You are the competition

What's so Great about Private Health Insurance in the LA Times is a must read. All of us need reminding that in 1993 :...health insurance executives had assured Congress...they would work to secure universal medical coverage and end denials of coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

That was 1993. How'd that work out?

The reason the private insurance cabal cannot be trusted is that have proven beyond all doubt that they are not trustworthy. Not only does the "free market" system not work regarding health care - there is no health care free market system now.

This consolidation has produced functional monopolies in communities across America. The American Medical Assn. (itself no great fan of reform) found in a 2007 survey that in 76% of the country, defined as its major metropolitan statistical areas, one insurer had a share of 50% or more of the conventional insurance market. This phenomenon gives the companies enormous power to drive up premiums and maximize profits. Why do we tolerate this?

I am a cynic on this issue. I have no faith and less than no hope that Obama will affect real change in the way health care is rationed in the United States. He has fumbled this issue badly by handing it off to 635 little egos on Capitol Hill and refusing to stand firmly for any particular element. The result has left an opening for the usual clap trap about socialized medicine and granny dying because of "rationing."

(The poor are already dying because of rationing. The health insurance system is all about rationing. The natural competition to insurance companies is YOUR HEALTH. Less care for your health equals more profit for them.)

Further Obama's slothful delegation of health care reform has lead to a few "blue dogs" - who represent a tiny portion of the population and accept huge contributions from Big Insurance - being able to slow even the most obvious reform element, a public option. Which, since Big Insurance insists they provide the best health care in the world, ought not to be problem. Certainly these wizards of health care delivery can compete with a lowly government program. Fed Ex has survived socialized mail delivery for years now. Notre Dame has somehow survived the evil machinations of Indiana State.

Please note that those in congress who are holding up real reform and intend to kill it get a choice of 10 - that's right -10 health insurance plans - all on our dime. The current debate is a case study in just how comatose our democracy is. Money is power in the U.S. Not people, not votes. Money. Embedded power thwarts any movement that would limit even a tiny portion of that power.

YOUR HEALTH will remain the Big Insurance's competition after this round of "reform" ends. Your health will still be dependant on being employed and the overarching power of the insurance bureaucracy. More so, in fact. Insurance companies are busy making certain that we are mandated to buy their product. It may be illegal for you not to have their product. We are told this will be better than a public option. This, we are told, is freedom from the "tyranny" of the government.

Calling George Orwell....

Today's lies

Today President Obama told a whopper in his weekly radio address:

Now, I realize that when we passed this Recovery Act, there were those who felt that doing nothing was somehow an answer. Today, some of those same critics are already judging the effort a failure although they have yet to offer a plausible alternative.

This is an outright lie. Both Republicans and at least one Democrat in to House offered plausible alternatives at the time. None were allowed to come to the floor for a vote.

Whether the stimulus eventually "works" or not has yet to be seen. Regardless, a president of the United States glibly lying to distract and confuse should not go without a response.



Two other Obama flip flops of note:

Obama flip flops on needle exchange funding.

Greenpeace protests Obama's duplicity by putting him on Mt. Rushmore.

The point of this post is not to advocate for Obama's current or previous statements or positions. It is the point out, again, what many of us knew all along: Obama is a fraud.

Pumas - evolution or disolution?

The downside of the PUMA's becoming a one trick pony (what appears to be a mixed metaphor isn't. PUMA is an acronym not a metaphor) is potential ongoing irrelevance - the precursor being "in fighting". That is to say the anger of the Obama machine's sexism last year has yet to evolve into anything much except the recurring joy of being able to say "told ya so" every 3 to 4 days...a treat I indulge and will continue to enjoy for the duration. Opposing Obama, while a easy, fun and usually correct - and a growth sector- is hardly enough.

PUMA blogs are perfectly placed to either:

A. Forcefully commit to banking reform - where both the libertarian Right and the progressive Left actually have quite a bit in common.

B. Respond forcefully to the Obama Pod/Move On ninny's attack on the Bayh "blue dog" Senators by coordinating a campaign of visible support for budget sanity.

Why haven't they? Have I missed it?

Either a 3rd way will come from "PUMA" types or it will come from the far Right. (maybe far Left, but very doubtful. The Left has been subsumed by Obama...) PUMAs could be in the lead. As I said above: I see two places PUMAs have an opening.

Someone must organize.

On the new Blue Dogs

As I wrote earlier this week 2008 did not change my politics. However, 2009 is pushing me around a bit. I figure the best way to deal with this is to post my evolution/devolution (call it what you will.) and let the internal contradictions play in the sun for a bit and see what happens.

On the basics I remain a liberal. For Single Payer, for choice (though now think Roe v Wade should go.) for equal rights for gay Americans, think Krugman was/is right all along on the economy. For an independent Palestinian state. For most drug legalization.

Further - when all is said and done I am not a true libertarian - However, I do think libertarian blow back against Obama's overreach is healthy. And, frankly, American. My hope is that the coming libertarian movement (and I think one is coming) will not be usurped by the Newt's Conservatives.

On the economy it is time to realize that Krugman is not in charge. What we have is Obama's plans which, given how they will be paid for, should cause suspicion. The combination of pro-finance bailouts with auto sector intrusion (Obama now holds the GM bag.) is a moment to behold. The opposite should be happening under a Democratic administration.

Which brings me to the self proclaimed moderates and has left me wondering if I am one myself. Rail against Obama as I did all year - for all the right reasons in my book- I did hold out hope in January that the stimulus would make sense and help. It did not make sense and I suspect it won't help. The much more Lefty BHO budget blue print was intriguing, baffling and laughable. Mostly because through out February Obama kept repeating with a straight face that he would cut the deficit. Which made his budget bullet points surreal. Uppity's run down on the new Blue Dog caucus in the Senate signals that a real blow back is occurring.

I generally do not like excessively powerful executives and do not trust clamoring for "bipartisanship". When this comes from a unitary executive (And Obama is proving himself to be one. He has not given back much, if any, of the power Bush/Cheney seized. ) calls for bipartisanship mean "Do as I say and put a smile on your face, damn it!" We now know that BHO's version of "bipartisan" is to call out the GOP for questioning him.

The American system is designed to be messy for good reason. On a practical, but not ideological, level I was heartened by the fierce GOP resurrection 2 months ago. And, as I said Monday, if the doomers are correct and the economy is set to crash and burn vocal libertarians are needed to check all but certain impulses toward authoritarian statism. We are not immune.

What we can't tolerate is a President who is unchecked. So a caucus of moderate Democrats vetting the budget is a hopeful sign. Whether I agree with them or not (and I suspect I do more than I know.) is beside the point. I want a health care system that is moving toward single payer. But more than that I want single payer proponents to make the case. I want Cap and Trade vetted for the public. I want Senators demanding to know where the money is coming from for everything. A repeat of the stimulus fiasco in which not one legislator read the bill cannot be tolerated. This, like few other instances of D.C. nonsense, should be taken personally by citizens. It was an insult and a dereliction of duty.

Obama's vision is not mine. Chicago writ large is not the liberalism I signed up for many moons ago. I am deeply suspicious of his every move because he's earned my suspicion. This is not to say I won't find myself in agreement with BHO on some issues as things unfold. But he must be treated - as all Presidents should be - with suspicion.

So three cheers for the Blue Dogs. Question everything.