Quote Of The Week

"Yes. It--the bottom line is that Dr. King warned years ago against taking the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. We're not going to reform health care doing it gradually. He's got to be bold about this. My grandad, David, said all the time, if you're going to stand, stand. If you're going to sit, sit. But don't wobble. The president is wobbling on this issue, and he can't do that if we're going to reform health care."

-Author and talk-show host Tavis Smiley on the Sunday, August 23, 2009 edition of Meet The Press

Party Of Deception

The Huffington Post, gushing about the Kennedy memorial service in Boston last night, exclaimed that Senator Orrin Hatch (R.-Ut.)

gave a long, moving speech about his 30-year friendship with Kennedy, proclaiming that he "loved every minute." Hatch ended by reading a poem he had written about Kennedy, which concluded with "I will miss my Irish friend/God be with you 'till we meet again."

The Utah Republican may have loved his "Irish friend," but how did he deal with Senator Kennedy's signature issue, health care, during the last few months of his buddy's life?

We all know that Hatch voted against the bill approved in mid-July by chairman Kennedy's Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (EMK voted in favor by proxy) because every Repub voted against it. Republicans believe in independent thought, at least until Chairman Limbaugh weighs in, at which point everyone is required to fall in line.

Still, there may be principle in a low-keyed, responsible "nay" vote. Unfortunately, this was no such thing, as Hatch demonstrated when he demagogued the issue on last Sunday's Meet The Press. One example (page 4 of the transcript):

We have 300 million people in this country, 85 percent of whom have health insurance. The other, the other 15 percent, you've got six million who actually qualify from their employer but don't get it. You got 11 million people who qualify for CHIP and Medicaid. You've got another nine million people who earn over $75,000 a year, can afford their own health insurance but don't--won't do it. You've got six million people who, who are illegal aliens getting health, health insurance. When you bring it down, that 47 million people comes down to about 15 million people. So we're going to--and we all know we need insurance reform, both Democrats and Republicans, but we're going to throw out a system that works for, for 300--85 percent of 300 million people to take care of 15 million people that we could take care of with subsidies and other approaches that would be simple.

Back in late June, factcheck.org evaluated the claim by conservative former Republican Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee that "the 45 million figure.... of uninsured is probably about twice the real number of people who can't afford insurance or don't have access to it really." It concluded that it's unlikely that half of the 45.7 million uninsured "can't afford" it or "don't have access to it really."

Further, following Hatch's appearance on Meet The Press, politifact.com rated as "half true" the Utah Senator's claim of only 15 million people. It found the calculation is based on a chart prepared by the Republican Policy Committee based on (largely accurate) 2006 data, conveniently "a year earlier than the most recent data." It "relies on a hodgepodge of different years and sources and leaves open the possibility that some people are double- or triple- counted" and concludes "it would not pass muster in an undergraduate statistics class."

Wait! We're not done with the late Edward Kennedy's close friend. On the same Sunday appearance (page 3 of transcript), Hatch argued "if you go to a government plan, both independent analysts and government analysts, the CBO, have indicated that tens of millions of people who go with the government plan." The exchange continued:

MR. GREGORY: Well, wait a minute, Senator Hatch, that's not right.

SEN. HATCH: ...will destroy the private health industry.

MR. GREGORY: The Congressional Budget Office did not say that. In fact, what they have concluded...

SEN. HATCH: Yes, it did say that.

MR. GREGORY: ...is that, well...

SEN. HATCH: Yes, it did.

MR. GREGORY: The CBO said that, in fact, those enrolled in private insurance plans would go up by three million, and they estimate that about 10 million people, only 10 million people go into a public plan.

SEN. HATCH: Well, didn't I say tens of millions of people? Others have said as many as...

MR. GREGORY: Tens of millions, that's different than 10 million.

SEN. HATCH: Well, that's plenty. Others are saying up to 119 million people. It, it ranges in between. The point is, it's always more than what the government says it is.

Is the problem the lie or the cover-up? Hatch claimed

....both independent analysts and government analysts, the CBO, have indicated that tens of millions of people who go with the government plan," which "would destroy the private health industry."

Gregory noted "those enrolled in private insurance plans would go up by three million, and they estimate that about 10 million people, only 10 million people go into a public plan."

Lie established- but it didn't stop there. Caught in the lie, Hatch could have said he was misinformed, "misspoke" (what does that mean anyway?), or stood corrected, and gone on to his next point. Instead, when Gregory first questioned Hatch's claim, the Senator twice denied Gregory's numbers, contending "it did say that" and "yes, it did." When the interviewer finished his point, Hatch unashamedly "doubled down" (a cliche that has become awfully trite; blame Sean Hannity, who figures if he keeps repeating a flasehood, listeners will believe it's true), stating "didn't I say millions of people?"

When Gregory replied "that's different than 10 million," Hatch responded "well, that's plenty," apparently hoping that the viewer would not notice a difference between "tens of millions" and "millions." A lie and a cover-up.

Concluding the exchange, Hatch had to fall back on "others are saying up to 19 million people." Who Senator Kennedy's friend imagines these "others" to be was not made clear, presumably because Hatch was making it up as he was going along.

A great interviewer (rather than an average one having a fairly good day) would have asked, at the end, whether Hatch wanted to revise his contention that a public option "would destroy the private health insurance industry" because he was wrong about the CBO's estimate. Given that, for the most part, the GOP's greatest concern is destruction of a private insurance industry which has been enormously helpful to it, Hatch still accomplished much of his objective. (Senator Schumer, appearing with Hatch, might have pointed out the fallaciousness of Hatch's claim; but apparently, one doesn't do that to a fellow Senator who is a friend to so many in the club.)

This is not a shot against the long-time Senator from the Mountain West. In fact, Orrin Hatch usually is considered one of the more reasonable Republicans, willing to "work across the aisle" to get legislation passed. Which is the problem: if this fellow can go on national television, trivialize the problem of uninsured Americans and lie about a projection(s) of the number of people in a public plan, what does it say about his fellow Republicans, including the three comprising the Gang of Six?

The suspicion grows: they are not fooling a gullible President Obama (and surely not Rahm Emanuel). He is playing the game he wants to play, with the team he wants to play the game with.

Grassley Does Rationing

Less than fifteen months after surgery to remove a brain tumor, Senator Edward Moore Kennedy has died, and liberals, conservatives, and corporatist Democrats have rushed to claim his legacy as their own. He would have insisted on a public option; he would have opposed it; or he would have thought it nice, but cheerfully would have bargained it away to get something called "health care reform."

But once the memorials and the funeral have taken place, at least one powerful politician, one who eagerly exploited Kennedy's illness before his death, ought to be asked to explain what he meant when he told an Iowa radio station:

I’ve been told that the brain tumor that Sen. Kennedy has — because he’s 77 years old — would not be treated the way it’s treated in the United States. In other words, he would not get the care he gets here because of his age. In other words, they’d say ‘well he doesn’t have long to live even if he lived another four to five years.’ They’d say ‘well, we gotta spend money on people who can contribute more to economy.’ It’s a little like people saying when somebody gets to be 85 their life is worth less than when they were 35 and you pull the tubes on them.

Sure, this was in bad taste, but that's not illegal. Nevertheless, Senator Charles Grassley (R.- Iowa) needs to answer several questions. Among them:

- Who is this who "told" you about the care Senator Kennedy would have gotten if he were residing in another country?

- Which countries with "government running things," as you put it, ration care on the basis of age or the patient's contribution to the economy?

- Cheryl Tidwell, the director of commercial sales training at the nation's fourth largest health insurer, has acknowledged that her industry rations care and has criticized a public option. What evidence do you have that such a health plan would result in more rationing when that is an indispensable component of the private system we now have no choice but to depend on?

- Given that Senator Kennedy tragically failed to survive "another four to five years," can we conclude that our privately-based health care system failed him in the same manner you suggest the nations with more government involvement fail their victims of cancer?

It's not only Senator Grassley, of course, but it's one of the GOP's favorite talking points. Sarah Palin, fresh off quitting her job and giving up on the Alaskan people she always claimed to be devoted to, wrote on her Facebook page, "nationalized health care inevitably leads to rationing. There is simply no way to cover everyone and hold down the costs at the same time." (For those of you too young to remember, there once was a time Repub policians preached the virtue of competition and the mainstream media eagerly believed they were serious.) Republican Party leader Rush Limbaugh said "It would be an insult to the memory of Ted Kennedy to put his name on a bill that has rationed health care according to someone's age and the extent of their illness." (Which it probably would be if there were such a bill; Rush realizes there isn't, but figures individuals who listen to him aren't exposed to facts, so they'll believe almost anything he says.) RNC Chairman Michael Steele is more creative, suggesting that Democrats want to ration health care based on political affiliation.

And on and on and on. Most of these Republicans have a clear motive for demagoguing health care policy; Palin wants to secure her base for a possible run for the presidency; Limbaugh wants to tear down a President whom he brags he wants to fail; Steele needs to attack a Democratic initiative and have it fail so that he proves he is not inadequate as a party chairman. And we know they are enemies of President Obama. Chuck Grassley, though, is one of the three Republican members of the "Gang of Six" on the Senate Finance Committee negotiating (pretending to negotiate) its health care bill. And if the mainstream media had the slightest interest in clarifying the issues involved, it should stop pandering to the Iowa Senator and sit him down with a few good questions.

On The Fringe, Apparently

Sometimes what a politician says quite actually reflects what he, or she, really is thinking. Instead, however, the media would prefer to give the hometown, or statewide, heroine a pass and report what she would rather readers believe that she has said.

A case in point is the comment made by U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu (D.-La.), whom no one has ever confused with a liberal/progressive. Greg Hilburn of the newsstar.com writes that Senator Landrieu appeared before the Monroe, Louisiana Chamber of Commerce on August 26 and

When asked after her speech if the senator would support a public option under any circumstances, she said, “Very few, if any. I’d prefer a private market-based approach to any health care reform that would extend coverage.”

Understandably, Hilburn concluded "U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu told a relatively friendly overflow Monroe Chamber of Commerce crowd that she would likely oppose any government insurance option in health care reform...."

It's too much to expect a local paper to investigate the Senator's connections to the industries she supports. Except in a few rare istances,that isn't done any more, in part bcause of a lack of financial incentive. It would have found something worth critical evaluation, such as

Sen. Mary Landrieu raised $1,676,353 from the health and insurance sectors over the course of her career. Her first day in office was January 7, 1997. In total, she has served 4,574 days as a United States Senator. This calculates out to her raising $366.50 every day from the health and insurance sectors.

But someone from Louisiana or national media might have asked Senator Landrieu what she actually meant when she asserted her preference for a

private, market-based approach (to)

any health care reform that would extend coverage.

This is not putting words into the Senator's mouth, but rather what she said. She likely would oppose "any health care reform that would extend coverage" because it is not a "private market-based approach." Her own words, if true, mean that she opposes extension of coverage. Perhaps if asked, she would deny that she meant that. Or maybe she would admit to it. Either way, she would be denied the privilege of having moderate and conservative Louisianans- as well as the mainstream media- believe that she is merely supporting a "market-based approach" while her more conservative audience, doubtless dominating the Chamber of Commerce gathering, is left happily believing that its senator opposes any extension of health care coverage. (Then she might be asked why she likes a "market-based approach" but dislikes competition.)

This is more than an exercise in semantics. Words have meaning. And negotiating with Republicans, or even as in this case, a moderate-conservative Democrat, who oppose even the modest concept of extending health care coverage is (alliteration alert) not only fruitless. It is futile. And foolish. And foolhardy.

Torture Cheerleader

Rush Limbaugh is unhappy. He doesn't like Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to order a preliminary inquiry into possible abuses by the Central Intelligence Agency at its overseas prisons, and ranted on his program Tuesday:

Then you look at this interrogation stuff. We heard reports that interrogators threatened the detainees' families. The abuses by the interrogators reported in the press -- I think there's a little test we want to perform here -- what I think we have here is a staged mock shooting. You know, we had that in another room, and that was used to get the attention of a terrorist. We wanted to make the terrorist think we have shot one of your buddies in the other room, so we fire off a gun and nobody gets hurt. We had another terrorist threatened with a power drill and a gun, and we have heard about waterboarding and we're told this is dangerously damaging to a prisoner's psyche. In the meantime we're talking to people who killed 3,000 people in cold blood and vowed to do more and were treated as heroes, and we think we're gonna be upsetting their psychology by threatening them with a frigging power drill?

If this is true, I think they're pretty clever techniques. I think they're pretty clever techniques and they're not harmful.

These "clever techniques" which are "not harmful" contributed to the deaths of the approximately 100 detainees who died while in U.S. custody. Further, it's not clear who has told Limbaugh that waterboarding or other tactics "is dangerously damaging to a prisoner's psyche." Presumably, it's another means of suggesting that those who question anything the right approves of is somehow effeminate, maybe even "French." And we can assume that Rush is really not ignorant, but merely characteristically trying to deceive his audience, when he claims "we're talking to people who killed 3,000 people in cold blood," given that at least 28 Guantanamo Bay detainees were released by the Bush Administration after federal courts found there was insufficient reason for them to be held. And most of the 9/11 terrorists, responsible for murdering 3,000 people were killed (logic optional; hot blooded emotionalism standard).

It's unfortunate that Limbaugh believes- no, not believes, but strategically claims- that this limited inquiry (stopping short of an actual investigation) is "the most radical leftist agenda advanced by a radical leftist party in the course of my lifetime." Surely, Holder is right when he notes "as attorney general, my duty is to examine the facts and to follow the law."

Just as clearly, the "advanced interrogation techniques" at issue appear to be illegal. The U.N. Convention Against Torture, codified in U.S. law, demands "each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law" and "each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature." No exceptions made for terrorists or actors in an undeclared law. And torture? According to U.S. criminal law, it's anything "specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering... upon another person." No exceptions made for "pretty clever techniques." This pesky rule of law thing.

'Tis a pity, though. Rush won't inform his listeners that "the most radical leftist agenda advanced by a radical leftist party in the course" of his lifetime, mandated by our approval as a nation of the U.N. Convention Against Torture, was inspired by the "leftist" President who signed the document. The year: 1988. The President: Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Those Altruistic Drug Companies

If Michael Steele didn't exist, Barack Obama would have to invent him. The Chairman of the Republican National Committee is at it again, helpfully reminding us of the raison d'etre of the Republican Party, which has never met a corporate interest it believes has a responsibility to the American middle class.

This time, it's health care insurers. As this video (below) from Daily Kos indicates, Steele has declared

Everytime they find themselves up against a wall on some of the policy initiatives, whether it’s the stimulus, cap-and-trade, or now health care, that they find a boogey-man. In the health care debate, they went out — we switched from we’re now focusing on health care to ‘oh, we’ve got an insurance problem, and so now we can pick on the insurance companies.’

If Steele believes Barack Obama has decided to "pick on the insurance companies," he hasn't been paying attention- or more likely, chooses to pretend, for ideological or strategic reasons, otherwise. The Los Angeles Times reported on August 4 of a July meeting in the White House attended by Billy Tauzin, head of the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America,

several industry chief executives -- including those from Abbott Laboratories, Merck and Pfizer -- White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and White House aides (at which) Tauzin said he had not only received the White House pledge to forswear Medicare drug price bargaining, but also a separate promise not to pursue another proposal Obama supported during the campaign: importing cheaper drugs from Canada or Europe.

The Huffington Post obtained a copy of the memo, the validity of which the Administration is reluctant to confirm. Nevertheless, as Robert Reich has noted,

Big Pharma apparently has promised to cut future drug costs by $80 billion. But neither the industry nor the White House nor any congressional committee has announced exactly where the $80 billion in savings will show up nor how this portion of the deal will be enforced. In any event, you can bet that the bonanza Big Pharma will reap far exceeds $80 billion. Otherwise, why would it have agreed?

The prohibition in the prescription drug bill pased by the GOP Congress and happily signed by President George W. Bush on the right of the federla government to negotiate on behalf of Medicare lower drug prices has been a boon to the pharmaceutical industry at the expense of the elderly. Worse yet, as Reich explains, "a continuation will be an even larger bonanza, given all the Boomeers who will be enrolling in Medicare over the next decade."

Pretty good for an industry, many of whose leaders are taking down a salary of several million dollars a year (video way below). Yet, to Michael Steele, they're being "picked on." And to President Obama, they apparently represent an industry to be protected against the American people.

Article Of The Week

Obviously, I'm not needed to point out that Paul Krugman's columns in The New York Times are worth reading, but today's, All the President's Zombies, is even a little more so than usual.

Krugman observes that the debate over the public option in health care reform has been bogged down, and its acceptance stymied, in part because "Washington, it seems, is still ruled by Reaganism- by an ideology that says government intervention is always bad, and leaving the private sector to its own devices is always good." Citing the increased concentration of wealth among the wealthiest .01 percent of Americans, he notes the failure of Reaganomics

to deliver what it promised. Remember how lower taxes on high incomes and deregulation that unleashed the “magic of the marketplace” were supposed to lead to dramatically better outcomes for everyone? Well, it didn’t happen.

Failure to acknowledge the role of these economic ideas in the current economic crisis and our inadequate health care system can be attributed not only to conservative ideology but also, as Krugman recognizes, because "there's a lot of money behind them," "flowing" especially to Democratic and Republican Senators obstructing vital health reform.

But Krugman does not shield President Obama, always at pain to assure Americans that competition would not kill the health insurance industry, from blame. He reminds us that Obama- during the Democratic primary campaign (emphasis mine) compared himself (video below) to President Ronald Reagan. Soon after his interview with the Reno Gazette-Journal, the newspaper endorsed Obama in the Nevada primary, which he barely lost in popular vote to Clinton, and barely won in delegates at the caucus held the same day. The editorial board commented

One can fairly describe Obama's philosophical optimism and charismatic manner as too idealistic, even a tad dreamy. But he also demonstrates the courage to stand his ground where necessary, willing, for instance, to salute both President John Kennedy and President Ronald Reagan as agents of change in times when the country needed change.

And what major change did President Ronald Wilson Reagan play a major role in bringing about? Joseph A. McCartin wrote in 2001

According to figures recently published by the Economic Policy Institute, over the past two decades wage inequality has widened continually between the highly paid 90th percentile of earners and middle-strata earners in the 50th percentile. Even the economic boom of the 1990s had no effect on narrowing that gap. The "Gini Index," by which economists measure relative rates of inequality, also climbed from .397 in the mid-1970s to .459 by the late 1990s. As the number of millionaires in the United States grew astronomically over the last twenty years, so too did the gap between wealthy Americans and working families.

This disturbing development is linked to the PATCO debacle, for President Reagan's unprecedented act of union-busting critically weakened the one entity best equipped to combat growing income inequality in the United States: organized labor. American unions have endured many heartbreaking losses in their history. But not since the infamous 1892 Homestead strike undermined unionism in the emerging mass production industries has any single defeat cast such a long historical shadow over organized labor. In some ways, the unions have yet to recover from the PATCO strike....

In the 20th century, a strong labor movement played a critical role in elevating the standard of living of not only its members, but tens of millions of nonunion workers who benefited from the rising wages and generous benefits won by unionized workers. It is no coincidence that as the labor movement's strength has declined, social inequality has advanced.

And this social inequality has been marked by a growing tendency of businesses to cut wages and health benefits, as well as declining real income of the middle class. President Reagan, praised by Barack Obama, is not totally to blame; nor is Barack Obama, president for barely more than half a year, at all responsible. Still, viewed in the context of a candidate enamored of a president adored by conservatives for his attacks on government, it is not surprising that the current president (well known for eloquence and persuasiveness) has failed to promote consistently and effectively the importance of a government option in health care.