The health reform currently being debated is complicated. You have to follow every little detail to understand the stakes and even then you can easily get confused (which, I suspect, some senators are, especially if they decide to obstruct regardless of the content, and don't read the proposed reform surrendering to partisanship and re-election fever).
So many aspects of the health reform bill are intertwined and the legislative process format to vote a reform in Washington isn't appropriate for the complexity of the issue.
Last December, the version that passed had over 400 amendments proposed in the senate, many of which didn't get considered. You can argue that it is not democratic, but the problem is the urgency of the situation doesn't permit that we consider every single amendment at this time. We can always look at them later and call them 'revisions' on specific aspects, not amendments.
Showing posts with label health reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health reform. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Bring some cancer patients that are denied coverage and that will die because of it this year to the senate room or to the House if you have to
Here is a letter I sent to the White House and to a number US publications today
in reaction to the obstruction of the health reform by folks that haven't
even read the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The health reform currently being debated is complicated. You have to follow every little detail to understand the stakes and even then you can easily get confused (which, I suspect, some senators are, especially if they decide to obstruct regardless of the content, and don't read the proposed reform surrendering to partisanship and re-election fever).
We should focus on only a few very general principles and aspects of the reform, and pass that.
This reform is not about abortion, nor is it about one specific health condition versus another. This reform is about a number of flaws in our current system.
I have asked myself many times which aspects I would “cherry pick” if I could only pick a few that I would like to see fixed. As hard as it is, I have picked only two at this time:
1)the fact that health insurance companies can pick and choose who gets denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions
2)the fact that our system is not financially viable and is deepening our Nation's deficit
Forget everything else. I know it's excruciating. But really. Forget everything else for now and just fix that. These two aspects have nothing to do with partisanship.
If the democrats have failed at one thing: they have failed at communicating very very simply on some aspects. They must “de-complexify” the issues (I know it's not a word), and they must let republican folks know that tens of thousands of people are gonna die because they are denied health insurance and they will continue to die each year if this is not fixed today. Hell, bring some cancer patients to the senate room or to the House that are gonna die this year because they don't have coverage and can't afford it. Make them testify. And then turn around and ask republicans that are more worried about making their political party look good. Bring the mother of a child that is about to die because she and the dad can't pay for coverage. Make her testify and then ask them with a straight face if they think that it is ok for this child to die because Washington is more worried about the politics.
in reaction to the obstruction of the health reform by folks that haven't
even read the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The health reform currently being debated is complicated. You have to follow every little detail to understand the stakes and even then you can easily get confused (which, I suspect, some senators are, especially if they decide to obstruct regardless of the content, and don't read the proposed reform surrendering to partisanship and re-election fever).
We should focus on only a few very general principles and aspects of the reform, and pass that.
This reform is not about abortion, nor is it about one specific health condition versus another. This reform is about a number of flaws in our current system.
I have asked myself many times which aspects I would “cherry pick” if I could only pick a few that I would like to see fixed. As hard as it is, I have picked only two at this time:
1)the fact that health insurance companies can pick and choose who gets denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions
2)the fact that our system is not financially viable and is deepening our Nation's deficit
Forget everything else. I know it's excruciating. But really. Forget everything else for now and just fix that. These two aspects have nothing to do with partisanship.
If the democrats have failed at one thing: they have failed at communicating very very simply on some aspects. They must “de-complexify” the issues (I know it's not a word), and they must let republican folks know that tens of thousands of people are gonna die because they are denied health insurance and they will continue to die each year if this is not fixed today. Hell, bring some cancer patients to the senate room or to the House that are gonna die this year because they don't have coverage and can't afford it. Make them testify. And then turn around and ask republicans that are more worried about making their political party look good. Bring the mother of a child that is about to die because she and the dad can't pay for coverage. Make her testify and then ask them with a straight face if they think that it is ok for this child to die because Washington is more worried about the politics.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
R.I.P. (if you can) Tedd Kennedy
Tedd Kennedy's Senate seat went to a Republican today.
The truth about all this is that it's a political cycle. Last time a president enjoyed the majority for his full term at the house and the senate was in the eighties. It was actually in 1980 because it was Jimmy Carter whose mandate ended in 1980.
Political analysts try to make it all about that this Scott Brown victory is a defeat for Obama. It's truly not. Obama was having high expectations for this country and for the world. He is being forced to play this political game, to campaign for little senate seats instead of campaigning for peace around the world. By the time he sided with Martha Coakley for this Massachussets seat, they already knew that it was too late unfortunately. I just don't think that he ever realized that he was going to have to lower himself to that petty level of politics. And it is not what he excels at.
It just doesn't happen that way anymore where a president enjoys the majority of his party in the house for his full mandate, and it's been that way in the entire western world. It's now all about coalition which makes it hard to accomplish anything. A US president nowadays only passes 50% of his reforms in the senate during his mandate.
The saddest part about all this is that our taxpayers' money is being thrown away. An imperfect but decent health reform was about to pass and provide justice to 34 Million Americans, now it's going away and we have to start from scratch and pay senators and legislators all over to make it happen. With the partisanship that is currently ruling Washington, it may take months and it's a waste.
But it raises a real question: how can we make bipartisanship work anymore. Barack Obama's been trying to push for that kind of political consciousness.I encourage you to seek some inspiration in 1972: president Nixon at the time was campaigning for bipartisanship and good judgement over petty politics in his State of the Union:
This speech really resonates today. I wonder why...
The truth about all this is that it's a political cycle. Last time a president enjoyed the majority for his full term at the house and the senate was in the eighties. It was actually in 1980 because it was Jimmy Carter whose mandate ended in 1980.
Political analysts try to make it all about that this Scott Brown victory is a defeat for Obama. It's truly not. Obama was having high expectations for this country and for the world. He is being forced to play this political game, to campaign for little senate seats instead of campaigning for peace around the world. By the time he sided with Martha Coakley for this Massachussets seat, they already knew that it was too late unfortunately. I just don't think that he ever realized that he was going to have to lower himself to that petty level of politics. And it is not what he excels at.
It just doesn't happen that way anymore where a president enjoys the majority of his party in the house for his full mandate, and it's been that way in the entire western world. It's now all about coalition which makes it hard to accomplish anything. A US president nowadays only passes 50% of his reforms in the senate during his mandate.
The saddest part about all this is that our taxpayers' money is being thrown away. An imperfect but decent health reform was about to pass and provide justice to 34 Million Americans, now it's going away and we have to start from scratch and pay senators and legislators all over to make it happen. With the partisanship that is currently ruling Washington, it may take months and it's a waste.
But it raises a real question: how can we make bipartisanship work anymore. Barack Obama's been trying to push for that kind of political consciousness.I encourage you to seek some inspiration in 1972: president Nixon at the time was campaigning for bipartisanship and good judgement over petty politics in his State of the Union:
This speech really resonates today. I wonder why...
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Health reform: How many compromises is it going to take?
If anyone needs more evidence that this “checks and balances” parliamentary system is not working at this point, I don't know what they need to see.
This social reform debate is a disaster. It is excruciating watching this. Democrats have been open-minded, they have made compromises, they have given up the public option, they have now given up the extension of Medicare, but that's still not enough. We are facing a republican filibuster that has decided not to make any compromise. I wouldn't be surprised if some sketchy things are going on behind the scenes to give incentives to some strategic senators to spurn the bill or to spurn amendments that are put on the table in order to sabotage this project altogether. It certainly looks like this is what's going on. These senators are a shame. We elected them to represent the best interest of the people, not to get distracted about whether or not they are going to get re-elected during their entire mandate. In addition to the lack of integrity of some, we are in the presence of two major problems (and countless small ones):
Every senator is seizing this opportunity to make it their moment. Every senator (and there's 100 of them), is all of a sudden trying to push some issue or another. Some of them are legitimate. Some of them feel like it may be their only chance in their career to push an issue that they strongly believe in. Their heart is in the right place and the issue is a valid one (like Sanders). Every senator is trying to either steal the spotlight and/or bring a new amendment to the table. Everything is getting mixed. All of a sudden this becomes about abortion etc. One issue harms the other.
Why can't they just pass individual bills instead of sticking every single debate into a massive bill that should be simply aimed at ensuring access to health insurance to more people and stopping the abuse from private insurance companies? Most likely because the system is set up in such a way that it is a miracle if anything passes the finance committe and then the house. They all feel like it's never gonna happen again, like it's “now or never”. Well they shouldn't feel that way. They feel that way because the system is broken. Why is the system set up in such a way that senators feel like they have to push an issue at a time at the risk of jeopardizing the greater bill? This legislative process is not working.
Two of my co-workers have told me about their experience looking for health insurance while they weren't working. One of them got denied because he is asthmatic, the other one won't even asked because he “knows” he would get denied because of his weight. Every year, 40,000 people die because they don't have health insurance.
This terrible fiasco has nothing to do with Barack Obama. He is at the mercy of the senators at this point. This is some devastating evidence that this country is just too divided. We simply can't get along. We can't even meet in the middle. This is wasting time and taxpayers' money.
I have just written a message to Olympia Snowe to ask her why she is joining the Republican filibuster. To the Republicans that are using extremely low political tactics to ensure that this doesn't pass for a few months and waiting for the elections next year so they can take control again, I want to say that they don't belong in the senate. In fact, they don't belong in politics. Political leadership is about being a grown up, making compromises, knowing when it is appropriate to swallow your pride for the people and holding the stakes of what's best for the country higher than you own personal political agenda. I am ashamed of our “democracy” today.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
To be or not to be Ben Nelson from Nebraska
Many senators can only dream of being in a position similar to what has been Joe Lieberman's in the past months. This is quite a good indicator of the limits of the "checks and balances" system.While we know that it is reasonable to say that there is a risk in rolling out a big health care reform in the midst of the major economic and social crisis that we live in, and while we know that it takes political courage to do so, Mr. Lieberman has opted for a filibuster.
This is someone who can currently sway the health care debate any way he wants, and holds the fate of many cancer patients in his hand, some of which will die because of his media-friendly filibuster threat(s). Today, when asked whether he had hopes to run for as a presidential candidate in 2012, he confirmed that it is not out of the table. Well enjoy your attention-grabbing career move Mr. Lieberman while we know that it will cost some people their lives and the lives of their kids.
Senator JL and the health reform
Many senators can only dream of being in a position similar to what has been Joe Lieberman's in the past months. This is quite a good indicator of the limits of the "checks and balances" system.While we know that it is reasonable to say that there is a risk in rolling out a big health care reform in the midst of the major economic and social crisis that we live in, and while we know that it takes political courage to do so, Mr. Lieberman has opted for a filibuster.
This is someone who can currently sway the health care debate any way he wants, and holds the fate of many cancer patients in his hand, some of which will die because of his media-friendly filibuster threat(s). Today, when asked whether he had hopes to run for as a presidential candidate in 2012, he confirmed that it is not out of the table. Well enjoy your attention-grabbing career move Mr. Lieberman while we know that it will cost some people their lives and the lives of their kids.
Friday, December 11, 2009
That evil antitrust law
The chaotic and sometimes seemingly stumbling endeavors by the White House to pass a health reform has served as a powerful witness
Stupak tried to make it about abortion (and failed), and republican detractors tried to take that opportunity to divert the attention of the real debate: the fact that 40,000 US citizen die every year in the US because they don’t have health insurance. I repeat. 40,000 US citizens die every year and could live if they were able to afford treatment and had health insurance.
In the midst of all this noise, we all try as diligently as we can to understand all the intricate and intertwined elements of this debate, what has emerged as a dangerously possible show stopper is the issue of the public option.
We can only support and follow. Doing so sheds some light on why it has repeatedly failed since the last success in 1964: it is simply too complicated and I suspect that a lot of the House Representatives and senators don’t necessarily understand everything.
I understand why the public option’s cost and difficulty of implementation can be prohibitive, what I have yet to understand, however, is why on earth can’t we simply put a ban on that evil antitrust law that protects Insurance executives while they are criminals and let people die for profit. What could possibly be a viable argument against the ban?
Stupak tried to make it about abortion (and failed), and republican detractors tried to take that opportunity to divert the attention of the real debate: the fact that 40,000 US citizen die every year in the US because they don’t have health insurance. I repeat. 40,000 US citizens die every year and could live if they were able to afford treatment and had health insurance.
In the midst of all this noise, we all try as diligently as we can to understand all the intricate and intertwined elements of this debate, what has emerged as a dangerously possible show stopper is the issue of the public option.
We can only support and follow. Doing so sheds some light on why it has repeatedly failed since the last success in 1964: it is simply too complicated and I suspect that a lot of the House Representatives and senators don’t necessarily understand everything.
I understand why the public option’s cost and difficulty of implementation can be prohibitive, what I have yet to understand, however, is why on earth can’t we simply put a ban on that evil antitrust law that protects Insurance executives while they are criminals and let people die for profit. What could possibly be a viable argument against the ban?
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
How far to go for family?
I have now reached the point where I simply cannot listen to yet another repulican person claim that they shouldn't pay taxes for this or for that. Especially in the midst of this health care debate.
You see I am someone who holds politics very high up in my heart and in the list of topics that I like to discuss. Spending time with family and biting my tongue all week-end not to bring up any political issue is a lot of work for me but I will do it (not every week-end but once or twice a year) because I love family and I love that it gives us a privileged opportunity to experience a diversity of opinion when we otherwise tend to stick with like-minded people who share our values.
But you see, my in-laws don't censor themselves. They will drop a political bomb in an otherwise casual conversation whenever they can. My husband has claimed that he has confronted his parents (his mum especially who is so sel-absorbed, judgemental and patronizing, she just wants to impose her views anytime she can and with me she fails miserably but can't admit it). I suspect that he didn't confront her or if he did, he did it like a wimp. He is not too confrontational. This is the side of him that bothers me the most and that could potentially break up our marriage.
So at this stage, I simply choose not to be around my husband's family anymore. It actually saddens me deeply. Family is a value for me, but like I said, listening to some selfish republican speeches coming from people who simply don't listen to others has crossed the line for me. I blame my husband a little bit for not standing out for me more firmly (and God knows I cut him a lot of slack otherwise in our daily lives but for this I simply can't). The question is: how far are you willing to compromise for family. If everyone could just stick it and bite their tongue equally, I would go. But if it's just me, I just feel disrepected.
Don't get me wrong: I am not the ultimate lefty. I believe that public finances should be watched closely, but I also believe that social injustice unfortunately exists and I believe in solidarity. I mostly have no tolerance for people who make outrageous contradictions, and republicans who go to church do. I am sorry but how can you claim you are a Christian if you don't want to help out people who may not have it as easy as you? It's your right but do not dare to say you're a Christian. Same with the death penalty.
And here is a great article from E. Berstein: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203803904574426790853818568.html
You see I am someone who holds politics very high up in my heart and in the list of topics that I like to discuss. Spending time with family and biting my tongue all week-end not to bring up any political issue is a lot of work for me but I will do it (not every week-end but once or twice a year) because I love family and I love that it gives us a privileged opportunity to experience a diversity of opinion when we otherwise tend to stick with like-minded people who share our values.
But you see, my in-laws don't censor themselves. They will drop a political bomb in an otherwise casual conversation whenever they can. My husband has claimed that he has confronted his parents (his mum especially who is so sel-absorbed, judgemental and patronizing, she just wants to impose her views anytime she can and with me she fails miserably but can't admit it). I suspect that he didn't confront her or if he did, he did it like a wimp. He is not too confrontational. This is the side of him that bothers me the most and that could potentially break up our marriage.
So at this stage, I simply choose not to be around my husband's family anymore. It actually saddens me deeply. Family is a value for me, but like I said, listening to some selfish republican speeches coming from people who simply don't listen to others has crossed the line for me. I blame my husband a little bit for not standing out for me more firmly (and God knows I cut him a lot of slack otherwise in our daily lives but for this I simply can't). The question is: how far are you willing to compromise for family. If everyone could just stick it and bite their tongue equally, I would go. But if it's just me, I just feel disrepected.
Don't get me wrong: I am not the ultimate lefty. I believe that public finances should be watched closely, but I also believe that social injustice unfortunately exists and I believe in solidarity. I mostly have no tolerance for people who make outrageous contradictions, and republicans who go to church do. I am sorry but how can you claim you are a Christian if you don't want to help out people who may not have it as easy as you? It's your right but do not dare to say you're a Christian. Same with the death penalty.
And here is a great article from E. Berstein: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203803904574426790853818568.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
