no place in a health care delivery system.

Think about it, the perfected private company just taps into everyone’s bank accounts and puts the money into the company’s coffers, and that’s it. Nothing has to be delivered in return. This is not unlike what AOL’s business model became — they just kept sucking out of your account long after you started trying to cancel the service!

Many health insurance companies apparently try to operate like this. You pay and pay, and then when you need the insurance to cover your medical expenses they find ways to get out of providing the service you had been paying for.

But government is We, the People taking care of each other. In a democracy everyone should have equal access to essential services. It must be delivered by the entity concerned with maximizing benefits to the people and that is government. Then public option is essential.

Posted in *Healthcare Issues | Leave a Comment »

It’s Now or Never for a Public Option: Why We Need to Take a Stand Against the Insurance Industry’s Greed

Posted by James O'Rourke on August 18, 2009

Alternet.org
By
Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted August 18, 2009.

We are at a crucial moment in the health care debate — Obama needs pressure from all of us to keep the public option as part of his agenda.

Editor’s note: It’s now or never for the public option. Campaign for America’s Future has put together 4 key actions you can take to win back the health care debate. “We absolutely cannot let the far right fringe do the bidding of the insurance and drug lobbies and hijack the debate,” they write. “The battle for health care reform has moved to town halls during the August congressional recess. But the wild mobs disrupting events, intimidating lawmakers, and shouting down reform are not just expressing their views, they are doing the dirty work for corporate interests that want to cut the heart out of the Obama health plan.”As Joshua Holland explained in a recent article, this fight is about making your health care more affordable, giving you better coverage and helping people who have no coverage under the current system.

Now or never — Push for the public option:

1. Call your representative and senators to find out when and where August town halls will be in your area, using the main congressional switchboard number: (202) 224-3121. You can also check this calendar.

2. Go to the Congress.org congressional directory to get the direct phone lines of your representatives’ offices.

3. Find out when and where citizen groups will be meeting and organizing throughout August, and find out what’s happening in your area at Health Care for America Now.

4. When you’re at a town hall, communicate a simple message for your representatives to understand what their constituents want:

  • I support health care reform with a strong public plan option—and most people I know do, too.
  • We sent you to Washington to get health care for all—and we will support you if you work to get that done.
  • Please ignore the right-wing extremists who are attacking health reform—and do what a majority of your constituents want: Vote for health care for all.

It’s Now or Never for a Public Option: Why We Need to Take a Stand Against to the Insurance Industry’s Greed

by Joshua Holland
The Obama administration took a single-payer solution to America’s health care crisis “off the table” at the outset of the debate. Since then it has cut dubious “deals” with Big Pharma and the private hospital industry. And finally, this weekend, officials signaled that the Obama team might be willing to jettison the central progressive plank of reform: the creation of a publicly run insurance program that could compete with private insurers.
On CNN, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the public option wasn’t “the essential element” of reform, and at a town hall in Colorado on Saturday, President Barack Obama himself said of the public option: “whether we have it or we don’t have it, [it] is not the entirety of health care reform. This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it.”
It may be just one “aspect” of health reform, but without it, the legislation promises to be a massive rip-off; a taxpayer give-away of hundreds of billions of dollars to an unreformed ‘disease care’ industry. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Issues | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

More Voices

Posted by James O'Rourke on August 18, 2009

CORBIN HIAR
The Political Calculus of Health Care Reform
motherjones.com - Former Clinton advisor William Galston has suggested President Obama’s best bet is to get whatever health care bill he can out of Congress. But the real political danger is that Obama will be too eager to sign a weak bill and call it “health care reform.”
1px_trans.gif
WILLIAM GREIDER
Squandered Opportunity
thenation.com - After his brilliant beginning, the president suddenly looks weak and unreliable. This is really a decisive test for the Democratic party and its main constituencies. Will they go along with the president or push back and reject his misdirections?
1px_trans1.gif
PETER DREIER
Is Max Baucus the New Phil Gramm?
tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com - Just as former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm argued that the banking industry could police itself without government rules and safeguards, Montana Sen. Max Baucus is tying the hands of Congressional reformers who understand that we can’t trust the insurance and drug companies to protect consumers and control costs.
1px_trans2.gif
LEO HINDERY JR., LEO W. GERARD AND SEN. DON RIEGLE
What A Jobless Recovery Today Means For Tomorrow
huffingtonpost.com - The economic stimulus plan will not move the country toward anything approaching full employment and, most importantly, the jobless recovery has already started “feeding back” on itself. We are in fact looking at the worst possible shaped recovery of all, which is an L-shaped one. We need an all-of-government national manufacturing and industrial policy.
1px_trans3.gif
JEFF MORRIS
Obama Health Care Plan…….Cut And Run?
President Obama, please do not “cut and run” and accept this unacceptable phony compromise on health care. Please do not abandon your supporters. We are not giving up this fight. Please do not be the general who deserts his troops, leaving them on the battlefield to fend for themselves.

Posted in Opinions | 1 Comment »

Triumph of the Willfully Ignorant

Posted by James O'Rourke on August 18, 2009

By TERRANCE HEATH
Sarah Palin, and the Sarah Palins of American politics, have won a significant victory. If you want to know who has the last word on policy, look no further than her and what she represents Unless some significant shift occurs, the Senate Finance Committee’s decision to drop the end-of-life counseling provision from the health care reform bill stands as an omen.

Posted in *Healthcare Issues, Opinions | Leave a Comment »

Progressive Breakfast: Co-Ops. Can’t Cut Costs. Can’t Attract Republicans.

Posted by James O'Rourke on August 18, 2009

Campaign for America’s Future

picture-71.jpg

By Bill Scher

August 18, 2009 – 9:40am ET

The daily Progressive Breakfast serves up what progressive movement members need to know to start their day.

No One Can Say How Co-Ops Would Actually Work

NYT explores the difficulties co-ops would have, including current insurer monopolies BECOMING co-ops: “The history of health insurance in the United States is full of largely unsuccessful efforts to introduce new models of insurance that would lower costs. And the health insurance markets of many states suggest that any new entrant would face many difficulties in getting established … Mr. Conrad’s own state demonstrates the uncertainties surrounding cooperatives. Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota dominates the state’s private insurance market, collecting nearly 90 percent of premiums. As a nonprofit owned by its members, the company would hope to qualify as a co-op under federal legislation, said Paul von Ebers, its incoming president and chief executive.”

W. Post on what co-ops couldn’t do: “co-ops would lack perhaps the main advantage of the public option: reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals set by federal law, like those paid by Medicare, the program for older Americans. Federally determined reimbursement rates were central to the cost-saving promise of a government-run health plan and a potentially powerful competitive advantage.”

HuffPost’s Sam Stein uncovers government report indicating co-ops won’t cut costs: “The U.S. General Accounting Office produced a report on cooperatives in March 2000 that was mostly sour on the idea. Using five different co-ops as examples, the study concluded that on the key function — lowering the cost of insurance — these non-profit insurance pools came up well short … without a large number of participants, co-ops essentially were subject to the whims of the insurance market, unable to use market influence to get consumers better deals on coverage.”

Ezra Klein discusses the range of co-op possibilities: “The theory of the public option [is[ a robust public insurer can do a better job holding down costs and delivering access to high-quality care than a fractured private insurance system. Obviously, a lot of people don’t like these ideas. Among them are insurers, Republicans and, crucially, providers like doctors and hospitals, who fear that a large public insurer will hold down costs, which will in turn hold down incomes … You could imagine a co-op proposal that actually offered a meaningful alternative to private insurers. Some months ago, Conrad, alongside public plan supporter Chuck Schumer, seemed to be edging in that direction. But I haven’t heard anything similarly encouraging since then. The co-op is now a favored alternative for Republicans who don’t agree that the profit motive is a problem in health insurance…”

Health care analyst Bob Laszewski: “Co-Ops Are the Single Dumbest Idea I Have Heard in the Health Care Debate in Twenty Years … on day one how many members does the co-op have? Well it has no members on day one. So, the co-op’s provider relations guy goes to the doctor and hospital administrator and demands better prices and protocols. My guess is the provider’s response would go something like this, ‘So you are here because your stated objective is to screw my reimbursement down more than it is, you have no members now, and if I give you the rates to take members away from the existing health plans you are going to make life even more difficult for me than those existing health plans have?’ My guess is that when the provider stops laughing…”

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in *Healthcare Issues | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

Rage the Left Should Use

Posted by James O'Rourke on August 18, 2009

By Robert Kuttner

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Where are the liberal protesters?

Wall Street and the abuses of corporate America crashed the economy, leaving regular people anxious and financially insecure. Yet the far right, not the reformist left, is getting the political windfall.

Something is severely off when economically stressed Americans confront members of Congress about “death panels” in the Obama health plan. The rumors, fanned by talk radio with a little help from Republicans, are false and even delusional. Yet the anger, if misdirected, is genuine.

People should be plenty angry about their jobs and their mortgages and their health insurance. With health care, however, virtually all of the fears attributed to the Obama health reform efforts more accurately describe the existing private system.

It is private insurance companies that ration care by deciding what is covered and what is not. Private plans limit which doctor and hospital you can use, define “preexisting conditions” and make insurance unaffordable for tens of millions. For many, all this can cause suffering and sometimes even death. Our one oasis of socialized medicine, Medicare, has the most choice and the least exclusion.

The misdirected citizen anger at the Obama health reform efforts is a surrogate for broader, entirely legitimate, popular economic backlash.

After receiving nearly a trillion dollars of taxpayer aid, Wall Street is returning to business as usual. Consider: Firms that received government help, after losing fortunes in 2008, still found money to pay out exorbitant bonuses at public expense.

Far too little of the government’s aid to Wall Street is trickling down. Because of the administration’s decision to target $75 billion in mortgage-relief aid to banks and mortgage companies rather than to beleaguered homeowners, foreclosures are still increasing far faster than loan modifications.

Despite the premature triumphalism about a trivial drop in the measured unemployment rate in July, more than 25 million Americans are either unemployed, out of the labor force, or working part time when they need a full-time job. No wonder there is widespread pocketbook anger.

When economically stressed and frightened people are anxious and sullen, you never know who will capture their fears and hopes. In the 1930s, economic anxiety produced leaders as different as Franklin Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler. History shows that if the reformist left doesn’t offer a plausible story and strategy of reform, the lunatic right will gain ground even with an implausible one. So where are the liberal protesters? The initiative has passed to the know-nothing right for two big reasons.

One is Obama himself. This president recoils from confrontation, even with those who are out to destroy him. He has had ample opportunities to put himself on the side of popular economic grievances and to connect America’s economic troubles to the forces that Roosevelt called “economic royalists.” But Obama, whose propensity for consensus is hard-wired, keeps passing up those opportunities.

Even now, he won’t make clear that the private insurance industry is the problem. Recent administration statements on the “public” insurance option have been classics of mixed messaging. Obama’s economic team is far too cozy with Wall Street, fanning populist suspicions.

Despite the president’s history as a community organizer, his style as president is to tamp down popular protest, not rev it up. I know of several cases in which the White House requested allied progressive groups to cool it. When government-subsidized AIG disgracefully paid culpable executives “retention bonuses,” Obama dispatched Larry Summers to the Sunday talk shows to helpfully explain that “We are a country of law. There are contracts.” Tell that to laid-off and outsourced factory workers. It’s hardly surprising that regular people resent the corporate-connected Washington of Barack Obama.

Second, the progressive grass roots have been weakened by the same Wall Street-dominated economy. The labor movement, the best single instrument for turning popular economic distress into reform, has been savaged by illegal corporate union-busting. While the Obama administration offers kind words to unions, reform to ensure workers’ rights to organize is not one of its priorities. Too many other liberal interest groups have become Beltway operations, packaged and polite affairs disconnected from the real grass roots.

The remedy is not left-wing mobs to contest right-wing ones. In Germany in the 1930s, fascists tilted in the street with communists, and both were recipes for disaster.

One way or another, hard times produce popular anger at callous elites. Presidential leadership and progressive organizing energy to connect the mounting outrage to the real economic abuses are overdue. Otherwise, even a ticket of Sarah Palin and Mark Sanford could pick up the pieces.

Robert Kuttner is co-editor of the American Prospect, a senior fellow at Demos and the author of “Obama’s Challenge.”

Posted in *Healthcare Issues, *Obama Administration, Issues, Politics | Leave a Comment »

Palin’s Red Menace

Posted by James O'Rourke on August 18, 2009

By Richard Cohen

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Try this on for size: Palinism. What is it? It is an updated version of McCarthyism, which takes its name from the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy, the Wisconsin liar, demagogue and drunk, and means, according to Wikipedia, “reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries.” As far as we know, Sarah Palin is not a drunk.

But she certainly shares McCarthy’s other attributes — and this one as well: the ability to drive the debate. In McCarthy’s day, it was anti-communism coupled with national security, and it hardly mattered that he frequently did not have his facts straight. He got huge amounts of attention anyway.

With Palin, the subject is health care, which in many ways is the Red Menace of our day and lends itself to a kind of political pornography. For sheer disregard of the facts, her statement about President Obama’s “death panel” has to rank with McCarthy’s announcement that “I have here in my hand a list of 205″ (or 57 or 72 or whatever) names of communists in the State Department. They were both false — McCarthy’s by commission, Palin’s probably by omission. She rarely knows her facts.

The most depressing aspects of McCarthy’s career were not just the excesses of the man himself but the refusal of others — mainly his fellow Republicans — to either rein him in or defend his victims. Now we are seeing something similar with Palin. Say what you will about any of the health-care proposals, not one of them suggests a “death panel” empowered to withhold medical services from the aged or those with disabilities. To suggest that one exists is reprehensible. To state it outright is either boldly demagogic or just plain loopy.

Yet, you can beat the bushes to a fine powder and find only two Republicans of note — Sens. Johnny Isakson and Lisa Murkowski — who had the courage or the decency to tell Palin that she doesn’t know what she’s talking about. Certainly, this was not the case with Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, who in fact virtually seconded Palin’s charge. This is not just because Gingrich himself can be casual with the facts but also because his urge to be politically expedient often overwhelms his convictions.

Something similar could be said about Sen. Charles Grassley, a key Senate Republican on health care. He mouthed a limp echo of Palin’s lie and then boldly looked the other way. Sadly, the list of the meek includes Palin’s Geppetto, Sen. John McCain, who fashioned her out of political desperation and has yet to whittle her down to size. In an update of the folk tale, I’d like to think that whenever he praises Palin, his own nose grows. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in *Healthcare Issues, Politics As Usual, Poppycock | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »