As things stand, the CPC -- not the unreliable and unfocused Blue Dogs and certainly not the Democratic Leadership Council-aligned "New Democrats," who come with more corporate strings attached than many Republicans -- are the best strategic and practical allies that the president has. By adopting the CPC line with regard to the public option, Obama could energize the base that elected him and turn this into a real fight, bringing savvy inside-outside political operations like that of Progressive Democrats of America into the thick of the struggle and activating the crowds that turned out in cities across the country last week for the "Mad As Hell Doctors" tour on behalf of "Medicare for All." --
John Nichols, The Nation, 9-21-09
I saw a play 50 years ago in which a judge, blindfolded and ears muffled, sat down to "hear" a case, stretching both hands out to either side, palms up to weigh the weight of the sacks of gold placed in his hands. Reading in recent weeks of our congressman's refusal to hold town-hall meetings on healthcare reform on the absurdly insulting pretext that people have opinions about healthcare, a similar image keeps coming to mind: a Blue Dog congressman, in boots and hat, riding a fence, with upraised palms stretched out to both sides, seeking "balance."
The only reason the public option is even on the table is because of strong support for Medicare-for-all, or a single-payer plan.
There appear to be a number of people involved locally in the healthcare debate who failed to see in the last decade any relationship between healthcare and environmnetal issues. Not having participated in those battles, they are apparently unaware -- despite having their noses rubbed in it -- of the level of political depravity among politicians
who represent the various jurisdictions in
There is a fundamental difference between personal access to officials, a small meeting behind closed doors in confidentiality, and a town-hall meeting open to any member of the public and the press.
Although Dennis Cardoza was too sensitive a congressman to have a town-hall meeting in his district, Rep. George Radanovich, R-Mariposa, had the courage and courtesy to hold one in Oakdale in his district. Five hundred people showed up and the issue was debated,
along with some hooting and hollering, apparently not beyond Radanovich's ability to cope with. We do not agree with Radanovich's views on healthcare reform -- healthcare in the nation appears to have taken just about all the "free-market solutions" it and we can stand -- but he deserves our respect for doing the simple and honest thing Cardoza refused to do: hold a townhall meeting and listen to constituents.
Last week, a forum on healthcare reform was held at
Whatever his campaign-warchest or pork aims are, what do they have to do with refusing to hold town-hall meetings on healthcare, in which the legislator, according to one of the oldest political customs in the US, is supposed to listen to what his constituents think about the issues? As simply as we can put it, when a legislator refuses to listen to his constituents on an issue as important as healthcare, he is forfeiting his right to represent them. It is not an issue of his personal views. Legislators frequently vote their own convictions even if they vary with those of their constituents. But they have an obligation to hear their constituents' views -- and we do not mean just special interests -- in open, public forum.
As one constituent said, "Cardoza has been able to mislead and schmooze his constituents for a long time. What is he afraid of?"
Lack of intelligible, competent political leadership in this region at this time is inexcusable. Cardoza is behaving like a spoiled child of the Bubble.
Badlands Journal editorial board
9-19-09
Radanovich fields health questions...Sue Nowicki
http://www..modbee.com/local/v-print/story/860336.html
OAKDALE — There were a few boos and yells, but the mood was mostly affirming and civil in Friday afternoon's town hall meeting on health care reform, hosted by Rep. George Radanovich, R-Mariposa.
More than 500 people attended the event at the
Nearly 100 people, ranging from teenagers to people in their 80s and on both sides of the
issue, asked questions or made comments in the 2½-hour session.
Radanovich opened the meeting by explaining proposed bills in the House and Senate, but added that they are changing all the time. He said Democratic-backed bills will lead to large increases in taxes and the federal deficit, eventually eliminate many private insurance plans, and cut Medicare and Medicaid benefits.
Congress instead should focus, he said, on insurance reform, making insurance affordable and portable across state lines, and work on insurance for catastrophic care and the
poor.
"Health care is incredibly important," he said. "Your views need to be on the table."
Joel Chase, 43, of Oakdale, said he decided to attend because "I've never been to a town hall meeting before. I thought I'd do my civic duty and come out."
The former cargo plane pilot was jobless for much of this year. Chase said he is a conservative who is concerned about attempts to nationalize health care.
"I want to know what they're going to do to stop government takeover or control of the health care system," he said.
One woman, who identified herself as a college instructor, said one of her students wants to know how her family can financially support their 6-year-old son, who is deaf and unable to receive
A college student asked what impact the cost of national health care will have on rising
education costs, which have been coupled with decreasing financial aid.
"Your generation has special challenges not encountered by any other generation since
World War II," Radanovich acknowledged.
One man who said he works at a Turlock skilled nursing facility said cuts to Medicare and Medicaid programs already have hurt seniors there, and that further cuts in proposed health care legislation will put more elderly patients at risk.
"What's going to ensure that seniors' needs are going to be cared for when they need it?" he asked.
But one senior citizen in a T-shirt that read "Health care not warfare" told Radanovich, "We can take care of our people here if we're not in these military actions halfway around the world. What can I do to convince you that you're wrong?"
Dr. Delmar Tonge, a
But he added, "If a person comes in with a broken leg, don't schedule him for a cardiac transplant," implying that proposed national health care is as dramatic a move.
Radanovich several times answered opponents by saying he favors the free market approach to reducing health care costs.
One woman took issue with that: "Health care profits are outrageous. How can we deal with these outrageous profits caused by the free market?"
Janel Groenewoud, 23, said she "got kicked off of my parents' health insurance policy."
But she opposes the proposed plans.
"How can the government tell me, 'You must be on health insurance?' " she asked. "I take vitamins. I exercise. If I have to go to the doctor, I pay, at the most, $100. I choose not to (buy insurance) because it's not economical for me."
She added that her parents immigrated to this country from the
With tears, Groenewoud told of an elderly grandmother who is afraid of being euthanized if she is hospitalized and an aunt who has a heart tumor. "She's been told she is too old for treatment — and she's only 50. You think they're not going to do that here, but they
will. It will happen. It will," she cried.
Applause broke out several times, as when a man said, "It seems immoral for us to vote for things we like and stick the bill on those who aren't even born."
The biggest burst of applause, and laughter, came when a man complimented Radanovich.
"Thank you for being able to stand up for the last two hours without a teleprompter," the man said.
On the Net: Find more about Rep. George Radanovich's position on health care at
www.radanovich. house.gov.
9-21-09
The Nation
What Obama Should've Said on the Talk Shows...John Nichols
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/09/21-5
President Obama did all the Sunday morning talk shows, as part of a ramped-up campaign to promote his sincere if ill-defined belief that health care should be reformed. and he continued to argue, albeit tepidly, that this reform probably needs to include a public option.
Obama was smooth and smart and presidential and the appearances on ABC's "This Week," CBS's "Face the Nation," NBC's "Meet the Press," CNN's "State of the
But these exercises in pulled punches and anti-government apologia will do little to advance the cause of genuine health care reform.
Indeed, as Obama describes his notion of a public option, it is so constrained, under-funded and uninspired in approach as to be dysfunctional.
While there is no question that the right reform remains a single-payer "Medicare for All" system that provides quality care for all Americans while eliminating insurance company profiteering, if the best that can be hoped for is a government-supported alternative to the corporate options, then it should be robust enough to compete.
That's what Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Raul Grijalva, D-Arizona, is proposing on behalf of the CPC, which now numbers more than 80 House members.
Grijalva says, "The CPC will do its best to ensure that the public option is as close to Medicare as we can get it."
To that end, he says caucus members will use their key committee positions and needed votes to promote "a robust public option that:
•Enacts concurrently with other significant expansions of coverage and must not be conditioned on private industry actions.
•Consists of one entity, operated by the federal government, which sets policies and bears the risk for paying medical claims to keep administrative costs low and provide a higher standard of care.
•Be made available to all individuals and employers across the nation without limitation.
•Allows patients to have access to their choice of doctors and other providers that meet defined participation standards, similar to the traditional Medicare model, promotes the medical home model and eliminates lifetime caps on benefits.
•Has the ability to structure the provider rates to promote quality care, primary care,
prevention, chronic care management and good public health.
•Utilizes the existing infrastructure of successful public programs, such as Medicare, in order to maintain transparency and consumer protections for administering processes, including payment systems, claims and appeals.
•Establishes or negotiates rates with pharmaceutical companies, durable medical equipment providers and other providers to achieve the lowest prices for consumers.
•Receives a level of subsidy and support that is no less than that received by private
plans.
•Ensures premiums are priced at the lowest levels possible, not tied to the rates of private insurance plans.
That's the outline of a real public option -- one that is robust enough to fight for.
Indeed, if President Obama had outlined it during his Sunday morning television appearances, the cause of real reform would have gotten the boost it needed.
As things stand, the CPC -- not the unreliable and unfocused Blue Dogs and certainly not the Democratic Leadership Council-aligned "New Democrats," who come with more corporate strings attached than many Republicans -- are the best strategic and practical allies that the president has. By adopting the CPC line with regard to the public option, Obama could energize the base that elected him and turn this into a real fight, bringing savvy inside-outside political operations like that of Progressive Democrats of America into the thick of the struggle and activating the crowds that turned out in cities across the
country last week for the "Mad As Hell Doctors" tour on behalf of "Medicare for All."
By significantly muscling up his public-option proposal, the president could also give the labor movement's most determined organizers (who are, invariably, single-payer backers) something to sink their teeth into.
Obama can still get a public option.
But he needs to understand that the public option is, itself, a compromise. It falls short of the "Medicare for All" model favored by serious reformers.
As such, the president cannot compromise the compromise.
He needs to take seriously the standards outlined by Grijalva and the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Indeed, he needs to incorporate them into his agenda. The right will scream in opposition. But the right is already screaming in opposition. Obama needs to get the left screaming in support of real reform.