“About As Screwed As You Can Get”: The Uninsured Continue To Annoy Us With Their Pain
There are a lot of reasons why the United States is the only advanced democracy that does not guarantee basic medical services to all its citizens. One reason is that the convoluted construction of the U.S. health-care system has made it hard to fix the dysfunctional elements without threatening to change existing arrangements for people who profit from the status quo, or at least fear change. (That’s why both Presidents Obama and Clinton have tried so hard to convince Americans with health insurance they could keep what they have.)
Another reason is that people without health insurance are politically weak. They lack political organization, and many, reports Alec MacGillis, lack even the awareness that there was this big health-care law that gives them help:
As Robin Layman, a mother of two who has major health troubles but no insurance, arrived at a free clinic here, she had a big personal stake in the Supreme Court’s imminent decision on the new national health care law.
Not that she realized that. “What new law?” she said. “I’ve not heard anything about that.”
The circumstances of MacGillis’s story itself tell you something else about the weakness of the uninsured: Their cause is slightly disreputable. MacGillis straightforwardly and without advocacy examines up-close the conditions of the uninsured and their level of awareness, or lack thereof, of the Affordable Care Act. MacGillis reported the story for Kaiser Health News, and offered it to the Washington Post, which planned to run it on its front page but decided against it.
It is certainly true that a story examining the plight of the uninsured, and one that notes that they would stand to gain from a law subsidizing their health insurance, would tend to make readers think more favorably of such a law. But that is not the sort of objection a newspaper normally considers fatal. It all depends on whose plight we’re talking about. The complaints of business leaders who want more favorable regulatory and fiscal policies have received blanket coverage. Even when such complaints have a strong partisan tilt, beliefs like “we need less regulation” or “we must focus on reducing the deficit” carry a presumption of public-spiritedness.
The uninsured are in such bad political shape that even describing their physical suffering in a political context is considered dangerously partisan. That’s about as screwed as you can get.
By: Jonathan Chait, Daily Intel, June 18, 2012
“Not A Chance”: Does The Supreme Court Care A Whit About The Public’s Opinion Of The Obamacare Ruling?
As we edge closer to this month’s Supreme Court decision on the future of the Affordable Care Act—or lack of any such future—many liberal pundits are pinning their hopes for a happy ending on Chief Justice John Roberts voting to uphold the law in response to the court’s poor showing in recent polls on the issue of the court’s political objectivity.
Nonsense.
Of the many concerns that fall to a Chief Justice—whose name will forever attach to the decisions of the court over which he or she presides—public polls would have to be at the very lowest rung on the list.
A recent New York Times/CBS News poll reveals that public support for SCOTUS is at just 44 percent, with 76 percent believing that the justices, at least some of the time, base their rulings on their personal and political views.
This rather dismal opinion of our one government institution— that is supposed to be high above petty political concerns—prompted former Clinton Labor Secretary, Robert Reich, to write in the Christian Science Monitor –
The immediate question is whether the Chief Justice, John Roberts, understands the tenuous position of the Court he now runs. If he does, he’ll do whatever he can to avoid another 5-4 split on the upcoming decision over the constitutionality of the Obama healthcare law.
My guess is he’ll try to get Anthony Kennedy to join with him and with the four Democratic appointees to uphold the law’s constitutionality, relying primarily on an opinion by Judge Laurence Silberman of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia – a Republican appointee with impeccable conservative credentials, who found the law to be constitutional.
While I would love to believe that Reich has this right, I’m afraid the Secretary is engaging in some very wishful thinking. It’s just not going to happen that way.
This is not to say that the Chief Justice may not, ultimately, find the law to be constitutional.
I have previously suggested that writing off Robert’s vote in support would be a mistake— in no small measure because of his high regard for the opinions of Judge Silberman who did, as Reich reports, vote to uphold Obamacare in the DC Court of Appeals and did so in a highly compelling opinion that cannot be ignored.
Silberman is a major legal influence on conservative judges throughout the nation and, in my opinion, the most likely next appointee to the Supreme Court should a Republican president make the choice.
At the very least, it is reasonable to expect that Justice Roberts might be far more open to considering the less comfortable approach to the law than he might otherwise have been had Judge Silberman seen things differently. In the end, Judge Silberman’s well thought out opinion may turn out to be the difference between Obamacare surviving or not.
But will the Chief Justice ‘tilt’ his vote in a scheme designed to protect the status of the court in the public’s perception?
Not a chance.
If Roberts concludes that the law should be upheld, he may go after Justice Kennedy’s vote, as Secretary Reich suggests, but he would do so with the understanding that on issues as important as the healthcare decision, a 5-4 vote would leave the issue settled—but in a highly unsettling way. When it comes to critical rulings, any Chief Justice greatly prefers that the decision not be carried by a tie-breaker vote as it forever remains more suspect than a 6-3 determination.
We should also keep in mind that The Roberts Court is far from the first controversial Supreme Court in our history. Nor is the current crop of justices the first to experience a bumpy road when it comes to public opinion. We need only recall the huge public outcries engendered by the Warren Court—a version of the Supreme Court which upended the legal status quo in this country in ways never previously seen, enraging many Americans in the process.
Chief Justice Roberts may vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act—including the controversial mandate provisions. I certainly hope that this is the case. And should things go this way, there is no doubt that Roberts’ opinion will go a long way to encourage confidence in our Chief Justice who, by voting to uphold, would reveal himself as a man committed to correctly interpreting the law—even when it may be in opposition to what we suspect might be the dictates of his personal belief.
But if the Chief Justice does this, it will not be the result of some PR effort to raise the level of esteem for the Court among the American public—it will be because he will have correctly understood that, like the law or not, the Affordable Care Act passes Constitutional muster.
By: Rick Ungar, Forbes, June 17, 2012
“Bobbing And Weaving”: GOP Caught Flat-Footed On Immigration
Republicans are bobbing, ducking and weaving around President Barack Obama’s move to allow hundreds of thousands of young illegal immigrants to stay in the country, fearing a lose-lose proposition no matter how they weigh in on the policy shift.
While most Republicans criticized Obama for circumventing Congress, they are far more circumspect about the plan’s merits or their preferred method of dealing with the 800,000 young illegals who will be affected by the order.
The GOP fear boils down to this: If it backs the plan, it would infuriate the right flank of the party, which considers the policy nothing short of “amnesty” for lawbreakers. But if Republicans attack it, it could turn off scores of Latino voters who are poised to play a huge role in crucial battleground states this November.
So the Republican response? Say very little.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said the GOP would follow the direction of Mitt Romney, who in turn has called on Congress to deal with the matter without laying out specifics himself. Arizona Sen. John McCain said Republicans are ready to embrace a proposal under development by Sen. Marco Rubio, but the Florida freshman now plans to shelve the proposal until after the election.
And there’s been virtual silence on the Senate floor from Republicans who have shied away from talking about the matter publicly.
Texas Sen. John Cornyn — the ranking member on a key immigration subcommittee and head of the powerful National Republican Senatorial Committee — was asked if the GOP needed its own policy proposal on the matter this election year.
“We were working on that, and the president basically undercut it by trying to do this unilaterally, something he said a year ago he couldn’t do,” Cornyn told POLITICO. “This isn’t going to get implemented in the next 140 days before the election.
“The most important thing we can do is to get America back to work.”
Republicans are in virtual agreement on that. The election, they believe, will turn on Obama’s stewardship of the economy, something they think will resonate with Latinos also frustrated with the president’s failure to deliver on comprehensive immigration reform.
But there’s far less unanimity among Republicans on how to deal with the emotional issue of children of illegals brought to the U.S. through no fault of their own.
Speaking to reporters Tuesday after a party lunch, McConnell refused several times to weigh in on the substance of the change, instead deferring to the party’s presumptive presidential nominee to address it at the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials convention Thursday in Orlando, Fla.
“I think most of my members are interested in learning what Gov. Romney has to say about this issue, and we’re going to withhold judgment — most of us — until that time,” McConnell said.
Romney — who along with Obama will speak at the three-day convention — repeatedly declined to answer on CBS’s “Face the Nation” Sunday whether he as president would make the same policy change as Obama did. Instead, Romney criticized the process by which Obama enacted the move.
McConnell declined to answer what should happen to young children and adults who are in the country illegally and would qualify under the new policy. He also deflected questions about whether the new policy constitutes “amnesty,” as immigration hard-liners charge.
“If it leads to citizenship as a reward for some kind of illegal entry, that could be argued,” McConnell said on amnesty. “But I think we’re going to wait and see what Gov. Romney has to say and then our members are going to be discussing his views on this and I think many of them will have similar views, others may not.”
But like other top GOP officials, the Kentucky Republican criticized Obama over his process.
“What I can say for sure is, the president said a year ago he didn’t believe he had the authority to do what he announces he was going to do last week. And I don’t think that’s an irrelevant thing to discuss,” McConnell said. “I mean, did he have the authority to do what he did?”
Twenty Republican senators, including McConnell, released a letter sent to Obama Tuesday demanding a detailed response from the White House on its authority to issue such a broad move. But the missive stopped short of picking apart the policy itself.
In the House, Speaker John Boehner said the immigration move puts “everyone in a difficult position” and accused the president of trying to shift the debate away from his stewardship of the economy.
South Dakota Sen. John Thune , No. 3 in the Senate GOP leadership, called Obama’s move “politically motivated” but acknowledged that “he’ll probably stand to benefit politically from doing that.”
Asked about the GOP approach, Thune said he preferred a broader solution, something he believed Romney was in the “process of formulating.” Like other Republicans, Thune said the president undermined the Rubio effort.
Rubio announced Monday he would likely punt the matter until after the election, since the president’s move sapped the legislative momentum out of his push — a decision that appears to have caught many Republicans flat-footed.
McCain, the 2008 presidential nominee, said Republicans should talk about the matter “as an issue of compassion and concern.”
Asked if the GOP needed a legislative proposal to show voters, McCain said: “Well, Marco Rubio had one that obviously was nearing completion.”
Informed that Rubio appeared likely to drop the effort now, McCain said: “Well, I don’t know what his decision is — but I know he’s close to completing one.”
There were many similarities between Obama’s and Rubio’s plans.
Rubio’s plan would have legalized undocumented children brought to the United States at an early age provided they have no criminal record and have completed high school. It would grant them “non-immigrant” visas and allow them to stay in the country and access the existing immigration system, through which they could eventually become green card holders or naturalized citizens.
Similarly, Obama’s executive action said that those who entered the United States before the age of 16, are younger than 30 and pose no security threat, served in the military and completed minimum levels of education can get a two-year deferral from deportation and apply for work permits.
The Democrats’ DREAM Act — which Obama supports and Romney promised to veto during the primary campaign — would provide a direct pathway to citizenship by providing green cards to children seeking higher education or military service of at least two years.
At least one Republican praised Obama’s decision: Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), whose support for the DREAM Act became a political liability in his losing primary bid.
“The executive action is controversial,” Lugar said, “but nevertheless, on balance, it seems to me that it was a constructive move.”
By: Seung Min Kim and Manu Raju, Politico, June 19, 2012
“End Of The Middle Class?”: What Happens If America Loses Its Unions
Are American unions history?
In the wake of labor’s defeated effort to recall Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) last week, both pro– and anti-union pundits have opined that unions are in an all-but-irreversible decline. Privately, a number of my friends and acquaintances in the labor movement have voiced similar sentiments. Most don’t think that decline is irreversible but few have any idea how labor would come back.
What would America look like without a union movement? That’s not a hard question to answer, because we’re almost at that point. The rate of private-sector unionization has fallen below 7 percent, from a post-World War II high of roughly 40 percent. Already, the economic effects of a union-free America are glaringly apparent: an economically stagnant or downwardly mobile middle class, a steady clawing-back of job-related health and retirement benefits and ever-rising economic inequality.
In the three decades after World War II the United States dominated the global economy, but that’s only one of the two reasons our country became the first to have a middle-class majority. The other is that this was the only time in our history when we had a high degree of unionization. From 1947 through 1972 — the peak years of unionization — productivity increased by 102 percent, and median household income also increased by 102 percent. Thereafter, as the rate of unionization relentlessly fell, a gap opened between the economic benefits flowing from a more productive economy and the incomes of ordinary Americans, so much so that in recent decades, all the gains in productivity — as economists Ian Dew-Becker and Robert Gordon have shown — have gone to the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans. When labor was at its numerical apogee in 1955, the wealthiest 10 percent claimed just 33 percent of the nation’s income. By 2007, with the labor movement greatly diminished, the wealthiest 10 percent claimed 50 percent of the nation’s income.
Today, wages account for the lowest share of both gross domestic product and corporate revenue since World War II ended — and that share continues to shrink. An International Monetary Fund study released in April shows that the portion of GDP going to wages and benefits has declined from 64 percent in 2001 to 58 percent this year. The survey compared the United States with Europe, where the only other nations in which labor’s share declined were Greece, Spain and Ireland — countries whose economies are at death’s door. Our economy is nowhere near so weak, but as Americans’ ability to collectively bargain has waned, so has their power to keep all corporate revenue from going to top executives and shareholders.
When unions are powerful, they boost the incomes of not only their members but also of nonunion workers in their sector or region. Princeton economist Henry Farber has shown that the wages of a nonunion worker in an industry that is 25 percent unionized are 7.5 percent higher because of that unionization. Today, however, few industries have so high a rate of unionization, and a consequence is that unions can no longer win the kinds of wages and benefits they used to.
Deunionization is just one reason Americans’ incomes have declined, of course; globalization has taken its toll as well. But the declining share of pretax income going to wages is chiefly the result of the weakening of unions, which is the main reason American managers now routinely seek to thwart their workers’ attempts to unionize through legally questionable but economically rewarding tactics (rewarding, that is, for the managers).
The weakening of unions has had a huge political effect as well: the realignment of the white working class. Since the ’60s, exit polls have shown that unionized blue-collar whites vote Democratic at a rate 20 to 30 percent higher than their nonunion counterparts. The decline in union membership has weakened Democrats in such heavily white, increasingly deunionized states as West Virginia and Wisconsin — the main reason Republicans such as Walker have sought to reduce labor’s numbers. Liberals who have been indifferent to unions’ decline will find it difficult to enact progressive legislation in their absence.
Understandably, some liberals are searching for ways to arrest the economic decline of the majority of their fellow Americans in a post-union environment. I fear they’re bound to be frustrated. If workers can’t bargain with their employers, it can’t be done. If and when Big Labor dies — it’s on life support now — America’s big middle class dies with it.
By: Harold Meyerson, Opinion Writer, The Washington Post, June 12, 2012
“Billionaire Nullification”: With No Guardrails, Secret Money Fuels The 2012 Elections
For those who believe money already has too much power in U.S. politics, 2012 will be a miserable year. The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, lassitude at the Federal Election Commission and the growing audacity of very rich conservatives have created a new political system that will make the politics of the Gilded Age look like a clean government paradise.
Americans won’t even fully know what’s happening to them because so much can be donated in secrecy to opaque organizations. It’s always helpful for voters to know who is trying to buy an election, and for whom. This time, much of the auction will be held in private. You can be sure that the candidates will find out who helped elect them, but the voters will remain in the dark.
We do know that the playing field this year is tilted sharply to the right. Journalists often focus on the world of rich liberals in places such as Hollywood and Silicon Valley. But there are even more conservative millionaire and billionaire donors who hail from less mediagenic places. There is, for example, a lot of oil money in Texas. Then there’s Wall Street. Once a bountiful source of Democratic as well as Republican cash, it has shifted toward the party of Mitt Romney, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. And then there’s Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, whose $10 million donation to the super PAC supporting Romney was reported Wednesday.
Republicans argue that turnabout is fair play. Barack Obama shunned the public financing system in 2008 and vastly outspent John McCain. Democrats, they say, are complaining now because they are at a disadvantage.
That’s at best half right. It’s true that Obama struck a blow against public financing, though the system was insufficiently financed and would eventually have collapsed under its own weight. And four years ago, Obama filled his coffers through the regulated system that limited the size of contributions and that required disclosure. This year, there are no guardrails, no limits on what can be raised and spent. A remarkably small number of very wealthy people will be able to do what hasn’t been done for generations.
And their influence will be especially large in congressional races where the outside groups can swamp what the candidates themselves spend. Those who claim that this is all about free speech need to explain how speech is free when one side can buy the microphone and can set the terms of debate, especially in contests below the presidential level.
What is to be done? The IRS could and should crack down on political committees legally disguised as “charities.” The Federal Election Commission and Congress could promote disclosure. The Supreme Court could undo its error, or we could do it by embarking on the cumbersome process of amending the Constitution. Ultimately, we need to democratize the money chase by providing, say, 5-to-1 public matches for small donations.
But it’s highly unlikely that any of this will happen before November, so here is a modest proposal: A small group of billionaires, aided perhaps by a few super-millionaires, should form an alliance to offset the spending of the other billionaires and super-millionaires. They might call themselves Billionaires Against Billionaire Politics. These public-spirited citizens would announce that they will match every penny raised by the various super PACs on the other side.
In principle, they could commit themselves to balancing off whichever side — conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat — is dominating the airwaves and the fundraising. The idea would be to destroy the incentives for the very rich to buy the election. If shrewd wealthy people realized that every $10 million they put up would be met immediately by $10 million from the other side, they might lose interest in the exercise.
As a practical matter, it’s conservative dollars that need to be offset, so this balancing act would likely be financed by non-conservatives. George Soros, Warren Buffett and New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg come to mind. But there may be other, less high-profile wealthy folks who want to do their patriotic bit. The hope is that this would be a one-shot deal. After one nuclear winter of an election, rich partisans could agree to mutual disarmament.
It’s preposterous that our system has handed over so much power to those with large fortunes that the only way to get matters under control is to have one group of rich people check the power of another group of rich people. Maybe the absurdity of it all will finally force the Supreme Court and Congress to bring us back to something more reasonable. It’s called democracy.
By: E. J. Dionne, Opinion Writer, The Washington Post, June 13, 2012
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 