Dumping the risky

A good article on health care reform by Nicholas Kristof in today's New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/opinion/27kristof.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

Kristof writes about Wendell Potter, former communications director for Humana and then for Cigna, who last year made a principled decision to get out of the lucrative business because he no longer could do what his job required: promote the insurance policies that had shifted from "spreading the risk to dumping the risky."

In 2007 he had attended the premier of Michael Moore's film "Sicko," which exposed our sick health care industry, in order to write a propaganda counterblast. Instead, he found himself agreeing with much of what he saw in the film.

He says that the corporate executives he worked with are not bad people; it's just that:

"they are removed from the consequences of their decisions, as he was, and are obsessed with sustaining the company’s stock price — which means paying fewer medical bills.One way to do that is to deny requests for expensive procedures. A second is “rescission” — seizing upon a technicality to cancel the policy of someone who has been paying premiums and finally gets cancer or some other expensive disease."

Kristof continues:

"The insurers are open to one kind of reform — universal coverage through mandates and subsidies, so as to give them more customers and more profits. But they don’t want the reforms that will most help patients, such as a public insurance option, enforced competition and tighter regulation.Mr. Potter argues that much tougher regulation is essential. He also believes that a robust public option is an essential part of any health reform, to compete with for-profit insurers and keep them honest."

Where is the voice in the Senate to replace Ted Kennedy's booming and sometimes bombastic rhetoric that denounces such? It's not Max Baucus or Harry Reid or Chris Dodd. If he had not been sidelined by illness during the last year, we would have a better health care bill with better chances for passing.

Let's hope his death can inspire good legislation, as Jack's assassination helped inspire the passage of civil rights legislation in 1964.

Ralph

"The Liberal Lion" is down

Ted Kennedy, was an extraordinary senator, not only in longevity but in effectiveness. In addition to those, he had come to be genuinely respected and loved by those who disagreed with his policies.

Much is being written about his not living to see health care reform enacted, and there is a push on to name the bill for him. That would be fitting -- if it turns out to be a good bill. It would be a shame to call it the Ted Kennedy Health Reform Bill if it turns out to be the watered down version that seems likely, one that will be more of a boon to the health care industry than to the health of the people.

It's a good time to remember -- or rather to resurrect, because most people didn't know -- Kennedy's speech in opposition to invading Iraq. Reading it now gives an eerie feeling that he predicted exactly what has happened, and attention should have been paid. Instead, the Washington Post gave it exactly one sentence -- even after having run an article two days earlier stating that dozens of Democrats were frustrated with their leadership for rushing to embrace Bush's war.

Jack, Bobby, and Ted. He was the kid brother, had an early scandal that left a young woman dead and his reputation tainted, but his long-range contributions to making this a better society earned him a place on the platform as an equal in a remarkable trio.

May he rest in peace.

Ralph

Clarity on the IG Report vs Cheney

Zachary Roth at TPM writes:

It's hardly news that Dick Cheney isn't likely to win any prizes for honesty any time soon. But yesterday offered yet another exhibit in the case.

During the debate over torture this spring, Cheney claimed that CIA memos, which he had asked to be declassified, would prove that torture proved effective in obtaining actionable intelligence.

Well, yesterday, those memos were released, along with the CIA inspector general's report. And, surprise surprise, they don't begin to show what Cheney said they did.

The memos, from 2004 and 2005, do say that some detainees, particularly Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, gave up useful information during debriefing sessions. But nowhere do they suggest that that information was gleaned through torture.

Indeed, as Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent shows, most of the evidence suggests they came through traditional interrogation techniques. As Spencer puts it: "Cheney's public account of these documents have conflated the difference between information acquired from detainees, which the documents present, and information acquired from detainees through the enhanced interrogation program, which they don't."

It's no wonder that in his response to the memos' release, Cheney is reduced to playing silly semantic games that a reasonably intelligent junior high-schooler could see through. "The documents released Monday," said Cheney in a statement, "clearly demonstrate that the individuals subjected to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques provided the bulk of intelligence we gained about al Qaeda." That's true, but it's totally different from Cheney's earlier claim -- that the documents would show it was the EITs themselves that elicited the information.

Now, the question is: will the media give this story the coverage it gave Cheney and his daughter Liz, when they went on every tv talk show to trumpet Cheney's original claims?

Probably not.

Ralph

An irrelevant question

Now that the DoJ Inspector General's report has been released, we're into another argument with the XVP. He claims the report shows that the "enhanced interrogation" yielded information that prevented attacks and saved lives.

It does not say that. At most, it says it's impossible to tell whether it did or not, because the record is not clear when and from whom certain information was obtained relative to torture techniques. FBI interrogators themselves have said they got more information from certain key suspects before the CIA came in and began torturing them. Even Bush's former adviser on counterterrorism, Frances Townsend, says the report is inconclusive.

But that is an irrelevant question in the debate over using such techniques. If they are wrong, they are wrong. And they are wrong: they violate our own moral standards and our international agreements. They reduce us to the moral level of our enemies, or worse, and they had a devastating effect on our standing in the world. For every life saved by information gained this way, incalculable lives were lost to the jihadists recruited in response to their outrage.

So whether they were effective or not is simply irrelevant -- at least to those of us who think the moral position should prevail. To the XVP and those under his sway for the last 8 years, the ends justified the means.

That is un-American, Mr. XVP. We are better than that.

Ralph

Progressive power

It's about time we got some respect. We progressives, that is.

Blue Dog Democrats have been treated like they hold the keys to the kingdom on health care reform, because they were holding out for a more conservative position and the leadership of the House felt they had to have them on board.

The Blue Dog Democratic Caucus has 51 members in the House.

The Progressive Caucus has 81 members in the House

-- and 60 of them have signed a pledge not to vote for a health care reform bill that does not include a public option, and they agreed to stick with that vote all the way through the final vote after reconciliation with the Senate bill.

So there !!!! They can't pass it without Progressives.

With 256 seats in the House held by Democrats, and 218 votes needed to pass the bill -- it needs Progressive support just as much as it does Blue Dogs, perhaps even more so if you do the math: If all the Pros vote yes, it will need only13 Blues; but if all the Blues vote yes, it will need 22 Pros.

Clearly, we need them both. So why haven't they been courting the Progressives? Because the Obama camp thought they had them sewed up. Haven't they been listening or reading the blogs? Or even the polls?

Part of the reason Obama's number are going down is the demonizing coming from those determined to make him a failure; but part of it too is dissatisfaction coming from the left and from the GLBT community because he is not sticking to campaign promises.

Ralph

Cheney's parallel universe

Barney Frank's question to one of his nutty accusers (who asked why he supported "Obama's Nazi policies") might be applicable to the XVP. Frank asked the woman "On what planet have you been spending most of your time?"

While it's true that XVP has been physically present on Planet Earth, he certainly has a different world view that seems, to me at least, laughable and without logic.

His latest is to accuse Obama of politicizing the Justice Department -- because he is "allow[ing] the Justice Department to investigate and possibly prosecute CIA personnel."

Holder originally was not keen on investigating, but he could not ignore the gross abuses that came out in the DoJ's own Inspector General's report (conducted during Bush's term but suppressed until now). Not to follow up on this would be a dereliction of duty.

What's at stake politically is that the Bush DoJ supposedly did investigate and found no cause to prosecute. So if the Obama DoJ looks into the same allegations and finds cause to prosecute, then it calls into question the Bush DoJ's judgment and independence.

So they would rather claim that it's a political act to embarrass the former administration.

The fact is that Obama has said he opposes just such investigations but that he appointed Eric Holder to be an independent Attorney General and the decision is therefore up to him.

Sane thinking would go this way: if the president did overrule his AG on investigation of criminal behavior in the name of our nation, because it would upset the delicate political balance in trying to get his ambitious programs passed by Congress, then that would be a political act.

I think XVP is sincere -- just blinded by his tunnel vision and certitude. Thank goodness he's our XVP and no longer our VP in Charge.

Ralph

Kudos to AJC

Sunday's Atlanta Journal-Constitution has a special 6 page section that is the most comprehensive report I have seen on the issues of health care reform. Containing pro and con articles about the cost, as well as comparison charts of the various bills under consideration, sample cases of how reform would affect six different categories of people, what businesses are concerned about, and the position of each Georgia Congressman.

It's a locally produced report. The reporters and editors deserve a lot of credit for putting some sanity and facts into what has come close to being a disasterous roll-out of the most important public policy change in decades.

The AJC also has a web site where you can read all the proposed bills and numerous articles and updates.

Go to http://www.ajc.com/news/health-care/

Ralph

On the other hand

As I wrote in a comment to my last post, we would be singing the praises of Obama and his political genius if he had been able to pull off health care reform with some Republican support and the support of some of the health care industry itself.

But here's another take on what's been going on.

The more I hear about Tom Daschle's role behind the scenes, the more I wonder how much he's the one responsible for Obama's catering to the industry.

A NYT article today highlights this. Appointed by Obama to be not only Secretary of HHS but also the WH tzar for health care reform, he had to drop out because of a tax problem. But the article says he has been in constant contact with Obama and his advisers, advising them on policy.

Daschle tries to minimize the blatant conflict of interest in both advising the WH on policy planning and as a highly paid health care consultant to the industry itself. He says it's not a conflict of interest, because he gives the same advice to both.

Now wait just a minute. I can shoot that down in a New York minute. It does not follow that he has no conflict of interest because he gives the same advice.

No, the conflict is there when he decides what that common advice will be. He is paid a king's ransom by the industry to advise them. Obviously they wouldn't be paying him if they didn't like his advice. So the fact that he just turns around and gives the WH the same advice is supposed to make us feel good about it?

I tell you. I used to like and admire Tom Daschle. But that was before he got voted out of office and discovered how much money you can make as an ex-Senate majority leader by advising corporations that need your knowledge and connections.

Maybe it's just a prejudice of mine, but I've thought something was funny about him ever since he started wearing those red-rimmed glasses. I think it symbolized him going from a plain, midwestern, honest lawmaker to the high-flying world of wealth and privilege and corporate power.

Ralph

More on "A good question"

The more I think about the power over health care reform that has been handed to the "Gang of Six" on the Senate Finance Committee, the more enraged I become. They are such a non-representative group -- not only in the minuscule portion of the population they represent, but in their starting views on reform. With them, the public option was dead from the beginning.

Three of the six are Republicans; count them out for any meaningful reform. And Baucus and Conrad oppose it -- Baucus supposedly because he says the votes aren't there for it, but Conrad has been very vocal against it as an idea.

So why have the Senate leadership and the White House given them the make-or-break power, when there is another Senate bill and three House bills already passed that include a public plan?

I retract my suspicion that Obama himself is influenced by money from the health corporations. But, just as much of an obstacle, I think he feels obligated to them because of the agreement they forged in secret to get their cooperation. Is there still some further secret "understanding" between them that we don't know? Like his promising not to go all out to push the public plan?

This tendency to get consensus and bipartisanship, rather than using the political capital the election gave him, may prove to be his biggest flaw as president. We excoriated the bush administration for letting the ends justify any means. It looks like Obama's fault is the exact opposite: letting the means justify (or at least determine) the ends.

Yes, politics is the "art of the possible," but Obama seems to be stopping short of what's possible.

Ralph