Blog Here Now

When you read the poll numbers indicating that a majority of respondents disapprove of what can now safely be called “Obamacare” (since the President has finally made it clear what he thinks should be passed through reconciliation), it must be remembered that a large portion of that disapproval is coming from the left – from those who would prefer a single-payer, non-commercial health insurance system, often referred to as “Medicare for all”. One of the more articulate spokespersons for this view is Dr. Marcia Angell of the Department of Social Medicine at Harvard University Medical School. I happened to watch part of her latest interview on Bill Moyers’ show last night as I was channel surfing, and was impressed (and depressed) by her analysis of the bill presently being considered by Congress (roughly, the Senate bill plus President Obama’s recommended changes). I recommend that you watch the entire interview (about 15 minutes long), but here’s part of what she said:

BILL MOYERS: So, has President Obama been fighting as hard as you wished?

MARCIA ANGELL: Fighting for the wrong things and too little, too late. He gave away the store at the very beginning by compromising. Not just compromising, but caving in to the commercial insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry. And then he stood back for months while the thing just fell apart. Now he’s fighting, but he’s fighting for something that shouldn’t pass. Won’t pass and shouldn’t pass.

What this bill does is not only permit the commercial insurance industry to remain in place, but it actually expands and cements their position as the lynchpin of health care reform. And these companies they profit by denying health care, not providing health care. And they will be able to charge whatever they like. So if they’re regulated in some way and it cuts into their profits, all they have to do is just raise their premiums. And they’ll do that.

Not only does it keep them in place, but it pours about 500 billion dollars of public money into these companies over 10 years. And it mandates that people buy these companies’ products for whatever they charge. Now that’s a recipe for the growth in health care costs, not only to continue, but to skyrocket, to grow even faster.

BILL MOYERS: But given that, why have the insurance companies, health insurance companies been fighting reform so hard?

MARCIA ANGELL: Oh, they haven’t fought it very hard, Bill. They really haven’t fought it very hard. What they’re fighting for is the individual mandate. And if they get that mandate, if everyone does have to buy their commercial products, then they’re going to be extremely happy with it.

The counterargument, of course, is that if you have the framework envisioned by the current bill in place, and costs indeed spiral out of control, then at least it is far easier to add a public option to the mix, and perhaps to eventually move to a single-payer system. Angell isn’t buying that scenario:

MARCIA ANGELL: I think the problem is this, Bill. If this plan is passed, and I think there’s real doubt as to whether it will be, and there’s even more doubt as to whether it would ever be fully implemented, but let’s say that it’s passed. It will begin to unravel almost immediately. And then what will people do? Well, they’ll say, “We tried health reform, and it didn’t work. Better not try that anymore.”

It’ll be like what happened after the Clinton plan failed. There’ll be another 16 years before anybody comes up with the courage to try that again. People say, “Too expensive. Just can’t have universal care. Tried that, did that, didn’t work, good-bye.” Whereas if the bill dies now, people can say, “This bill died because it was a bad bill.” And the problem is still on the front burner. And then one can hope that we get some version of Medicare for all. And that we don’t have to wait 16 years.

BILL MOYERS: What makes you think it would come back in 16 years or more? What makes you think it will ever be back on the table?

MARCIA ANGELL: Oh, I think it has to be. I mean, I think that this system is unraveling so fast, doing nothing or doing the Obama plan, so fast, that something will have to be done. Unless we want to, you know, explicitly be a third world country. So I don’t think it’s going to wait. But if we pass this plan, it’s going to delay.

Like I said: depressing.

The Oshkosh Northwestern ran a follow-up story today on the “Impeach Obama” billboard, emphasizing that George Bush similarly had to deal with calls to impeach him. The clear implication of this article, which was atop page A3 and not marked as editorial analysis, was that the two cases are basically the same; presidents just have to deal with such annoyances.

This is the worst sort of reporting: the sort that purports to be about facts, but stops at the surface without digging down even an inch. As The Northwestern itself reported six days ago, the anonymous folks who put up the “Impeach Obama” billboard admit (through their lawyer) that they do not believe Obama has committed any impeachable offense. By contrast, those who called for the impeachment of George Bush had lots of legal reasons in mind. Here are just a few of the least controversial ones, pulled from democrats.com-

1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal “War of Aggression” against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization, and subjecting our military personnel to unnecessary harm, debilitating injuries, and deaths.

2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.

4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.

5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.

Now, I did not support impeaching George Bush (largely because the left tended in their enthusiasm to mix political with legal grounds), but the difference between the Bush and Obama cases couldn’t be clearer. It’s the difference between acting sincerely with legal grounds in mind versus acting insincerely with no legal grounds in mind, simply to reinforce resentment.

Remember the good old days, when political protesters courageously stood out on street corners with signs, putting their bodies on the line and proudly identifying their group so others could join them? Well, why go to so much trouble when you can hire a lawyer to rent a billboard for you (at $1000 a month), keep your actual affiliation secret, and scream out in ugly red Helvetica font-

The billboard, rented by...?

Even better, once you do this, why not have the gall to have your lawyer claim that the billboard doesn’t really mean what it is screaming in that towering font: “The billboard is not meant to allege any impeachable offense has been committed; It is simply an expression of frustration by my client that politics in Washington should change to better support small businesses…” Oh, Please! “IMPEACH OBAMA” merely expresses “Change politics in Washington”? Doesn’t screaming “IMPEACH OBAMA” when you admit he has committed no impeachable offense merely perpetuate politics at its worst, whether in Washington or Oshkosh? If you really had problems with one of Obama’s small business policies, wouldn’t you get much more bang for your buck by citing that policy, and preceding that citation with a big red “Stop”?

Anyway, last time I checked, it was Congress that actually passed laws relating to small business. All Obama can do is make suggestions (and so far his suggestions haven’t made much headway in Congress). So why would the anonymous folks renting this billboard single out Obama? Hmmm… maybe it has something to do with the mentality of folks who like to hold signs with images like this:

Here’s the story on yesterday’s Oshkosh Northwestern.

The Supreme Court Of The United States today reversed decades of precedent, deciding that corporate spending on political advertising cannot be regulated. They apparently decided this on the grounds that corporations are legally treated as persons that have first amendment rights, the first amendment guarantees free speech, and a corporation’s spending money on election ads is equivalent to a citizen’s expressing his or her political opinion. One could certainly take issue with the purported equivalence, but a more serious problem, it seems to me, is that corporations are legally bound to make the generation of profits for their stockholders their controlling priority; corporate leaders are legally forbidden from being guided by what they consider to be in the best interest of any other group (including the general citizenry of the United States or of the world).

The 2004 documentary “The Corporation” examines the history of this institution, and argues that if corporations are persons under the law, they are (by legal mandate) sociopathic persons, albeit very rich and powerful ones. The documentary illustrates this conclusion by focusing on the economic crises of the day (e.g., Enron, Worldcom, etc.). Of course, these corporate-driven crises pale in comparison to those of the 2008 meltdown, but the principles of corporate greed remain the same. If the documentary’s argument is cogent, then given that elections are often decided by small margins of voters who can be swayed by distorted election advertising, and corporations are now free to spend huge amounts of money on such advertising, it appears that many of our elections from now on will be decided by sociopaths.

I was surprised to discover that “The Corporation” can now be watched on YouTube in its entirety. Here’s the first part-

This documentary is itself a polished piece of propaganda, of course. Might such agitprop distributed through the internet help to mitigate the effects corporate spending on political advertising? Let’s hope so.

UPDATE- Here’s another option: to amend the constitution…

“In a democracy, people get the health care insurance and the health care costs they deserve.” -Alexis de Herzbergville

As the ironies pile up higher than NFL linemen on a fumbled ball, and the various media-spins cancel each other out to a wobbly rightward rotation, the question appears to be: will the House Democrats have the fortitude to hold their noses and vote for the Senate bill? Or will a year’s worth of work go down in huge bonfire flames, over which the Republicans can brew tea for at least the next three years?

I don’t have a lot hope for the former option, but stay tuned.

As Health (Insurance? Care?) reform (?) lurches forward like a headless chicken being shoved this way and that by a few senators from states with hardly any population (yeah, I’m talking ’bout you, Joe, and you, Ben), I’ve come to the conclusion that the Founders designed our system of government – or at least the Senate – as a sort of huge practical joke. What other explanation can there be?

Oh well. As our recent Defense Secretary Rumsfeld – himself quite an entertainer – might have put it, “You go to legislate with the Congress you have… not the Congress you might want or wish you had…”

By now you must have heard that President Obama “addressed” the question of marijuana decriminalization in his town hall meeting last week by, basically, laughing at those who propose it. A quick glance at the mainstream news blogs reveals that this strategy offended many people, including lots of non-users who favor decriminalization. While it didn’t offend me, it did irritate me, and given how strongly I supported Obama’s election (and continue to support his presidency), this suggests that he has some serious political fence-mending to do.

What bothered so many liberals and libertarians was not the specific position he took, which was very narrowly – and no doubt carefully – focused on the question of whether marijuana legalization would be a good way to grow the economy. Rather, it was his failure to address the decriminalization issue head on. According to NORML, in 2005 there were 786,545 arrests for violations of marijuana laws, and 88% of those were merely for possession or use. That’s a huge number of lives disrupted for indulging in an activity that, by almost all accounts, is less harmful – both to the individual and society – than either alcohol or tobacco use (at least if you subtract the negative effects of criminalization). If you add to the ledger the negative effects of criminalization, including the profits to organized crime and the social stigma that prevents genuine addicts from seeking medical help, you can see that this is not a laughing matter at all. It’s an important moral issue.

I’m hoping that all of the negative reaction to his comment will encourage Obama to take the matter more seriously in the future. And there is some reason to hope that he will do so. After all, he didn’t really say whether he favors decriminalization or not; like the conventional politicians he lambasted during the election, he simply dodged the issue.