Emancipation from For-Profit Sickness Insurance

July 1, 2009, 8:30 a.m.

Emancipation from the For-Profit Sickness System
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
"When the going gets tough, the tough . . . get ever more generous with their campaign contributions and lobbying expenses."

The Wall Street Journal reports that "the health-care industry . . . increased outlays in the first quarter . . . to $127.1 million [although] lobbying spending across all business sectors was flat in the period." Elizabeth Williamson, T. W. Farnam and Brody Mullins, "Finance Lobby Cut Spending as Feds Targeted Wall Street," Wall Street Journal, July 1, 2009. Other reports vary somewhat on the numbers depending on what segments of this "industry" are included. Alicia Mundy and T.W. Farnam, "Drug Makers' Lobbying Bets Rise; National Health-Care Debate Spurs 36% Increase in Industry Spending," Wall Street Journal, May 13, 2009 ("The drug industry, already the biggest-spending lobby in Washington, is placing an even bigger bet on the influence game . . . up 36% from the first quarter of 2008"). Pfizer alone increased its Congressional largess, for one three-month period, 119%, from $2.8 million during the first quarter of 2008 to $6.140 million this year. John Fritze, "Lobbying Boosted as Health Care Debate Heats Up," USA Today, June 12, 2009 ("The largest medical insurers and drug companies spent 41% more on lobbying this year as Congress began debate on an overhaul of health care, which may include a public insurance plan the industries oppose").

Bear in mind that none of these numbers include campaign contributions. To no one's surprise, those in Congress who have the most power in shaping health care legislation also turn out to be the beneficiaries of the largest campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures from the "industry" (that ought to be a "profession") profiting off of our insurance premiums and out-of-pocket expenditures. Civilized, industrialized countries provide health care as a basic human right.

If it were not such a stain on our political system, a human tragedy for millions, and a major contributor to our economic decline, it would be funny.

A blogger who goes by the name of "ralphbon" attempts to give us a little of that relief in an essay he has called "If Lincoln Approached Emancipation the Way Obama Approaches Health Care," Oxdown Gazette, June 18, 2009. Here it is:

Now, why not do a full-emancipation system? (Applause.) Got the little emancipation advocates up here. (Applause.) All right.

For those of you who don't know, a full-emancipation system is like — Frederick Douglass is sort of an example of full emancipation, but it's only for ex-slaves in places like Massachusetts, and the way it works is, the idea is that you don't have owners. The government sees to it directly — (applause).

If I were starting a system from scratch, then I think that the idea of moving towards a full-emancipation system could very well make sense. That's the kind of system that you have in most industrialized countries around the world.

The only problem is that we're not starting from scratch.

We have historically a tradition of slavery. And although there are a lot of people who are not satisfied with it, the truth is, you've got this system that's already in place. We don't want a huge disruption as we go into freedom reform where suddenly we're trying to completely reinvent one-sixth of the economy.

So what I've said is, let's set up a system where if you’re happy with your master, you don't have to change anything — nothing changes. If you're highly unsatisfied with your master, then let's give you choices, let's give you options, including a freedom plan that you could enroll in and sign up for. That's been my proposal. (Applause.)

Let me address an illegitimate concern that's being put forward by those who are claiming that an emancipation option is somehow a Trojan horse for full emancipation.

I'll be honest; there are countries where full emancipation works pretty well. But I believe -- and I've taken some flak from members of my own party for this belief -- that it's important for our reform efforts to build on our traditions here in the United States. So when you hear the naysayers claim that I'm trying to bring about a complete end to slavery, know this: They're not telling the truth. (Applause.)

What I am trying to do -- and what an emancipation option will help do -- is put affordable freedom within reach for millions of slaves.

Sadly, ralphbon has drawn this language from actual statements of our President regarding health care.

Of course, those like our own Senator Charles Grassley are simply beyond the pale with their insistence not only that the world's number one choice (universal single-payer) is "off the table," but their unwillingness to even give Americans the choice of a "public option."

But we had greater hopes for our President as well during this last best hope for meaningful health care reform.
_______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson

# # #

Health Opponents Shown for What They Are

June 24, 2009, 7:45 a.m., 9:20 a.m.

Where Do They Get This Stuff?
Ever wonder where and how the opponents of universal-single-payer health care are able to come up with their outrageous assertions?

Here's a video that reveals the answer:



This video of a "Late Night Brainstorming Session" by what appears to be four ad agency executives for HAARM (Healthy Americans Against Reform of Medicine) is a work of parody by SEIU's Change That Works campaign. What's scary is how close it tracks what does seem to be the strategy of those who oppose meaningful health care for all Americans -- especially given the insertions into this video of actual video from opponents' talking points on television.
_______________
"John Barleykorn" has been a constructive critic of this blog since it began three years ago, a sort of "loyal opposition." His comments have often caused me to do a double-take on my own thinking.

And so it was with his recent comment added to my "Universal Single-Payer a Necessity Now," June 19:

John Barleykorn said...

How is a single payer system going to stop someone from eating a Big Mac everyday and getting heart disease?

What is the responsibility of the individual?

It raises a serious range of categories of questions (e.g., medical, economic, philosophical, administrative/managerial, political, theological/moral/ethical) that could support a very lengthy discussion -- or master's thesis.

If you're among those who haven't been following just how far the fast food epidemic has spread you will want to watch this report from the Onion News Network regarding a new innovation that simultaneously increases calorie intake while reducing the amount of exercise formerly associated with eating:


New Wearable Feedbags Let Americans Eat More, Move Less

To cut to the chase, and remove any question about my own position, I'm siding with one of my favorite theology doctors: "Let he who has no bad health habits cast the first bed pan."

If what I mean by that is ambiguous, let me try again.

I recall years ago reading about a British doctor who simply refused to treat patients' self-induced medical conditions -- the impact of smoking on a cough or bronchial condition, the consumption of excessive salt on elevated blood pressure or excessive animal fats on cholesterol levels. In effect, if the patient was unwilling to make any effort whatsoever to improve their condition by altering their own behavior, the doctor's sense of the most appropriate triage of his own time and talent was to spend them with the patients who would. (Of course, other doctors were available to serve those patients, so it is not a perfect analogy to leaving Americans with no option for receiving health care.)

It's theoretically consistent, I guess, to take the positions that (a) "I don't want the government controlling what people can smoke, drink and eat," (b) "so long as those engaging in risky health behaviors are willing personally to pay for the medical care they require I have no problem with their doing whatever they want," but (c) "I don't think I should have to pay any part, however small (in increased taxes or insurance premiums) of their medical bills."

We're talking here about issues of "paternalism." An example: some motorcyclists want to ride without helmets. Do we have a right to care about their safety? Do we have a right to pass laws mandating that they wear helmets? One can argue that the safety of all is a concern of all -- certainly with regard to children, but with adults as well. But a major issue, directly related to health care costs, is who should pay when a motorcycle accident results in a need for neurosurgery, or a lifetime of care for someone who's paralyzed -- at least in part as a result of their own action (refusal to wear a helmet)?

Similar analyses can be applied to smoking, excessive use of alcohol, quantity and quality of calories/nutrition, aerobic and weights exercise, stress, sleep, etc.

I guess my initial reaction to that approach is four-fold.

(1) To the extent we all benefit from an improvement in the health of all Americans (as we all benefit from providing a quality K-12 education -- which I'd urge ought now be K-16 -- to all Americans) that means all Americans. Providing health care only to those who don't need it is like a bank loan department that will only provide loans to customers who don't need them. Healthy students learn better. Healthy workers are more efficient on the job, and have fewer sick days.

(2) I guess I think there's a moral and ethical issue here as well; that at least some minimal level of health care needs be considered a basic human right, not a privilege provided only to those sufficiently affluent to pay for it.

(3) My initial guess is that the complexities of designing a universal single-payer health care delivery system would pale by comparison with the complexities of the procedures for (a) finding out the necessary basic data for every single American, and (b) the formulas for determining the relationship between self-induced conditions, by levels of seriousness, and the impact they should have on [1] charging for, or [2] denying, the medical services to treat the resulting conditions. For example, I would be healthier if I were to lose an additional 15 pounds and rode my bike an extra 5-10 miles a day. How could we calculate what my punishment should be for my failure to do that?

(4) By bringing all Americans into the system it substantially increases the opportunities for proactive, preventative counseling and programs for behavior modification of those who would benefit by it.

So what can we do to respond to John Barleykorn's concern?

I haven't thought this one through. But I note that there has been a concerted effort to reduce tobacco use, especially by the "replacement smokers" (replacing those killed by tobacco) in their teens. There has been an increase in the percentage of drivers/passengers using seat belts -- as well as added safety features in cars, such as air bags. My sense is that there's been an increase in the use of bicycle and motorcycle helmets. There has been some effort to at least list and publicize the calories and ingredients of "fast food" places, e.g., Subway. And even McDonalds introduced salads years ago. And my sense is that there is fairly widespread agreement, certainly within the "public health" profession (and beyond) on the value of such efforts to motivate healthier behaviors.

Obviously, such programs won't cut our health care costs as decisively as what may be Barleykorn's suggestion that we simply drop them from the rolls (or Jonathan Swift's suggestion that we just eat them). But it's considerably less draconian.

# # #

Universal Single-Payer a Necessity Now

June 19, 2009, 11:20 a.m.

And check out "Virtualosity," June 16, 2009, and its links to prior entries.

Why Universal Single-Payer Health Care is Essential for America
A month ago in this blog I came out strongly in support of what has come to be called in our health care debate the "public option." "Public Option vs. Private Greed," May 18, 2009.

My analysis was, simply put, that as President Obama has acknowledged single-payer would make the most sense were we starting fresh. But strategically, in 2009, given all the inaccurate mud that opponents would throw at single-payer, we'd be more likely to end up with at least the public option if we lowered our sights to that. That analysis may or may not have been sound a month ago.

It is no longer sound now, in my judgment.

Everything else in that May 18th blog entry I would still stand by -- just not the strategic conclusion. Like the response to a law student's recitation attributed to a law professor, "I follow you all but the 'therefore.'"

What's changed my mind is the behavior of the special interests and the senators and members of congress they fund, along with the President's only new-found interest in even the public option.

As Johnson County Auditor Tom Slockett wrote Obama, "Mr. President, please give us a specific meaningful goal and then go the American public and tell us, 'Now make me do it.' I urge you to publicly advocate single payer, real reform. The insurance industry has had 16 years to fix the problem and they have done nothing but block real reform. Your outspoken leadership is necessary to do something about the problem. Please don't start the negotiations by throwing in the towel. There are more than 46 million reasons to do this."

Read the "Public Option vs. Private Greed" lengthy list of arguments. We're paying twice what other countries pay and we're getting less -- in terms of infant mortality, life expectancy and other measures. I'm not going to repeat all of that here.

Bottom line is that the continuously rising costs of health insurance (well beyond our overall rates of inflation), the for-profit administrative costs (some 10 times those of Medicare and Medicaid), and the multi-million-dollar packages for insurance and hospital executives are simply unsustainable.

We are operating with a dysfunctional, for-profit sickness insurance system that fails to deliver the health care the American people need -- while over-charging us for what we're not even getting.

Are there problems with government-run systems? Sure; there are problems with programs run by any large institutions. What I am now convinced of, however, based on the experience of other countries, our own experience with the public health programs we have, and the behavior of the special interest obstructionists over the past month is that the problems with government-run systems, elsewhere and here, are far, far fewer than the problem we now have.

Will it cost money? Of course. But how dare a President and Congress that have willingly handed over trillions of our dollars to their major campaign contributors in the banking, insurance and finance industries have the nerve to now tell us that "we can't afford" the kind of health care that all of the world's major industrial countries provide for their citizens!

They talk of a trillion-dollar cost -- and then whisper softly, "over ten years." That's $100 billion a year -- less than they gave in a matter of days to one company! Less than a couple months of our bloated Defense Department budget. Let's get real. Put aside humanitarian considerations; the economic return alone from every American being in better health is a far higher return than we get for almost any other investment we could make -- especially those that involve handing over hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to multi-million-dollar CEOs.

The special interests' behavior over the past month is what's tipped the scales for me. They have made very clear their willingness to fight true health care -- and that they have no more meaningful proposals for reform than, as Slockett notes, they have come up with over the last 16 years.

But in fairness to those special interests, they have made something else clear. Their excessive profits, their failure to control costs, their refusal to pay legitimate claims is, in one sense, not entirely their fault.

The primary fault lies in the system. It is systemic. It is simply impossible for a for-profit insurance system to deliver acceptable levels of health care for an entire nation's population.

It's like the old, rusty Honda I once drove. I would scrape off the rust and paint over the spots. The rust would always return. Why? A mechanic finally explained it to me: the rust is coming from inside not outside.

That's the problem with our sickness insurance and big pharma system: it's rusting from the inside out. It will continue to do so until the costs it hands us spiral so far out of control that they bring our entire economy down, like a third world country in bankruptcy.

The purpose of a for-profit anything, including a sickness insurance company, as the term "for-profit" suggests, is to make a profit -- and not just "a profit" but the "ever-increasing profit" that Wall Street demands. How can a sickness insurance company make an ever-increasing profit? Basically two ways: (1) increase revenue by increasing premiums, and (2) reduce costs by dropping (or refusing to insure) those with the largest claims, and fighting the payment of any claims when the company will have a possibility of prevailing. They have, and will continue to, do both.

Such a system cannot be fixed. It is folly to try and disingenuous to suggest it will ever work.

We have to join the rest of the civilized world and insist on a universal, single-payer system. It is the only way to reduce costs to manageable levels, and increase the health care of the American people to acceptable levels -- not to mention the only way American business can compete in the global economy with businesses that do not have to assume sickness insurance costs, and can still benefit from a healthier workforce than American businesses.

The transition will take time. We could begin by granting everyone a defined level of basic care, leaving some variety of "major medical" insurance to cover the other costs. There are undoubtedly a wide variety of possible transitional steps that those who've thought longer and harder than I have know about.

But the current road the President and Congress are walking is simply wrong and will lead us only deeper and deeper into the swamp we're already in.

What can you do?

For a quick and painless way to express your support for a single-payer Medicare-for-all program, click on this link to co-sign Senator Bernie Sanders' petition to Congress, and then share this link with others who care.

http://sanders.senate.gov/petitions/index.cfm?uid=7fd59f2e-88e1-477a-8eaf-762a5b050809>http://sanders.senate.gov/petitions/index.cfm?uid=7fd59f2e-88e1-477a-8eaf-762a5b050809.

# # #

Public Option vs. Private Greed

May 18, 2009, 9:00 a.m., 11:30 a.m. (additional sources and internal contents/links)

We Don't Want Health Insurance,
We Want a Public Option to Obtain Health Care
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)

Links to Contents
Corporate Control

Silencing Public Option Advocates

What's "the Public Option"?

Why is this so important?

...What are we getting?

......Infant mortality

......Life expectancy

......Numbers covered

...What is it costing us?

......Administrative costs

......Externalities

What Americans Think: The Poll Results

Conclusion: Action

__________
If the health insurance legislation that comes out of this year's Congress does not contain a "public option," as it's come to be called, it will be one of the most expensive consequences the American people have ever suffered for our system of campaign finance.

[May 20, 2009: Press-Citizen supports public option. "One of the main sticking points in the national debate is whether to include a government-sponsored insurance plan to compete with the multitudes of private coverage options. We view this option as an essential part of any substantive reform." Editorial, "Health Reform Needs to Include Public Option," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 20, 2009.]

Corporate Control Run Riot. Years ago I documented that those who make campaign contributions in the $100,000 to $1,000,000 range end up getting back from the federal government, in one form or another, something between 1000-to-one and 2000-to-one on their "investment." Give a million get a billion. Nicholas Johnson, "Campaigns: You Pay $4 or $4000," Des Moines [Iowa] Sunday Register, July 21, 1996, p. C2.

I've seen little from this Congress -- or, I'm sad to say, from this White House -- that would lead me to believe things are any better now, 13 years later.

o When the phone companies were found to have illegally spied on American citizens Senator Barack Obama changed his position and voted to give them a base on balls, to grant them "amnesty."

o Senator Dick Durbin has acknowledged that Wall Street owns Washington ("the banks . . . frankly own the place"). The Obama Administration's multi-trillion-dollar give-aways to some of the nation's most generous campaign contributors did little to refute his assertion. After all, these were the very fellows who were willing to risk global economic collapse if it would fatten their multi-million-dollar bonus payments. See, e.g., Nicholas Johnson, "Obama's Potential Wall Street Downfall," April 12, 2009.

o It was obvious to all last fall that Chrysler and GM were headed for bankruptcy. No scenario that could pass the laugh test was found to suggest the contrary. And yet the Administration insisted on handing over billions of taxpayer dollars to the two companies.

o Now the Administration is offering billions to insurance companies that are in such good shape they are refusing to take the money.

So why are we surprised that when it comes to our future health care that "having everyone at the White House table" turns out to mean everyone who makes a profit from hospitals, medical services, the marketing of over-priced proprietary pharmaceuticals, and the premiums on our sickness insurance?

Nor should we be surprised that those who want no more than to discuss the pros and cons of "universal, single-payer health care" are not only not invited to the Senate hearings, but are arrested and escorted out of the hearing room for showing up and talking to a committee chaired by the senator who received more campaign contributions from the special interests before him than any other senator.

Ed Schultz, "Arrested for Fighting for Health Reform," "The Ed Show," MSNBC, May 7, 2009 (Dr. Margaret Flowers).

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Let me make clear at the outset what I am and am not talking about. Because the effort has already begun to conflate "universal, single-payer health care" and "the public option" -- in the special interests' efforts to ridicule and defeat the latter.

Notwithstanding the truly overwhelming case that can be made for "universal, single-payer" -- even President Obama acknowledges that were we starting all over again it would clearly be the road to follow -- that's not what I'm advocating in this blog entry (though I discuss some of those features, below). The political and economic power of those who profit handsomely from the present, very profitable, "health care is a privilege" system, and the extent to which the people's "representatives" fear those interests, puts the odds of our ever getting the system used by every other industrialized nation in the world somewhere between very, very slim and none at all.

Public Option. So what's the "public option"?

We currently have a patchwork system. Forty-to-fifty million Americans, 15%, have no sickness insurance at all. For most of those who do have insurance the premium costs are split between the policy holder and his or her for-profit (or non-profit) employer.

But public plans are not unknown in our system. We have "Medicare" for the elderly, "Medicaid" for the very poor, military hospitals and doctors for those in the service, Veterans Administration hospitals for those who've returned to civilian life, programs that just cover children, and insurance programs for federal, state, county and city employees.

Notwithstanding the rhetoric of the "public option" opponents, most of the proposals that include a "public option" would not take anything away from anyone, nor impose anything on anyone. Every American could keep the sickness insurance program in which she or he is now enrolled. They could keep their doctor of choice. Nothing would change. But those employers or employees who wished to do so could opt out of what they have, and opt into a new public program modeled on those I've just mentioned that we already have. The "public option" is as American as apple pie and Medicare.

What the sickness profiteers are already attempting to do is to confuse the two in the public mind. By arguing that a "public option" would mean the government would take over sickness care in our country -- take decisions away from doctors, indeed even take away our choice of doctors, putting our health in the hands of incompetent, uncaring bureaucrats, with this communist system -- they both despicably mis-characterize universal, single-payer systems and confuse them in our minds with the status-quo-plus-public-option proposals. (E.g., "'A government takeover of health care will put bureaucrats in charge of health care decisions that should be made by families and doctors,' Rep. Charles Boustany of Louisiana said in the Republican radio and Internet message. 'It will limit treatment options and lead to rationed care. And to pay for government health care your taxes will be raised. . . . That is something we cannot support.'" Darlene Superville, "Changes: Energy, Health Care 2 Areas Obama Cites," Associated Press/Washington Post, May 16, 2009.)

(Following an Old Creamery performance of "The Totally True Completely Fictional Story of the Mother of Jesse James" -- very much worth seeing, incidentally -- I had a health care conversation with a Canadian economist who had come south to volunteer with the rebuilding of Cedar Rapids. Needless to say, he was a great enthusiast for the Canadian (universal, single payer) system. But he explained that he had long since abandoned arguing with Americans about it, because our understanding has been so infected with the lies and misinformation propagated by our sickness profiteers -- and at least on the part of some, a real stubbornness in the refusal to accept actual data.)

Is the "public option" ideal? No; a majority of Americans -- and their doctors -- agree that the "universal, single-payer" approach of the world's health-care-is-a-right countries would be far better. See, e.g., Single Payer Action ("1,000,000 strong for single payer"); Leadership Conference for Guaranteed Health Care/The National Single Payer Alliance; and "Physicians for a National Health Program. (Many of those single-payer countries also permit the purchase of additional coverage by those who want and can afford it.) But given the power of the sickness profiteers and the elected officials they control it's all we have a prayer of getting.

Why is this so important? In case you're not already convinced that we have a broken, excessively expensive system that is giving us all too little for our money, let's look at some numbers -- with credit to HealthPacOnline for these "Health Care Statistics in the United States" (as well as many more on their site). [Most of the numbers, and language, below, is taken from that source.]

What are we getting?

Putting all the anecdotal stories and 'tis-'tain't arguments aside, there are a couple statistics that make country comparisons possible: infant mortality and life expectancy. You get what you pay for? Not, it turns out, when it comes to health care.

Notwithstanding the fact that we are paying more for our sickness insurance system than any of the "universal, single-payer" countries pay for health care -- both in total, and per capita (and not covering everyone at that) -- we rank far from number one by those statistical measures.

Infant Mortality. "Infant mortality" is the risk of death during the first year of life. It is related to the underlying health of the mother, public health practices, socioeconomic conditions, and availability and use of appropriate health care for infants and pregnant women. Sources: CDC and National Center for Health Statistics.

Ranking from the best (lowest) infant mortality to the worst (highest) the U.S. was 12th from the top in 1960. By 1990 it was 21st. It is now 43rd. Slovenia and Cuba do better than we do. Source: CIA Factbook (2008).

Life Expectancy. "Life expectancy at birth" is the average length of life ahead of each newborn baby. For this measure, obviously the higher the number the better. In the U.S. the average is 78.14 years. That ranks us 47th in the world. Source: CIA Factbook (2008).

Numbers covered. Presumably the more persons entitled to, and able to afford, health care the better. By definition, "universal" systems cover everyone -- usually at no, or very low, cost to the individual. In the U.S. over 15% (47 million) do not have health insurance. Source: US Census Bureau. The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system. Source: Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences.

In 2005 more than 40 million adults stated that they needed but did not receive one or more of these health services (medical care, prescription medicines, mental health care, dental care, or eyeglasses) because they could not afford it. Source: National Center for Health Statistics. To put lack of health care in a context of the range of challenges confronting the poor, see DeNeen L. Brown, "Poor? Pay Up; Having Little Money Often Means No Car, No Washing Machine, No Checking Account And No Break From Fees and High Prices," Washington Post, May 18, 2009.

The primary reason given for lack of health insurance coverage in 2005 was cost (more than 50%), lost job or a change in employment (24%), Medicaid benefits stopped (10%), ineligibility for family insurance coverage due to age or leaving school (8%). Source: National Center for Health Statistics.

So how does it work in other countries? Do doctors receive adequate compensation? How much do patients have to pay? Here's Michael Moore's interview of a participating physician in Great Britain from Moore's movie, "Sicko."


What is it costing us? The United States spends twice as much on health care per capita ($7,129) than any other country and spending continues to increase. In 2005, the national health care expenditures totaled $2 trillion. Source: National Center for Health Statistics.

The average family health insurance premium, provided through an employer health benefit program, was $11,480 in 2006. Employees paid an average of $2,973 towards the premium amount. Source: Kaiser Family Foundation.

Administrative costs. So how are the sickness profiteers doing under this "marketplace" system? Overhead under their system runs at a whopping 26%! But wouldn't government, or non-profit, systems cost even more? No. Non-profit insurance ends up operating with 16% overhead, and the "government bureaucrats" operating Medicare are able to do it at about 1/10th of the for-profit cost: an overhead of 3%. Source: Journal of American Medicine 2007.

And so how is this "competitive" system doing in getting costs under control? Not so well. From 2000 to 2006, overall inflation has increased 3.5% and wages by 3.8%. Sickness insurance premiums? Not 3.5%, not 3.8%, but by a whopping 87%! Source: Kaiser Family Foundation.

Our high costs of sickness insurance compared with the health care costs in other countries, the much higher costs of for-profit administration than public systems, and the inability of the private system to control costs, could all be cited as good reasons for supporting a universal, single-payer system. Only because of the political realities discussed above, that is not what is being proposed here. Among the many advantages of the public option, however, is the role it could play in helping to control the escalating costs of the sickness profiteers' system. True "competition" can benefit from the benchmarks offered by including public systems in the market. That's a part of what the public option could do.

Externalities. There are other economic consequences of our system. For example, about half of the bankruptcy filings in the United States are due to medical expenses. Source: Health Affairs Journal 2005.

And at least a part of the challenge confronting our auto companies -- and all other American companies trading globally -- is because their workers' sickness care costs must be embedded in the prices for their products. And yet those U.S. companies are competing with companies for which those costs are covered by universal coverage plans. (Among the 84.2% of Americans who are blessed with some form of sickness insurance, 59.7% of that 84.2% had coverage provided by their employer. Source: US Census Bureau.)

What Americans Think: The Poll Results. Although most polling frames the issue in terms of "health insurance" rather than "health care" that is not to say the polls juxtapose the two; the pollsters simply don't give the participants that choice. In the one poll that did ask the "health care" question ("Do you think it's the government's responsibility to make sure that everyone in the United States has adequate health care?") 60% responded in the affirmative in a November 6-10, 2008, poll. (This, and the following poll results, are from PollingReport.com.)

Even when the questions are framed in terms of, say, "universal health insurance," the nature of the questions are such that one can reasonably assume the percentage responses would be similar, if not identical, if the pollsters had substituted, say, "universal health care" for "universal health insurance."

In short, while the questions and results vary, it's fair to say that the constituents are well out ahead of a Congress dependent on contributions from the sickness profiteers when it comes to the public's support of universal coverage, the federal government's involvement, and a willingness to pay more taxes to accomplish that goal -- by numbers ranging from pluralities of one-third to majorities of two-thirds and more.

Here are some illustrations from 2009.

o The goal of "universal health insurance for every American" in 2009 is the "most important," or one of the "top 2-3," national priorities say 58% of those polled April 30-May 3, 2009.

o During April 22-26, 2009, 49% said our health care system needs "fundamental changes" and 38% said we need to "completely rebuild" it -- a total of 87%.

o April 1-5, 2009, 57% indicated they'd be "willing to pay highter taxes so that all Americans have health insurance they cannot lose."

o March 12-15, 2009, 77% said they were "dissatisfied" with "the total cost of health care in this country."

o The largest percentage, though only slightly more than one-third (36%), in a February 26-March 1, 2009, poll believed that the "federal government" should have the "most responsibility for helping ensure that Americans receive health insurance coverage" (24% thought "business," and 31% thought "individuals themselves").

o A larger percentage, 59%, thought "the government in Washington [should] provide national health insurance" (compared to 32% who thought it should be limited to "private enterprise"), in a January 11-15, 2009, poll.

o Asked during February 18-19, 2009, whether they would "favor . . . a program that would increase the federal government's influence over the country's health care system . . . to lower costs and provide . . . coverage to more," 72% said yes.

If Congress and the Senate truly cared about "representing" their constituents our message to them is clear. At a minimum they need to include a public option in whatever health care legislation they ultimately pass.

Conclusion: Action. The "public option" won't solve all these problems, but it will help provide the competition that can bring down costs and prices, and it will enable us to proudly join the community of nations that make health care a right. Moreover, given the sickness profiteers control of our elected "representatives" a "public option" is about all we can hope for.

But to get it we need do more than "keep hope alive." Congress will give us nothing the sickness profiteers don't want us to have. We will have to take it from Congress. Forcefully. Threatening to run candidates against them. Overwhelming them with email, calls and letters. Making clear that "We're mad as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore."
_______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson

# # #

Quick Fix for the Economy

December 12, 2008, 5:30 a.m.

$14 Billion Bridge Loan to Nowhere Collapses
Why? Now What?
And Today's Quick Fix for . . . The Economy
Brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com
Why did the $14 billion loan to Chrysler and GM fail to pass?

Because rational analysis prevailed over political expediency.

Great.

What's next?

Now let's apply the same kind of tough love to a review of the financial industry's bailout -- a proposal that the House and Senate readily accepted with little or no insistence on onerous conditions, business plans or detailed proof of probable success. It was after all, as you'll recall, a proposal to drop 50 times as much taxpayer money ($700 billion vs. $14 billion) on Wall Street as on Detroit.

Who by name bears greatest responsibility for bringing on the current financial disaster? Who should go to prison for what they did?

There are various figures -- from $700 billion to $7.7 trillion -- regarding how much we're talking about from the Treasury and Fed for corporate welfare. Where is the detailed accounting and oversight? Precisely how much of the bailout went to whom, for what, with what effect? How much was spent for purposes other than what was intended? How much was "loans" and how much was cash? What is the likelihood of those loans being repaid? How much equity do taxpayers now have in the enriched institutions? To what extent have taxpayers simply been duped into paying for worthless, toxic trash? Which companies/CEOs that received taxpayer money have increased executives' pay (by whatever means), continued to travel in corporate jets, or spent some of it on luxury resorts?

Will the Republican (and Democratic Party) members of the House and Senate bring as much enthusiasm and commitment to these questions -- with at least 50 times the impact on the taxpayers -- as they brought to their efforts to kill off yet one more union?

What was wrong with the auto proposal?

The proposed auto industry loan involved "a proposal that was simply unacceptable to the vast majority of our side because we thought it frankly wouldn’t work,” according to Senator Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Minority Leader. David M. Herszenhorn, "Senate Abandons Automaker Bailout Bid," New York Times, December 12, 2008.

I've been saying as much in blog entries here ever since the idea first reared its head, e.g., "Trust Your Instincts, Auto Bailout's Terrible Idea," November 14, 15, 16, 2008; "Auto Bailout: An Open Letter to Congress," November 19, 2008; "Auto Loan Makes Too Few Dollars Even Less Sense," December 4, 2008.

Are there a lot of businesses and jobs dependent on the auto industry? Absolutely. As Smothers Brothers head writer and musician ("Classical Gas") Mason Williams once observed, "Los Angeles is a city built by Detroit." That is to say, when GM bought up LA's light rail, destroyed it, and substituted auto dealerships and freeways, it was but one example of the reality that "America is a country built by Detroit."

It involves automobile and parts manufacturers, steel and glass manufacturers, dealerships, gasoline refineries, pipelines, filing stations, cement companies and highway contractors, earth moving equipment manufacturers, parking lots and garages, and an army of mechanics from "shade-tree" to the highly trained and uniformed in spotless facilities. It's stunt drivers in Hollywood and NASCAR drivers and their fans everywhere. It's every teenagers' dream of a driver's license and that first car. (Mason Williams also wrote an Autobiography that was the story of the automobiles in his life.)

(In case you were wondering why we don't enjoy the cost, environment and energy-saving benefits of the kinds of passenger and freight rail networks of other industrialized nations try adding up the collective political power reflected in the prior paragraph.)

Automobile sales are down approximately 40%. Does that have an impact on our economy in general and the auto-dependent portions itemized above? Absolutely.

But to argue that an additional 3 million will be thrown out of work if GM is forced to operate while in Chapter 11, rather than continue as it is, with $60 billion in debt, for another two or three months with $14 billion of taxpayer money is a wild and irresponsible stretch.

Americans are only going to buy so many new cars in 2009. They will buy them from dealers who will get them from automobile manufacturers where they will be made by UAW members and non-union workers, using parts from suppliers (here and abroad). The number of new car sales -- and thus the impact of the auto-related industries on America's economic decline -- is the metric by which to measure the severity and significance of the auto industries' retrenchment, not whether more of those cars now come from a well-managed Ford than a diminished GM. If there's a demand for new cars they will be manufactured; if there's not, they won't. And that's what will determine the welfare of those "3 million workers," not the future of GM.

And those sales figures, as I have argued here all along, will be a function of the money in potential customers' pockets, not the pay of auto company CEOs.

Today's "quick fix" for . . . the economy:
"It's the consumers, stupid!"

You want a quick fix for the auto industry -- and the rest of the economy?

o See to it that every able-bodied American is either (a) employed, and paid, doing the highest skilled task of which they are capable (i.e., recognize the economic burden (for the employee) and loss (for the economy) of "under-employment" and "part-time employment" as well as "unemployment"), or (b) provided some proportion of an equivalent amount of support until they are put in such a job.

o Institute universal, single-payer health care as rapidly as possible. It is an economic as well as moral tragedy that we are one of the few industrialized nations that does not provide this fundamental care to all of its citizens. The high costs (and for many unavailability) of health care and insurance are contributing to mortgage foreclosures and bankruptcies, an unhealthy population and workforce, and a diminished ability of American manufacturers to compete on the world market with companies that do not need to embed workers' health care costs into the prices of their products.

o Do whatever is necessary to keep home owners in their homes rather than assuming that money for investment and commercial banks, new home buyers, developers and home builders will somehow "trickle down" for all. There are many potential ways of doing this that I won't describe in detail (e.g., permit the equivalent of the Chapter 11 solutions offered to businesses; lengthen the mortgage terms, reduce the interest rates, adjust the home value to current market levels, and so forth).

Only when we put more money in the hands of consumers (or permit them to keep more of what they have) will there be any true rescue of the auto -- or any other American -- industry. This is one of those times when even if your only goal is to further enrich the wealthy, the only way to do it is to let the money trickle up, not down.

Once again it turns out that doing the right thing, the moral thing, the humane thing for all of our fellow Americans is also the most efficient and effective way of slowing, and then reversing, the downward economic spiral brought on by selfishness, stupidity, greed and corruption.

# # #

Trust Your Instincts, Auto Bailout 's Terrible Idea

November 14, 2008, 10:45 a.m., 3:20 p.m.; November 15, 2008, 10:20 a.m. (video of Peter Schiff's prescient predictions during last couple of years); November 16, 2008, 11:00 a.m. (Sunday Register's consistent editorial; bottom of blog entry)

"Workers of the World Unite
You Have Nothing You Need Use But Your Brains"
Forgive the distant play on "workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains;" the point is that the observations of workers and all the rest of us are worth something when evaluating the judgments of the "experts."

On balance, I'm a proponent of a meritocracy, expertise, graduate and post-graduate education, and looking to scientists and experts rather than ideologues for solutions to public policy challenges.

But it's also reassuring when ordinary folks like myself, relying on instincts, intuition and such limited information and understanding as we possess, can come to the same conclusions ultimately adopted by the experts.

(And I won't even note the instances when the "experts" prove to be not all that expert -- except to provide you the following video look-back on how Fox's "experts" trashed the prescient predictions of Peter Schiff.)



That amateur's instincts can often prove right is fortunate for a blogger like myself, since I enjoy expressing opinions on dozens of public policy topics for which I have neither formal educational training nor the expertise of "experience."

But there may be a lesson here for the experts as well. In a variation on "when the people will lead their leaders will follow," when the public says "the emperor has no clothes" it might well behoove the experts to at least take a second look at their naked proposals.

So it is with the coming global economic collapse.

Please note that my point is precisely the opposite of "we're smarter than the experts." My point is that even though many of us are not smarter than the experts, even though we don't have the educational credentials or experience that they do, doesn't mean that we aren't capable -- drawing on what we do have -- of coming up with positions and understandings that ultimately prove to be correct.

When I wrote the op ed column, "Ten Questions for Bush Before War" in February of 2003 (along with many similar analyses at that time), I wasn't the only "non-expert" who was able to predict, pretty much step-by-step, the disasters for America that would result from our invasion and occupation of Iraq.

When Secretary Paulson announced his three-page $700 billion bank bailout plan many noted that if we were going to go down that road we should at least give the taxpayers some equity in return for being bilked, rather than just buy up the banks' securitized worthless mortgages. I was among them: Nicholas Johnson, "Better Alternatives to Congress' Bailout Plan; Senate Bill: Wrong Plan, Favoring Wrong People, at the Wrong Time," October 2, 2008. Now even Paulson has reversed course and acknowledged we were right.

Today's issue involves the automobile industry bailout being pushed by the Democratic Party leadership -- President-elect Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Reid. Indeed, apparently Obama made this among his top priorities during the limited time he had with President Bush (who has opposed the idea) during their visit. Declan McCullagh, "Big Three Bailout? Not So Fast," CBSNews.com, November 12, 2008 ("The labor movement spent, according to Financial Week, a whopping $385 million to elect Obama and other Democrats last week. Nobody writes such large checks without expecting something: now it's payback time.").

To many observers this proposal looked nuts. Nicholas Johnson,"Jobs, Not Unemployment, Key to Recovery; Why America Needs a Jobs Program: Because When Your Automobile (Industry) is in the River It Makes More Sense to Go For the Shore Than to Continue Bailing it Out," November 8, 2008 ("GM went through nearly $7 billion in cash in the course of losing over $4 billion during the last three months! Pouring more billions of taxpayers' money into this bottomless pit can do little more than postpone the agony for three or four more months.").

GM's problems are fundamental and have been for decades.

Management has been unimaginative, resistant to change, and bureaucratized beyond belief. It has opposed progress of all kinds: seat belts, air bags, and bumpers that might withstand a crash at more than two miles per hour; small cars when customers wanted them and foreign car manufacturers were gaining an increasing share of our domestic market by providing them; efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and climate change; their lobbying for tariff protections rather than confronting competition in an open marketplace; dragging their feet on hybrids and alternative fuel vehicles or even improving the gas mileage of conventional vehicles; continuing to manufacture trucks and SUVs in the face of rising gas prices. See, Declan McCullagh, "Big Three Bailout? Not So Fast," CBSNews.com, November 12, 2008 ("Detroit's problems aren't caused by a one-time slump. They can't be fixed by another infusion of cash. One cause is that union labor and legacy costs are too high and make the so-called Big Three companies uncompetitive. Another is that their profitability is tied to large, heavy trucks and SUVs that Americans no longer want to buy, at least in such large numbers. That's just common sense.").

The company has permitted itself to assume liabilities (for employees' health care and pension plans among other things) far beyond its ability to pay. And now it's burning through cash at a rate that will bring it to bankruptcy by early next year. Sales of internal combustion vehicles are down dramatically around the world -- but far more so for GM than for those made at American plants by American workers by Toyota, Honda, BMW, and Kia. "Sales of cars and auto parts plunged 23.4 percent from last year, . . . and 31.9 percent in October . . . the lowest recorded in 25 years and analysts predict the market will remain weak into 2009." Jack Healy, "A Record Decline in October’s Retail Sales," New York Times, November 14, 2008; Declan McCullagh, "Big Three Bailout? Not So Fast," CBSNews.com, November 12, 2008 ("Honda kept its focus on smaller cars such as the Civic and Accord, and saw its sales continue to increase this summer while GM, Ford, and Chrysler have slid.").

And today we learn European insurers are now refusing to provide insurance to suppliers of the Big Three.

There would seem to be little justification for a bailout -- nor does there seem to be a realistic business plan in place regarding what the money will be used for, what it will accomplish (especially in this economy), where it will get us and when and why.

To the extent the earlier, special $25 billion taxpayer gift is to be used for re-tooling and design of new, more "green" vehicles, (a) is that a business the taxpayers really want to get in? (b) isn't the market (e.g., Toyota) responding to that desire? (c) if not, is there a point to doing it if customers won't buy the cars (e.g., how many Volts will sell at $40,000 a copy?) (d) if we want any private institution to undertake such research, why on earth would we pick GM -- whose executives have had decades to provide this response and have fought doing so? (e) even if some GM employees had the ability to pull this off, what is the likelihood the company will be able to do in the next few months what it has been unwilling to do for years? and (f) if it takes three years to bring a car from design to showroom, how is that going to save a company that is less than six months from bankruptcy?

So what, exactly, is going to be done with the near-$100 billion the Democrats want to give the (formerly) "Big Three" besides continuing excessive executive compensation and payments to shareholders? Workers are going to continue to be laid off -- which won't make it any easier for them to buy cars (a principle that Henry Ford understood in setting his workers' wages in the early 20th Century). There's little point in the few who will be retained making cars for dealers who are closing their showrooms and don't want the inventory, or potential customers who have lost their jobs and can't pay their mortgages.

Slowly, these seemingly obvious facts appear to be coming to the attention of "the experts" as well as all the rest of us. David M. Herszenhorn, "Dodd Says Auto Bailout Lacks Votes in Senate," New York Times, November 13, 2008.

And this morning one of my favorite conservatives (because he's smart, rational, and rarely ideological or mean spirited), David Brooks, sums up the situation as well as anyone. David Brooks, "Bailout to Nowhere," New York Times, November 14, 2008. Here are some excerpts:

Not so long ago, corporate giants with names like PanAm, ITT and Montgomery Ward roamed the earth. They faded and were replaced by new companies with names like Microsoft, Southwest Airlines and Target. The U.S. became famous for this pattern of decay and new growth. Over time, American government built a bigger safety net so workers could survive the vicissitudes of this creative destruction — with unemployment insurance and soon, one hopes, health care security. But the government has generally not interfered in the dynamic process itself, which is the source of the country’s prosperity.

But this, apparently, is about to change. Democrats from Barack Obama to Nancy Pelosi want to grant immortality to General Motors, Chrysler and Ford. . . .

It is not about saving a system; there will still be cars made and sold in America. It is about saving politically powerful corporations. . . .

It is all a reminder that the biggest threat to a healthy economy is not the socialists of campaign lore. It’s C.E.O.’s. It’s politically powerful crony capitalists who use their influence to create a stagnant corporate welfare state. . . .

G.M. and Chrysler . . . are not innocent victims of this crisis. To read the expert literature on these companies is to read a long litany of miscalculation. . . .

There seems to be no one who believes the companies are viable without radical change. A federal cash infusion will not infuse wisdom into management. It will not reduce labor costs. It will not attract talented new employees. . . .

In short, a bailout will . . . just postpone things. . . .

[T]he most persuasive experts argue that bankruptcy is the least horrible option. Airline, steel and retail companies have gone through bankruptcy proceedings and adjusted. It would be a less politically tainted process. Government could use that $50 billion — and more — to help the workers who are going to be displaced no matter what. . . .

Is this country going to slide into progressive corporatism, a merger of corporate and federal power that will inevitably stifle competition, empower corporate and federal bureaucrats and protect entrenched interests? Or is the U.S. going to stick with its historic model: Helping workers weather the storms of a dynamic economy, but preserving the dynamism that is the core of the country’s success.

There you have it.

We have a mechanism in place to deal with the auto industry's problem: Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization. It's clearly a preferable "least-worst solution" to bailouts. Some corporate executives will be out of work, but they deserve to be -- indeed must be if the companies' prospects are to improve. Shareholders will suffer a loss -- but their stock has already declined some 90% in value, so it's not like Chapter 11 is their biggest problem. "Shares in American automakers, the Ford Motor Company and General Motors, have fallen to multi-decade lows as the companies reported billions in losses." Jack Healy, "A Record Decline in October’s Retail Sales," New York Times, November 14, 2008.

Economic support should go to workers, not named, pre-existing corporations. (That means jobs programs, unemployment compensation, food stamps, healthcare and retraining programs.) The corporations' physical assets aren't going anywhere. As Brooks points out, they can (and will) continue to be operated either in Chapter 11, or by whatever other companies may acquire them at market value. (As a sidenote, our largest local mall, Coral Ridge, will probably be in Chapter 11 by early 2009; the theater, big box stores, restaurants and skating rink will continue to operate -- or, if not, they will be reacting to their own economic conditions, not those of the mall owner.)

See, Amitai Etzioni, "Bail Out the Workers, Not the Plants," The Huffington Post, November 11, 2008; Declan McCullagh, "Big Three Bailout? Not So Fast," CBSNews.com, November 12, 2008 ("The better solution is a simple one: Allow automakers to declare bankruptcy. Contrary to popular belief, that will not mean the end of a company such as GM, which has indicated it may run out of cash by the end of this year. Under Chapter 11, a bankruptcy judge will weigh the different interests of GM's creditors, labor unions, shareholders, and so on, and the resulting company will emerge leaner and stronger. Many current customers of United Airlines, Texaco, Global Crossing, and Pacific Gas and Electric probably don't even know that those companies once filed for Chapter 11."). Micheline Maynard, "G.M.’s Troubles Stir Question of Bankruptcy vs. a Bailout," New York Times, November 12, 2008 ("But not everyone agrees that a Chapter 11 filing by G.M. would be the disaster that many fear. Some experts note that while bankruptcy would be painful, it may be preferable to a government bailout that may only delay, at considerable cost, the wrenching but necessary steps G.M. needs to take to become a stronger, leaner company.").

Robert Reich, "The Real Difference Between Bankruptcy and Bailout," November 11, 2008:

"Under it [Chapter 11], creditors took some losses, shareholders even bigger ones, some managers' heads rolled. Companies cleaned up their books and got a fresh start. And taxpayers didn't pay a penny.

So why, exactly, is the Treasury substituting government bailouts for chapter 11? . . . Wall Street's major banks and insurance giant AIG . . . [don't] have to be bailed out. They could be reorganized under bankruptcy protection. . . .

And what a tragedy it would be if the government spends so much on these bailouts there isn't enough money left for the next administration to help average people get affordable health insurance, send their kids to good schools, and find good jobs -- including jobs rebuilding the nation's crumbling infrastructure and finding alternative sources of energy.

It's not the big guys who need rescuing. It's the small. Right now, the government has its priorities upside down.

As a final, not insignificant comment note that this ill-considered, seeming capitulation to the auto industry and UAW is not an example of "reaching across the aisle" to serve the interests of Obama's oft-heralded "United States of America" (as distinguished from our "Red States" and "Blue States"). Whatever the red state Republicans' motives may be, they are opposed to this idea. (Not incidentally, they give many of the same reasons for their opposition as the rest of us.) Coupled with Obama's earlier support for the original $700 billion bailout, and his prior vote supporting immunity for the telephone companies that spied on us in violation of law, it does not bode well for the new Administration's ability to offer "change" (beyond freeing up stem cell research) to a "broken" Washington, subservient to corporate power.

November 16: Register's Consistent Editorial

Editorial, "Be bold: Start a WPA-style jobs program," Des Moines Register, November 16, 2008, p. OP1. You will want to read it all, but here are some excerpts:

The U.S. unemployment rate hit a 14-year high of 6.5 percent last week. The fear of losing a job is compounded by the difficulty in finding another if you're laid off. . . .

Iowa State University economist and professor emeritus [Neil Harl] said it's not out of the realm of possibility that the United States could see unemployment rates [of] some 25 percent . . . and "there's nothing to indicate [employment rates] are going to improve." . . .

What has been tried so far hasn't worked so well.

Tax cuts pushed by the Bush administration didn't trickle down to create sustained job growth. Rebate checks didn't sufficiently stimulate the economy. Recent investment-bank bailouts haven't done enough to boost lending.

It's time for a better, bolder strategy. President-elect Barack Obama should make job creation his No. 1 priority. . . . Spending dollars to create jobs benefits workers directly and boosts the overall economy. . . .

The federal government could quickly infuse money into states to fund projects that are already planned -- including roads, bridges, sewers, parks and trails. That would create jobs for unemployed Americans, [send] money rippling through the economy [and] this country would get more of its infrastructure updated [strengthening] the economy against global competition for years to come. . . .

In the summer of 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt . . . began putting the country to work through the Works Progress Administration.

Within a few years, millions of Americans were working to build infrastructure -- improvements that are still around today. . . .

Create jobs. Boost consumer confidence. Put the country on track for a brighter economic future.

It makes more sense than pouring more billions into bailouts.

# # #

"Preserve, Protect and Defend"

August 19, 2007, 7:40 a.m.

Our Constitutional Responsibility
There are three pieces in this morning's Des Moines Register, and reference to a fourth, that prompt me to belatedly speak out on the controversial issue of the "i word" -- impeachment.

Let me make clear that I think it's a perversion of the Constitution to encourage the impeachment of a president because you don't like him or her, or just because you want to hurt the opposing party. And I understand Speaker Nancy Pelosi's desire to avoid appearing petulant, and merely seeking revenge for the Republicans' effort to impeach President Bill Clinton, in her declaration that impeachment is "off the table." (I suspect it may also reflect a bit of vote counting on her part.)

Nor do I think a formal impeachment proceeding is absolutely necessary as the only way for American citizens and their representatives to "preserve, protect and defend" their Constitution (a part of the president's (and other officials') oath upon being sworn in). U.S. Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 1.

Although it may be relevant in this connection to note that the American Research Group's July 5 poll reports roughly 50% of Americans want Bush and Cheney impeached (45% Bush; 54% Cheney. Even registered Republicans support impeachment by 13% Bush, 17% Cheney.)

What I do think is that, at a minimum, the equivalent of articles of impeachment need to be drawn up with regard to what President George Bush, and Vice President Dick Cheney have done, detailing each of the extensions of executive power and restrictions on citizens' constitutional protections. Our representatives owe us at least that much: a resolution detailing, opposing, rejecting and expressing their combined view that much of what the President and Vice President have been doing is, in the judgment of Congress, a violation of the civil rights of citizens and the separation of powers of the three branches of government.

Obviously, regardless of what Congress does it is too late to reverse much of what this Administration has already done. Therefore, the purpose of this bill of particulars is not so much to restrain a Republican president as to make sure the next president -- which has a good likelihood of being a Democrat -- and his or her successor presidents are not permitted to simply continue the practices that are now in place.

These concerns, and this analysis, is not original with me. It is gaining momentum throughout the country -- as is borne out by the fact that one newspaper, in one state, on one day contains three opinion pieces, with a reference to a fourth, on the theme:

Richard Doak, "Daok: Who will defend Constitution? That should be presidential litmus test," Des Moines Register, August 19, 2007, p. OP1.

William Stosine, "America's Biggest Threat Comes from Within," Des Moines Register, August 19, 2007, p. OP2 -- with reference to similar theme in writings of Republican Paul Craig Roberts. (Roberts formerly served as President Reagan's undersecretary of treasury and associate editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal.) Roberts contends "The American constitutional system is near to being overthrown."

For the full text of Roberts' remarks see, Paul Craig Roberts, "Impeach Bush and Cheney Now," Online Journal, August 17, 2007.

Although Bruce Fein is not represented in this morning's Register, he can also be added to the list of conservatives calling for impeachment. He was at the top of President Reagan's Department of Justice, has been affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation, and writes for the Washington Times. He recently laid out his own "articles of impeachment" on "Bill Moyers Journal," July 13, 2007 (includes links to background material, video, and transcript).

Lance Dickie, "Civil Liberties Assaulted," Des Moines Register, August 19, 2007, p. OP6; not available on the Register's Web site, but available as Lance Dickie, "A Scary Assault on Civil Liberties," Seattle Times, August 10, 2007. (Dickie is a Seattle Times editorial columnist. )

The Register Also Editorially Endorses Universal, Single Payer

As the health care debate rages on, it becomes ever clearer that the kind of universal, single-payer system advocated in Michael Moore's "Sicko" and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich's proposed legislation, is the only real, long term solution to our capitalist, profit-maximizing, benefit-minimizing, world's number 1 (in costs) and 42nd (in life expectancy and infant mortality) "health insurance" (not "health care") system. This morning's editorial faults the candidates for their weak-kneed, fuzzy, insurance/pharma-capitulating proposals, and seems to advocate the universal, single-payer approach. Editorial, "In search of vision on health care; Presidential candidates talk about it, but their plans fall short," Des Moines Register, August 19, 2007, p. OP1.

# # #

Abuses: Wellmark, Insurance, Athletics, Media

July 22, 2007, 7:40, 8:00, 9:20 a.m.

Wellmark Naming, Insurance Abuses, Sicko, Grassley on Athletics Tax Abuses, Media

Wellmark Naming
(As always, the Press-Citizen's skilled graphic artist and editorial cartoonist, Bob Patton, is able to tell the story with a few strokes of his pen. This from the July 21 Press Citizen.)

Letters to the editor of Iowa's papers are now rolling in on the Wellmark naming controversy -- virtually all of them ridiculing the proposal and praising those who are resisting selling off the University's integrity.

Even the Register has turned around; having formerly given the College of Public Health faculty a "thistle" for turning down the money this morning it took some tweezers and removed that thistle and stuck it in Pomerantz instead.

Here are the Register's letters to the editor this morning, July 22:

Keith McKinley, "If they start naming colleges after corporations, what's next, the great Wells Fargo State Capitol?"

Paul J. Kaufmann, "Corporate Sponsorships Endanger Credible Research"

Stu Bassman, "No good deed goes unpunished"

Mike Burkart/Maria Houser Conzemius, "Register thistle aimed at U of I a poke in the eye of integrity"

David Brewbaker, "Wellmark could put its $15 million to better use"

Insurance Industry Abuses

The Register is doing a four-day series of stories and opinion pieces about the inadequacies, and outright abuses, from the "health-claim-denying," profit-maximizing insurance industry. Here are some editorial pieces from today (July 22, 2007):

"Help "Iowans resolve insurance headaches; State funds $300K program, with part sales pitch included"

"Questions and Answers About Long-Term-Care Insurance"

Andie Dominick (editorial), "Diagnosis: Dementia But She Was Denied Coverage"

"'It's Not Giving Us the Help We Thought We Would Get'"

"Consumer's guide to long-term-care insurance; ASSURANCE DENIED: Troubles with long-term-care insurance"

(There are more in the Press-Citizen and Gazette.

Sicko

Looked in for awhile on a theater-full of folks watching "Sicko" last night. Based on their reactions, I'd say they clearly "got it." The political question, of course, is whether the sadness and laughter Michael Moore evokes in his audiences will get translated into citizen demand for the health care accorded those who live in civilized countries -- and, if so, whether it can ever be enough to overcome the millions of dollars from big pharma and the insurance industry that is currently dictating our candidates' "health care" proposals.

Grassley on Athletic Programs' Tax Cheats

Senator Grassley (Senate Finance Committee) isn't letting go of his concern regarding the propriety of funding lavish college coaches' salaries and other expenses with wealthy donors' tax deductions. Scott Dochterman, "Give and Take; College Sports Have Come to Depend on Tax-Exempt Donations; Has This Mutually Beneficial Arrangement Spun Out of Control?; Grassley Questions Whether Exemptions, Education Mix," The Gazette, July 22, 2007, p. A1 (also by Docterman, "Change in Tax Status Deemed Unlikely" and "Grassley Aims to Protect Incentives for Giving and Keep Donors Honest," p. A13).

Some numbers:

"Tax exempt donations have helped increase the University of Iowa's athletics department budget by 42 percent" from $43.5 to $61.5 million

It is now self-sustaining, and during the last two years generated a $21 million surplus; Iowa State's athletic budget jumped 31%, from $28 to $36.8 million, including $3 million in state support, hopes are it can add $5.6 million in contributions (since it had to drop swimming and baseball to help pay for a $19.5 million refurbishing of Jack Trice Stadium)

Tax exempt donations help "pay football coach Kirk Ferentz nearly $3 million annually"

Ohio State's athletic budget will exceed $100 million this year

80% of what's paid for a skybox at Kinnick is considered a charitable, tax exempt contribution

NCAA teams brought in and spent $7.8 billion in 2005 -- of which $275 million is corporate sponsorships, and $845 million is "donations and contributions"

T. Boone Pickens gave $165 million to the University of Oklahoma athletic program

Iowa spent $90 million refurbishing the Kinnick Stadium -- and for what? Six games will be played there this year. Most games run about 3-1/2 hours (and include, I'm told, a total of about 7 to 12 minutes of actual action, with multiples of that time devoted to commercials). At 24 hours a day, and 365 days a year, counting 3-1/2 hours a game, that's 21 hours of use out of 8760 hours a year -- 99.76% of the time sitting empty; 24/100ths of 1% of the time being used. (Even with a 40-hour-a-week, 50-week-a-year (with two weeks vacation) 2000-hour year it's but 1%.)

Grassley's just asking -- not declaring, just asking -- what does this multi-billion-dollar industry have to do with charitable, tax deductible contributions for "educational purposes"? Good question.

How the Media Failed Us

The media -- at least the responsible sectors thereof -- has been going through a mea culpa recently over how it failed the American people by serving as cheerleaders for the Iraq war. Here are a couple more in this morning's Register.

Rekha Basu, "Writer Calls Out Peers, President," Des Moines Register, July 22, 2007 (Helen Thomas)

Richard Doak, "Media's Failure to Challenge Case for War Stains Industry," Des Moines Register, July 22, 2007

# # #

Sicko

July 5, 2007, 6:00 a.m.

As it happened, there was no news this morning crying out with an urgent need for my commentary.

So I took a couple of early morning hours to watch -- for the first time -- my copy of Michael Moore's new feature film "Sicko."

Make sure you see it. Trust me.

If it doesn't make you as angry as you've ever been, if it doesn't cause you to shed a tear for what we're doing to America's neediest, and for what America could be, you probably are in need of a full range of health care services yourself -- and deserve what you're paying for what you're getting.

Then, make it clear to every elected official you encounter -- especially the candidates for president, and the U.S. Senate and house -- that you expect them to watch it, and then to tell you how much money they've taken from the health care industry lobbyists and corporations, and to provide you the reasons they are still opposing the universal, single-payer health care systems available around the world. These are countries that spend less on health care than we do, and yet provide a level of service that results in better life expectancy, infant mortality and other statistics than in this country.

There are many things the capitalist system can do better than any other alternative imaginable. Handing over to profit-maximizing corporations the delivery of anything as basic as health care to all of a nation's citizens just turns out not to be among them.

As a friend of mine, a candidate in a previous presidential campaign, was fond of saying, "I don't want every American to have health insurance. I want every American to have health care." It's an important distinction. And so far, once again, most of the candidates are still talking about health insurance.

Curious as to why? I won't say more. Just watch it. "Sicko."

Now I'm off for the day on an investigative trip I'll be reporting to you here, hopefully tomorrow.

# # #
[Note: If you're new to this blog, and interested in the whole UI President Search story . . .

This blog began in June 2006 and has addressed, and continues to addresses, a number of public policy, political, media, education, economic development, and other issues -- not just the UI presidential search. But that is the subject to which most attention has been focused in blog entries between November 2006 and June 2007.

The presidential search blog entries begin with Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search I," November 18, 2006. They end with Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 505 - Next (Now This) Week," June 10, 2007 (100-plus pages printed; a single blog entry for the events of June 10-21 ("Day 516"), plus over 150 attached comments from readers), and Nicholas Johnson, "UI Hostages Free At Last -- Habemas Mamam!," June 22, 2007.

Wondering where the "UI Held Hostage" came from? Click here. (As of January 25 the count has run from January 21, 2006, rather than last November.)

For any given entry, links to the prior 10 will be found in the left-most column. Going directly to FromDC2Iowa.Blogspot.com will take you to the latest. Each entry related to the UI presidential search contains links to the full text of virtually all known, non-repetitive media stories and commentary, including mine, since the last blog entry. Together they represent what The Chronicle of Higher Education has called "one of the most comprehensive analyses of the controversy." The last time there was an entry containing the summary of prior entries' commentary (with the heading "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search") is Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIII -- Last Week," December 11, 2006.

My early proposed solution to the conflict is provided in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 2006.

Searching: the fullest collection of basic documents related to the search is contained in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search - Dec. 21-25," December 21, 2006 (and updated thereafter), at the bottom of that blog entry under "References." A Blog Index of entries on all subjects since June 2006 is also available. And note that if you know (or can guess at) a word to search on, the "Blogger" bar near the top of your browser has a blank, followed by "SEARCH THIS BLOG," that enables you to search all entries in this Blog since June 2006.]

# # #