Tweet
Last night following Jane’s appearance on Rachel, Bill Maher praised this WaPo oped by Paul Begala:
I think my fellow progressives ought to give Max Baucus and other members of the Senate Finance Committee a little breathing room as they labor to produce a health-care bill that can garner enough votes to pass the Senate.
[...]
No self-respecting liberal today would support Franklin Roosevelt’s original Social Security Act. It excluded agricultural workers — a huge part of the economy in 1935, and one in which Latinos have traditionally worked. It excluded domestic workers, which included countless African Americans and immigrants. It did not cover the self-employed, or state and local government employees, or railroad employees, or federal employees or employees of nonprofits. It didn’t even cover the clergy. FDR’s Social Security Act did not have benefits for dependents or survivors. It did not have a cost-of-living increase. If you became disabled and couldn’t work, you got nothing from Social Security.
If that version of Social Security were introduced today, progressives like me would call it cramped, parsimonious, mean-spirited and even racist. Perhaps it was all those things. But it was also a start. And for 74 years we have built on that start. We added more people to the winner’s circle: farmworkers and domestic workers and government workers. We extended benefits to the children of working men and women who died. We granted benefits to the disabled. We mandated annual cost-of-living adjustments. And today Social Security is the bedrock of our progressive vision of the common good.
We have not insisted on a VA-style government-run healthcare system for all. Nor have we insisted on Medicare-style single-payer health insurance. Nor have we insisted on banning for-profit insurers as the Europeans do. In Jane’s words: "The Public Option IS the compromise." And as Howard Dean put it: "You’re not going to have real reform without some kind of a public option …"
But what about Begala’s claim that Clinton-care was defeated because he went for the grand slam rather than a small slam? I agree with Paul Krugman on that:
Bill Clinton’s health care plan failed in large part because of a dishonest but devastating lobbying and advertising campaign financed by the health insurance industry – remember Harry and Louise? And the lesson many people took from that defeat is that any future health care proposal must buy off the insurance lobby.
But I think that’s the wrong lesson. The Clinton plan actually preserved a big role for private insurers; the industry attacked it all the same. And the plan’s complexity, which was largely a result of attempts to placate interest groups, made it hard to sell to the public.
BTW, yesterday Krugman claimed: "It is possible to have universal care without a public option; Switzerland does." But he neglects to note that Swtzerland does not allow for-profit insurers into their basic health-insurance market.
UPDATE: Maher’s appearance can be seen at 9:18 into this video.
UPDATE 2: I recommend this Dkos diary by Renee:
Quoted in an article in The Washington Post, an anonymous White House advisers is mystified by our behavior. Here’s the lede:
President Obama’s advisers acknowledged Tuesday that they were unprepared for the intraparty rift that occurred over the fate of a proposed public health insurance program, a firestorm that has left the White House searching for a way to reclaim the initiative on the president’s top legislative priority.
I’m trying, through some impressive anger, to understand how a person could talk about the health insurance industry the way President Obama has, and then be shocked (simply shocked) at our reaction to not including a public option.
[...]
At HuffPo, Jason Linkins has a review of this same article:
I’ve said for a long time now that the press has long endeavored to diminish the public support for the "public option," characterizing it as one of those foolish and untenable pipe dreams of "the left" when it actually has mainstream support. At the same time, the Obama administration has spun like a weather vane, conveying that a robust "public option" was essential to health care reform on one day, shruggingly suggesting that it would not be all that important the next. In today’s Washington Post, we have an article in which they attempt to make these two great tastes taste great together.
[...]
18 Comments
Yeah, saw that segment and thought, Maher never fails to misframe and argument. I know some folks love him–and like a stopped clock, he is sometimes correct–but I think net/net he does political discourse a disservice.
Maher is an Obama fan boy. He loves the celebrity and the fact that obama looks “cool” in sunglasses. Mahr dosent worry,or care about the 47 million without insurance. He gets a private suite whenever he checks into a hospital in Beverly Hills.
Maher is a libertarian. That works okay for him, since he’s got $$$$$, but he’s never looking beyond to those who don’t. That’s how libertarianism works.
Occasionally he’s good and has some zingers, but he always retreats back to his libertarian cave.
I agree. We tend to oversell and lionize the media figures who occasionally side with us. But in their own way, they are as much a part of the media circus as their counterparts at Fox News. There are a few reporters out there who still commit acts of journalism but they are very few. Maher is an entertainer and has never been one of these. Nor does he come up to the standards of other entertainer-commentators like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. I have never been terribly interested in any of these guys or the Olbermanns and Maddows either. They all have their moments, like Colbert’s iconic appearance before a gormless Washington press corps, but I have my own set of blogs, media, and primary sources that I use.
Bizarre. He used to be a big single payer guy. Hmmm. I wish people would stop equating a national for-profit insurance plan with social insurance.
True. In Mahers denfense he has never claimed to be anything but a comedian. Problem with that (rush limbaugh come to mind?) is he’s not talking about dating or airline food, he’s using his celebrity to pop off about real issues. one of his good pals is P.J. Orourke. That should speak volumes about Bill Maher.
UPDATE 3: Per Rasmussen Reports: “Without Public Option, Enthusiasm for Health Care Reform, Especially Among Democrats, Collapses”:
HOW TO “if” the Dem’s dare.
In keeping with Chuck Todd’s view, & on the Rachel Maddow
show,” regarding the four identified healthcare bill
myths, Rachel asked, “How do you move people, how do
you actually fight? (for the public option and a good bill.)
First you take it out of the realm of “talk” by removing
the myth factually. Feelings are based on, are generated
by, the underlying person’s values. (If they really don’t
care, no emotion.) Prove their value isn’t violated, the
emotion collapses. If its another value then they must
face that their emotion isn’t coming from “the myths,”
but something else, (like covert racism, or covert
Obama is anti-christ/illuminati disguised. or…
So, the solution is either in a preamble, a separate section,
or an amendment, to every proposed healthcare bill going
forward, a simple straightforward statement that applies
only to the bill in question. Let’s model it on the one
from Obama’s first executive order 13489 ** Sec 5 c
“c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create
any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable
at law or in equity by any party against ………..”
Possible model:
This Bill herein is not intended to, and does not, create
any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable
at law or in equity by any party:
For supplying this healthcare coverage to any illegal
immigrant.
For any government monies whatsoever, however raised,
(be it taxes, fees, rebates, claw backs, or premiums and
the like) being spent to cover performing or materially
assisting any abortion in this bill.
For the government take-over of the substantively
whole US healthcare system in this bill.
For the US government to financially force the private
insurers out of business in this bill.
For supplying the elderly, and/or handicapped, with
healthcare of lesser degree than generally made available,
or withheld, based upon their age or existing condition,
in this bill.
For decreasing existing healthcare coverage under
the US Gov VA and/or under the US Gov Medicare, in this bill.
For having a living will, or consultation for same,
being required, and/or irrevocable at will, in this bill. ***
For excluding funding of proven successful alternative
protocols, in this bill.
(I am not an attorney, not a doctor, and what I say
is neither to be construed as legal nor medical advise.)
Make it very easy for anyone to look it up, that’s
why putting something like this in a preamble, or
its own section, would be so powerful. How can a
Republican refuse to sign the bill with anything on
the included list as his cover rationale? The beauty
is in defusing the emotional sell and pins the Republicans
down to weaker and weaker fringe arguments that in the
end highlight their funding sources as dominant.
At the same time by referencing this bill specifically
it does not limit further changes by succeeding bills
in future years with the required votes to pass, so
it doesn’t preclude the far left from signing it either
**Pres. order 13489 found at fas.org/sgp/obama/presidential.html
***And I suggest a family discussion guide booklet
supplied online or by mail for topics and neutral
questions that stimulate discussion, and an
approved legal form with preset choices and add
your own spelled out choice box with ample lines
in every section, with a 30 day waiting period
before it takes affect after any governmental
consultation, only waive-able if a person is already
on life support, or an immediate death sentence
prognosis, and their primary significant other
person concurs,( spouse, child, contractually
named other.) And revocable at any time in writing,
or auditory recorded statement, by the signor.
(Such formats also provided.) Available to take
and do at home, well after any governmental
consultation. Not legally sign-able within 3 days
of the consultation. So notary must witness patient
signature and witness signature more than 3 days
later than gov consult.and not on or in gov facility,
(with same exceptions if critical situation.)
2. Has no one else noticed that end of life is
precisely the age group Medicare does cover?
and it already covers end of life planning I
believe? The living will in the current health
care bills is a bill aimed at those under 65 years
of age, right?
Doesn’t that make the “death panel discussion”
irrational to you? Granny is usually over 65.
And, Living wills are revocable. Yet no one points
this out. Again take away the basis for the
emotional reaction for the vast majority.
3. Do any of the bills’ versions address what
happens when someone reaches 65, yet? Do they
automatically move into Medicare and off the
public plan? Is there an overlap period for
the transition? Do they keep the same doctors?
Are all medical records made available to the
Medicare Dr’s/system immediately, following
the patient? and if the same doctors serve both
Medicare and the public option and how does this
affect physician’s pay sources? How many times
must procedures be used successfully long term,
to move from experimental, to covered for
everyone in the program? Will low cost options
like the Linus Pauling Protocol for heart disease
or the Johanna Budwig Protocol for cancer be
funded and included****? (both known/proven
for 20+years)
****At the least this will scare the hell out
of the pharma and be a great political bargaining
chip while informing the public. See Dr. Tomas
E. Levy’s book, “Stop America’s #1 Killer” — a
good interviewee, or Owen Fonorow’s book, “Practicing
Medicine Without a license? The Story of Linus Pauling
Therapy for Heart Disease” – another good interviewee.
Keep asking new questions that help inform us! and spread this info.
ES. http://www.rollerskatesunlimited.com
I agree that Bill Maher botched his comment and frequently botches things. But things have gotten really bad these days when it comes to news analysis, and Bill Maher at least is not a professional reporter or news analyst from whom we ought to expect minimal competence and sagacity. This morning, Michael Shear and Ceci Connolly at WaPo, with contributions from Anne Kornblut and Lori Montgomery, tried to get us to believe that the Administration was taken by surprise by progressive’s insistence on a viable PO being included in the HCR bill. This is an interpretation beyond naive and also beyond imagination, since it assumes that this White House has no one monitoring the netroots and the blogosphere. Who do they think they’re writing about, George Bush?
UPDATE 4: Per Gibbs today:
Does the president think we have “choice and competition” now? I maintain that we do not: http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/7280
I read this as,
Paul Begala looks down from yon ivory tower and proclaims the word as given to him by the Oligarchical Gods of Commerce
Paraphrasing Begala writing his op-ed:
He then places a jewel-encrusted crown on his powdered wig covered head and joins Maher down the hall for some hits of fresh Columbian coke and pot just delivered on a CIA rendition plane
[Of course this story is entirely fictional. Wink, wink]
IMHO, this merely means that Rahm Emanuel was taken by surprise that progressives, who had been rolling over for everything that the Blue Dogs and Republicans have wanted for the past two and a half years (and longer), suddenly show some spine. It’s also his effort to lay blame on the progressives for the ultimate failure of this WH fiasco.
Rahm wasn’t taken by surprise that progressives thought that. What he was surprised by was that we were able to make as big a shitstorm as we have. We have become a force to reckon with, in a place on the political spectrum where he previously thought no significant force existed, nor could ever exist.
Maher said:
The humble beginning of Social Security is a misleading analogy to the obscene giveaway to PhARMA and the insurance industry (via FORCING us to buy in) that is the current “reform” plan without the PO or negotiated drug prices. I like Maher, but this was intellectually dishonest.
wigwam, you bet.
I was impressed by the detailed and brisk response that delivered without pauses in fully edited sentences almost as though he had gotten the question in advance. He was fully prepared to make that speech.
Do you think it is clear to people that the mandate is still in place if the public option is dropped? It seems to me like that gets lost in the news I’ve heard today. It needs to be described as another taxpayer funded gift to corporations, not a “start in the right direction.” People are still mad about being rooked by the banks and Wall Street.
And, I completely agree with Greenwald’s column today. Sadly. But the real story is the Progressive Caucus and progressive activists. I would rather nothing go through than have another corporate welfare bill go through. Some Democrats will demonize us if it happens, but I guarantee you progressives would pick up a lot more Independents if they saw us stopping another corporate bailout.
I just finished reading Glenn’s column too. It’s really depressing when you realize just how calculatingly cynical the White House, including Obama himself, have been in all of this. All that kabuki with Obama repeatedly insisting that he “supports” the public option”, while Baucus is negotiating away one thing after another to Grassley, including the public option.
The problem with the mandates is that, if they don’t have a public option, they have nowhere to get the money to cover them. If they are going to cover 45 million more people at the current $7290 per person that we spend on health care, they’re going to have to come up with another 328 billion dollars per year from somewhere. And I’ve seen nothing so far, other than the public option, that cuts costs. Certainly a ban on recission won’t cut costs. A ban on refusing pre-existing conditions won’t cut costs. The 80 billion over ten years that they might get from the pharmaceuticals amounts to 8 billion per years, which is insignificant compared to a 320 billion per year increase.
Of course, maybe that incremental $7290 cost is high. Maybe we are already paying something for their healthcare, e.g., via EMTALA, etc.