Palin Speaks

[hrothgar]

It seems like this actually explains a lot of the problem in the US.

 

Compared to other countries with comparable wealth, the US has a shortage of medical resources (doctors, especially general practitioners, nurses, MRI machines, etc).

 

In a free market system, a low supply naturally leads to a higher price. But what's supposed to happen, is that as the price rises the demand goes down (people decide they don't really need this thing if it's so expensive) and the supply goes up (there is more money to be made producing the commodity in question).

 

However, the US health care system seems to break this free market process. The issue is that when the price of health care goes up, it does not directly effect people's use of health care, because they are covered by insurance through their employer, expenses are paid, etc. So increasing the cost of medical care does not change the actions of individual people. The increased price (price has to increase to prevent shortages) is hidden from consumers and is passed on to their employers. Basically the only way people's health care behavior changes substantially is if they don't have insurance, so the employer eventually cuts health care (too expensive) or cuts payroll (employees too expensive because of health care cost) leaving more people uninsured. So the price increases are much larger than they would otherwise need to be to change behavior, and the upshot is a lot of people without insurance.

 

Meanwhile, higher price is also supposed to increase supply. If general practitioners (and nurses etc) were making lots of money, then presumably more people would go into these professions and supply would increase etc. But in fact the pay rates for these professions are held down because of fixed pay-per-appointment rates from medicare and from large-scale bargaining by the insurance companies (many of which have local monopolies). So the extra money from the increased price mostly goes into the coffers of the insurance companies and not into the pockets of doctors and nurses. So supply does not increase as fast as it needs to, and the process continues.

 

Basically the issue is that insurance companies are acting as intermediaries, hiding the costs from consumers (so they don't cut down on unnecessary procedures) and also hiding the profits from doctors (so the supply of doctors doesn't increase). The obvious solution would seem to be getting rid of insurance companies and letting the government take over their role as intermediary. This works relatively well in a lot of countries. In most cases the free market would be more efficient than the government, but health insurance is a funny "market" where the free market paradigm seems to be broken.

Doctor's make a pretty good living even after the insurance companies take their cut.

 

I suspect that various barriers to entry have a MUCH more significant impact on the supply of doctors than low wages.

 

For example: college, med school, and the like are all enormously expensive. Residents don't get paid much at all and have miserable working conditions. Anyone wanting to become a Dr needs to be willing to trade off a pretty miserable "now" against what is potentially a very lucrative future. Relatively few people are willing to do this.

 

The AMA does everything it can to restrain entry into the market.

[mike777]

"As I pointed out in my previous post there are state limitations on the free flow of capital, which should be changed"

 

Back the operation went well.

 

 

As for my post I just wish the posters would actually read what it says before they claim I say stuff which I do not. The facts posted support what I said, they do not contradict it. :D

 

 

Just to repeat the main point and not these side points. Winston was advocating a system where the economic and political power are in the same hands. A system where health care costs are paid for regardless. I think he made his point clearly.

----------------------------------------

 

"Basically the issue is that insurance companies are acting as intermediaries, hiding the costs from consumers (so they don't cut down on unnecessary procedures) and also hiding the profits from doctors (so the supply of doctors doesn't increase). The obvious solution would seem to be getting rid of insurance companies and letting the government take over their role as intermediary. This works relatively well in a lot of countries. In most cases the free market would be more efficient than the government, but health insurance is a funny "market" where the free market paradigm seems to be broken."

 

 

 

Yes I agree with your entire post, excellent points. The fact we are paying 100% more for what seems to be the same quality of health care is wierd. Even if one thinks we have the best/better health and pay for innovation that other countries do not pay for.

-----------------------------------------------------

 

 

Excellent point made by Richard.

 

"Doctor's make a pretty good living even after the insurance companies take their cut.

 

I suspect that various barriers to entry have a MUCH more significant impact on the supply of doctors than low wages.

 

For example: college, med school, and the like are all enormously expensive. Residents don't get paid much at all and have miserable working conditions. Anyone wanting to become a Dr needs to be willing to trade off a pretty miserable "now" against what is potentially a very lucrative future. Relatively few people are willing to do this.

 

The AMA does everything it can to restrain entry into the market"

[mike777]

To echo Adam's excellent post. The one regulation I guess I always most strongly support is transparency, more transparency. Clearly all of us, including me, have no idea how much stuff costs, like my wife's operation today. I certainly never understand my company's health insurance plans and our HR dept. knows less. :D

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

To echo Richard's excellent post.

 

"Among other concepts, Friedman advocates ending the mandatory licensing of doctors and introducing a system of vouchers for school education."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism_and_Freedom

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Winston's posts make for an interesting and thoughtful thread. Well worth it.

 

"am of the opinion that no needed procedure, treatment, or drug should be denied because it is unprofitable. In my opinion, health care should be acknowledged as a cost to society. We spend more than the rest of the world combined on our defense budget - to do so and not have universal health care should be considered a moral crime in the universe."

 

 

"The idea of a publicly-held corporation determining my need for a procedure or treatment goes against all I believe in as a part of the health care providers in this country, because I know the interest of that company is not in my well being but in appeasing the shareholders by earning higher profits.

 

I really don't want an Enron or WorldCom executive making decisions that affect my ability to receive health care."

 

 

Here is the basic counterpoint. I expect many to disagree.

 

"The Relation between Economic Freedom and Political Freedom

In this chapter, Friedman promotes economic freedom as both a necessary freedom in itself and also as a vital means for political freedom. He argues that, with the means for production under the auspices of the government, it is nearly impossible for real dissent and exchange of ideas to exist. Additionally, economic freedom is important, since any "bi-laterally voluntary and informed" transaction must benefit both parties to the transaction."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism_and_Freedom

[awm]

Doctor's make a pretty good living even after the insurance companies take their cut.

 

I suspect that various barriers to entry have a MUCH more significant impact on the supply of doctors than low wages. 

 

For example:  college, med school, and the like are all enormously expensive.  Residents don't get paid much at all and have miserable working conditions.  Anyone wanting to become a Dr needs to be willing to trade off a pretty miserable "now" against what is potentially a very lucrative future.  Relatively few people are willing to do this.

 

The AMA does everything it can to restrain entry into the market.

Certainly it's true that doctors make a lot of money relative to most other professions. But becoming a doctor entails a huge amount of time (medical school, residency) and money (medical school is expensive). A typical doctor has about 120K of educational debt.

 

Here's a chart of doctor's salaries after three years. Primary care doctors are making 147K-160K. This is pretty good, but many specialists are making much more. For example, cardiologists are averaging 317K. After ringing up such a huge debt (and spending so many years in school when their peers are out in the work force), is it any surprise that many doctors opt for the more lucrative specialties?

[mike777]

I was surprised when I started getting so many medical doctors as clients who basically had retired at a very early age because they hated the practice.

 

1) They changed professions

2) They became stay at home Moms or DAds

3) They became teachers, researchers.

 

It reminds me when I dated a doctor in Calif. who also had an mba and law degree and was trying to figure out what degree she should get next. Anything to not practice medicine with patients.

[Winstonm]

The shortage of IC beds in the UK notwithstanding, the fact is that most if not all developed countries achieve better health care results than the US, at far lower costs.

I have not seen these data. Have you a link, or an offline source?

I don't mean this comment as coy, smug, or sarcastic:

 

If you have not seen this information is can only be because you have not tried at all to find it. It is not hard to locate.

[Winstonm]

"There was no mention of sovietizing - what are you trying to do, promote fear by trying to compare socialized medicine to the U.S.S.R.?

They are not the same. Your argument is invalid - no one but you said that the profit motive was incompatible with the proper provision of essential goods and services."

 

 

 

 

Since you make this claim at the very least back it up, just do not dismiss it by saying it is not the same, please.

 

I am opposing the terminology - Soviet-style communism DOES NOT equate to socialism or socialized medicine. I am not opposed to some form of socialized medicine.

[Winstonm]

To echo Adam's excellent post.  The one regulation I guess I always most strongly support is transparency, more transparency.  Clearly all of us, including me, have no idea how much stuff costs, like my wife's operation today. I certainly never understand my company's health insurance plans and our HR dept. knows less. :D

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

To echo Richard's excellent post.

 

"Among other concepts, Friedman advocates ending the mandatory licensing of doctors and introducing a system of vouchers for school education."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism_and_Freedom

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Winston's posts make for an interesting and thoughtful thread. Well worth it.

 

"am of the opinion that no needed procedure, treatment, or drug should be denied because it is unprofitable. In my opinion, health care should be acknowledged as a cost to society. We spend more than the rest of the world combined on our defense budget - to do so and not have universal health care should be considered a moral crime in the universe."

 

 

"The idea of a publicly-held corporation determining my need for a procedure or treatment goes against all I believe in as a part of the health care providers in this country, because I know the interest of that company is not in my well being but in appeasing the shareholders by earning higher profits.

 

I really don't want an Enron or WorldCom executive making decisions that affect my ability to receive health care."

 

 

Here is the basic counterpoint. I expect many to disagree.

 

"The Relation between Economic Freedom and Political Freedom

In this chapter, Friedman promotes economic freedom as both a necessary freedom in itself and also as a vital means for political freedom. He argues that, with the means for production under the auspices of the government, it is nearly impossible for real dissent and exchange of ideas to exist. Additionally, economic freedom is important, since any "bi-laterally voluntary and informed" transaction must benefit both parties to the transaction."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism_and_Freedom

Mike,

 

I don't necessarily disagree with conservatives and free marketers on many subjects - but I totally disagree with the conclusion that free market principles and capitalism is ALWAYS the only right answer.

 

I think health care may be one of those issues where socialism may well be the better path.

 

Regarding your statement about Democrats solidly favoring a public option, you are dead wrong - only the liberals of the party want public option and the Obama administration is working on marginalizing those liberals.

 

This is why I recommend the Greenwald article. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

[kenberg]

I tried reading the greenwald article. Perhaps he is an acquired taste that I haven acquired yet. I found the article largely incomprehensible.

[Winstonm]

I tried reading the greenwald article. Perhaps he is an acquired taste that I haven acquired yet. I found the article largely incomprehensible.

I understand - it is not his finest writing but it does tell the story. He points out how Obama and his administration are putting pressure on the liberals in the party to abandon the public option..... because of the influence of the corporations.

 

The Dems don't want all that money going into Republican coffers for the next election cycle.

 

Basically, he is demonstrating that there is no effective differences between the two parties - all are only interested in appeasing the moneyed interests.

 

Here is the money line from the article:

 

More important than all of that is the fact that there is one principal reason that Blue Dogs and "centrists" exert such dominance within the Party:  because the Party leadership, led by the Obama White House, wants it that way and works hard to ensure it continues.

 

Rahm Emanuel does not want a public option - and now Obama is claiming that a "public option" was never a "necessity".

 

Greenwald shows why and how this has happened - but it is not well written, I agree.

[mike777]

I tried reading the greenwald article. Perhaps he is an acquired taste that I haven acquired yet. I found the article largely incomprehensible.

ditto.

 

sidenote......again to repeat for the third time:

 

elections matter

 

 

1)Democrats won big

2) Democrats favor public option was not a secret

3) Health care with a public option was a top priority for Democrats.

4) single payer option was a top priority for some in the leadership

5) socialism, socialized medicine was favored by some of the Democratic leadership.

 

 

"Rahm Emanuel does not want a public option - and now Obama is claiming that a "public option" was never a "necessity"."

 

 

The above is highly debatable.

 

His brother, a health care czar appears to favor health care that " that has the greatest value for the most people" See his health care articles in the Lancelot and elsewhere. He suggests we may need to get rid of the "H" oath.

 

 

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl...cratic_oath.htm

 

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/greekme...ocraticOath.htm

[Winstonm]

sidenote......again to repeat for the third time:

 

elections matter

 

 

1)Democrats won big

2) Democrats favor public option was not a secret

3) Health care with a public option was a top priority for Democrats.

4) single payer option was a top priority for some in the leadership

5) socialism, socialized medicine was favored by some of the Democratic leadership.

 

 

"Rahm Emanuel does not want a public option - and now Obama is claiming that a "public option" was never a "necessity"."

 

 

The above is highly debatable.

 

And for the third time, I disagree. Elections do not really matter. The only Dems who wanted the public option were some liberals and progressives - not the party as a whole. With a filibuster-proof majority, the Dems could have passed a public option if they wished. They didn't wish to do so because not ALL the Dems were in favor. There will not be a public option as long as Obama listens to Rahm Emanuel and Tom Daschle - Emanuel is too pragmatic and Daschle is a crook.. Only the corporate interests will be served - the public will be served new episodes of American Idol while their gladiator football heroes do battle in their new Coliseums.

 

Hail, Caesar!

 

 

 

The Obama administration gave its strongest signal yet that it would be willing to compromise on plans to expand the government's direct role in health-insurance coverage as it fights a growing crescendo of opposition to its effort to overhaul health care.

[Mike Lannon, right, speaks at a health-care forum Saturday in Vermont.] Associated Press

 

Mike Lannon, right, speaks at a health-care forum Saturday in Vermont.

 

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Sunday that a new, government-run health-insurance program wasn't the "essential element" of any overhaul plan.

 

Robert Gibbs, the president's press secretary, said President Barack Obama wants "choice and competition" in the insurance market. Mr. Obama "has, thus far, sided with the notion that can best be done through a public option," or government-run plan, Mr. Gibbs said Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation." However, he said the bottom line is simply that "what we have to have is choice and competition in the insurance market."

 

A day earlier, President Obama defended the public option at a town-hall meeting in Grand Junction, Colo., while leaving the door open to alternative approaches that expand coverage and reduce costs, but don't increase the federal deficit.

 

The public option, "whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health-care reform," Mr. Obama said. "This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it."

 

And this:

 

All of that is taking place despite this truly remarkable passage from a New York Times article today, which details how Tom Daschle is still exerting a major role in advising Obama on health care even as he maintains his stable of health care industry clients.  Shockingly, Daschle (and now the key Democrats) are advocating the very policy which his industry clients want:  namely, health care reform with mandates, but no "public option" -- only with "co-ops" (article headline: "Daschle Has Ear of White House and Industry"):

 

    But these days it often seems as if Mr. Daschle never left the picture. With unrivaled ties on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, he talks constantly with top White House advisers, many of whom previously worked for him.

 

    He still speaks frequently to the president, who met with him as recently as Friday morning in the Oval Office. And he remains a highly paid policy adviser to hospital, drug, pharmaceutical and other health care industry clients of Alston & Bird, the law and lobbying firm.

 

    Now the White House and Senate Democratic leaders appear to be moving toward a blueprint for overhauling the health system, centered on nonprofit insurance cooperatives, that Mr. Daschle began promoting two months ago as a politically feasible alternative to a more muscular government-run insurance plan.

 

    It is an idea that happens to dovetail with the interests of many Alston & Bird clients, like the insurance giant UnitedHealth and the Tennessee Hospital Association.

[mike777]

"And for the third time, I disagree. Elections do not really matter."

 

 

 

FORGET PALIN SPEAKS.

 

WINSTON YOU HAVE JUST CREATED THE BEST POST OR THREAD EVER.

[Winstonm]

"And for the third time, I disagree. Elections do not really matter."

 

 

 

FORGET PALIN SPEAKS.

 

WINSTON YOU HAVE JUST CREATED THE BEST POST OR THREAD EVER.

I don't know, Mike. It would be hard to imagine 400 posts of:

 

Yes, they do.

No, they don;t.

Oh, yes, they do.

Oh, no, they don't.

[kenberg]

It is too early to schedule the funeral but health care reform is definitely in need of intensive care. Charles Krauthammer, not surpsingly, blames Obama. See

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5032401690.html

Michael Kinsley, not surprisnigling, blames the citizens. See

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9082703254.html

Kinsley's description of the problem, that we all want change as long as everything remains the same, reminded me of the quote from St. Augustine, "Give me chastity and continence, but not yet."

 

Seniors are often seen as the obstacle, and being one I thought I might comment.

 

 

Bear with me while I recall my automotive habits. I have a 2001 Accord with about 125K miles. In a couple more years I will probably buy a new car. When I bought the Accord, cars such as the Prius were just entering the market. I figured "Let's wait". I also said "Let's wait" when the Yugo hit the market. Of course I could save some money by getting a late model used car if I proceeded carefully but buying new is simpler. I don't have to spend much time thinking about it.

 

OK, back to healthcare. I pay too much according to European standards. I know that. But it works. I am not pleased with the doctor I switched to when I moved, but I can take care of that problem in the obvious way. My healthcare has been good, my family's health care has been good, and I don't much fret about the cost. I'm not rich, but I have good insurance, for a stiff but affordable price, and I can afford the extra costs that arise.

 

So: Really what we are talking about, from my standpoint, is helping others. I have no disagreement with helping others, but if someone wants to get my support for a program for helping others then the arguments have to be a little different than when he is trying to sell me something that will benefit me. The latter situation is much easier. I'll listen, I'll say thanks or no thanks, and that's it. But with the Obama healthcare proposals I need to try to grasp who and how it will help, what it will cost, where the money will come from, and whether it will adversely affect me. Many people do not have insurance. True. They are not, I think, turned away at emergency rooms. Sort of an informal public option I guess, Not great. But my knowledge of the details is very skimpy.

 

When a politician announces plans to do a lot of good things for a lot of people without it costing anything ("revenue neutral") I get skeptical. Anyone would, I think. To return to cars for a moment, when I was car shopping in 1990 I stopped by a Ford dealer to check out a Taurus. The salesman brought out the manager who explained that they were offering to sell me the car for less than they paid for it. Uh huh. This is just wasting my time and theirs. I left and bought a Honda. Back to health care. I recognize that I have been fortunate. I have known people who have a body that would have been recalled if it were a car. This is a strain on them and on their finances. My body putt-putts along without much trouble. I'll survice my current bout with poison ivy. So, bottom line, I'm fine with trying to help others but I don't much believe you can do something for nothing, and the law of unintended consequences can be serious.

 

 

I hope the President, the Senate, and the House can all come together and do something right. It doesn't happen often, but sometimes we get a miracle.

[Winstonm]

I recently had a CT scan, and the original bill from the hospital was $2100.

I received notification from my insurance company that the "negotiated charge" was only $934 of which I had to pay $135. Fine.

 

But what happens to the uninsured who goes to the ER and has a CT scan done? Who "negotiates charges" for them? And when the hospital eventually writes off that bill as a bad debt, you can bet your sweet ass the amount they will claim will be $2100, not $934. And that means a $1200 difference in taxable income and $1200 more to show as loss that is then used as reasoning to charge more to the insurers.

 

I wonder what the charge would be with a public option?

[Winstonm]

I hope the President, the Senate, and the House can all come together and do something right. It doesn't happen often, but sometimes we get a miracle.

 

I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

This same nation, which spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined, had to hire Blackwater mercenaries to help fight wars against enemies who have no defense budget at all.

 

I guess we could hire Blackwater to capture and rendition lobbyists - that might help. :wacko:

[Lobowolf]

It is too early to schedule the funeral but health care reform is definitely in need of intensive care. Charles Krauthammer, not surpsingly, blames Obama. See

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5032401690.html

Michael Kinsley, not surprisnigling, blames the citizens. See

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9082703254.html

Kinsley's description of the problem, that we all want change as long as everything remains the same, reminded me of the quote from St. Augustine, "Give me chastity and continence, but not yet."

 

Seniors are often seen as the obstacle, and being one I thought I might comment.

 

 

Bear with me while I recall my automotive habits. I have a 2001 Accord with about 125K miles. In a couple more years I will probably buy a new car. When I bought the Accord, cars such as the Prius were just entering the market. I figured "Let's wait". I also said "Let's wait" when the Yogo hit the market. Of course I could save some money by getting a late model used car if I proceeded acrefully but buying new is simpler. I don't have to spend much time thinking about it.

 

OK, back to healthcare. I pay too much according to European standards. I know that. But it works. I am not pleased with the doctor I switched to when I moved, but I can take care of that problem in the obvious way. My healthcare has been good, my family's health care has been good, and I don't much fret about the cost. I'm not rich, but I have good insurance, for a stiff but affordable price, and I can afford the extra costs that arise.

 

So: Really what we are talking about, from my standpoint, is helping others. I have no disagreement with helping others, but if someone wants to get my support for a program for helping others then the arguments have to be a little different than when he is trying to sell me something that will benefit me. The latter situation is much easier. I'll listen, I'll say thanks or no thanks, and that's it. But with the Obama healthcare proposals I need to try to grasp who and how it will help, what it will cost, where the money will come from, and whether it will adversely affect me. Many people do not have insurance. True. They are not, I think, turned away at emergency rooms. Sort of an informal public option I guess, Not great. But my knowledge of the details is very skimpy.

 

When a politician announces plans to do a lot of good things for a lot of people without it costing anything ("revenue neutral") I get skeptical. Anyone would, I think. To return to cars for a moment, when I was car shopping in 1990 I stopped by a Ford dealer to check out a Taurus. The salesman brought out the manager who explained that they were offering to sell me the car for less than they paid for it. Uh huh. This is just wasting my time and theirs. I left and bought a Honda. Back to health care. I recognize that I have been fortunate. I have known people who have a body that would have been recalled if it were a car. This is a strain on them and on their finances. My body putt-putts along without much trouble. I'll survice my current bout with poison ivy. So, bottom line, I'm fine with trying to help others but I don't much believe you can do something for nothing, and the law of unintended consequences can be serious.

 

 

I hope the President, the Senate, and the House can all come together and do something right. It doesn't happen often, but sometimes we get a miracle.

+1

[Winstonm]

Isn't it amazing that we all sat on our hands while the government dumped $2 trillion into saving too big to fail banks from their own greed - we socialized their losses - but argue vehemently that low wage earners don't need better than the local ER for health care and that socialized medicine is too scary to even consider?

[kenberg]

Winston, I am making no such argument. I am not of the let them eat cake school. I sincerely hope that we can do something useful about healthcare. When an effort is failing, as I think the current effort is, it can be useful to understand how people are thinking. Possibly the plan can be reset so that it will have a better chance of success. Looking out first for one's own interest is not just a matter of selfishness. It is also a matter of knowing what I want and at least believing that I know what is good for me, so I can make a judgment fairly easily. Helping others is fine, but not always as easy as advertised. The Obama administration has performed remarkably poorly in preparing and explaining what they have in mind. Perhaps it is not too late to do better.

[Winstonm]

Winston, I am making no such argument. I am not of the let them eat cake school. I sincerely hope that we can do something useful about healthcare.  When an effort is failing, as I think the current effort is, it can be useful to understand how people are thinking. Possibly the plan can be reset so that it will have a better chance of success. Looking out first for one's own interest is not just a matter of selfishness. It is also a matter of knowing what I want and at least believing that I know what is good for me, so I can make a judgment fairly easily. Helping others is fine, but not always as easy as advertised. The Obama administration has performed remarkably poorly in preparing and explaining what they have in mind. Perhaps it is not too late to do better.

Ken,

 

I know you are not making that argument. I didn't mean to insinuate you did simply because of the position of my post to yours. Reading your post only spurred my thinking.

 

I find all of us (including me) to be partially at fault.

The Obama administration has performed remarkably poorly in preparing and explaining what they have in mind. Perhaps it is not too late to do better.

 

I, too, am finding the Obama administration to be a huge disappointment in all areas - not only health care. I have to sigh and shake my head when people still paint Obama as some type of ultra-liberal when his actions show him to be as centrist as they come - more interested in building a power base that is Democratic in name only than arguing for real change.

 

Bill Moyers sees the same problems as do I:

 

You really have essentially -- except for the progressives on the left of the Democratic Party – you really have two corporate parties who in their own way and their own time are serving the interests of basically a narrow set of economic interests in the country -- who, as Glenn Greenwald, who is a great analyst and journalist, wrote just this week:  these narrow interests seem to win, determine the outcomes, no matter how many Democrats are elected, no matter who has their hands on the levers of powers, these narrow interests determine the outcomes in Washington, even when they have to run roughshod over the interests of ordinary Americans.  I’m sad to say that has happened to the Democratic Party

 

MOYERS:  I don’t think the problem is the Republicans . . . .The problem is the Democratic Party.  This is a party that has told its progressives -- who are the most outspoken champions of health care reform -- to sit down and shut up.  That’s what Rahm Emanuel, the Chief of Staff at the White House, in effect told progressives who stood up as a unit in Congress and said: "no public insurance option, no health care reform."

 

And I think the reason for that is -- in the time since I was there, 40 years ago, the Democratic Part has become like the Republican Party, deeply influenced by corporate money

[PassedOut]

In his latest column, Paul Krugman discusses what has gone wrong with the US political system over the past 30+ years: Missing Richard Nixon

 

But the Nixon era was a time in which leading figures in both parties were capable of speaking rationally about policy, and in which policy decisions weren’t as warped by corporate cash as they are now. America is a better country in many ways than it was 35 years ago, but our political system’s ability to deal with real problems has been degraded to such an extent that I sometimes wonder whether the country is still governable.

 

As many people have pointed out, Nixon’s proposal for health care reform looks a lot like Democratic proposals today. In fact, in some ways it was stronger.

But the political situation in the US now resembles that in countries dominated by rich drug lords, except that corporations here fill the role of the drug lords.

 

Given the combination of G.O.P. extremism and corporate power, it’s now doubtful whether health reform, even if we get it — which is by no means certain — will be anywhere near as good as Nixon’s proposal, even though Democrats control the White House and have a large Congressional majority.

 

And what about other challenges? Every desperately needed reform I can think of, from controlling greenhouse gases to restoring fiscal balance, will have to run the same gantlet of lobbying and lies.

 

I’m not saying that reformers should give up. They do, however, have to realize what they’re up against. There was a lot of talk last year about how Barack Obama would be a “transformational” president — but true transformation, it turns out, requires a lot more than electing one telegenic leader. Actually turning this country around is going to take years of siege warfare against deeply entrenched interests, defending a deeply dysfunctional political system.

It's not easy standing up to corporate power, just as it's not easy for people to resist drug lords, but it has to be done.

 

John McCain (the senator, not the presidential candidate) stuck his neck out to fight this cancer on the US, which is why I voted for him in the primary. Too bad he ran a campaign that rejected his own principles, so that no knowledgeable principled voter could cast a ballot for him.

 

I would, though, like to see him stop feeling sorry for himself and begin fighting for his country again.

[Lobowolf]

Too bad he ran a campaign that rejected his own principles, so that no knowledgeable principled voter could cast a ballot for him.

lol

 

Really?! All 60 million or so Americans who were McCain voters were either ignorant or unprincipled? I mean, I didn't vote for the guy, and I didn't think much of him as a candidate, but this strikes me as over the top. Doesn't it depend on which issues or principles are most important to a given voter?

[Al_U_Card]

Too bad he ran a campaign that rejected his own principles, so that no knowledgeable principled voter could cast a ballot for him.

lol

 

Really?! All 60 million or so Americans who were McCain voters were either ignorant or unprincipled? I mean, I didn't vote for the guy, and I didn't think much of him as a candidate, but this strikes me as over the top. Doesn't it depend on which issues or principles are most important to a given voter?

Perhaps Mr. McCain learned something from his experience as a member of the "Keating" five? (Like how to more effectively hide his involvement in things....)

[awm]

The upsetting thing about the McCain campaign was that despite continually calling himself (and Sarah Palin) "mavericks" and emphasizing how brave McCain had been to occasionally take principled positions against his own party line... his campaign platform actually reversed a lot of those positions. For example: immigration (McCain was in favor of amnesty for illegals, but reversed this for the election and didn't talk much about it), tax cuts (McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts for budgetary reasons, but when he ran for president he wanted to make them permanent), and even campaign finance reform (McCain was a cosponsor of this effort, but waffled on whether to take public money himself and arguably violated his own law by using the promise of public money to secure a loan, then rejecting public funding). Even on "earmarks" which McCain himself fought against consistently and publicly, his choice of VP candidate (Sarah Palin) hardly supported his position (although she was certainly willing to lie about it during the campaign and claim to have "killed" the bridge to nowhere etc).

 

As for voters, the Republican base was hardly enthusiastic about McCain. But who else were they going to vote for? As they say on the Simpsons when the aliens run for president.... it's a two party system.