A Leprechaun Riding a White Unicorn

[Daveparts still]

A Leprechaun Riding a White Unicorn
By David Glenn Cox


I had promised myself that I would make nice this week, being Christmas and all, but politicians do what politicians do; it is the way of the world and the nature of the beast. We must expect that, and as the Bible maintains: you will know them by their fruits. The "New York Times" has published an Op Ed by Vice President Joe Biden about the Senate health care bill. I have thought all along that Vice President Biden has done a good job of returning the Vice Presidency to its more traditional role of ribbon cuttings and attending state funerals.

However, Biden’s editorial really struck me, not with its logic but with its tone. He speaks to us as if we are ignorant children, and we should hush and be quiet because our betters are our betters for a reason. I have been skeptical about the health care debate since single payer was thrown out without even being heard and have become ever more so watching the public option die.

Father Joe begins, “IF I were still a United States senator, I would not only vote yes on the current health care reform bill, I would do so with the sure knowledge that I was casting one of the most historic votes of my 36 years in the Senate.”

Or, I was in the Senate for 36 years, so I am an authority and you are not. Being in the Senate 36 years means I could never be wrong about a bill.

“We have been here before. In the past, as the moment of decision drew nearer, criticism from both the left and the right grew louder. Compromises were derided. The perfect became the enemy of the good.”

If I hear “the perfect became the enemy of the good” one more time I’m going to scream. That term has been overused because there is not much else you can say when you bring a camel to a beauty contest. How about some other truisms: the strong exploit the weak, the rich exploit the poor.

Biden’s argument is that we should accept a bad deal because we cannot get a good one. Mr. Vice President, whose fault is that? You try and sell us this as a comic book, good guys and bad guys scenario when the failure is your own. There comes a time when you back away from a bad deal. I won’t sell a car or a house for less than it's worth just to make myself look like a dealmaker. I’ll walk away from a bad deal in a New York minute, or perhaps I should say intelligence is the enemy of the sham.

Biden continues, “Most recently, in 1993, Democrats had a chance to forge a compromise with Senator John Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island, on a health care reform bill. Congress’s failure to pass health care reform that year led to 16 years of inaction — and 16 years of exploding health care costs and rising numbers of uninsured Americans.”

The bill in 1993 died for the same reason this one needs to die, corporate interference in the operation of public government. More to the point, the Vice President pins the Clinton health care failure on a chance, not a guarantee, a chance, a mythical leprechaun riding a white unicorn.

“While it is not perfect,” The Vice President says, “the bill pending in the Senate today is not just good enough — it is very good. Insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions or drop coverage when people get sick. Charging exorbitant premiums based on sex; age or health status will be outlawed. Annual and lifetime caps on benefits will be history.”

Except who decides what is exorbitant? Who decides next year and the year after that? Who is in control of this program? You know damn well who!

“I share the frustration of other progressives that the Senate bill does not include a public option. But I’ve been around a long time, and I know that in Washington big changes never emerge in perfect form.”

Joe says, gee guys, I’m a progressive too, and well gee, it doesn’t have single payer or a public option or even a Medicare buy in, but it is still a swell bill because in Washington nothing is ever really that good. No one is looking for perfect, Joe, but this bill is the antithesis of perfect. This is insurance company welfare with government checks made out to private corporations in the amount of forty billion dollars a year. I don’t expect perfect but I do expect someone to fight for our corner.

“Is America better off today because a chance at a compromise health bill was missed in 1993? For my friends on the left, the rising toll of the uninsured provides an emphatic no. For my friends on the right, the soaring share of federal spending on health care likewise provides a no. Let’s not make the same mistake again.”

“Is America better off today?” Forgetting that this is a totally disingenuous argument, let's turn it around; after all, turn about is fair play. Why is America not better off? Leadership in the White House? Certainly. Leadership in Congress and the Senate? Of course, and you were in the Senate for how long, Joe?

“If the bill passes the Senate this week, there will be more chances to make changes to it before it becomes law. But if the bill dies this week, there is no second chance to vote yes. What those who care about health insurance reform need to realize is that unless we get 60 votes now, there will be no health care reform at all. Not this year, not in this Congress — and maybe not for another generation.”

If it does pass it will be marked as a project completed and so there will be no changes made to it and it will not be fixed for at least a generation. The Vice President's own argument is the very reason to defeat this Gorgon. Should we trust that the good changes will be suddenly made when all we have seen made so far is the opposite?

When Franklin Roosevelt proposed Social Security it wasn’t because he just had a soft spot in his heart for seniors. It wasn’t because America was the only major power in the world without such a scheme; it was to move seniors out of the workforce. The more seniors you moved out the more young people you could move in. Seniors were the poorest demographic in America. So the seniors were aided, their families were aided and the job market was aided. It wasn’t the perfect being the enemy of the good, but it was the good being a friend to the poor!

In 1948 Harry Truman brought a single payer health care plan before Congress. Years later Lyndon Johnson credited Truman’s plan as being the basis of modern Medicare. Truman lost in the Senate by one vote and over the next two decades of his life he never once said, we should have compromised with those Republicans. Gosh, we should have just caved in to a bad bill! Instead he said, “To hell with them. When history is written they will be the sons of bitches - not I.”

So, the Vice President’s argument is that he is a progressive who doesn’t think that lack of single payer or a public option or a Medicare buy in are important enough reasons to vote no. That no good legislation ever comes out of Washington anyway, so you must take what is the least bad. Mr. Biden forgot to mention several things. First, that this bill will begin to be phased in after the mid-term elections and won’t come in to full effect until 2014. Then, that it will cost the average family 17% of their income, and it will be mandated by law that they purchase insurance from a private corporation.

“The Republicans believe that the power of government should be used first of all to help the rich and the privileged in the country. With them, property, wealth, comes first. The Democrats believe that the power of government should be used to give the common man more protection and a chance to make a living. With us the people come first.” Harry Truman said that. Joe and Harry don’t sound very much alike, do they?

The push for health care reform by the Democratic Party extends back more than fifty years. It has always been based on a single payer system and has always been open for frank discussion. When a Democratic vice president makes an appeal for a Trojan Horse health care plan in the "New York Times," and forgets to mention mandates and subsidies to private corporations, fines and penalties on working American families, he is patronizing us and misleading us. Want to save 25% on health care costs? Kill private health insurance.

This is a ticking time bomb; it leaves the health care corporations in full control of health care. When that day comes when millions of Americans are filling out their tax forms and find they are no longer getting a refund because they didn’t purchase the health insurance they couldn’t afford in the first place, then you will see true anger. As they discover the reality that their refund checks have been bundled up and sent off to Aetna or US Healthcare, then Democrats will become a rare commodity, as rare as a mythical leprechaun riding a white unicorn.

“It's plain hokum. If you can't convince 'em, confuse 'em. It's an old political trick. But this time it won't work.” (Harry Truman)





http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/opinion/20biden.html?ref=opinion

[bemildred]

1. Well said.

Instead of true reform we are being given a crude attempt to fix the fundamental mistake made when HMOs and all these other "health care" parasites were created by Congress in the first place.

[CRH]

2. Well written and stating the obvious, ...

Any health care reform that doesn't account for the reasons of past failure, the for profit insurance and pharmaceutical companies, will improve nothing.

This supposed reform will have the same masters, that will continue to find ways to extract profit from the public coffers, and private citizens bank accounts. A reform that allows the insurance and pharmaceutical money changers into the public health care temple, will be no reform at all, it will only strengthen the position of the very corporations that have led to the crisis.

The insurance and pharmaceutical industries have failed for sixty years to provide health care at reasonable cost, have failed to provide a fundamental economic structure as efficient as other countries national health care plans, have failed to be cost competitive, have only succeeded at balance sheet profit by ever rising premiums.

Any reform that employs the same masters and architects of the crisis, as a solution, will be expecting different results from the very same actors and actions. Sounds like insanity to me.

[Lost Jaguar]

3. This and previous writings of yours...

...has made me more aware of Truman's progressivism. Do you think, my friend, that Harry was to the left of FDR? What good sources are there about Truman?

My old man was no liberal, but he admired Truman greatly. Perhaps it was Harry's caustic frankness; his tough style and his practicality. I have some reading to do.

[Daveparts still]

4. I don't Think that

Harry S wasn't as Liberal as FDR but they were from the same class. Truman was more pragmatic and did not carry FDR's cache. He was wise enough to name the Truman plan for Europe the Marshall plan because if it had gone to Congress as the Truman plan it might have failed.

In His Biography he gave up a good job in the bank because they needed him to work the farm. Then he worked his mother in laws farm. He began repairing roads for the county and became so angry at contractors building what he called pie crust roads that he ran for the job as a county judge. (councilmen)

It was his reputation for honesty for his work on the Truman Committee that landed him the job as VP.

"You can always amend a big plan, but you can never expand a little one. I don't believe in little plans. I believe in plans big enough to meet a situation which we can't possibly foresee now."
Harry S. Truman

[DemReadingDU]

9. I appreciate you going back into history

with FDR and Truman. There is a lot I need to become more familiar with.

[Daveparts still]

5. The Battle of

the pluses and minuses continues. From up 3 to -1 there is deep division

[Jim__]

6. I disagree with a lot of what Biden says, however, I also disagree with both your characterization

of the editorial, and your attempted refutation of his points.

First, he is not speaking to us as ignorant children. He is acknowledging the complexity of the issue and claiming that the good outweighs the bad:

Those in our own party who would scuttle this bill because of what it doesn’t do seem not to appreciate the magnitude of what it has the potential to accomplish. Howard Dean was head of the Democratic Party. I respect his leadership on health care, and I understand his criticism of the bill. But it is worth noting that on some of the key health reform issues — like ensuring that Americans have access to stable, affordable coverage, and doing away with abusive practices by insurance companies — the reforms in the Senate bill would do even more than Vermont, the state he governed, has done. And they would do it for the entire country. What’s more, this bill would expand both choice and competition in an insurance market that, for many Americans, has offered far too little of either.

The issues in the health reform bill are complicated, but the consequences of failing to pass it are straightforward. Those who would vote no on this bill need to look into the eyes of Americans who don’t have health care now and tell them they’re going to be better off without this bill — better off continuing to live without health coverage. They should explain to all those Americans who are denied coverage because they have pre-existing conditions or whose insurance ran out because of lifetime caps that they don’t need this bill. And they should tell the families who have insurance and the small-business owners who provide it that the relentless rise in their premiums without this bill will somehow make them glad it didn’t pass.

Is America better off today because a chance at a compromise health bill was missed in 1993? For my friends on the left, the rising toll of the uninsured provides an emphatic no. For my friends on the right, the soaring share of federal spending on health care likewise provides a no. Let’s not make the same mistake again.

If the bill passes the Senate this week, there will be more chances to make changes to it before it becomes law. But if the bill dies this week, there is no second chance to vote yes. What those who care about health insurance reform need to realize is that unless we get 60 votes now, there will be no health care reform at all. Not this year, not in this Congress — and maybe not for another generation.

As to your remaining arguments, they don't address the issues he raises.

Biden’s argument is that we should accept a bad deal because we cannot get a good one. Mr. Vice President, whose fault is that? You try and sell us this as a comic book, good guys and bad guys scenario when the failure is your own. There comes a time when you back away from a bad deal. I won’t sell a car or a house for less than it's worth just to make myself look like a dealmaker. I’ll walk away from a bad deal in a New York minute, or perhaps I should say intelligence is the enemy of the sham.

Again, your characterization is incorrect. Biden is saying that something is better than nothing. That's the argument that you need to answer. Your remark about not selling a car or a house for less than it's worth is not applicable. If you fail to make the deal there, you still have the house or the car. In this case, you need to be specific about why nothing is preferable.

Except who decides what is exorbitant? Who decides next year and the year after that? Who is in control of this program? You know damn well who!

Again you're not being specific. The paragraph before this, Biden made his claims:

“While it is not perfect,” The Vice President says, “the bill pending in the Senate today is not just good enough — it is very good. Insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions or drop coverage when people get sick. Charging exorbitant premiums based on sex; age or health status will be outlawed. Annual and lifetime caps on benefits will be history.”

Your response doesn't rebut them. It doesn't even acknowledge them.

Joe says, gee guys, I’m a progressive too, and well gee, it doesn’t have single payer or a public option or even a Medicare buy in, but it is still a swell bill because in Washington nothing is ever really that good. No one is looking for perfect, Joe, but this bill is the antithesis of perfect. This is insurance company welfare with government checks made out to private corporations in the amount of forty billion dollars a year. I don’t expect perfect but I do expect someone to fight for our corner.

I agree about the $40 billion. But, if there is such a thing as the antithesis of perfect, it ismore likely our current system than any change to it.

“Is America better off today?” Forgetting that this is a totally disingenuous argument, let's turn it around; after all, turn about is fair play. Why is America not better off? Leadership in the White House? Certainly. Leadership in Congress and the Senate? Of course, and you were in the Senate for how long, Joe?

You didn't turn the argument around. You just pointed a finger. The real question is, if America is not better off today for not passing health care in 1993, why do we expect to be better off if we fail to pass this bill? That's the question you need to answer.

“If the bill passes the Senate this week, there will be more chances to make changes to it before it becomes law. But if the bill dies this week, there is no second chance to vote yes. What those who care about health insurance reform need to realize is that unless we get 60 votes now, there will be no health care reform at all. Not this year, not in this Congress — and maybe not for another generation.”

If it does pass it will be marked as a project completed and so there will be no changes made to it and it will not be fixed for at least a generation. The Vice President's own argument is the very reason to defeat this Gorgon. Should we trust that the good changes will be suddenly made when all we have seen made so far is the opposite?

History is on Biden's side on this. Reform measures tend to improve with age. Once passed, people recognize their value and demand improvements.

So, the Vice President’s argument is that he is a progressive who doesn’t think that lack of single payer or a public option or a Medicare buy in are important enough reasons to vote no. That no good legislation ever comes out of Washington anyway, so you must take what is the least bad. Mr. Biden forgot to mention several things. First, that this bill will begin to be phased in after the mid-term elections and won’t come in to full effect until 2014. Then, that it will cost the average family 17% of their income, and it will be mandated by law that they purchase insurance from a private corporation.

Biden is arguing that new reforms often pass the legislature in an insufficient form to satisfy the actual need. Modifications to the reforms then add on the requirements, largely due to public demand.

This is a ticking time bomb; it leaves the health care corporations in full control of health care. When that day comes when millions of Americans are filling out their tax forms and find they are no longer getting a refund because they didn’t purchase the health insurance they couldn’t afford in the first place, then you will see true anger. As they discover the reality that their refund checks have been bundled up and sent off to Aetna or US Healthcare, then Democrats will become a rare commodity, as rare as a mythical leprechaun riding a white unicorn.

I generally agree with that argument. But, it is an opinion. Any honest appraisal of the bill has to recognize thatthe future is not clear. To convince anyone to change their mind, you first have to unerstand and acknowledge the validity of their opinion.

[Daveparts still]

7. I do Acknowledge

the administration's position,they have put themselves out on a limb and must choose between a bad bill and no bill. Politicians like electricity find the shortest route to ground.

The legislation is about bailing out hospitals facing and ever increasing number of American's who cannot afford health care. By law these doctors and hospitals must treat them and soon by law you must purchase health insurance from a for profit corporation whether you can afford it or not.

I quoted from Harry Truman specifically because he was so clear in pointing out the differences between Real Democrats and what he referred to as reactionaries. So let's distill the issue.

The Obama administration explained that this was about cost containment but failed to mention that it was loss containment for hospitals and doctors that they were concerned with. The President explained that we needed a public option.

But this plan has no public option and is financed by taxing people who do have health care, can that possibly make sense? To tax workers with good plans to pay for those with none?

Whose side is the administration on? A. Corporations and health insurers?

B. American Workers?

What happened to no tax increase on those who make less than $200.000?

I don't think police and firefighters make that much.

“The Republicans believe that the power of government should be used first of all to help the rich and the privileged in the country. With them, property, wealth, comes first. The Democrats believe that the power of government should be used to give the common man more protection and a chance to make a living. With us the people come first.” Harry Truman

This bill is so odious that even Richard Nixon wouldn't sign on

[dugaresa]

8. “To hell with them. When history is written they will be the sons of bitches - not I.”

i love Harry Truman