Wednesday, December 02, 2015
1/3 Of The Public Still Delays Medical Care Because Of Cost
Those are all good things, and the number of insured Americans has been significantly reduced (and could be further reduced if Republican governors and legislators would cooperate). But while I have no desire to go back to the pre-Obamacare system, which was much worse, we have to admit that Obamacare was far from perfect. It did not cover all Americans with health insurance, and it did not reduce the cost of health care in this country. Note the charts below.
These charts are from a new Gallup Poll -- done between November 4th and 8th of a random national sample of 1,021 adults, with a margin of error of 4 points. It shows that nearly one-third of all Americans (31%) currently delay needed medical care because of the cost -- and 19%, nearly one out of every five people, are putting off medical care for a serious medical condition.
That's unacceptable. It is just a fact that the United States spends more per patient for medical care than any other developed nation in the world. It's because we don't consider medical care to be a right of all citizens. Our leaders still consider it to be a product available to those who can afford it, and thanks to that we still have a system of for-profit medical care -- and those providers act like other businesses by continually trying to maximize those profits.
A government-run single-payer system could solve both the problem of coverage for all and cost of care. Even if we wanted to continue allowing doctors, clinics, and hospitals to operate on a for-profit basis (like Canada and France do), it would allow the government to negotiate with providers for a reasonable price and bring down costs. It works in other countries, and it could work here.
It would also work for the cost of prescribed medications (which are also higher in the United States than in any other developed nation). Currently, it is against the law for the government to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies (for government programs like Medicare and Medicaid). That's ridiculous. A single-payer system would be able to negotiate drug prices (like other countries do).
Obamacare did a lot of good, but it really just put a lot of band-aids on a system that is still broken. We need a single-payer system of insurance -- and the sooner, the better.
"Mission Creep" Is Alive And Well - More U.S. Troops For Iraq
Poll after poll is asking these days whether the United States should send ground troops to Iraq/Syria. They are asking the wrong question. What they should be asking is how many troops the public is willing to send to that conflict -- because we already have about 3,000 "boots on the ground" in that war, and we will soon have more.
The government just announced that more "special operations" troops are being sent to Iraq. They didn't say how many, but most media sources put it as between 200 and 450 more soldiers. And the military officials said they wouldn't hesitate to ask for more troops "if needed" (and you can bet they'll think they are needed).
I probably sound like a broken record to regular readers, but I am beginning to be reminded of the Vietnam War -- where we started with a few Special Forces soldiers, and thanks to mission creep, wound up with hundreds of thousands of troops in that country. Are we committing that tragic mistake again?
I don't think we should have any American troops at all in Iraq/Syria. This is a religious civil war, and if it must be fought at all, it should be fought by those countries in that region -- the countries most affected by the threat of ISIS. The MOST we should be doing is giving air support and arms to those willing to fight ISIS.
I know our politicians are trying to frame this growing war effort in Iraq/Syria as a war on terrorism. I don't buy it. Even if ISIS is defeated in a land war, that will not stop their terrorist efforts. It will probably increase it. Terrorists can always find a place to hide, train, and plan their terrorist operations -- and thinking a land war in Iraq/Syria will stop ISIS terrorism is just wishful thinking.
But I seem to be in a minority. We are already fighting in that war, and now the question we should probably be asking is how we are going to do that. Robert Reich (on his own blog) has listed five prerequisites for waging this new war. It's a fairly reasonable assessment. He says:
We appear to be moving ever closer toward a world war against the Islamic State.
No sane person welcomes war. Yet if we do go to war against ISIS we must keep a watchful eye on 5 things:
1. The burden of fighting the war must be widely shared among Americans.
America’s current “all-volunteer” army is comprised largely of lower-income men and women for whom army pay is the best option.
“We’re staring at the painful story of young people with fewer options bearing the greatest burden,“ Greg Speeter, executive director of the National Priorities Project, told the Washington Post. NPP’s study found low- and middle-income families supply far more Army recruits than families with incomes greater than $60,000 a year.
That’s not fair. Moreover, when the vast majority of Americans depend on a small number of people to fight wars for us, the public stops feeling the toll such wars take.
That’s not fair. Moreover, when the vast majority of Americans depend on a small number of people to fight wars for us, the public stops feeling the toll such wars take.
From World War II until the final days of the Vietnam War, in January 1973, nearly every young man in America faced the prospect of being drafted into the Army.
Sure, many children of the rich found means to stay out of harm’s way. But the draft at least spread responsibility and heightened the public’s sensitivity to the human costs of war.
If we go into a ground war against ISIS, we should seriously consider reinstating the draft.
2. We must not sacrifice our civil liberties.
U.S. spy agencies no longer have authority they had in the post-9/11 USA Patriot Act to collect Americans’ phone and other records. The NSA must now gain court approval for such access.
But in light of the Paris attacks, the FBI director and other leading U.S. law enforcement officials now say they need access to encrypted information on smartphones, personal and business records of suspected terrorists, and “roving wiretaps” of suspects using multiple disposable cell phones.
War can also lead to internment of suspects and suspensions of constitutional rights, as we’ve painfully witnessed.
Donald Trump says he’d require American Muslims to register in a federal data base, and he refuses to rule out requiring all Muslims to carry special religious identification.
"We’re going to have to do things that we never did before….we’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago,” he adds.
We must be vigilant that we maintain the freedoms we are fighting for.
3. We must minimize the deaths of innocent civilians abroad.
The bombing raids have already claimed a terrible civilian toll, contributing to a mass exodus of refugees.
Last month the independent monitoring group Airwars said at least 459 civilians have died from coalition airstrikes in Syria over the past year. Other monitoring groups, including the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, also claim significant civilian deaths.
Some civilian casualties are unavoidable. But we must ensure they are minimized – and not just out of humanitarian concern. Every civilian death creates more enemies.
And we must do our part to take in a fair portion of Syrian refugees.
4. We must not tolerate anti-Muslim bigotry in the United States.
Already, leading Republican candidates are fanning the flames.
Ben Carson says no Muslim should be president.
Trump says “thousands” of Arab-Americans cheered when the Twin Towers went down on 9/11 – a boldface lie.
Ted Cruz wants to accept Christians refugees from Syrian but not Muslims.
Jeb Bush says American assistance for refugees should focus on Christians.
Marco Rubio wants to close down “any place where radicals are being inspired,” including American mosques.
It’s outrageous that leading Republican candidates for president of the United States are fueling such hate.
Such bigotry is not only morally odious. It also plays into the hands of ISIS.
5. The war must be paid for with higher taxes on the rich.
A week before the terrorist attacks in Paris, the Senate passed a $607 billion defense spending bill, with 91 senators in favor and 3 opposed (including Bernie Sanders). The House has already passed it, 370 to 58. Obama has said he’ll sign it.
That defense appropriation is larded with pork for military contractors – including Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the most expensive weapons system in history.
Now Republicans are pushing for even more military spending.
We cannot let them use the war as a pretext to cut Social Security and Medicare, or programs for the poor.
The war should be paid for the way we used to pay for wars – with higher taxes, especially on the wealthy.
As we move toward war against ISIS, we must be vigilant – to fairly allocate the burdens of who’s called on to fight the war, to protect civil liberties, to protect innocent civilians abroad, to avoid hate and bigotry, and to fairly distribute the cost of paying for war.
These aren’t just worthy aims. They are also the foundations of our nation’s strength.
Tuesday, December 01, 2015
Clinton Is Endorsed 13 Of Democratic Women In Senate
Hillary Clinton held a political fundraiser last night in Washington, D.C., and scored a real political coup while doing so. She received the endorsement of 13 Democratic women in the United States Senate -- Tammy Baldwin (Wisconsin), Barbara Boxer (California), Maria Cantwell (Washington), Dianne Feinstein (California), Kirsten Gellibrand (New York), Heidi Heitkamp (North Dakota), Mazie Hirono (Hawaii), Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota), Claire McCaskill (Missouri), Barbara Mikulski (Maryland), Patty Murray (Washington), Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire), and Debbie Stabenow (Michigan).
So, how are all of the news media covering this news? They are focusing on the lone female Democratic senator that has not endorsed Clinton -- Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts). Most of the media seems to be treating this as though Warren has snubbed Clinton. If that is true, then she has also snubbed Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley -- because Warren has not endorsed any candidate in the Democratic race for the presidency. She has remained absolutely neutral.
We need to understand that Elizabeth Warren is in a different position than the other women senators. She is probably the only one with a real national following, and she is loved by progressives across the nation. But while that gives her more power than the others, it also puts her in a no-win situation. That's because progressives (who make up most of her following) are split between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton -- with about half supporting each candidate.
Whether she endorsed Clinton or Sanders, she is going to disappoint half of her followers. If she endorsed Clinton, Sanders supporters would be upset (and probably accuse her of just following the polls to be on the winning bandwagon) -- and if she endorsed Sanders, Clinton supporters would be upset (and probably accuse her of splitting the party in an important election). She doesn't need either of those headaches. She speaks for a large segment of the Democratic Party, and she likes it that way.
Warren is a loyal Democrat, and I have no doubt she'll support (and work hard for) the eventual nominee. But I don't expect her to endorse anyone in the Democratic primary. She likes her current job, so she doesn't need anything from any of the candidates. That means an endorsement could only hurt, not help, her with her supporters (and the party in general).
Some say Warren is withholding her endorsement to pressure the candidates to come over to her side on issues important to her (mostly economic issues). I don't think so. Both Clinton and Sanders already agree with Warren on most (if not all) economic issues. I believe she has just decided to stay out of it, and let the rank-and-file Democrats choose their candidate -- a candidate that will then have her full support.
NOTE -- Hillary Clinton also has the endorsement of 25 male Democratic senators -- giving her the support of 38 of the 46 senators in the Senate Democratic caucus.
November Poll Averages For Democrats And Republicans
At the end of each month, I like to bring you the RealClearPolitics average of polls for both Democratic and Republican candidates. I do that because in the last presidential election, the RealClearPolitics average proved to be closer to reality than almost any single poll (and far more accurate than most single polls). The November polls that were averaged were the Rasmussen Poll, the Bloomberg Politics Poll, the Public Policy Polling survey, the ABC News/Washington Post Poll, and the Fox News Poll.
The Democratic Party race seems very stable. All of the polls were very close to the RCP average -- which was Clinton (55.8%), Sanders (30.2%), and O'Malley (4.4%). Since Joe Biden announced he would not run, Hillary Clinton has held a solid majority of support from Democrats. Sanders seems to be spinning his wheels -- unable to get past about 30% support (which he has had for quite a while now. And O'Malley is having trouble getting noticed at all.
The chart below shows the RCP average for November for the Republican candidates. There were too many of them to show the results of the individual polls -- which were the Public Policy Polling survey, the ABC News/Washington Post Poll, and the Fox News Poll. The RCP average shows Donald Trump still leading, but not adding to the support he has had for a while now. Ben Carson has dropped a bit, while Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz has increased their support. Jeb Bush and Carly Fiorina have dropped back among the other candidates with only minor support.
What Right-Wing News Will And Won't Say
Sanders Evolved On Same-Sex Marriage - Just Like Clinton
Bernie Sanders (and his supporters) are trying to sell Democratic voters on the idea that he has long supported same-sex marriage, while Hillary Clinton is a johnny-come-lately on the issue. But that's not really true. Sanders did not come out in full support for same-sex marriage until 2009. That's about four years before Clinton, but the truth is that both candidates have evolved their position on the issue -- and neither has been a "long-time" supporter.
Here is how NBC News describes Sanders' evolution on same-sex marriage:
Sanders' history with gay marriage was by no means an unwavering show of support. Indeed, even his opposition to DOMA was not a clear expression of support for gay marriage. At the time, his wife and chief of staff said he opposed the bill on Constitutional grounds.
"We're not legislating values. We have to follow the Constitution," Jane Sanders said. "And anything that weakens the Constitution should be (addressed) by a constitutional amendment, not by a law passed by Congress."
Evan Wolfson, the founder and president of pro-gay-marriage group Freedom to Marry, said Sanders "deserves applause" for that vote, as he was one of just a few dozen lawmakers to oppose the bipartisan bill. But he said Sanders has exaggerated his record on gay marriage.
"Senator Sanders, at points, has implied that he has been a strong and consistent supporter of the freedom to marry — but at crucial junctures, at least publicly, he was not," Wolfson said.
News reports from the early 2000s reveal a senator reluctant to embrace gay marriage even when his own relatively liberal state was going through its own debate on the issue. Sanders issued a statement "applauding" the Vermont Supreme Court for ruling that gay couples should be afforded the benefits of marriage — but not explicitly the right to marry — in 1999.
But the court sent the issue to the legislature to decide, and there Sanders initially refused to take a position.
As a well-respected columnist for the Vermont independent newsweekly Seven Days wrote in 2000, sussing out Sanders' stance on gay marriage at the time was like "pulling teeth…from a rhinocerous."
Gov. Howard Dean, Sen. Jim Jeffords and Sen. Patrick Leahy all took a position, all in opposition to gay marriage. Other Democrats in the state, including the two candidates for Senate and Sanders' successor as Mayor of Burlington, spoke out in favor of gay marriage.
Sanders, meanwhile, won the Vermont delegation's "Wishy-Washy Award," the columnist wrote, for his "carefully crafted non-statement" on the issue.
"By all accounts the legislature is approaching this issue in a considered and appropriate manner and I support the current process," the statement read.
It was a stance the paper decried as being informed by "gut-level paranoia" and a fear of saying "something that might alienate his conservative, rebel-loving rural following out in the hills."
After the legislature passed a civil unions bill, Sanders expressed support for that, but he stopped short of pushing for gay marriage to be recognized.
Six years later, when the George W. Bush Administration was pushing an amendment to the Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman, Sanders dismissed the move as "divisive." But asked by a reporter whether Vermont should legalize same-sex marriage, Sanders said "not right now; not after what we went through."
He explained his stance on gay marriage during a U.S. Senate debate that year as considering it a states' rights issue — a stance that runs in stark contrast to his proclamation to the Times that he "was there" when it comes to gay rights.
"I believe the federal government should not be involved in overturning Massachusetts or any other state because I think the whole issue of marriage is a state issue," he said during the debate.
His refusal to back gay marriage during his Senate run drew him a rebuke from MSNBC's Rachel Maddow during an interview Monday night. She accused him of "the same kind of tactical thinking...for which you criticized Secretary Clinton" when Sanders acknowledged during the interview that he felt Vermont needed "a little bit of time" because the issue was so divisive.
Sanders did come out in favor of gay marriage in 2009, about four years before Clinton expressed support, but both statements came at politically-convenient times — Clinton's, after most of the Democratic establishment had expressed their support; Sanders', after the Vermont legislature voted to legalize gay marriage.
It's a checkered history that, Wolfson says, should at the very least render the back-and-forth over who was first on the issue a moot point.
"Neither one of them needs to be getting bollixed up with bad history when they could simply say, 'We moved, just as the freedom to marry campaign moved the majority of Americans, and we are now both where we need to be,'" he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)