The calendar can’t flip on a new day before I tell you about my grandma. She wasn’t like many grandmas.
She’d get the giggles and couldn’t stop. She’d have us all crying around the dinner table, less that we even understood the original punchline and more that her glee was infectious. I remember many moments of childhood mortification, like when she danced the hula on her return from Hawaii, along with the out-of-tune humming of the appropriate tune. Now the memory makes me proud. My grandma was an imp.
Her family was so much like most American families. We all have our odd birds and crazy uncles. We have our disagreements. We still rush right over if there is a phone call in the middle of the night.
Her father built bridges in Pittsburgh in the industrial revolution. He was conservative. My mother just told me a family story about my grandma’s cousin who played a joke on her dad one day. Her dad hated FDR so much, she thought it would be just the thing to welcome him home one day with a Life Magazine FDR photo gallery splayed around the house. She said he was so mortified that she thought for a moment he’d – literally – have a heart attack.
My grandma was fairly apolitical until she found herself living in Georgetown for a year in 1964 because of my grandpa’s work. By then she had raised her children and I suppose wasn’t your standard housewife (remember she was an imp). She whiled away any spare time sitting on Capital Hill watching Congress in session. She decided then that she was a Democrat (she told her grand kids this story: “I decided the Republicans were just against everything, so I was a Democrat.”) I can’t tell you what she’d think today, I can only tell you that, just as her Republican father would love her no matter what, her granddaughter would love her no matter what. It’s the kind of love you have when you live in a family.
All of our families are a hodgepodge of ideas, crazy uncles and disagreement. But it’s our American family.
We’re in a tough place right now as a family. We’re two days away from the the eighth anniversary of September 11, which shook us to our very core. We don’t seem to agree with each other any more, but maybe it’s because we’re not even talking (except through people who get a lot of money if we keep the TV tuned to them). There is a lot of anger on the right in America’s family, with many expected to march on September 12 to ask that we return to the spirit of that day.
I couldn’t agree more (please look at our founding thesis here). We should return to the American family that we all felt that day, the one where we disagree with each other, the one where we sit around the Thanksgiving table and deal with each others’ quirkiness, the one where we roll eyes, the one where we love each other despite it all. I think that anyone who tells you that the legacy of September 11th is that we should hate each other more is just wrong.
To my grandma. And to yours. Grandmas would tell us to mind our manners. So let’s roll up our sleeves and disagree where we need to. But let’s be partners in the disagreement, because we will sink or swim together. Let’s really listen to each other and speak respectfully. Let’s be an American family again. And when you’re feeling the impulse to hate, remember that on the other side of the aisle is undoubtedly someone who – no matter what – you’d rush to in the middle of the night.
Happy 100 years grandma. (And for goodness sakes, keep them hula dancing up in heaven.)
Look, a lot of the conservative movement in this country is conducting itself in a way that is tremendously destructive. Both of the basic constitutional compact of the requirements of good faith and of their own good sense. I mean, when you were going on the air and calling the President of the United States a Nazi as Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly done. When Mark Levin — you mentioned him — he said the President of the United States is literally at war with the American people.
And then people begin, unsurprisingly, showing up at rallies with guns. Well, obviously, if the President were– I mean, folks, if I believed the President of the United States were a Nazi, were planning a Fascist takeover, it would be contemptibly cowardly of me not to do everything in my power, including contemplating violence, to resist such a thing. Every decent person should do that.
That’s why you don’t say it when it’s not true. And I mean, one of the ways that the constitutional system works is with some understanding that the people on the other side have slightly different priorities but they share your constitutional values. They have invested in the same system. The problems they’ve got are hard problems. And even if you don’t like their answers, you have to have some restraint in the way you talk about them, as you would hope they would have about you.
And I think it’s just outrageous. It is dangerous. It’s dangerous for the whole constitutional system. Now, I’m absolutely prepared to fight with them. And by the way, it’s dangerous to conservatives because the effect of the talk of people like Levin and Rush Limbaugh is to kill our cause with voters who are under 65.
You make that man the face and you say let us contrast him to Barack Obama who is maybe too expensive but who seems calm and judicious? That’s an ugly comparison.
When I was a teenager, Blue Cross came along as a nonprofit and offered health insurance, which wasn’t all that common back then. The insurance spread the risk of expensive medical encounters over a wide group.
Then the for-profit insurers saw opportunity. Big bucks could be made in health care if they could control risk. They did this by selectively insuring working people, who are generally healthier, as are those with higher incomes.
Blue Cross had to change its business model to compete with the for-profits, and it has been a race to the bottom ever since. As Nicholas Kristof recently commented in the New York Times, the insurers “changed their business model from spreading the risk to dumping the risk.”
Now it is all about profit, not about health. Those with higher risk of illness are on the outside looking in. Administrative costs have soared as the multiple private insurers spend a lot of money on marketing to the healthy, contesting claims and denying authorization for procedures.
The public plans insure the worst risks. Medicaid insures the poor, who are less healthy, and the uninsurable. Medicare and veterans programs have a sicker pool because of age and disability. Their costs also have risen, and this bad risk pool means their costs keep soaring. Others without insurance wind up in local emergency rooms, usually at taxpayer expense.
Meanwhile, the private insurers reap the benefits of their lower-risk pools while dumping the higher risks on the government. That’s not some scary future conjured up by the opponents of reform. That’s reality right now.
Dr. Neal Priest (my brother-in-law), an emergency room physician in Athens Georgia, makes his recommendations on health care reform. Read Neal’s whole article HERE.
â–º Just as everyone must have auto insurance, health insurance must be a requirement. People who cannot afford a policy would be offered a subsidy or be enrolled in a public option that would incentivize preventative care and the appropriate use of health care services.
â–º Insurance must be portable across state lines. Patients should not be denied coverage on the basis of “pre-existing conditions” or be dropped from the rolls when they become seriously ill or injured. This would encourage health insurance companies to keep their enrollees healthy, screen widely for serious illnesses, and aggressively treat them at the first sign of significant problems in order to minimize overall expenditures.
â–º A comprehensive electronic medical record (EMR) that includes pharmacy usage – either online or on a computer chip card similar to the very successful “Carte Vitale” in France – would save tens of billions of dollars per year. The EMR would streamline billing procedures, avoid redundancy in testing, limit prescription errors and drug allergies, and – importantly – help prevent the rampant fraud and abuse present in our system today.
â–º Create a comprehensive approach to tackling the enormous problem of rampant obesity in our society, which costs billions of dollars each year because of the awful health consequences. Just as we tax cigarettes and alcohol, we should tax foods known to cause ill health down the road – products with high sodium content, high sugar content, saturated fats and/or cholesterol.
â–º Alter the corporate food marketplace, including farm subsidies to huge corporations, so that healthier foods have a chance of competing with high-fat, high-sodium, calorie-dense items that are causing us to eat ourselves to death.
â–º Create incentives for physicians to go into primary care specialties. We need a lot more preventative care and expert management of chronic diseases.
â–º Fix the medical malpractice system. Regional or statewide “malpractice panels” comprising lawyers, judges, medical experts and patient advocates would save billions of dollars per year.
The President has released his prepared remarks for the speech to school children tomorrow. You can read them HERE.
Fact check on previous presidential speeches to school children:
On November 14, 1988, President Reagan gave a speech from the White House and answered questions from junior high school students from the Washington, D.C. area, in an appearance that was distributed to schools via an educational television network and also broadcast on C-Span. You can read Reagan’s speech HERE.
On October 1, 1991, President George H.W. Bush made an appearance that was broadcast live on radio, CNN and PBS, and funded by the Education Department. The full text of the speech is available online HERE.
It light of the din of indoctrination accusations by the right about a lesson plan suggesting school children think about how they can help President Obama, it is worth noting that President Bush’s speech ended: “Write me a letter â€” and I’m serious about this one â€” write me a letter about ways you can help us achieve our goals(emphasis added). I think you know the address.”
According to CBS News, “Prior to the appearance, Education Secretary Lamar Alexander sent letters to every elementary and secondary school in the country â€” 110,000 â€” urging them to allow students to watch the President’s speech.” (We had to work hard before the internet.)
There was some squawking by the Democrats:
“The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students,” the New York Times quoted House Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.). “And the president should be doing more about education than saying, ‘Lights, camera, action.'”
Here is Florida Republican Party Chair Jim Greer’s statement, in which he called Obama “the Pied Piper:”
I am absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama’s socialist ideology. The idea that school children across our nation will be forced to watch the President justify his plans for government-run health care, banks, and automobile companies, increasing taxes on those who create jobs, and racking up more debt than any other President, is not only infuriating, but goes against beliefs of the majority of Americans, while bypassing American parents through an invasive abuse of power.
One of the overwhelming conclusions we’ve had to draw on health care, as we studied hard to prepare for the September 15 Dinner at the Square “Take 2 Aspirin, Fix Health Care & Call Me in the Morning,” is that the incentives in our health care system are fantastically broken. Here’s what we mean:
The incentive for doctors, especially in the litigious climate of bazillion dollar malpractice awards, is firmly for more treatment to protect themselves.
There is no supply and demand curve where customers (patients) interact directly with suppliers (doctors, hospitals) to drive prices down and quality up as our economy has otherwise functioned. Insurance companies stand between them (they’re like a parent with an unlimited credit card to both patients and doctors.)
Toss in physician ownership of some testing facilities, so that more testing doesn’t only mean covering liability, but it means increased income and….
Voila, you’ve got skyrocketing costs with no end in sight.
Here are two great articles on incentives. They’re long, but well worth a read if you want to understand what’s wrong. The first offers a patient-centered market-based solution, the second leans toward a Mayo clinic managed care patient-centered approach.
“You must understand this, my beloved: let everyone be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger; for your anger does not produce God’s righteousness. Therefore rid yourselves of all sordidness and rank growth of wickedness, and welcome with meekness the implanted word that has the power to save your souls. But be doers of the word, and not merely hearers who deceive themselves. For if any are hearers of the word and not doers, they are like those who look at themselves in a mirror; for they look at themselves and, on going away, immediately forget what they were like. But those who look into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and persevere, being not hearers who forget but doers who act – they will be blessed in their doing. If any think they are religious, and do not bridle their tongues but deceive their hearts, their religion is worthless. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”
Three factors exacerbate this paralysis by lack of analysis: labels, lifestyles and listening.
First, the labels ascribed to many potential policy tools render sensible options taboo, loading what could be rational, economic or social measures with moral baggage. This narrows our choices, hemming in policy makers.
Any proposal including the words “government-run” elicits cries of “socialism” and “communism.” Any argument invoking the words “God” or “moral” sparks accusations of “right-wing extremism,” “facism,” or “Bible-thumping.” Instead of listening to each other’s ideas, we spot the warning label and run the other way.
Second, our lifestyles favor knee-jerk reactions. The way we think, work and live in the Digital Age demands we quickly categorize information without investing time into rich interaction, research and understanding.
We’re hesitant to ask questions because we don’t have time to listen to the long, complicated answers that might follow. And we lack the time to fact-check competing claims. In our haste, it’s easier to echo our party’s position than drill down, questioning whether party leaders are motivated by our best interests or the best interests of their biggest contributors.
Third, we tend to listen only to like-minded opinions as media fragmentation encourages us to filter out varying perspectives. If you’re a liberal, you avoid FOX News. If you’re a conservative you revile MSNBC. The dynamic is even more pronounced online, where a niche media source can be found for any outlook.
This silences the opportunity for meaningful dialogue and deliberation that might lead to reformulating positions, forging sustainable compromises, and developing consensus crucial to moving our nation forward on complex issues.
In our research preparing for September 15th dinner Take 2 Aspirin, Fix Health Care & Call Me in the Morning we have learned one thing if we’ve learned nothing else: We are trying to solve a complex problem and therefore need to have a high quality “A”game conversation. The corollary to what we’ve learned… We are NOT having a high quality conversation.
I finally got around to fact-checking the allegation that the VA manual “Your Life, Your Choices” was encouraging vets to off themselves. (You can click on a link to the PDF of this 55 page document HERE.) Turns out it’s all about helping vets determine what they want, so that their wishes would be observed if they weren’t able to direct their health care decisions. That means if you want every treatment on planet earth to save you for 15 more minutes, this pamphlet will help you articulate your directive. It’s a rugged individualist’s dream come true. Here is a representative sample:
Thereâ€™s only one person who is truly qualified to tell health care providers how you feel about different kinds of health care issuesâ€”and thatâ€™s you. But, what if you get sick, or injured so severely that you canâ€™t communicate with your doctors or family members? Have you thought about what kinds of medical care you would want? Do your loved ones and health care providers know your wishes? Many people assume that close family members automatically know what they want. But studies have shown that spouses guess wrong over half the time about what kinds of treatment their husbands or wives would want.
You can help assure that your wishes will direct future health care decisions through the process of advance care planning…
What else can I do to make my wishes known? It is a good idea to write down your wishes for future health care because it gives others the most complete picture of how you feel and what you would want. You can do this by signing an advance directive, which can be either a formal, legal document or an informal statement of your wishes. There are two types of formal directives: proxy and instructional. A proxy directive uses a legal document called a â€œdurable power of attorney for health careâ€ to appoint a spokesperson who can make health care decisions on your behalf. It goes into effect when health care decisions need to be made for you and you canâ€™t communicate or make health care decisions for yourself.
If you are conservative, I think a valid question to ask about health care reforms is “if government is financially invested in my health care, given the massive potential power of government, how do we know they will use this power judiciously?” But you might want to know that the argument by many health reform advocates is that private insurers currently have a financial investment in your health and that it isn’t hypothetical or speculative at all that they are looking to rescind your policy if you get expensively sick. Some of their agents actually earn more money directly if they can find cause to retroactively cancel your policy.
The VA “death pamphlet” just isn’t a valid argument. It takes our eye off the ball as we try to play our “A” game.
Florida State Senator Dan Gelber wrote this morning about his father Judge Seymour Gelber’s 90th birthday. (Judge Gelber was also formerly the Mayor of Miami Beach). Anyone who follows us knows we find a lot of wisdom in the way things used to be and we just love knowing each other as neighbors, so I was a sucker for this story. I’ll let Senator Gelber take it from here:
My Dad has always believed that the mark of a great public servant was accepting that anything truly good you do will come to fruition when you are long gone from public life. In the age of constant media cycles and focus groups, his views might be considered outdated or quaint. But today as Florida faces so many challenges borne out of short-term thinking and shallow policies, I think my Dad and his bowties are still pretty fashionable.
Please take a moment to read a son’s 90th birthday tribute in its entirety. As we trade fire in the partisan wars, we might do well to remember dads like this one.
And Happy Birthday, Judge Gelber.
POSTSCRIPT: I googled Senator Gelber’s dad and found this wonderful YouTube video that speaks volumes both to his character and his ability to wear a bowtie.
Well, it’s not about bipartisanship. I think that has its moments and its peaks and its valleys. It’s civility in the process, I think more than anything else. …when we get back into session, if you want to, if you want to honor Teddy’s memory, it’s to come back and sort of, as I said the other night, to put behind us the blistering days of August and, and to enter the cool days of September and start acting like Senators again where you respect each other. There are differences. You bring that partisanship to the table, but you work out your differences. That’s what’s we were elected to do, that’s what Teddy understood adamantly about the place… When you abandon civility, then you’re going to be in trouble.
…I believe such a grand bipartisan compromise is still possible with health care.
Since the days of Harry Truman, Democrats have wanted universal health coverage, believing that if other industrialized countries can achieve it, surely the United States can. For Democrats, universal coverage speaks to Americaâ€™s sense of decency and compassion. Democrats also believe that it will lead to a healthier and more productive country.
Since the days of Ronald Reagan, Republicans have wanted legal reform, believing that our economic competitiveness is being shackled by the billions we spend annually on tort costs; an estimated 10 cents of every health care dollar paid by individuals and companies goes for litigation and defensive medicine. For Republicans, tort reform and its health care analogue, malpractice reform, speak to the goal of stronger economic growth and lower costs.
The bipartisan trade-off in a viable health care bill is obvious: Combine universal coverage with malpractice tort reform in health care.