By John Ballard
Maggie Mahar is still my heroine in this contest.
If health care reform fails this time around it won't be because she and a few others didn't give it all they had trying to prevent a worse train wreck than we already have.
Yesterday, I appeared on GRITtv with Laura Flanders where Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker, best known as the architect of the public option, Luke Mitchell, senior editor at Harper�s magazine, and I discussed what�s left of health reform legislation, our best hopes, and our deepest concerns, going forward.During the course of the program, Flanders entertained her audience with clips of Senator Joe Lieberman saying very different things at different times when responding to the same issue. These included shots of Lieberman contradicting himself on the question as to whether one senator should take it upon himself to block major legislation. It�s worth watching the video of the show if only to see and hear Lieberman; he�s just as sanctimonious when he says X as when he takes the opposite position. The clips make Lieberman�s hypocrisy clear. He will say whatever will advance Joe Lieberman�s career.
This video is about twenty-five minutes in length.
I like this by Luke Mitchell.
More health care is not what we want. Less health care is what we want because we are healthier.
And this from Maggie Mahar is worth repeating.
...At this point, we have thousands of drugs, devices and treatments that pad someone�s income stream, but, for the patient, bring neither comfort nor cure. We don�t need another $1 million drug that might prolong the process of dying by three to five weeks. We don�t need another artificial knee that is no better than the man-made knees that we already have, but costs $500 more because someone has come up with a slick way of marketing it. We don�t need ever more sophisticated (and expensive) diagnostic testing equipment that can discern the fine traces of diseases that will never develop.I object to Douthat�s Op-ed in part because I don�t think that all points of view deserve equal respect in some Great Supermarket of Ideas. Some ideas come with evidence and a good argument; others are merely flimsy attempts to justify the profiteering and waste in our health care system.
But I was even more offended by the notion that Joe Lieberman is a thoughtful legislator who represents a set of conservative ideas. Lieberman is not an ideologue; he is a chameleon, an opportunist who represents Joe Lieberman. That one man is able to put self-interest ahead of the interests of the nation is tragic.
I realize most readers of this blog are already in the kill-the-bill camp. In fact, I may be the only contributor stubborn enough to remain hopeful that something productive may yet come to pass. But after all that has come to pass, the thousands of man-hours and hard work, I cannot agree that starting from scratch is a pragmatic alternative. The country simply cannot afford to wait until another critical political mass comes around again. It will be too late.
Leiberman's behavior is that of a politician with his finger in the wind. His behavior has little or nothing to do with health care.
A comment at GRITtv links BartBlog which offers a smart explanation by Robert Parry for Joe Lieberman's position.
John
ReplyDeleteThe main reason I am part of the "kill the bill" movement is the mandate with no alternative to the private insurance companies. This will end up being a political disaster for the Democrats and if the republicans had half a brain they would let the Democrats pass it.
The "alternative" if you can call it that is a token "fine" for those who don't buy insurance. I heard this very point being discussed this afternoon by a radio talk show host. (I don't need to tell you his position, foursquare opposed to anything.) He made the excellent point that young, healthy wage-earners would simply pay the fine every year because it is supposedly capped at $750, much lower than insurance premiums. The when they get sick, they buy insurance at the last minute, coming into the system will all kinds of expenses.
ReplyDeleteHe's right you know. But my question is simply this: How is that different from what's happening already?
Meantime, those whose incomes fall below some point are already eligible for Medicaid, and the uninsured making too much who gets sick will eventually join the club. And most people don't realize that Medicaid benefits are BETTER (therefore more expensive) than Medicare.
This is more than a tug-of-war over health care. This contest is about Obama's political clout as president.
Leiberman's moves are aiming at a different target. As Robert Parry said (linked above)...
If Lieberman succeeds in sinking Obama�s chief domestic priority � health care reform � or waters it down so much that it alienates Obama from his liberal base, Obama may find himself essentially the captive of the neocons, needing their blessing to maintain any political viability in Washington.
Lieberman has been careful not to connect his disruptive behavior on health-care reform to his support for Israel, but there can be little doubt that a chastened Obama, either defeated on health care or forced to sign a bill that liberals will view as a betrayal, will have much less political capital to expend in applying pressure on Israel.
A hobbled Obama won�t be able to push Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to halt expansion of West Bank settlements or to take other steps that might lead to a Palestinian state. Obama also could be pushed around himself if Israel � itself an undeclared nuclear power � decides to launch airstrikes against Iran�s nuclear facilities.
The Israel explanation for Lieberman�s behavior on health-care reform is the one that seems to make the most sense.