Charlie Rose

CarbonFoil  08/25/2009 04:14 PM Report

I agree with all of the comments here, except perhaps for REMant's skepticism regarding single-payer. I say 'perhaps' because I really can't predict the full extent of its economic impact, although assuming a worst-case scenario (that the efficiencies gained fall well short of the expenses) is wise. Still, changing the funding mechanism and streamlining the bureaucracy is an important first step to reforming the ad-hoc system currently in place. Bureaucracy, red tape, and capricious profiteering are so rampant with the ridiculous 'private' insurance paradigm we have now that it's hard to imagine a government program performing any worse.

Single-payer advocates could do more to alleviate the anxiety of employees and executives at insurance companies, who would certainly get hit hard by major reform. Perhaps some of them could be reassigned to the government system, or retrained for another field. The economic impact on the insurance companies is real and shouldn't be dismissed, but it can be addressed if we take it head-on and think creatively.

Single-payer is a major reform, yet much more accessible than the holistic changes outlined by cello10. Nevertheless, those changes are all worthwhile. Weaning ourselves off the industrial food supply chain and moving to a "wellness" society will take time, but save money in the long term. Unfortunately, political leadership is generally lacking in this area.

It is frustrating to see Obama with a Democratic Congress and a clear mandate for change act so conciliatory to his opponents. A key principle of negotiation is to keep some core ideals off the table, but Obama signaled early that everything was negotiable. Thus he alienated his populist-left base while giving Republicans an easy opening for attack. The Republicans will oppose him regardless, so why bend over backwards to appease them?

Obama has failed to strongly assert core elements of reform, except for eliminating exclusions for pre-existing conditions and guaranteeing coverage won't be dropped at insurance company whim. I predict that these will be the only two reforms that emerge from any health care bill: worthwhile but woefully tepid changes that will do even less to contain costs than single-payer would, while leaving the insurance industry and Big Pharma fat & intact.

Oh, and we might see modest 'tort reform,' the wet dream of Republicans, otherwise a chimera of cost reduction that functions mainly to limits patients' rights while protecting industry profits.

Unlike others, I never had high hopes of Obama achieving progressive goals. One look at his major campaign donors--Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, et. al.--persuaded me to be skeptical. (See Paul Street's articles at zmag.org for more thoughts on this.) There is virtually no way in the current state-capitalist system for a Democrat or Republican candidate to emerge who isn't a lackey to corporate interests.

Christopher  08/24/2009 01:18 AM Report

As time goes on, I think the preceding pres was so bad, that we were collectively overwhelmed by Obama. In reality, he is slightly above average. Arianna is right; he is bargaining stuff away before the negotiation. Health care is the sacred cow of issues (bigger than Afghanistan). If health care does not go through, (ie single payer option) it will be worthless. However, he is aided by the irrelevant Republicans who still overwhelmingly maintain they want no universal coverage, period. Note, we saw it in the campaign that McCain was offering a 5000$ rebate or credit...that is it! And no Republican said shit. Obama can thank the Republican Party for his apparent success more than anything. And in Doris' defence, Obama has honored the attempt at bi partisanship (as was promised in his campaign). I think where Doris is wrong is that Republicans have been intransigent from day 1 on health care, no negotiation is possible. Obama has given too much time to allow the right to feed the notion that the US cannot afford health care, even though the rest of the industrialized world can. And if climate change legislation and health care is the “liberal wing of America” Ross, that would make the rest of the industrialized world utopic communists…

One thing, I saw Ross on RealTime, he should be back on the show, he does try to present the right in a rational way, and he was “outtalked” at the beginning but got better as the show went on.

One thing though, it was a great debate ?

One thing, I saw Ross on RealTime, he should be back on the show, he does try to present the right in a rational way, and he was “outtalked” at the beginning but got better as the show went on.

robdverity  08/22/2009 12:25 AM Report

Devastating to Obama is Arianna assertion that he cut a deal with big pharma. Now I loathe big pharma as much as big finance - Wall St. His idealism is an overblown myth. Opted to adopt Af-Pak as his own; sold out to Citi and big banks; and now big pharma. Big money has his soul. Probably too young to have solid principles. Principle for principal. His glass is half empty.

cello10  08/21/2009 09:09 PM Report

Kudos to Arianna Huffington and Doris Kearns Goodwin for their accurate, penetrating, and insightful analysis of Barack Obama and his efforts to reform health care. Despite the intellectual handicap of being a moderate conservative, Ross Doubthat also made some reasonably insightful points.

There are larger issues beyond health care that threaten all of Barack Obama's efforts at passing legislative reform bills in this country. They include the following:

1) Because of the legal concept of corporate

personhood - established by the courts after the

civil war - corporations have the same constitutional

rights as individual human beings. Corporate

personhood goes against the original intent of the

founding fathers when the constitution was framed.

The net effect is that city, state, and national

legislation favors corporate interest over the

welfare of public infrastructure, people and the

environment.

2) Republicans have failed to realize that

although government failure can and does occur,

market failure occurs also. Our current privatized

health care crises is an example of market

failure. We need to find a way to make government

and markets work together. We also need to redefine

what best belongs in the public domain and what best

belongs in the private domain.

3) Ever since Lee Atwater arrived on the scene,

the Republicans have relied heavily on hate, fear,

bigotry, lies, distortion, misinformation, and

deception to influence elections and public

policy. The culture wars are quickly turning into a

real war. The Republicans and the conservative

movement have become a greater threat to the

security of America than any world terrorist

organization.

cello10  08/21/2009 08:08 PM Report

It is worth re-iterating, the key to reducing health care costs starts with de-emphasizing conventional medicine in the United States. Changes to American public health policy should include:

1) Phase out our current industrial system of food supply. That means eliminating industrial monoculture, eliminating genetically modified crops, and eliminating crops grown with herbicides, pesticides and artificial fertilizers. It also means phasing out Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO’s) and all industrial food chemicals (particularly high fructose corn syrup)produced from corn and soybeans. A nation can be no healthier than the health and wholesomeness of its food supply.

2) Phase in local, sustainable, organic agriculture, free from herbicides, pesticides, artificial fertilizers, and genetically modified seeds.

3) All meat and dairy products should come from free range fed animals, not animals fed from industrial corn/soybeans in unsanitary, overcrowded conditions.

4) America must reduce its intake of meat and dairy products, and low fiber, processed foods. A more vegetarian, high fiber lifestyle should be promoted. Increased consumption of raw onion, raw garlic, and seasoning spices and herbs will be necessary to make this transition possible.

5) FDA jurisdiction should be limited strictly to synthetic drugs. The FDA should not be allowed to regulate food products, natural substances such as vitamins, minerals,

herbs and auxiliary nutrients, and it should not regulate medical care. Under current FDA rulings, “only a drug can be used to cure, treat, or prevent a disease”. This type of ruling favors the interests of the pharmaceutical industry over the health of people.

6) Promote non-drug, non-surgery alternative health therapies for the chronic, degenerative disorders such as cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure, stroke, and diabetes. Under current FDA rulings only chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation are approved treatments for cancer. Cancer patients must travel outside of the United States to receive legal, alternative treatments.

7) Conventional medicine practice should be restricted to the following situations: Accidents, trauma injuries, broken bones, sudden internal organ or blood vessel problems, or any immediate life threatening condition requiring emergency treatment. Our excessive reliance on conventional medicine must be phased out.

8) Alternative, drug and surgery free medicine should become mainstream for promoting health and wellness. This includes therapy with nutrition, vitamin and mineral supplements, auxiliary nutrients, natural herbs, homeopathy, electric and electromagnetic therapy, chiropractic therapy, or religious healing methods.

Such a transition will reduce the costs of medical care, improve the health of Americans, and improve our environmental quality. It will also reduce fossil fuel consumption by 25% and reduce agricultural water use by almost 90%.

_Cameron L. Stewart

REMant  08/21/2009 02:53 PM Report

While some ppl have alleged that a single-payer system would improve efficiency sufficiently to make it possible to cover all those not now covered, no one else seems to agree, it being pointed out as well that much of the budget neutrality is contrived.

Those ppl without healthcare cannot afford it because of simple poverty due to their being literally priced out of the economy largely because of the inflation of the price of real estates, commodites, stocks and securities as a result of fiscal and monetary irresponsibility and because of the mercantilist policies of several developing countries. It is not, as has been alleged, because healthcare itself is necessarily expensive, or because doctors are swindlers, so there are economies that can be found in the system. We ought to know that we are not going to be able through more inflation to level this playing field, but the govt seems to remain committed to that line like true believers.

While govt sponsored competition is a device proven to work in places like Sweden it will not work for insurance, because private insurers will still dump high-risk ppl, but now on the govt and the result will be merely an extension of Medicaid. If such competition is to work it will have to be at the level of the provision of services, so that everyone can take advantage of whatever economies there are in the govt service. However, this will likely not solve the welfare problem.

It seems the admin planners have in mind that somehow the wealthy will be forced to pick up the tab for the currently uninsured, which would amount to rationing, and is not workable besides, while the House is quite content to just create another entitlement, which is clearly not feasible.

The healthcare efficiency issues can and should be addressed, but the welfare issue is separate and a negative income tax would be a much better delivery system than piles of separate entitlement programs, incentives, tax-breaks, and the like.

A negative income tax combined with a flat tax that removes in one fell swoop all of the tax code's insanity seems to me to be a deal that could be reached with the more conservative members and the public, and benefit the nation greatly in the long run, while appearing at first to be of special benefit to both the wealthy and the poor. But it seems no one can think at this level anymore. In the current environment it is hard to see how our constitutional convention could ever have been held. So I agree with those who see a failure of leadership here. It is not possible to govern by committee because in the end someone has to determine what is right or wrong based on superior experience and that is why we elect him, or at least it ought to be. As the sign on Truman's desk said, the buck stops there.

I think Obama certainly appears to many not to be the man they voted for. His timidity on the whole issue of "stimulus" has exploded the debt, not accomplished anything so far and quickly changed the views of most Americans about this kind of expenditure, as it did in the Depression, so no one believes him when he calls it reform. The majority of the public is now opposed to fighting in Afghanistan as well, probably for the same reason. I think behind this has been a failure to bring the party into line, which seems to be still in the thrall of the Clintons, and it has made him look a lot like George Bush. What was needed was a balanced budget, new Federal Reserve priorities, a lot more reality and real reform. Instead we have more of the same old log-rolling both in and out of Congress. The irony is that the majority of the public seems to be far out ahead of Washington and just waiting for the right person to do it. The question is who that will be.

robdverity  08/21/2009 01:43 PM Report

Ole Arianna's spot, cogent and perceptive. Doris is good too. Doubthat's an ass.

Arianna nailed it when she cited Obama for being purchasable by the lobbyists, whether for Health Insurer's or the Wall Street financial wise-guys.