...before it's too late

  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
Salon


Why the Gang of Six is deciding healthcare for 300 million of us

Six senators representing 3 percent of the population are running things because the White House wants it that way

By Robert Reich

Aug. 23, 2009 | On Thursday, the so-called Gang of Six – three Republicans and three Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee – met by conference call and, according to Max Baucus, D-Mont., the committee's chair, reaffirmed their commitment "toward a bipartisan healthcare reform bill" (read: less coverage and no public insurance option). The Washington Post reports that the senators shared tales from their home states, where some have been besieged by protesters angry about a potential government takeover of the nation's healthcare system.

I don't get it. Of the three Republicans in the gang, the senior senator is Charles Grassley, R-Iowa. In recent weeks Grassley has refused to debunk the rumor that the House's healthcare bill will spawn "death panels," empowered to decide whether the sick and old get to live or die. At an Iowa town meeting last Tuesday Grassley called the president and Speaker Nancy Pelosi "intellectually dishonest" for claiming the opposite. On Thursday Grassley told the Washington Post that Congress should scale back its efforts to overhaul healthcare in the wake of intense anger at town hall meetings. But – wait – the anger is largely about distortions such as the "death panels" that Grassley refuses to debunk.


Read the whole story

 

Why don't Catholic bishops care about healthcare?

Catholic leaders lobby against abortion and euthanasia, but where's their activism on that other "life" issue?

By Frances Kissling

Aug. 24, 2009 | We Catholics believe in two kinds of sin -- sins of commission and sins of omission. On healthcare, church leadership is committing the sin of omission. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is just not working hard enough on behalf of the most important and desperately needed healthcare reform -- the public option.

For decades the bishops have advocated for universal healthcare -- in fact, for a single-payer system with a strong emphasis on covering the uninsured, the poor and immigrants. The best shot at reform is now. But the bishops are squandering every ounce of moral capital they have, not on the public option, but on ensuring that in any reform bill not one penny of federal funds is used for abortion.

This strategy has put them in the extremist camp among those opposed to abortion. Moderate evangelicals and antiabortion Catholics bit the bullet on abortion four years ago and decided that other issues like ending wars, reducing global warming, and fighting poverty meant it was time to move on from attempting to outlaw abortion. While one can quibble with their strategy, working to prevent the need for abortion was a step forward from working to make it illegal.


Read the whole story

 

What went wrong?

It's almost Labor Day. Healthcare reform is struggling, the public option is near dead. Why couldn't Obama deliver?

By Thomas Schaller

Aug. 24, 2009 | Barring a major public groundswell or miraculous reversal in Congress, Barack Obama's healthcare reform package will not include the provision that matters most to the Democratic base, the so-called public option. Why has a president who entered the White House with the second-biggest winning margin of any Democratic president since the New Deal, and who is blessed with solid Capitol Hill majorities in both chambers of Congress, struggled to save this key agenda item?

Was the White House's public relations rollout insufficient to counter the stronger-than-anticipated resistance from healthcare opponents? Was the public option always just a bargaining chip to give away in exchange for what the president really wants? What happened to the vaunted Obama campaign apparatus, which was supposed to morph into a machine delivering support for Obama's agenda? Did Obama simply lack the political will or political capital? Or should he have been less of a consensus seeker and more of a Rove-ian steamroller?


Read the whole story

 

The public option's last stand

We'll have no one to blame but ourselves if healthcare reform doesn't include a public option

By Robert Reich

Aug. 17, 2009 | I would have preferred a single-payer system like Medicare, but became convinced earlier this year that a public, Medicare-like optional plan was just about as much as was politically possible. Now the White House is stepping back even from the public option, with the president saying it's "not the entirety of healthcare reform," the White House spokesman saying the president could be "satisfied" without it, and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius saying that a public insurance plan is "not the essential element."

Without a public, Medicare-like option, healthcare reform is a bandaid for a system in critical condition. There's no way to push private insurers to become more efficient and provide better value to Americans without being forced to compete with a public option. And there's no way to get overall healthcare costs down without a public option that has the authority and scale to negotiate lower costs with pharmaceutical companies, doctors, hospitals, and other providers -- thereby opening the way for private insurers to do the same.

It's been clear from the start that the private insurers and other parts of the medical-industrial complex have hated the idea of the public option, for precisely these reasons. A public option would cut deeply into their current profits. That's why they've been willing to spend a fortune on lobbyists, threaten and intimidate legislators and ordinary Americans, and even rattle Obama's cage to the point where the administration is about to give up on it.


Read the whole story

 


User Menu

Facebook FanBox


Tell me to support the Public Option

Sen. Evan Bayh (D) IN
Sen. Evan Bayh (D) IN

Phone: 202-224-5623
Website | Contact