Emotional maturity and the politics of spite

the modern conservative movement, which dominates the modern Republican Party, has the emotional maturity of a bratty 13-year-old.

Krugman, NY Times: ” There was what President Obama likes to call a teachable moment last week, when the International Olympic Committee rejected Chicago’s bid to be host of the 2016 Summer Games.

“Cheers erupted” at the headquarters of the conservative Weekly Standard, according to a blog post by a member of the magazine’s staff, with the headline “Obama loses! Obama loses!” Rush Limbaugh declared himself “gleeful.” “World Rejects Obama,” gloated the Drudge Report. And so on.

So what did we learn from this moment? For one thing, we learned that the modern conservative movement, which dominates the modern Republican Party, has the emotional maturity of a bratty 13-year-old.

But more important, the episode illustrated an essential truth about the state of American politics: at this point, the guiding principle of one of our nation’s two great political parties is spite pure and simple. If Republicans think something might be good for the president, they’re against it — whether or not it’s good for America.

To be sure, while celebrating America’s rebuff by the Olympic Committee was puerile, it didn’t do any real harm. But the same principle of spite has determined Republican positions on more serious matters, with potentially serious consequences — in particular, in the debate over health care reform.

Now, it’s understandable that many Republicans oppose Democratic plans to extend insurance coverage — just as most Democrats opposed President Bush’s attempt to convert Social Security into a sort of giant 401(k). The two parties do, after all, have different philosophies about the appropriate role of government.

But the tactics of the two parties have been different. In 2005, when Democrats campaigned against Social Security privatization, their arguments were consistent with their underlying ideology: they argued that replacing guaranteed benefits with private accounts would expose retirees to too much risk.

The Republican campaign against health care reform, by contrast, has shown no such consistency. For the main G.O.P. line of attack is the claim — based mainly on lies about death panels and so on — that reform will undermine Medicare. And this line of attack is utterly at odds both with the party’s traditions and with what conservatives claim to believe.

Think about just how bizarre it is for Republicans to position themselves as the defenders of unrestricted Medicare spending. First of all, the modern G.O.P. considers itself the party of Ronald Reagan — and Reagan was a fierce opponent of Medicare’s creation, warning that it would destroy American freedom. (Honest.) In the 1990s, Newt Gingrich tried to force drastic cuts in Medicare financing. And in recent years, Republicans have repeatedly decried the growth in entitlement spending — growth that is largely driven by rising health care costs.

But the Obama administration’s plan to expand coverage relies in part on savings from Medicare. And since the G.O.P. opposes anything that might be good for Mr. Obama, it has become the passionate defender of ineffective medical procedures and overpayments to insurance companies.

How did one of our great political parties become so ruthless, so willing to embrace scorched-earth tactics even if so doing undermines the ability of any future administration to govern?

The key point is that ever since the Reagan years, the Republican Party has been dominated by radicals — ideologues and/or apparatchiks who, at a fundamental level, do not accept anyone else’s right to govern.

Anyone surprised by the venomous, over-the-top opposition to Mr. Obama must have forgotten the Clinton years. Remember when Rush Limbaugh suggested that Hillary Clinton was a party to murder? When Newt Gingrich shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those Medicare cuts? And let’s not even talk about the impeachment saga.

The only difference now is that the G.O.P. is in a weaker position, having lost control not just of Congress but, to a large extent, of the terms of debate. The public no longer buys conservative ideology the way it used to; the old attacks on Big Government and paeans to the magic of the marketplace have lost their resonance. Yet conservatives retain their belief that they, and only they, should govern.

The result has been a cynical, ends-justify-the-means approach. Hastening the day when the rightful governing party returns to power is all that matters, so the G.O.P. will seize any club at hand with which to beat the current administration.

It’s an ugly picture. But it’s the truth. And it’s a truth anyone trying to find solutions to America’s real problems has to understand.”

Right on – emphasis mine.

see: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/opinion/05krugman.html?ref=todayspaper

Progress on our public option

Don’t despair, the public option is still there…

Robert Creamer writes in HuffPost: “In a surprising vote Tuesday, ten Democrats voted to add a public option to the most conservative of the five health insurance reform bills working their way through Congress. That’s just two votes short of passage.

This robust support for the public option — in what most observers consider the most conservative committee in the Senate — signals a sea change in Congressional opinion toward the public option. The odds are now very high that some form of public health insurance option will be included on the final bill when it emerges from a House-Senate Conference Committee later this fall and is ultimately passed by Congress.  In the midst of the right-wing, town hall onslaught last August, the pundits…

The three bills that have passed House Committees, and the Senate Health Committee bill, all contain a public option. And increasingly it appears that the strongest form of public option will come out of the House.

A Robert Woods Johnson Report indicates that over the last ten years wages have gone up 29%, health insurance rates have gone up 120% and the profits of the private health insurance industry have gone up 428%. No wonder they don’t want competition.

So why the resurgent Congressional support for a strong public option? There are three reasons:

1) First and foremost, voters’ support for a public health insurance option is as strong as ever. All of the right-wing talk about a “government takeover” has not fooled voters who are forced every day to deal with the stranglehold that the private insurance industry has on their health care.

Last weekend’s New York Times poll showed that 65% of all voters support giving Americans the choice of a public option and only 26% oppose it.

More importantly, the public option is also popular in swing Congressional districts. The firm of Anzeloni Liszt just released the results of a poll it conducted in 91 Blue Dog, Rural Caucus and Frontline districts. The poll found that 54% of the voters in these battleground districts support the choice of a public option.

And the poll also found that the voters in these districts want reform and want it this year. The polling report says:

Overall, 58% of voters believe the health care system is in need of major reform or a complete overhaul, and almost 59% are concerned that Congress will not take action on health care reform this year. The risks of inaction to Democrats in swing districts increases if voters perceive opposition stems from ties to the insurance industry, as 74% are concerned that the health insurance industry will have too much influence over reform.

Those kinds of polling results get the attention of Members of Congress.

2) Members of Congress have begun to realize that they will have to live with the consequences of what they pass for years to come. And what the voters will care about in the future will not be slogans or ideology. Once the program is passed, the voters will care most about one thing: affordability.”

see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/growing-momentum-for-publ_b_303415.html?view=print

Obama (And America) won August!

The worst thing that could have happened to Democrats — and the one thing that needed to happen in order to kill health reform — did not happen

Why? How? When?

Marc Ambinder, the Atlantic: “…the White House was taken aback by the ferocity of the health care debate, the media was confused, activists were alarmed, and Republican enthusiasm shot up. But a funny thing happened on the way to the morgue…

The worst thing that could have happened to Democrats — and the one thing that needed to happen in order to kill health reform — did not happen. The Democrats held together. Moderates were not intimidated. Don’t confuse their constituent meeting pander with changed minds.

Did more than a handful — if any — Democrats who were leaning towards voting “yes” on health care before August change their minds during August? Probably not. Another irony: the public option debate helped. It helped by offering itself up as a sacrifice. The new Maginot line, drawn by advocates of a single payer system, turned out to be a bit of a feint because it was never the sine qua non of reform.  Initially, given the GOP success (aided by progressive elites who essentially agreed) in framing the option as essential to health care, its putative failure and demagoguery seemed to be a significant blow to the White House. But — and here is the key point — it became something for the Blue Dogs to “oppose” and thus satisfy their constituents’ concerns about reform in general…the White House would rather have the bill they’re probably going to get now and worry about Netroot anxiety later. From the start, the least convincing argument made to the White House about strategy starts with the premise that compromising with recalcitrant Republicans is inherently bad.
After August, under the worst case scenario, there is majority support for the following major changes to health care: real (albeit limited) competition in the insurance industry (even absent a public plan). A cap on what a person pays for catastrophic illnesses. An end to insurance company recision policies. Guaranteed issue. A basic benefit package. Significant subsidies to help people who earn as much as $64,000 a year pay for health insurance. Better cost and coverage incentives. And lots more. Say what you will about these reforms — maybe they’re incremental — but they’re a foundation for center-left policy in the future.”
My anxiety is reduced – thanks!

see: http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/09/why_obama_won_august_really.php

The Brownshirts are back – where is HUAC when we need it?

insurance industry funded fascism.

Perhaps HUAC should come back and investigate these folks…

Insurance industry funded fascism, from Frank Schaeffer, alternet: ” The Republican Old Guard are in the fix an atheist would be in if Jesus showed up and raised his mother from the dead: Their world view has just been shattered. Obama’s election has driven them over the edge. Consider Former Congressman Dick Armey. Several far right foundations and the multitrillion dollar health-insurance industry have teamed up with him  to organize the far right foot soldiers of the Republican Party to  intimidate people speaking on behalf of health-care reform.  They are using my old shock troops — given many of these folks were first energized by the Evangelical pro-life movement that my late father and I started in the 1970s. What we did to clinics they are now doing to congressmen and others speaking out for health care reform.

Having failed at the ballot box, having watched their Fox News-organized “tea parties” fizzle the intimidation tactics which the Republicans have embraced are being used in a well-financed, top-down orchestrated fake grass roots campaign by corporate interests to try and protect  the profits of the insurance business. Armey’s FreedomWorks is  organizing against health care reform. Armey’s lobbying firm represents pharmaceutical companies including Bristol-Myers Squibb. Armey’s lobbying firm also represents the trade group for the life insurance industry.  FreedomWorks is supporting the status quo at all costs. (They are also fans of fossil fuels. Armey’s lobbying firm represents Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Prime Minister of the UAE, on energy related issues.)…I think I know what happened to him, Gingrich and the rest: They can’t compute that their white man-led conservative revolution is dead. They can’t reconcile their idea of themselves with the fact that white men like them don’t run the country any more — and never will again. To them the black president is leading a column of the “other” into their promised land. Gays, immigrants, blacks, progressives, even a female Hispanic appointed to the Supreme Court… for them this is the Apocalypse.

The last presidential election (to paraphrase Bart Simpson)  “broke their brains.” What else could explain their embrace of intimidation — rather than discourse — over the health care debate and such unsavory moments of madness as the Republicans accusing Obama and Judge Sonia Sotomayor of racism, knowing full well that they’d just destroyed their chances with the Hispanic community forever?…Dick Army and company have been driven mad by their reversal, not just of political fortunes but of seeing that they’ve wasted their lives. They now know they were wrong: about the country, the free market, war for fun and profit, and what the American people really want. They made their best case and were rejected by the American people —  and by history. Bush was their man and he turned out to be a fool. So now all the the Republican gurus have left is what the defeated Germans of World War Two had: a scorched earth policy. If they can’t win then everyone must go down. Obama must fail! The country must fail!…A barrage of outright lies, wherein the Democrats are being accused of wanting to launch a massive euthanasia program against the elderly, free abortions for everyone, and “a government takeover” of health-care is now being combined with physical intimidation that in several cases has required police escorts to protect pro health-care reform speakers… It’s time that this whole shabby (and insane) business be exposed, vilified in run out of town on a rail by whatever responsible Republicans — if any — that are still in the party and who want to see the fortunes of their party revived. Republican leaders taking insurance industry money via lobbying firms and using it to organize what amounts to roving bands of thugs not only need to be exposed but thrown out of the public debate forever.  They should become absolute pariahs.

It’s time to give this garbage in name: insurance industry funded fascism.

N.B.: Frank Schaeffer – and his father Francis – was a right wing “pro life”zealot”.

Emphasis mine.

see: http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/141833/right-wing_turncoat_gives_the_inside_scoop_on_why_conservatives_are_rampaging_town_halls/



Government Health Insurance

Paul Krugman, in the NY Times: At a recent town hall meeting, a man stood up and told Representative Bob Inglis to “keep your government hands off my Medicare.” The congressman, a Republican from South Carolina, tried to explain that Medicare is already a government program — but the voter, Mr. Inglis said, “wasn’t having any of it.”

It’s a funny story — but it illustrates the extent to which health reform must climb a wall of misinformation. It’s not just that many Americans don’t understand what President Obama is proposing; many people don’t understand the way American health care works right now. They don’t understand, in particular, that getting the government involved in health care wouldn’t be a radical step: the government is already deeply involved, even in private insurance.

And that government involvement is the only reason our system works at all.

The key thing you need to know about health care is that it depends crucially on insurance. You don’t know when or whether you’ll need treatment — but if you do, treatment can be extremely expensive, well beyond what most people can pay out of pocket. Triple coronary bypasses, not routine doctor’s visits, are where the real money is, so insurance is essential.

Yet private markets for health insurance, left to their own devices, work very badly: insurers deny as many claims as possible, and they also try to avoid covering people who are likely to need care. Horror stories are legion: the insurance company that refused to pay for urgently needed cancer surgery because of questions about the patient’s acne treatment; the healthy young woman denied coverage because she briefly saw a psychologist after breaking up with her boyfriend…most Americans do have health insurance, and are reasonably satisfied with it. How is that possible, when insurance markets work so badly? The answer is government intervention…So here’s the bottom line: if you currently have decent health insurance, thank the government..

Right-wing opponents of reform would have you believe that President Obama is a wild-eyed socialist, attacking the free market. But unregulated markets don’t work for health care — never have, never will. To the extent we have a working health care system at all right now it’s only because the government covers the elderly, while a combination of regulation and tax subsidies makes it possible for many, but not all, nonelderly Americans to get decent private coverage.

Now Mr. Obama basically proposes using additional regulation and subsidies to make decent insurance available to all of us. That’s not radical; it’s as American as, well, Medicare.

see: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/opinion/31krugman.html?scp=6&sq=krugman&st=cse

Fear or Reason?

Robert Creamer: ” The details of policy will not decide the outcome of the health care reform battle. In fact, the policy outcome itself will be decided largely by the interplay of four emotions that will drive the outcome of this essentially political battle: fear, anger, hope and inspiration.

The principal weapon of those who want to maintain the status quo is, as always, fear. The Republicans and their allies in the private health insurance industry are cranking up the fear machine like the producers of a good horror movie. They warn of a “government takeover of health care,” “socialized medicine,” “rationing” and the ever-frightening prospect that a “government bureaucrat” might stand between someone and her doctor — or a needed medical treatment…Fear immobilizes. And fear of the unknown crushes the desire for change, even in the midst of conditions that cry out for change. It has been used throughout history by those who profit from the status quo, and it becomes especially important when — as is the case with health care today — most people believe that the current system should in fact be changed…Anger, on the other hand, does not immobilize like fear. It energizes action. In politics, anger is almost always a necessary precursor to change and hope. American voters would not have been willing to take a chance on the change and hope offered by the Obama campaign in 2008 if they were not already furious with the administration of George W. Bush and its failed stewardship of our economy and foreign policy. That anger stemmed from the sense that everyday people could no longer look forward to better lives in the future. Obama resolved that anger into the hope that change could bring them a better life…And it means that, for Members of Congress, we have to channel that anger to induce fear — the fear that failure to accomplish change will be more politically costly that voting for reform. In the end, the winning message to most Members of Congress is that health insurance reform is the high political ground. That is the message we must deliver to every Member over the August recess in no uncertain terms…

Hope and change will not win out if we don’t engage populist anger. But success also requires that we paint a clear, positive picture of a future where ordinary Americans no longer have to worry that they may not have access to health care.

People aren’t engaged and motivated by statistics or “policies.” The prospect of an “insurance exchange” will not inspire people to take a risk on change. To win this battle we need to get people to imagine what it would be like if they no longer had to worry that if they got sick and then lost their job, they might also lose their health care. We have to remind them that 14,000 people are losing their health insurance every day — and they could be next. They have to visualize the insurance company CEO who gets the $73 million golden parachute and received a salary of $5,585 an hour ($12.2. million per year).

President Obama’s ability to inspire is an enormous political asset. Being inspired is basically the feeling of empowerment — empowerment to overcome odds — to overcome fear. In the same way a blast furnace turns iron ore and coke into steel, inspiration transforms fear and anger into hope.

We need to inspire the country that change is possible and will bring about a better health care system. We need to inspire Members of Congress that they can overcome their fear of insurance companies and special interests, and make history. We need to keep our own base inspired in order to keep them mobilized.

In fact, our ability to compete with the insurance companies and the merchants of fear is entirely contingent on our ability to keep our base engaged and energized. That is one of the critical reasons why, in order to be successful, a health insurance reform plan must include a strong public health insurance option.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/fear-anger-hope-and-inspi_b_247617.html

Health care plan

But members of Congress are JUST NOW turning to the most explosive issues, which could delay or derail the process.

Robert Pear, NY Times: “Efforts to overhaul the health care system have moved ahead rapidly, with the insurance industry making several major concessions and the chairmen of five Congressional committees reaching a consensus on the main ingredients of legislation.  The chairmen, all Democrats, agree that everyone must carry insurance and that employers should be required to help pay for it. They also agree that the government should offer a publichealth insurance plan as an alternative to private insurance.

But members of Congress are JUST NOW turning to the most explosive issues, which could delay or derail the process.

They have yet to tackle the question of how to pay for coverage of the UNINSURED.

They have not wrestled with vehement Republican objections to the idea of a new government-run insurance plan, competing directly with private insurers.

And they have not figured out the role of state insurance regulators, who enforce hundreds of state laws mandating coverage of a myriad of items, including infertility treatments, prostate cancer screening and acupuncture….The White House, displaying a surprisingly light touch, has encouraged Democrats in Congress to make the hard decisions while the administration holds forums around the country to hear suggestions from ordinary citizens.

Congressional leaders have set an ambitious timetable, under which the House and the Senate would vote on separate bills by the end of July. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, has kept the heat on negotiators. ..In November, two weeks after the presidential election, the health insurance industry said it would ACCEPTall applicants, regardless of illness or disability, IFCongress required everyone to have coverage. The industry went a step further last week, offering to END THE PRACTICE of charging higher premiums to sick people in the individual insurance market.

But each point of agreement raises a host of questions. The government CANNOT require people to have insurance if they cannot afford it, so lawmakers must decide: Who would get subsidies? How much? And if the government subsidizes insurance, should it also prescribe the items and services that must be covered — the specific benefits or their overall value?  … ” 

(EMPHASIS MINE) 

see: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/us/politics/01health.html?_r=2&scp=5&sq=health%20care%20democrats&st=cse

Forget the Bachelor – Health care reform in 2009

Loud and Clear – This is the year! That is the message that came out of the White House conference yesterday, along with the message that this is part of repairing the economy.

“WASHINGTON | Sen. Edward M. Kennedy received a royal welcome, of sorts, when he appeared Thursday at a health care forum hosted by President Barack Obama.

Warm applause greeted Kennedy, back in Washington for the first time since casting a vote last month on the economic stimulus bill. Earlier this week it was announced that Kennedy is to be awarded an honorary knighthood by Britain.

“To Sir Edward Kennedy,” Obama said amid laughter and applause from those gathered at the White House. “That’s the kind of greeting a knight deserves.”

Kennedy, who recently turned 77, is battling brain cancer and has been in Florida continuing his treatment and physical rehabilitation.

see: http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation/story/1070220.html,

among many others

You know me, people, and I’m no Rush Limbaugh

Michael Moore: “But some commentators (Richard Wolffe of Newsweek, Chuck Todd of NBC News, etc.) have likened this to “what Republicans tried to do to the Democrats with Michael Moore.” Perhaps. But there is one central difference: What I have believed in, and what I have stood for in these past eight years — an end to the war, establishing universal health care, closing Guantanamo and banning torture, making the rich pay more taxes and aggressively going after the corporate chiefs on Wall Street — these are all things which the majority of Americans believe in too. That’s why in November the majority voted for the guy I voted for. The majority of Americans rejected the ideology of Rush and embraced the same issues I have raised consistently in my movies and books.”

see; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/why-im-not-now-and-have-n_b_172410.html

A True Paradigm Shift: Ultra Rich helping those in need

NY Times Columist Nicholas Kristoff writes today that we have a President who is more strategic: “Most presidents are tacticians, but President Obama is a strategist. His budget suggests that he aspires to be an echo of Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, harnessing his charisma, vision and political capital to transport America to a different place.

The absurd system of health coverage we now have is a historical accident from World War II. Because of wage controls, employers competed for workers by offering health insurance as a fringe benefit — and so we’re stuck today with a system in which the loss of a job is compounded by the loss of health insurance.

Titanic ambitions encounter titanic opposition, and opponents of health reform are already rehearsing the arguments that they successfully used in the past:

We have the best health care in the world, and you want to create a socialized bureaucracy? You want to wait months for a necessary operation, as in Canada? And you really want higher taxes to pay for this, stifling the economy and undermining our long-term competitiveness?

So let’s examine those arguments.:

It’s true that the existing system offers top-line medical care. Yet over all, it is preposterous to argue that we have the best medical care in the world….McKinsey Global Institute found that the United States spends about $650 billion more on health care each year than one would expect for a country at its income level. That’s $2,100 per American, and it’s one gauge of the waste of our existing system….Repairing the system is thus not only a moral imperative but also an economic one. So if our health system is broken, is it really so awful that we increase taxes for the wealthiest Americans to make repairs? In 1980, the top-earning 1 percent of Americans accounted for 8 percent of the total income pie; by 2006, they grabbed nearly 23 percent.?”

see: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/opinion/01Kristof.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Right on Mr. K!