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.”

The Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4^th Edition, 2007 definition of commodify is as follows:  “to treat as or make into a mere commodity to be bought and sold or to be used in selling something else.” It is high time that we began to talk about the increasing treatment of various groups of people in the United States as commodities.  African American men are supplied to Correction Corporation of America to fill its prison cells and produce profits for investors at no apparent benefit to society.  College students and their families have become fodder for the banking industry (many of us can remember when college loans were made by the federal government and more Pell grants were available).  Examples abound of legislation designed for legislative transformation of human subpopulations into revenue streams for private enterprise.  Medicare, Part D, the subject of this post, is a sterling example of legislation for commodification of a demographic group.

The Bush Administration and Republicans did not pass a prescription drug benefit because they wanted to do something nice for the elderly.  This so-called benefit forces persons 65 and over to purchase insurance coverage for overpriced prescription drugs.  It is a mechanism for fleecing the elderly on behalf of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

 Perhaps at age 65 you will not need one or more prescription drugs on a regular basis.  If you do not have an ongoing need for one or more prescribed drugs and fail to sign up, the penalty for that decision will be a 1% per month penalty for each month past the age of 65 to the age at which you actually have a need for the benefit.  This means that you will be assessed this 1% per month on top of any premium you pay at the time you need prescription drug coverage.  For instance, in the Lawrence area, the cheapest insurance available will cost you about $30 per month (this is with rather high copay).  You can either choose to pay some insurance company, e.g. Cigna, Humana, etc, at least $30 per month – even if you do not now and will not for many years need an expensive prescription drug – or else incur a hefty penalty at some future date.

Also, the lobbying power of the pharmaceutical industry has insured that your copays and deductibles will be for drugs that cost double and even triple that paid for the same drugs by residents of Canada, the United Kingdom, and other European countries as well as Australia and New Zealand.  The law enacting Part D bars the federal government from exerting its purchasing power in negotiating with drug companies – negotiation is a violation of the law.

Given its arcane rules and complicated processes, Part D looks, on its surface, bizarre, stupid, and downright irrational.  Look deeper.  The real purpose makes a lot of sense – to “big Pharma,” the insurance industry, and their political hacks in congress.  The purpose of this law is to squeeze the 65+ population for as much of their retirement benefits and savings as possible.

Last night we attended a screening of the film “What’s The Matter with Kansas,” at Liberty Hall in Lawrence.  The film is the work of two filmmakers from Chicago.  I have some thoughts about the film and, due to the length of my essay on the matter, have added it to this blog as a separte page.”  If you are interested in the film and some thoughts about it click on the “Kansas” tab.

It is hard to describe the impact that patients and volunteers at the Kansas City free clinic had on my emotions and thinking.  I can say that the humility and appreciation of patients along with the caring and sincerity of so many volunteers from across the United States has deepened my belief in the basic decency of people in general.  However, that doesn’t fully capture the emotions and thoughts with which I came away from the experience.

For two days, people needing health care streamed into Bartle Hall in Kansas City, Missouri.  They came by the hundreds each hour – old people, young people, obviously very poor people, people that could have been my neighbors.  I had the opportunity to help them to triage, to labs, to dental care, to physicians, to eye care, and to a variety of other services.  I was able to spend a considerable amount of time with these patients and to connect with them as fellow human beings.  I can say that it was my good fortune to have the opportunity to be involved in this amazingly well-run operation by the National Association of Free Clinics and the Kansas City, Missouri Free Clinic.

Meeting and working with these patients and volunteers from Johnson County, Kansas City, Missouri, other local communities, California, Iowa, Washington, DC, and from practically every state in the Nation, was an experience that I will cherish.  It was hard to maintain my professionalism at times during the two days.  On many occasions, looking across the massive hall and seeing people sitting patiently in waiting areas and seeing health care professionals giving their best professional services in other areas, it was hard not to “choke up.”

I must mention that Keith Olberman is a mensch.  By promoting free clinics on his program, he has raised over two million dollars and has made several clinics like the one in Kansas City possible.  Also, if you watch his show, you will often see Nicole Lamoureaux, Executive Director of the National Association of Free Clinics.  Nicole is an absolute angel.  With her leadership and Keith Olberman’s support, thousands of uninsured Americans have had health care they would have not have had.  They have undoubtedly saved many lives.

In the latest issue of Reason Magazine, John Mackey, co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods, following up on an op ed piece in the August 16^th edition of the Wall Street Journal (in which he made the inane statement that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t say anything about health insurance), has further denigrated the U.S. government and any health insurance that could emanate from it .  In fact, his photo graces the cover of the issue.

In case readers aren’t aware of the provenance of Reason Magazine, I will point out that it is the house organ of the Koch billionaire, anti-people, ultra right wing, tea bagging political machine (the Kochtopus).  The Kochtopus has housed Reason Magazine in the Reason Foundation.

The Reason piece is actually an interview with Nick Gillespie, editor, Koch apparatchik, and doyen of a warped form of libertarianism pushed by right wing billionaires like the Kochs, Mellon-Scaife, and a racist outfit called the Bradley Foundation (which put up the money for the racist-tome The Bell Curve).  In the interview, Mackey explains how he came to his political views by reading the likes of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman.  He cobbled the views of these typical right wing theorists together into the same form of claptrap nonsense that is generally used by right wingers to support their mean spirited views on the role of government.

In addition to the interview, the article listed the seven principles of Mackey’s health care plan.  They could be boiled down to this:  cut taxes and, metaphorically speaking, let people sink or swim.  Isn’t that what the U.S. Government has been doing?

According to the interview, the WSJ piece caused some immediate and furious blow back from left of center shoppers, which has since “died down.”  I intend to do all I can to kick it up again. Mackey states that 80% of Whole Foods shoppers have a college degree.  You can bet that a large portion of that 80% is liberal and wouldn’t particularly appreciate his attacks on plans for some needed social justice.  The same could probably be said about the 20% that aren’t college educated.

DON’T SPEND YOUR MONEY IN WHOLE FOODS.  BOYCOTT WHOLE FOODS!

No one knows for certain what  is happening but reports indicate that the public option is dead.  The ten Senators negotiating a deal (five liberals and five conservatives) have sent a bill to the CBO for a cost analysis.  If initial reports are correct, the negotiations have produced a trade off for the public option.  Essentially, individuals will be able to buy into Medicare at age 55.  It has also been reported by various sources (Senator Bernie Sanders, Reuters, and Governor Ed Rendel), that Medicaid eligibility will be raised to 150% of poverty  ($33,000 for a family of 4 in Kansas).

We will probably need to fight the right wing forces in Kansas that would like to keep us from participating in this plan.  Basically, progress has been made but the struggle must continue for full social justice through health care for all.

I have heard a rumor that former KCK mayor Carol Maranovich is considering a run for the House of Representatives in the 3^rd Congressional District.  I don’t know how true this is, but it should scare the bejesus out of the Johnson County Republicans.  I say, let’s cheer her on!

As it is now, you can inherit about 3.6 million dollars (six million for a couple) without paying an inheritance tax of 45%.  The tax was due to undergo a one-year repeal beginning next month.  The U.S. House voted to extend the tax permanently.  Congressman Dennis Moore voted for the extension of the tax.  Thanks to Congressman Moore!

Economist David Burress wrote an excellent letter to the JW, which was published today.  If you missed it, here it is:

Ken Meier says shrinking state and local government is good medicine during a recession (12/5/09 letter). A substantial majority of economists disagree. That’s because spending government money to put people to work actually puts people to work—and then those workers spend money and put additional people to work. That’s exactly  what Obama’s stimulus package was supposed to do—and an emerging consensus among economists says it succeeded. Even among members of the rather conservative Association of Business Economists, an August poll found  73% expecting the stimulus to increase 2010 GDP by at least 1/2%, with almost half expecting at least 1%.

 Admittedly, things are a bit different at state and local levels because of balanced budget requirements. Usually those requirements make sense, but during a recession they’re perverse.  Falling revenues are forcing most government units to cut back, leading to reductions in demand that offset  the stimulus package. If those governments had been able to borrow money to keep their operations level, unemployment would be falling right now, instead of holding flat.

Even without borrowing money, it turns out  that local economies can benefit if local governments increase taxes to keep their workers employed. According to an accepted principle known as the “balanced budget multiplier,” government expenditures can add more demand to the economy than taxes remove. My back-of-the envelope estimate suggests a $1M property tax increase spent on local government employees would create around 10 Lawrence jobs on net. I urge the city to fund a full study.

David Burress

Lead economist, Ad Astra Institute

I have to ask myself, “Why, in this rich country, are we even talking about cutting the Medicare program for assisted daily living, which keeps the elderly and disabled in their homes?”  And “Why is the Senate talking about ending a health care safety net for poor children?”  However, having closely watched the United States political-social-economic system evolve from the vibrant capitalism and Great Society programs of the 1960s to its current form of decadent plutocracy, I am not surprised that the U.S. Congress is about to cut benefits for the elderly and end the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIPS). 

Benefits for keeping the elderly and disabled in their homes through home health care currently comprise 3.7% of the Medicare budget.  Under the current Senate health care reform proposal, this program is slated to absorb 10% of cuts in Medicare.  Medical device manufacturers, drug companies, and insurance companies, will continue to scam the health care system at a rate that renders any home health care benefits trivial in the overall scheme of things.

The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIPs) would be repealed under current proposals (as passed by the House and as debated in the Senate).  Poor families would be forced to buy health insurance in the health insurance exchange likely to emerge from a final health care bill.  Good luck with that!  According to Marian Wright Edelman of The Children’s Defense Fund, “Children by the millions are going to be worse rather than better off.”