Month: August 2009

Categories
Health care Politics The Opinionsphere

4 Points on Health Care

There’s just too much going on in health care – too many important points to make and second. So, here’s another hodge-podge post on health care.

Zeke Emanuel. Alex Koppelman addresses the irony of the fact that Ezekiel Emanuel – Rahm Emanuel’s brother and a member of the Office of Management and Budget – is one of the centers around which the conspiracy theories about death panels and such are flying. As a leading bioethicist, he has written academically about many hypothetical scenarios – and now, they are being taken out of context to suggest he is in favor of all sorts of Nazi-like practices. In fact, Emanuel is not even in favor of physician-assisted euthanasia:

[Zeke Emanuel] is actually one of the country’s leading medical ethicists, a forceful defender of people approaching the end of their life. Indeed, he opposes even voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.

The Eight Point Plan. Matt Yglesias had an important post today – pointing out that though most of the attention on health care reform is being given to the public option (and to a lesser degree the Health Insurance Exchange), neither of these will affect the health insurance received by most Americans. (Though if done right, the public option and exchange would provide a measure of security to Americans as they realize they could lose their job as well as health insurance.) Instead, Yglesias says :

For those of us outside the exchange, the core of health reform is this eight point plan to make health insurance better by blocking dirty tricks by private insurers.

The Purpose of the Public Option. Jacob S. Hacker defends the public option in a white paper [pdf]  written describing the purpose of the public option in the Health Insurance Exchange:

The public Medicare plan’s administrative overhead costs (in the range of 3 percent) are well below the overhead costs of large companies that are self-insured (5 to 10 percent of premiums), companies in the small group market (25 to 27 percent of premiums), and individual insurance (40 percent of premiums).

What if the right “wins”? David Frum asks what it would mean for conservatives and right-wingers to “win” the health care fight. This Republican’s answer:

We’ll have entrenched and perpetuated some of the most irrational features of a hugely costly and under-performing system, at the expense of entrepreneurs and risk-takers, exactly the people the Republican party exists to champion.

Risk Adjustment in a Health Insurance Exchange. DiA asks a few questions of health care blogger Ezra Klein. Klein makes a point I hadn’t realized – that the legislation as currently written does not include a “risk adjustment fund” without which insurers could simply race to the bottom in creating plans. Without this, the Health Insurance Exchange would seem to offer nothing like an “ebay for health insurance.”

DIA: The House health-care bill includes universal community rating. But it doesn’t have a risk equalisation fund to compensate insurance companies who get stuck with the riskiest and least healthy clients. Doesn’t this ensure a race to the bottom in terms of the benefits companies offer, in order to discourage the unhealthy from signing up with them? Won’t they all just offer the minimum possible benefit package they can under law? (The point of the REF system, used in Germany and the Netherlands, is that companies actually offer extensive benefits and compete with each other to cover the older and less healthy, because they draw in more government compensation that way.)

Mr Klein: A risk adjustment fund is crucial, and, happily, a lot of senators understand that. I’d expect some form of risk adjustment to be added into the bill by the end. But you’re right: Without risk adjustment, the exchanges can’t really work, which means they can’t really grow, which means we won’t have changed much of anything at all.

Categories
Barack Obama Health care Politics

Ezra Klein’s Mood Swings

[digg-reddit-me]Ezra Klein has been far and away the most insightful blogger so far during this health care battle – snagging interviews with key Senators, from Lindsey Graham to Johnny Isakson, and even more importantly wrestling with the issues and politics in the frank manner that, of all mediums, only blogging allows (and perhaps talk radio.)

Through this August, Klein seems to be oscillating between two conflicting positions. This Monday, for example, Klein wrote that:

We have an unfortunate tendency to think of policy reform as episodic rather than continual. The process of reform is sold as a legislative Big Bang rather than an ongoing effort with lots of different policies all building on one another.

As reform is continual, he concludes that:

[T]he relevant question is not just whether they are an improvement on the status quo – they unquestionably are – but how they contribute to the next set of reforms. Health-care reform doesn’t end if we pass a bill in 2009. It begins.

I consider this a fairly optimistic take. We may not get everything we want done, but reform is a continual process and the bills under consideration “unquestionably are” an “improvement on the status quo.”

By Tuesday, he had a different take, saying, “It Is Democracy, Not Health-Care Reform, That Is Sick.”

Members of Congress are terrified of voter backlash and industry opposition. They are leaving virtually the entire health-care system untouched. They will scuttle the bill if a rural hospital in their district doesn’t receive sufficient reimbursement or if a local device manufacturer is harmed. Yet there is a certain portion of the country that believes that Max Baucus and Mike Ross are willing to vote for death panels and defend them before their constituents in the following election…

In a healthy relationship, such madness is simply unthinkable… Similarly, the relationship between the protesters and the government is not healthy. The protesters believe the government capable of madness. ((He express regret about this specific formulation later on Tuesday.))

But Klein’s swings aren’t without cause. Anyone following this issue closely can see each modest attempt at progress is quickly submerged by an inundation of non-coherent nonsense. Klein is right when he says that whether or not our democracy can act quickly to deal with the long-term and long-put-off issues of health care reform and climate change is a test of whether our political system is still relevant. But he should remember that our system has had some successes relatively recently – with Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neil coming together to shore up Social Security and with Bill Clinton and the Contract With America crowd coming together on welfare reform. These attempts were successful because they steered clear of the Charybdis of deficit politics.

The challenge for progressives, for liberals, for those fighting to keep our political system relevant and to avoid the leeching of power by technocratic and not quite accountable institutions is to break this deficit politics that not only is preventing us from tackling these serious issues but that is also keeping us from reducing the deficit. On the positive side, there are reasons to hope that the tide is turning – at least regarding health care reform.

[Image adapted from this image by myglesias licensed under Creative Commons.  The same license applies to this adapted image.]

Categories
Domestic issues Economics Health care Politics The Opinionsphere

The Bankruptcy of Deficit Politics

[digg-reddit-me]Ezra Klein had a revealing interview with Senator Lindsey Graham over the weekend. Read the whole thing. Graham gives Obama some clear advice on how to get health care reform done: Make Republicans and Democrats fear opposing you:

There’s two ways to fix a hard problem in Washington. You make people afraid of opposing you or you get them rewarded for helping you. There’s no fear for opposing Obama’s public option, and the reward is for opposing it. Right now, Republicans feel no political exposure from opposing the president’s health-care initiative.

That’s a pretty good analysis of what’s going on – though I’m surprised Graham is the one giving it. I think this would qualify as a gaffe if it were a bit punchier – if Graham had expressed this idea in one or two sentences instead of three.

But this wasn’t what I saw as the most interesting moment. That came when Klein asked Graham point-blank about “deficit politics”:

If the deficit politics are so powerful, where do you specifically see an opportunity for cost savings? Where can the curve be bent?

Graham dodged the question – as the astute politician he is rather than the honest truth-teller he holds himself out to be. And that’s exactly the problem with “deficit politics.” People may be angry about the deficit – but they don’t want any government services cut. They have been raised with the expectation that they can shift the burden to a future generation – namely, my generation. Republicans have been extremely astute at harnessing this anger at the deficit, though extraordinarily ineffective at actually doing anything about it.

“Deficit politics” is only about fear – and has no positive agenda. As conservative David Frum explains what the “success” of deficit politics will look like:

We’ll have entrenched and perpetuated some of the most irrational features of a hugely costly and under-performing system, at the expense of entrepreneurs and risk-takers, exactly the people the Republican party exists to champion.

It’s a mistake to see it as about “fiscal responsibility. What “deficit politics” is about a general suspicion of government, a sense the country is on the wrong track, and a sense that America’s position in the world is eroding due to government encroachment, especially on economic matters. What “deficit politics” is about is a kind of uniquely Baby Boomer sentiment – that we must cut the size of government, except for the military and those programs which “I” am using. It’s not a new sentiment – gaining serious credibility as a standalone dynamic motivating people at least as early as Ross Perot’s 1992 campaign. Before then, it had generally been incorporated into Republican politics – but as Ronald Reagan railed against big government while ballooning the size of government and deficits – and as George H. W. Bush tried to be fiscally responsible and raise taxes to reduce the deficit, and was pilloried for it – those motivated by “deficit politics” grew disappointed with the Republican party. As Bill Clinton reigned in deficit spending, he defused the explosive “deficit politics” but got little credit from those motivated by the issue. When George W. Bush exploded the deficit, he got little blame from this same crowd.

But now that Obama is running a short-term deficit to keep the macroeconomic demand high during this downturn, “deficit politics” is back with force. Obama has sought to defuse this issue by approaching his opponents as if they are acting on a good faith concern about fiscal responsibility by constantly talking about the importance of the long-term deficit, by taking strong measures to reign in the long-term deficit, and by making sure all of his new programs which seek to reign in the deficit in the long-term are deficit neutral over the mid-term. But the problem is – “deficit politics” isn’t about fiscal responsibility – but a far more nebulous and near-impossible combination of goals.

What is happening is that the right policy on the deficit is being distorted by deficit politics; it takes an odd, risk-averse sort of leadership style to realize how to play this game. Clinton was a master of it. But the selectiveness of the targets of this anger coupled with its explosiveness when it finally finds a target make any movement motivated by “deficit politics” impotent. Our political system rewards those movements that apply steady and generally predictable pressure, have clear goals, and that offer commensurate rewards for their supporters. The NRA, the NRLC, labor unions for example. Deficit politics though offers none of these.

Which is why it will fail to accomplish anything, except perhaps block any changes needed to deal with our festering, long-term problems – in which case these problems will get progressively worse.

Categories
Barack Obama Gingrich Health care Humor Palin Videos

Colbert: “The bill’s a thousand pages! There’s no way of know what’s in it!”

[digg-reddit-me]Stephen Colbert lays bare the pure cynicism behind Newt Gingrich’s refusal to acknowledge the silliness of Sarah Palin’s claim that Obama is createing “death panels” in what I think is my favorite response to the crescendo of wingnuttery on the right over health care:

Death Panels
www.colbertnation.com
Categories
Barack Obama Health care Politics The Opinionsphere

Chuck Norris says “Obamacare” will result in “home intrusion” and socialist “indoctrination” of your children. So it must be true.

Updated (November 9, 2009): Welcome to all the visitors from the home of the “Patriotic Resistance” who seem to have just discovered this. Feel free to leave “patriotic” comments about how much America sucks under Obama. I welcome your hatred.

[digg-reddit-me]Chuck Norris has now joined the right-wing campaign to spread lies about health care reform!

Okay, maybe that’s not all that surprising. He endorsed Huckabee in the 2008 campaign in the Republican primary’s best ad. And he’s clearly a conservative. And the guy’s got a regular column at the generally fair-and-balanced* TownHall.com. And Norris’s previous two months of columns involved scaremongering about the government forcing people to get permits to study the Bible, demanding Obama produce his birth certificate, claiming Carter deja vu – you get the idea.

But still, why now, Chuck? We know you’re rich and impervious to pain – but other people need health insurance. And why lie to your fans? Why Chuck?

Anyway, this is what the guy has to say in his missive describing “Dirty secret No. 1 in Obamacare“:

Dirty secret No. 1 in Obamacare is about the government’s coming into homes and usurping parental rights over child care and development.

That sounds serious. He cites a particular page of “the House bill” (page 838 for those reading along at home [pdf.]) If you read that section, you find something that sounds somewhat less sinister: A program that would offer grants to states that have – or wish to start – programs providing “voluntary home visitation for families with young children and families expecting children.” The program is explicitly “voluntary”  – as in these trainees would only come if asked; and it would not be run by the federal government, but by the states if they wanted to have such a program. A few pages later, the bill states the program is meant to help communities with high reported incidences of “child maltreatment” and “low-income  communities.” Specifically these programs are designed to prevent child abuse (as this Wisconsin program is [pdf.])

Chuck Norris will have none of it. He speculates that any attempt to prevent child abuse amounts to enforcing a:

…secular-progressive and religiously neutered version of parental values and wisdom…

Responding to the point that any programs granted funding by this would need to be explicitly voluntary, Norris responds:

One government rebuttal is that this program would be “voluntary.” Is that right? Does that imply that this agency would just sit back passively until some parent needing parenting skills said, “I don’t think I’ll call my parents, priest or friends or read a plethora of books, but I’ll go down to the local government offices”?

Snap! Chuck’s on a roll. He then points out that this program would focus on grants for communities that have low incomes – which to him means the program is saying that the poor are worse parents. (Of course, you could also say that the poor are more likely to need subsidized help such as this – but why try to think of a rational explanation when you could think of the most offensive one instead.)

Chuck’s anger reaches a crescendo as he asks:

How contrary is Obamacare’s home intrusion and indoctrination family services, in which state agents prioritize houses to enter and enforce their universal values and principles upon the hearts and minds of families across America?

…Government’s real motives and rationale are quite simple, though rarely, if ever, stated. If one wants to control the future ebbs and flows of a country, one must have command over future generations… It is so simple that any socialist can understand it. As Josef Stalin once stated, “Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.”

I mean, whoa. Health care reform is secretly really about “Government” forcing its way into your homes and indoctrinating your children to become socialists!

Death panels, government-mandated abortion, government-sponsored euthanasia, a holocaust of the elderly and disabled – and now “home intrustions” and the secret socialist “indoctrination” of children. The question is – what’s next for Obamacare? Will it take away your guns? Will it force you to be gay? It’s getting harder and harder to distinguish parodies of what opponents of health care are saying and what they are saying…

[Image by ensign beedrill licensed under Creative Commons.]

Categories
Health care Politics

Senator David Vitter Lies Again: Claims Health Reform Creating “Abortion Mandate” That Will Kill “Millions Upon Millions”

[digg-reddit-me]TownHall.com – who previously had sent this email claiming people needed to act immediately to prevent Obama from killing your grandparents and babies just now forwarded a message from Senator David Vitter.

The complete email from Vitter is below – but his main point is that health care reform is secretly a “new abortion entitlement” claiming that it contains an “abortion mandate” and that “millions upon millions will be killed each year” if the bill passes. Politifact – a nonpartisan fact checking organization hasn’t dealt with Vitter’s lies yet, but they have evaluated a number of similar claims that are circulating:

[W]e checked a claim by Rep. John Boehner that the plan would require Americans to “subsidize abortion with their hard-earned tax dollars.” While there are several versions of the health care plan floating around Congress, and it seems that full abortion coverage would be permitted in the government-sponsored program, we didn’t see anything in them that would put taxpayers on the hook for subsidizing abortions. In fact, we found an amendment in a key version of the House plan that specifically seeks to ensure that federal funds are not used to subsidize abortion coverage. And so we ruled that claim False. [my emphasis]

The White House and Democrats have in fact attempted to make their health care reforms “abortion neutral” so that the bill would neither encourage nor discourage abortion. If the amendment referenced above does not pass, the health care reform bills would not cover any abortions that would not have been covered by private health insurance.

In other words, Senator David Vitter, paragon of moral virtue, is lying to pro-lifers in a desperate attempt to block health reform.

Dear Townhall Reader,

Now it’s time to turn up the heat.

I’ve spent the last several days talking with fellow pro-life Senators about our strategy to ensure that any new national health care plan does NOT include coverage for abortion on demand.

We’re all agreed on two main points:

  1. This has to be the #1 objective of the pro-life cause right now — if we fail, millions of babies will pay the ultimate price, and;
  1. We have the truth and public opinion on our side, but what’s needed is steady grassroots pressure on key lawmakers nationwide.

And it needs to begin right now.

That’s why I’m asking you to click here to sign the Susan B. Anthony List’s petition to keep abortion out of healthcare.

We must ACT to stop the abortion mandate today.

Because if President Barack Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi pass a national health insurance plan that includes full coverage for abortion on demand:

  • Taxpayer-funded abortions will be the law of the land in all 50 states.
  • Health clinics nationwide will become federal abortion facilities.
  • Millions upon millions will be killed each year.

That’s some kind of “hope and change” isn’t it?

I don’t know about hope, but it’s a definite change away from everything we’ve achieved these past eight years to promote a culture of life.

So please act right now  and sign the petition-–  if we all come together and make our voices heard, this could be the biggest victory for unborn children in a decade.

What makes this such a desperate fight?

For beginners, new entitlements never go away.

President Obama knows that, and so do Nancy Pelosi and the lobbyists at Emily’s List and NARAL –- they see this as a way to solidify government policy in support of abortion for generations to come. Of course, we created federal entitlements like Social Security and Medicare in the past to help people live. This new entitlement promotes abortion, not life.

That’s not a sign of progress.  It’s horrifying, and we cannot allow it.

So after you sign the petition, I hope you will rush the most urgent contribution you can afford right now to the Susan B. Anthony List.

This legislation creating a new national health care plan is changing rapidly, moving through various committees, with anti-life lobbyists trying to sneak abortion coverage in at every turn.

You have my word that I am paying close attention to all the language in these bills, and so are my pro-life colleagues both in the House and the Senate.

Emily’s List, NARAL and Nancy Pelosi’s pro-abortion friends won’t sneak anything by us. If they want to create a new abortion entitlement, they’re going to have to cast a series of public roll-call votes.

And those votes will be very close.

Because I don’t have pro-life stalwarts like Elizabeth Dole and Rick Santorum here with me anymore, I’m not working with a big margin in the Senate.

The numbers are difficult in the House as well.

But there is hope.

Recently, 19 House Democrats signed a letter to Speaker Pelosi expressing their opposition to abortion funding in health care reform.

I’m told a handful of Senate Democrats are prepared to express similar principles to Majority Leader Harry Reid.

The rest –– and victory or defeat — is up to you.

If you and the really dedicated pro-life footsoldiers across America can summon enough energy, outrage, noise and financial generosity on our side, we’ll win.

Susan B. Anthony List staffers and I have identified the dozen lawmakers we consider the key “swing votes” on this issue, and our petition with thousands of names of Americans nationwide will go directly towards applying pressure on them to vote against taxpayer-funded abortions.

We need to act quickly, so please click here to sign the SBA List petition to keep abortion out of health care.

I’m doing everything in my power as Senator to stop Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi from creating a new national health insurance program that funds abortions, and the Susan B. Anthony List is playing a vital role in this fight.

Townhall Reader, we really need your help.

Sincerely,
David Vitter
U.S. Senator

P.S.    Townhall Reader, this will come down to one or two Senators and maybe ten Representatives -– that’s who will make the difference between a huge pro-life victory or a new national health insurance plan that will use taxpayer dollars to fund the entire abortion-on-demand agenda and result in millions of murdered babies.

I’m doing everything I possibly can in the Senate to stop this new abortion entitlement, but I need your help.  Please sign the SBA List petition to keep abortion out of health care TODAY.
Categories
Barack Obama Politics

An Encroaching Technocracy

[digg-reddit-me]In watching how the debate over health care reform is playing out in the progressive opinionsphere, the same theme keeps being repeated: this fight – and the policies that come out of it – are a test of whether or not our media-political system works anymore, whether or not it is still relevant. This theme has been repeated like a worn-out mantra by progressives from Steven Pearlstein to Matt Yglesias to Matt Taibbi to Ezra Klein (and I’m sure a number of other authors I’ve missed.) There’s a lot to this – after all, the media coverage of big issues has been poor and our political institutions seem too clearly in the pocket of entrenched interests. Lies spread virally and can barely be swatted back. The filibuster allows any single member of the Senate to put a stop to any piece of legislation and distorts what Congress can do and slows down what it does. More important, the process playing out is messy – with good and coherent policy seemingly being the last thing on everyone’s mind. The focus instead is on hardball political tactics – which are more interesting if less important than the policies they are used to push or oppose.

But if this system we have now fails, what is being proposed to replace it?

Ezra Klein recently made the semi-obvious connection I made earlier – as I wrote about Obama’s focus on technocratic institutions as a means of reform:

[M]any expect the Environmental Protection Agency to simply embark on its own campaign to regulate carbon emissions. If you look at health care, ideas like the Federal Health Board or the Independent Medicare Advisory Committee are an explicit effort to entrust the continual process of health-care reform to a more agile body than the Congress.

On issue after issue, the gridlock encouraged by the filibuster is not simply promoting inaction, but extra-congressional action. After all, the fact that Congress cannot solve problems does not mean the the problems don’t need to be solved. [my emphasis]

His observation that this is where we are moving is certainly correct – especially if our political institutions fail to take on the long-term systematic issues of climate change and health care. But I’d like to see him take more seriously the consequences of this. What are the implications for the type of society we live in if those decisions of greatest consequence are made by these technocratic institutions instead of elected bodies? (Though it’s worth mentioning that all of these technocratic institutions he mentioned – as well as other ones such as the Federal Reserve and the potential National Infrastructure Bank – all are responsible to elected institutions.) I also haven’t seen much commentary on the fact that Obama is placing great emphasis on these types of institutions to make gradual reforms outside of the political process. It’s an elegant solution to complex political and policy problems – but it’s certain to have a downside.

Our nation has been avoiding systematic problems to focus on a worthless Culture War since the Baby Boom generation ascended to positions of power – so it is clearly overdue that we tackle them. But what are the consequences if we entrust “extra-congressional” institutions with reform and management of so much of our government and our country? We already do this to a remarkable degree – from the many quasi-independent executive branch agencies to the Fourth Branch of Government, the Federal Reserve. And though these organizations are – in the end – accountable to elected officials – they have significant potential to pushback and do what they think needs to be done. Remember the blowback when George W. Bush and his administration tried to assert its authority over reports issued by the Environmental Protection Agency? Can you see the pushback already building over the proposal to allow the Congress to audit the Federal Reserve on demand?

You can make the argument that Bush shouldn’t have tried to change the facts presented in these EPA reports. (I would make that argument.) You can make an argument for the independence of the Federal Reserve. But what type of system do we end up with if we remove politics and direct accountability from more and more of our governing institutions?

[Image by Son of Broccoli licensed under Creative Commons.]

Categories
Health care Humor Politics The Opinionsphere

Prominent Liberal Blogger: Obama acting exactly as if he does have a secret “death committee”!!!

[digg-reddit-me]In the ultimate Yglesias Award Nominee: Prominent liberal blogger Matt Yglesias (many of whose posts are ghost-written by the AntiChrist, George Soros himself) admitted ((There’s no need to follow the link. Just trust that I’m providing adequate context.)) yesterday that, analyzing what Obama has been saying about health insurance reform, it’s clear:

[T]hat’s exactly what Obama would say if he did have a secret “death committee” plan. [emphases in original]

Finally, a liberal with the inside scoop admits it. The T-4 program has commenced!!>!>!> George Soros will be supervising who lives and dies! The secret Muslims have taken over the White House and the Holocaust of the born-again is upon us.

It’s time to panic everyone!!

But be sure to make your way to your local Congressperson’s or Senator’s office first. That’s the only way to stop this Nazi-Communist-Muslim-Godless-Chicago-style-Kenyan-America-hater! He’s out to kill your children and your grandparents for being burdens on society – and he just fucking hates babies! He actually considers every live birth to be a missed opportunity for abortion!

This bill also will hurt small businesses profit margins, perhaps causing some to close!

Another godless liberal blogger has admiringly pointed out that even with admidst these Hitler-style antics by Hitlerbama, our Great Leader, Sarah Palin is urging restraint, as he summarizes her message(s):

Indeed. Obama’s evil death panels would kill my baby Trig, but let’s be sure to keep the discourse civil.

What a selfless woman! She is sooooo right! But it’s important to make sure to make your “civil” disagreement with Obama’s plan to run a Holocaust on American soil in front of your local representative. Panic – but do so in strategically-wise places.

[Legal disclaimer: Civil discourse is essential to our society, blah, blah, blah. This post is in no way intended to promote violence or otherwise mislead or induce panic despite the clear meaning of the text contained herein. The following is not supposed to be used as a list of suggestions for the most effective and media-savvy means of opposing health care reform: I’m not saying people should bring guns when they go to “discuss” health care with their Congresspeople – but all patriotic Americans stand behind the right to bear arms strongly. I’m not saying people should make death threats to supporters of the bill, though all patriotic Americans know the freedom of conservative speech is under attack!!>! I’m not saying we should hang supporters of the bill in effigy, but all patriotic Americans know group activities can build group spirit. I stand behind Sarah Palin when she chastized reporters, saying “Goshdarnityall, troops are dying for your freedom. So stop making things up!>!?!” Which is why I’m encouraging all of y’all not to lie about health care reform – but instead to express the “truth” about the government-sponsored euthanasia and abortion and gang rapes (see sections 34.1, 23.2, and 104.4 of the bill for reference) that the bill the Democrats are pushing will mandate.]

[Image by Floyd Brown licensed under Creative Commons.]

Categories
Health care Politics The Opinionsphere

Right-Wing Editorial FAIL!

[digg-reddit-me]The rabidly right-wing yet still influential Investors Business Daily opines against health care reform saying:

People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.

Of course, Stephen Hawking is and always has been British – having lived and worked and been taken care of by this system.

All this is to say nothing of the various other canards raised – namely that any of the current plans being debated bear any resemblance to the British single-payer and entirely government-run system.

The editorial also explains:

The British have succeeded in putting a price tag on human life, as we are about to.

Matt Yglesias nicely parries this point:

[A]s with all anti-rationing talk you really have to wonder what rightwingers think happens in a free market system. In a pure market, your life is worth what you’re able to pay. The way the free market works, if an indigent woman gives birth to a premature infant you let the infant die. Thankfully, no country—not even the US of A—is actually sufficiently committed to free market principles to let infants die like that.

Continue reading “Right-Wing Editorial FAIL!”
Categories
Health care Politics The Opinionsphere

Mild-Mannered Columnist Steven Pearlstein Gets Mad

Steven Pearlstein – normally a mild-mannered columnist – has had enough. Though I can’t endorse his description of opponents of health care reform as “political terrorists,” his overriding point is correct:

The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage…There are lots of valid criticisms that can be made against the health reform plans moving through Congress – I’ve made a few myself. But there is no credible way to look at what has been proposed by the president or any congressional committee and conclude that these will result in a government takeover of the health-care system. That is a flat-out lie whose only purpose is to scare the public and stop political conversation.

His piece is probably the best counter to much of the Republican and right-wing spin out there. He chooses here not to defend health care reform against authentic conservatives or against fiscally conservative objections – but only against those extreme views that are taking hold in the imaginations of those inclinded to be opposed to Barack Obama’s success. He explains  the moderation inherent in the plan – seeing the Health Insurance Exchange as the key – rather than the single-payer option which is still being debated. He concludes with the plaintive plea I have seen a number of Democrats make recently:

Health reform is a test of whether this country can function once again as a civil society – whether we can trust ourselves to embrace the big, important changes that require everyone to give up something in order to make everyone better off. Republican leaders are eager to see us fail that test. We need to show them that no matter how many lies they tell or how many scare tactics they concoct, Americans will come together and get this done.

In the past week, the health care reform opponents have grown more strident. Comparisons of Obama to Hitler have become mainstream – made by everyone from Sarah Palin to Senator Jim DeMint to Rush Limbaugh.

As this debate has devolved, the question asked of Americans has become whether you stand with those who believe our system needs to be reformed in a moderate and responsible way or with those who believes Obama is offering nothing but a Nazi-like Final Solution as Americans for Prosperity explains:

Adolf Hitler issued six million end of life orders – he called his program the final solution. I kind of wonder what we’re going to call ours.

There should be a broad middle ground – where Republicans on the right and progressives on the left criticize and attempt to shape Obama’s health care reforms. But the rapid descent into extremism and blatant lies by the Republicans as they attempt to stop Obama for their own political gain has eliminated this sphere of rational commentary.

[Photo by Madi Lussier, used with permission of the creator.]