Author: Mark Tokarski

Just a man who likes to read, argue, and occasionally be surprised.

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.

Obama and Progressives

From Firedoglake: Obama is using his bully pulpit in the health care debate as might be expected of a weak Democrat – he’s going after MoveOn for running an ad campaign against Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA). Apparently the ads have been quite effective, forcing Obama’s hand. He wants progressive groups to unite around Democrats, presumably facing outwards and bent over.

Scrabble Pills

I am an aging specimen fighting the rampages of time on my body. Hair has redirected itself inward, reemerging from the ears. The tummy sags, joints ache. I work out three times a week, running ten miles total and lifting and pushing and grunting and observing all those young bodies – look away! Look away! Time and gravity are winning.

I take daily doses of glucosamine for the joints. I have no idea if it works. But it doesn’t hurt me, they say. And, I take what I call “Scrabble” pills. (They help me beat my wife at that game, sometimes. About half the time.) These are otherwise known as Omega 3 fish oil tablets. They are all the rage. And they taught me something about our Internet.

There are a wide array of sources for the pills, and the cost can be anywhere from a lot for a few to a little for a lot. WalMart wants $9.00 for a thousand. But what’s a good pill? Which of them do what they say they do? This is America, so only one thing is for sure: Everyone is probably lying.

I did some Internet “research”. I went to various sources who say they have “compared” all of the pills on the market, and found “one” that was better than all the others. One came from New Zealand and had to be ordered by mail. Others had special mumbo-jumble-hocus-pocus light saber magic done to them, and were very expensive – $16.00 for 60 pills. Still others warned that “cheap” pills might be rancid, made from fish that had sat on the dock for a week, like Mrs. Paul’s Fish Sticks.

All I wanted was an objective source that had done some testing and gave an honest and non-self-promoting opinion on the worth of the various pills. It turns out there are two: Consumerlab.com, and Consumer Reports. But both require that you join and pay them money for these opinions. They are worthy, no doubt – no problem. But I only wanted one opinion on one product, and was not willing to pay $30 for it.

The Internet started out as a wonderful source of freely-shared information, and so it was hostile to the American way where everything is for sale and everybody lies. Advertisers are yet to find a way to make a dishonest buck on a regular basis on anything other than porn and books, but they are trying. Any venture now in quest of objective information is like a walk down the concourse at the local carnival – hucksters and barkers yelling at you from every booth. My foray into the Omega3 pill market showed me that the Internet is not very useful anymore. Advertising is winning out, useful information is dwindling and getting harder to find.

Regarding Omega3 pills, there was scads of useless information and outright lies, much of it masquerading as medically sourced.

But someone committed a sin. Someone broke the code. Someone put up an excerpt from a Consumer Reports piece on the pills. It said they are all pretty much the same. None of them will hurt you. If there is any good to be had from them, all of them offer that good. So when shopping, just buy the cheapest one. It took about half an hour to find this piece of information.

And once again, the local Food Co-op, supposedly offering us alternatives to all of the corporate food scams going on, is doing a scam of its own. They want $26.59 for 250 Scrabble pills. They insult us with wholesome fervor.

Common Ground?

There might be cause for unity among right and left wingers in opposing “Cap and Trade” legislation. If Congressman Peter DeFazio of Oregon is right, Democrats have replaced Republicans now as the people handing out “big sloppy wet kisses” to both Wall Street and polluters.

Here’s a brief interview from July 1st from the Thom Hartmann radio show.

HARTMANN: Congressman Peter DeFazio is with us. And you, along with Dennis Kucinich and a few others were among the few Democrats who actually voted against the cap and trade legislation in the House of Representatives. It’s not yet come up in the Senate. Congressman, why?

DEFAZIO: There were three progressives at least – me, Dennis, and Pete Stark of California, who understands financial markets, because we felt it’s not going to effectively deal with greenhouse gases, it’s loophole-ridden, it’s subject to massive manipulation (we already have some great quotes from people on Wall Street saying this is going to be the biggest market the world has ever had, much bigger than financial services.) They’re already creating, in Europe, carbon-offset futures derivatives.

HARTMANN:: This is the new bubble.

DEFAZIO:: Yeah – they’re going to create carbon offset derivative futures. They’re already talking about – the guy who’s head of Friends of the Earth got his economist somehow into a meeting of people on Wall Street – and they’re talking about traunching them into junk carbon and good carbon and gourmet carbon, so they’re going to traunch them, and then the bill says that if you are doing these exotic instruments on offsets, you have to buy insurance. That brings in the credit default swaps. So what it might do is get us our money back. Maybe AIG can go into the business of doing these as collateralized debt obligations and selling credit default swap insurance, and if we get the taxpayer money back real fast, before they collapse the next bubble, and if we don’t bail them out, maybe we won’t come out so bad. But this is really a bad way to deal with the issue.

HARTMANN:: So you’re of the opinion that a bad bill is worse than no bill. I’ve been taking the position that, and you’re causing me to rethink it, that a bad bill is better than no bill because at least a) the government’s acknowledging that we’ve got a carbon problem, and b) it’s making the right wing hysterical (I listened to part of Shaun Hannity’s show yesterday, and he spent half an hour – he calls it “cap and tax” – he’s hysterical about this, and c) once we’ve got that door open, maybe we can fix it. You think it’s just going to get worse?

DEFAZIO:: Well, I like to drive the right wing nuts, and that’s always part of the reason to do something or say something. But here’s the thing and most people miss this detail. The Supreme Court ruled two years ago that the EPA can regulate carbon as emissions, greenhouse gases …

HARTMANN:: So we don’t need this bill.

DEFAZIO:Right. The Bush Administration refused to [inaudible], Obama earlier this year – the Obama EPA said we are going to begin the process to regulate greenhouse gases. This bill prohibits them from continuing that process.

HARTMANN:: Oh no.

DEFAZIO:: Yes. That is a specific provision in the bill that the polluters wanted. They said we don’t want the EPA going ahead with these rules and regulations like they did with clean water and clean air.

HARTMANN:: So this is not only a big sloppy wet kiss to AIG and Goldman Sachs, but also to the coal industry.

DEFAZIO:: Oh, it’s very coal-friendly. In fact, in the end it took away allowances for utilities that have a lot of renewable generation and, if they don’t have fossil fuels to spend them on, they’re taking their allowances and transferring them to the coal industry. That was a last minute Colin Peterson deal in the Ag section of the bill. I think it’s one of the most coal-friendly pieces of legislation since I’ve been in congress.

HARTMANN: : Amazing. …