The Miracle, Man- and Woman-Made, That is the Affordable Care Act

Mar 23, 2011Richard Kirsch

Despite some flaws, health care reform is a sign that we can still enact reforms that improve Americans' lives.

Despite some flaws, health care reform is a sign that we can still enact reforms that improve Americans' lives.

With all the continued controversy around the Affordable Care Act, its easy to forget that it's very passage was something of a miracle. A year later, the notion that Congress could enact comprehensive legislation on anything -- let alone a major expansion of the role of government in providing economic security to Americans -- is laughable. But the Act's passage was not just a remarkable achievement at this moment in our history; it defied a century of defeat by the same forces that are working to repeal it now. On its first birthday, it's important to appreciate the miracle in itself and as a reminder that things again could change very fast in these volatile times.

For some 100 years, the American political system failed to do what every other developed nation had done: make affordable health care a publicly guaranteed right. Our uniqueness was not a glitch; it was emblematic of a society that remains dominated by an individual ethos as opposed to an ethic of collective good, of caring for each other. And it was evidence of what every political scientist knows and every lobbyist counts on: our system is designed to kill major reforms. As Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson summarized in "Winner-Take-All Politics", "In America, it is hard to get things done and easy to block them. With its multiple branches and hurdles, the institutional structure of American government allows organized and intense interests -- even quite narrow ones -- to create gridlock and stalemate."

The mountain that President Obama sought to climb was every bit as steep as the slopes that defeated presidents from Roosevelt to Truman to Nixon and Clinton in their quests to make health care a right. The nation's biggest lobbying group in 2009, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, pulled out all stops to kill the bill, fueled by at least $86 million laundered from the health insurance industry. An army of other lobbyists stood in the way: the health insurance industry alone employed 2,049, almost four for every member of Congress. An angry, right-wing, grassroots rebellion aimed its ire at the most vulnerable Democrats in the nation, funded by corporate front groups like Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity and fueled by the largest and most sophisticated propaganda machine in our history, Fox News. The reactionary forces made politics as partisan as we have ever seen, requiring agreement from every Democrat in the Senate -- no matter how deep their reliance and allegiance to corporate power.

Sign up to have the Daily Digest, a witty take on the morning’s most important headlines, delivered straight to your inbox.

Yet somehow, this baby was born. How? What was different? As hard as it is remember now, the time was right. The revulsion at the excesses of the Bush administration created the opportunity for the election of a president who campaigned on the promises of "hope" and "change." But only if he gave it his all. And on health care, President Obama did. On the night of his election, Obama told himself that the biggest single thing he could do to help average Americans was fulfill his campaign promise to "provide affordable, accessible health insurance for every American." And at at least three crucial times during the first thirteen months of his presidency, Obama refused the entreaties of his senior staff to abandon the quest and insisted on pushing for comprehensive reform.

The President also learned much from the lessons of past failures. And while he made his own mistakes -- particularly in the failure to relentlessly make health care a personal issue and to define the opposition -- he and his team got many important things right. He made it his top priority and kept it there, he let Congress take the lead on legislation, and he appeased just enough potentially powerful industry opponents. And -- with his back to the wall after Scott Brown's Senate election in January 2010 seemed to doom the enterprise -- he rescued the effort by finally attacking the insurance industry and clearly defining Republicans as obstructionists who were defending the status quo and corporate America.

But the Affordable Care Act had much more than one parent. Nancy Pelosi brilliantly organized and rallied Democrats in the House and made it clear to supporters and detractors in Washington and around the country that she would not be denied. Much more quietly, but with the harder task of garnering the votes of each and every senator who caucused with the Democrats -- including Ben Nelson, a former insurance company CEO, and Joe Lieberman, who wanted to wreak revenge on the progressives who had defeated him in his 2006 primary -- Harry Reid found a way to do what Harry Truman never could: get health reform through the Senate. A host of other Democrats in both houses deeply felt the historical call to justice that health care represented. And some of them did that rare thing in politics: put their convictions ahead of their careers.

There was one more big difference between 2010 and every other past failure: for the first time ever, supporters of reform were well-organized and well-funded. That campaign, which I helped lead as the National Campaign Manager of Health Care for America Now, was rooted outside the Beltway. We defeated the tea partiers in August of 2009 where it counted: at home, at town hall meetings held by targeted Democrats around the country, where we turned out more people than the tea partiers. At thousands of meetings with members of Congress when they were home from Washington, we introduced them to people who were victims of our health care system, prompting gut-checks of why they ran for office. On the morning that the bill became law, a member of the House Democratic leadership told me that they would have never got the votes of first and second term Democrats without our effort. And a White House political aide told me simply, "We could have never done it without you."

The right gets that the passage of the Affordable Care Act was a miracle -- they thought they'd killed it in the August tea parties and again in the Massachusetts election. Now they are pulling out every stop to prevent a government promise to make health care a right from ever taking hold, knowing that it would be a major setback in their march to destroy any positive role for government in providing security and opportunity to average Americans

The left makes a huge mistake if we denigrate the accomplishment. Yes it's far from our ideal. But far better to celebrate the 32,000 lives that the ACA will save a year or the foundation it provides for states with the political will to take the next step, like Vermont's Governor, who wants use ACA funding for a single-payer plan.

At this bleak time, let's make the ACA's birthday a reminder that we can create other miracles. We see the signs: the uprising in Wisconsin, the hundreds of thousands of new supporters of Planned Parenthood, the boycott of Arizona that defeated more draconian immigration laws. Together, we can do our part to prove that the moral arc of the universe does indeed bend toward justice, as it did just one year ago today.

Richard Kirsch is a Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute and is writing a book on the progressive campaign to enact health reform.

Share This

A Baker's Dozen Books I DO Want to See on the Bestseller List in 2014

Mar 18, 2011

sarah-palinHaving rendered "A Dozen Titles I Don't Want to See on the Bestseller List" and then "Another Dozen Titles I Don't Want to See on the Bestseller List in 2014," Harvey J. Kaye now proffers thirteen books he would just love to see on the bestseller list in 2014:

1. The American Medical Association, Freedom from Fear: The AMA Guide to Better Health through Socialized Medicine

2. Sarah Palin, Making Do with Less and Feeling Really Good About It: Loving Alaska, Living Alaska, Now and Forever

3. Let's Go!, Let's Go Student Travel Guide to the USA! With a New Chapter on Making the Most of America's High-Speed Rail Links

4. Scott Walker, Kicking Koch: Twelve Steps to Recovery -- One for Each Month I Spent in the Wisconsin Governor's Mansion

5. Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz, Trust Your Fellow Citizens: Our Journeys from Talk Radio to MSNBC to NBC Prime Time

6. Newt Gingrich, From Foxy Ladies to Foxy Television: Back on the Air with Sean, Bill, Michelle, and Glenn

Sign up to have the Daily Digest, a witty take on the morning’s most important headlines, delivered straight to your inbox.

7. Michelle Bachmann, former Member U.S. House of Representatives, The Real Idiot's Guide to American History -- No, Really, the Real Idiot's Guide: From Lexington & Concord (NH?) to the Mall of America (MN!)

8. Bill Moyers, The Conversation Renewed: Bill Moyers Journal -- The Transcripts of the 2012 and 2013 Seasons

9. John Boehner, Don't Cry For Me Ohio! My Life as the Once and Future Minority Leader

10. Richard Trumka, We Love You Scotty, Oh Yes We Do... Cheeseheads and the Rebirth of the American Labor Movement

11. Scott Simon et al, Getting Our Act Together: The NPR Survival Guide

12. Barack Obama, Returning to the Classroom: Teaching Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago

13. Russ Feingold, This is What Democracy Looks Like: From the U.S. Senate to the White House

Harvey J. Kaye is the Rosenberg Professor of Democracy and Justice Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay and the author of Thomas Paine and the Promise of America. He is currently writing The Four Freedoms and the Promise of America. Follow him on Twitter: www.twitter.com/HarveyJKaye

Share This

Doctors Without Borders? Bradley Manning and Medical Ethics

Mar 16, 2011Lynn Parramore

How will psychiatrists at Quantico cope with a dilemma that threatens the good name of their profession?

How will psychiatrists at Quantico cope with a dilemma that threatens the good name of their profession?

My colleague Mike Konczal and others have discussed how the abuse of Bradley Manning delegitimizes our institutions, making a mockery of the justice system and casting a shadow over the state. The press has also been compromised in the failure of reporters to adequately cover the story and speak plainly about the seriousness of Manning's conditions and the responsibility of those in power to stop it. But at least one other institution is also compromised: the medical profession.

Military psychiatrists involved in the treatment of Manning -- which amounts to torture -- face a dilemma that threatens to tarnish the good name of their profession. To dismiss health care professionals involved in such situations as sadistic instruments of evil does not help us understand their painful position. The questions are not easy. Are military doctors really doctors first, obeying the oath their profession? Or are they soldiers obeying a chain of command? What line must be crossed before one role overtakes the other?

To recap: Manning has been placed under a prevention of injury order (POI) that requires him to be isolated in a small cell for 23 hours a day with little exercise and to be checked every five minutes. Recently, the regime included enforced nudity for long periods, an order that seems to have originated with a sarcastic remark made by Manning about the absurdity of his treatment (following a public outcry, he has been give a "smock"). The Guardian has examined official records at Quantico which reveal that military psychiatrists have made at least 16 separate recommendations to military commanders that Manning be taken off the POI restrictions because he was not a danger to himself. But brig officials ignored the recommendations and have taken it upon themselves to continue, and increase, the harsh restrictions. Susan McNamara, a member of the advocacy group Physicians for Human Rights, concluded that Manning's treatment looked like an extension of the notorious interrogation practices used against terror suspects in Guantanamo.

As the Guardian's Ed Pilkington points out, the Quantico psychiatrists deserve credit for continuing to insist that the treatment regime should be changed. But is that enough?

Sign up to have the Daily Digest, a witty take on the morning’s most important headlines, delivered straight to your inbox.

Doctors in the US have been voicing their concern for some months, pointing out that even if military psychiatrists don't officially sign off on the treatment, they may still be complicit and in violation their duty to protect the health of the patient. Psychologists for Social Responsibility wrote a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates in January, 2010, demonstrating that conditions like those Manning has been subjected to have been known to be traumatic and debilitating to prisoners since 1890.

It is understandable that scenarios like war can blur the boundaries for doctors. Medics in foreign war zones are asked to care for people who have maimed and killed their fellow soldiers. Health care professionals in the prison system give life-saving treatment to convicted murderers. One could hardly blame a doctor for experiencing turmoil under such circumstances.

But what happens when doctors are asked by the highest authorities to do harm or facilitate abuse? We now know that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called for military interrogations that required military doctors to be involved in monitoring and even administering torture. Andrew Sullivan noted in 2006 that at  Guantanomo, doctors were made to agree to torture in advance and to live by the motto: "No blood, no foul." They practiced the art of sleep deprivation, hypothermia, withholding food and treatment of injuries, among other abuses.

As Sullivan reminds us, the abuses at Guantanomo were supposed to teach us something: "Once you allow the torture of prisoners for any reason, as this President did, the cancer spreads" writes Sullivan. "In the end it spreads to healers as well, and turns them into accomplices to harm."

We have a different president now. And the cancer is spreading. Under Obama's watch,  you don't have to be a "foreign combatant" to be tortured in a U.S. facility. You can be an American citizen awaiting trial. The doctors involved in Manning's treatment are not in a war zone. Nor are they dealing with a convicted criminal.

The world is watching.  A significant 2009 resolution by the United Nations Human Rights Council outlines the role and responsibility of medical and other health professionals in “torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.” It urges states to act to prevent health workers from becoming involved in torture and degradation and to protect those who voice their objections. The resolution incorporates standards set by the medical profession into international human rights law. For the first time in a United Nations document, the Hippocratic oath is presented as the global ethical norm.

The recent resignation of P.J. Crowley, the state department official who voiced disapproval of Manning's treatment, has sent a message to people who speak freely from their conscience: Do so and you will lose your job. That is quite chilling, and it will require not only extraordinary courage, but committed support from the public, to enable the psychiatrists at Quantico to speak freely about what they are witnessing and what they are asked to facilitate.

President Obama, along with members of Congress, are currently failing these doctors by condoning the torture of Manning. If the doctors speak out and are censured, the offense will be compounded.

Do doctors save lives? Or do they participate in acts which they know to be a violation of the standards of their profession? Where are the boundaries for doctors serving the state? We are waiting for the psychiatrists at Quantico to tell us.

Lynn Parramore is the editor of New Deal 2.0, Media Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute fellow, and the author of Reading the Sphinx.

 

Share This

The Fight to Keep Our Rights -- for Workers and for Women

Mar 1, 2011Bryce Covert

The GOP may have been elected on the promise to focus on jobs, jobs, jobs, but so far the majority of its agenda has been to take away rights, rights, rights. That's been made abundantly clear in Wisconsin, where new Republican Governor Scott Walker is using a state budget hole (that he ginned up himself) as an excuse to take away collective bargaining rights.

The GOP may have been elected on the promise to focus on jobs, jobs, jobs, but so far the majority of its agenda has been to take away rights, rights, rights. That's been made abundantly clear in Wisconsin, where new Republican Governor Scott Walker is using a state budget hole (that he ginned up himself) as an excuse to take away collective bargaining rights. But it's also been easy to spot in a rash of bills attacking women's rights and women's health in the GOP-controlled House.

So just as union members, labor organizers, and concerned citizens of all kinds have come out in the thousands to protest Walker's policies in Wisconsin, women in the thousands and their supporters came out across the country on Saturday to rally against the GOP's attack plan. I attended the rally in Foley Square of New York City, where it was reported possibly 6,000 women, men, children, and people of all stripes came out to raise their voices against these attacks.

New York Senator Charles Schumer spoke and made an important point: that many of the GOP's proposed bills are efforts to roll back the clock on key issues. The Wisconsin "Budget Repair Bill" seeks to return to the pre-New Deal era when workers had few rights. The anti-women bills in the House want to go back to the 1950s (and long before that), when women were supposed to stay barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.

And the connection between these agenda items was clear to those in the crowd, many of whom had come from Wisconsin solidarity rallies earlier in the morning with cheesehead hats on their heads and sporting signs with Wisconsin's badger mascot. Indeed, the overall theme of both protests was calling out the excuse of fixing budget shortfalls by taking away key rights.

Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, event alerts, and reading/film/music recs.

Here are a few of my favorite photographs:

img_8698

img_8692

img_8640

img_8704

You can see the rest of the photos here.

Bryce Covert is Assistant Editor at New Deal 2.0.

Share This

Walker's Budget Plan is a Three-Part Roadmap for Conservative State Governance

Feb 24, 2011Mike Konczal

The battles won't be over how to mend state budgets -- it will be about changing the role of government entirely.

The battles won't be over how to mend state budgets -- it will be about changing the role of government entirely.

Tim Fernholz wrote an excellent article in the National Journal about the "bait and switch" of Governor Walker's Wisconsin plan. Fernholz points out that the short-term deficit problem can be covered by debt restructuring and that the big pieces of the bill that relate to dismantling public sector unions, control over Medicaid and creating a no-bid energy asset sale process are not directly budget related.

There's a three-prong approach in Governor Walker's plan that highlights a blueprint for conservative governorship after the 2010 election. The first is breaking public sector unions and public sector workers generally. The second is streamlining benefits away from legislative authority, especially for health care and in fighting the Health Care Reform Act. The third is selling of public assets to private interests under firesale and crony capitalist situations.

This wasn't clear to me at first. I thought this was about a narrow disagreement over teacher's unions. Depending on what you read, you may have only seen a few of these parts, and you may have not seen them put together as a coherent whole. This will be the framework that other conservative governors, and even a few Democratic ones, will use in their state, so it is good to get a working model in place. In order to frame where it stands now, I'm going to chart this and give a set of descriptions:

Defund and Delegitimize Public Workers

You wouldn't know this from the popular narrative, but, as Zach Carter found, Wisconsin's public pensions are among the nation's healthiest. Carter walks you through the numbers from people like the nonpartisan Pew Center for the States, which found Wisconsin to be a "national leader in managing its long-term liabilities for both pension and retiree health care."

There are many things, like removing unions' ability to collect dues or requiring annual votes, that aren't budgetary or service driven at all but are simply mechanisms for bleeding the union dry.

What I found most interesting about the 20 minutes phone call between Governor Walker and a prankster claiming to be David Koch (transcript) is this:

WALKER: ...That’s all they wanna talk is what are you doing to help in the governor in Wisconsin. Next I talked to Cassick every day, you know John’s got to stand firm in Ohio. I think we can do the same thing with Rick Scott in Florida, I think Snyder if he got a little more support could probably do that in Michigan. We start going down the list, you know, there’s a lot of us new governors that got elected to do something, big.

KOCH: You’re the first domino.

WALKER: Yep. This is our moment...

[Walker:]...I had all my cabinet over to the residence for dinner. Talked about what we were going to do, how we were going to do it, we had already kind of doped plans up, but it was kind of a last hurrah, before we dropped the bomb and I stood up and I pulled out a, a picture of Ronald Reagan and I said you know this may seem a little melodramatic but ...when he fired the air traffic controllers and uh I said to me that moment was more important than just for labor relations and or even the federal budget, that was the first crack in the Berlin Wall and the fall of Communism because from that point forward the soviets and the communists knew that Ronald Regan wasn’t a pushover...

Firing the air traffic controllers brought down the Soviet Union? When the true believers get together and talk openly, they don't discuss how this relates to the budget, or getting innovative school practices in place, or whatever. It's about showing their enemies that they mean business and aren't pushovers. He believes that by smashing one you can smash them all. And he believes he is the first domino to move.

Other states won't need unions to fight. Notice Providence, Rhode Island firing all of their teachers, to selectively rehire them later. This is how ground out our elites want to see the labor contract.

Cutting Government Services

From the CBPP: "[Walker's] bill would strip the legislature of practically all of its authority to set the guidelines for the program (known as BadgerCare), leaving the power to do so almost solely in the governor’s hands."

Shawn Doherty has covered this for Cap Times, as well as Jonathan Cohn, David Wahlberg of the Madison State Journal, AnnieJo at DailyKos and Amanda Terkel of Huffington Post.

This is the most important thing that has gotten the least coverage. The administration of Medicaid would be moved away from the state legislation to be more directly under the control of the Governor's office. People may be dropped right away and there could be extreme games of chicken with the Federal government over medicaid spending.

The Wisconsin Department of Health Services is currently being run by Heritage Senior Fellow Dennis Smith, who has been making his right-wing think tanker bones arguing that states should drop out of Medicaid, the long-time dream of the extreme right. It is telling that "Smith wouldn't discuss Medicaid provisions in the upcoming budget bill" even though it's all he's been writing about for years.

Specifically, one of the last things he wrote had this talking point: "Congress and the Administration have enacted a sweeping overhaul of one-sixth of the American economy, dramatically expanding the scope of federal power....When governors and state legislators realize that they have been reduced to mere agents of and tax collectors for the federal government, bipartisan opposition from the states will be inevitable."

This power grab by the Governor will be the beachhead for slashing medicaid rolls to record lows and planning the conservative opposition against health care reform more broadly. The people who elected the Governor deserve more information about his ultimate goals.

Privatizing Assets

Privatize everything. Ed from ginandtacos caught the language related to no-bid energy asset sales in Walker's bill. Both Felix Salmon and Yves Smith have followed up on how this will be a new normal for states over the next two years, where more and more government infrastructure is going to be sold into a crony favor-and-campaign-contribution trading environment. Matt Taibbi's new book has a chapter on this topic that is really good. This is going to be much more relevant over the next two years, and we should learn about how it works and what the consequences are early on.

Notice that each of these objectives overlap with each other. Privatizing services cuts public workers out while crony deals, skimming and poor services creates distrust in the government, leading to a negative feedback loop.

States will have to deal with their budgets. There are costs coming down the road. But the important thing to understand is that the new wave of governance at the state level isn't about handling these problems -- it's about changing what the government does in a more reactionary and polarized way. Squeezing regular people to provide benefits will maintain and expand our high levels of inequality. Its about making struggling parties weaker and strong parties richer. Making it almost impossible to raise taxes later is irresponsible and dangerous, but it accelerates this plan. They hoped to handle this all behind closed doors -- sadly for them, and lucky for the public, activism and the internet are shining a large spotlight on their actions.

Mike Konczal is a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute.

Share This

G.O.P. Ignores Jobs Crisis, Targets Theoretical Crisis

Feb 8, 2011Zachary Kolodin

need-job-150While they propose spending cuts to save us from the long-term deficit, they ignore the plight of young Americans out of work now.

need-job-150While they propose spending cuts to save us from the long-term deficit, they ignore the plight of young Americans out of work now.

Millennials have spent their entire political lives waiting for America to get over the culture wars of the 1970-1990s and deal with our urgent problems. President Obama took a big step in the right direction by addressing America's health care access problem through major reform. Now, the Republican Congress has taken its turn by announcing that it will attempt to avert a crisis through $2.5 trillion in spending cuts with H.R. 408.

Unfortunately, faced with two "crises," the GOP chose theory over reality. On the one hand, the US has a long-term budget problem -- over the next thirty years or so, the rising costs of Medicare and Medicaid will cause unprecedented national debt, which will impair growth and stability. On the other hand, the US has an urgent jobs crisis right now. Millions of Americans find themselves out of work and completely strapped. An entire generation of young people trying to start families finds itself without stability and without an outlet for their remarkable energy.

Eighteen percent of Americans aged 16 to 24 were unemployed in December 2010, according to the Labor Department. For a young person to be out of work means more than just lost pay. It means putting life on hold and a permanent downward effect on their future salary. According to Yale scholar Lisa Kahn, graduating college during a recession amounts to a lifetime pay cut of about 2.5% -- and that includes people who are able to get a job. I have friends trying to wait out the recession in law school, coffee shops, even in church apprenticeships.

Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, event alerts, and reading/film/music recs.

Sadly, congressional Republicans have chosen to address the theoretical budget crisis instead of this jobs crisis we live and breathe.

Take their proposal to cut $1.15 billion from the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS). Money from CNCS goes straight to programs that not only employ young workers and seniors, but also provide critical services to struggling families in a recession, like after school child care, mobile health services, and rebuilding storm damaged neighborhoods. Instead of cutting funds for the National Service, why not triple its programming? It would go a long way toward getting the lost generation of Millennials back to work and providing the kind of support our struggling communities need. That won't solve the jobs crisis by itself, but it's a start.

Slashing the federal budget sounds like a nice, clean way forward, but in the real world it will send the economy crashing backward, throwing millions out of work. Now is the moment for the Republicans to prove to Americans, young and old, that they are serious about the future of American families by investing in real American jobs.

The Roosevelt Campus Network has developed innovative solutions for America's economic crisis. Visit our website to build the Blueprint for the Millennial America with us.

Zachary Kolodin is the Director of the Future Preparedness Initiative at the Roosevelt Institute.

Share This

Plan B for Health Care Reform: It's Called 'Medicare for All'

Feb 2, 2011Marshall Auerback

If we're forced back to square one by the Supreme Court, why not get it right?

If we're forced back to square one by the Supreme Court, why not get it right?

My colleague, Bo Cutter, has noted the likelihood of continued challenges to health care reform in the wake of the recent Florida State Supreme Court decision to invalidate the entire health care bill. Frankly, the legal attacks on the bill, even if driven by highly suspect and selfish motives, are unsurprising. They represent the inherent flaws of a bill that entrenches private insurance as the basis for our health care system.

Randy Wray and I have argued previously that the health care reform plan represented primarily a huge and unprecedented mandate to benefit private insurers. Under the new "reform," 50 million people are being told they must turn over their paychecks to private companies. Of course this was bound to lead to court challenges. And it is hard to fault the Virginia and Florida courts for rejecting the mandate. The auto insurance analogy that has been deployed in favor of the mandate is flawed because NOBODY is forced to drive a car.

If we had wanted incremental improvements to HEALTH CARE there are nearly infinite combinations of small policy changes we could have pursued -- without involving insurers at all. And Dems celebrating this great victory by Wall Street were both laughable and hugely disingenuous. After TARP and the Dodd-Frank "financial reform" bill, health care reform represents yet another huge giveaway to large businesses whose 13 percent share of GDP (and the corresponding economic rents they extract) should have been vastly curtailed. (But hold on, it's only a matter of time before they turn Social Security over to Wall Street.) The Obama administration's health care reform plan is largely a Private Health Insurers Bailout Bill (HIBOB).

As radical as the Florida State Supreme Court decision appears, there is some merit to the decision given the fact that, perhaps through sloppy drafting, the "severability" clause was not included in the final bill, making it much easier for a court to strike the whole thing down. In fact, US District Judge Roger Vinson made precisely this point in his decision: "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."

The alternative of simply banning the individual mandate is a death spiral for the insurance companies' profit which, given the complexion of this corporatist administration and Congress, would probably mean yet another industry bailout. I would argue that was the whole intent behind the current health care reform plan in the first place. Health insurers were losing premiums because employers were dropping coverage (in part because they could not compete, since no comparable country uses private insurance to provide health care). Healthy individuals were dropping out because no reasonable calculation could show insurance to be good value for the money.

Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, event alerts, and reading/film/music recs.

And not just healthy young Americans: If you are single and have no chronic conditions, you are far better to pay out-of-pocket (UNLESS your employer pays most of the premiums and will not give you wages instead). Eighty percent of health care costs are due to the 20% of the population that is unhealthy and perhaps unlucky. If you can make it to age 65 without chronic conditions (you don't smoke, are not obese, were not born with too many preexisting conditions, and so on), it is quite rational to avoid health insurance. And if you get extremely unlucky, you do not have to have health insurance to get some kind of health care. Sure, it is probably going to be inferior -- but it could well be adequate. And in any case, you might not have that much faith in traditional medical approaches, anyway.

But insurers were terrified. They could see the writing on the wall. Hence, they went after Obama to get a HIBOB. Force healthy people to pay premiums. Yes, they knew there would be a trade-off; they'd have to take some unhealthy people. But giving them insurance IS NOT THE SAME THING as paying for their care. So they agreed to accept some pre-existing conditions but never agreed to actually pay for treatments for those conditions. And they won't.

Don't be surprised if the Roberts court throws the whole bill out. This is probably the most pro-corporate Supreme Court in decades and the Florida decision has effectively opened the door politically for the Supremes to do precisely that. That will create a huge political uproar, probably not unlike the political reaction engendered when much of FDR's New Deal legislation was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Roosevelt's subsequent threat to pack the court does seem to have focused the minds of the Supremes, who mysteriously proved considerably more pliant in subsequent years.

There are obvious and vastly superior alternatives: Medicare for all has been suggested and that would represent a good start. Medicare is not really an insurance program, but rather a universal-payer, pay-as-you-go system (there is no way to stockpile medical services for future use).

An earlier version of the Senate's proposed health care legislation featured a Medicare buy-in for people under 65 -- a feature that remains doable despite today's political constraints. This "public option" would provide more cost control (by competing with the private insurance companies), generate additional savings in Medicare (because you would be "risk pooling" younger and healthier Americans with the most aged and infirm, who traditionally absorb the highest proportion of our medical costs). It also would help to solve the problem of denying treatment based on preexisting conditions, expands the risk pool of patients, and enhances the global competitiveness of U.S. corporations (because why, in contrast to every other country in the world, should US corporations have health care as a marginal cost of production?). Thus, a Medicare buy-in would bring the U.S. health care system closer to the "ideal" low-cost, universal (single-payer) insurance plan. Highly unlikely to occur, but if the Roberts court does force us back to square one, shouldn't we try to get it right this time?

Marshall Auerback is a Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, and a market analyst and commentator.

Share This

Obama Needs a Plan "B" on Health Care Reform

Feb 1, 2011Bo Cutter

Shaping the future with today’s choices.

Shaping the future with today’s choices.

I do not think that the decision -- to throw out the entire health care reform, all of it -- was surprising, given the source. I do think it was outrageous. Nor do I think this, by itself, says anything substantive about a final court decision -- we now have four decisions and are tied 2-2. But this issue will go to the Supreme Court, and the Roberts Court is as enthusiastic about being an activist court -- see the Citizens United decision -- as it was in the 2000 Gore-Bush decision, when it acted like Republican precinct captains. So it feels to me as though the odds that health care reform, at least so far as the individual mandate goes, will be thrown out by the Supreme Court are better than 50%.

Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, event alerts, and reading/film/music recs.

I mention the 2000 Gore-Bush decision because, you will remember, the Court went out of its way to underline that the decision was a one-time-only event. And guess what? In invalidating the entire health care legislation, Judge Vinson used much the same language. Another one-time decision.

The administration has to fight this, of course. But someone, somewhere, in the administration better be thinking about plan "B".

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Bo Cutter is formerly a managing partner of Warburg Pincus, a major global private equity firm. Recently, he served as the leader of President Obama’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) transition team.

Share This

Stop Socializing the Downside and Privatizing the Upside

Jan 31, 2011Joan Williams

wanted-signWanted: A grand narrative about the people's right to share in prosperity-- and not just pay for economic catastrophes.

wanted-signWanted: A grand narrative about the people's right to share in prosperity-- and not just pay for economic catastrophes.

I have been watching Clint Eastwood films lately and thinking about his role in fueling the belittlement of government. In Dirty Harry, for example, the Eastwood character is a loner who stands up to lily-livered bureaucrats who lack the cojones to do what needs to be done and to morally corrupt politicians who cave in to bad guys for a living. This kind of film was part of a sustained, and dazzlingly effective, cultural agenda to discredit government.

A key mechanism of enforcing this view is the snarl -- it's not really an argument -- that having the government undertake any given task is... socialism.

For thirty years, Democrats have lacked a cogent response. In the debate over health care, they tried to counter the socialism charge by designing reform according to Republican principles: no to single payer, no to the public option, yes to private health insurance (an industry so inefficient that Americans spend one third of their health care dollars on paperwork, but I digress).

Democrats are left still facing sneers of socialism. Trying to counter this charge by messing around with policy design details is a strategy fated to fail. What we need instead is a way of reframing the debate that begins to reverse the discrediting of government.

The financial crisis presented a golden, largely squandered, opportunity to begin this process. No better time than the present. Americans recently heard reports of bank profits so high that major banks are declaring dividends. This presents a teachable moment to send a much more effective message than Obama's old fashioned populism that demonizes bankers as "fat cats."

Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, event alerts, and reading/film/music recs.

Here's a fresh response: What conservatives are proposing is to privatize the upside of the economy while socializing the downside.

Take the banks. Back during the Great Recession, they were only too happy to socialize risk. But now, with profits aplenty, banks have lost interest in sharing. After we socialized the downside risk, now they want to privatize the upside risk.

This doesn't make a whole heck of a lot of sense. But it's a consistent theme in Republican proposals. Take the new Republican health care proposal. It wants to preserve for private industry the right to insure relatively healthy people off whom insurers can make a profit. Again, Republicans want to privatize the upside and let industry keep those profits, and socialize the downside -- and then deride government for needing to levy taxes to cover the costs of shouldering that risk.

A similar dynamic is at work at the local level. A recent California ballot initiative makes it more difficult for local governments to impose fees on developers as a condition of approving development. The fees required the developers to pay for the costs of the water, sewers, schools, and parks that would serve the new subdivisions. Not surprisingly, the developers hate fees because they prefer to socialize the costs of infrastructure and privatize the profits of development.

So here's the message: The next time Republicans snarl "socialism," Democrats need to re-examine the baseline assumptions. Often you'll find a proposal to privatize profits and socialize risk. Calling that out is the first step towards changing Americans' negativism towards government.

Joan Williams is the author of Reshaping the Work-Family Debate.

Share This

Pages