Today I dropped in on the health care rally in DC. Everyone who's anyone was there (not literally, but it certainly felt that way when I was there).
Howard Dean was there. We got to ask him if he thinks the Democratic leadership is prepared to move forward without Republicans and if he agrees with the statement that House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer made at the health care summit that everyone shares the same goal of covering all Americans:
Did you ever read something so mind bogglingly bereft of compassion, and so full of the banality of the banana slugs, it slimed the inner surface of your computer screen as you scrolled thru it ?
This much "advocacy" deserves a rewrite. This is the current apogee of argument for "reform." All I had to do was substitute a few words for other words, throughout the piece. And this is what happens:
"I'm For A Public Option. Just Not This Public Option "
I see a ton of enthusiasm for the public flogging. I understand it. Emotionally, I agree. Intellectually, not so much.
A public flogging is attractive on paper, but has some serious and real pitfalls, in my view.
I understand why people don't want to let slaves escape on this, and also why they hate having commercial slave bearing ships, competing with their breeding operations. But there are still some very practical, non procedural reasons to stop and think it all thru.
Since tomorrow is the big "virtual march" on Washington, when the so- called Democratic activists (yeah, I mean you, OFA) and interested others are supposed to flood the Congressional switchboards, faxes, and email to their Senators on the Eve of Destruction, er, the Thursday televised "Bipartisan" Health Care Summit Kabuki Theatre, to expedite the passing of the gallstone, er, The Health Insurance Bill, the Speaker of the House clarified the status of the President's bill tweak tonight. The bill tweak was posted online yesterday.
This was posted late in The Hill this evening:
Pelosi: House Dems can support Obama healthcare proposal
"We're very pleased with what the president put up on the Internet," Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Tuesday at a news conference.
Pelosi did not object to the absence of a Public Option in President Obama's version of the bill, altho she said it would be the preferred method, nor to putting an excise tax on on "high cost health care" plans to pay for it. (oh, nice message control there by the writer for not using the Reaganite "Cadillac Plans.")
The White House bill includes a modified version of the tax that seeks to protect middle-class union members from paying it.
Pelosi endorsed that proposal, stating that "the pay-for in it is something that Democrats in the House can support."
( If I had to make an educated guess, the unions that they have in mind here are the ones that work on government military contracts and projects such as the electrical, metal sheetworker, aerospace industry, shipbuilding, etc, and in turn donate to Democratic candidates. )
According to the wonk room think progress, with President Obama's tweak of the Senate bill, there is a delay in starting the excise tax. This is a combination of kick the can down the road to 8 years in the future, and upping the amount of exemption for each policy before the 40% excise tax on policies worth over a certain amount kicks in. A double barreled kick, as it were. Because it's very likely that policies are going to cost lots more in the near future, after we saw Wellpoint's 39% proposed rate hikes this month. http://www.marketwatch.com/sto...
Obama's Version- Excise tax - 'Labor agreement' for everyone. Changes effective date of the Senate policy from 2013 to 2018. Raises the amount of premiums that are exempt from the assessment from $8,500 for singles to $10,200 and from $23,000 for families to $27,500 and indexes these amounts for subsequent years at general inflation plus 1 percent.
There is also a payroll tax increase of zero point nine 0.9% percent on wages or salaries above a certain income, and a two point nine percent 2.9% assessment on unearned income. ("unearned" income is that which does not come from actual work performed for wages, but is from interest, dividends, investment gains, or things like rent).
According to The Hill story, the House will be voting on Wednesday on a repeal of the health insurance industry's Anti Trust exemption, which would allow the Federal Trade Commission and Dept of Justice to combat collusion (aka evil cooperation to fix prices) between health insurance companies. They've had the exemption since 1945.
Yesterday, we were humbled when folks from the DC/MD/VA area packed into the living room of David Hart, founder of Grow the Hope, for a fundraiser to help us cover the annual Netroots Nation conference. We could not have been more thrilled with the level of energy in the room.
Our featured speaker, Chris Hayes, the DC Editor of The Nation, gave a rather fantastic speech that we wanted to share with you all right away:
Yesterday, I wrote about why it is a mistake for the Democrats to cling to the Senate Finance Committee's funding mechanism for their health insurance "reform" bill, which is a punitive, regressive excise tax on the working class's health insurance benefits themselves, which the White House persists in calling the "Cadillac tax."
Since Friday afternoon is always good for a newsdump, according to Chris Bowers at Open Left, Jillian Rayfield at TPMDC, and Greg Sargent at The Plum Line, we have the usual Democratic anonymous WH sources/leadership aides
telling us that the President intends to offer the excise tax and no Public Option to the "Bipartisan" health care bill summit next Thursday Feb 25 th.
Sargent:
Okay, I've got some more info for you on what the health care compromise proposal that Obama will bring to the summit next week is going to look like.
Bottom line: It's all but certain to have the Cadillac tax in it, even though House Dems oppose it, and no public option, aides say.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov....
Oh, goody.
Now, last night at Open Left, we had the breathless BREAKING! applied to this little nugget:
88% of Nevada Democrats and 61% of Independents favor a govt. admin health insurance plan "like Medicare" for younger people to be able to obtain as a choice to compete with private plans
89% of Nevada Democrats and 56% of Independents would prefer passing health insurance reform that includes a public option, and that would make them more likely to vote for Democrats in the 2010 elections, even if this meant the bill didn't get Republican votes.
88% of Democrats and 58% of Independents think Harry Reid should include a Public Option in Reconciliation.
Today, Friday, President Obama did a joint appearance with Senate Majority Leader Reid at a town hall in a high school gym in Henderson, Nevada. They hugged, they praised each other, they made boxing allegories.
"Health care has been knocking me around pretty good," Obama said. "It's been knocking Harry around pretty good."
The goal was to shift the emphasis from the unpopularity of some of Reid's votes to, in Obama's view, the courage it took to take expensive steps to save the economy. "Sometimes he takes his licks," Obama said of Reid. "But he gets back up. Harry Reid has never stopped fighting."
Yup. Harry's never stopped fighting. Fighting for what, we're not sure, and in what decade, we don't know, but he's still in there, swingin' away. Harry's sagging in the polls in his Nevada re election race. Nevada, with the highest percentage of veterans and retirees in the nation (think living on fixed incomes), and an economy that depends on tourism and entertainment, has been battered brutally in this recession, as it also has a 13% unemployment rate, and the 2nd highest foreclosure rates in the nation. Harry needs a Big Las Vegas Finale to pull this one off.
The day after President Barack Obama's State of the Union speech to Congress, the conservaDems intent on bailing out the health insurance industry are happy to hear that House Speaker Pelosi say that:
"I think that the President's, not only his appeal to pass it but his explanation to the American people as to what the possibilities were was a very powerful statement that will be helpful to us," Pelosi said.
/snip
"You go through the gate. If the gate's closed, you go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we'll poll vault in. If that doesn't work, we'll parachute in. But we're going to get health care reform passed for the American people."
Pelosi and her House are allegedly attempting to do a run around of the "60 vote Senate supermajority needed to block a filibuster" problem, by passing a House version of "side car reconciliation" to the bill first before signing off on the Senate's version of a "health insurance reform" bill. There is no timetable, other than they have a year to contemplate how to do this before the proto legislation already passed, expires.
In another arrogant collusion to once again deny us any possibility of what we want -- real health care reform, single payer, public option -- those who do what they want, but not what we want, have decided to scrap the conference committee to reconcile the Senate and House versions. Instead, they have decided to have a secret meeting of the 3 major players, Pelosi, Reid, Obama, behind closed doors without reporters or C-Span.
This is a call to action. We need to call congress and tell them we are furious. Like modern day Paul Reveres, we need to ride through the countryside on our internet horses and yell from the rooftops, "The fascists are coming. The fascists are coming." And we aren't gonna take it any more. No we aren't.
It's time for the Second American Revolution. We need to let Congress know we aren't going to take this any more. No taxation without representation. No mandates to force us to buy junk health insurance when we don't have a democratic say in what is being put into law.
To the rooftops, to the tubes, to Congress, say NO! We won't take it any more. The Second American Revolution is coming. The Second American Revolution is Coming.
Follow below for more to do and a very cogent letter from PDA.
David Swanson, Washington Director of Democrats.com, talks with Paul Jay of The Real News, dissecting the politics of health care reform and the roadblocks in the way of getting to a real reform that serves peoples needs rather than politicians needs and the fact that politicians, even democrats and so-called "progressive" politicians and not just republicans, are the major roadblocks.
Real News Network - December 21, 2009 No public option, no bill?
David Swanson: Will progressives shoot down a healthcare bill that lacks a public option
David Swanson is the creator of ImpeachCheney.org, co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org and Washington Director of Democrats.com A writer and organizer, Swanson has worked for ACORN, the International Labor Communications Association, Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign and many others. Swanson is the author of the new book "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union" by Seven Stories Press. You can order it and find out when his tour will be in your town: http://davidswanson.org/book.
We kept hearing about Triggers and State Opt-Ins and State Opt-Outs ... for the Public Option. Its time to move an amendment to the Individual Mandate that triggers it, with an Opt-Out. Note that these can be split into two Amendments, as the Opt-Out works with or without the Trigger.
(1) The Individual Mandate is triggered when everyone subject to the Mandate in a state has available to them insurance from a not-for-profit entity, and excluding all entities owned by for-profit entities, at a premium after any public subsidy of less than 5% of their annual income.
(2) Before the Individual Mandate can come into force in any state, a measure approving the individual mandate must be placed on the ballot in the next Federal general election, and the mandate must obtain a simple majority of votes cast.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in his speech accepting the Democratic nomination for a second term, delivered at Philadelphia on 27 June 1936, said, "The economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power."
"The problem is with this legislation, if one person holds up this Bill, and it passes as a 'hodge podge of nonsense', which is what the 4 more conservative Democrats want -- basically 'A Insurance Company Bill' is what they want -- this is a huge problem for the Obama Administration, it is a huge problem for the Democrats in 2010."
BTW Howard Dean knows a thing or two about winning Elections, nationwide, so Dems would be wise to listen to and think about his blunt warnings.
"My daughter got sick with cancer after her husband lost his job. She never told anyone she was sick because she knew the financial hardship it would cause and eventually the hospital would take their house for unpaid medical bills. We lost her in the following spring ... We read her diary and learned all she was feeling and thinking. Now I wonder how many others are just like her in this America? And how many before her?"
Deaths due to Preventable Diseases: Dead Last
Rankings 1st to 19th. France, Japan, Australia, Spain, Italy, Canada, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden, Greece, Austria, Germany, Finland, New Zealand, Denmark, Britain, Ireland, Portugal, United States
Much as credit card companies have charged exorbitant interest rates in the period leading up to the passage and enactment of reform, so too have prescription drug companies added more cost to their already prohibitively expensive products. Afraid that health care regulatory legislation will cut too heavily into their soaring profits, the industry feels no shame, nor any compulsion to give heavily burdened consumers much of a break. This is a side of the debate that has not gotten the same attention as other areas and one that I have tried to bring to light quite frequently, being that I myself stand to lose quite a bit if out-of-control price increases are not sharply curtailed. I do not deceive myself into thinking that I am the only one who stands to lose. Though I do not mind invoking personal experience if it facilitates greater understanding and urgency, I wish it didn't take the anecdotes of the chronically ill to impress upon a skeptical public the importance of health care reform.
On the subject of psychotropic medication, something of which I am an amateur expert, I have closely monitored new classes, types, and formulations of prescription drugs in a desire to find the best way possible to treat my condition. For every new medication that breaks new ground, wins approval by the FDA, and is then prescribed by GPs and psychiatrists across the country, it is a never-ending source of frustration for me to observe the three new offerings which are merely slightly different formulations of existing medications. This is a covetous process undertaken mainly to reap maximum profit when older scripts are on the verge of losing patent status and thus being offered as generics. For example, the anti-depressant which is the most recent addition to a family of medications known as SSNRIs has been marketed under the name Pristiq. Pristiq has a very similar chemical structure and as a result works only slightly differently from an existing drug in the same school, Effexor, that has been around for over ten years. Sometimes, however, even generics occasionally have limitations. Though a lower-cost equivalent to Effexor exists, the less-expensive form has been reported to work not nearly as effectively as the name brand formulation.
But drug companies say they are having to raise prices to maintain the profits necessary to invest in research and development of new drugs as the patents on many of their most popular drugs are set to expire over the next few years.
That may be, but before one gets misty-eyed listening to the woe-is-us violin, rest assured that the pharmaceutical industry isn't exactly hurting for business. Conveniently they don't mention the larger picture. Another example of this kind of infuriating slight-of-hand is the sleep aid Ambien, which has had a sufficient generic alternative for a while. A relatively new formulation dubbed Ambien CR produces an only a slightly different reaction, mainly by time-releasing the absorption of the drug into the blood stream. The drug is the same, but the gimmick is different. Returning to psychiatry, it is either a testament to how little we know about the function of the brain or how unwilling we are to risk radical change that the medications used to treat depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia have broken only relatively limited ground in decades. The best treatment for depression are still a class of powerful anti-depressant known as a MAOI inhibitors, which are close to fifty years old. They are rarely prescribed, however, because taking them requires strict dietary restrictions that, if not adhered to, can result in serious damage to the body and, in extreme cases, even death. In treating bipolar disorder, some patients still respond best to Lithium, which has been used in treatment for over a century, but extensively since the Fifties.
Newer medication often cut down side effects and make the period of adjustment less painful, but do little to increasing the stated objectives of the drug, namely to drag people out of depressive episodes and set them on a course towards health and functionality. Experimental trials are often plodding affairs proceeding at the pace of a snail, targeting a relatively limited area of the brain, and unwilling to take any unnecessary chances. Despite this, some medications do pass muster and do end up being taken by who are suffering in the hopes of providing relief. Even so, the drug makers and those who formulate them sometimes fail to take into account such crucial details as major side effects in a rush to get out the next big thing. SSNRIs like Effexor, for example, are infamous for producing absolutely awful issues when someone stops taking it. Though not strictly classified as such, one might even say that such drugs are addictive because the brain acts violently when the medication is discontinued. These serious matters somehow never find their way onto the commercials on television or the ads inside glossy magazines.
The difference in cost between name brand and generic drugs is quite vast. Often it is a matter of several hundred dollars for a one month supply, though it can be as high as a thousand dollars or more. As one might expect, those with employer-based or individual plans paid for out of pocket have to pay substantially higher co-pays for name brand drugs. When I had private insurance, the co-pay for generic medications was $10 and for name-brand drugs, it was $60. Sometimes I had no choice but to take a name-brand medication, which are often treated by insurance companies as something bordering on cosmetic and not essential, when the fact of the matter is that they are highly necessary and highly unavoidable at times.
Those who don't have the luxury of private insurance, of course, have it rougher. Those who have to rely on Medicaid find that they have no choice but to settle for generic medications when a name-brand drug would be a much better fit and work much more effectively. Medicaid programs vary, but in the state of Alabama, the most expensive medications are only covered if a doctor or specialist one can provide proof that at least two lower-cost alternatives have failed or been insufficient to treat the condition. Not only must they have failed, one must also work within the confines of a 90 day coverage window. If a claim to cover a more expensive medication is not filed within 90 days of failing the requisite two medications, then coverage is not granted. This is ridiculous in lots of ways, mainly that few medications used to treat mental illness work quickly, and many take weeks upon weeks before any psychiatrist or doctor can make a judgment either way. It's also ridiculous because it uses a broad brush of convenience, painting all illnesses as basically the same and all treatment regimens as similar. Some name-brand medications, regardless of the need are not covered at all, since whomever set up the system decided that covering it would unnecessarily drain the General Fund and that it was an unnecessary prescription in the first place.
Returning to the Times column,
But the drug makers have been proudly citing the agreement they reached with the White House and the Senate Finance Committee chairman to trim $8 billion a year - $80 billion over 10 years - from the nation's drug bill by giving rebates to older Americans and the government. That provision is likely to be part of the legislation that will reach the Senate floor in coming weeks.
But this year's price increases would effectively cancel out the savings from at least the first year of the Senate Finance agreement. And some critics say the surge in drug prices could change the dynamics of the entire 10-year deal.
Those who trust Big Pharma do so at their own peril.
Additionally, The news broke today that, quite unsurprisingly, much misinformation exists surrounding the Public Option™. As Politicopoints out,
The debate has placed disproportionate emphasis on the creation of a government insurance plan, raising the expectation that everyone could ditch their employer-provided coverage and enroll in the public option.
But that won't happen, at least not at the start. The reality is that only about 30 million Americans - 10 percent of the population - would even be eligible.
It could be accessed only through a new insurance marketplace known as an exchange, where consumers would shop for plans. Only certain categories of people could use the exchange: the self-employed, small businesses, lower-income people who qualify for tax credits to purchase insurance and those who are otherwise unable to find affordable private coverage.
This might deflate the hopes of supporters and pacify opponents, but since so much of this debate has been a three-ring-circus based on raw emotion and faulty logic, I sincerely doubt it. However, as proposed, it is interesting to note that the Public Option™ would be more like Medicaid than anything else. My hope is that we do not make the same mistakes with the current bill as we do with existing systems it seeks to augment or replace, particularly those in red states who likely would opt-out altogether if provided the opportunity to do so. Though at least red state residents would presumably have the fall-back of Medicaid, provided they could qualify, the framework is based on ignorance and tunnel-vision of an almost incomprehensible degree. One cannot simplify the complexities of humanity, nor its diseases, which are as multifarious as its people.
Returning to the treatment of mental illness, what is often not cited is the disconcerting fact that often African-Americans and Latinos respond much less favorably to medications used to treat the condition. This is a contentious topic with lots of disagreement, but the argument some advance is that cultural stigma factors in to a very large degree. If minorities feel shamed or guilty about seeking help for psychiatric needs, they are much less likely to engage in medical research. Furthermore, many believe that therapy is a more viable option than medication. Often it is difficult to make any kind of pronouncement when the truth is obscured by so many different interrelated factors. And though one can easily make a case for mental illness, one could also make a case that minority and low-income residents might be less inclined to visit a doctor for a more run-of-the-mill ailments as well.
The lifetime prevalence of major depression in the United States is estimated to be 16.2 percent, with considerable social and role impairment evident in the majority of patients. Previous studies found only minor differences in depression rates among African Americans, Latinos and whites. But various studies have found patients from lower social economic groups often have less access to mental health care, are less likely to be prescribed and to fill prescriptions for new antidepressants and are less likely to receive care beyond medications when compared to whites.
This fear and anxiety so many have that resembles to these eyes a case of St. Vitus Dance may not have any basis in reality. Doesn't matter how good the system is if no one uses it. God forbid everyone in this country have a high standard of living and good health. As the article points out, minorities and low-income citizens often have the highest need for quality care and are apt to put off seeking help until the pain becomes intolerable. That these are the people most likely to be eligible for enrollment in the government-run (gasp) option, those now building it from the ground up would do well to consider its target audience. We speak out of our own privilege when we assume that somehow the Public Option™ will directly affect us for better or for worse, when the poor and less fortunate will be the ones who either reap its rewards or suffer from its limitations. While it is true that middle class individuals and the reasonably affluent have struggled under the yoke of skyrocketing health care costs, I recall going in that I assumed the changes needed and intended were meant to appeal to our tired, our poor, our huddled masses yearning to breathe free. Somewhere along the way this became all about us.
Francois Marie Arouet (pen name Voltaire) was born on November 21, 1694 in Paris. Voltaire's intelligence, wit and style made him one of France's greatest writers and philosophers.
[...]
In 1726, Voltaire insulted the powerful young nobleman, "Chevalier De Rohan," and was given two options: imprisonment or exile. He chose exile ...
Woooo, some drama ... could be a notable lesson here?
The ONE Senator that I can safely say is NOT bought off, the one Senator that we can be certain is NOT owned by the banks is Bernie Sanders (I-VT). It looks like good ole Bernie is putting his left foot down on the public option and threatening a filibuster of his own if there isn't a ROBUST public option that is available to everyone in the Senate version of the health care bill.
I think this is GREAT news, and I'll explain why below the fold, where you can find a full transcript of this video as well.
The total vacuum of any principled leadership from President Obama, has inevitably produced the most directionless, anti-consumer, Insurance Monopoly boondoggle fraud imaginable -- which is now masquerading before Congress as "reform".
In fact, the Insurance Companies are silently doing cartwheels over this, and stand to jack up rates even more, and fatten their considerable death grip over the American public. The people who bother to read the fine print, like Congressman Dennis Kucinich, know this.
Who's to blame?
Well, for starters, Capitulator-in-Chief Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi (who lied to us, and promised "a robust public option"), Max Baucus, .... and the list goes on and on. In other words, The Democratic Party and it's entire leadership structure (do we have any?) created this fiasco all by themselves -- the same people who also want to keep funding and expanding the Bush Wars, Bailout Goldman Sachs and give them (crooks) your tax money for CEO profits, and who blindly support the unconstitutional Bush U.S. Patriot Act.
Some remarks from Congressman Kucinich:
Speaking to liberal MSNBC anchor Ed Schultz on Friday, Kucinich continued:
They're being mandated to buy private insurance. If you read the bill, the people are going to end up paying -- the insurance companies can raise rates 25 percent right off the bat, if you read the bill."
Schultz encouraged Kucinich to repeat himself on that point.
"It's on page 22 of the bill," he replied. "Right here, it says that rates shall be set at a level that does not exceed 125 percent of the prevailing standard rate for comparable coverage in the individual market. Now ... It's very easy to understand what that means."
"It's not reform," Schultz insisted.
"It means a 25 percent increase, they'll have the ability to execute and since insurance companies have already raised rates for the last four years by double-digits, we can expect -- based on the bill -- another rate increase by the insurance companies."
Over one-hundred and seventy-five years ago, an obscure Louisiana senator awaited his time to speak in front of the Senate gallery. In a few short days, what would have seemed to be a relatively limited debate about the merits of selling public lands in the western states of a still relatively small nation had been transformed into an expended discourse about whether secession from the Union had any legal basis. The senator in question, Edward Livingston, had listened to a series of variously thrilling, erudite, and eloquent emotional addresses given by the giants of that body in those days. Each trying to outdo the other, perhaps concerned a tad more for his legacy than specifically for the cause at hand, a highly competitive chamber in the best of times had grown even more charged and partisan. Livingston had no intention of bettering what anyone had said before, rather his desire was to appeal to a sense of hopefully uniform conscience and fair play.
The best speakers had already writ their words into if not immortality, at least a place in the history books for several generations. Daniel Webster's thundering, inspiring speech imploring for national unity did much to keep together an increasingly fragile peace, but words alone would prove insufficient to prevent Civil War. Giving birth to generation of brilliant statesman after brilliant statesman would not reconcile the divisions based far more on passions than on more cerebral pursuits. From this point onward, slavery and states' rights overshadowed every issue on the agenda, and this singular focus inevitably drew debate back to a raging boil, regardless of how seemingly innocent and harmless was its basis.
Upon this context, Livingston spoke.
The post of partisanship for partisanship's sake--of seeing politics as blood sport, where the kill is the only object of the exercise--was, Livingston said, too high for a free society to pay. Differences of opinion and doctrine and personality were one thing, and such distinctions formed the natural basis of what Livingston called "the necessary and...the legitimate parties existing in all governments."
Parties were one thing; partisanship was another. "The spirit of which I speaking," Livingston said as he argued against zealotry, "...creates imaginary and magnifies real causes of complaint; arrogates to itself every virtue---denies every merit to its opponents; secretly entertains the worst designs...mounts the pulpit, and, in the name of a God of mercy and peace, preaches discord and vengeance; invokes the worst scourges of Heaven, war, pestilence, and famine, as preferable alternatives to party defeat; blind, vindictive, cruel, remorseless, unprincipled, and at last frantic, it communicates its madness to friends as well as to foes; respects nothing, fears nothing."
American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House by Jon Meacham.
We have had our allotment of that madness after a long hot summer of discontent, but what has recently calmed down into something like order if not decorum constantly threatens to regenerate into something much more sinister. Our own weariness and fatigue with this recession may be the only thing that keeps down the thermostat to a tolerable level. Red state governors and representatives learned that the quickest way to win short-term accolades and the war whoops of the crowd is to obliquely raise the specter of nullification and even withdrawal from the Union, a battle which is long since past us, but still immortalized in the myth of the Great Lost Cause. Indeed, as a native Southerner, even I was exposed to such a romantic, dashing ideal only present in the psyche of those who win the first half's worth of play on sheer emotion, but ultimately lose the game in the fourth quarter against fresher legs and superior depth. This is a very dangerous construct, one shared by Germans and utilized by Hitler for his own ends in advancing a narrative of historical oppression and imaginary enemies that gave unity to many but led to brutal slaughter of many others. Given half a chance, the masses will always clamor for a re-match.
Livingston at a slightly later date stated,
There is too much at stake to allow pride of passion to influence your decision. Never for a moment believe that the great body of the citizens of any State or States can deliberately intend to do wrong. They may, under influence of temporary excitement or misguided opinions, commit mistakes; they may be misled for a time by the suggestions of self-interest; but in a community so enlightened and patriotic as the people of the United States, argument will soon make them sensible of their errors, and when convinced they will be ready to repair them."
Ibid.
A belief in the inherent decency and rational sense of the American people often reads like empty rhetoric in this day, especially when so much ink gets spilled about how clueless and uninformed are the average citizen. However, in this instance, modern day Senators and Representatives would be wise to heed the wishes of those whose trust they are the supposed stewards. Poll after poll has shown a slow, but nonetheless undeniable upward tick in support of Public Option and other reforms. Legislators, much like we ourselves, seem to be caught in that eternal quandary, pondering whether the commoners can act in their own best interest, or whether it is the unenviable burden of the elites to superimpose their own will in its place. The paramount lesson to be learned here is that Americans are frequently slow to warm to and inherently suspicious of expansive change, no matter whether or not self-interest is keenly involved.
Speaking specifically to the months-long debate with ourselves and our government, whichever health care bill is passed may likely include a provision whereby states can opt-out of a means to establish parity among health care providers, and no matter how what blend of incentives or threats of consequences, many GOP-dominated states simply will not follow suit. The often unsatisfying compromise between centralized power and regional control known as Federalism will often materialize in these situations. Both perspectives, either for or against are under-girded by a strong sense of distrust of distant bodies and corresponding fear of corruption. Certain, usually conservative states are fearful of Washington's seemingly limitless expansive control into their own affairs and even more fearful of Capitol Hill's perceived incompetence and wasteful behavior. The destructive power of yahoo moralizing, especially when wedded to a fear of the bumbling, slothful behavior of nameless Federal Government bureaucrats remains a force, particularly in solidly red states. Those who would keep our union together have no choice but to navigate this rocky course and in so doing cobble together one unsatisfying compromise measure after another.
Even so, I do believe that much good will stem from reform, whenever it shall arrive on President Obama's desk, and though the deletion of certain particulars is not exactly to my liking, I will have to grit my teeth and live with the cards I am dealt. It is foolish to wish for failure in the hopes that dismal outcomes will produce eventual success based on public outcry and this goes for Olympic games, the success of the first African-American President, or health care reform. Instead I wish for resounding positive results and with it the recognition that there will be an inevitable need to tweak or slightly modify the existing framework with the passage of time. Perhaps a true public option will arrive with time, once states that refuse to participate recognize the great benefit other states derive from its existence. We ought to have learned by now that all or nothing thinking isn't just unfair, it goes against logic itself. The American people, after years of being talked to like children are being faced with a very adult decision, and unaccustomed to such treatment, do not quite know how to respond. My hope, as it is always, is that all Americans are invited to the table and in so doing dealt a hand, so as best able to recognize that the political process is frequently a high stakes game of chance and strategy.
Livingston concluded,
"There are legitimate and effectual means to correct any palpable infraction of our Constitution," he said, "Let the cry of Constitutional oppression be justly raised within these walls, and it will be heard abroad--it will be examined; the people are intelligent, the people are just, and in time these characteristics must have an effect on their Representatives."
Back in August, barely 2 months ago, Senator Hatch (R-UT), displayed a graciousness and a spirit of bipartisanship, rarely seen among the Party of NO.
Senator Orrin Hatch on Ted Kennedy's Life The Situation Room -- Aug 26, 2009
BLITZER: [...] the issue that was the most important to him, health care for the American people, you were -- you're a member of the Finance Committee. [...] And since this was so important to your good friend, Senator Kennedy, I'll ask you directly, Senator Hatch -- are you willing to get back into those negotiations with the Democrats right now in memory -- in honor of Senator Kennedy?
You know how important health care reform was for your friend.
Today on ABC's Top Line, co-host David Chalian asked Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) if he would "opt-out" of the public option for his state if the measure passed. Pawlenty dodged: "Well, I don't know if we would opt out but I personally would like to opt out because I don't like government run health care." But Chalian persisted, and ultimately, Pawlenty said that he would oppose the public option for Minnesota:
CHALIAN: But you would lead a charge in your state to opt out if that was an option available?
PAWLENTY: I think so because I don't like government run health care.
Reform Immigration -
March on Washington
We kept hearing about Triggers and State Opt-Ins and State Opt-Outs ... for the Public Option. Its time to move an amendment to the Individual Mandate that triggers it, with an Opt-Out. Note that these can be split into two Amendments, as the Opt-Out works with or without the Trigger.
