Tear up the health care bill and start over.

I wrote a comment on this same issue last night, but I wanted to make it into a post as well, given the importance. Marcia Angel, M.D., former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, is highly critical of the proposed "health care reform." Although she admits that it accomplishes a few things, it is worse than doing nothing.

It throws more money into a dysfunctional and unsustainable system, with only a few improvements at the edges, and it augments the central role of the investor-owned insurance industry. The danger is that as costs continue to rise and coverage becomes less comprehensive, people will conclude that we've tried health reform and it didn't work. But the real problem will be that we didn't really try it.

Read the full post at Huffpo for Angel's clear and understandable ideas for meaningful (and not corrupt) health care reform. I agree with Angel that the current bill is an industry-coddling joke and that it is worse than doing nothing, for the reasons she offers. The House bill has a few pieces of low hanging fruit (e.g., portability), but at great unnecessary expense and waste. We need to tear up this celebrated new bill (celebrated by the Democrats, anyway) and start over. For more on Angell's ideas for reform, also see her recent appearance on Bill Moyer's show.

Continue ReadingTear up the health care bill and start over.

Church To State: “Do What We Want Or Else.”

The divide between church and state seems on the one hand to be growing but on the other narrowing, especially when you consider how intrusive established religions have been. Representatives of the Catholic Church sat in Nanci Pelosi's office of late while negotiations for the health care bill were ongoing, overseeing what she would do about abortion. Now this. Any way one reads this, it comes out as a threat. The quid pro quo is explicit. "If you don't bend to our will on this, we will stop services your city relies on." I have in the past believed that the tax exempt status of religions was a necessary work-around to preserve the fiction of separation. In the past, there have been instances of state intrusion directly into religions in, for one example, state funding for programs in parochial schools. There was always a quid pro quo in such offers and practices. But never has a representative of the state sat in the office of a minister while he drafted a sermon to be sure certain details got left out or included. Never, despite massive abuses by religious institutions in real estate and related financial areas, has the state moved to revoke 501(c)(3) status. It may be that any state official who tried it would be booted out of office summarily, but nevertheless that has been the unspoken law of the land. Seems the courtesy doesn't go both ways. If that's the case, I think it is time to revisit the whole issue. If the Catholic Church sees itself as providing services as an arm of the civil service sector and allows itself the conceit that it may use that service as a lever to influence political decisions, then they have implicitly given up due consideration as an inviolate institution, free from state requirements of taxation and regulation. Seems fairly clear cut to me. Obviously, there will be those who disagree. But it's time, I think, to seriously reconsider the state relationship to so-called "nonprofit" "apolitical" tax exempt institutions.

Continue ReadingChurch To State: “Do What We Want Or Else.”

Jeffrey Sachs: Democrats and Republicans both offer only snake oil for the economy

Jeffrey Sachs, the Director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University, has sharply criticized both the Democrat and Republican approaches to dealing with our failing economy. For instance, Sachs complains that President Obama is seeking to kick up consumer spending through “near-zero interest rates, massive Fed financing of mortgages and various consumption incentives, such as rebates for new home-buyers and cash for clunkers.” According to Sachs, though this will simply get us into a new bubble, as the US consumer is encouraged to over-borrow. This is a terrible strategy “with budget deficits of about 10 per cent of gross domestic product.” How about those Republicans? Their “solution” is equally terrible:

For every problem there is a single Republican answer: tax cuts. Simple arithmetic reveals the stunning shortsightedness of this proposition. The federal government collects about 17 per cent of GDP in tax revenues. That roughly equals the outlays on social security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans’ benefits, defence and interest payments on debt.

All the rest – roads, rail, clean energy, science and technology, diplomacy, international disease control, space, education, job training, water, transport, courts, poverty relief, homeland security, conservation, climate adaptation – is financed on borrowed money. All of these critical areas are underfunded, which hinders productivity, national security and private investment.

What a good idea that is being largely ignored? Sachs likes the idea of jump-starting the green economy:

One where the jobs would come through a massive expansion of low-carbon energy. We were told about plug-in hybrids, intercity fast rail and new water and sewerage plants to replace the crumbling infrastructure. We were told about a new infrastructure bank to fashion complex multi-state projects that would employ huge numbers of workers while building a cutting-edge economy.

Continue ReadingJeffrey Sachs: Democrats and Republicans both offer only snake oil for the economy

Sepuku, Republican Style.

It's been absurd for a long while, but the apparent self-destruction of the Republican Party is reaching new depths. Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina is being censured by the state G.O.P. organization for working with Democrats on a climate bill. Here is the Fox News report. For contrast, here is the Huffington Report. All one can do is stare and ask "What is wrong with those people?" Despite party leader calls for bipartisanship, we see repeated motions by the grassroots elements of the embattled party to circle the wagons and harden their resolve to do nothing to aid and abet what they perceive as The Enemy. Which is what, exactly? Anything, it seems, which suggests that people cannot manage their own affairs, no matter how much they might affect other people, is disallowed. If legislation is proposed to control behavior of individuals, it is anathema to the Republicans. Unless we're discussing abortion. Then the full weight of the state must be brought to bear to prevent individual choice. If the Democrats are smart, all they need do is continue to discuss issues in rational, thoughtful ways, and let the Republican Rabid Dog Wing continue to vociferate mindlessly, and in 2010 there will be another bloodletting of Republican presence in Congress. All the Republicans seem able to do anymore is bang their shoes on the desk and repeat "No! No! No!" At some point, surely, there will be a schism (much like the one we saw in upstate New York) and the sane and rational Republicans will split away from the hydrophobic microcephalics that have been destroying them for so long. That cannot but be a good thing in the long run.

Continue ReadingSepuku, Republican Style.

Kelo vs. New London revisited

Remember the case of Kelo vs. New London? Briefly, it was a case in which homeowners including Susette Kelo sued their municipality to stop it from taking their homes using the power of eminent domain. The city wanted to raze the homes and redevelop the area, making it shiny and new to complement the anticipated Pfizer pharmaceutical research facility. After all, one musn't allow the shabby dwellings of the peasantry to mar the image of success and corporate uniformity that one is trying to project:

So, the politicians picked a 24-acre lot and sold it Pfizer for $10, adding on special tax breaks. Also, state and local governments promised $26 million to clean up contamination on the lot and a nearby junkyard. But Pfizer executive David Burnett thought New London needed to do some more cleaning. "Pfizer wants a nice place to operate," the Hartford Courant quoted Burnett in 2001. "We don't want to be surrounded by tenements." The old Victorian houses in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood next door did not match Pfizer's vision - a high-rise hotel or luxury condominiums would be more fitting.

Continue ReadingKelo vs. New London revisited