Month: July 2009

Democracy in America

President Obama’s speech in Cairo, which had American journalists swooning at his feet, was indeed a polished presentation. American policy in that area of the world has not changed an iota, mind you, but the vessel in which it is delivered has been spit-shined. Obama is cool awesome.

In the speech, Obama acknowledged that the United States had engineered the 1953 coup d’état that overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran.

In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution…

This is interesting. “Played a role” is a qualifier added to minimize the importance of U.S. involvement, like saying we “played a role” in World War II. But every Iranian knows this history, probably every human in the Middle East. Here it is, 56 years later, and there is finally official acknowledgment by a U.S. official.

By that standard, it will be 2075 before any information on U.S. involvement in fomenting the rebellion following the recent election is disclosed. Barring medical advances, I probably won’t be around.

Before I am reminded that the people of Iran don’t have true representative government, and that there is true reason for unrest, and that people do want better things for themselves there, let me add that U.S. is messing in Iran for reasons having nothing to do with the legitimate aspirations of the Iranian people. The U.S. does not care about democracy. In 1953, the U.S. saddled Iran with a fascist thug, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, “The Shah”, and kept him in power until 1979. The rebellion that year, though it did not end well, was as much against the United States as the Shah himself.

So let us be spared pompous preaching about representative government in Iran. In the United States, more than 70% of us want single payer health care, more than that would settle for a legitimate public option. It’s not allowed.

So let’s not aspire too much about Iranian democracy until we get some meaningful form of representative government for ourselves.

Wouldn’t it be great if Americans took to the street? What is it about Iran that its citizens can be so informed and involved? As bad as their government might be now, it seems to work better than what we have.

Courage, Mom …**

The Bozeman Daily Chronicle* today had a relatively long piece (Health reform will affect how Montanans access care) on the health care debate, and in uncharacteristic fashion, took a few shots at Senator Max Baucus. It starts at paragraph 48:

But some are skeptical Montana’s six-term senator is capable of pushing substantive change.

“Max Baucus is purely a satrap of industry,” said [Rick] Meis from Montanans for Single-Payer. “He is a small power figure who is totally manipulated by the powers that be.”

Between 2003 and 2008, 23 percent of money raised by Baucus’ campaign and political action committee came from the health industry.

A range of medical interests are represented in his list of donors. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the insurance industry provided $784,685; health professionals gave $848,141; and health services and HMOs chipped in $465,750.

Two of Baucus’ biggest contributors are Schering-Plough Corp., a health care company that contributed $92,200 during the five-year period, and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Montana, which contributed $62,350.

Meis said Baucus’ proposal is heavily influenced by those donors.

“It’s what the insurance industry is telling him, because they’re buying him,” Meis said.

From Meis’ perspective, single-payer is the obvious choice if not obscured by industry interests.

“There’s not a single-payer system in the world that doesn’t work better,” he said.

A Baucus spokesman, Ty Matsdorf, quickly circled the wagons, saying that Baucus has on occasion done things the industry didn’t like, as if now doing them the biggest favor in the world now was thereby justified.

But that’s not the point. Even though it didn’t happen until paragraph 48, a Montana newspaper went after Max Baucus. I’m not sure what that means – it could be (one can only hope) that the health care crisis and Democratic attempts to crap on us are having severe fallout, and that Max’s usual base of support, which includes major Montana newspapers, is eroding.

Time will tell. We must keep the pressure on. Please, everyone, do not make nicey with Max. Badmouth him at every venue, on every forum. Kindness only feeds him.

*The Bozeman Daily Chronicle has in the past been behind a subscription wall. I hope the practice has ended – this article is accessible at the time this is written.

**P.S. Did anyone else see the movie “Wag the Dog”?

Query for readers …

Gentlemen and ladies: Assume that I am a lightweight, and that I am going to read only one book (or set of essays) by theologian/scholar Reinhold Neibuhr. Assume that my attitudes about the existence of a deity are pretty well set, and that I am interested more in ethics and the behavior of nations. What would you recommend?

He said it better …

“Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims, have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.” Frederick Douglass, 1857

This is a message to health care reform advocates who think the best way to get what we want is to “work with” Democrats who want to “work with” Republicans and come up with a “compromise solution” that gives everyone a little bit of what they want. Nonsense!

As Douglass also said, or should have said, power concedes nothing without a demand. It takes a fight, and there is no fight to be had if you don’t even know who your enemies are. (They are Democrats.)

Working with power to get things from the powerful is as useful as working with your bank to get your payment lowered. Unless you can somehow threaten them, hurt them in some manner, they yield nothing. The word that comes to mind concerning “working with” recalcitrant Democrats is “losing”.

With that in mind, Obama has suggested that MoveOn and others who have been running ads against Mary Landrieu in Louisiana stop doing so. That tells me something important: Those ads are hurting Landrieu, and should continue. Pain is good.

Too bad, however, that she just got reelected. Nonetheless, MoveOn should continue inflicting pain. If nothing else, hurting a “Frenemy“** is reward enough.

**I just learned this word today, and could not wait to use it.

Drill baby drill!

The masses find it difficult to understand politics, their intelligence is small. Therefore all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points. The masses will only remember only the simplest ideas repeated a thousand times over. If I approach the masses with reasoned arguments, they will not understand me. In the mass meeting, their reasoning power is paralyzed. What I say is like an order given under hypnosis.
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

Yes, I will start out this day by citing Hitler’s words about the limited intelligence of the masses. Next, I’ll talk about how I hate children and pugs and kittens. But the Fuhrer’s words came to mind as I read a Billings Blog piece on the use of stock phrases in politics.

But I must qualify Hitler’s words and my own thoughts on the subject. There are indeed stupid people out there. And smart ones. Most people are of average IQ, which is why it is average, and further have only limited interaction with politics. Issues are complex, but politicians have but a few seconds to grapple with those issues in the public eye. So they use catchy phrases, and there are some very high-priced people out there who come up with those phrases.

So take a minute to read a Politico summary of a confidential memo circulated among Republicans about how to deal with the health care crisis. And then as you make your rounds of newspapers, blogs and TV news, note how many of them are following Frank Luntz’s advice:

Humanize your approach. Abandon and exile ALL references to the “healthcare system.” From now on, healthcare is about people. Before you speak, think of the three components of tone that matter most: Individualize. Personalize. Humanize.

…define the crisis in your terms. “If you’re one of the millions who can’t afford healthcare, it is a crisis.” Better yet, “If some bureaucrat puts himself between you and your doctor, denying you exactly what you need, that’s a crisis.”

The arguments against the Democrats’ healthcare plan must center around “politicians,” “bureaucrats,” and “Washington” … not the free market, tax incentives, or competition.

The healthcare denial horror stories from Canada & Co. do resonate, but you have to humanize them. You’ll notice we recommend the phrase “government takeover” rather than “government run” or “government controlled”…

“One-size-does-NOT-fit-all.”

“A balanced, common sense approach that provides assistance to those who truly need it and keeps healthcare patient-centered rather than government-centered for everyone.”

Democrats are not very good at this game. Remember the debate about health insurance for children? It was ripe for exploitation by the likes of someone like Frank Luntz. Here’s what the Democrats used as their catch phrase: S-CHIP.

Anyway, this is America. We don’t really discuss anything. Journalists don’t ask good questions, politicians are allowed to repeat catchphrases in three minute television interviews. The heated debates behind closed doors in DC are about marketing, and on the Democratic side, how to manage the damned progressives, rope them in and neutralize them.

Remember how we solved the oil shortage: “Drill, baby, drill.”

That’s as deep as we ever go.

Saying nothing, but saying it well …

Dear Mark:

Thank you for contacting me about reforming our health care system.

Recently, a number of Montanans have taken time to share their personal stories about health care with me. These situations are often frustrating and emotional, but they reinforce the need for significant health care reform. I deeply appreciate your willingness to share your story with me.

Some of the letters I received have come from uninsured Montanans. Today, nearly 154,000 Montanans do not have health insurance. Other letters come from folks who are dangerously underinsured, who are paying more than they can afford, or from folks who are worried about loved ones losing jobs. Montanans concerned about health care come from all walks of life.

I firmly believe that all Americans should have access to quality, affordable health care without discriminatory practices. I believe proposals to fix our system should maintain patient choice, emphasize preventative care, and control costs to consumers and the government.

The Senate plans to take up this important issue in the coming weeks. In fact, we are already evaluating a number of competing proposals. I will look closely at all of them. Moving forward, I will keep your views in mind because personal stories like yours are the best evidence of the need for reform.

Please do not hesitate to contact me again in the future if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Jon Tester
United States Senator

Sterling Life, Private Insurer

An email this A.M from my brother on our wonderful system of private insurance::

I had mom to the dermatologist yesterday. All her cancer lesions have healed nicely except for the end of her nose. We will do four more weeks of treatment (ointment three times a week), and I will bring her back to the doctor on August 5. Here’s a complication however. It turns out the prescription ointment is very expensive (her last prescription, which ran out a couple weeks ago) was over $600. The doctor’s office sent over some samples, which will last about another week. The doctor gave me another prescription, but the pharmacy at Billings H & R will not fill it because mom’s insurance (Sterling) turned down the claim on the first prescription and so Billings H & R is already out $600 on this deal. So I’m going to visit with the doctor and see if we can get some samples to finish out mom’s treatment, and also see if he will file an appeal with the insurance company to pay for the first prescription.

I had a nice visit with the pharmacist, who is really upset with Sterling, and with supplemental insurance in general. He said they readily approve prescriptions for cheap drugs, and constantly turn down prescriptions for expensive drugs. In his opinion if we don’t get a single payer, or at least a public option, we’re headed for increasing disasters. Don’t you love all the benefits free-market health care brings us!

We have been paying insurance premiums to Sterling (currently over $180 per month) for decades now. We do a lot for their bottom line. They don’t do a thing for ours.

Dysfunction Junction

This is certainly not original, but bears repeating. When Republicans were in charge of Congress and Democrats were the minority, we were told it was impossible to implement a progressive agenda due to sheer numbers. That was accurate, but worse than that, Democrats, possessing more than the forty votes needed to stop the Republican agenda, could not do so because of miscreant conservative members of the party. So they went along with the tax cuts, the wars, appointment of young extremists to the Supreme Court, and a host of other right wing objectives. (They managed to rustle up 40 votes against Sam Alito, but did not use the filibuster. Hmmmm.) There was no meaningful opposition to the Republican agenda.

We were told that we needed a Democratic majority.

2006 gave us that majority, but nothing could be done because Republicans filibustered every move, Bush vetoed at his leisure, and Harry and the Democrats were hamstrung. They said they needed 60 votes and the presidency to get anything done.

Now they have 60 votes, the House and the presidency, and we still can’t get anything done. Obama is in the process of caving on a public health insurance option, the “white” part of the black-white gambit (part of triangulation), and we are going to be hit with insurance company subsidies and mandatory purchases from them.

They can’t even undo the pharmaceutical subsidy under Medicare D, whereby Medicare is not even allowed to negotiate prices. We are that openly corrupt.

And what do you suppose will happen when the tax cuts are due to expire and the Estate Tax due to be reinstated in 2011? Will 60 votes save us? Not very likely.

We don’t have sixty votes. It’s an illusion. We don’t have the presidency. We don’t even have enough votes to filibuster bad legislation.

All of this merely highlights the basic scam behind American democratic rule – that our interests are served by the existence of a far right party, which enforces meaningful policy change, and a weak second party, which incorporates that change into permanent policy and prevents the rise of third parties. We are not a functional democratic country. “Working within the system” is a cruel joke.

It’s heresy to say as much, but our constitution is outdated. It was innovative and different, but did not anticipate the rise of the corporation or the industrial revolution and the massive fortunes that it would build. I will not live long enough to see meaningful change, but our basic premise of government needs to change – we need an avenue for immediate removal of people from office who misbehave. Senator Max Baucus, who is a big player in the sellout to the insurance and pharmaceutical industrious, will not test his approval with the voters for five more years. By that time, his treason will be a distant memory.

If we had meaningful democratic rule, our government would fall in the wake of the Great Health Care Sellout of 2009. Our president would be replaced by a person directly accountable to our congress which would be directly accountable to voters. Congress would once again have a role to play other than to play patsy to the moneyed interests that currently run the presidency and own most elected offices.

Thoughts on Health Care

I’ve made the rounds and made quite a reputation for myself regarding health care. I’ve gotten deep into it with quite a few bloggers and commenters, and have picked up a bit of wisdom here and there. Just a few more thoughts:

One, despite accusations, I do not “hate” Senator Max Baucus. (I made a sarcastic comment to that effect at 4 and 20 Blackbirds, and as per usual in this medium, the sarcasm was taken at face.) This reminds me of the days when legitimate criticism of George W. Bush was marginalized as “Bush Bashing”. Baucus does, however, embody much of what is wrong with the Democratic Party – he is under the spell of power and has been in office so long that he has adopted the objectives of those who keep him there, and ‘those’ are not voters. Beyond that, I have no patience with Democrats who automatically endorse anyone with a ‘D’ by their name. That’s been standard with me for many years. We don’t get “80% of what we want” from them, and the “good” that they want in opposition to “perfect” ain’t so hot.

I accept all that is good with the American medical system – our technology is superior, and those who have access to it get very good care and mostly positive outcomes. We are innovative – a healthy mix of government and private-funded research.

Insurance is a workable model only if the profit motive is removed from the picture. If treated as a public utility and forced to offer its product to everyone who applies, it can be an effective rationing agent for care. Furthermore, if treated as a utility, subsidy would be in order. Those countries that rely on private insurance – Switzerland and the Netherlands – subsidize and heavily regulate it. I hear nothing about regulation of our health insurance industry in this debate.

The debate process is not a ‘give and take’ where there will be a good outcome where everyone walks away somewhat happy, somewhat disappointed. From the beginning, when Baucus took single payer “off the table”, the objective of the debate framers has been to guide everyone to a predetermined destination. Though I am not prescient, it is clear that destination does not hold a viable public option for us, nor regulation of insurance companies. Participation is dangerous, disruption is the best tactic. As with Medicare D, no change might be better than the change envisioned by those who are manipulating the debate boundaries.

Something has to be done about costs. We are wild and spinning out of control. That ‘something’ will not be pleasant, and must include some form of rationing; it must include a system to offer fair, but not extravagant outcomes for malpractice; cost controls; reimportation of prescription drugs and negotiation with pharmaceutical companies on drug prices; a meaningful public option, and uniform national standards for health insurance policies. For starters. Why is it that we spend twice as much per capita as other countries on health care?

And finally, Medicare must address it’s fraud problem. Why they haven’t is a mystery to me. I suspect that in addition to bureaucratic, there is also a political explanation.