Can A Public Option Be Optional?

Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid has indicated that he will add a Public Option to the Senate Healthcare Bill, with the added element that states can opt out. It is not clear yet whether this decision is the purview of the governor or the entire state legislature. In either case, the caveat is that states most in need of a public option will indubitably opt out claiming they can’t afford it. Of course they cannot afford to be without it. Leaving it to the states to decide who shall have healthcare and who shall not have healthcare is reminiscent of the roulette played back in Reid’s home state. We know the house always wins in the end. It's all about money and not healthcare.

The fact is that we cannot afford not to have a public option since that is the only way to begin to bring down healthcare costs. In a strong public option, there is no profit-making middleman. Only such an option can make insurance companies behave. True, not everyone will even be able to select the public option, particularly if they get insurance through their employers. But those costs should come down as well when it is demonstrated that things can be done more economically. And with better outcomes. Insurance companies cannot continue to make healthcare a commodity to be sold much as a company would sell diamonds rather than a basic necessity. A strong public option that is not an optional option would also force fairer rules.

No man, woman, or child should be refused insurance or dropped for any reason, including pre-existing conditions or catastrophic illness. These are the people who most need insurance and we cannot continue to allow insurance companies to morph into the death panels of our country. For that is precisely what they do when they cut off insurance for those with catastrophic illness. Unless that patient is extremely wealthy—and if that were the case they would have a far superior plan to begin with—the company is for the most handing out a death sentence. It is unconscionable in a democratic society claiming to be sophisticated and caring.

A Walter Cronkite, He Ain't

The New York Times recently reported that CNN’s four-hour documentary, “Latino in America,” rather than merely serving as an inducement for Hispanic viewers, turned into a political rallying cry for activist groups to demand the cable news channel fire Lou Dobbs, a veteran anchor with well-known views on immigration. It would be a heartening sight to see CNN, which has so long billed itself as the “best news team” in television rid itself of its current primetime chair. The word anchor is used loosely in his case.

Dobbs personifies the current argument flaring around the Fox v White House dispute about whether “newscasters” are unfair. In truth, the argument has been mislabeled, as there are newscasters and then there are others on the air. Unfortunately these “others” are people who may sit behind a desk, and are often mistaken for news anchors because they may actually bring up some news story, or a rather questionable news account. They should not be mistaken for newscasters. The first clue is that these people not give out news so much as opinion. And no one is more opinionated at CNN than Lou Dobbs. It would not be overstating the point to say that he not only states his opinions, but does so over and over again. The same opinions. It’s a bore. It’s obnoxious. And it ain’t news.

A Walter Cronkite, he is not. He is not even Wolf Blitzer who has rarely, though admittedly at times, crossed the line from newscaster to commentator. But the avuncular Dobbs is in a category by himself at CNN because he totally blurs that line and invites the viewer to believe that he is handing out facts. He presents himself as a news anchor and he is quite soundly not.

And if you accept his broadcasts as “fact,” then you would have to accept that the most egregious problem facing the nation in the past several years, up to this moment, is immigration. The rest of the news, for the most part, gets short shrift in his pronouncements, except as sidebars. This can hardly pass for news, and yet it pretends to. Dobbs has even contrived to keep a straight face as he discussed the "birthers" as if this were a hot "news" issue surrounding Obama's birth certificate, perhaps leading some viewers to wonder whether we have a legitimate president! Come on, people, when is enough enough?!

In light of how many truly serious issues we are facing today as a nation and as part of the global community, it would behoove CNN to find itself a real news anchor for the coveted 7:00 pm slot and actually put together a real news team to do the serious work of researching and presenting world news. That would of course take more than having people sit and rehash their opinions in lieu of facts. Right now, the viewer does not even get a balanced view of national news.

Republican Foot in the Mouth Disease

A South Carolina Republican official, James Ulmer, chairman of the Orangeburg County GOP, is now apologizing for co-writing a newspaper op-ed, which ran Sunday in the Orangeburg Times & Democrat. The piece was meant to defend South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint's position against congressional earmarks. Ulmer said he made a "great error." Jews were described as penny-pinchers in the op-ed, which he penned along with Bamberg County GOP chairman Edwin Merwin.

It's so easy to "apologize" for statements made that turn out to be politically unwise, and yet because these were comments written in an op ed piece, they were carefully thought out and certainly reviewed and then edited. Hardly off the cuff. They are also prejudicial and vile, illuminating deeply seated negative feelings toward a group of people these writers obviously consider "different" from themselves.

It's true. Jews are different from these two characters who wrote the op ed piece. In fact, stupid stereotypes aside, the Jews in this country give more to charity than any other single group, and Jewish charitable organizations are known to spend more of each donated dollar directly for charity than for organizational expenses. In other words, donors' dollars are used more to help others than for operating expenses or salaries. Penny -pinching indeed, but hardly in the spirit of greed or for the purpose of anyone becoming enriched by such penny-pinching.

No group can be characterized by a few members. It would take a preponderance of members of any group to behave in a particular way in order to attach any sort of label. However, from many years of observation, I would venture to say that Jews, for the most part—and not the occasional aberration—tend to look out for others and demonstrate kindness and what is often called, ironically enough, “Christian” kindness, a trait no doubt taken from the laws of ancient Judaism, along with the Ten Commandments. http://barbaraspen.blogspot.com/

Obama and the Nobel

Like many others, I was stunned to read this morning that President Barack Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize. But after I read the Nobel Committee’s reasoning behind the award, I have to say that I saw this award in another light. As specifically stated, it is for what he has accomplished in the way he has reset the entire pattern of global relationships and aspirations. He has begun the process of making the United Nations live up to its name of inclusive rather than exclusive in trying to unite all nations and set positive goals, as for example, nuclear disarmament and reduction in global warming. He has brought the United States into a leadership role rather than shirking such responsibility and led the way in inspiring others to follow him in aspiring to the ambitious aims that could mean world prosperity and peace. Will he succeed in any of these goals that he so very gracefully began? None of us knows. But obviously many of us hope and more than that, wish to throw in our support. The Nobel Committee has done so in a most public way, using the weight of its lofty position to give its approval to his agenda. Thus I believe that the Award was given to him not just in recognition of his efforts (yes, his efforts) but to aid the realization of those goals.

What has been disheartening is that from the moment of the announcement, there were disparaging remarks about Obama not being worthy of the award. From people in countries whose agenda is in direct opposition to peace and disarmament, it was to be expected. But from those in our own country whose sole goal appears to be the usual game of partisan politics, it is nothing less than vulgar. Disparaging the president in these circumstances is nothing less than showing poor taste in not being a citizen proud of our country and its president. This is an international award that should make every citizen proud that we have once more been recognized for being the leader of the free world. His leadership qualities have been very much on display in every international forum he has attended. Howhe quietly coems onto the scene and becomes the focus is nothing short of amazing. Obama has used this advantage as a global bully pulpit to further goals of peace and prosperity on an international scale.

The Nobel Committee is throwing its weight behind Barack Obama to realize these worthy goals of bringing peace and his work in no less than taking the necessary efforts to save the planet; they are saying in essence that they are doing what they can to bring attention to his grand but necessary agenda and put its “seal of approval” on these worthy aims. Let’s all hope they succeed.

Obama's Deliberative and Thoughtful Progress

SNL’s supposedly satiric takeoff on Obama’s “lack of achievement” after eight months in office was a cheap shot. Distorting the situation by nicely neglecting to list what Obama has achieved while not quite noting that the list of “non-accomplishments” is not so simple is low. For example, Gitmo has not closed but an Executive Order for the closing was signed, but the major impediment, by the way, is that everyone who was for it and that was just about everyone, is suddenly against it. Strange turn of events, wouldn’t you say, particularly since even Bush was finally for it by the end of his term. Sounds to me like political exploitation with the "not in my backyard” bravado neglecting the facts. Such as the fact that we already have terrorists in our high security jails. As for accomplishments, the Ledbetter bill, getting many more children eligible for health care, even announcing to the world that “we do not torture” count as accomplishment. One of his greatest feats has been to get the country back into a working relationship with our allies and making us once more a working member of the world community, working toward nuclear nonproliferation, lowering green house gases and global warming (and yes, it take the global community to work on that and since we are the largest perpetrator, our participation was always vital). It is unrealistic to expect miracles in less than a year and yet his administration has averted a major depression and gotten us out of the recession. No, we are not in recovery yet, but this complicated matter is at least being worked on intelligently, for a change. Health care is the key for so many things, it can be understood if gay marriage and gays in the military and immigration are put on the back burner behind the economy and health care for now. Since both those subjects impact everyone in the country, that should be accepted as the right thing to do, and not mocked on SNL showing a president who does nothing. It seems we finally have a president who does a great deal, but does not rush into thoughtless acts that cost the country further misery. It’s time for us to back him in his efforts and work together in our country’s recovery.

The Debate Goes on, But When Will the Lies Stop

I am still astonished to hear people at town hall meetings rail against health care reform despite the fact that they would be the big losers if health care reform fails. It only goes to show how spin works when it is really sophisticated. And why is Senator Grassley so befuddled when questioned? Is it because he doesn't want to level with his constituents?

And before any of these people cheering for the failure of health care reform jump up and down, I hope they come to their senses and realize that if health care fails, it is a tremendous failure for the whole country.

The insurance companies (and some of the providers, like doctors who own a big piece of the action, such as nursing homes, MRI facilities, etc.) are against two major provisions in health care reform. And this was what they made sure the big noise was about.

1- The "end of life" options for discussions with doctor every five years for Medicare patients (paid for by Medicare and not mandated by anyone). This type of discussion is likely to produce health care proxies, living wills, etc., the types of things that would put an end to the tremendous amounts of money the insurers are now raking in doing totally unnecessary things for terminal patients that make no difference to anything but their bank account.

2-The so-called "Public Option" that so many people are railing about though they have idea what it's about except they scream about socialism, government takeover and everything under the sun. Do you want the government to come between you and your doctor, they scream at meetings. Of course not. The insurance companies are already there and they couldn't bear to lose that sacred position wherein they tell you which doctors you can go to (in network), whether you can even get a decent policy (pre-existing conditions), and so many other things. I myself have been told several times that I could not be covered for certain medications, would not be covered for procedures my doctors thought I needed, etc. A Public Option, which seems dead in the water, is so misunderstood and so important for people to get a better deal in health insurance in coming years. It is needed to stop those greedy insurance companies from continuing their grubby ascent -- I still cannot understand how some people can stand in front of the camera and talk about how wonderful our healthcare system is. These same people were infuriated with Wall Street big shots -- Well, you know what? These insurance CEOs make even more!! And they are scared to death of reform!

So I hope more people get wise and begin to see what is good for them before it's too late. It is beginning to remind me of Bush and all those people in the red states voting for someone who was against all their best interests. They somehow couldn't bring themselves to see what was before their eyes; that "their man" was really for the very rich and powerful and cared nothing for them, and indeed saw to it that things got much worse for people who were not in a good situation to begin with. Well, the entrenched “interests” have gotten so much richer in the past eight years, it is even harder to get the change we need.

I think greed may be an addiction, making those in the throes of it feel that nothing else and no one else matters. But we need reform desperately. So the lies have to be addressed and the doubts and fears allayed. We have been going slowly. Health care reform was first attempted more than 40 years ago, and if we don't get it this time, we may be in even more serious trouble because it is not just about health care, but the economy.

Be Sure You Know What You Stand For

I’ve been watching town hall meetings on television for days, and was particularly dismayed by a meeting in Pennsylvania that was crammed with overwrought constituents venting highly charged rhetoric. One young woman begged the senator to return the nation to the Constitution because she didn’t want this country to become another Russia, and a middle-aged gentleman shrieked about socialism and having a dictator. The crowd seemed to accept that we had already become a socialist nation with Obama as our dictator! Unbelievable! Where do they get this stuff from?

What have these people been drinking? Or better, what radio programs have they been listening to? Which TV ads have they been fed to brainwash them into thinking healthcare reform is the devil?

Suddenly we have town hall meetings all over the country full of patriotic people who are terrified because we have overnight become “socialist” and no longer adhere to the Constitution. Yes, these people populating town halls appear quite prepared to accept the notion that Barack Obama, who has returned the Constitution to us and descried torture and abuse, is our dictator.

Where were all these patriots when George W. Bush threw away our Constitution, and his administration took us into an era of torture of prisoners and eavesdropping on American citizens? And don’t forget firing federal attorneys who were not politically acceptable, or outing a CIA operative to punish her husband who disagreed with policy. Or better yet dragging us into a preemptive war with lies. Not a peep out of these people.

Have any of these people stopped to think? Even for a moment? Hey, people, who do you think is paying for these ads? And what do they have to gain by filling you with such vitriol? If we do not have healthcare reform, we all go down. Except for health insurance companies. It’s as simple as that.

Obama will not go down. Our country will go down, because our economy cannot sustain the American way of healthcare with our greedy insurance companies. We are that desperate for restructuring. Blocking health care reform will plague us. Since the cost of healthcare takes up too large a part of our economy, our expenditure for it will continue to hold down the growth and resurgence of the economy. It does not allow us to compete with the rest of the civilized world who have discovered that they need not pay as much as we do for healthcare and yet enjoy better health than we! There is certainly something wrong here! We must develop a wellness model of medical care, as most of our major health issues are culturally driven, and can thus be reversed with education.

Meanwhile these people shriek about losing their choices. Isn’t it rather ironic that many fear government standing between them and their doctors when in fact the insurance company is already there? And for a lot more money every year too. And that price continues to escalate at wild rates, and yet I heard many people voicing the idea that a public government option would take away their right to choose their own doctor, deny them treatment and even have death panels and other horrible things which, by the way, if you stop to think about it, the insurance companies have themselves been promulgating for years!

It is the public option that would stand in the way of these companies perpetuating these practices of denying insurance to people with catastrophic illness, preexisting conditions and well -- you get the picture. I hope.

As for the price tag, healthcare reform will in the long run not only rally the economy, but also bring down the deficit. Yes, it can.