Nov 23 2009, 1:08PM
Health Care
It now seems clear, thanks to the reliably egregious Senator Lieberman -- when it comes to being disappointing, he never disappoints -- with the pusillanimous complicity of Senators Nelson, Landrieu, and Lincoln, that genuine health care reform, reform that provides universal affordable care, is probably dead this Congressional session. Which is not to say there will be no legislation at all; I'd be surprised if some sort of health care bill doesn't pass before the end of the year, and I'd be downright gobsmacked if, after such a bill passes, the president doesn't sign it.
Perhaps it will have an opt-out or opt-in or triggering mechanism whose operation will come into play some years in the future, or perhaps it will have no provision for a public option at all. But in any case, there will, assuredly, be no immediate public option in the bill that reaches the president's desk, or any alternative provision that guarantees affordable health care to everyone. The votes simply aren't there, and the publicly-expressed intransigence of at least two of the four Democratic hold-outs allows no room for maneuver, no face-saving formula permitting them to backtrack without looking like yutzes.
It's a shame. And an affront, too. Anyone who has bothered to listen to any of the debate, in either the House or Senate, has learned yet again how debased our political discourse has become. Frank Luntz's muddy paw prints were all over the opposition's rhetoric. Despite widespread public support for health care reform, the opposition pressed all the buttons their briefing memos assured them remained hot. "The Pelosi plan," every Republican called it. "Government take-over of the health care system," was a phrase employed so often it ended up sounding like a single word. Any serious discussion of the merits of the various proposals was almost entirely lacking. By and large, shibboleths and focus-group-tested talking points were the best the other side could muster.
This too is a shame; there are serious, responsible arguments, political and economic, to be made in opposition, and a serious debate about the merits of federalized health care could only refine the areas of disagreement and ultimately improve the legislation itself. But has serious argumentation become a quaint concept in contemporary American politics? You betcha.
So, with a watered-down health bill the best one can hope for, should we therefore despair? At the moment, for those of us who believe the United States ought to join the ranks of civilized industrialized nations and make medical care a basic right of every citizen, it's hard to deny that despair is an appropriate reaction. Much of what Presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton tried and failed to provide in the past will not be in this bill either. But there's a historical precedent for what's happening now that may, if one is prepared to take the long view, offer some basis for optimism.
I'm just old enough to remember the civil rights bill the U.S. Senate succeeded in passing in 1957. I was a little boy at the time, but it was much-discussed in my household and in the households of many of my friends. By the time Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson got the thing through the Senate, it was a toothless, emasculated vestige of what had originally been envisioned. So many compromises had been necessary to round up the requisite number of votes and overcome the Dixiecrat filibuster, the bill basically failed to actually do anything substantive. Insofar as it was a triumph at all, it was a purely symbolic triumph.
But its passage was still grounds for celebration. It laid down a marker: Civil rights legislation could pass, the heretofore impassable Southern obstructionist bloc could be overcome. And for the first time since Reconstruction, there was, as a result, a new civil rights bill on the books. It didn't do much, but still, a precedent had been established, a corner had been turned, a new set of possibilities could now be glimpsed. Nobody was especially happy with the bill as passed, but anybody who cared about civil rights was heartened by its passage all the same. It laid the groundwork for the great civil rights bills that were to follow several years later.
Every Democratic president since Harry Truman has hoped to achieve something resembling universal health care, and thus far, all have been foiled. And so, while the bill Barack Obama ends up signing is likely to be a piss-poor thing, with compromises galore, with almost every element dear to liberal hearts either etiolated beyond recognition or excised from the bill altogether, it still will represent a considerable achievement. For the first time, a foot will have gotten in the door; once that door has been opened a crack, it's much more likely in the future to be opened further than to be slammed shut.
(Photo: Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images)





Erik Tarloff
Great News... Glad to see we might save our economy and health system yet...
Why would we put the people who have bankrupted the Medicare, the Post Office and any other service they have ripped from private enterprise?
As to crybaby, cowardly senators, it is the few with a backbone who are standing up to the leftist juggernaut machine.
Also, why should the U.S. that was founded on the principals of free enterprise, the basic freedoms of Life & Liberty and has used its unique set of values and freedoms to out pace the world in growth and production, give up those freedoms to join with the elitist socialist European countries that have inferior medical programs and punishing business funded entitlements.
Yes, our insurance/medical system can be improved; but not by turning it over to the same clowns who crafted Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac.
scoast
In what way are the health systems of say France, Germany and Great Britain "inferior" to the US system. How many UK citizens have beenbankrupted by healthcare costs for instance - none; how does the US longevity rates compare - higher in most European countries; how does the cost per head rates compare? - less in most EU countries etc.
cloverhollow
'Gub'ment clowns' have given us: the Constitution; Supreme Court; both Houses of Congress; the Presidency; 'the greatest Democracy the World has Ever Known'; more nuclear war heads than the rest of nations of the world combined; an annual military budget exceeding all that of all other nations combined; extremely low literacy rates for our citizens; tax cuts for the wealthy that contributed to the largest deficits in history, compounded by a shift in from private sector to public sector debt (aka 'the bailout'); and, from the nation's most subsidized State, Sarah Palin. Private industry clowns have given us: from the most ideological babble station, Glenn Beck, et al; the largest economy globally; the most subsidized financial industry on the globe; the most subsidized agricultural industry on the globe; a 'dynamic engine of growth' now investing more heavily abroad than in the USA; a health care industry that ranks globally 23rd in care for the nation's citizens and is among most profitable industry in the USA; an army of privately owned mercenaries fighting very profitably for its investors in Afghanistan and Iraq; the highest salaries for its CEOs and the greatest spread between the salaries of its workers and its CEOs; less economic mobility for its citizens than for the citizens of European nations; and the top 3% of the population owning over 50% of the nation's assets;... so, it's a pretty mixed bag, eh, Mr or Ms scoast? To each, his or her own. Given the performance of our private sector health insurance industry, I'll take my chances with the 'gub'munt clowns'. Thanks.
Another well thought through and written article by Erik Tarlof.
It is the duty of every government to care for its sick, the US is the bastion of democracy, in this case the houses of government are standing in the way of every US citizen's welfare. This should not be viewed as a socialist or liberal agenda, it is a right every civilised government should provide for its people. The term social welfare misrepresents this basic right.
It is a shame the bill will not be passed as envisaged, but as Tarlof says it provides an opening through the door which can be opened further in the future.
Well said. It is the duty of the government to care for its sick rather than the private sector, and I fail to see how government health care threatens "the principles of free enterprise" -- and I mean really threatens, not just in some abstract, theoretical sense.
It is inevitable that we'll have universal health care and I think we should be proud of ourselves for finally starting to get things done about it -- even if for right now we do just have a "foot in the door." Any progress is good progress.
Great article.
An excellent article that shows the archaic forms of US government lobbying; what started as a well thought through plan ended as a hotch potch because of the Republican parties dogma versus the welfare of the people they represent. This is neither the first time nor the last time we will see the house manifest itself with such poor results.
Better something than nothing but still not enough; much energy and political credibiltiy has been spent on this bill, there are other major issues to deal with such as the economy and global issues, time for the President to re-focus and double his and his team's energies on them before time runs out...
Politics can be infuriating. We need serious health care reform, but the liklihood that our corrupt political system can overcome the trillion dollar health care vested interests is zero. Most of the republicans and enough of the democrats are bought and paid for by this industry. And the American people are too ignorant or uncaring to understand enough to call them out on this disaster.
I do not know enough about the 2000+ page health care reform bill, but I fear it is a disaster. I want reform, but have absolutely no idea if this is good reform. My guess is it is just another way to waste billions and still not guarantee decent health care to all Americans. This requirment to make everyone have health insurance seems like a deal with the devil. Shame on President Obama for backing down on this basic and fundamental piece of the legislation. Without being able to articulate why this is important is the core to this political failure.
I blame the Republicans also for their disinformation campaigns and the red states for their retrograde mind sets. Ironically, it is the red state populations that would most benefit from a single payer system, but you can't tell those poorly educated, underperforming throwbacks anything, unless it comes from the pulpit, and the churches long ago strayed from anything resembling christian values.
Thanks, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Shawn Hannity, et. al. for a stunningly embrassing American failure again. The rest of the world laughs at us.
The real problem is that whatever does get passed, no matter how eviscerated it is, is still going to cost a small fortune. Some may consider the moral victory of passing any kind of healthcare legislation to be worth the huge expense, but that's wrongheaded and that wasted money could easily be a roadblock to future, worthwhile healthcare legislation.
Also, nationalised healthcare nearly DID bankrupt Great Britain, for whoever brought that up. So that's a poor example. And no country is reaping huge profits from its national healthcare system. Massachusetts passed a state-wide universal healthcare law (which admittedly lacks some of the supposedly money-saving provisions of the federal bill) with the assumption that it would be saving money by now. Well, several years into the plan, it's clear that the state's estimates were off, and statewide healthcare is costing Massachusetts more than legislators had anticipated.
Further, I think a government's "duty" to provide healthcare to its citizens is being grossly oversold. Maybe you feel it's an important part of what the government should provide, but it's by no means a requirement. Besides that, assuming that government healthcare will ever be acceptably effective seems rather optimistic. Every citizen is entitled to a government-provided education, and yet the quality of that education is so poor (and still declining) in much of the country that it barely provides a reasonable alternative to private schools.
Finally, don't simply blame the Republicans for the healthcare debacle. Both sides of the aisle are equally complicit. The 60th vote to block a filibuster was literally bought with $100 million in federal money for Louisiana, which swayed Landrieu. That hardly seems bipartisan or in the spirit of democracy. Really, the mess surrounding healthcare legislation is indicative of a greater problem within our political system that has stifled meaningful debate. Once elected, too many politicians are afraid to move in either direction off of their campaign path--regardless of public benefit--lest they be ousted in an ensuing primary by an up-and-coming hardliner who successfully paints the incumbent as "soft on (insert issue here)."
Certainly, agree both sides of the aisle are to blame: the Democrats for not promoting a single payer and the Republicans for saying no to anything that fails to increase health care industry profits. Dont understand exactly 'no country is reaping huge profits from its national healthcare system'; it's not the government's job to reap profits. However, US health insurers certainly do. Under our 'private sector, psuedo-market based' health care system, only 70% -85% of the money you spend on health insurance goes to provide you with health care services. Since 15% to 30% of your health insurance money does not go to your health care, where does that 15%-30% go? Screening to deny others insurance, screening to deny coverage to those who've paid for insurance (perhaps, you at some time in the future), elaborate and multiple billing and reporting systems designed to limit coverage and minimize reimbursement, marketing, advertising, CEO salaries and profits for the health insurance industry ---all that before any of your 'other' dollars are spent to provide you with health care. Clearly, it's the industry's fear of losing huge profits that has caused the whole 'debate'. It's not the 'country's' job to reap huge profits on health care; it's the 'country's' job to see that affordable quality health care is available to the citizens who need it. Compared with private health care insurers who spend only 70%-85% of your money to provide health care services, today, of the dollars the government allocates for health care (Medicare and Medicaid), 98% of the dollars go to provide health care for its citizens. 'Reaping a profit' on health insurance is not the 'country's' job; ripping off consumers is the job of private health insurers. The fear of losing the 'right' to rip people off is at the heart of what can only laughingly be referred to as a 'debate'. Obscuring open debate and fact-based discussion is the whole point of the Tea Parties (funded by old astroturf himself, Steve Forbes and that ilk). Please, don't lose sight of the fact that private health insurers are about making money as 'middle men' who provide no health care what so ever to any one, but take 15-30% of your health care dollar. That, as they say, is the bottom line.
Aetna plans on forcing 600,000 customers OFF it's health insurance roles in order to shore up profits. Do we need any more proof that for-profit health care is a failure? When profits are put before the health of the citizens then it is time for the government to step in and remedy the situation. Private health insurance companies cannot be solely responsible for providing health insurance to poor and middle class Americans. When it is necessary for their CEO's to make $122,400 per hour (as does the CEO of UnitedHealth Group), then they have failed in their responsibility. Additionally, every major health insurance company in America has been fined, or has paid a settlement, for defrauding providers, consumers or the government, or all three. American health insurance is currently the responsibility of corporate felons and the fines they pay for their crimes are a part of doing business. It's time to put America's health before the profits of these criminal enterprises.