Friday, February 26, 2010

If This is the Summit, We're All in Trouble

The word summit means the highest point attained. If yesterday's healthcare summit is any indication of how bogged down the government has become in minutiae, God help the American Healthcare System and its people. In all likelihood, it would probably be easier to climb "K2" or "Nanga Parbat." Sherpas have more direction than today's elected officials. What is absurd is that Everest has claimed less lives than the U.S. healthcare system even if one travels through the infamous death zone.

As an independent thinker and voter, TSB turned on the DVR last night and marveled in amazement at the pomp and circumstance that has come to be known as the Great American Healthcare Reform debate. It's embarrassing when grown men and women dance the minuet, while pandering to the needs of the American people.

Not once did I hear anyone address how the structure of the anti-trust laws have allowed the insurance industry to create a monopolized industry, allowing them to collude with one another, while controlling healthcare reimbursements and policy rates. Yes readers, there was a lot of perception deception by both parties when it comes down to the facts. Maybe, if both parties could get their facts straight, there could be some resolve to this bill.

What we found out is that there is some common ground but the challenge is a philosophical one as to what road we travel to arrive at reform. We heard fibs on premiums, misinformation of the CBO's analysis on coverage and cost, declarations that "reconciliation" has never been used for something like this, forgetting that it was used to push through both of W's tax cuts at a cost of $1.8 trillion, twice the cost of healthcare reform, how to deal with pre-existing conditions, and partisanship at its finest. Maybe part of the challenge for the POTUS is that he is attempting to promulgate bipartisanship in a town only know for partisanship.

Regardless, the one thing that we do know is that our healthcare system is costly and dysfunctional. How many of our readers are sick and tired of listening to these elected officials continue to hide behind their comments that we have the best healthcare system in the world. If we did, would we be having this debate? Would the system have spiraled out of financial control? If Americans believe that we have the best, then my advice is don't complain when your premiums escalate to the point of being unaffordable. Yet, this bill is not only about the concerns of healthy people, it is also applicable to those less fortunate, meaning that they are sick and need care, regardless of how accountable or irresponsible they have been for their own health. Isn't it absurd that after all this time, officials continue to argue that we should start over?

You don't have to like Obama, but the one thing you must respect about him is that he is providing the Republicans with an opportunity to offer intelligent and palpable solutions. If the Democrats resort to reconciliation, the Republicans only have themselves to blame. The bigger question is, why are we voting these people into office and then re-electing them if they continue to behave and legislate in the best interest of their own self-interest, while being influenced by lobbyists bribes?


14 comments:

  1. MM, give me a break. Obama called for that farce of a summit, only after the Dems lost their super majority in the senate. Until that point, the GOP was completely locked out of the backroom dealings that were going on, for almost an entire year. I watched as well, and am disgusted by both sides. There is a huge difference in passing tax cuts through reconcilliation (which is exactly what the process was designed for, specifically budget issues) and passing sweeping legislation when the process designed for legislation passage doesn't yield the result desired by those in power. It is the equivalent of taking your ball and ending the 4-square game when you lose.

    You are too bright and insightful to be so biased. Now, don't misunderstand my rant as a statement that we don't need reform, we do, but not this monstrosity. I loved your post about the Ferguson McCarran Act. It prompted me to do some dilligence, and the more I read, the more I agree that the repeal of that legislation is clearly the starting point.

    I just won't accept that this summit was an attempt to find a bipartisan solution, especially when it began (actually, stated the day before), and ended with the Dems stating that if the Repubs don't accept the plan, they will skirt the system, and pass some butchered, incoherant form of the rambling legislation via a process that was never intended, nor designed for this purpose. How can you expect quality negotiations with an ultimatum hanging over your head?

    Don't come back with the pathetic argument that "...the Republican's have used it (reconcilliation) more, and used it first..." because while that may be true, it doesn't make it right, nor does it make it rellevant.

    If you have read any of the legislation(I have tried to read about 60% of it, and it is impossible to understand. I spent 2 hours trying to research what a specifically referred legislation was, that describes what qualifies someone for the public option in the house bill, and I never found it), you would know that there is almost nothing in either law that addresses the costs of healthcare (not insurance)that you have so concisely defined in various posts.

    At least the republican proposals try to address a few of the core drivers of high costs: defensive medicine, malpractice suits, and geographically confined (lack of) competition.

    This is an emotionally charged issue for all of us that make our livelyhood in this system, and we need to try to stay objective. I am not saying that the repubs have the solution wired, but I think they have a few great ideas, and the best idea is to implement incremental changes, rather than trying to redo the entire system in one swoop. The currently proposed legislation is akin to removing a kidney because you have chronic kidney stones.

    At some point this will come down to fundamental philosophy and how much we want the government to intervene. I personally want the government to create a minimal framework, with minimal if any bureaucracy, but some well defined, cogent laws, and let the private sector take care of it. The solution will take time to emerge, but it will ultimately be more efficient, and cost us less. It took decades to screw-up the system, and it cannot be fixed with one signature. We will all likely have to take an incremental hit, as patients, as healthcare professionals, and as industry professionals, but I firmly believe that small incremental hits will be much less painful, and ultimately lead to a functional, efficient system.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I actually agree with you that this Summit was not an attempt to find a bipartisan solution. Here's my point, if the Republicans use reconciliation as a vehicle to pass tax cuts, when there is no majority, how do we stop the Democrats from using it, without viable and thoughtful healthcare reform? Here's the difference in our opinions, I believe that BOTH PARTIES have failed the American people. Once again, thank you for your insightful commentary. You know what the Carpenter's once sang; "We've only just began......."

    ReplyDelete
  3. I actually agree with you that both parties have failed. I also think the American people have failed by letting it happen. I think we are seeing, for the first time in my life, a major awakening in our population, and I just think that the Republicans are beginning to recognize it, and listen a little sooner than the Democrats. But that may just be a perception they are trying to propagate for political expediency. I don't think the legislative process, or the partisanship will end in Washington until they impose term limits...coincidentally the only proposal in Gingrich's Contract With America that was not adopted into law. Once these career politicians have to act with urgency, and without the benefit of 20 years of connection to special interest, we may actually see some meaningful legislation. These comments are not just specific to healthcare, but to the system in general. MM, thanks for this forum, you do a great job. I will create a moniker at some point, because I like to contribute, and often wish I knew which anonymous I was responding to.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You don't have to like Obama, but the one thing you must respect about him is that he is providing the Republicans with an opportunity to offer intelligent and palpable solutions.

    You must be kidding! Respect? The first poster handled the farce of bipartisan input very well. Personally I trust neither.

    What I find amazing is that you constantly alert the readership to the incompetence of the countless empty suits that make up a substantial portion of the leadership within many of the spine companies talked about hear.

    Obama is the poster child of what an empty suit looks like. There is nothing there. I can't see how someone who comes across as sharp as you do falling for some 2nd rate political window dressing?

    Your boy Lew Bennett could do a better job than Obama. At least he's actually accomplished something in his life that doesn't require sucking off of the public teet.

    ReplyDelete
  5. There is one main reason Obama had this well publicized "summit."

    Now he can presumably say with a straight face that democrats tried their darndest to pass health care in a bipartisan forum and the republicans squashed it. It's THEIR fault that the plan went down in flames, not democrat infighting, opacity and pork-loading.

    ReplyDelete
  6. To the anonymous who wrote:

    "Your boy Lew Bennett could do a better job than Obama. At least he's actually accomplished something in his life that doesn't require sucking off of the public teet."

    A lot of heat...not too much light though.

    TSB posed the essential question at the end:

    "...why are we voting these people into office and then re-electing them if they continue to behave and legislate in the best interest of their own self-interest, while being influenced by lobbyists bribes?"

    But Anonymous, your diatribe did point out a key challenge we face. While you were so busy deconstructing Obama, you provided nothing of substance (save for 'I trust neither').

    Common Sense Man believes that when it comes to cable programming and federal government, we get what we deserve (or at least what we react to). Why is so much air time filled with crap reality shows? Because people love to burn their days watching them. And why do presidents and senators keep generating this kabuki theatre as our best form of federal legislation? Because, while it gets nothing of import accomplished, people react to it and it keeps the wheel turning.

    I'm mean, I am pretty sure that these guys, these professional politicians, know how to get votes, and coming off incoherently resolute (see 'Obama is the poster child of what an empty suit looks like') seems to be the short cut to holding a seat.

    Healthcare insurance reform is a massively complex issue, straddled by a handful of other massively complex issues the US will face in the coming years. It requires serious work, by serious people and ultimately a serious level of engagement and sacrifice. Unfortunately, in totality, the public nor OUR elected officials are up to the job.

    This gets fix when the suffering disconnects the cable, and forces people to figure out that our problems aren't going away with the next troupe of actors we put in office.

    But for now, feel sound in your commitment to 'trust neither'.

    ReplyDelete
  7. As a tax payer, I do not accept that America can go to war and reduce taxes at the same time, then tell American taxpayers that America cannot afford to heal the sick and educate its children.

    All of you "Conservatives" or "Republicans" or whatever you are that are so opposed to everything Obama is trying to do need to look yourselves in the mirror and ask why you didn't stand up against George Bush when HE was destroying our country?

    Where were you all when the AMA was calling health care reform "Socialized Medicine" when they were against it, and are now lobbying for it? What do you think of ARPA's DividedWeFail.org campaign?

    Why do the same idiots that elected and reelected the most irresponsible President in US history think they suddenly have America's best interest at heart?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous at 1:26- Are you for real?

    Im sorry that "Republicans" or "Conservatives" don't share the same misery that you feel everyday. It must be sad to wake up hating life everyday.

    The summit was a mockery that everyone should be embarrassed by. Democrats yelled on the sidelines for 4 years demanding change and crying foul. Then you get control of Congress and lead the US into one of the most incredible financial disasters we have ever seen (It was the democrats fault that the housing market crumbled. Remember home ownership is a privilege not another entitlement). Then you get what you wanted by having total control and what have you done with it? Add 3 Trillion dollars to the National Debt? Make closed door deals that are clearly against Americas wishes? Continue to use George W Bush as a scapegoat and a distraction so the most corrupt government we have ever had can continue to push their agenda without ever once considering the consequences? How about go back on multiple promises that have been made with no interest living up to even one of them (publish health care reform on web for 72 hours NOT, how about when Obama said a year ago that he wanted what America wanted and wouldn't consider reconciliation to pass healthcare? NOT, there are many many many more examples)

    The same idiots that elected the most irresponsible and incompetent President in US history haven't even had the opportunity to reelect him yet. That opportunity will come for you in a couple more years.

    By the way, how come every first lady in history has required only 1 assistant (aside from Hillary Clinton who had 3) but Michelle Obama has 26 with a total cost to the US taxpayer of 1.5MM in salary every year?

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Democrats yelled on the sidelines for 4 years demanding change and crying foul. Then you get control of Congress and lead the US into one of the most incredible financial disasters we have ever seen"

    It is the inability to deal with FACTS that makes this type of discussion between reasonable Americans and their Conservative/Republican COUNTERparts impossible.

    Bush was in Office for 8 years and presided over the permanent decline of our nation's financial stability.....

    Obama has been in just over 1 year, and yet you are going to try and blame him?

    Again, the hypocrisy is alarming...Bush ran on a domestic agenda and immediately emptied the US treasury on Nation Building....You don't consider that broken promise important?

    "The same idiots that elected the most irresponsible and incompetent President in US history haven't even had the opportunity to reelect him yet. That opportunity will come for you in a couple more years. "

    Historically, that title will remain with Bush for a long time, you can certainly start working on improving Bush's image now, but it will be in bad shape for years after the both of you die off.

    The bottom line is the the current Republican party is un American and should be terminated for TREASON

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well, I was an Independent in the last 3 elections, and I find this statement to be absurd:

    "The same idiots that elected the most irresponsible and incompetent President in US history haven't even had the opportunity to reelect him yet. That opportunity will come for you in a couple more years. "

    Obama could get elected to office 3 times and never do as much damage to our country as Bush did. Sorry, if you can't see that then your judgement is frightening.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Perfect, today we find out what the GOP thinks of its own supporters...

    Hey, Impeach Obama, which are you?

    http://www.politico.com/static/PPM136_100303_rnc_finance_leadership.html

    The most damning part of the PowerPoint, presented under the headline "RNC Marketing 101," lists the GOP's assessment of what motivates its small donors: "fear," “extreme” anti-Obama sentiments, and being "reactionary."

    On the other extreme are its big donors, which it says are motivated by their egos...

    So, you're either cowardly reactionary or only care about yourselves.... thanks for putting it writing guys, but we all already knew this.

    ReplyDelete
  12. HOLD ON!!!!

    THIS IS A LIE:

    "By the way, how come every first lady in history has required only 1 assistant (aside from Hillary Clinton who had 3) but Michelle Obama has 26 with a total cost to the US taxpayer of 1.5MM in salary every year?"


    By the end of Bushs term, Laura Bush had a personal staff (with a salary in excess of $900,000 a year. I count 19 staffers total

    Laura Bush’s Staff UPDATE WASHINGTON POST


    2008 White House Office Staff List – Salary
    Published Thursday, July 24, 2008
    McBride, Anita B. Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff to the First Lady $172,200.

    Armstrong, Sara Assistant to the President and Duty Chief of Staff to the First Lady $102,000.

    Miller, Sonja Marie Duty Chief of Staff to the First Lady $88,500.

    Ballard, Deanna M. Director of Scheduling for the First Lady $78,400.

    McArthur, Nikki L. Speech Writer for First Lady $63,000.

    Knutson, Lindsay Special Asst. and Personal Aide to the First Lady $62,700.

    Marshall, Misty C. Director of Correspondence for the First Lady $62,400.

    Adams, Julie E. $57,500. Deputy Press Secretary to First Lady $57,500.

    Mende, Kirstin M Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady$53,000.

    Etter, Marisa Leigh Deputy Director of Scheduling for the First Lady $52,200

    King, Kristin N Deputy Director of Advance for the First Lady $52,200

    Segura, Millicent Deputy Director of Correspondence for the First Lady $47,000

    Miller, Kasdin E. Assistant Press Secretary to the First Lady $43,000

    O’Connor, Erin M Executive Assistant to the Chief of Staff to the First Lady $41,800
    McBride, Anita B. Assistant to the president and chief of staff to the first lady $168,000.00
    Harder, Cherie S. Special asistant to the president for domestic policy and director of project of the first lady $108,000.00
    Niemiec, Sally M. Press secretary to the First Lady $90,000.00
    Miller, Sonja M. Deputy chief of staff to the first lady $84,700.00
    Ballard, Deanna M. Director of scheduling for the First Lady $75,000.00
    Marshall, Misty C. Director of correspondence for the first lady $59,700.00
    Etter, Marisa L. Deputy director of scheduling for the First Lady $50,000.00
    Lineweaver, Lindsey M. Special assistant and personal aide to the first lady $47,500.00
    Donoghue , Tarah C. Deputy press secretary to the First Lady $43,000.00
    Block, Jonathan F. Assistant press secretary to the First Lady $39,000.00

    +++++++

    Anti-Obama Wing Nuts just look like fools!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Did you complain about $485,000 dollars for china spent by Laura Bush?

    Did you complain when Nancy Reagan spent $1 million dollars picking out dinnerware for the White House?

    Did you know that EVERY president is allotted $100,000 to renovate the White House?

    Did you know that Obama IS SPENDING HIS OWN MONEY TO FIX UP THE WHITE HOUSE?

    Or are you just a sore loser? The election was over a year ago....

    ReplyDelete
  14. Liberalism is a disease. Progressivism is a crime.

    ReplyDelete