Who's More Popular Than Traditional Republicans?

Teabagger Republicans. According to the latest Rasmussen poll, Republicans have fallen to third place in terms of popularity.

In a three-way Generic Ballot test, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds Democrats attracting 36% of the vote. The Tea Party candidate picks up 23%, and Republicans finish third at 18%. Another 22% are undecided.

So are Republicans worried? Nope. Greg Sargent asked for the GOP's leadership view of the poll and this was one senior GOP aide's reply:

This proves one of the major points that Democrats have tried hard to deny: the Tea Party movement is not some fringe group of ultra-conservatives, it is most popular among independents, many of whom believed President Obama’s campaign promises about doing things differently in Washington, and feel burned by the fact that he has governed in a relentlessly partisan fashion.

Partisan? Did he really say partisan? Three words: Health care reform. Obama reached out to Republicans and they said NO.

I think GOP leadership has to spin this in a favorable light. After all, several Glenn Beck inspired Tea Party candidates are causing problems for a number of GOP lawmakers, including John McCain. They're caught between a rock and a hard place. They can't afford to ignore the teabaggers, and they can't afford to embrace them at the risk of losing their moderate members.

And I don't take too seriously the GOP spokesperson's comment that "the Tea Party movement is not some fringe group." Again, really? What else would you call a group that invited Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman to speak at their national convention next year. And don't forget about Joe the Plumber.

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing that any independents with a smidgen of commonsense will embrace the teabaggers, the same group that shows up at rallies with guns and posters comparing health care reform to pictures of dead bodies at the Dachau concentration camp. These people are not mainstream Americans, they're extremists.

And when a fake party "that doesn't have organized candidates or organized fundraising is more highly thought of than one of the two traditionally dominant political parties," that's a sign that Republicans are in big trouble, no matter how much they spin this poll.

Obama favors talking to our enemies

There was a rally for Barack Obama today at a high school in Troy, MI and wizardkitten from BFM was there to take pictures and do some live blogging. At least that was the plan, until her internet connection went down and we were forced to go with plan B - me. I found two live streaming sights that were quirky and kept stopping and starting, but I managed to live blog a good portion of his speech and the Q & A session that followed. Click the BFM link above if you're interested in reading about it.

One of the questions asked today came from an Egyptian-born woman who is now a citizen. She asked Barack what we could do to change public opinion about us abroad. Obama said we needed to initiate more aggressive diplomacy by talking not just to our friends, but also to our enemies.

That opinion is shared by a majority of Americans according to a recent Gallup Panel survey:

Large majorities of Democrats and independents, and even half of Republicans, believe the president of the United States should meet with the leaders of countries that are considered enemies of the United States. Overall, 67% of Americans say this kind of diplomacy is a good idea.

This sentiment applies to Iran too.

About 6 in 10 Americans (59%) think it would be a good idea for the president of the United States to meet with the president of Iran. This includes about half of Republicans, a majority of independents, and most Democrats.

McCain? He mocks the idea of presidential talks with enemies. McCain is as out of touch with what Americans want as the rest of his Republican pals.

Who is your significant other?

According to this Zogby poll, twenty-five percent of us need to get a life.

It won’t make you dinner or rub your feet, but nearly one in four Americans say that the Internet can serve as a substitute for a significant other for some period of time, according to a new poll released today by 463 Communications and Zogby International.

The Zogby/463 Internet Attitudes poll found that 24% of Americans said the Internet could serve as a replacement for a significant other. Not surprisingly, the percentage was highest among singles, of which 31% said it could be a substitute. There was no difference among males and females but there was a split based on political ideology. Thirty-one percent of those who called themselves “progressives” were open-minded to the Internet serving as a surrogate significant other while only 18% of those who consider themselves “very conservative” would consider it a substitute.

Sadly, I'm probably one of those people who needs to get a life, and the fact that you're reading this suggests that you do too!

Click the link above to read all the questions and answers, but here are a few others I found interesting:

More than half of Americans believe that Internet content such as video should be controlled in some way by the government. Twenty-nine percent said it should be regulated just like television content while 24% said government should institute an online rating system similar to the one used by the movie industry. In contrast, only 36% said the blocking of Internet video would be unconstitutional.

The older you get, the more likely you are to support government restrictions. Only 33% of 18 to 24 year-olds supported government stepping in on content, while 72% of those over 70 years of age support government regulation and ratings.

I personally advocate parents stepping up to the plate and monitoring what their children do online over government regulations. When my children were growing up, I never had pay cable stations like HBO and Cinemax, and I enforced their bedtime so I didn't have to worry about them overhearing an inappropriate remark on late night television. I know, I know...I'm speaking like a grandmother. Moving along...

More than one in four Americans has a social networking profile such as MySpace or Facebook. Among 18-24 year-olds, it’s almost mandatory – 78% of them report having a social networking profile. More Democrats have a social networking presence than Republicans (32% to 22% ).

Sigh...when I was 18-years-old, I socially networked by calling my friends from my parent's wall phone, which was in our kitchen. Talk about a lack of privacy! We didn't have call waiting in those days either, so my parents limited our calls to 15 minutes. I used to pray my parents would someday let me have my own Princess phone in my bedroom, a pink one. Speaking of praying...

Most Americans don’t think the Internet has had an effect on their spirituality. Ten percent said it made them closer to God, while 6% percent said it made them more distant. Those who call themselves “Born Again” were the most likely to feel it affected them spiritually. Twenty percent of Born Agains said it made them closer while 11% said it made them more distant from God.

IMHO, I don't think God needs the internet to communicate to us. He just needs us to sit quietly and listen for a change.

Finally, it appears that parents need to put more thought into what they name their children:

And while there are well-documented fears about identity theft, many Americans would gladly give up their name for a cash windfall. If they were offered $100,000 by someone who wanted to adopt their name, more than one in five Americans said they would change their name to something completely different. Thirty-four percent of 18 to 24 year olds were prepared to take the offer.

I guess there's nothing money can't buy anymore.

Voters Favor Democrats Health Care Proposals

Health care is widely seen as the top domestic issue in 2008 and the Democrats continue to poll strong in this area. From the Kaiser Network:

U.S. adults favor health care proposals from Democratic presidential candidates more than plans from Republican candidates, according to a recent Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg survey.

According to the survey, 62% favor a requirement that large employers offer health insurance to employees -- a provision included in health care proposals from Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) -- and 31% oppose such a requirement. Fifty-one percent favor a requirement that individuals obtain health insurance -- a provision included in the Clinton and Edwards proposals -- and 39% oppose such a requirement, the survey found.

Forty-four percent favor tax credits to help individuals purchase private health insurance -- a provision included in health care proposals from former New York City Major Rudy Giuliani (R) and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) -- and 45% oppose such tax credits, according to the survey.

Tax credits pretty evenly divide voters, but those opposing the credits (especially among the middle-class) could increase as more employers drop health insurance and premiums continue to climb. As a woman quoted in the LA Times article said:

"A tax credit is just a tax credit," VanDruff said. "You get that just once a year, and it is not going to cover the cost to you for health insurance."

"If you are rich-rich, you can afford it, and if you are poor-poor, they'll help you with it," she said of health insurance. "But if you are that in-between guy, you are in trouble."

There were two other significant results from the poll:

The survey found that 53% favor an expansion of Medicare to all U.S. residents and that 36% oppose such an expansion. "In one of the most politically significant results, the poll finds that independents and moderates were generally lining up with Democrats in the health care debate," the Times reports.

Independents lined with up Democrats because of "job lock." In all, 20% of independents said they or someone in their household were forced to stay in a job because it provided health care, compared with 13% of Democrats and 5% of Republicans.

(Cross-posted at BFM.)

Update: Thanks to DJ @ BFM for pointing out what I missed about the story above. Hillary Clinton's plan does include tax credits. This is how John Nichols @ The Nation describes it:

The Clinton plan maintains the current system of for-profit, insurance-industry defined health care delivery. The only real change is that, in return for minimal requirements regarding coverage of those with preexisting conditions, the government would pump hundreds of billions in federal dollars into the accounts of some of the country’s wealthiest corporations. The plan’s tax credit scheme would buy some more coverage for low-income families, which is good, but it would do so at a cost so immense that, ultimately, Clinton’s plan will be as tough a sell as the failed 1993 “Hillarycare” proposal.

Some more coverage is good, but Kucinich's Medicare-For-All is much, much better.

Five years ago today...

Think Progress reminds us that five years ago today the Senate voted to authorize the use of military force in Iraq by a vote of 77-23. Here are the 23 Senators who courageously voted no, including Michigan's own, Sen. Debbie Stabenow and Sen. Levin.


Bush declared at the time that "America speaks with one voice."

Five years later, America is once again speaking with one voice: "Bring our troops home."

(Cross posted at Blogging for Michigan.)

Insurance industry to Hillary: Thanks

Yesterday, I had some serious reservations about Hillary's health care plan because it seemed to embrace the private insurance industry a little too much for my liking, but I was willing to give it a chance until I read what other people had to say. My first impression turned out to be right though, especially after reading this blurb at First Read:

But forget the poll, this positive review from the New York Times’ David Brooks is probably the campaign's favorite clip today. "Hillary Clinton’s health care plan is a huge step forward from 1993. It’s better than the G.O.P. candidates’ plans (which don’t exist)."

If GOP mouthpiece Brooks likes the plan, that means it serves the interests of the insurance industry and not the public. FireDogLake had the same opinion and calls it Hillary's Health Care Sham.

For you to proclaim that your plan provides, “Universal Health Care” is a decided misnomer. “Universal Health Insurance” might be more like it. [...]

Senator, your plan is basically a national version of Republican Mitt Romney’s “Universal Health Care” plan for Massachusetts, which has still left thousands in that state uninsured and even more struggling to make the payments on their new policies, which they are now required to have by law, but which may not pay them one thin dime should they actually become sick or hurt. [...]

Is there anybody here who believes that this plan wasn’t conceived and dictated to Senator Clinton by passels of high-end lobbyists for the insurance industry?

John Nichols believes the plan was defined exactly according to the needs of the insurance industry.

The Clinton plan maintains the current system of for-profit, insurance-industry defined health care delivery. The only real change is that, in return for minimal requirements regarding coverage of those with preexisting conditions, the government would pump hundreds of billions in federal dollars into the accounts of some of the country’s wealthiest corporations. The plan’s tax credit scheme would buy some more coverage for low-income families, which is good, but it would do so at a cost so immense that, ultimately, Clinton’s plan will be as tough a sell as the failed 1993 “Hillarycare” proposal.

And Physician's for a National Health Program have this to say about Hillary's tax credits:

Further, the administrative complexities of refundable tax credits and means-tested premium caps would still leave many without coverage. Coverage will never be universal unless it is truly automatic for everyone.

If we are going to use the tax system to pay for health care anyway then why should we waste funds on the profoundly inefficient system of segregated private health plans? A universal risk pool that is equitably funded through the tax system is the most efficient and least expensive method of ensuring comprehensive coverage for everyone.

Nichols echoes PNHP too:

Despite what Mitt Romney says, Clinton and the Democrats would have a far easier time selling “European-style socialized medicine” that what the senator from New York is peddling. And that does not even take into account the potential appeal of a uniquely American single-payer system that might intelligently combine the necessary efficiency of a publicly-funded and defined payment program for covering costs with the appealing prospect of allowing Americans to choose their own basic plans and doctors.

Sorry, Hillary, but I also prefer a single-payer plan, along with a majority of other Americans based on this latest poll from CBS:

Americans were also asked to choose between keeping the current health care system, with insurance provided by private employers and some people uninsured, and a government-run system that provided universal coverage. Fifty-five percent said they preferred the government-run system, while 29 percent said they preferred the current system. This is an increase in support for the government-run system, which was favored by 47 percent of Americans in February. [emphasis added]

Fifty-five percent favor a government-run system, yet Dennis Kucinich is the only presidential candidate promoting a single-payer health plan. That tells us the others care more about appeasing the insurance industry and lobbyists than they do the uninsured.

Poll: Voters Say Reauthorize, Expand SCHIP

A new poll by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation shows that Americans overwhelmingly support the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which provides states with federal funds to design health insurance programs for vulnerable children.

Nearly nine in 10 voters (86%) say they support reauthorizing SCHIP, and a clear majority (63%) say they support expanding SCHIP's budget by an additional $35 billion over five years.

Poll results show:

An overwhelming majority of voters support reauthorizing SCHIP for another five years (86% support).

Voters support reauthorization regardless of political party, with 77 percent of Republicans, 86 percent of Independents and 93 percent of Democrats supporting reauthorization.

More than three out of four voters support reauthorization, even when told that the Congressional Budget Office says it will cost $39 billion over five years to maintain the program in its current state (77% support).

Even when these costs are explained, support for reauthorization remains strong across voters from different political parties (Republicans -- 64% support; Independents -- 78% support; Democrats -- 86% support).

Nearly two out of three voters say they support expanding SCHIP to cover an additional 4 million uninsured children at an additional cost of $35 billion over five years (63% support).

This expansion of SCHIP is even supported by a majority of self-identified 'conservatives.' (Conservatives -- 53% support; Moderates -- 67% support; Liberals -- 73% support)

Nearly two out of three voters say they disagree with President Bush's decision to veto legislation passed by Congress to expand SCHIP (64% disagree).

Unlike Bush and most Republicans, a majority of Americans have their priorities straight. The health of our children is priceless.

Giuliani's (Non) Health Care Plan

Presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani released details of his health care plan this week, which really fails to help the uninsured and more or less parrots the ideas of the Bush administration. Ezra Klein discusses it over at American Prospect - A Man With a (Non-)Plan - and says, "Rudy Giuliani's health care "plan" is less a good-faith reform proposal than a cudgel with which to bash liberals."

Klein bases that opinion on the following:

In the speech introducing and detailing his new health care proposal, Giuliani refers to the "Democrats" six times. "Single-payer" is said eight times. "Socialized medicine," or some variant thereof, makes nine appearances. "Uninsured" is never uttered -- not once.

So, what does Giuliani's plan actually offer?

A tax exclusion of up to $15,000 for families, and $7,500 for individuals, to help pay for health care. What Giuliani is relying on is people reading those numbers -- $15,000 and $7,500 -- without noticing that they don't denote the amount of money he's offering them, but the amount of money he's not taxing them on. And when we plug it into my magical Rudy Translation Machine (constructed with the help of friendly neighborhood economist, Dean Baker), we can watch how $15,000 can easily become … zero.

Let's stipulate a family of four -- a mom, a dad, and two children. The type of family Republicans like. And let's say your household income is $30,000 a year. Giuliani's tax exclusion will save you … nothing. Your income isn't taxable anyway. Bring it up to $40,000 … and it's still nothing. Your child tax credits are crossing out your taxable income. Indeed, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 55 percent of the uninsured don't earn enough money to have any taxable income. This proposal -- unless changed from a straight exclusion to a refundable tax credit -- will do literally nothing for them.

Don't get me wrong, some families will save a few bucks. If you make $50,000, Giuliani's exclusion will save you $1,220. And if you make $70,000, you'll get a whopping $2,250. And the higher up the income ladder you go, the more our hypothetical family unit will save. Meanwhile, here's the kicker: According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, in 2006, premiums for family coverage amounted to, on average, $11,480. Giuliani's giveaway barely makes a dent.

So it's no surprise that Alan Cohen, head of Boston University's Health Policy Institute, looked at Giuliani's "vision" and said, "I don't think it's likely to increase coverage of people to any great extent, and I don't think it's going to get a handle on health care cost inflation in this country."

Schemes based around tax subsidies just don't work according to Klein, and he backs that opinion up with research from the RAND Corporation who recently examined whether government subsidies could solve the problem of the uninsured.

They researched the health care decisions of nearly 25,000 new health care subscribers in California. Their conclusion? "Government subsidies that cut health insurance premium prices in half for people without insurance would reduce the number of uninsured Americans by just 3 percent."

Three percent? That's no solution, Rudy.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities also examined whether tax incentives would be an effective way to expand health coverage and came up with a similar conclusion:

[...] proposed tax subsidies for the purchase of health insurance would likely be of little help to most low-income families, given the high premiums and out-of-pocket costs associated with individual-group coverage.

So, Giuliani's plan isn't much of a plan, but maybe that wasn't his point according to Dr. McCanne at Physicians for a National Health Program. He looked at Rudy's health care proposal and offered this comment:

Rudy Giuliani’s choice of health care advisors is all you need to know to understand his positions on reform. His decision to trump rational health policy with extremist libertarian ideology does tend to make you question his political skills. He obviously isn’t poll driven.

Rudy, polls show that a majority of the voters want a national health care plan and they're willing to pay more in taxes to get it. If you won't react to the will of the majority now, then you're not worthy enough to be president. The people deserve to have the ear of the next person in office.

Republicans in the Twilight Zone

Following their vote yesterday to remain in Iraq indefinitely, the NY Times says Republicans are trapped in the twilight zone.

Twilight Zone Filibusters

Republicans have the right to filibuster under centuries-old rules that this page has long defended. It is the height of hypocrisy for this band of Republicans to use that power since only about two years ago they were ready to unilaterally ban filibusters to push through some of Mr. Bush’s most ideologically blinkered judicial nominees.

But beyond that, the Republicans are doing the public a real disservice and playing an increasingly risky hand by delaying sober consideration of the war. [...]

In postponing real action to September and beyond, Republicans laughed off the all-night debate as a “slumber party” of “twilight zone” theatrics by the Democrats. In fact, Bush loyalists seem trapped in the twilight zone, ducking their responsibility to represent constituents by applying credible pressure on the president to come up with an end to his sorry war.

While Republicans remain in the twilight zone, the rest of the country lives with the reality they've created, which explains these results from a poll taken yesterday by CBS/NYT:

61% Say Congress Shouldn't Fund War Without Timetable For Withdrawal

2008 Democratic candidates on health care

I know where the 2008 Republican presidential candidates stand on the issue of health care (they put it at the bottom of the list), but what about the Democrats? Do they concur with voters who see it as our number one domestic issue? After checking their various campaign websites, I can say they've definitely put a lot of thought into the issue and given it priority status.

First up is Bill Richardson and his plan as described at a recent health care forum:

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson said the "cornerstone" of his plan is to allow all Americans and business to be able to purchase the same coverage that members of Congress have, while offering "help" for those will low incomes. He also argued for an expansion of Medicare to cover those 55 and older, and a "cooperative relationship" between individuals, businesses and states "catalyzed by the government." Without naming Edwards, he argued that additional sources of revenue are not necessary, saying increased efficiency, preventative care and an exit from Iraq will provide enough revenue to expand coverage. But it wasn't clear if Richardson was pledging to achieve universal coverage.

Additionally, from Joseph Paduda's blog, "Richardson appears to be pushing for the elimination of Medicare Advantage and other private-insurer based Medicare programs." That's a plus since these plans cost on average 19% more than traditional Medicare, but he's also promoting tax breaks for lower-income Americans to help them buy health insurance. Several Republican candidates mentioned tax breaks too, but I don't see how that will help poor people buy health coverage unless the government advances them the money up front.

Mike Gravel solves that problem with vouchers.

Former Alaska senator Mike Gravel proposed a single-payer system of sorts, but under his system each American would get a health care voucher that they would use to purchase their choice of five or six private insurance plans. “Everyone gets the same product. If you want more than the product you’ve got, you pay for it,” he said. Gravel said he would not expand Medicare or Medicaid unless “we don’t see the private insurance companies shape up.”

Gravel's voucher idea is interesting, but I don't see the private insurance companies shaping up, and I don't see Gravel winning the primary either.

On to the next candidate, Hillary Clinton, best remembered for championing universal health care long before anyone else would even touch the subject. Here's a brief description of her plan from a recent speech:

There are three parts to my approach. First, lowering costs for everyone. Second, improving quality for everyone. Third, insuring everyone. [...]

My plan will offer individuals and small businesses market access to larger insurance pools that will lower costs and end insurance company discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions. As part of a plan for universal coverage, which I will discuss in detail in the coming months, we would create large insurance pools that lower administrative costs for small businesses and individuals by spreading the risk. In a system of universal coverage insurance companies cannot as easily shift costs through cherry picking and other means.

Clinton would also push legislation to provide respite care for caregivers of elderly and disabled Americans, something I approve of and believe is desperately needed. However, from a recent health care debate, she said "it would take her two terms to get a universal health care system in place." That's unacceptable to me. The number of uninsured is at crisis levels and Americans can't wait that long.

I'm not totally sold on her plan to create large insurance pools either. I no longer trust corporate America to put people before profits, and the fact that Clinton received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from insurance companies for her 2006 re-election in the Senate disturbs me too.

John Edwards has also been pushing universal coverage for sometime now, and he has the most comprehensive and detailed position on health care to date. Here's a brief description from The Nation:

Edwards' plan, first unveiled earlier this year, calls for an expansion of both public and private health plans, forces employers to either provide health care or pay into a fund that does, mandates individuals to buy insurance and offers government subsidies for families with incomes of up to $80k who can't afford it.

He also has plans [pdf] to expand the infrastructure for long-term care, offer respite care and support to families caring for loved ones, and improve the wages, training and working conditions for aides, which definitely scores brownie points with me.

Edwards also gets more points for his honesty and candidness. When asked at a recent health care debate about the transitional costs to a new system, he said "it would cost $90 to $120 billion a year, which he would pay for by rolling back President Bush's tax cuts for those making more than $200,000." This honesty won't hurt Edwards since polling shows that voters are willing to pay higher taxes in order to solve our health care crisis.

Moving along to Barack Obama, you can read about his plan on his website, but here's a short synopsis from CommonSense:

If you don't have health insurance through your employer, you will be enrolled into a new, comprehensive public health insurance plan that emphasizes prevention, chronic care management and quality care. The benefits will be similar to those available today to every federal employee.

This plan will enjoy the great efficiencies we see in public plans like Medicare but, if you still cannot afford it, you will receive a subsidy to pay for it. Of course, you can choose private insurance if you prefer but the private plans will have to compete on a level playing field with the public plan—without the extra payments that tip the scales in favor of private Medicare Advantage plans today.

Employers who do not offer meaningful coverage or a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to pay a percentage of payroll to the plan and their employees will be enrolled. Any employer can decide it no longer wishes to administer insurance and can offer insurance through the exchange. Self-employed Americans will find it easy to enroll as well at no disadvantage. Children will be covered and no one can be denied health insurance because of a preexisting condition or illness. [...]

Much of that tracks what Edwards has offered, and in fact, Obama offered that Edwards' plan is "very credible."When asked if additional tax revenue is needed, Obama did not dismiss the possibility, saying we need to "do whatever it takes" but noted there is much savings to be reaped with a more efficient system. He also said he would need to "put some money on the front end in creating a new system" and then "get those savings on the back end," emphasizing that "those savings [should] go into the pockets of families, and not just insurance companies or drug companies."

Obama only recently posted his plan on his website and it does sound very similar to Edwards'. He does get points from me though for mentioning there would be no extra payments to private Medicare Advantage type plans. (Taxpayers have been fleeced enough by the private sector under the Bush administration.)

Chris Dodd also has a plan to fix health care on his campaign website, although it doesn't appear as though he'll be a contender. Here's a brief synopsis of his plan from CommonSense:

Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd said his plan was based on four principles: universality (“everyone participates, everyone benefits,” prevention, extend Medicaid to more families, and improving the use of technology. He referenced his leadership in getting the Family Medical Leave Act written into the law as proof of his commitment to working families and to the health care issue. [...]

As did some of the other candidates, Dodd said that all Americans should be able to get the same type of health care plan as members of Congress.

That type of plan has already been introduced. The Kennedy-Dingell Medicare-For-All plan offers the uninsured a choice to use Medicare or the federal employees health plan, the same plan members of Congress and the president currently enjoy, but I agree with Dodd that all Americans should be able to get it.

That brings me to Dennis Kucinich. He's the only presidential candidate with a plan for a universal single payer, not for profit health care system. The National Health Insurance Bill (HR 676) is being sponsored by Congressman John Conyers and Kucinich, along with the backing of Physician's for a National Health Program. Click the links to read more, but here's a brief description from CommonSense:

Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich used the forum to continue his vigorous pitch for a single-payer health care system, arguing that the plans of the other major candidates were too dependent on insurance companies and others with a profit motive that was antithetical to the notion of universal, nondiscriminatory care. To critics who raise the fear that a totally government-run system would end up rationing care to control costs, Kucinich said that insurance companies already ration care. He also scoffed at the argument that private-sector competition would reduce costs, saying that the opposite has been the case in health care.

I like HR 676 (and the Medicare-For-All plan) and I agree with all of Kucinich's points, but I don't think he has a chance of winning the nomination either, so that leaves me undecided about who I'm backing in the primary. I want to vote for the person I think has the best chance of winning the White House AND delivering on health care, but I also want that person to be someone who is interested in delivering every dime possible toward providing care, not delivering for the investors. Who would you vote for?

Dave Camp on universal health care: Woof-woof

It looks like the 72 percent of Americans who want universal health coverage - and the 63 percent who support universal health coverage even if it requires tax increases - will be ignored again (just like they were about Iraq) if Michigan Congressman Dave Camp (R) is any indication.

According to a link at MI Liberal, Camp believes the solutions to our health care problems lie in the private sector and not in more government programs. From The Hill:

I firmly believe we can and should solve America’s healthcare crisis in an American way. History is a great teacher, and if we choose to go down the path that Western Europe or Canada has, it will be no surprise when we come to the same destination — a universal healthcare system that leaves your family dog with better coverage and care than you get. As the Canadian Supreme Court once opined, “access to a waiting list is not access to care.” [emphasis added]

Really? Then how does Camp explain this recent study:

Health outcomes for patients in Canada are as good as or better than in the United States, even though per capita spending is higher south of the border, suggest Canadian and U.S. researchers who crunched data from 38 studies. [...] [emphasis added]

"In looking at patients in Canada with a specific diagnosis compared to Americans with the same diagnosis, in Canada patients had at least as good an outcome as their American counterparts – and in many situations, a better health outcome," said one of the 17 authors, Dr. P.J. Devereaux, a cardiologist and clinical epidemiologist at McMaster University in Hamilton.

"And that is important because in the United States, they're currently spending a little over $7,100 per individual on health care annually, whereas in Canada we're spending a little over $2,900 per individual annually," he said in a telephone interview from Brantford, Ont.[...]

Researchers began by asking the question: Are there differences in health outcomes (mortality or morbidity) in patients suffering from similar medical conditions treated in Canada versus those treated in the United States?

"Overall, Canada did better, and in fact we found a statistically significant five per cent mortality advantage to people with diagnoses in Canada compared to their counterparts in the United States," Devereaux said.

Or how about these statistics from the Fort Wayne News Sentinel?

France, Germany, Japan and Switzerland have less centralized systems, which provide much better results. They combine universal coverage with easy access to medical care. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, none of these countries have waiting-list problems. Access to medical care tends to be easier in those countries than it is in the United States. [...] [emphasis added]

It is inaccurate to assume that we have the best high-tech care. Japan, which has universal care, has more CT scanners and MRIs per person than the United States. Germany and Switzerland are on a par with us. [...]

Victor Rodwin of New York University finds that on a per-capita basis, the French get more physician office visits and more drugs than their counterparts here.

Heck, even Cuba (gasp!) delivers good health care according to AlterNet:

They [Cubans] live longer than almost anyone in Latin America. Far fewer babies die. Almost everyone has been vaccinated, and such scourges of the poor as parasites, TB, malaria, even HIV/AIDS are rare or non-existent. Anyone can see a doctor, at low cost, right in the neighborhood.

The Cuban health care system is producing a population that is as healthy as those of the world's wealthiest countries at a fraction of the cost. And now Cuba has begun exporting its system to under-served communities around the world -- including the United States. [...]

Many elements of the health care system Cuba is exporting around the world are common-sense practices. Everyone has access to doctors, nurses, specialists, and medications. There is a doctor and nurse team in every neighborhood... If someone doesn't like their neighborhood doctor, they can choose another one.

House calls are routine, in part because it's the responsibility of the doctor and nurse team to understand you and your health issues in the context of your family, home, and neighborhood. This is key to the system. By catching diseases and health hazards before they get big, the Cuban medical system can spend a little on prevention rather than a lot later on to cure diseases, stop outbreaks, or cope with long-term disabilities. [...]

For health issues beyond the capacity of the neighborhood doctor, polyclinics provide specialists, outpatient operations, physical therapy, rehabilitation, and labs. Those who need inpatient treatment can go to hospitals; at the end of their stay, their neighborhood medical team helps make the transition home.[...]

I don't know how dogs fare in Cuba, but the article did say Castro provided scholarships to 90 poor Americans with the understanding that they have to agree to go back and serve their poor communities after graduation. Why the big investment in health?

Even more revolutionary than the right to health care for all is the idea that an investment in health -- or in clean water, adequate food or housing -- could be more powerful, more effective at building security than bombers and aircraft carriers.

That concept is lost on lawmakers like Camp who continue to support the war and their corporate buddies. Building bombs and aircraft carriers is a lucrative business for private contractors in Washington. According to Jim Hightower, government contracting has grown 86% under Bush's Republican administration and now totals nearly $400 BILLION dollars a year. It's no wonder Camp believes the private sector should play a role in health care reform (and get a piece of the pie):

"Too much government-provided healthcare limits private sector opportunities. We should be expanding access in the private sector, not crowding it out."

Never mind the fact that the public gets screwed (think donut holes, Katrina, Walter Reed): Medicare Is Defrauding Seniors

In 2005 alone, taxpayers lost $2.7 billion in overpayments [while i]nsurance companies that sell Medicare Advantage plans are substantially overpaid to market their plans...

And never mind the fact that corporate America is leaning in the same direction as most Americans:

Wal-Mart Stores Inc., AT&T Inc., Intel Corp. and Kelly Services Inc. joined forces with two labor unions in calling for an overhaul of the U.S. health-care system that would guarantee universal coverage by 2012.

I suspect Wal-Mart understands the economics behind universal health care because their business approach is similar. By pooling all Americans (vendors) together in the same pool, the government (Wal-Mart) can use its massive market share to bargain down prices and advocate for their interests.

On the other hand, I suspect Congressman Camp only advocates for the interests of the insurance industries and lobbyists who stand to benefit from expanding private health care.

The General Takes a Cue from Rove

This story from Newsweek is funny:

GM Stuffs the Ballot Box! Slipping behind Toyota in sales, the giant automaker manipulates a Newsweek online survey, turning out the vote in a drive worthy of Karl Rove.

GM may have to hand over its crown to Toyota this year, but it's determined to beat its Japanese rival in at least one race: the Newsweek.com's readers poll. In an online survey accompanying a story I wrote with Allan Sloan about why Toyota is overtaking GM as the world's largest automaker, Newsweek.com asked readers this week which company they thought made a better car. On Monday, Toyota was several laps ahead of GM, by an 80-20 margin. But by Friday, GM was leading by an 83-17 margin, as the total respondents had mushroomed to 80,000 from 14,000.

Turns out GM was orchestrating a get-out-the-vote campaign that would make Karl Rove proud--something that became clear to me when a GM employee called me on Thursday, frustrated that our software wouldn't let him vote twice. (You can't). It seems that on Thursday morning, GM PR official Katie McBride had sent an e-mail blast to the company's worldwide workforce of 318,000 and 7,000 dealers, asking them to vote for GM in our poll--a highly unscientific survey, like all internet polls that invite audience participation. "It's time to stand up and tell the world we're proud of who we are, what we build and how important we are to the U.S. economy," she wrote, including a link to our website. [...]

Did GM do anything unethical? After all, internet polls are driven by reader passions, and are more a form of web entertainment than meaningful measures of public opinion. "No, I don't even find it distasteful," says Poynter Institute journalism ethics instructor Kelly McBride (no relation to Katie McBride). "It sounds like good old-fashioned politics. And it shows that GM has a lot more loyal employees, or maybe desperate employees, than we may have thought."

I don't see anything unethical about GM's actions either. Unethical would be denying what they did or trying to cover it up and that's not the case. GM's top PR spokesmen readily admitted their actions. I say kudos to GM for acting preemptively and sending their employees the link. I have no doubt Toyota would have done the same thing if they had thought of it first.