Health Care and the Possibility of Change

It is difficult to believe that only 16 years ago some of us were outraged by the Harry and Louise ads. Those ads seem quaint compared to what we are seeing today from the opponents of health care reform and their scare tactics that are just short of saying that health care reform means President Obama will personally sign orders to kill anybody who is sick or over 60 years old. It is, however, a good bet that if we wait long enough, we will start hearing that as well.

This is unfortunate because health care reform is long overdue. A more efficient system that insures more people, simplifies the health care process, brings costs down and creates rational incentives for health care providers, health care seekers and everybody else would be of great value to the entire country. The creation of such a system would be very difficult, and perhaps not fully possible, but it should be the goal of Obama's policy.

The political reality is that given the margin with which he was elected and the substantial margins by which the Democrats control both houses of congress it is likely that we will get some form of an Obama health care bill. It is, unfortunately, increasingly clear now that the bill will be limited in scope. Moreover, any chance of a serious debate about how to balance competing needs and political realities has been shouted down. Because the anti-health care reform interests, in collaboration with broader right wing organizations, have invested in scare tactics, rumor mongering and fear to the preclusion of negotiation, communication or compromise, the Democratic health care bill will probably not be as inclusive as many of us would like; and a major progressive goal of more than half a century will still be unmet.

The failure of health care reform will not in itself be a devastating blow to the progressive movement. After all, we have failed, or been stopped, on this issue many times before. However, if health care reform fails it will raise serious questions about a central premise of both Obama's campaign and the progressive movement that supported it. The debate about health care, is part of the broader movement and thus is also a debate about how we do governance, pitting those who believe we can change and move away from the nastiness and partisanship of the last twenty years against those who believe that the problem with how we have done politics in the last 16 years is that we were too calm. At its base, this is a fight over whether change is possible. Accordingly, the defeat of meaningful health care reform may well signify the defeat of the optimism and hope surrounding Obama as well as of the notion that it is possible to make real change in Washington.

The promise of change in both the substance and style of politics was deeply felt when Obama took office. So far, the Obama administration has given us some important pieces of legislation passed, a refreshing movement away from the radically ideologically driven Bush administration and a far more style and intellect in the White House, but the promised dramatic change is still very much a work in progress. The economy may recover, but it is clear now that it will not fundamentally change. We will likely get a health care reform bill, but there is a real possibility that it will be one of essentially half measures.

The health care debate so far has clearly shown that Obama has brought change to Washington. Before Obama was president, major media figures did not compare the president's administration to Nazi's, opponents of the president's policies and once and perhaps future leaders of major political parties did not suggest that the president was going to establish death panels, and elected officials of the party out of power sought to calm, not stoke, the noisiest and most radical opponents of the president. These changes are not the fault of the president, but speak to the extent to which the president's opponents will go, and their willingness to use increasingly outrageous tactics, to oppose the president. Seven months into the Obama presidency the Republicans' biggest, and perhaps only, success has been drowning the optimism from earlier in the year in a pool of red baiting, misinformation, comparisons to Nazis and intimidation. Defeating Obama on health care will be a big step towards making this Republican success permanent.

Comments

[Lorianne]

Slapping the Camel's Nose [liberal economist vs national health care reform]
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/08/slapping_the_camels_nose.php

[RJBOZ]

America has been stuck on stupid for three decades. Thus we have a Congress that mirrors the collective psyche of the electorate. In other words; when you buy junk, you get junk. Yes, they're an eclectic bunch, but they all have one thing in common. Democrat, republican, independent; these swine all feed at the same trough. So if you're looking for meaningful legislation of any sort out of this stellar lineup of character-­challenged individuals, you're not going to find any. As voters, we broke it, and now we own it. Statesmanship has given way to corporate shills who couldn't hit their backsides with both hands, let alone find common ground on issues vital to national interest.

[Chernynkaya]

Yes, yes, and yes.

I also believe that we will get the health care reform we collectively deserve- nothing! But wait ten years when the costs of insurance and care breaks the backs of all those opposed. It'll be cold comfort, but at least we can grimly say we told you so.

[ObamacratInCA]

Jazzman323

Hint to those who don't understand the protests at the town hall meetings.

Obama is on record saying his goal is for single payer(govt only) health care.
__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­______

What Obama actually said during the campaign is not different than what he's saying now:

If you're starting from scratch,' he [Obama] says, 'then a single-payer system'-a government-managed system like Canada's, which disconnects health insurance from employment-'would probably make sense. But we've got all these legacy systems in place, and managing the transition, as well as adjusting the culture to a different system, would be difficult to pull off. New Yorker, 5/7/07]

"At a roundtable with a handful of invited guests at Lindy's Diner in Keene, Obama said if he were starting from scratch, he would probably propose a single payer health care system, but because of existing infrastructure, he created a proposal to improve the current system." [Concord Monitor, 8/14/07]

If Obama Were Starting From Scratch, He Would Support A Single Payer System. Obama said, "Here's the bottom line. If I were designing a system from scratch I would probably set up a single-payer system...But we're not designing a system from scratch...And when we had a healthcare forum before I set up my healthcare plan here in Iowa there was a lot of resistance to a single-payer system. So what I believe is we should set up a series of choices....

[Roses]

Thank you. Well said.

[gino618]

Your claim that 'before Obama was President' 'major media' figures didn't make comparisons to Nazis, etc..etc... is patently false.

Or perhaps you've never seen MSNBC's Keith Olbermann?

[Roses]

Link please?

[CTtransplant]

People, we can no longer sit idly by and let the obstructionists prevent the health care/health insurance reform this country so desperately needs!

Please sign this petition to have paid health care removed from our representatives in Congress until such time as they reform health care - to include a strong public option - for 'we the people' who they are supposed to represent. Then spread the word to anyone and everyone you know!

http://www.petitiononline.com/PubOp676/petition.html

[learneddemocrat]

CT, the obstructionist you refer to are democrat and republican American citizens and voters. Are others involved as well? - yes - for BOTH sides. You don't get it. People want answers and there are none out there. Congress purposely writes the bill in "legaleze" so the average citizen cannot understand it and so it keeps many, many options open for future interpretation. A reform bill does not have to be 1000 pages long! Even Obama said it will be a month before clear answers on this bill comes out. A month! They were pushing for a passage before Aug. 1st, AND NO ONE HAS ANSWERS. Representatives are giving out broad answers to specific questions, and cannot back up most of them with facts. No wonder there is so many interpretations out there.

[CTtransplant]

learneddemocrat, Please do some research on HR 676. Easy enough to understand. There ARE answers if you choose to look.

Also, this petition is NON partisan - no mention of either democrats OR republicans...where do you get that it is? Certainly not from me! This has nothing to do with parties - and everything to do with US!!

[Jazzman323]

Hint to those who don't understand the protests at the town hall meetings.

Obama is on record saying his goal is for single payer(govt only) health care. Provisions in HR3200 guarantees it by penalizing businesses for going with a private insurance plan. People at these meetings have read HR3200.

Don't be dishonest with the citizens.

[PartyofLogic]

Yes, he is on record during his campaign saying he is for single payer. He has moved away from that position given the political reality that it would not get passed. SMall steps is better than no steps. Businesses will not be penalized nor will individuals for going with a private insurer. I am a small business owner. I am aware.

Are you really so happy with your coverage? My rates have increased 40% every year for the last several years. And I am healthy. My visit to an er last year for an MRI (thought I was having appendicitis) cost 17K. My OOP was ~$7000. And I have insurance! There is something fundamentally wrong with a system with exponetially escalating costs and some of the worst outcomes, live birth rates, longevity and general health in the industrialized world. Why can't we change that? Why do so many not want to?

[Jazzman323]

Yes I am happy with my HMO and health care. Spent a few hospital stays, my kids are healthy, referrals always handled promptly.

Yes, there is a provision in HR 3200 to charge businesses who do pay for private insurance, such that it less expensive for them to let their employees opt for govt. care.

If Obama slowed down and offered things like tort reform and personal health insurance savings accounts, he might have some supporters.

Today I hear d10 points form an average citizen who read HR3200 that are very bad. If I find the link I will sent it.

[learneddemocrat]

I don't think too many people are totally happy with their coverage. But if you campare it to Medicaid or Medicare, then they like it a whole lot better. Yes costs have gone up, but so has the improvements in care, test equip., etc. Your MRI cost you $7000, but are you sorry you had it? Would you rather you didn't have the test and it turned out you had a ruptured appendix? Doctors request you have tests to cover their as.ses from malpractice. (But this reform bill will not address tort reform!) Had he/she not recommended the MRI and something happened to you, the lawyers would question that first thing. You chose to have that MRI. We cannot have it both ways. If you want good coverage, you have to pay for it. (Please, please remember this healthcare coverage will not be free - unless you don't work/pay taxes.)

It is like auto insurance. You can pay for 25 years, never have an accident, and crash! Do they apply all that money you paid to them towards your accident? No, you still pay your deductible. If your car is beyond repair, they don't tell you "Here's the $35,000 you payed us, go buy yourself a new car." No, if you damaged car is worth $8,000 - and you have the proper coverage- you get $8000 toward a different car.

[WilliamBradford]

Since when do we have the right - somehow provided by the government - to be "totally happy" or "completely satisfied" with anything, much less something as complex and subjective as health insurance/health care?

[libwingoflibwing]

I support the attitude of the President that we work with people on the other side and treat them as real people, with real feelings, real concerns and maybe some good ideas.

But I also agree with what John Edwards said when he said that what we really need at this time is someone who'll fight for us, not try to get along with the other side.

How can I agree with both? I differentiate between the people out there and the leaders.

Somehow we need to be able to reach out to the people out there and yet fight with some backbone the leaders who are tricking them.

Remember, a lot of the folk I am talking about used to be Democrats, the so called Reagan-Democrats, who now are just Republican Tea-Party-ers. How did the GOP woo these working class, mainly white, population away from their Democratic leaders?

We need to woo them back. We are in a political war, but the Tea-Party-ers are not our enemies. The enemy is the GOP political leaders and pundits. The Tea-party-ers are the ones we're fighting to win.

[learneddemocrat]

And alot of the people out there are still democrats. The people only want honest (key word here is honest) answers to legitimate questions. But the answers are not forthcoming and not consistent or thorogh. Please don't forget that the president also said that the opponents needed to "not to do alot of talking, but move over...." "infomation will be available in a month"......People are seeing for lies for what they are and are tired of it. That simple. Want to get the wandering sheep back in the flock. The Obama to start telling the truth, to get the real and honest facts out to the public. That would be a great beginning.

[libwingoflibwing]

1. What are the legitimate question?

2. What are the lies?

3. What are these real and honest facts?

Thanks. ::smile::

[melissamsouza]

I must admit I am getting a little tired of Huff Post's Cassandra-like talk on the Obama Administration. I have never seen such a lack of wisdom, patience and understanding as has been revealed by most of these posts. Obama is only 7 months into his Presidency--SEVEN MONTHS--into a FOUR-TERM initial Presidency. He can not snap his fingers and change everything overnight. He has managed this country competently and skillfully out of a potential meltdown scenario; he is just beginning to steer our economy back into stability. He has taken on a mammoth hornet's nest of an issue, keeping his campaign promise and risking his political capital in the process. WHY CAN'T WE JUST GIVE THE MAN A BREAK, AND WAIT AND SEE WHAT HE ACCOMPLISHES ON HEALTH CARE? Is it possible, sir, to just see what actually comes out in this Bill before throwing stones at Obama? I am just tired of this, really. You people are completely out of reality.

[learneddemocrat]

"He has managed this country competently and skillfully" Please enlighten me. I must have taken a nap and missed that.

"Is it possible, sir, to just see what actually comes out in this Bill..." And what if it isn't the bill we think it is? Then what? It will be too late to do anything about it because this administration is famous for shoving sh/it through without even knowing what is in it, let alone attempting to read it.

And Melissa, you have it all wrong, it is not "Obama is only 7 months into his Presidency", it is Obama is ALREADY 7 months into his presidency.

[KDog76A]

W/hat if the Democrats actually put up some real reform instead of trying to convince us this is a good bill?

[sfcalle]

Why don't you come up with a bill and submit it to your congress person or senator. I'm sure you can solve the healthcare debate and come up with a plan that will cover everyone. Your brilliant right? Hater.

[Chazet2]

There were good bills submitted that never were given consideration, and single payer was off the table to start.

I am a Progressive, and I have nothing but contempt for what this administration is doing to resolve the real problems this country has. With regard to healthcare, Obama has been dealing behind our backs, as he did and continues to do with the banks, while giving inspiring speaches to mislead the remainder of us.

His insistence for bipartisanship comes out of a calculation that the conservatives will draw the discussion and legislation to the right, and then he can claim that the "best" compromise was reached, that he could not have done better while including all views. He is hiding behind bipartisanship. It is a tactic that allows him to make deals behind the scenes and appear to be reasonable, while escaping any responsibility for the less than desirable outcome. Obama isn't really trying, and probably doesn't, contrary to his speaches, care.

Progressives need to turn, and turn hard on Obama, and their elected representatives. We need to convince swing voters that this president does not have anyone's interests at heart, but only wants to play this game for personal gain, while Rome burns.

Given the magnitude of our problems, this type of politicing could not come at a worse time.

[Chernynkaya]

They want their country back. Which country? No doubt, they want the 50’s and early 60’s back- when there was segregation in their schools, jobs, and neighborhoods. When there were Japanese gardeners and Chinese laundries instead of Mexican immigrants. When people “knew their place.”

But they are also pining for an idea of America that they were indoctrinated into believing existed, but never really did. They thought America was a Norman Rockwell painting, and they now realize it is gone – even though it never existed. They feel cheated when what they thought they were entitled to was usurped by more hard-working foreigners.

Their blue collar jobs were shipped overseas, and their plants were closed down. And who do they blame? Instead of blaming the establishment, they blame the unions. Instead of blaming corporate-friendly Republicans, they blame Progressives. Instead of blaming Reaganomics, they blame “socialists.”

They continue to place the blame at the very groups that try to help them because they identify with the old white guys. With the guys that affect faux Texas accents- the “real” Americans. Those are the groups they want to be in, not the people of color, who they insist are beneath them. They don’t realize that they have much more in common with them than they do with corporate big shots.

Resentment trumps solidarity. They're watching the world pass by and they don’t even notice who is really scre.w.ing them. (Hint: it isn’t the immigrants.)

[WilliamBradford]

You underestimate the American people.

We want our constitutionally limited republic back. We don't want a central government to continue its march toward controlling our economy and our lives. We don't want a government that thinks, since it won 53% of the vote that it can ignore the other 47%.

We are aware that we must be on our guard. As Thomas Jefferson said: "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground." If we accept this kind of progress, we will lose our country.

[Chernynkaya]

We are debating different issues - or maybe we are not. I am saying that the enemy of democracy is not the government, as you think, but the corporate owned and controlled government. I view corporate greed and influence as the number one corrupting factor- of both Parties.

And I actually have a lot of empathy- yes, that word that conservatives seem to revile- because for eight years I too felt completely ignored by government. And that experience makes me understand where you are coming from. It was the only time I felt afraid of government- to the point that I was ready to arm myself in case of a coup. So I think we are just afraid of different kinds of government.

[CuriousInSeattle]

These democratic town halls for debate are disingenuous at best. I appreciate you trying to give us on the right credit for slowing this down, but get real. We cannot stop you in any way. You have the house and senate, you have the friggen majority.. Any problems you are having are within your own party. I know it is tough to get away from the "blame the scary republican's" mentality, but c'mon you cannot be that dense are you?

[hoosier96]

I totally agree with you. It's like the Democrats think they're hippies from the '60's fighting the good fight against THE MAN. Guess what? They are THE MAN.

And if healthcare reform is only being shouted down by a narrow few, why are the latest Rasmussen Polls showing a majority AGAINST reform?

[PartyofLogic]

Rasmussen is a notoriously conservative poll. Look at all of them, not just the one.

[PartyofLogic]

HuffPost's Pick

Yes, he's a professor at Columbia and he's "dense."

The Republican party can obfuscate and manipulate public sentiment and opinion to the point that legislation, such as the health care bill, has to be watered down in order to get through. The reality is that Democrats are not ideologically unilateral, as is the GOP. For that reason, the Democratic majority is just a number and does not guarantee a thing. In general, that is a good thing because our political leaders should be committed first and foremost to creating positive, rational, thoughtful change for the broader good. This in turn, means listening to consituents rather than party leaders (or right wing pundits) to inform one's opinions and on that basis, voting representatively, NOT ideologically. But this is something most republicans do not comprehend.

[-0013]

When Republicans have control of Congress and the White House they, for better or worse, push through their agenda and govern.

But this is something most democrats do not comprehend.

[roboman]

And your response is a Huff Post pick? I guess it doesn't take much. The Democrats have blown this opportunity for "reform" all by themselves through their own confused tactics.

"our political leaders should be committed first and foremost to creating positive, rational, thoughtful change for the broader good." Yes! I agree. So why try to ramrod complex healthcare legislation down the throats of the American people before the August recess, legislation that was far too complex for either party to digest...maybe even read...in time to make a good decision (apparently reading legislation before voting on it is not that important in today's Congress). You couldn't win the day so you went the "townhall" route to make your case and you found people weren't crazy about all the ideas that were on the table. There's lots of confusion and misinformation but then again Dem leaders haven't put a clear proposal on the table. Rather than "listening to constituents" you decide to paint everyone with the broad brush of political trickier and conspiracy rather than acknowledging there are general concerns out there. You call people who oppose your point of view stupid, un-American, uninformed, blindly following propaganda as if, because they disagree with you, they have no right to participate in the debate. Too bad. You DON'T want a debate...you just want your way.

[CuriousInSeattle]

Spin it however you like, but at the end of the day democrats and democrat only will determine the final makeup of this legislation.

[Tit4tat]

If we look at this issue from a perspective of someone who has a serious illnes or Injury and does not have insurance, should they have it? What if it were you or someone you love, do you thnk everyone should have it now? Free health care for everyone should be offered to people with serious illnesses and injuries. This may help in keeping the costs down don't you think?

People should try and live a healthier lifestyle by exercising and eating right. Here is a good start:
http://www.healthbeautyncs.com/rd_p?p=186122&t=9530&a=5960-c601&LMHealth=5960

[blueken]

It's often said that we have the United States health care system is the best in the world. I have never used any health care system outside of this country, so I can' t say. I do know that we have the most expensive health care system per captia in the world. It eats up 17% of the GDP of our nation. It's cost is going up by 6.9% a year. My premiums go up every year, my co-pays go up every year and I often have to learn new rules to obtain treatment. I hear people are worried about the government limiting health care. My insurance company all ready does that, it's called an HMO. Managed Health Care, or you might call it rationed health care. I don't think Obama goes far enough by half. I also think we need giant changes in the health care system. Anyone who is happy with their health insurance is both healthy and math challenged. I fugured out the other day that 24% of my compensation from my employer is health care insurance. To the tune of $307 a week, $17K a year. This can't go on much longer.

[georgiaR]

This health care plan has many flaws and instead of addressing this the left is attacking the people pointing out these flaws.

[Chernynkaya]

georgiaR, you are NOT who we are attacking, even though we may disagree. So far, you haven't aligned yourself with those at the Town Halls accusing Obama of being a Na.zi, or of setting up "death panels." There is a world of difference between those who question the validity of the health care bills and those who go off the deep end. There are also people who screech against "socialized medicine" (which, by the way is sadly not these proposals) but love their medicare. These are the people most of us decry.

[PartyofLogic]

I have not heard any of these so called protesters cite a real "flaw." To that, I mean, something that exists. The stuff they are screaming about is made up and intended to scare people (kinda like birthers and such). I am all for debate and fully believe in each of our right to a voice but where is the debate? The aim in these town hall disruptions appears to be to drown out any kind of discussion. If there are concerns, if there are issues, why can't we discuss them? Does the right really believe we don't have any issue (let alone an escalating issue) at all with our health care system?

[Chazet2]

Correct. These disruption are to ensure that no real discussion takes place, and that no real change takes place, and that those who propose change suffer for bringing it up.

[roshni]

How is talking about Death Panels and calling our president a Nazi asking relevant questions?

[WilliamBradford]

For an honest summary of the current health care debate, I encourage you to read the latest by Camille Paglia, leading liberal and general rational person.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/08/12/town_halls/

She nails it.

[Chernynkaya]

No thanks. I know where she stands- on the "Right" side of everything.

[WilliamBradford]

She is an Obama supporter, a Democrat, a gay-rights supporter... Don't be afraid.