The Continuing Battle Over Health Insurance Reform

The battle over US health care reform enters a new stage while Congress takes its August recess to visit constituents to get their input. So this gives us a chance to pause and take stock of what has happened up to now.

For those who have not read it, I offer a previous posting, The Continuing Fight Over Health Care Reform as an overview of this issue. It is interesting that President Obama is now starting to refer to this issue as Health Insurance Reform. Indeed there are some commentators such as in this blog from Time, Health Insurance Reform? by Karen Tumulty who speculates on this change in semantics.

The phrase "health insurance reform" is indeed an effort to tailor his message to the concerns of people who have coverage--who are, after all, the vast majority in this country. But one challenge there is that these people--86% of them in our latest poll--are satisfied with what they have. And while you might think that in the middle of a recession, a lot of people would be concerned about losing that coverage, because it is something they get along with their jobs. Our poll found that only a surprisingly low (at least to me) 33% are.

But using the magic of 20-20 hindsight, I now believe we should have called this health insurance reform from the very beginning because the problem we have in the US with health care is first and foremost a problem with our health insurance system. Despite all of the yammering about the fear of “government run health care”, those who want reform actually want the government to tackle the problems surrounding health insurance which is shutting people out of receiving needed healthcare.

The reason behind these problems is an inherent conflict of interest associated with private health insurers. On one hand they are there to serve their policyholders by making healthcare available when needed. But more importantly, they have an obligation to their shareholders to maximize profits. This creates an incentive to restrict or even deny healthcare whenever possible. The more healthcare they can deny, the more profit they make. This is why so much time and money is spent by private insurance companies to try and deny claims from the present policyholders as much as possible along with avoiding future policyholders with preexisting conditions who would be a drain on company profits. Not surprisingly, this has resulted in health insurance companies making huge profits while many sick people were being shut out of getting needed healthcare.

So why not solve the problem directly and replace the private insurers with a public insurer (a.k.a. 'single payer’) like what we presently do with Medicare for those over 65? The answer is that the private insurance companies are politically very powerful and would undoubtedly fight to the death to avoid their demise — a fight that few of our politicians have any stomach for.

But how do the Democrats try to make progress in health insurance reform without going to war with the insurance industry? Essentially, they had to make a deal with the devil. In exchange for keeping the health insurance companies intact in any proposed health insurance reform, the Democrats would get to propose an alternative “public option” to provide a way to keep the private insurers honest.

And indeed President Obama kept his part of the deal. When seeking input on health insurance reform, those who were for a public single payer insurance system that would eliminate the insurance companies were specifically excluded from the conversation.

But when you make a deal with the devil, you take the chance of getting burned! The insurance companies have apparently decided that they like the idea of not having public insurance competition and don’t want that gravy train to end. So instead of cooperating with the proposed public option, they are fighting it with a guerilla tactics like providing talking points for Republican opposition through a so-called "nonpartisan" source of information in the form of the Lewin Group.

The Lewin Group, exposed by the Washington Post as a subsidiary of an insurance company, has been widely cited as an objective, nonpartisan source of information by those opposed to the creation of a public health insurance option.

And while the health insurance companies can hardly admit that they want to squash any public option in order to keep their profits as high as possible, they can mobilize their political base to wage a proxy war on ideological grounds as in the following E-mail ad from the conservative group Americans for Prosperity.

After months of debate in Washington and the usual wheeling and dealing between the politicians and lobbyists, Senator Specter is coming home for a month. Now it’s your turn to talk with him. Don’t miss the chance.

Bring your own signs! Prepare to ask questions!

You can bet our big government opponents are gearing up to turn out their troops. They’ll be shouting for government to take over our health care. They’ll be pushing the job killing, tax increasing cap-and-trade scheme. Already, their turnout operation is in full swing.

It’s up to us to make sure Senator Specter sees and hears our side – the side of freedom, of lower taxes, less government, of making your own health care decisions.

Of course this conveniently ignores two vital facts. One is that nobody is advocating the government takeover of health care — they are only looking for reform in the way health insurance is offered to finally make it affordable and available to all. And as for people making their own health care decisions under the present system, we know that it is insurance companies that have been making the healthcare decisions for Americans — sometimes with tragic results.

Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States. Although America leads the world in spending on health care, it is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage.

Although some Americans may indeed be satisfied with their insurance, others have learned the hard way after they got sick that their insurance really didn’t protect them from financial catastrophe. But by then it was too late.

One of the concerns raised about the public option is that it may put the private health insurers out of business if they were unable to compete with government run health insurance. But if that really were to happen, why would that be bad? Why is it that the same people who say that government shouldn’t keep companies like General Motors afloat will gladly fight to keep the same health insurance companies afloat who have been getting rich denying coverage to sick Americans?

If indeed the promised health insurance reform turns out not to have a public option, we will then know that President Obama not only made a deal with the devil — but that the devil in the form of the health insurance industry came out the winner. Which would make losers of all the rest of us!

Should Michael Vick Return to the NFL?

Michael Vick, an NFL quarterback at the time, made the news a couple of years ago when he was first accused and then convicted of running a dogfighting ring. Now that he has finally been released, his future is still cloudy.

Michael Vick, who served 18 months in a federal prison and an additional two months in home confinement for his role in a dogfighting operation, completed his sentence Monday, making him a free man. But Vick’s future, wrapped up in whether he has remorse for his actions, remains murky.

Vick, a quarterback, is not eligible to restart his football career until he is reinstated by N.F.L. Commissioner Roger Goodell.

Goodell, who had said that he would consider Vick’s case after the sentence was completed, has not committed to a schedule for making his decision. (Since then, he has announced that Vick can return subject to a further suspension until possibly Week 6 of the NFL schedule.)

The NFL is clearly playing to fans’ emotions over Vick’s cruelty to dogs. Dogs are among the most beloved creatures to man and the thinking of many is that anybody who would do what he did to dogs not only deserves to go to prison (which he did), but should never play in the NFL again.

And this is where I have a problem with all of this over-the-top sentiment. Once Vick has been already been punished by our criminal justice system, do we still have the right to continue punishing him by depriving him of his livelihood? For those who still detest Vick for what he did, the answer is apparently yes. But this is not about whether we like or dislike Vick. It is about basic fairness to a man who has paid his debt to society.

There are some who say that he should be able to go back to work again, but not in the NFL. But if Vick still has the talent and skills to earn a living in the NFL, it is just as unfair to practice what can only be described as job discrimination just to satisfy some people who feel that Vick can never be punished enough for what he did.

Commissioner Goodell is clearly trying to have it both ways. On one hand, he is showing that he is a fair person who will give somebody like Vick a second chance by reinstating him. But to placate those who still have hard feelings toward Vick, the additional suspension for the beginning of this season will make it more difficult for Vick to catch on with an NFL team that only has a limited number of roster spots available at the beginning of each season.

Well-known NFL receiver and windbag Terrell Owens had this to say about Vick’s situation.

“’I think he’s done the time for what he’s done,” Owens said. “I don’t think it’s really fair for him to be suspended four more games.

“Why more punishment? It’s almost like kicking a dead horse in the ground.”

As much as I hate to agree with anything T.O. has to say, he’s right this time!

What We Can Learn from the French

Today we say adieu to the Tour de France for another year. Although I along with many others had special interest in this year’s Tour because of Lance Armstrong’s return, it gives me a special pleasure each year to share in the beauty of France during the 3 week visit by way of TV. As part of each day’s presentation (available in high definition for the first time), we not only got beautiful pictures of the bicyclists with the mountains and countryside in the background but also aerial views like in this flyover video of the many charming villages.

All too often when Americans think of France, it’s all about Paris and the Eiffel Tower. And unfortunately for many of us who are lucky enough to have an opportunity to visit France, that is all of the country they we will ever likely see. But as wonderful as Paris is, saying that France is all about Paris is like saying America is all about New York City.

Although my work and leisure travel to France through the years took me to the larger cities like Paris and Nice, a company that I had to visit to close a deal was in a place called San Quentin. No, not the prison but a small city in the northern French countryside away from the tourist traps. It was in a place like this that I could see how the average person ate that I began to truly appreciate the French love for food and life in general.

Speaking from the perspective of a serious foodie, I think it would be safe to say that the best French food and best American food are just about as good as one another. The big difference is in the everyday food of the two countries. Much of the food in America is mass produced and indifferently prepared for people who often have to gulp their meals down during a hurried meal break.

In France, everything from the bread to the cheeses and pastries are made by artisans who take great pride in what they produce. Good food is taken very seriously by everybody. Mealtimes are an opportunity to savor wonderful food along with perhaps some wine and good company to enhance the experience.

Despite their diets that are relatively high in saturated fat, there is the so-called French paradox of having a lower incidence of heart disease and longer life expectancy than in America. Many feel it is about the red wine and there may be something to that.

But I feel that much of it is also about the overall French lifestyle choices and attitudes. Even for everyday meals, life is too short for crappy food. And like most of their European brethren and unlike most of us in the US, abundant leisure and vacation time is a given part of the culture — along with first-rate health care for everybody.

Yes we have had our differences with France even going as far as renaming French fries as freedom fries. But this attitude is changing as some of us are starting to recognize that other countries can indeed have some good ideas that we can and should borrow or steal — or at least learn from.

Bill Maher on France is an entertaining and irreverent video commentary that is worth a listen for those who would not be offended by the adult language used on his HBO show.

And I leave you with this wonderful video clip from the Travel Channel show Anthony Bourdain: No Reservations "Why the French Don't Suck" which concludes with:

You just may find that you not only love the French again, but you may also love life — and ultimately, the world.

A Better Way to Confirm Supreme Court Justices

Was it just me who was thoroughly frustrated at watching the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearings because of her total unwillingness to address any issues that could be viewed as controversial?

Apparently not. Even the New York Times which is solidly behind Sotomayor is every bit as frustrated as they wrote in their editorial The Sotomayor Nomination.

We were disappointed that at her confirmation hearings last week, she continued what is becoming an unbreakable habit of nominees dodging controversy.

Since the fevered battle over Judge Robert Bork’s judicial nomination in 1987, the goal for judicial nominees has been to skate through by saying as little as possible as politely as possible.

Judge Sotomayor did that, including on substantive legal issues. She avoided saying much of substance about abortion rights, the scope of presidential power, and other hot-button issues. It’s not entirely her fault. The Senate has shown repeatedly that it will tolerate this sort of evasion. But the public has a right to know where judicial nominees stand on important legal issues that will have a direct impact on their lives.

The Founding Fathers gave the Supreme Court justices a tremendous amount of power. The decisions they make can have a profound influence on so many of our lives. And once they are seated, unlike those in the Executive and Legislative branches, they do not answer to anybody including the voters. Their decisions are not reviewable (unless they agree to do so) and they have lifetime terms. This is as close to absolute power as anyone can have in a representative democracy like the United States.

The only Constitutional check and balance on the Supreme Court comes before a judge is confirmed. The President makes the nomination of the judge and then the Senate must approve it. So it stands to reason that the Senate nomination hearings for the Supreme Court are a most important government function. Or at least they should be. But instead they have turned them into a joke consisting of evasive nominees along with Senators who use their TV time to grandstand before the camera.

The excuse for evading questions is based on the premise that an issue could well be decided in a coming session which is fair enough — to a point. But the number of issues that can be brought in front of the court are in theory, limitless. And nominees have used this argument to evade talking about just about anything that they feel may upset the applecart and jeopardize their nomination.

Asking how they would rule on a certain case may well be out of bounds. But asking about the nominee’s judicial and political philosophies should be fair game. After all, other than measuring the nominee’s competence, judicial and political philosophies are all we have to work with in deciding whether to confer the tremendous amount of power on that person by approving his or her nomination.

And while we all agree that the President must appoint a competent person to the Supreme Court and not a crony like Harriet Miers, determining the nominee’s judicial and political philosophies are no less important and deserve equal scrutiny.

This is about so much more than whether the nominee is a liberal or conservative. It goes without saying that a Democratic president will tend to nominate somebody more liberal and a Republican will nominate somebody more conservative. There’s certainly nothing wrong with that. After all, this is one reason many of us vote for or against a particular presidential candidate. The question is not whether a nominee is liberal or conservative but how far from the mainstream that person’s views are. The idea of a political or judicial extremist on either side of the political spectrum getting a lifetime appointment no matter how legally competent they are is frankly, quite scary.

Rightly or wrongly, the aforementioned battle and ultimate rejection of Robert Bork for the Supreme Court was based on the belief that he was an extremist in his philosophies. Unfortunately, with the extreme partisan atmosphere in Washington, nominees have decided that any views that may be controversial are worth hiding. And while we for example, applaud the appointment of female and minority judges to help provide balance with the white males who predominate the Court, we have no real way to determine how or whether this will affect the way they perform as judges.

There is only one way out of this. There has to be a bipartisan agreement among the leadership of the Senate Judiciary Committee that conducts the hearings that wholesale evasion of legitimate philosophical questions on the part of the nominee is grounds for rejection no matter how competent the nominee may be. This is after all a job interview. Surely a company interviewing a jobseeker has the right to not only determine the person’s competence but also the person’s attitude in determining fitness for the position.

It was Chief Justice Roberts who said in his confirmation hearings that judges are like umpires in a baseball game who only call balls and strikes. But his consistently conservative decisions thus far are proof enough that personal philosophies do indeed drive their decisions. Before granting a lifetime appointment to such a powerful position, isn’t it only fair that we find out what those philosophies are?

Reflecting on Tom Watson and Lance Armstrong

As I reflect on a couple of the most significant stories in the sports world today, I can’t help but feel a bit down. The stories about Tom Watson and Lance Armstrong fascinated us so much not just over whether they would win the events they were in. Instead it was about what they accomplished at their relatively advanced ages.

Tom Watson, who is a five time winner of the British Open golf tournament so many years ago was in contention to win his sixth. It was considered one of the great stories in sports when Jack Nicklaus won his sixth Masters title at age 46. Watson is just a few months short of age 60. By comparison, there are few golfers at that age who are even competitive in the Champions Tour over-50 tournaments, let alone against the best in the world in their primes.

Watson came so agonizingly close. His approach on the final hole of regulation was heading right over the flag but his adrenaline probably caused him to hit it a little too far leaving an awkward comeback shot. His nerves finally gave out on a nine foot putt to win and did not even come close. In the resulting 4 hole playoff, the younger Stewart Cink clearly had more left in the tank and won easily.

So should we feel bad for Watson losing or feel good for his magnificent effort in coming close?

Meanwhile in the Tour de France, Lance Armstrong had his own magnificent effort. After winning the Tour an unprecedented seven times in a row, Armstrong had nothing left to prove in the world of cycling and decided to retire from the sport. But as I wrote in a previous posting, Why We All Need Balance it can be especially difficult for those who have reached the pinnacle of their fields to be able to walk away and still find meaning in their lives. So incredibly, Armstrong at age 37 decided to make a comeback to race in the Tour de France once again after being away for 4 years.

But was he really there to win or just make a good showing considering his advanced age for this physically demanding sport? Armstrong with his performances proved that he is still among the world’s elite cyclists. But in the hill climb today, 26-year-old Alberto Contador, the 2007 Tour champion who rides on the same team as Armstrong pulled away from the pack leaving Lance in the dust and forcing him to concede that Contador was indeed the best rider there and not him.

A day like this really shows who's the best, and I wasn't on par with what is required to win the Tour," Armstrong said. "That's the reality; that's not devastating news or anything."

He added, "I gave it everything that I had, and I wasn't the best."

In his previous victories, Armstrong was the star and other members of his team were the role players in helping him win. Now he must accept that he will have to be a role player to help his teammate win. Even if he is successful in doing this, will it have made his comeback successful enough to be worth it?

Because of the tremendous odds against these men because of their ages, I along with countless others were rooting for Watson and Armstrong to win their events. And make no mistake; champions like these are never satisfied with finishing second. But even these men know that their skills must inevitably decline with age.

So should we feel sad at their losing today even though both have had wildly successful careers? Or should we instead celebrate their tremendous efforts that came just a hair short of victory? Why not both?

But just focusing on who lost is tremendously unfair to Contador and Cink. If indeed Contador wins next Sunday at the end of the Tour as expected, hopefully we will remember this year’s Tour as the one he won with his tremendous hill climbing and not just the Tour that Armstrong lost. And Cink’s victory will hopefully be remembered for the magnificent clutch putt he made on the final hole of regulation and not just the Open that Watson lost.

When viewed in this way, all of a sudden I don’t feel so down anymore!

What Is the Future for Sarah Palin?

The continuing fascination around Sarah Palin seems to have no bounds. How many other losing vice presidential candidates would still be in the pubic eye after this long? That she said she would not run for re-election as Alaska’s governor was not all that surprising. After all, many politicians with ambitions for national office like present Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney made the decision to leave office at the end of their terms to concentrate on future campaigns.

But the Palin’s decision to resign from her present term is a stunner from someone who was thought to be in the running for a future presidential bid. With one of the main raps against her being a lack of government experience, leaving office in the middle of her term would seem to make her a long shot for any real consideration even among many Republican strategists.

So why did she really resign and what are her future options?

Before trying to answer those questions, let’s take a look back at her part in the presidential campaign. In one of my previous postings back in August, Is Sarah Palin Fit to Be Vice President?, I concluded with…

…in the end, we may look back at this risky choice as having sealed John McCain’s defeat in November.

In looking back, the choice was indeed risky. But it really didn’t seal McCain’s defeat — more than anything else, the terrible economy did. And in the position McCain was in at the time, perhaps he really had no better choice.

Going back to the months right before the GOP Convention, Barack Obama’s campaign was clearly gaining momentum. After the prior European visits of President Bush and McCain got little more than a yawn, the spectacle of countless thousands of admirers gathering for Obama’s appearance in Berlin left little doubt of who was getting all of the attention from voters and the media. While McCain could have selected a more solid running mate like Pawlenty or Romney, the campaign would likely have continued to die a slow death from neglect.

So while many speculated that the VP choice of Palin was to attract former Hillary Clinton supporters, I suspect that those behind the McCain campaign chose Palin to recapture some of that buzz that had been lost to the Obama campaign. And in that respect, it really worked!

Immediately afterward, everybody in the media wanted to talk to Palin. There was that spunky personality and sex appeal along with a curiosity of whether someone so inexperienced could possibly have what it takes to be VP or possibly president someday. And the more the McCain campaign made her unavailable, the more the media wanted her.

But the more we heard from her, the more we discovered that there was very little substance behind the style. Her knowledge of the world around her seemed to be so appallingly lacking that even some conservative pundits turned on her during the campaign.

So coming back to today, it seems unlikely that she will be seriously considered as a future presidential candidate. The only exception would be if President Obama maintains his present high popularity into 2012 and nobody else in the GOP wants to run and take the chance of getting crushed by a popular incumbent.

If a run for political office is not in her future, there is always a future for her in media — especially on a conservative outlet. Most of us have seen her sports reporter footage on an Alaskan TV station back in 1988 before getting into politics. No doubt the glow in the national spotlight has given Palin the urge to stay there and returning to Juneau will not do that. Just as important, Palin cannot be signed to a TV deal until she leaves office. Unless a scandal erupts to make her unmarketable, I see her on Fox News in the not too distant future...which is sure as hell better than the damage she would inflict while in office!

How About Some Rational Discussion for a Change?

It can be really frustrating for liberals to try and discuss issues with conservatives who use videos like The Second American Revolution to try and make their points. If you haven’t seen it, it is a speech that decries the idea of diversity and attributes a quotation “Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society.” to Aristotle when in fact these words appear to be from the writings of a modern evangelical minister.

In my view, this kind of conservative showboating is a prime example of demagoguery which is to appeal to people’s emotions and prejudices rather than their rationality.

I don’t mind at all discussing political issues with people who see things differently. But it would sure be nice if more of those on the conservative side would at least put up some rational arguments instead of mindlessly distributing right-wing talking points in mass E-mailings as iron-clad facts.

For example, I am still approached by some who still question whether President Obama is really an American citizen despite his offering a copy of his birth certificate online. But some are still unconvinced, saying it is a forgery. For those who are not familiar with it, Snopes.com is an apolitical site that investigates whether the many E-mail polemics spread around the Internet are really based on truth. In their posting, Birth Certificate they explore this issue in detail giving proof along with sources that he really was born in Hawaii in 1961.

But when exploring the Snopes site and inserting "Obama" in the search box one comes across an incredible list of E-mail accusations hurled at Obama, the great majority of them having no basis in fact.

There are Obama's 50 Lies which includes the long discredited assertion that Obama is a secret Muslim.

There is even an article on an E-mail that proclaims Obama As the Anti-Christ.

But the one that takes the prize is the following E-mail recently forwarded to me.

Something to think about Tony:

I thought I would never be able to experience what the ordinary, moral German felt in the mid-1930s. In those times the savior was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German knew next to nothing. What they did know was that he was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory and promises.

Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker. And he smiled and waved a lot. And people, even newspapers were afraid to speak out for fear that his "brown shirts" would bully them into submission. And then he was duly elected to office, with a full-throttled economic crisis at hand [the Great Depression].

Slowly but surely he seized the controls of government power, department by department, person by person, bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The kids joined a Youth Movement in his name, where they were taught what to think. How did he get the people on his side? He did it by promising jobs to the jobless, money to the moneyless, and goodies for the military-industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country, across Europe, and across the world.

He did it with a compliant media. And he did this all in the name of justice and...change. And the people surely got what they voted for. (Look it up if you think I am exaggerating.) Read your history books. Many people objected in 1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and made fun of. When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in Parliament in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker. He was right though.

Don't forget that Germany was the most educated, cultured country in Europe. It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, and universities. And in less than six years - a shorter time span than just two terms of the U. S. presidency - it was rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors. All with the best of intentions, of course. The road to Hell is paved with them.

So when the references to being Muslim or even the anti-Christ aren’t enough, there are always the Hitler analogies to fall back on when one really wants to drive home a point.

Look, I am not against criticizing the president no matter how tasteless it may be. Our First Amendment rights which soldiers have fought and died for to preserve are far too important.

It just seems that so much of the criticism from those especially on the far-right is based so much more on emotion and prejudice than rationality. Many if not most of us reading some of the above excerpts attacking Obama would probably just smile at some of the ignorance on display. But the fact is that there are a significant number of people who really believe this stuff!

For example, there is this Washington Post article from April Obama Still a Muslim to Some.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, one in 10 Americans believed that President Barack Obama is a Muslim. According to a new poll from the Pew Center for People and the Press, one in 10 Americans still believe it.

Overall, 17 percent of Republicans say they believe Obama is Muslim, exactly the same as during the election. Among whites, close to 20 percent of evangelical Protestants persist in that belief.

Here’s my problem with all of this. We have so many complicated problems like the economy and health care reform that we urgently need to solve. And that requires rational discussions between people with differing views to come up with workable solutions.

There’s that word rational again! What does the dictionary have to say about this word?

ra·tion·al [rásh’n’l]
adj

reasonable and sensible: governed by, or showing evidence of, clear and sensible thinking and judgment, based on reason rather than emotion or prejudice

In short, this is just the opposite of the demagoguery that is practiced by those on the political extremes. But in spite of the above definition, emotion is also important to spur people on to get things done and solve problems. People on both sides of the political spectrum often have emotional feelings behind the positions they favor. Indeed Barack Obama did capture the emotions of many of his followers to allow him to be elected president. It’s only when emotion and prejudice take over all rationality that leaders like Hitler come to power as in the example above. Let the rational discussion begin!