The Trouble with Sanjay Gupta

From Paul Krugman: (I agree wholeheartedly)

So apparently Obama plans to appoint CNN’s Sanjay Gupta as Surgeon General. I don’t have a problem with Gupta’s qualifications. But I do remember his mugging of Michael Moore over Sicko. You don’t have to like Moore or his film; but Gupta specifically claimed that Moore “fudged his facts”, when the truth was that on every one of the allegedly fudged facts, Moore was actually right and CNN was wrong.

What bothered me about the incident was that it was what Digby would call Village behavior: Moore is an outsider, he’s uncouth, so he gets smeared as unreliable even though he actually got it right. It’s sort of a minor-league version of the way people who pointed out in real time that Bush was misleading us into war are to this day considered less “serious” than people who waited until it was fashionable to reach that conclusion. And appointing Gupta now, although it’s a small thing, is just another example of the lack of accountability that always seems to be the rule when you get things wrong in a socially acceptable way.

Questioning Health Care Mandates

Paul Krugman has been very harsh on Barack Obama on healthcare mandates. I am not going to rehash the arguments fully here. This is a personal piece on how they work. Health care mandates are a "way" of covering universally all the people in our system. Certainly, a lofty goal. Clinton and Edwards have attacked Obama because his plan does not universally cover everyone. Fair criticism in my opinion, but the substance of his argument gets lost I think. Mandates are essentially a pay-off to insurance companies. It is a public - private partnership to have everyone covered and the money goes to who else - insurance companies. Now mandates are better than nothing certainly, but what Obama argues for is lowering health care costs to make it easier on all of us and that when health care costs are lowered those left behind will be able to buy health insurance.

My brother is a single dad with three children. He does not make much money, somewhere in the range of $30,000 per year. He pays child support for 2 children and has custody of one. He was unemployed for a while and his youngest child was covered under SCHIP and he was also covered by the Massachusetts plan. He acquired employment, just enough to pay his bills. Massachusetts summarily cut him and his child off the plan. He lobbied for an exemption for his child and received one, now his child is covered. But, because he now makes too much money ($30,000 for a household of four), he no longer qualifies for the health insurance from the state. He is left to get that insurance from his job at a price of over $200 per pay period (approximately) which he cannot afford. He is in fact, now uninsured and a fine of $500 will be levied against him because he does not have insurance, i.e. the mandate.

Does this sound fair? Krugman argues that the mandate is not the problem & that the Clinton and Edwards plans (unlike Massachusetts) have subsidies to low-income families that will alleviate this problem. Though, I must say he leaves out how that occurs (his criticism of Obama) and how this enables lower income families to afford coverage. For example, why does Massachusetts not do this?

I think the criticism of Obama's plan is a policy debate as he has said and we can discuss that, but criticizing him for not wanting health care for all is really a misnomer and unfair because as is evident above there are problems with mandates, serious problems.

As someone who had a near fatal car accident with no health insurance, I know that tragedy lurks around the corner for all of us without health insurance or what really matters - free and affordable health care. When we are, at the same time, trying to please corporations while providing health care we will inevitably run into trouble. When the priority shifts so that everyone is covered no matter what the circumstance or job, is as large a priority as keeping corporations happy, then we will have a plan that works for all of us.

Mandates are not the end all to be all that we have been told they are by Krugman, by Clinton and by Edwards. On this point I am squarely in the Obama camp.

The Stimulus Plan from Congress is Pathetic

I think all agree that an economic stimulus plan was needed for our failing economy. Because of all the political banter here and everywhere, the real issues in our lives are obscured, by who we think would sit in the oval office chair the best. So, last night I watched the Republican debate for as long as I could take it (about 13 minutes) and saw that basically all of the Republican candidates liked the stimulus package. They thought we should also rip the hearts out of poor people and give it to multinational corporations too, but felt overall it was not so bad. It got me to thinking if they liked it - it must be pretty pathetic. Along comes Paul Krugman to give the real story.

Here it is. "Aside from business tax breaks - which are an unhappy story for another column - the plan gives each worker making less than $75,000 a $300 check, plus additional amounts to people who make enough to pay substantial sums in income tax. This ensures that the bulk of the money would go to people who are doing O.K. financially - which misses the whole point."

So, the democrats caved once again to the staunch right wing agenda of this administration? What for? Is it because they think we are as stupid as Republicans? That anything that gets passed in Congress is at least doing something?

Just a few days ago the plans were focused "on expanding programs that specifically help people who have fallen on hard times, especially unemployment insurance and food stamps. And these were the stimulus ideas that received the highest grades in a recent analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office."

Krugman also says: "there was also some talk among Democrats about providing temporary aid to state and local governments, whose finances are being pummeled by the weakening economy. Like help for the unemployed, this would have done double duty, averting hardship and heading off spending cuts that could worsen the downturn."

The problem, Krugman says is this administration refuses to sign on to anything that does not qualify as a "tax cut." Behind that refusal, in turn, lies the administration's commitment to slashing tax rates on the affluent while blocking aid for families in trouble - a commitment that requires maintaining the pretense that government spending is always bad. And the result is a plan that not only fails to deliver help where it's most needed, but is likely to fail as an economic measure.

So, besides "some concessions" by the administration the Republicans got what they wanted. We get $300 that will do absolutely nothing for us as an economy and to get our economy moving in any direction.

It looks like it is going to be a long winter.