Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in India in July trying to secure agreements on India’s economic development that are consistent with global climate change policies America is currently evaluating.
The administration’s position seems to be that any changes that yield reductions in carbon emissions we make will be useless without simultaneous and similar policies in India and China. India and China each have a growing middle class which is just beginning to make demands on energy infrastructure that will soon rival consumption patterns in the United States. From a global standpoint, US policy changes alone would be akin to stepping on the brake lightly while China and India hit the gas like a teenager late for curfew. (To its credit, the administration IS using potential arms deals as leverage in its negotiations.)
One of the long-standing arguments against regulatory policies to mitigate carbon emissions and which the administration appears to be making itself is, should Americans make sacrifices that will have negligible positive effects on a global problem but will add financial burden to our business practices, when other nations will be free to expand their economies unencumbered by similar policies?
America is the global leader, that’s why. Not just A global leader; THE global leader. It is in America’s best interest to be an early adopter of new technologies and to push the boundaries of technological advances. Bravely moving ahead, even without the support of others, is what helps to keep the United States at the cutting edge of technology, business growth, economic well being and economic sustainability.
The math doesn’t lie: the day will come when China and India each have larger economies than the United States. But the United States can retain its place as the most RELEVENT and IMPORTANT economy by constantly being at the forefront of innovation and ambition.
That other nations don’t want to be early adopters is expected and unconcerning. Their lack of initiative creates opportunities and leverage for American businesses. As we stay at the cutting edge of innovation and technology, US businesses will continue to attract the best, brightest and most ambitious people from other countries.
America is an exceptional place for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is our belief that we are morally good and confident enough in ourselves to not require validation for our actions. The administration is correct that having China and India simultaneously pursuing similar goals would be the most efficacious way ahead to solve global climate problems. But their unwillingness to join should not be a deterrent to action. In fact, it should spur us on all the more, knowing that we will be creating new technologies and new global businesses that other nations will one day need yet be without.
The United States is still the global leader in new businesses and business practices. Other nations, relying on outdated financial growth paradigms, are only ensuring that their economies will remain a generation behind the times. America’s best way to co-opt India and China to join us is to demonstrate a business model for success, not to sheepishly whine that we can’t do it alone.
I always feared that President Obama’s main weakness would be that he wanted to be liked more than he wanted to lead. It’s “lonely at the top” time, Mr. President. Where will you take us?
Madame Speaker, Vice President Biden, Members of Congress, and the American people:
When I spoke here last winter, this nation was facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month. Credit was frozen. And our financial system was on the verge of collapse. When you spoke here last winter, many months after President Bush gave the financial system $700 billion, was it still “on the verge of collapse?” What have YOU done, in this administration, to save the financial system from collapse?
As any American who is still looking for work or a way to pay their bills will tell you, we are by no means out of the woods. A full and vibrant recovery is many months away. And I will not let up until those Americans who seek jobs can find them; until those businesses that seek capital and credit can thrive; until all responsible homeowners can stay in their homes. That is our ultimate goal. But thanks to the bold and decisive action we have taken since January, I can stand here with confidence and say that we have pulled this economy back from the brink. Action WE have taken/WE have pulled the economy back from the brink? The President is taking complete credit on behalf of the government for saving the economy. It has nothing to do with the citizens, or resilient businesses. The President doesn’t trust the people and he DOES believe that government is the solution to our problems.
I want to thank the members of this body for your efforts and your support in these last several months, and especially those who have taken the difficult votes that have put us on a path to recovery. I also want to thank the American people for their patience and resolve during this trying time for our nation. “Sure, Mr. President. Of course we could all just sit quietly while, (thank you Lord) you rode in on your white horse and saved us. Oh thank you, thank you, thank you. “
But we did not come here just to clean up crises. We came to build a future. So tonight, I return to speak to all of you about an issue that is central to that future – and that is the issue of health care.
I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last. It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for health care reform. And ever since, nearly every President and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has attempted to meet this challenge in some way. A bill for comprehensive health reform was first introduced by John Dingell Sr. in 1943. Sixty-five years later, his son continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session.
Our collective failure to meet this challenge – year after year, decade after decade – has led us to a breaking point. Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the uninsured, who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare. These are middle-class Americans. Some can’t get insurance on the job. Others are self-employed, and can’t afford it, since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer. Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or expensive to cover.
We are the only advanced democracy on Earth – the only wealthy nation – that allows such hardships for millions of its people. There are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get coverage. The House Bill that has been scrutinized throughout August still left 17 million Americans uninsured, according to a Congressional Budget Office review. In just a two year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point. And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage. Wow. This is happening on your watch. A few paragraphs ago your administration was the savior. Are going to take responsibility for this number as well? In other words, it can happen to anyone. This is statistically misleading. Many of those people are the same folks becoming uninsured AGAIN in the same 2 year period.
But the problem that plagues the health care system is not just a problem of the uninsured. Those who do have insurance have never had less security and stability than they do today. More and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job, or change your job, you’ll lose your health insurance too. More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won’t pay the full cost of care. It happens every day.
One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn’t reported gallstones that he didn’t even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it. Another woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne. By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer more than doubled in size. That is heart-breaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America. So it’s safe to say, based on this review of the healthcare system, that the entire system is broken. You haven’t addressed a single redeeming feature yet.
Then there’s the problem of rising costs. We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren’t any healthier for it. This is one of the reasons that insurance premiums have gone up three times faster than wages. It’s why so many employers – especially small businesses – are forcing their employees to pay more for insurance, or are dropping their coverage entirely. It’s why so many aspiring entrepreneurs cannot afford to open a business in the first place, and why American businesses that compete internationally – like our automakers – are at a huge disadvantage. And it’s why those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it – about $1000 per year that pays for somebody else’s emergency room and charitable care. $83/month per person? That’s a big percentage. Once again, I note that there is little in this review that should make me like anything about the current system.
Finally, our health care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers. When health care costs grow at the rate they have, it puts greater pressure on programs like Medicare and Medicaid. If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined. Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close.
These are the facts. Nobody disputes them. We know we must reform this system. The question is how.
There are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada’s, where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everyone. On the right, there are those who argue that we should end the employer-based system and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.
I have to say that there are arguments to be made for both approaches. But either one would represent a radical shift that would disrupt the health care most people currently have. Which you just spent the last page telling us is a horrible, rotten system. Now all of a sudden, I should want to keep it. Or are you going to force me, now, to keep participating in a system you clearly find inadequate. Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works (and what would that be? You haven’t said.) and fix what doesn’t, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch. If I grant your premise at this point—that the system is completely broken—then I can’t grant your conclusion that we should build upon it. And that is precisely what those of you in Congress have tried to do over the past several months.
During that time, we have seen Washington at its best and its worst.
We have seen many in this chamber work tirelessly for the better part of this year to offer thoughtful ideas about how to achieve reform. Of the five committees asked to develop bills, four have completed their work, and the Senate Finance Committee announced today that it will move forward next week. That has never happened before. Our overall efforts have been supported by an unprecedented coalition of doctors and nurses; hospitals, seniors’ groups and even drug companies – many of whom opposed reform in the past. And there is agreement in this chamber on about eighty percent of what needs to be done, putting us closer to the goal of reform than we have ever been.
But what we have also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have toward their own government. Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics. This is entirely true. Even as a Republican I am embarrassed by the disingenuous nature of the debate. As if the only way to attack this plan is to make up ridiculous lies. Is this really all the GOP has to offer? No wonder they are the party on the outs. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. The Democrats, too. Rep Lynn Woolsey, D-CA: “We will vote against the bill if doesn’t have a robust public plan.” Sen Benjamin Cardin, D-Md: “I’m not going to vote for any bill that will cut off care to someone who needs care and wants care.” Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge. And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned.
Well the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed. Now is the season for action. Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together, and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do. Now is the time to deliver on health care.
The plan I’m announcing tonight would meet three basic goals:
It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance to those who don’t. And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government. It’s a plan that asks everyone to take responsibility for meeting this challenge – not just government and insurance companies, but employers and individuals. And it’s a plan that incorporates ideas from Senators and Congressmen; from Democrats and Republicans – and yes, from some of my opponents in both the primary and general election.
Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan:
First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have. In fact, it REQUIRES you to keep what you have—according to the President, a broken, failing system. Thanks for the help, Mr. President.
What this plan will do is to make the insurance you have work better for you. Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. At what premium cost? What will an insurance company have to charge me when the nature of his wager is made with little to no knowledge of my condition? For more on this, see my blog at http://kickingtheanthillblog.wordpress.com/2009/09/05/theyre-insurance-companies-not-healthcare-companies/
As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most. This is a good provision. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. Again, what premium will I have to pay to get this coverage? We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick. And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, Seriously, how are insurance companies supposed to stay in business? routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies – because there’s no reason we shouldn’t be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives.
That’s what Americans who have health insurance can expect from this plan – more security and stability.
Now, if you’re one of the tens of millions of Americans who don’t currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage. We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange – a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices. Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers. As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage. This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance. It’s how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it’s time to give every American the same opportunity that we’ve given ourselves.
For those individuals and small businesses who still cannot afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we will provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need. And all insurance companies that want access to this new marketplace will have to abide by the consumer protections I already mentioned. This exchange will take effect in four years, (remember this) which will give us time to do it right. Actually, this is a good point and he should have played this up. This is NO time for the government to be spending extra money. We, as citizens, have tightened our belts during tough times, so should the government. Particularly in light of $700 billion to the financial sector and $789 billion spent in the ARRA. So, while we don’t have the money NOW, it makes sense to be PLANNING now so that when we do have money in 4 years, we are ready to take action and implement. This could have been a thoughtful, well reasoned argument, instead it’s an afterthought. In the meantime, for those Americans who can’t get insurance today because they have pre-existing medical conditions, we will immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become seriously ill. This was a good idea when Senator John McCain proposed it in the campaign, it’s a good idea now, and we should embrace it.
Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those – particularly the young and healthy – who still want to take the risk and go without coverage. There may still be companies that refuse to do right by their workers. The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. True, but ONLY if we provide them healthcare. If they choose to go without (and I content that’s their right) then they have to pay cash. Those are the natural consequences of not having insurance. But we don’t have the courage to tell people “no,” even in the face of their own stupidity. We reward their risky behavior. If there are affordable options and people still don’t sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for those people’s expensive emergency room visits. If some businesses don’t provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors. And unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek – especially requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions – just can’t be achieved.
That’s why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance – just as most states require you to carry auto insurance. Fundamental difference: when driving, my behavior may harm others. The requirement for insurance is to protect OTHERS from being unduly harmed by my misfortune (a car accident). My insurance actually makes payments to people not named on the policy—the injured party. In healthcare, misfortune only affects ME. If I get sick or injured, my insurance only covers me. If I don’t have insurance, then only I suffer from that consequence. Likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers. There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still cannot afford coverage, and 95% of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements. But we cannot have large businesses and individuals who can afford coverage game the system by avoiding responsibility to themselves or their employees. Improving our health care system only works if everybody does their part.
While there remain some significant details to be ironed out, I believe a broad consensus exists for the aspects of the plan I just outlined: consumer protections for those with insurance, an exchange that allows individuals and small businesses to purchase affordable coverage, and a requirement that people who can afford insurance get insurance.
And I have no doubt that these reforms would greatly benefit Americans from all walks of life, as well as the economy as a whole. Still, given all the misinformation that’s been spread over the past few months, I realize that many Americans have grown nervous about reform. So tonight I’d like to address some of the key controversies that are still out there.
Some of people’s concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. True, true. And it’s sad, because there are good ways to fix what needs fixing even if this plan isn’t it. The issue should be “What’s right, not Who’s right.” But in this partisan debate, it’s blue vs. red. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.
There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. Our system does and always will. To deny this is an outright lie and appalling that he’d say this. Until hospitals start turning away illegals, regardless of their medical condition, then there is a way for them to get treatment and those financial burdens will be carried by tax payers. This, too, is false – the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up – under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.
My health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a “government takeover” of the entire health care system. Well, let’s see: you REQUIRE everyone to participate. You tell me the system I am currently using is broken but I can’t get out of it. You are forcing unbearable costs on insurance providers and taking away their ability to offset their expenditures. Yes, it does sound like you are slowly taking over healthcare. As proof, critics point to a provision in our plan that allows the uninsured and small businesses to choose a publicly-sponsored insurance option, administered by the government just like Medicaid or Medicare.
So let me set the record straight. My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90% is controlled by just one company. Without competition, the price of insurance goes up and the quality goes down. And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly – by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking up rates.Insurance executives don’t do this because they are bad people. They do it because it’s profitable. When did “profit” become bad? See my other blog. Insurance companies are FOR PROFIT organizations. They are not health care providers. As one former insurance executive testified before Congress, insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop the seriously ill; they are rewarded for it. All of this is in service of meeting what this former executive called “Wall Street’s relentless profit expectations.”
Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable. Now we’re talking sense. It IS deplorable that some insurance companies will renege on their part of the contract with the insured and not pay when they should. This must stop and should be a major part of any reform package. The insurance reforms that I’ve already mentioned would do just that. But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. Let me be clear – it would only be an option for those who don’t have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less (it’s “fewer” not less. It would be nice if you were grammatically correct, Mr. President. I hope you at least said it correctly during the speech even if your speech writer missed it) than 5% of Americans would sign up. After the scathing expose on the current system, the CBO may want to rethink that. This speech has hardly been a ringing endorsement for the status quo.
Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don’t like this idea. They argue that these private companies can’t fairly compete with the government. And they’d be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won’t be. I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. How is this going to happen? If coverage is not dependent on health history, if benefits have no cap, if premiums are kept affordable, how are ONLY those premiums collected going to cover these costs? But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs Right. Because the federal government has proven itself so good at keeping administrative costs low and under control. and executive salaries, it could (yes, “could,” I appreciate your candor) provide a good deal for consumers. It would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.
It’s worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option yes, even I do. Honestly, without a “public option” or some way to provide a means of paying for health coverage for the uninsured, what’s the point? of the sort I’ve proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn’t be exaggerated – by the left, the right, or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and should not be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles. To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses as stated, yes, this is a must and make coverage affordable for those without it. but not make it affordable for those with health insurance???? The public option is only a means to that end – and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal. And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have.
For example, some have suggested that that the public option go into effect only in those markets it’s not really a “market” issue. Insurance often doesn’t provide affordable policies based on demographic and health history issue. where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others propose a co-op or another non-profit entity to administer the plan. These are all constructive ideas worth exploring. But I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can’t find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice. And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.
Who is going to make coverage decisions? Who will define “elective” procedures? Who will decide if a liver transplant on a 105 year old man will be covered? A government option is not going to be a healthcare free for all. Some agency will be making these decisions.
Finally, let me discuss an issue that is a great concern to me, to members of this chamber, and to the public – and that is how we pay for this plan. Didn’t you just say, “the public option will be self sufficient and rely on premiums it collects?”
Here’s what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. Period. And to prove that I’m serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don’t materialize. OK, Mr. President, can you please tell me the top five programs or areas that you will cut, if necessary? Part of the reason I faced a trillion dollar deficit when I walked in the door of the White House is because too many initiatives over the last decade were not paid for – from the Iraq War to tax breaks for the wealthy. And since you walked in the door you signed a $789 billion bailout bill. I will not make that same mistake with health care.
Second, we’ve estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system – a system that is currently full of waste and abuse. What are we talking about? The public option will be funded from premiums. I read that. Also, the waste and abuse comes from providing medical care to people who cannot pay for it with an insurance policy or with cash. Are you going to start turning people away when they can’t pay? Willl you send a clear signal to cheaters who don’t pay taxes that they can’t get something for nothing? Right now, too much of the hard-earned savings and tax dollars we spend on health care doesn’t make us healthier. That’s not my judgment – it’s the judgment of medical professionals across this country. And this is also true when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid.
In fact, I want to speak directly to America’s seniors for a moment, because Medicare is another issue that’s been subjected to demagoguery and distortion during the course of this debate.
More than four decades ago, this nation stood up for the principle that after a lifetime of hard work, our seniors should not be left to struggle with a pile of medical bills in their later years. That is how Medicare was born. And it remains a sacred trust that must be passed down from one generation to the next. That is why not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan.
The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud, this is wonderful theory. What’s the plan to identify areas of FWA, and to capture savings from eliminating FWA? as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies – subsidies that do everything to pad their profits and nothing to improve your care. And we will also create an independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead. So you’re going to add layers of federal bureaucracy to cut down on fraud, waste and abuse within the federal bureaucracy?
These steps will ensure that you – America’s seniors – get the benefits you’ve been promised. They will ensure that Medicare is there for future generations. And we can use some of the savings to fill the gap in coverage that forces too many seniors to pay thousands of dollars a year out of their own pocket for prescription drugs. That’s what this plan will do for you. So don’t pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut – especially since some of the same folks who are spreading these tall tales have fought against Medicare in the past, and just this year supported a budget that would have essentially turned Medicare into a privatized voucher program. That will never happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare.
Now, because Medicare is such a big part of the health care system, making the program more efficient can help usher in changes in the way we deliver health care that can reduce costs for everybody. We have long known that some places, like the Intermountain Healthcare in Utah or the Geisinger Health System in rural Pennsylvania, offer high-quality care at costs below average. The commission can help encourage the adoption of these common-sense best practices by doctors and medical professionals throughout the system Another area of federal activity leading many people to conclude that this plan constitutes a “takeover.” – everything from reducing hospital infection rates to encouraging better coordination between teams of doctors.
Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan. Or was it premiums. I’m losing track. Much of the rest would be paid for with revenues from the very same drug and insurance companies that stand to benefit from tens of millions of new customers. Hold it again. You said earlier that when you create the health exchanges, “Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers. So they have a profit motive. But now you’re saying that you’re going to take away their profits to help fund the system. So why, then, would they want to participate? What’s in it for them? This reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies, which will encourage them to provide greater value for the money – an idea which has the support of Democratic and Republican experts. And according to these same experts, this modest change could help hold down the cost of health care for all of us in the long-run.
Finally, many in this chamber – particularly on the Republican side of the aisle – have long insisted that reforming our medical malpractice laws can help bring down the cost of health care. I don’t believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I have talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs. So I am proposing that we move forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine. I know that the Bush Administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these issues. It’s a good idea, and I am directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward on this initiative today.
Add it all up, and the plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years Hold it right there. You just said, “Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan. I don’t think leaving $100 billion a year uncovered let’s you round down to zero. Sorry. I’m funny that way. – less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration. Most of these costs will be paid for with money already being spent – but spent badly – in the existing health care system. The plan will not add to our deficit. The middle-class will realize greater security, not higher taxes. And if we are able to slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of one percent each year, it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term. I’m afraid I’m going to have to ask you to define “long term.” You’re talking “deficit” not “debt, right?” President Bush’s 2008 budget only accounted for spending $2.6 trillion, with a deficit of $454 billion. So this number seems misleading.
This is the plan I’m proposing. It’s a plan that incorporates ideas from many of the people in this room tonight – Democrats and Republicans. And I will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open.
But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it’s better politics to kill this plan than improve it. I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what’s in the plan, we will call you out. And I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time. Not now.
Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result. We know these things to be true.
That is why we cannot fail. But the plan will fail. At least it will “fail” because it won’t be the end of the road, rather just the beginning. And it’s good to get something started. We should expect failure. Then we can learn and tweak the system. But if we enter into this insisting that this can’t “fail” then we won’t be open to admitting its shortcomings as we defend the indefensible. So where are the built in opportunities to make adjustments? Because there are too many Americans counting on us to succeed – the ones who suffer silently, and the ones who shared their stories with us at town hall meetings, in emails, and in letters.
I received one of those letters a few days ago. It was from our beloved friend and colleague, Ted Kennedy. He had written it back in May, shortly after he was told that his illness was terminal. He asked that it be delivered upon his death.
In it, he spoke about what a happy time his last months were, thanks to the love and support of family and friends, his wife, Vicki, and his children, who are here tonight . And he expressed confidence that this would be the year that health care reform – “that great unfinished business of our society,” he called it – would finally pass. He repeated the truth that health care is decisive for our future prosperity, but he also reminded me that “it concerns more than material things.” “What we face,” he wrote, “is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country.”
I’ve thought about that phrase quite a bit in recent days – the character of our country. One of the unique and wonderful things about America has always been our self-reliance, our rugged individualism, and yet here you are insisting that we need the federal government to fix our problems. Ironic, don’t you think? our fierce defense of freedom and our healthy skepticism of government. And figuring out the appropriate size and role of government has always been a source of rigorous and sometimes angry debate. We understand the need for government. What we want is small FEDERAL government.
For some of Ted Kennedy’s critics, his brand of liberalism represented an affront to American liberty. In their mind, his passion for universal health care was nothing more than a passion for big government.
But those of us who knew Teddy and worked with him here – people of both parties – know that what drove him was something more. His friend, Orrin Hatch, knows that. They worked together to provide children with health insurance. His friend John McCain knows that. They worked together on a Patient’s Bill of Rights. His friend Chuck Grassley knows that. They worked together to provide health care to children with disabilities. So this is now the “Win One for Teddy” speech? That’s weak.
On issues like these, Ted Kennedy’s passion was born not of some rigid ideology, but of his own experience. It was the experience of having two children stricken with cancer. He never forgot the sheer terror and helplessness that any parent feels when a child is badly sick; and he was able to imagine what it must be like for those without insurance; what it would be like to have to say to a wife or a child or an aging parent – there is something that could make you better, but I just can’t afford it. These decisions, as noted earlier, will always have to be made.
That large-heartedness – that concern and regard for the plight of others – is not a partisan feeling. It is not a Republican or a Democratic feeling. It, too, is part of the American character. Our ability to stand in other people’s shoes. A recognition that we are all in this together; that when fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand. These are some of America’s Core Values, yes. They define us. A belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play; and an acknowledgement that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise. But this is where we differ. Mr. President, you believe that the FEDERAL government has the answers. That the people shouldn’t be or can’t be entrusted with these types of decisions. If you did, you’d allow the states to develop their own plans, within certain regulatory structures (for more info see: http://kickingtheanthillblog.wordpress.com/2009/07/31/healthcare-success-failure-and-federalism)
This has always been the history of our progress. In 1933, when over half of our seniors could not support themselves and millions had seen their savings wiped away, there were those who argued that Social Security would lead to socialism. But the men and women of Congress stood fast, and we are all the better for it. In 1965, when some argued that Medicare represented a government takeover of health care, members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, did not back down.It DID. It is now the foundation of your new plan. You want to expand Medicare. You want to build a new system around it. The very fact that it is becoming the cornerstone of health care is indicative of the fact that it DID represent a takeover. They joined together so that all of us could enter our golden years with some basic peace of mind.
You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom. But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, and the vulnerable can be exploited. And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; that’s a little martyr-y when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter – that at that point we don’t merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.
What was true then remains true today. I understand how difficult this health care debate has been. I know that many in this country are deeply skeptical that government is looking out for them. I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road you mean like kick it down the road 4 years, to the next administration which may not be yours? – to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one more term.
But that’s not what the moment calls for. That’s not what we came here to do. We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it. I still believe we can act even when it’s hard. I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility, and gridlock with progress. I still believe we can do great things, and that here and now we will meet history’s test. Are these the same “we”s that you mentioned early on? We being your administration and this Congress. If only it was “we” as in “We the people.” Because “We the people” really is who WE are.
Because that is who we are. That is our calling. That is our character. Thank you, God Bless You,
and may God Bless the United States of America.
I wonder what insurance companies are thinking about healthcare reform. It seems to me there is a fundamental shift occurring for them and I have to imagine they don’t like it.
What is the purpose of an insurance company? Insurance companies are for-profit businesses whose modus operandi is to get us to give them our money so that they can invest it in a variety of vehicles which provide profits for the company. They entice consumers to give them their money based on the agreement that if a policy holder gets sick or injured the company will pay for their medical needs. As such, if I have minimal medical needs the insurance company will pay out less money to me and, thus, have more money at their disposal from which they can earn investment profits. If, however, I am prone to illness or injury, the insurance company must pay out more money for my care, even to the point where they pay out more than they earn from me in premiums and interest. For the company, these are losses. (It’s interesting to note that few individuals invoke the same language when we are healthy. If I don’t get sick or injured or go to the doctor, then I have essentially paid more money IN than I have received back: rightfully, I should view these as losses. Of course, my ability to recoup my investment requires injury or sickness– situations which most folks would rather avoid.)
From the insurance point of view, this entire arrangement is a wager. The bottom line is they are making an informed investment decision: they evaluate my medical history and current health and venture a guess regarding the capital outlay required to attend to my health care needs. They then charge a premium sufficient to cover those expenses and still return a profit to their shareholders.
Insurance companies and individuals enter into a binding agreement. Specific items will be paid for, specific items will be excluded. Caps are provided in order to protect the insurance company from catastrophic losses, and which underscore the basis of their decision and support the assumptions they made in establishing a premium. When I read my insurance policy, I know what is covered and what is not and I sign the document agreeing to its terms.
Insurance companies are NOT healthcare companies. They take no Hippocratic Oath. They are closer to lawyers—enforcing contracts—than medical professionals—healing the wounded and infirm. I have no illusion that they will show benevolence or compassion. They exist to make money for their shareholders. I can’t imagine that I will ever hear in a hushed whisper from an insurance company representative, “Mr. Kleber, as you know you haven’t been paying for coverage that includes FREE prescriptions, but your story of job loss and misfortune has touched my heart so, just between you and me (and, please, don’t tell my supervisor) I’m going to approve those benefits.”
The other side of this coin is equally relevant, however. I expect the company to provide nothing less than to what it’s contractually obligated. I understand that their goal is to minimize capital expenditures and doing so requires a certain amount of belligerence to ensure that abuses aren’t taking place. But we’ve got a deal—we both signed. If there’s a covered benefit, well, they lost the bet. Tough.
Yet the healthcare debate in Washington these days seems to be taking place with the notion that insurance companies are “healthcare” companies, whose primary purpose is to provide access to healthcare. How can an insurance company make money for its share holders if it can’t cap certain expenses? If there is no way to control costs, they would, theoretically, have to charge exorbitant premiums to allow for such possibilities. Personally, I’m not prepared to pay the premiums required to make that math work. I take a certain measure of responsibility on my end of the arrangement–I pay a limited premium for limited coverage. I eat right and exercise to limit the chances of uncovered health needs.
I’m surprised that I haven’t heard more outrage from the insurance companies; even to the point of threatening to go out of business. I don’t understand how they will be able to run their business given the proposals that are being bandied about in the name of healthcare reform. 
It would be as if Congress suddenly told GMAC that even though their customers are only making payments on Chevy Cobalt, GMAC had to provide them with a Cadillac Escalade to drive.
We ought to proceed cautiously where healthcare reform reaches beyond healthcare companies. Insurance is but one means of PAYING for healthcare, but it is a limited contract arrangement. Expecting more from insurance companies would fundamentally change their mission. Smart people may decide that there is still money to be made in a new system, but it’s wrong of us to assume that companies will continue to operate in a new system with outdated methods.
There are many unknowns in the healthcare debate. One thing we do know is that companies will find a way to make a profit or they will go out of business. Assumptions about the future and who might facilitate implementation must include a realistic assessment of the players involved and their motives.
The debate over the legality of gay marriage is an excellent place to explore how the traditional relationship between political parties and various demographic voting blocs muddies the waters when evaluating appropriate public policy.
Theodore Olson is a lawyer. He has long been a friend of Republicans. He defended President Bush’s counterterrorism policies after 9/11 and he argued the election case before the Supreme Court that put George Bush in the White House in 2000. Yet today, he is preparing to argue on behalf of gay marriage in California and against the Constitutional amendment California voters passed banning same sex marriage.
Why are conservatives so up in arms? Because conservatism is so closely associated with traditional Judeo-Christian values in general, and more specifically today’s conservative movement seems inexorably tied to the religious right.
As both a traditional conservative and a Christian, I often find interesting dichotomies in my own viewpoints. What I sometimes would like to see happen as a Christian, I can’t support as public policy because I understand and value the provisions captured within our founding documents. Yet, I also find that the courts often place so much emphasis on “making no law respecting the establishment of religion” that the result “prohibits the free exercise thereof,” a fact that enrages my sensibilities.
I find similar tension in my thoughts on the issue of gay marriage (and I’ll ignore the second order effect of child-rearing for the time being). As a Christian, I do not favor gay marriage. I find the biblical position against homosexuality clear and unambiguous, as I do the Judeo-Christian understanding of a marriage being between one man and one woman. 
However, if I am honestly trying to live out a new-testament lifestyle consistent with Jesus’ words as recorded in Mathew 5-7, I discover that I am compelled to a pursue a position of grace and compassion towards those who don’t value biblical mandates even if I disagree—nay, particularly if I disagree—with the attendant behaviors.
As an American, though, setting aside my Christian beliefs, I (a) don’t expect that non-Christians would universally accept the foundation of a biblical argument on the subject; (b) believe the federal government should trespass into the lives of citizens as infrequently as possible; and (c) believe all citizens have the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness–which may well be the most basic synopsis of The American Dream—and that the role of government is to secure those rights for its citizens.
I have frequently bemoaned the lack of creativity within the Republican Party and taken it to task for its more PRE-servative positions, as opposed to authentically CON-servative positions. So it is not without precedent that I ponder the issue at hand with an eye towards reconciliation between what might otherwise be considered antithetical positions.
Allow me to explore the following thought: what if all couples wishing to be joined in a manner that afforded rights of legal partnerships had to be accomplished through a civil union? That is, what if the term “marriage” lost its legal meaning, while retaining (and, in fact, advancing) its original meaning as a joining by God of one man to one woman? A civil union, then, limited to no more than two people and restricting individuals from being involved in more than one at any given time would afford all the legal rights we currently find attached to the traditional definition of marriage. They would be enacted by the same civil officials currently permitted to administer their creation.
As such, the law would require that couples be not “married,” the very concept of which finds its basis in the biblical texts and thus comes burdened with biblical definitions and practices, but rather legally united. Many Americans– though certainly not a majority– don’t subscribe to biblical definitions and practices, so why should they be held to them, unless they had been outlined in our founding documents (they were not). In fact, it might be argued (though I hope it never is) that the legal requirement for “marriage” to create tax favored partnerships constitutes an unconstitutional law respecting the establishment of religion.
Couples for whom “marriage” is important could still seek to be “married” in the traditional sense. In fact, church weddings, performed by church officiants would constitute the simultaneous creation of the legally required civil union, while also establishing the Godly bond created by the church ceremony.
In this idea, all couples are required to create the same legal partnership regardless of religion or sexual orientation. Couples for whom religious issues are of great importance (the majority of Americans, in fact) still have a vehicle to create those partnerships and are not additionally burdened in any way given that churches would be authorized to simultaneously create the civil unions in question. This ought to satisfy the “nor prohibit the free exercise thereof” crowd (that would be me).
Likewise, those in favor of permitting the same legal status to same sex couples would find the law to be blind to the gender composition of these partnerships.
As an American and a Christian I find no fault with this proposition. I can’t see that it diminishes the value of marriage, in fact it reinforces it for what it is and recognizes and respects its heritage. Additionally, it provides an agnostic means of administering the tax-favored partnerships to which many same sex couples want access.
My father used to say, “Drex, this is America. You have every right to be wrong.” Indeed. Conserving the right of ALL Americans to pursue happiness is one I cherish, even if I disagree with the means of their pursuit.
Those who find fault herein might ask themselves if Constitutional amendments, like California’s, aren’t just another big-government solution to an individual problem—ineffective evangelism. As an American, I would just assume that governments not attempt to do for me that which I ought to be doing on my own.
Unlocking the key to success in the healthcare debate means understanding failure much more than it entails understanding healthcare.
Whatever our Congress conjures up is NOT going to be the healthcare panacea they want us to believe it will be. Citizens and legislators must understand this. Ponder their undertaking: do you really think that our federal legislators can create a one size fits all, national healthcare plan that is fully successful on the first attempt? As you mull that around for a moment, allow me to refer you to…. (Drum roll please) ….No Child Left Behind.
NCLB could be defined as a very successful FIRST START. Unfortunately, President Bush, in his last State of the Union Address, asked us to believe the program wildly successful as it stands. (Even Laura doesn’t believe that.) However, if President Bush had asked us to consider that NCLB represents a success because we have learned a lot from it, then that would be an entirely different matter. At the very least, the program has developed excellent metrics, and it has demonstrated initiatives that DIDN’T work and so should not be replicated. There is much in the failures of NCLB on which President Obama can build.
Frustration comes from unmet expectations. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is a good example. The Administration and Congress are already considering a second stimulus. Does our predisposition towards instant gratification know no bounds? Huge portions of the first stimulus remain unspent, yet we appear ready to conclude that a) the stimulus was ineffective; and b) that even though it was ineffective we should do it AGAIN. Notwithstanding the premature conclusion on the efficacy of the first stimulus, if I grant the premise I’m more inclined to conclude that the initial plan as flawed conceptually and definitely should not be repeated.
If Congress asks the public to believe that the healthcare plan they eventually hoist upon us is the final solution, two expectations are set: first, there will be the expectation by Congress that they must continually tell us how fantastic the new healthcare system is, at the expense of making required changes. Congress will be constantly “selling” their plan to Americans rather than evaluating it for ways to make improvements. Second, Americans will be frustrated because we will see the inefficiencies and problems and will be left with little optimism that tweaks and modifications are forthcoming, particularly in the face of a self-congratulatory Congress.
Congress must acknowledge that with the Bill’s passage comes the realization that healthcare reform will be a PROCESS RATHER THAN AN EVENT. Of course, saying that aloud would be self-defeating. Americans would know that tweaks are coming, creating barriers to investment in the new healthcare system limiting its effectiveness. This is, in part, why healthcare implementation should be left to the states.
Congress should play to its strengths: collecting money. Its strength does not rest in creating and managing national service programs. The states, however, are much better (though not outstanding) at understanding the needs of their residents. State implementation pushes the healthcare debate closer to the people and to governments more responsive to the people than a national system would.
Additionally, it allows for the simultaneous implementation of 50 separate healthcare experiments. Best practices will be derived. Lessons will be learned. States can make subsequent modifications to their own plans based on the success (or failure) of other states’ plans. Fifty smaller programs will be easier to initiate, more nimble to manage, and quicker to change.
Making implementation the responsibility of the States also serves to isolate Congress from accountability and it leaves open the opportunity to create a subsequent National Healthcare System should a States emphasis be a resounding failure. But, if it comes to that, the National System will benefit from the results of 50 prior experiments and the Congress will be able to say that their first instinct was NOT socialist, but federalist in nature.
The Democrats seem determined to push legislation through despite the objections of Blue Dog Democrats and many Republicans. Any plan that is not bipartisan in nature means that the Democrats will have no one with whom to share the blame when version 1.0 flops. Their plan should not only co-opt Republicans but co-opt the States and Americans at large, in order to share responsibility and accountability.
Congress’s role should be two-fold: develop a national means to collect funds that will be extended to the States in order to fund their programs (perhaps a national sales tax); and develop a set of guidelines that each state program must include. Those guidelines ought to provide coverage for all uninsured children; protection against financial ruin due to a major illness or accident; the ability to obtain coverage regardless of a preexisting condition; coverage that continues even when people are laid off, change jobs, move to another state or start their own business; premiums, deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses that are affordable relative to family income; and the ability to keep current health coverage if desired.
Congress in general and the Democrats specifically, are so busy trying to demonstrate their genius that they will miss the opportunity to truly impress us—with their humility. George Patten said, “Never tell people how to do things; tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.” President Truman similarly noted that “It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit.” Our Congress ought to heed these two philosophies and empower and entrust the people and the states to do for themselves.
It’s true that failure is not an option: it’s an inevitability. A federalist approach, vis-à-vis the socialist boondoggle on the table, creates 50 opportunities for success, and more importantly 50 opportunities to learn from our inevitable missteps. The success of healthcare reform rests not in what Congress produces in the coming months, but rather how well Congress incorporates mechanisms to respond to the shortcomings of their foresight.
Failure, rather than being avoided, should be embraced.
In SEINLANGUAGE, Jerry Seinfeld posed this question: If professional wrestling had not already been invented would you have the foresight to create a multi-million dollar business around steroid-using behemoths in spandex pretending to beat each other senseless? Good question and in my case the answer is probably “no.”
Herein lies part of my affection for America—this country allows people to turn the most ridiculous, arcane interests into multi-million dollar businesses exploiting the vagaries of human personality that exist within a society blessed with too much disposable income. BEAUTIFUL!
This is also how I’ve been feeling about PETA lately. These guys are geniuses. They have taken the compassionate disposition of people towards animals and turned it into a $35 million a year business. They even have the marketing savvy to use scantily clad models to advance their interests. Why didn’t I think of it?
In order to maximize profits for PETA’s directors, PETA is established as a non-profit organization in Delaware with exactly three members. The three members on the board of directors, under Delaware law, are the only people with the right to vote for the board, remove directors for cause and examine the corporate books. BRILLIANT!
Fundamentally, I appreciate the work of animal rights organizations and tree-hugging, spotted-owl saving non-profits. Look, I freely acknowledge that when I go camping their crazy environmental extremism facilitates my good experience. The outdoors is a better place to be, in part, because they fight to protect it—I just don’t want to be one of them. Likewise, as an American, I am damn glad that there are young men and women who want to be Marines. I’m glad that they are willing to hurl themselves into harm’s way on my behalf. My life as an American is better for the work they do—I just don’t want to be one. I, like most Americans, am perfectly happy living at the top of the bell curve or on the windward side of normalcy or the leeward slope of interesting. I’m content to leave the flat plains of “radical” and “cuckoo” to others. But I appreciate what they bring to my life. 
It seems to me there are just enough environmentalists and just enough Marines. I don’t need to enlist in either cause; I can simply be thankful for their work and appreciate the fruits of their efforts. We can change the world if we stop trying to change each other.
Now, though, PETA’s greed is jeopardizing their longevity. The business has become the business. PETA is focused on creating awareness for their organization to the exclusion of their core product–animal rights. Records show that PETA placed only one out of every 300 animals in its care in 2008 and killed 95% of the dogs and cats in their care. Rather, they prefer to sell their name as a “seal of approval” to some organizations and extort others with fear tactics. They have attacked MasterCard but developed a revenue producing partnership with Visa. They have attacked IAMS dog food but developed a profit sharing arrangement with makers of holistic pet food. They tell us not to drink milk, wear leather or support medical research on rats, then kill 95% of the animals in their care.
I’m no business man, but even I can tell you if this is PETA’s MO they ought to remain under the radar: identify the target market, keep the profits reasonable and don’t attract undue attention. In my mind, this should probably include NOT chastising the President of the United States for killing a fly. Yes, PETA is over reaching just a teensy bit at this point. And THIS I don’t get. You’ve got Christina Applegate naked and $35 million: why rock the boat?
What I know about animal rights you could fit into a thimble and have room left over for a six-pack. I’m sure animal cruelty takes place and we need to look no further than Michael Vick for evidence. I was blissfully unaware that such barbarism took place and even more blissfully unaware that any moron could defend it by calling it “cultural.” (So was slavery.)
Recently, PETA was protesting the treatment of circus elephants. A PETA worker had spent six months undercover as a stagehand with the circus and made a video tape of elephant trainers striking the elephants with whips and using bull hooks to get them on stage (ed note: I thought trainers just asked the elephants nicely.) I’m not saying this is cruel. I’m not saying it’s not. I’m saying I am not personally worked up about it either way.
What I do get worked up about is hypocrisy. I’m not really down with PETA asking me to care about elephant cruelty while they wantonly disregard the well-being of other animals already in their care.
On the upside, I don’t need to do anything about it: they’re so busy shooting themselves in the foot that a deadly infection is a virtual certainty. In the meantime, let’s see what the NSPCA is up to.
Those in favor of systemic healthcare reforms will tell you that our current healthcare system is unfair. A June 6, 2009, NY Times editorial noted, “to abandon the goal of universal coverage…. would be unfair to the 46 million uninsured Americans….”
It’s time to pause and define our terms as we consider what kind of national healthcare system we want in this country, and the forthcoming August Congressional recess gives Congress and Americans alike that very opportunity.
At issue is the difference between EQUALITY and FAIRNESS. Our common American interest in equality stems from one of the best known phrases in our founding documents: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal….” Equality, as noted here, does not guarantee equality of experience, but rather equality of opportunity. All men are CREATED equal, the preamble to the Declaration of Independence says. This is a declaration concerning the immutable value of every human citizen and a promise of opportunity unconstrained by prejudice, not a promise concerning quality of life.
The attendant rights associated with this valuation of human life are that all men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (not prosperity, housing and healthcare). Our unalienable rights deal with the process of the American experience. There is no promise of success or guarantee of reward. What we are granted, as Americans, is EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY, not equality of experience. Governments established on the precepts of equality of experience are defined as communist—the sharing of collective resources for the utilization of the group. Is equality of experience what we want in America?
Is it UNfair that some Americans have health insurance and some do not? It is UNFORTUNATE, but it is not UNFAIR. What’s UNFAIR is the current financing mechanisms under consideration in Congress for healthcare.
Is it fair that someone would study hard and get good grades in high school so that he can go to college, where he studies hard and gets good grades so that he can get a good job with health benefits, and then to have his salary taxed so that those who have squandered those same opportunities might have EQUAL benefits? These Robin Hood economics are fundamentally UNFAIR. Fairness would ensure equal reward for equal investment. What Congress is considering is equal reward for disparate investment.
The United States has many problems and is not without its faults. Yet many, many citizens find ways to take advantage of the opportunities they are afforded. A free, appropriate public education is afforded to all American children. 
Thousands of youths every year, in the very worst public schools, are able to work hard and use the education they are provided to get into college where new opportunities await. Meanwhile, many of their peers choose to be victims, forfeiting the opportunities they have because they perceive their opportunities aren’t equal to opportunities afforded to other segments of American society. Notwithstanding the veracity of the latter, the real shame is that they cannot see what they’re forfeiting. Yet, as adults, these same individuals cry out because they do not have benefits that others have. They do not have those benefits because they have not earned those benefits.
No one wants life to be fair; they want it to be unfair in their favor. Any future healthcare system should perpetuate the historical American understanding of EQUALITY and FAIRNESS—what is FAIR is that all Americans have equal opportunity. Ensuring equal access to a system that provides incentives for hard work and disincentives for sloth is in keeping with American values. There should be varying degrees of healthcare coverage to reflect the vary degrees of investment individuals make in obtaining those benefits. There should be extra reward for extra work.
As it turns out, the fairest system is also the least equal. I’m comfortable with that.
There are little nuisances in life; and there are BIG nuisances. The bigger nuisances usually make my heart flutter and my stomach churn: I can’t get my mind off of them and I am constantly angling in my head for ways to avoid them.
There was much about the recent nomination hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor that left me feeling uneasy. (The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a vote for Tuesday and her confirmation is all but assured.) In hindsight, most of that unease is reactionary and emotional.
I, like most people I’m sure, understand the importance of the Supreme Court Justices. With their lifetime appointments, they have the ability to greatly affect America’s strength and longevity. I am in no way surprised by President Obama’s nomination. For better or for worse, Sotomayor’s confirmation will have little anticipated effect on the Court’s operation and leanings. She is expected to take the ideological place of the same judge whose position on the court she is assuming—David Souter. Souter, though nominated by George H.W. Bush and assumed to be a conservative at the time, was a part of the Court’s left-leaning axis, along with Justices Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer.
Justice Souter’s departure left me pondering whimsically what could have been if only a different president was making the nomination. Evaluating Sotomayor against the hypothetical is what made my stomach feel as if I’d had ten tequila shots last night. But watching the hearings left me with no such nausea: in fact, just the opposite. Because she delivered much of what I expected, I had little frustration, and I was free to evaluate the proceedings on a different level.
What struck me most, and left me feeling both confident and nauseous about the state of the Republic, was the emphasis on our Constitution. This should be no surprise—this is, in fact, the job of a Supreme Court justice.
Many inquisitors cloaked their partisan questions in a Constitutional light; that they felt compelled to do so reinforces the importance of the Constitution in the conduct of our government. No matter what the intent of the question, or the politics of its asker, the very fact that Republicans and Democrats alike paid homage to our Constitution in this manner is evidence of the shared values of Americans from both parties. It reminds me that our shared love for this document and belief in its perpetuation and application serve to unite us as Americans more than divide us as partisans.
But unease churned my stomach when I noted how infrequently Constitutional dialogue is included when other legislation is created. Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) brought a Constitutional emphasis to last year’s Presidential election but his message was lost amidst his screeching, nearly hysterical delivery. Heaven forbid Congressman Paul is ever in charge of anything, but I wish he had a place on the President’s team. Maybe he could hold an honorary position in the President’s entourage. He could just sit quietly in the back of the room until his strident adherence to the Constitution was needed. Whether it should be heeded or not would remain the providence of key decision makers, but it would be nice to know that the Constitution itself was explicitly afforded a hearing in the policy making process.
The daily news, with its Red State/Blue State graphics, and the juxtapositions of FoxNews and MSNBC or NPR and the EIB Network can leave one with the impression that this country is one poorly timed shooting away from another civil war. But the confirmation hearings brought out the very best of the American political system—differing viewpoints on how to achieve a common objective: support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
The Sotomayor hearings showed me once again that the American Gospel is that those whom the Constitution serves value it above all else. Too many Sotomayor-like nominees will make me wretch, indeed. But the Court remains in balance for a variety of reasons and I can’t help but think that its current teeter is in keeping with American opinion. So, for today, I am not concerned about Justice Sotomayor. Neither am I thrilled. But, and this is more important, I am optimistic about the American form of government and its viability for the 21st century because its real strength lies in those it serves. Now it’s our job to demand that Congress heed the Constitution as much during the health care debate as they did during the Sotomayor hearings.
Last Wednesday (July 16, 2009) a California regulatory board elected to not place Bisphenol A (BPA) on a list of products that may cause harm to unborn babies. The panel, comprised of seven physicians, concluded that BPA should not be covered under Proposition 65, which compels regulators to identify substances that can cause birth defects, developmental or reproductive harm. 
BPA is commonly used to harden plastics and as a metal coating; and the concern of mothers is that children are being exposed to BPA from plastic baby bottles. Of course, unless the mothers are ingesting their first trimester chardonnay from rubber-nippled baby bottles, I am at a loss to see how Proposition 65 advances their position. But in an effort to be sensitive to their concerns, I’ll grant them some scientific license.
Few groups are as prone to being alarmist and overly concerned with unproven, hypothetical, far fetched scenarios as first-time parents.
If I may? A baby’s pacifier hits the floor. In the next few moments I can tell with 97.3% accuracy (I made that up, but it’s close, I’m sure) how many children the parents have. 
If this is the first child the parent will pick up the paci, sterilize it and give Jr. a new fresh one. If this is the second child, the parent will run the pacifier under hot water and return it to the child. If this is child #3, the parent will lick the paci clean and return it to the baby. If it’s the fourth child the parent will simply replace the pacifier in the kid’s mouth. If it’s the fifth-born child, well, polite company doesn’t discuss the horribly anti-hygienic behaviors parents of fifth children engage in: suffice it to say that fifth children possess immunities mere mortals can only dream of having.
BPA has become the hot new topic among young mothers– joining the GSA, YMCA
and ”who’s YOUR maid” , even though according to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard 
Assessment 92.6 percent of people have detectable levels of BPA. (One assumes that this also means that 92.6% of nursing mothers contain BPA, an irony lost on BPA’s detractors lest they be forced to demand breast feeding be considered under Prop 65 as well.) But when a well watered seed finds itself in fertile soil rapid growth is unavoidable. And the water has been pouring in from those hoping to profit from the panic.
BornFree is the manufacturer of BPA free baby bottles begging $5.50 a pop from pop’s pocket. Originally sold in Whole Foods markets a few years ago, BornFree is now moving more than one million each year and is looking for a bigger piece of the baby bottle market, an industry selling more than 60 million bottles annually. BornFree’s CEO, Ron Vigdor has enlisted the help of Fenton Communications, which has experience with anti-BPA campaigns, to help transmit the evils of BPA and drive up demand for BPA free bottles.
Honestly? I don’t object to Mr. Vigdor’s aggressive tactics–it’s just business in America–half-truths and quibbles used to create business opportunities. The entire marketing machine of American business exists to convince us that we NEED that which we previously were doing quite well without.
What I DO object to is preying on the fears of the weakest members of society, in this case new parents, a group too often inclined to misdiagnose the common cold as the bubonic plague (and usually at 3:00 in the morning much to the delight of pediatricians). Leave these poor folks alone–there will be plenty of time to scare them about the BPA in their kids’ dental fillings or coating their can of organic peanut sprouts.
Time will tell how smart Sarah Palin is. Her position on the Republican ticket last fall was very polarizing. Core Republicans were apologists for her credentials and style, arguing that she was an experienced leader ready for the national stage. Others saw her as an inexperienced, unpolished, unprepared governor of a small state ready to be a national stooge.
I like what her selection said about the GOP—that it was willing to take a risk and look to an up and coming generation for new leadership. Many others within the GOP felt the same way. She was fresh and exciting. Her arrival was the best possible outcome for a blind date set up by a friend with historically bad taste. She was witty, attractive and engaging. But is she marriage material?
For those who were and might still be enamored with Ms. Palin, it’s time to study this objectively. There’s no need to defend the indefensible just to prove that you were right last fall. The election is over; it’s time to reflect on Sarah Palin thoughtfully and honestly as you look to the future.
Unless Ms. Palin fades quietly into the background (not likely), she has two choices: she can pursue the presidency or she can capitalize on her political celebrity. If she chooses the former, I’m afraid she’s going to discover that she is the Republican equivalent of Greg Brady’s “Johnny Bravo.”
Greg and his five siblings were auditioning for a talent show. As good as the ensemble was (gag me), talent agent Tami Rogers spotted Greg and singled him out for a promising solo career as Johnny Bravo, complete with a groovy, bullfighter/disco chic uniform. Greg decided to postpone college and leave his family behind only to discover that the record label was “sweetening” his songs and that, ultimately, he had been chosen because he fit the suit. Greg’s vanity and self-importance allowed him to believe he was more than he really was.
Sarah Palin had one shining moment–her VP acceptance speech (any doubts that the speech was “sweetened” by a team of Republican linguists and word smiths?). Otherwise, I think it’s accurate to say that Senator McCain selected her because she “fit the suit.” She was a woman to run against Obama’s blackness; she was outdoorsy, Christian, and neo-conservative. On a ticket quickly losing relevance, she was the perfect choice—the right woman at the right time.
Since that speech, Ms. Palin has had multiple opportunities to get smart on the issues and to develop strong positions on how government can help America move forward. Yet time after time she disappoints. We heard during the campaign that she often wasn’t well educated on the issues, choosing, rather, to wing-it.
Honestly, I could live with that, IF (and it’s a big IF) she explicitly stated that her approach to leadership is to rely on strong core convictions and values that provide a specific vision for America and that she surrounds herself with experts who provide her a broad range of non-partisan advice from which she chooses solutions, programs, and initiatives which support her convictions and values. She might well say something like, “As Governor of Alaska it hasn’t been my job to deal with and understand foreign policy in the Middle East; but let me tell you about the things I believe in that will guide my administration’s actions in that region. I believe in American exceptionalism. I believe that people worldwide have a God given right to certain liberties. It is not important that other governments pursue and apply democracy the same way we do in America. What is important is that individuals are able to determine their nation’s form of government for themselves and to have certain human rights afforded to them. America’s role is facilitating the promulgation of liberty and self-determination.”
In this case she is saying 1) I don’t know; 2) It’s ok that I don’t know—it’s not my job to know; but 3) if given a chance here’s what I believe. It’s not just an answer it’s an entirely new leadership style. It’s not important that she HAS the solution or that she can create one in isolation. What is important is that when given options she is WILLING and ABLE to make hard decisions that are consistent with core principles. This could have been her way-ahead—play to her strengths.
Instead, she has bumbled and fumbled her way through virtually every personal appearance since Minneapolis. She hasn’t expressed well-defined core principles. She hasn’t been honest about her approach to governance and she hasn’t gotten smart on the issues.
We need to also face the facts about her situation—as a losing vice-presidential candidate the odds are against her. In recent memory, only Bob Dole and Walter Mondale have gone on win their party’s next nomination and they were both running against strong incumbent President’s (Clinton and Reagan, respectively).
If Sarah Palin were to win the GOP nomination in 2012 that would tell me something entirely different about the GOP and not at all flattering. Her nomination would be the last chapter of the book on modern republicanism that began with Reagan’s 1964 speech supporting Barry Goldwater. It would be a tombstone for the GOP as we know it; an epitaph. While I believe those things are necessary, I don’t think Republicans need to wait eight years to reinvent themselves. Let the loss in 2008 be the end and Sarah Palin’s nomination was just the last gasp effort for survival; a fitting climax to the end of an era.
Ms. Palin’s other option, as laid out by daughter Bristol Palin’s former fiancé, is to make money. At this, I think Ms. Palin could be wildly successful. She could become a professional fundraiser, speaker, talk radio host or Fox News talking head. The support she already has likely would afford her access and sway in a variety of fields for which she’d be well compensated. It would be both humble (quietly acknowledging her inability to become president) and self-serving.
I have no problem with people benefiting from their experiences. Turning one opportunity into a fortune is the American way. I don’t begrudge Daniel Radcliff his multi-millions just because he looked like Harry Potter and happened to be 11 years old at the right time in pop-culture history.
This is the Madonna School of Marketing: be outrageous and be visible. It’s a well-worn path and it plays to her strengths. But it would require accurate self-assessment even to her discredit.
Ms. Palin’s my age. With any luck at all she spent her afternoons as a child plopped in front of the TV taking in the folksy lessons of The Brady Bunch, now prepared to make a better decision than Greg.
Columbus Day
How did you spend your Columbus Day? I had no luck talking my family into caroling through the neighborhood singing traditional Italian sailing songs of Indian oppression. Sigh.
MNF: Jon Gruden
I like what Jon Gruden is doing on Monday Night Football tonight. Sure it's only the first night, but I like his perspective, his input and his delivery. Let's see if it lasts.
House Resolution 204
Yes we can. Yes we can. Yes we can.
Just when you thought your Congress wasn't doing anything. When you thought them inept, embroiled in bureaucracy and piddly partisan politics, they came together--424 to nothing. That's right. Zip. Nada. Nothing. No dissents. No food for thought. Just unanimity.
What, pray tell, could bring about such consensus? What could cause bitter enemies to set aside their rancor and think of the country first and not their own selfish interests?
I give you House Resolution 204. Introduced March 3. Passed May 13. Sponsored by Republican Michael Simpson from Idaho.
Doesn't he have a lovely smile?
The full text is here http://www.govtrack.us/congress/ billtext.xpd?bill=hr111-204.
But let me summarize. Our Congress is, Congratulating the American Dental Association for its 150th year of working to improve the public's oral health and promoting dentistry, supporting initiatives to improve access to oral health care services for all Americans, and emphasizing the benefits of prevention of disease through support of community prevention initiatives and promotion of good oral hygiene."
Isn't change good?
The Lasting Effect of Sarah Palin
I, for one, have been wondering about the LASTING effect of Sarah Palin.
Would she have any lasting effect on the American political landscape or would she just be the political equivalent of Max Headroom?
Ms. Palin was probably beginning to think, based on her speaking slot at CPAC, that she was losing all her momentum. Au contraire. I have noticed a new trend in men's fashion eye wear that I hope Ms. Palin will be happy about.
Given the fickle nature of fashion, I seriously doubt that this is the kind of thing the GOP can turn into increased voter turnout or use to create crossover appeal with democrats. But given the state of the GOP today, they should be happy with any influence on American lives, no matter how trivial.
DUPLICITY
Just a fun thing to look for. I recently went to see Duplicity starring Julia Roberts and Clive Owen. I enjoyed the movie but what I enjoyed most was the portrayal of two rival CEOs, the heads of Companies Burkett and Randall and Equikrom being fashioned in the likeness of Cosmo Spacely—Spacely Sprockets
and Henry Cogswell—Cogswell Cogs.
The Duplicity CEOs were played by Paul Giamatti and Tom Wilkinson.
As for the movie, let the memory of your childhood guide your prognostications.
Joe Biden: Oh Dear, What a Mess
For thinking people, I can't imagine any favorable response to Joe Biden's acceptance speech Wednesday night. First off, compared with the quality of speech making skills, former President Bill Clinton and Senator Clinton are clearly the cream of the crop. President Clinton's speech, like his wife's, was a flawlessly delivered effort and deserves much praise in that regard. If you make public appearances, tape and dissect these efforts. Joe Biden stumbled through his speech like an amputee in quicksand by comparison.
But on the more important substantive issues, it was full of contradictions and misleading statements. He talked about being knocked down as a child and how his mother taught him to pick himself up. (Great lesson) Later, though, he lamented that at a time when so many Americans have been knocked down, Washington has done so little to help them get back up. (I thought, Senator, the point was to learn to pick YOURSELF up.)
He talked about how the most important aspect of work is that it provides the benefit of dignity and respect to Americans; but he then prattled on about how the work people have doesn't pay enough.
He talked about how tax breaks for corporations, which McCain supports, send jobs overseas. No, Joe, they don't. Tax breaks for corporations brings jobs home; companies have been sending jobs overseas because it already costs TOO MUCH to do business within the US.
He talked about a "promise that their tomorrow will be better than their yesterday." Who is making that promise, Senator? Only we can make our tomorrow better. Government can't and if government is promising that, and Americans want that, then this is the discussion that we should be having in America.
He quoted John McCain on Afghanistan from 3 years ago and Barack Obama on Afghanistan from 1 year ago. Why not break out a quote from McCain on Georgia from years ago and a quote from Obama on Georgia from last week?
Viewers of this speech who pay attention to his words, will not have been impressed with the content or the medium. Hillary’s DNC Speech
You've got to give credit where credit is due: Hillary Clinton is an excellent orator. She DELIVERED that speech extremely well. James Carville seemed ready to serve papers on his wife Mary and propose immediately to the NY Senator. Gushing though he was, Mr. Carville was dead on. Hillary Clinton can give a speech and she made those who preceded her look amateurish.
However, the speech itself probably did little. She certainly had nothing to say that might sway Republicans to rethink their party affiliation. Furthermore, absent too were talking points that independents might find attractive. The speech seemed to have two purposes. First, convince her supporters to vote for Obama. But who else were they going to vote for? Those people involved enough in politics to be at or watch on tv the DNC convention are also likely to be people who will value their vote and not stay at home. Those who might elect not to vote at all, certainly were not in attendance and might well have been watching America's Got Talent and missed the speech completely.
Secondly, and more importantly to Mrs. Clinton, the speech was littered with reminders of why she should remain relevant in the Democratic Party. This was a "You Picked the Wrong Guy" speech.
Will we remember her or this speech in 4 or 8 years? I suspect not. The speech didn't brand itself with any tag lines that might survive the next few years. But it was a hell of an effort.FREEDOM and LIBERTY
Bert Hornbeck had an interesting blog recently. In it he noted that, “Free” is a very important word, and “freedom” is very different from “liberty.” The immediate root of “liberty” is the Latin LIBER—which also gives us “libido” and “libation.” “Libido” has to do with desire; “libations” are outpourings, from the Greek.[ii] “Liberty” is a do-my-own-thing word; it has nothing to do with the idea of society. “Free,” however, is a friendly word—literally, historically. “Friend” comes into English from the Germanic FREI, which means dear, or beloved. “Free,” remarkably enough, comes into English at about the same time—in perhaps the eighth century—from exactly the same root. The understanding in both “friend” and “free” is what we call love: the relation of self with what self holds dear. As “friend” becomes “free,” it makes the idea of freedom social. It says that you can’t be free by yourself.
I believe not attending to these differences is the cause of the apparent divide in American thought. True conservatism (not that practiced by the Republicans) understands the importance of relationships between people and values those relationships over the individual. The whole is indeed greater than the sum of the parts. Liberal ideology seeks to raise the needs and desires of the individual above the collective good. This is where the Libertarians lose most Americans. Intuitively, Americans sense the error of the "my liberty is more important than the collective good" ethos and shun the movement. Neither the modern Democratic Party nor the Republican Party has found a way to tap into the American belief in Freedom while simultaneously bonding us to society. This is the time for Democratic and Republican ideologies to be replaced by less "me" centered thinking and our nation should return to its ideological roots, which means that we understand our obligation to each other to value and defend each other's freedom, not just our own.National Democratic Do-over
If the Democrats were acting rationally as Democrats, the super delegates would quit dancing for the man and look seriously at Hillary Clinton at this point.
The Democratic support that the super delegates are so keen on being a part of should be viewed as something of a mirage. What would the delegate count be if the events of the last month had taken place in December? Would Obama have as much support as he does now? Would he be the presumed candidate? And yet the Obama of today is the one the Democrats are likely to insist represents their party. The Obama that sees middle America as "clingers," the Obama that wouldn't repudiate Wright but is now quite right to repudiate, this is the Obama that will face McCain in November. For a party as down on America as this one, an Obama nomination seems awfully optimistic. Perhaps, it's not just Michigan and Florida that need a do-over: perhaps the Democrats ought to have a national do-over.Obama’s Global Poverty Act
It might be too strong to say "All things" global bother me, but it's not far from the truth. Obama's support of this bill is indicative of my major concern of his candidacy.
Sure he's liberal. Liberal we can handle. Heck even socialist we can handle. We have systems in place to deal with presidential initiatives which we ultimately don't approve of. But relinquishing any control to any kind of world organization is very troubling. Being outside of our borders and constitution, we could find ourselves subject to a body we don't agree with and yet have few ways to get out from under its jurisdiction. This is a slippery slope. I fear Obama's need to be liked and validated will prompt him to try to enter the U.S. into many global initiatives.Talk of a Declining Obama Campaign
For all the talk of the demise of the GOP, this campaign seems more and more to foretell the demise of the Democrats.
Hillary, despite her belief that her ascension has been preordained, has a low ceiling and a high floor. Obama continues to manifest himself as a divisive candidate, creating his own new voting demographic within his party, one that surely will never be as influential as, say, the evangelicals have been for the GOP. It is no wonder that Clinton supporters would sooner vote for McCain, the two have significantly more in common and, to their credit, Clinton supporters can see through the audacity of hype. The sad fact for the democrats is that these two represented the best the Democrats had to offer. Perhaps it is a tacit admission of poor policy that the Democrats chose two candidates who are best known for their celebrity status and not their policies or experience. If the policy postulates of the democrats had more merit, a "celebrity" wouldn't have be needed to endorse those policies.Cynical on Cyrus
Miley Cyrus is apparently now "embarrassed" about her Annie Liebovitz. photo in the upcoming Vanity Fair.
I'm afraid I just don't believe that her feelings are the result of poorly timed contemplation. My understanding is that the family was present for the photo shoot and got to see the picture in advance. They liked it and moved on. NOW all of a sudden Miley is embarrassed? These are smart people familiar with the media. I, of course, have no inside information, this is just my opinion, but it would appear she wants to have her cake and eat it too: do the photo shoot (be edgy, become known to new demographics) and then make a heartfelt apology to appease the core fan group.The Democrats Jimmy Carter Problem
To extrapolate from Carter's experience, an intelligent Democratic candidate might surmise that meetings with despots around the world is a bad idea, at home and abroad.
Is Obama smart enough to see the error of his proposal to meet with such foreign leaders? Probably not. Too impressed with his own palaver, he'll stand by his words. But can McCain and the GOP make the same connection and exploit Carter's follies as empirical evidence that they were correct in postulating what such visits from US dignitaries would bring about?Faustian Economics by Wendell Berry
If you are not a subscriber to Haper's Magazine, I highly recommend you venture out to the book store of your choice and pick up a copy of the May issue so you can read Wendell Berry's excellent article "Faustian Economics" which is no where near as boring as the title would imply (sorry WB).
His words address the inherently conservative values (not republican--conservative) most Americans believe in. But he also points out that while we believe in them, we don't LIVE them. His article can be, and should be, a call for personal change. It will be an exciting read for the number of times you exclaim (too loudly for those sipping coffee nearby) "Yes!" Although, if I'm honest, it is depressing on a national scale because I know most Americans act on their immediate desires and not on the values they hold most sacred. But, in the end, change starts at home.
Drexel Kleber
-
-
