It keeps on coming: now we have a guy seriously arguing that it's time for a military coup to eliminate the Obama administration.
This kind of stuff is just so out there it's hard to believe that such views are being published, let alone taken seriously.
The author, one John L. Perry, is apparently a former White House aid to one or more Republican presidents. He claims that President Obama is a "marxist." Wow. He says Obama is opening the door to terrorist acquisition of nukes from Pakistan. He goes on in similar fashion for quite some time before concluding that a such an astounding break with our law, traditions, culture and political norms would be justified because Americans, in electing Obama last year, engaged in a "wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility."
The incitement to the most base of instincts, the resort to utterly ridiculous arguments, and the complete flight from any sort of intellectually defensible argument continues to astound me. Unfortunately, it is more and more clear that this is what passes for political thought on the right.
By the way, advocating that military leaders perpetuate a coup d'etat is actually asking them to commit treason. If John L. Perry seriously thinks that our country needs its military leadership to do that, then I suspect he may be in the land of irrational.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Unbelievable: GOP Congressman Calls Obama "Enemy of Humanity"
It keeps on getting crazier in the loony land of Republican right-wingers.
Rep. Trent Franks, R-Arizona, said during a speech last weekend that President Obama is an "enemy of humanity" because he does not support the criminalization of abortion.
Here's Franks' amazing comments:
I can hardly believe that any politician - let alone a member of Congress - would say such a thing. Not only is his view of Obama wildly inaccurate, it is an incitement. Franks is implying not only that Obama is not a legitimate president, a claim that is now old-hat to birthers and the like on the right, but that he is also a criminal - indeed, that he is a genocidal killer - and, without saying it in black and white, reinforces the notion on the fringe that, for some reason, violence against the president of the United States is acceptable.
Franks' spokesman says the Congressman misspoke and that Franks was really just talking about abortion. I don't buy that, as the comments aren't readily interpreted in that way.
In any case, though, Franks' comments are a case of shockingly poor judgment, an incredible lack of respect to the man and his office, and another discouraging indication that the modern Republican party aims simply to discredit or destroy the president regardless of cause or merit. I can only hope that the right's increasingly shrill and unreasonable rhetoric does not lead to tragedy.
Rep. Trent Franks, R-Arizona, said during a speech last weekend that President Obama is an "enemy of humanity" because he does not support the criminalization of abortion.
Here's Franks' amazing comments:
Obama's first act as president of any consequence, in the middle of a financial meltdown, was to send taxpayers' money overseas to pay for the killing of unborn children in other countries," said Frank. "Now, I got to tell you, if a president will do that, there's almost nothing that you should be surprised at after that. We shouldn't be shocked that he does all these other insane things. A president that has lost his way that badly, that has no ability to see the image of God in these little fellow human beings, if he can't do that right, then he has no place in any station of government and we need to realize that he is an enemy of humanity.
I can hardly believe that any politician - let alone a member of Congress - would say such a thing. Not only is his view of Obama wildly inaccurate, it is an incitement. Franks is implying not only that Obama is not a legitimate president, a claim that is now old-hat to birthers and the like on the right, but that he is also a criminal - indeed, that he is a genocidal killer - and, without saying it in black and white, reinforces the notion on the fringe that, for some reason, violence against the president of the United States is acceptable.
Franks' spokesman says the Congressman misspoke and that Franks was really just talking about abortion. I don't buy that, as the comments aren't readily interpreted in that way.
In any case, though, Franks' comments are a case of shockingly poor judgment, an incredible lack of respect to the man and his office, and another discouraging indication that the modern Republican party aims simply to discredit or destroy the president regardless of cause or merit. I can only hope that the right's increasingly shrill and unreasonable rhetoric does not lead to tragedy.
The Polanski Saga
The French and Polish governments are asking the U.S. government not to seek the extradition of movie director Roman Polanski. They say it would be unfair to ask Polanski to serve the sentence imposed on him in 1978, before he bolted the country and became a fugitive.
What those governments, and Polanski's supporters in Hollywood and elsewhere, overlook is one simple fact: Roman Polanski is a child rapist. No one - not even Polanski himself, as he pleaded guilty to the crime - disputes that.
His victim was 13 years old. She was drugged with Quaaludes and plied with champagne, and over her objections and repeated pleas to stop, the then 40-something Polanski assaulted her anyway.
Now, it may be true that the judge in Polanski's case had a bias. It may be true that the California prosecutors should have pursued his arrest more aggressively over the years. But none of that changes the bottom line: Polanski admitted to a serious felony, to a violent crime against a child, to a rape.
He should be extradited, as soon as possible, and he should be returned to California to serve the prison sentence imposed on him in 1978. Yes, Polanski is 76 years old now, a husband and father, but justice has not been done in the case. If the man thinks the sentence imposed on him is unlawful, then he can argue that to the California courts. I have no doubt he will be able to afford excellent legal representation.
I sincerely hope that the Obama administration rejects the pleas of France and Poland to refrain from extraditing Polansky and, instead, moves forward with the case. Besides, can you imagine the Republican attack ads if a Democratic president with broad Hollywood support cuts a break in a case like this to a guy who admitted raping a little girl?
What those governments, and Polanski's supporters in Hollywood and elsewhere, overlook is one simple fact: Roman Polanski is a child rapist. No one - not even Polanski himself, as he pleaded guilty to the crime - disputes that.
His victim was 13 years old. She was drugged with Quaaludes and plied with champagne, and over her objections and repeated pleas to stop, the then 40-something Polanski assaulted her anyway.
Now, it may be true that the judge in Polanski's case had a bias. It may be true that the California prosecutors should have pursued his arrest more aggressively over the years. But none of that changes the bottom line: Polanski admitted to a serious felony, to a violent crime against a child, to a rape.
He should be extradited, as soon as possible, and he should be returned to California to serve the prison sentence imposed on him in 1978. Yes, Polanski is 76 years old now, a husband and father, but justice has not been done in the case. If the man thinks the sentence imposed on him is unlawful, then he can argue that to the California courts. I have no doubt he will be able to afford excellent legal representation.
I sincerely hope that the Obama administration rejects the pleas of France and Poland to refrain from extraditing Polansky and, instead, moves forward with the case. Besides, can you imagine the Republican attack ads if a Democratic president with broad Hollywood support cuts a break in a case like this to a guy who admitted raping a little girl?
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Supreme Court Predictions
The U.S. Supreme Court opens its next term on Monday, October 5. I have a few predictions:
1. Like many others, I expect Justice John Paul Stevens to retire at the end of the term.
2. However, Stevens won't be the only justice to leave the bench this year. Either Justice Antonin Scalia or Justice Anthony Kennedy, both in their early 70s, will suffer a serious health downturn and that one or the other will not survive the term.
3. The Court will accept a case aimed at establishing that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states and will rule that it is.
4. The Court will rule that corporations have a First Amendment right to directly donate unlimited amounts of money to political candidates, committees and organizations. It will be a 5-4 decision with Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor passionately protesting. The impact on the 2010 election will be immediate and huge, as candidates from both parties raise millions from corporate contributions (not PACS).
5. In a surprising decision, the Court will rule that the Eighth Amendment forbids state courts from sentencing juveniles to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Justice Anthony Kennedy will write the 5-4 majority opinion and will rely, to some extent, on international norms in explaining the decision.
1. Like many others, I expect Justice John Paul Stevens to retire at the end of the term.
2. However, Stevens won't be the only justice to leave the bench this year. Either Justice Antonin Scalia or Justice Anthony Kennedy, both in their early 70s, will suffer a serious health downturn and that one or the other will not survive the term.
3. The Court will accept a case aimed at establishing that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states and will rule that it is.
4. The Court will rule that corporations have a First Amendment right to directly donate unlimited amounts of money to political candidates, committees and organizations. It will be a 5-4 decision with Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor passionately protesting. The impact on the 2010 election will be immediate and huge, as candidates from both parties raise millions from corporate contributions (not PACS).
5. In a surprising decision, the Court will rule that the Eighth Amendment forbids state courts from sentencing juveniles to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Justice Anthony Kennedy will write the 5-4 majority opinion and will rely, to some extent, on international norms in explaining the decision.
Momentum Growing
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation:
Kaiser Health Tracking Poll—September 2009
The September Kaiser Health Tracking Poll finds that public support for health reform ended its summer slide, reversed course and moved modestly upwards in September. The survey also finds initial majority support for taxing expensive health plans and imposing fees on insurers to pay for reform.
Fifty-seven percent of Americans now believe that tackling health care reform is more important than ever—up from 53 percent in August. The proportion of Americans who think their families would be better off if health reform passes is up six percentage points (42% versus 36% in August), and the percentage who think that the country would be better off is up eight points (to 53% from 45% in August).
Substantial majorities of Americans continue to say they back individual reform components designed to expand coverage, including an individual mandate (68%), an employer mandate (67%) and an expansion of state programs such as Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (82%).
When it comes to paying for reform, two ideas now under discussion among policymakers garner initial majority support. Fifty-seven percent of the public say they would support “having health insurance companies pay a fee based on how much business they have” and 59 percent would support “having health insurance companies pay a tax for offering very expensive policies.” In both cases, Republicans are evenly divided while Democrats and political independents tilt in favor.
Friday, September 18, 2009
May God Bless Sergeant First Class Jared Monti . . .
Hero, soldier, Medal of Honor winner.
Watch President Barack Obama award SFC Monti the nation's highest award for valor in combat:
Watch President Barack Obama award SFC Monti the nation's highest award for valor in combat:
This Book Should Be Interesting
Taylor Branch, a long-time friend of former President Bill Clinton and his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was granted near daily access during Clinton's presidency to interview the President. His book based on those tapes, The Clinton Tapes, is due out later this month. It should be a good read, and this GQ interview gives some tantalizing hints about what might be in it.
Must -See Jon Stewart on the ACORN Scandal
I didn't buy Republican complaints about "voter fraud" activities by the non-profit group ACORN last year, but the new scandal arising from the group's apparent practice of advising prostitutes and pimps about how to hide their illegal activities from the government is too much to overlook. Perhaps that's why both chambers of the Democratic Congress have now barred ACORN from receiving housing grants.
Check out Jon Stewart's great take on the situation.
Check out Jon Stewart's great take on the situation.
Water Pollution: A Huge and Growing Threat to American Public Health
The progress our nation made on cleaning up polluted waters after the enactment of the Clean Water Act into law in 1972 has, sadly, been reversed in recent years. If you are not reading the fine series on the problem now being published in the New York Times, I encourage you to do so.
Here's a link. The videos are especially interesting.
Here's a link. The videos are especially interesting.
What a Contrast . . .
New Study: Lack of Health Insurance Causes 45K U.S. Deaths/Year
Harvard Medical Researchers have released a study that quantifies the death toll directly related to inaccessibility of private health insurance in America: 45,000 people each year.
The study, which was posted online yesterday, says that people without health insurance have a 40 percent higher risk of dying than do people who carry private health insurance. That is an increase since 1993, when the chance of death for people without insurance was 25 percent more than those with private health insurance.
The increased risk of death arises both from a greater difficulty uninsured people have in finding care and a lack of access to treatments for chronic conditions.
The study analyzed data from national surveys carried out by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and assessed death rates after taking into account education, income, and a variety of other factors including smoking, drinking, and obesity.
The death toll related to lack of insurance is higher than the number of people that die from kidney disease in this country every year.
The study will be published in the December issue of the American Journal of Health.
The study, which was posted online yesterday, says that people without health insurance have a 40 percent higher risk of dying than do people who carry private health insurance. That is an increase since 1993, when the chance of death for people without insurance was 25 percent more than those with private health insurance.
The increased risk of death arises both from a greater difficulty uninsured people have in finding care and a lack of access to treatments for chronic conditions.
The study analyzed data from national surveys carried out by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and assessed death rates after taking into account education, income, and a variety of other factors including smoking, drinking, and obesity.
The death toll related to lack of insurance is higher than the number of people that die from kidney disease in this country every year.
The study will be published in the December issue of the American Journal of Health.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Snowe: Obama Not a "Socialist," Instead "Moderate"
Check out this interview with Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, in which she disputes the argument put forth by many in her party that President Obama is a "socialist." She says that, instead, the president is "realistic" on health care and is, generally, a "moderate."
"No, you know, it's interesting, I don't. In fact, I almost sense the opposite. He's been very realistic in his views on health care, understanding the implications. I get the sense he studies these issues very carefully," Snowe said. "He seems to me to very well-informed, well-briefed, well-versed."
"The fact is, I've got the impression he would rather do less than more."
"I think he's always indicated a willingness to be flexible on this, other issues, taking account of other views on the subject," Snowe said. "He solicits contrarian views and conflicting positions so that he can enhance his own position."
Snowe did not say whether she would support the bill that Sen. Max Baucus, D-Montana, says he will put before the Finance Committee in the near future.
"I always struggle with the magnitude and scope of a proposal because it constitutes so much change," Snowe said. She said she was concerned about the mandates in the Baucus bill and the impact on individuals.
"The individual parts I'm concerned about, then secondly is the overall approach in making sure that it will be moving in the right direction. We want to build upon what's best in our current system," Snowe said.
Snowe said she didn't think it was necessary to "start over." She said the "exchange" advocated by President Obama is a good idea and mentioned that "egregious practices" by insurance companies need to be addressed.
She said her main concern is the financial implications for families arising from the proposed requirement to purchase private health insurance.
"The question is, the extent to which we're going to require the American people to comply with signing up for an insurance plan and the penalties that would go with it," Snowe said.
She said the "key" is "how much subsidies we can afford to provide to middle America," Snowe said. "The second part of it is the level of the penalty that's involved in the individual mandate."
As to the "public option," Snowe said she is interested in a "trigger" that might launch that mechanism to improve access to health insurance at a later date.
"I offered the trigger many months ago as an alternative to the public option," Snowe said. "I think now is the question whether or not, at which point to address that issue, whether in committee or on the floor."
Snowe said she thinks the Baucus bill is "budget neutral" and won't add to the federal deficit.
The senior senator from Maine said she is not disturbed by the focus on her as the most likely GOP Senator to support a health insurance reform bill.
"The most important thing to me is to focus on the issue itself, whether it's the right policy," Snowe said. "It's always about listening to the very best information to craft the very best policy."
Asked why she is a Republican, Snowe said she thinks the party has changed:
"No, you know, it's interesting, I don't. In fact, I almost sense the opposite. He's been very realistic in his views on health care, understanding the implications. I get the sense he studies these issues very carefully," Snowe said. "He seems to me to very well-informed, well-briefed, well-versed."
"The fact is, I've got the impression he would rather do less than more."
"I think he's always indicated a willingness to be flexible on this, other issues, taking account of other views on the subject," Snowe said. "He solicits contrarian views and conflicting positions so that he can enhance his own position."
Snowe did not say whether she would support the bill that Sen. Max Baucus, D-Montana, says he will put before the Finance Committee in the near future.
"I always struggle with the magnitude and scope of a proposal because it constitutes so much change," Snowe said. She said she was concerned about the mandates in the Baucus bill and the impact on individuals.
"The individual parts I'm concerned about, then secondly is the overall approach in making sure that it will be moving in the right direction. We want to build upon what's best in our current system," Snowe said.
Snowe said she didn't think it was necessary to "start over." She said the "exchange" advocated by President Obama is a good idea and mentioned that "egregious practices" by insurance companies need to be addressed.
She said her main concern is the financial implications for families arising from the proposed requirement to purchase private health insurance.
"The question is, the extent to which we're going to require the American people to comply with signing up for an insurance plan and the penalties that would go with it," Snowe said.
She said the "key" is "how much subsidies we can afford to provide to middle America," Snowe said. "The second part of it is the level of the penalty that's involved in the individual mandate."
As to the "public option," Snowe said she is interested in a "trigger" that might launch that mechanism to improve access to health insurance at a later date.
"I offered the trigger many months ago as an alternative to the public option," Snowe said. "I think now is the question whether or not, at which point to address that issue, whether in committee or on the floor."
Snowe said she thinks the Baucus bill is "budget neutral" and won't add to the federal deficit.
The senior senator from Maine said she is not disturbed by the focus on her as the most likely GOP Senator to support a health insurance reform bill.
"The most important thing to me is to focus on the issue itself, whether it's the right policy," Snowe said. "It's always about listening to the very best information to craft the very best policy."
Asked why she is a Republican, Snowe said she thinks the party has changed:
Well, you know, it’s–I’ve always been a Republican for the traditional principles that have been associated with the Republican Party since I, you know, became a Republican when I registered to vote. And that is limited, you know, limited government, individual opportunities, fiscal responsibility, and a strong national defense. So I think that those principles have always been a part of the Republican Party heritage, and I believe that I, you know, reflect those views. And I haven’t changed as a Republican, I think more that my party has changed.
Birther Lawyer Taitz Gets Bar Complaint
California lawyer (and dentist and realtor) Orly Taitz, who has been the most prominent attorney advancing lawsuits challenging President Obama's eligibility for his office, is facing a problem.
Her charge that the federal judge who dismissed her lawsuit on behalf of a U.S. Army doctor has committed "treason" has led to a bar complaint against her.
Ohio attorney Subodh Chandra, who is an inactive member of the California bar, filed the complaint today. In it he says that Taitz is "an embarrassment to the profession."
The complaint alleges that Taitz violated a California statute when she told Talking Points Memo Wednesday that "Judge Land is a typical puppet of the regime -- just like in the Soviet Union."
Her charge that the federal judge who dismissed her lawsuit on behalf of a U.S. Army doctor has committed "treason" has led to a bar complaint against her.
Ohio attorney Subodh Chandra, who is an inactive member of the California bar, filed the complaint today. In it he says that Taitz is "an embarrassment to the profession."
The complaint alleges that Taitz violated a California statute when she told Talking Points Memo Wednesday that "Judge Land is a typical puppet of the regime -- just like in the Soviet Union."
Bill to Repeal Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Exemptions Introduced
One of the most effective ways of bringing competition to America's messed up health insurance market is now on the table in Congress, as two veteran legislators have introduced a measure that would strip the health insurance industry of its antitrust exemption.
Health insurance is regulated at the state level, and under the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945, 15 U.S.C. section 1011, no federal antitrust law applies to the industry in any state in which such state-level regulation exists.
By the way, Congress enacted the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which applies to all types of insurance, after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association, 322 U.S. 533 (1944), that insurance was indeed a form of "commerce" subject to the regulation imposed by the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, 15 U.S.C. sections 1-7.
The result of the McCarran-Ferguson exemption for health insurers has been the creation of an effective monopoly, as one recent report by the American Medical Association found:
More information on, and an analysis of, the AMA study is here.
The bottom line is that the health insurance industry's antitrust exemption is the principal culprit in the creation of the fantastically anti-competitive marketplace we have now. For example, in Maine Wellpoint controls 71 percent of the market; in North Dakota, Blue Cross controls 90 percent.
Obviously, the principle most of us learned in college microeconomics is indisputable: where monopoly, or even its cousin oligopoly, prevails, consumer choice and quality of service suffers and prices are much higher. That is textbook microeconomics.
By the way, a House committee has been holding oversight hearings to investigate the methods by which health insurers decide whom to cover and what claims to pay. Those practices - which amount to restriction of supply of a service, a typical monopolist behavior - would likely come to a screeching halt if insurers had to obey federal antitrust laws.
Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, a sponsor of the bill, had this to say about the proposal:
Conyers' co-sponsors are Reps. Hank Johnson, D-Georgia, and Diana DeGette, D-Colorado. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, has introduced a companion measure in the Senate.
The point of the proposal to create a "public option" is to inject competition into the private health insurance market. That goal is undoubtedly laudable, but the method advocated by the Democrats who support it is controversial. It seems to me that Congress ought to take seriously John Conyers' bill and look at injecting competition in the way our laws have done for more than a century now. Antitrust laws work if given the chance, and they would not be nearly as controversial.
And, by the way, it seems pretty clear, too, that the idea of using non-profit cooperatives as a substitute for either the "public option" or the repeal of the antitrust exemption is not going to work. As former Secretary of Labor and economist Robert Reich points out,
Moreover, the bill introduced this week by Sen. Max Baucus, which eschews the "public option" in favor of those likely ineffective cooperatives and does include a mandate requiring all Americans to purchase private health insurance, amounts not only to a huge financial hit for most people. It thus forces millions of additional consumers into the profiteering hands of monopolistic industry while making no meaningful effort to expand competition in the industry.
Health insurance is regulated at the state level, and under the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945, 15 U.S.C. section 1011, no federal antitrust law applies to the industry in any state in which such state-level regulation exists.
By the way, Congress enacted the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which applies to all types of insurance, after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association, 322 U.S. 533 (1944), that insurance was indeed a form of "commerce" subject to the regulation imposed by the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, 15 U.S.C. sections 1-7.
The result of the McCarran-Ferguson exemption for health insurers has been the creation of an effective monopoly, as one recent report by the American Medical Association found:
This edition of the study analyzed 313 MSAs. This compares with 292 metropolitan areas in the 2005 study, 84 in the 2003 study, 70 in the 2002 study, and 40 in the 2001 study.
In terms of market concentration (HHI), the study found the following:
In the combined HMO/PPO product market, 96 percent (299) of the MSAs are highly concentrated (HHI>1,800), applying the 1997 Merger Guidelines.
In the HMO product market, 99 percent (309) of the MSAs are highly concentrated (HHI>1,800), applying the 1997 Merger Guidelines.
In the PPO product market, 100 percent (313) of the MSAs are highly concentrated (HHI>1,800), applying the 1997 Merger Guidelines.
More information on, and an analysis of, the AMA study is here.
The bottom line is that the health insurance industry's antitrust exemption is the principal culprit in the creation of the fantastically anti-competitive marketplace we have now. For example, in Maine Wellpoint controls 71 percent of the market; in North Dakota, Blue Cross controls 90 percent.
Obviously, the principle most of us learned in college microeconomics is indisputable: where monopoly, or even its cousin oligopoly, prevails, consumer choice and quality of service suffers and prices are much higher. That is textbook microeconomics.
By the way, a House committee has been holding oversight hearings to investigate the methods by which health insurers decide whom to cover and what claims to pay. Those practices - which amount to restriction of supply of a service, a typical monopolist behavior - would likely come to a screeching halt if insurers had to obey federal antitrust laws.
Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, a sponsor of the bill, had this to say about the proposal:
This legislation would specifically prohibit price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocation in the health insurance industry. These pernicious practices are detrimental to competition and result in higher prices for consumers. Conduct that is unlawful throughout the country should not be allowed for insurance companies under antitrust exemption.
The House Judiciary Committee held extensive hearings on the effects of the insurance industry’s antitrust exemption throughout the 1980s and early 1990s. It became clear then that policyholders and the economy in general would benefit from eliminating this exemption.
The legislation we introduced today is intended to root out unlawful activity in an industry grown complacent by decades of protection from antitrust oversight. In doing so, we aim to make health insurance more affordable to more Americans.
Conyers' co-sponsors are Reps. Hank Johnson, D-Georgia, and Diana DeGette, D-Colorado. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, has introduced a companion measure in the Senate.
The point of the proposal to create a "public option" is to inject competition into the private health insurance market. That goal is undoubtedly laudable, but the method advocated by the Democrats who support it is controversial. It seems to me that Congress ought to take seriously John Conyers' bill and look at injecting competition in the way our laws have done for more than a century now. Antitrust laws work if given the chance, and they would not be nearly as controversial.
And, by the way, it seems pretty clear, too, that the idea of using non-profit cooperatives as a substitute for either the "public option" or the repeal of the antitrust exemption is not going to work. As former Secretary of Labor and economist Robert Reich points out,
such cooperatives would lack the scale and authority to negotiate lower rates with drug companies and other providers, collect wide data on outcomes, or effect major change in the system.
Moreover, the bill introduced this week by Sen. Max Baucus, which eschews the "public option" in favor of those likely ineffective cooperatives and does include a mandate requiring all Americans to purchase private health insurance, amounts not only to a huge financial hit for most people. It thus forces millions of additional consumers into the profiteering hands of monopolistic industry while making no meaningful effort to expand competition in the industry.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Federal District Court Slams Birther Argument
The birther movement, which continues to manufacture fantastic tall tales about President Barack Obama's origins in an attempt to whip up hatred and anger toward the 44th President, took a legal beating Wednesday.
A federal judge found claims that the President is not qualified to hold his position "frivolous," dismissed a lawsuit filed by an Army doctor, and awarded the military defendants in the case their litigation costs.
I am obviously pleased by this outcome, but I am under no illusion that it will do anything at all to stop the continuing flood of absurd charges and allegations against Mr. Obama.
However, perhaps it will help convince the mainstream media to stop giving any attention at all to the nutballs who continue to argue the ridiculous assertion that the President was not born in the United States.
But I'm not holding my breath.
A federal judge found claims that the President is not qualified to hold his position "frivolous," dismissed a lawsuit filed by an Army doctor, and awarded the military defendants in the case their litigation costs.
I am obviously pleased by this outcome, but I am under no illusion that it will do anything at all to stop the continuing flood of absurd charges and allegations against Mr. Obama.
However, perhaps it will help convince the mainstream media to stop giving any attention at all to the nutballs who continue to argue the ridiculous assertion that the President was not born in the United States.
But I'm not holding my breath.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
LA Times Lauds Kennedy's Memoir
The Los Angeles Times has published a glowing review of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's memoir, True Compass, praising the book as a "touchingly candid, big-hearted and altogether superb memoir."
Tim Rutten writes:
I have started to read the book already, and my take is that Kennedy has shared heartfelt feelings and memories of his brothers and sisters and the well-known events of his public and private lives while telegraphing clearly his ebullient love of life and people.
The book details, in Teddy's own words, many of the foibles and failures in his eight decades. But, as Rutten explains so well,
Read the book. It will be well worth your time.
Tim Rutten writes:
In some sense, conscious of the fact that the three older brothers he so deeply admired never lived to set down their own recollections, the youngest Kennedy brother has written a portrait of his extraordinary family, as well as an account of his own eventful life.
. . .
There's a wonderful self-appraisal: "I am an enjoyer. I have enjoyed being a senator; I've enjoyed my children and my close friends; I've enjoyed books and music and well-prepared food, especially with a generous helping of cream sauce on the top. I have enjoyed the company of women. I have enjoyed a stiff drink or two or three, and I've relished the smooth taste of a good wine. At times, I've enjoyed these pleasures too much."
There's a kind of invocation -- a spell, if you will -- against melancholy in that summary, for much of this memoir, affectionate though it remains, is haunted by loss: of family, friends, comrades, opportunities.
I have started to read the book already, and my take is that Kennedy has shared heartfelt feelings and memories of his brothers and sisters and the well-known events of his public and private lives while telegraphing clearly his ebullient love of life and people.
The book details, in Teddy's own words, many of the foibles and failures in his eight decades. But, as Rutten explains so well,
Ted was, in important ways, like his idolized brother John -- of whom he said in a 20th anniversary eulogy: "He was an heir to wealth who felt the anguish of the poor. He was an orator of excellence, who spoke for the voiceless. He was a son of Harvard who reached out to the sons and daughters of Appalachia. He was a man of special grace who had a special care for the retarded and handicapped. . . . He said and proved in word and deed that one man can make a difference."
Yet, as alike as they were, Ted was uniquely his own man. In his 1982 reelection campaign, one of Ted's television commercials featured an 83-year-old senior citizens' advocate, Frank Manning, who said of the senator: "He's not a plaster saint. . . . We want an average human being who has feelings and likes people and who is interested in their welfare."
That, of course, is precisely what the people of Massachusetts got, and -- as "True Compass" reminds us -- we're all the poorer for his absence.
Read the book. It will be well worth your time.
Carter: Racism Accounts for Antipathy toward Obama
Former President Jimmy Carter said in an interview on NBC News today that he thinks racism accounts for the "animosity" toward President Obama.
"I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way," Carter told NBC anchor Brian Williams. "Racism still exists. I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of a belief among many white people, not just in the south but around the country, that African Americans are not qualified to govern this great country. It's an abominable circumstance."
I agree that racism definitely plays a part in the whole "teabagger" movement, and who can doubt that the Republican party is now, as it has for more than 40 years, trying to fan the flames of bigotry?
"I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way," Carter told NBC anchor Brian Williams. "Racism still exists. I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of a belief among many white people, not just in the south but around the country, that African Americans are not qualified to govern this great country. It's an abominable circumstance."
I agree that racism definitely plays a part in the whole "teabagger" movement, and who can doubt that the Republican party is now, as it has for more than 40 years, trying to fan the flames of bigotry?
Fixing Wall Street
President Obama went to Wall Street yesterday to push for his proposals to reform the way the nation's financial markets operate. During his talk, the president criticized Wall Street for the risky and, in some cases, illegal actions that led to the financial meltdown last year:
Obama also urged adoption of his program aimed at strengthening and streamlining regulation and enhancing the focus on consumer protection.
I worry that the moment for much-needed legislation has passed, though.
First, the Fed is now saying that the recession is over. That means there is less urgency, at least in many people's minds, about moving on an overhaul of finance regulation.
Second, Congress remains as influenced by lobbyists and the campaign contributions of industry insiders as ever. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., has said his House committee will move a bill to the floor this fall, but Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., does not appear to be in too much of a hurry to get a bill to the full Senate.
Third, Congress is highly focused on health care reform right now.
I think the net result, a snail's pace on this issue, is terrible. Wall Street is already showing a return to its tendency to externalize risk and reward executives for short-term gain, no matter the means of achieving it. And we have seen no significant effort to fix the mortgage market since the housing meltdown.
It's hard to imagine that legislators in Washington will get idealistic and stop using this issue to extract large amounts of campaign dollars from Wall Street, but one might hope that the threat of yet another collapse, this time without a bailout (since there's unlikely to be any stomach for that, either), might motivate some responsible action.
At any rate, the New York Times' Room for Debate blog has a good overview of why reform appears to be stalled.
“Instead of learning the lessons of Lehman and the crisis from which we are still recovering, they are choosing to ignore them,” Mr. Obama said. “They do so not just at their own peril, but at our nation’s.”
Obama also urged adoption of his program aimed at strengthening and streamlining regulation and enhancing the focus on consumer protection.
I worry that the moment for much-needed legislation has passed, though.
First, the Fed is now saying that the recession is over. That means there is less urgency, at least in many people's minds, about moving on an overhaul of finance regulation.
Second, Congress remains as influenced by lobbyists and the campaign contributions of industry insiders as ever. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., has said his House committee will move a bill to the floor this fall, but Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., does not appear to be in too much of a hurry to get a bill to the full Senate.
Third, Congress is highly focused on health care reform right now.
I think the net result, a snail's pace on this issue, is terrible. Wall Street is already showing a return to its tendency to externalize risk and reward executives for short-term gain, no matter the means of achieving it. And we have seen no significant effort to fix the mortgage market since the housing meltdown.
It's hard to imagine that legislators in Washington will get idealistic and stop using this issue to extract large amounts of campaign dollars from Wall Street, but one might hope that the threat of yet another collapse, this time without a bailout (since there's unlikely to be any stomach for that, either), might motivate some responsible action.
At any rate, the New York Times' Room for Debate blog has a good overview of why reform appears to be stalled.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Ted Kennedy's Editor Talks
Check out this wonderful interview with Jonathan Karp, who was the editor and publisher of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's memoir, True Compass.
During Karp's interview with NPR's Terry Gross, he reveals conversations Kennedy had with him about the grief caused by his brother's deaths, the extent to which Kennedy kept notes and journals about his public and private lives for more than 50 years, and how his family rooted him and helped him cope with tragedy.
All in all, I come away from this interview even more convinced that too many people judged Edward M. Kennedy too harshly for too much of his life. I have, since college days, read virtually every biography of the man, and of his brothers Jack and Bobby, and I am more convinced than ever that we lost not only a giant of politics, but a genuinely good and decent man, on Aug. 25, 2009.
During Karp's interview with NPR's Terry Gross, he reveals conversations Kennedy had with him about the grief caused by his brother's deaths, the extent to which Kennedy kept notes and journals about his public and private lives for more than 50 years, and how his family rooted him and helped him cope with tragedy.
All in all, I come away from this interview even more convinced that too many people judged Edward M. Kennedy too harshly for too much of his life. I have, since college days, read virtually every biography of the man, and of his brothers Jack and Bobby, and I am more convinced than ever that we lost not only a giant of politics, but a genuinely good and decent man, on Aug. 25, 2009.
The Endless Spending
A new article published in The American and written by John Steele Gordon argues that Congress is institutionally incapable of restraining federal spending and, thus, the national debt over the long-term. Steele makes the case that Congress should reinstate the President's power to impound appropriated dollars and create an "independent accounting board" to set rules for keeping track of how and where the government spends is the way to solve the problem.
The essence of Gordon's case is that, because committee chairs in Congress are elected by the majority caucus in each chamber and the President's negotiating leverage is limited by the Constitution to either a veto of an entire appropriations bill or acceptance of spending he or she does not desire, Congress effectively has no check on the pressures to spend more and more each year.
Certainly the numbers bear out that argument.
As Gordon points out,
On the positive side, that number translates to just over 60 percent of America's gross domestic product. Moreover, the national debt is not anywhere its historical maximum, measured in terms of percentage of gross domestic product. As Gordon points out, "[a]t the end of World War II, the debt was nearly 130 percent of GDP."
Gordon mentions that other factors have driven our national spending to these heights, including
He does not explain what he means by "economic trauma," but I assume he is referring to the recession of the early 1980s and/or the recession that commenced in 2007 and which prompted the federal economic stimulus and financial sector bail-out legislation enacted into law in the past year. The change in the "prevailing economic theory" probably refers to the rise of supply-side economics, which provided the intellectual justification for the huge Bush administration tax cuts early this decade. And the "ill-considered political fund raising reforms after Watergate" must mean the 1974 legislation that capped individual and PAC contributions to federal candidates and/or the McCain-Feingold reforms that became law earlier this decade.
In any case, I am not sure I agree with all of that analysis.
When a recession hits, it is critical for the federal government to "make up" for lost aggregate demand, either by increasing spending or lowering taxes. That, at any rate, is the prophylaxis prescribed by John Maynard Keynes that has been deployed in this country consistently since the 1930s. I do not see how the Reagan/Bush approach of lowering taxes, and thereby creating a deficit (and in G.W. Bush's case, raising spending at the same time), is anything BUT Keynesian. And while that approach is not wise in times of economic expansion, as it promotes inflation, those impacts were avoided both in the Reagan years and early this decade as the Federal Reserve Board kept a relatively tight grip on the money supply.
As for campaign finance reforms having anything to do with it, the only thing I can figure is that Gordon thinks that PAC contributions, which obviously come from corporate America, have something to do with the pressures to grow spending at an unsustainable rate.
I'm not sure I agree with that, either. We certainly have a large amount of corporate subsidies in the federal budget each year, but by far the largest contributor to deficits, and thus the national debt, is entitlements and defense spending.
It's hard to make the case that corporations have driven the growth in entitlement spending. And while corporations have benefited from increased defense spending, I believe that has come about mostly as a result of a foreign policy almost totally focused on keeping the US the world's only military superpower and preventing the growth of rivals that might have a negative impact on either our economic or political security.
No, I think Gordon's best argument is the one about Congress. The country achieved a balanced budget and budget surpluses in the 1990s because Congress (temporarily) restrained itself with the pay-go rules. Unfortunately, the Congresses led by Republicans between 1995-2007 failed to enact a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution and certainly no Democratic-led Congress has been willing to send such an amendment to the states for ratification.
An impound law would help, but who is to say that a President would find it in his or her political interest, or that of his or her party, to refrain from its use?
Moreover, I have a hard time seeing how such an approach squares with the structure and language of the Constitution itself, which gives the president only the power either to sign and execute the laws enacted by Congress - all of them - or veto them. Article I plainly gives Congress, and only Congress, the right to decide how much money the government may spend and where it may spend it.
The Supreme Court, in Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998), explained that principle very plainly:
(Citations and footnotes omitted).
I do not see how an impoundment is any less a transgression of the "finely wrought procedure" demanded by the Constitution than is the line-item veto. Though the Constitution is silent on the question whether the President must spend all money appropriated by Congress, the Clinton Court construed silence on the question of whether a partial veto is permitted as meaning it is not. One would think that approach applies to impoundments, too.
The solution has to be a balanced budget amendment, which could grant both line-item veto authority and impoundment power to the president and which could allow for exceptions in time of national economic and military emergency. Congress won't pass the amendment; the Republicans proved that in the 1990s. Instead, pressure for it has to come from the states.
That, too, may unfortunately be difficult because almost every state has become dependent on federal spending, even to support such traditional state-level government functions as law enforcement, highways and public education.
Perhaps the best conclusion we may draw about the debt problem of the U.S. (assuming you agree it's a problem) is that we need a constitutional solution but have no practical means of achieving one.
The essence of Gordon's case is that, because committee chairs in Congress are elected by the majority caucus in each chamber and the President's negotiating leverage is limited by the Constitution to either a veto of an entire appropriations bill or acceptance of spending he or she does not desire, Congress effectively has no check on the pressures to spend more and more each year.
Certainly the numbers bear out that argument.
As Gordon points out,
At the end of fiscal 2008, which came on September 30 of last year, the American national debt stood at $9.6 trillion. That sum is, perhaps, quite beyond the imagining of most people. It is, after all, 250 million times the average per capita income. Even the total fortunes of the entire Forbes 400 list add up to less than 15 percent of it. To use a journalistic measure that dates back to the late 18th century—when the British national debt had become a major political issue in that country—if you laid 9.6 trillion silver dollars end to end, they would reach to the sun and back, with enough left over to wrap around the Earth more than 1,700 times.
On the positive side, that number translates to just over 60 percent of America's gross domestic product. Moreover, the national debt is not anywhere its historical maximum, measured in terms of percentage of gross domestic product. As Gordon points out, "[a]t the end of World War II, the debt was nearly 130 percent of GDP."
Gordon mentions that other factors have driven our national spending to these heights, including
1) a national economic trauma; 2) a fundamental change in the prevailing economic theory; [and] 3) ill-considered political fund raising reforms after Watergate[.]
He does not explain what he means by "economic trauma," but I assume he is referring to the recession of the early 1980s and/or the recession that commenced in 2007 and which prompted the federal economic stimulus and financial sector bail-out legislation enacted into law in the past year. The change in the "prevailing economic theory" probably refers to the rise of supply-side economics, which provided the intellectual justification for the huge Bush administration tax cuts early this decade. And the "ill-considered political fund raising reforms after Watergate" must mean the 1974 legislation that capped individual and PAC contributions to federal candidates and/or the McCain-Feingold reforms that became law earlier this decade.
In any case, I am not sure I agree with all of that analysis.
When a recession hits, it is critical for the federal government to "make up" for lost aggregate demand, either by increasing spending or lowering taxes. That, at any rate, is the prophylaxis prescribed by John Maynard Keynes that has been deployed in this country consistently since the 1930s. I do not see how the Reagan/Bush approach of lowering taxes, and thereby creating a deficit (and in G.W. Bush's case, raising spending at the same time), is anything BUT Keynesian. And while that approach is not wise in times of economic expansion, as it promotes inflation, those impacts were avoided both in the Reagan years and early this decade as the Federal Reserve Board kept a relatively tight grip on the money supply.
As for campaign finance reforms having anything to do with it, the only thing I can figure is that Gordon thinks that PAC contributions, which obviously come from corporate America, have something to do with the pressures to grow spending at an unsustainable rate.
I'm not sure I agree with that, either. We certainly have a large amount of corporate subsidies in the federal budget each year, but by far the largest contributor to deficits, and thus the national debt, is entitlements and defense spending.
It's hard to make the case that corporations have driven the growth in entitlement spending. And while corporations have benefited from increased defense spending, I believe that has come about mostly as a result of a foreign policy almost totally focused on keeping the US the world's only military superpower and preventing the growth of rivals that might have a negative impact on either our economic or political security.
No, I think Gordon's best argument is the one about Congress. The country achieved a balanced budget and budget surpluses in the 1990s because Congress (temporarily) restrained itself with the pay-go rules. Unfortunately, the Congresses led by Republicans between 1995-2007 failed to enact a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution and certainly no Democratic-led Congress has been willing to send such an amendment to the states for ratification.
An impound law would help, but who is to say that a President would find it in his or her political interest, or that of his or her party, to refrain from its use?
Moreover, I have a hard time seeing how such an approach squares with the structure and language of the Constitution itself, which gives the president only the power either to sign and execute the laws enacted by Congress - all of them - or veto them. Article I plainly gives Congress, and only Congress, the right to decide how much money the government may spend and where it may spend it.
The Supreme Court, in Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998), explained that principle very plainly:
The procedures governing the enactment of statutes set forth in the text of Article I were the product of the great debates and compromises that produced the Constitution itself. Familiar historical materials provide abundant support for the conclusion that the power to enact statutes may only “be exercised in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure.” Our first President understood the text of the Presentment Clause as requiring that he either “approve all the parts of a Bill, or reject it in toto.” What has emerged in these cases from the President’s exercise of his statutory cancellation powers, however, are truncated versions of two bills that passed both Houses of Congress. They are not the product of the “finely wrought” procedure that the Framers designed.
(Citations and footnotes omitted).
I do not see how an impoundment is any less a transgression of the "finely wrought procedure" demanded by the Constitution than is the line-item veto. Though the Constitution is silent on the question whether the President must spend all money appropriated by Congress, the Clinton Court construed silence on the question of whether a partial veto is permitted as meaning it is not. One would think that approach applies to impoundments, too.
The solution has to be a balanced budget amendment, which could grant both line-item veto authority and impoundment power to the president and which could allow for exceptions in time of national economic and military emergency. Congress won't pass the amendment; the Republicans proved that in the 1990s. Instead, pressure for it has to come from the states.
That, too, may unfortunately be difficult because almost every state has become dependent on federal spending, even to support such traditional state-level government functions as law enforcement, highways and public education.
Perhaps the best conclusion we may draw about the debt problem of the U.S. (assuming you agree it's a problem) is that we need a constitutional solution but have no practical means of achieving one.
Dionne's Question
E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post asks a provocative but timely question today: is America losing its compassion?
This is a question I have wrestled with for years, and I think the answer is definitely "yes." I also think it is not a new phenomenon.
At the moment, the issue raised by those on the right is whether undocumented immigrants should be able to get publicly-financed health care from the federal and state governments.
Currently, the law says that Medicaid will pay for anyone who gets emergency room care but cannot afford it. However, undocumented immigrants are not eligible for any other public health care services, including Medicare, Department of Veterans Affairs benefits or other government-sponsored care.
That would not change under any of the health insurance reform bills pending in Congress. Indeed, and as Dionne points out, all the bills include very clear language making clear that undocumented immigrants would not be eligible to receive any public benefit or participate in the health insurance exchange proposed by President Obama.
The president himself said in his Sept. 9 speech that he is not proposing to extend any health coverage to undocumented immigrants.
My position is that this is wrong.
We all have a moral obligation to help those who are suffering, and our laws should reflect that basic principle. Even if you are not a religious person, and don't believe the scriptural exhortation to care for the sick, common decency dictates that we do what we can to ease a person's suffering and pain.
Moreover, and as Dionne points out, it is often in our best interest, health-wise, to do so. Denying publicly-financed care to an undocumented immigrant with a contagious disease can hardly be said to represent rational policy. But I would go farther and say it is in our collective financial interest, too. When undocumented immigrants are limited to emergency room care, they may lose time at work. That deprives the economy of valuable labor and lowers productivity. And the costs of that care in the long run may be higher than the costs associated with preventive or traditional physician care. Since the taxpayer is, in many cases, paying for the emergency room visit, it seems to me that we should be thinking about how to minimize those costs.
I also think there's a legal issue. When government health care programs discriminate against undocumented immigrants, they run the risk of violating the Constitution's equal protection clause. The Supreme Court has not said that immigrants are a suspect classification, but it has ruled that discrimination against them is subject to an intermediate level of scrutiny, just as is gender discrimination by public entities and officials. While programs can survive that level of legal scrutiny easier than they can the strict scrutiny that demands a compelling government interest and narrowly-tailored means, it is still a step up from the "rational basis" review that serves to rubber-stamp most government programs in the face of equal protection challenges.
But the bottom line is that denying care to people because they are from another country and have not fulfilled one or more bureaucratic obligations is inhumane and, yes, lacking in compassion.
We have not always been this way. We have certainly had our nativist tendencies in this country, and that's not new. But our Congress had not, at least in recent decades, been inclined to enact hostility to immigrants into the United States code. I don't see any logical reason why we should do so now.
Some would say that, if we don't ban public health care services to undocumented immigrants, we will be inviting more of that illegal activity. I disagree. People emigrate to the United States for a better life. They want to earn a living, be free, experience the educational opportunities we have in this country. That is as it has always been in our history. Immigrants do not arrive on our shores so that they can get Medicaid or Medicare. After all, many of them come from countries with "single-payer" health care systems and not many come to our shores anticipating that they will need medical care.
This argument is not the only example of our country's hardening edge. We see the same phenomenon in the debate over the minimum wage, legislation to ease barriers to collective organizing in the workplace, education reform, and programs to encourage less pollution of the air, water and land and more conservation of energy.
One has to wonder whether our country can continue to exist as a cohesive republic if those of us who believe in justice, equality, and the dignity of each human being continue to be shouted down by radicals motivated by hate, prejudice, bigotry or a misguided view of God that says He does not care about the poor, the suffering and the sick.
I say it's time to stand up to the paranoia. Sure, keep the anti-immigrant provisions in the health insurance reform bills if that is what is necessary to achieve wide-scale reform this year. But let's have a conversation about exactly what we will do when your neighbor, co-worker or fellow parishioner comes down with something like, say, the H1N1 virus or suffers grievous injuries in an automobile accident and cannot get help from a physician.
We are better than the mindless hate that has infected our public debates.
This is a question I have wrestled with for years, and I think the answer is definitely "yes." I also think it is not a new phenomenon.
At the moment, the issue raised by those on the right is whether undocumented immigrants should be able to get publicly-financed health care from the federal and state governments.
Currently, the law says that Medicaid will pay for anyone who gets emergency room care but cannot afford it. However, undocumented immigrants are not eligible for any other public health care services, including Medicare, Department of Veterans Affairs benefits or other government-sponsored care.
That would not change under any of the health insurance reform bills pending in Congress. Indeed, and as Dionne points out, all the bills include very clear language making clear that undocumented immigrants would not be eligible to receive any public benefit or participate in the health insurance exchange proposed by President Obama.
The president himself said in his Sept. 9 speech that he is not proposing to extend any health coverage to undocumented immigrants.
My position is that this is wrong.
We all have a moral obligation to help those who are suffering, and our laws should reflect that basic principle. Even if you are not a religious person, and don't believe the scriptural exhortation to care for the sick, common decency dictates that we do what we can to ease a person's suffering and pain.
Moreover, and as Dionne points out, it is often in our best interest, health-wise, to do so. Denying publicly-financed care to an undocumented immigrant with a contagious disease can hardly be said to represent rational policy. But I would go farther and say it is in our collective financial interest, too. When undocumented immigrants are limited to emergency room care, they may lose time at work. That deprives the economy of valuable labor and lowers productivity. And the costs of that care in the long run may be higher than the costs associated with preventive or traditional physician care. Since the taxpayer is, in many cases, paying for the emergency room visit, it seems to me that we should be thinking about how to minimize those costs.
I also think there's a legal issue. When government health care programs discriminate against undocumented immigrants, they run the risk of violating the Constitution's equal protection clause. The Supreme Court has not said that immigrants are a suspect classification, but it has ruled that discrimination against them is subject to an intermediate level of scrutiny, just as is gender discrimination by public entities and officials. While programs can survive that level of legal scrutiny easier than they can the strict scrutiny that demands a compelling government interest and narrowly-tailored means, it is still a step up from the "rational basis" review that serves to rubber-stamp most government programs in the face of equal protection challenges.
But the bottom line is that denying care to people because they are from another country and have not fulfilled one or more bureaucratic obligations is inhumane and, yes, lacking in compassion.
We have not always been this way. We have certainly had our nativist tendencies in this country, and that's not new. But our Congress had not, at least in recent decades, been inclined to enact hostility to immigrants into the United States code. I don't see any logical reason why we should do so now.
Some would say that, if we don't ban public health care services to undocumented immigrants, we will be inviting more of that illegal activity. I disagree. People emigrate to the United States for a better life. They want to earn a living, be free, experience the educational opportunities we have in this country. That is as it has always been in our history. Immigrants do not arrive on our shores so that they can get Medicaid or Medicare. After all, many of them come from countries with "single-payer" health care systems and not many come to our shores anticipating that they will need medical care.
This argument is not the only example of our country's hardening edge. We see the same phenomenon in the debate over the minimum wage, legislation to ease barriers to collective organizing in the workplace, education reform, and programs to encourage less pollution of the air, water and land and more conservation of energy.
One has to wonder whether our country can continue to exist as a cohesive republic if those of us who believe in justice, equality, and the dignity of each human being continue to be shouted down by radicals motivated by hate, prejudice, bigotry or a misguided view of God that says He does not care about the poor, the suffering and the sick.
I say it's time to stand up to the paranoia. Sure, keep the anti-immigrant provisions in the health insurance reform bills if that is what is necessary to achieve wide-scale reform this year. But let's have a conversation about exactly what we will do when your neighbor, co-worker or fellow parishioner comes down with something like, say, the H1N1 virus or suffers grievous injuries in an automobile accident and cannot get help from a physician.
We are better than the mindless hate that has infected our public debates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
