Without immediate and massive programs by governments of technologically advanced, affluent, nations, there will be more Haiti type tragedies in the not so distant future.  Although a “government can do” attitude in the United States and American leadership will be essential to the success of staving off the untold disaster and suffering that is surely to occur, there is a growing movement that spreads hatred of government, isolationism, and perverted views of our form of government as set forth by the framers.  This misguided political action is likely to lead to human suffering on a scale that is hard to imagine.  Why do I say this?

The human population is approaching the planet’s carrying capacity.  As I explain to groups to which I speak, paleontologists date the beginning of our species (Homo sapiens) at about 200,000 years ago.  By 1950, the population of the planet had reached approximately 3.5 billion.  By just 2010 – just 60 years later – the World population had doubled to 7 billion.  It took 200,000 years to populate the planet with 3.5 billion Homo sapiens and just a little over a half Century to double that number.  Although many European countries are actually aging and losing population, the poor and economically undeveloped countries – and there are many – have very high birth rates.  To make matters worse, the poorest people of the World are migrating to crowded cities where they become victims of substandard dwellings, famine, and disease.

According to Edward O. Wilson, arguably the greatest biological scientist of our time, the earth’s carrying capacity for our specie will be reached at a population of 9 billion.  We will soon be there.  However, global capitalism as now practiced is further impoverishing poor populations and concentrating wealth and power in fewer and fewer individuals and corporations without regard for environmental consequences.  The following facts will speak to the need for serious reform. 

Although Haiti is said to be the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, its spirit crushing poverty, as bad as it is, is not as bad as many other countries – especially those countries in sub-Saharan Africa.  In countries with the highest quality of life (i.e. European countries), female life expectancy is about 82 to 84 years and about 80 years for males.  The infant mortality rate in these countries is usually around 3 per 1,000 live born babies.

Males in Haiti have an estimated life expectancy of 55 years with females doing slightly better.  The infant mortality rate is 66 per 1000 live born babies.  In Angola, the life expectancy for males is 39 years.  The infant mortality is nearly 200 per 1000.  Afghanistan is practically the same as Angola in terms of the health and well-being of the population.

Given the condition of the human community, libertarian arguments make no sense.  More importantly, by reducing their argument to the wording of Article 10 of the U.S. Constitution they are engaging in meaningless nonsense.  Article 10 is a one sentence statement:  “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Along with case law pertaining to the power of the National government, I wonder if anyone has ever told the rabid anti-government forces about Article 1, Section 8, which states that “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States….”  I would also have to wonder if the designers and intellectual forces behind libertarian and tea bag movements want their followers to know about the Federalist Papers by Hamilton, Jay, and Madison, which are considered the definitive views of the framers’ intentions.

 For the sake of debunking the anti-government claims of right wing libertarians, I will write more about the Federalist Papers in future blogs, suffice it to say now that the framers were in favor of a strong, effective National government to deal with powerful interests and factions (like the Koch family Kochtopus) and to attend to the what they called the “general welfare,” the “public interest,” and the “public good.”  The general welfare of the United States depends upon how our government proceeds in its relations with the entire World.  We have nothing to gain and so much to lose by neglecting and/or abusing impoverished populations.

Tonight Gwen Ifill moderated one of those “let’s hear both sides of the issue but really say nothing” discussions about what PBS News Hour chooses to call “Cadillac health care plans” that some Democrats and President Obama would like to tax(see the last post below).  Actually, this was a fairly one-sided, shallow justification for imposing this tax on the hard earned benefits of workers.

Supposedly, the union/workers side was represented by a guy named Josh Bivens with the Economic Policy Institute who, believe it or not, thought the tax was a good idea.  Ms. Ifill did mention that he was with an organization that receives union money.  I have never heard a PBS staffer mention the source of income for any of the right-wing organizations that appear on the show.  Nor have I ever heard Jim Lehrer or Ms Ifill or any other person on the show indicate that some of the generals they have as guests receive money from defense contractors.   After watching the performance of the “union side” representative, I would suggest to the unions that they save their money.

The other pro-side representative was Jonathan Gruber, an MIT professor.  He was enthralled with the notion that this tax could result in $250 billion, either through cost reduction or revenue.  Neither side had anything to say about how unfair this proposal would be to the middle class.  Nor did they say that this was John McCain’s idea during the 2008 campaign.  President Obama, on the other hand, promised that he would not raise taxes on the middle class.  Unions that supported him were led to believe he would not tax their health care.

A segment regarding Haiti followed the “Cadillac health care plan” segment.  Apparently, UN peacekeepers have been able to settle things down enough in Haiti to make investment in plant and equipment there attractive to investors.  Why wouldn’t it be attractive to the garment industry?  The minimum wage in Haiti is $3.00 per day.   There is no real health care and education, no unions, no need to worry about pesky government regulation – no “Cadillac health care plan,” that’s for sure.

Former President Bill Clinton was on the segment showing off this wonderful opportunity to potential investors.  One can only imagine what’s in it for him.  His administration, like the two before his and the one after his, was big on providing tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy.  The idea was to encourage investment in plant and equipment; to promote economic growth.  It worked – in China, Honduras, Viet Nam, and any other low wage Mecca with a starving workforce.

Watching the PBS News Hour “pablum” is, for the most part, a waste of time.  For finding out what is happening, I suggest the Huffington Post and other on-line sources such as Firedoglake.com.  It is apparent that we need to develop our own communication network.

ON WEDNESDAY THE 13^TH OF JANUARY, LABOR UNIONS ARE HOLDING A “CALL IN DAY” TO CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON:

In one of the dumbest political moves ever, Democrats in the Senate and President Obama are pushing a measure to place hefty taxes on “good” health insurance benefits (meaning fairly good coverage and costing more than $21,000 for a family and $8,000 for an individual). These benefits are often won through hard bargaining and strikes.  Even entertaining such a proposal is a “kick in the teeth” to unions and their rank and file without whom President Obama would not be in the White House and Democrats would not be in control of Congress.

Senator Baucus is pushing this politically suicidal idea in the Senate.  He represents Montana, a state populated by barely enough people to form one good sized union.  Let’s talk Pennsylvania, Ohio, and other more industrial states with a substantial and politically powerful labor movement.  Union members who brought these states in for the President are outraged over this proposed cut in their compensation.  As someone who spent many hours at the bargaining table, I understand just how sensitive this issue is to union members.

Furthermore, over the past thirty years, labor has endured stagnant wages and an increasing proportion of the tax burden while less and less of a burden has been placed on capital.  With a lowly 15% tax on capital gains and myriad loop holes, shelters, and gimmicks cooked up by high powered tax lawyers, government is now disproportionately funded on the backs of average, ordinary, salaried and hourly employees.

So, instead of a tax on the top income/wealth class, which has for three decades escaped more and more of its tax burden, the Wall Street gang in the Obama Administration (e.g., Summers, Geithner, Emanual, etc.) will try to see to it that low and middle income earners take the hit.

ON WEDNESDAY CALL YOUR DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMAN AND/OR SENATOR AND TELL THEM TAXING HEALTH CARE PLANS IS A VERY BAD IDEA.  DON’T WASTE YOUR TIME WITH REPUBLICANS; THEY COULD CARE LESS ABOUT UNION MEMBERS.

During the health care reform debate, it is common to encounter the “unplugging granny” metaphor.  This rich mental picture causes one to envision hospitals full of older Americans kept alive on ventilators.  It also feeds the caricature of the most elderly population as decrepit, of no use, and a burden on the rest of society.  Ageism is, of course, characterized by negative stereotypes that subsequently lead to discriminatory actions such as reduction in medical services.

Not only is the “plugging in the elderly” discussion insulting, it has no relation to reality.  In accordance with the International Code of Diagnoses and Procedures, “plugging in” refers to “intubation and ventilation.”  Having access to the latest database of hospital admissions and discharges in the U.S. (approximately eight million or 20% random sample of 2007 cases), I have looked at this procedure by ten-year age categories.  The following findings are surprising to practically everyone with whom I share them:

• The largest proportion of patients on ventilators in 2007 was in the 0 thru 9 age category (18%).
• Only 3% of patients on ventilators were 90+.
• The 80 thru 89 age group was responsible for 12.4% of patients on ventilators.
• A smaller proportion of patients on ventilators was in the 80 thru 89 and 90+ age categories than the 50 thru 59 (13.7%), 60 thru 69 (16.4%), and the 70 thru 79 (17.5%).
• Disaggregation of the really expensive ventilator charges ($126,000+) by ten-year age categories indicates that 29% are in the under 10 age category while only 2.1% are in the 90+, and 10.3% are in the 80 thru 89 age category.

The point of this post is not to shift blame from an older to a younger age group.  The point is to stop blaming patients in any age category for health care costs.  Babies bear no more responsibility for health care costs than the elderly.  Patients at any age should receive the care they need – nothing more, nothing less.

The decency of health care access for all Americans is about more than health care. It is about the direction this Country will take in the decades ahead. Will the Republican Party’s proto-fascist-white male-Southern-rural philosophy of a society of, by, and for the wealthy classes and oppression of the rest of the population prevail? Or will the philosophy envisioned by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay in the Federalist Papers, by Thomas Paine in The Rights of Man, and by other founding philosophers prevail?

Although the disingenuous right wing has managed to manipulate scared and angry citizens into mob activity, i.e. the “tea baggers,” by such techniques as reducing Thomas Paine’s extensive and complex essays to a sound bite, the political philosophy of the ultra-right, billionaire funded movement against government is a perverse conglomeration of libertarianism, Christian theocracy, and plutocracy. These belief systems are not only contradictory but mutually exclusive. Nevertheless, this philosophical nonsense is foisted upon unsuspecting individuals by a coalition of self-interested industry groups (the health insurance industry), inheritors of mega-wealth (for instance, the Kochs and Mellons), and nouveau riche billionaires (e.g., Mackey of Whole Foods).

If you think this is merely abstract political theorizing, consider the recent religious-right wingers’ Koch funded bus trip across Kansas for the purpose of selling a state constitutional amendment that would prevent Kansans from receiving benefits of health care reform. What, might I ask, do theocrats such as Brenda Landwehr and Debbie Pilcher-Cook (both state legislators) have in common with self-appointed libertarian leaders like the Kochs? As Laura Bennetts has suggested in her comments to my last post in December, we progressives and liberals must recognize that the political process in January will be critical, as it will be well into the future. This blog will keep readers tuned in to the political process. Organization for action will be communicated under a separate communication mechanism. Watch for it!

In my final post of this year, I want to say that my heart is with rebellious progressives but my head is telling me that a health care bill must be passed, even if it has no public option.  As I have said in past posts, the Senate version would expand eligibility of Medicare to millions of low income workers.

Let me mention one more reason (this year) for hoping we will get passage of health care reform: the employer mandate that will certainly be in a final bill.  Employers will be required to  either provide health insurance or pay into a fund.  This “play or pay” provision was the core of the Nixon plan as well as the Clinton plan.

Although there is a justifiable amount of angst about driving millions of people into the arms of the insurance industry because of a mandate for everyone to purchase insurance, with the expansion of Medicaid and the employer mandate, we don’t know how many individuals will be faced with purchasing insurance on their own.  I do find it interesting that there was little outrage – that I can remember at least – when somewhere around 40 million people over 65 were driven into the arms of the insurance and the pharmaceutical industries as a result of passage of Medicare Part D.

Let’s face it, when the final bill is passed and signed, our (us activists) work will just begin.  We have to organize and take on the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies.  It is obvious theyhad to power to stop health care reform in its tracks and were, therefore, bought off by the Obama Administration and Congress. 

Have a happy holiday season!

I am becoming increasingly concerned with my side – the progressive side – of the political spectrum.  Ed Schultz of the MSNBC Ed Show and Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake.com, for instance, are ranting and raving about the bills moving through Congress and are irrationally and destructively attacking President Obama and the Democrats for what appears to be the best reform to come down the pike since Medicare was passed.

They are focusing solely on the mandate that everyone obtain insurance.  I share their concern about that but I am not ready to help the left destroy the Democrats’ majority and the chance of a second term for President Obama because of it.  Furthermore, these progressives are ill-informed.

They are overlooking  major changes that move this country toward fairness and a truly humane health care system for everyone.  For instance, I posted a blog yesterday regarding the first move in a long time toward progressive taxation.  Today, I will mention just one other very good thing in the Senate bill (and there are many) that has passed the cloture hurdle:  expanding eligibility of Medicaid to 150% of poverty.  Since 150% of poverty is $16,245 for an individual, this means that the the working poor will be covered by a single payer system – everyone making up to $7.81 per hour, working 40 hours per week, would be eligible for Medicaid.

Most people don’t know that Medicare now pays for 36.2% of hospital stays and Medicaid pays for 19.5%, which means that, excluding the VA and Indian Health Service, approximately 55.7% of hospital stays are reimbursed by a single payer system.  The Senate bill would expand that coverage to the working poor.

We will get a health care reform bill.  It won’t be what we – the progressives – have our heart set on.  But it will be totally stupid to help the Republicans use it to undermine 2012 liberal candidates and the Obama Administration.

Ed Schultz has a radio show that will take your call.  The number to call is 1-877-934-6833.  The hours are 12 PM – 3 PM Eastern.  Call him and tell him to study the history of health care reform and how the current bills in the House and Senate will be a step ahead.  Tell him that we have nothing to gain and everything to lose by tearing up the Democrats for passing health care reform that isn’t everything we would like it to be.

It is important to support the essential facets of health care reform bills moving through the House and Senate.  These bills will eventually be melded into a final bill with some very good reform measures.  The final bill coming out of conference committee and finally passed and signed will not fully satisfy the demands and desires of progressives like me.

However, I have believed from the beginning of this process that a single payer, universal health care system would not at this time be a remote possibility.  I very much wanted to see a strong public option but that isn’t going to happen.   Having said this, I believe, for the following reasons, progressives will be making a big mistake if they lose their grip on their emotions (as seems to be happening to some my soul mates) and attempt to scuttle legislation making its way through congress:

1. The final passage of a bill that will most certainly include some meaningful reform (discussed below) will be a huge victory for President Obama and the Democrats.  Conversely, it will be a huge defeat for the Republicans.  On the other hand, failure to pass this legislation will be a crippling blow to the President and the Democratic Party.
2. It appears certain that a final bill will include one of the few (if not the only) progressive tax measures since the beginning of the radically regressive tax movement underway since the Reagan Administration.  The Senate version would increase the Medicare payroll tax .9% for individuals earning more than $200,000 ($250,000 for couples).  As it is now, everyone pays 1.45% with no cap, which makes this a regressive tax.

   The House version would charge a surtax of 5.4% on individuals making more than $500,000 ($1,000,000 for couples).  This will be reconciled in some manner with the Senate version.    

   Either way the tax increase goes, it will be a move back toward progressivity.  This is a big deal.  Hopefully, this will open the door to take the $102,000 payroll cap off of the 6.2% Social Security deduction.

3. Although everyone seems to be focused on the public option, it is important not to overlook the massive number of individuals who, heretofore unable to obtain coverage, will be able to buy insurance – many with very good subsidies.   Both the House and Senate bills are too complex to discuss in any detail in a blog.  However, if you are a fourth-degree policy wonk and want to Google the bills and read them, please note, for instance in the Senate bill, along with coverage provisions, the sections on the health care workforce (Title IV), preventing fraud and abuse (Title V), and improving access to innovative medical therapies (Title VI).  These are much needed reforms and we need to support these bills. 

A lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth is going on right now amongst liberals and progressives.  Senator Lieberman and the obvious loss of a public option in some form or other are, no doubt, cause for outrage.  However, there seems to be an unfortunate abundance of threats to “sit out the next election” and other such expressions of intended self destructive behaviors.  I like Ed Shultz (the Ed Show), Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, and even Ariana Huffington now that she is a liberal.  However, these talk show hosts and progressive pundits have been engaging in a bit of an over blown, heated rhetoric of late.  Furthermore, they are coming down way too hard on President Obama.  That is a huge mistake.

The bill that is likely to come out of this congress is not all that different and probably every bit as good as the health care reform bill that President Clinton attempted to push through congress in 1993.  Certainly, the health insurance exchange or something like it is very similar to the alliances in the Clinton plan, which included no public option.  I think the MSNBC progressive talk show hosts are overreacting and failing to look at reality.  They are also failing to read the history of health care reform – especially the Nixon and Clinton attempts (see Tom Daschle’s book as well as The Heart of Power on the book page of this blog).  If President Obama and the Democrats can pass health care reform in its current, survivable state, they will have accomplished a long-time-coming basis for a complete overhaul of the health care system.  Let’s hope we can make this first step.

  The president can count to 60.  He is being attacked by our fellow progressives for attempting to finesse the best plan possible through congress.  That attack on our (the progressives’) president makes no sense to me. 

If liberals and progressives can stop wringing their hands over political polls and start showing up at organizing events and working as hard as the other side to organize events and political activities, we can take the basis for reform that will surely be passed and work to make it what we would like it to be.  However, we must get off our duffs – including me. 

It will be a big mistake to take our frustration out on President Obama and the Democrats by staying away from the polls in 2012 or by other such passive aggressive behavior such as withholding financial support for Democratic candidates or by not volunteering in their campaigns.   I say that after we throw ourselves on the ground and cry, kick, and scream, hold our breath until we turn blue, and, after having had our hissy fit, we need to remember that we are mature adults that can make a difference if we jump in and help organize a movement to take on the insurance industry and other lobbies that are buying our congress.

We are not going to get all that we what we want in the health care reform bill that passes but it will be a beginning.  Let’s get going and go after Lieberman and the insurance industry.  Believe it or not we have the power to do that.  What I can’t stand is defeatism, cynicism, and pessimism.  These are the signs of “copping out.”