A couple of days ago I wrote that Obama probably does not have “the kind of arrogance that will make him prey to [the] sort of hubris” that makes him forget power in Washington is not so much held as derived from others. I added that I sensed “a salubrious cynicism in him.”
He wrought brilliantly to resurrect health care reform from the dead and get it through the House. Even those who don’t like him or the bill have to hand him that! Getting the bill passed required a masterpiece of political statesmanship.
George Bush demonstrated it when he got his tax cuts through; Reagan displayed it when he pushed Reaganomics through a Democratic Senate; Clinton flaunted it time after time with both Democratic and Republican Congresses. LBJ and Nixon both had the knack.
Now, for the first time in his presidency, Obama shows us that he, too, can run something—specifically, he can push a program hugely unpopular with large segments of the American population and the opposing party right into law. Give him credit.
Then, as soon as Congress folds its tents and sneaks out of town for its own version of Spring Break, Obama displays a wonderful version of Chicago ward boss politics. (Run against the King of England; get them to vote early, vote often.)
He slipped fifteen major appointments—that require Senate approval—through as “Recess appointments”. The rules say that if you use a recess appointment, the guy (or gal) can serve a year or more without being confirmed by anybody.
Whooosh, they’re in. I know I should be properly peeved as my fellow Republicans all profess to be, but I can’t help but grin a bit. Apparently wandering around Chicago as a community organizer, watching how politics is played in that grand old town, taught Obama something.
The Republicans used to procedural grounds to hold up these appoints for nearly eight months; that does smack of pure politics. (Then again, if they really didn’t like some of the people—and they did not—what other choice did they have against an overwhelming Democratic majority?) So everybody was playing politics—and Obama end played them.
Republicans went through the motions—John McCain pleaded with Obama not to use Recess Appointments—and Obama paid as much attention to them as he did during the 2008 campaign. Obama has been a bit rough on McCain lately, true enough.
During the bi-partisan summit on health care reform, he tartly reminded a pontificating McCain that “the election is over”. He just gave him another reminder last weekend. “The election is over; I make the Recess Appointments; you don’t.”
Obama looked like a patsy last year. He allowed the international community and BOTH parties in Congress to walk all over him. Last weekend he showed, finally, that he can be a political “son-of-a-bitch”.
Democrats—who are sweating fall re-election—can maybe start to smile just a bit and repeat the rest of the old adage, “but he’s OUR son-of-a-bitch.”
As a Republican I’m not necessarily pleased. As a detached observer of the American political scene, I’m grinning a bit.
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
No Sanity In Sight For Health Care
Suppose you found yourself at the mercy of two care givers who had power over you. One said you needed water, but would allow you no food. The other said you needed food, but would allow you no water. Eventually you would die.
It seems to me this is precisely the situation that American health care finds itself in right now. The Democrats will give it no food; Republicans will give it no water. Unless somebody resolves something—quite soon, the entire system will die.
The Republicans will give it no “food”—they propose to leave up to 50 million Americans with no medical care at all. (That’s what being uninsured basically means—no health care at all.) As more and more voting Americans get laid off, and lose their insurance, that’s going to become a politically explosive situation. Bernanke at the Fed has just said he expects high unemployment to continue through at least 2012.
It’s also going to drag down the entire system as more and more of the uninsured are forced to become “charity” patients because untreated symptoms turn into catastrophic disease. Emergency rooms and hospitals are forced to treat these for “free”—and then pass the cost on to paying patients and their insurance companies.
Everyone loses as rates and costs keep skyrocketing. “Free” ain’t free in a hospital. That’s why you hear stories about a box of tissues costing twenty bucks—that’s how they bill you or your insurance for all those “free”/charity cases.
Democrats will give the system no “water”. They will push for nothing that will cut the horrendous (and rising) costs of our tottering system. Pile on fifty million more patients into our present system and bankruptcy will come all the faster.
But, the Republicans protest, if we insure the uninsured we will need to ration medical care in order to cut costs. To that the first answer is: show us a more vicious system of rationing than the present one where we RATION by eliminating those without insurance from the system.
There is something absolutely pernicious about refusing to give up steak in order to give a little gruel to a man on the verge of death by starvation. And that IS the attitude of many of the tea party goers who are so afraid someone may tamper with “MY Medicare” they are willing to let millions suffer and thousands die rather than have any limits imposed on themselves.
(That kind of supreme indifference to the well-being of one’s fellow man goes so far beyond the pale of charity as it is enjoined by Christianity, Judaism or Islam that it is absolutely breath-taking. And so much of the indifference is justified in the name of “religion”!)
Democrats and Republicans glare at one another over what seems to be an unbridgeable gulf. Neither will give in. More importantly neither will acknowledge that without action on both fronts—cutting costs AND caring for the uninsured—our present system WILL collapse.
Can it be done? Are “water” and “food” mutually exclusive, like having one’s cake and eating it too? No, not at all. It’s perfectly doable. You do two things. One) you throw all Americans into ONE insurance pool. That’s spreads the risk as equitably as it possibly can be.
That means, two) a single insurer. Just one, for the whole country. Since that will be the only buyer in the entire US for all drugs and medical supplies, it will have a lot of clout when it comes to holding the line on fees and prices. That will cut costs. (Think how many people in hospitals and doctors’ offices currently draw salaries for trying to meet the different requirements of fifty or more different insurance companies, all with different rules!)
Having no more “charity” cases (that all of us with insurance pay for now) will also cut fees and costs enormously. With a “single payer”, costs will be cut, no one will be uninsured and efficiencies will be forced out of our currently grossly inefficient system.
Whatever rationing this might result in will be far less than the rationing we have now. No single payer could be more subject to fraud or more lethargic about guaranteeing the best care for the buck than what we have now.
But Republicans and Democrats go on glaring. That status quo wins again.
It seems to me this is precisely the situation that American health care finds itself in right now. The Democrats will give it no food; Republicans will give it no water. Unless somebody resolves something—quite soon, the entire system will die.
The Republicans will give it no “food”—they propose to leave up to 50 million Americans with no medical care at all. (That’s what being uninsured basically means—no health care at all.) As more and more voting Americans get laid off, and lose their insurance, that’s going to become a politically explosive situation. Bernanke at the Fed has just said he expects high unemployment to continue through at least 2012.
It’s also going to drag down the entire system as more and more of the uninsured are forced to become “charity” patients because untreated symptoms turn into catastrophic disease. Emergency rooms and hospitals are forced to treat these for “free”—and then pass the cost on to paying patients and their insurance companies.
Everyone loses as rates and costs keep skyrocketing. “Free” ain’t free in a hospital. That’s why you hear stories about a box of tissues costing twenty bucks—that’s how they bill you or your insurance for all those “free”/charity cases.
Democrats will give the system no “water”. They will push for nothing that will cut the horrendous (and rising) costs of our tottering system. Pile on fifty million more patients into our present system and bankruptcy will come all the faster.
But, the Republicans protest, if we insure the uninsured we will need to ration medical care in order to cut costs. To that the first answer is: show us a more vicious system of rationing than the present one where we RATION by eliminating those without insurance from the system.
There is something absolutely pernicious about refusing to give up steak in order to give a little gruel to a man on the verge of death by starvation. And that IS the attitude of many of the tea party goers who are so afraid someone may tamper with “MY Medicare” they are willing to let millions suffer and thousands die rather than have any limits imposed on themselves.
(That kind of supreme indifference to the well-being of one’s fellow man goes so far beyond the pale of charity as it is enjoined by Christianity, Judaism or Islam that it is absolutely breath-taking. And so much of the indifference is justified in the name of “religion”!)
Democrats and Republicans glare at one another over what seems to be an unbridgeable gulf. Neither will give in. More importantly neither will acknowledge that without action on both fronts—cutting costs AND caring for the uninsured—our present system WILL collapse.
Can it be done? Are “water” and “food” mutually exclusive, like having one’s cake and eating it too? No, not at all. It’s perfectly doable. You do two things. One) you throw all Americans into ONE insurance pool. That’s spreads the risk as equitably as it possibly can be.
That means, two) a single insurer. Just one, for the whole country. Since that will be the only buyer in the entire US for all drugs and medical supplies, it will have a lot of clout when it comes to holding the line on fees and prices. That will cut costs. (Think how many people in hospitals and doctors’ offices currently draw salaries for trying to meet the different requirements of fifty or more different insurance companies, all with different rules!)
Having no more “charity” cases (that all of us with insurance pay for now) will also cut fees and costs enormously. With a “single payer”, costs will be cut, no one will be uninsured and efficiencies will be forced out of our currently grossly inefficient system.
Whatever rationing this might result in will be far less than the rationing we have now. No single payer could be more subject to fraud or more lethargic about guaranteeing the best care for the buck than what we have now.
But Republicans and Democrats go on glaring. That status quo wins again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)