« Why the Critics of a Public Option for Health Care Are Wrong | Robert Reich's Blog | When Will The Recovery Begin? Never. »
"What Can I Do?"
Someone recently approached me at the cheese counter of a local supermarket, asking "what can I do?" At first I thought the person was seeking advice about a choice of cheese. But I soon realized the question was larger than that. It was: what can I do about the way things are going in Washington?
People who voted for Barack Obama tend to fall into one of two camps: Trusters, who believe he's a good man with the right values and he's doing everything he can; and cynics, who have become disillusioned with his bailouts of Wall Street, flimsy proposals for taming the Street, willingness to give away 85 percent of cap-and-trade pollution permits, seeming reversals on eavesdropping and torture, and squishiness on a public option for health care.
In my view, both positions are wrong. A new president -- even one as talented and well-motivated as Obama -- can't get a thing done in Washington unless the public is actively behind him. As FDR said in the reelection campaign of 1936 when a lady insisted that if she were to vote for him he must commit to a long list of objectives, "Maam, I want to do those things, but you must make me."
We must make Obama do the right things. Email, write, and phone the White House. Do the same with your members of Congress. Round up others to do so. Also: Find friends and family members in red states who agree with you, and get them fired up to do the same. For example, if you happen to have a good friend or family member in Montana, you might ask him or her to write Max Baucus and tell him they want a public option included in any healthcare bill.
(I'm back here July 10.)
People who voted for Barack Obama tend to fall into one of two camps: Trusters, who believe he's a good man with the right values and he's doing everything he can; and cynics, who have become disillusioned with his bailouts of Wall Street, flimsy proposals for taming the Street, willingness to give away 85 percent of cap-and-trade pollution permits, seeming reversals on eavesdropping and torture, and squishiness on a public option for health care.
In my view, both positions are wrong. A new president -- even one as talented and well-motivated as Obama -- can't get a thing done in Washington unless the public is actively behind him. As FDR said in the reelection campaign of 1936 when a lady insisted that if she were to vote for him he must commit to a long list of objectives, "Maam, I want to do those things, but you must make me."
We must make Obama do the right things. Email, write, and phone the White House. Do the same with your members of Congress. Round up others to do so. Also: Find friends and family members in red states who agree with you, and get them fired up to do the same. For example, if you happen to have a good friend or family member in Montana, you might ask him or her to write Max Baucus and tell him they want a public option included in any healthcare bill.
(I'm back here July 10.)
Advertisement
A new president -- even one as talented and well-motivated as Obama -- can't get a thing done in Washington unless the public is actively behind him.
Well, this is exactly right. But I do think Obama deserves some criticism for forgetting this fact. Obama has not worked hard enough to build a popular movement, and has instead relied too much on forging a pragmatic compromise among the stakeholders in the existing system. That will never work. There is no way to cut the costs of health care dramatically without making some stakeholders poorer. That's just the way it is.
Obama hasn't listened enough to people. Instead, his so-called "bottom up" approach amounts only to an organizational effort. He sends some emails and says, "Hey, help support my awesome plan!"
Obama is a reasonable and public-spirited man. Unfortunately, he thinks other people in Washington are as reasonable and public spirited as he is. Forget it!
He needs to discover some kind of populist power and stop being such an Ivy League policy egghead. (No offense Dr. Reich!)
Now, I'll be happy to write my members of Congress. But what should my letter say? What kind of hardball can ordinary people play when faced with a team of stakeholders.
June 25, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"That's just the way it is"
Zero sum game, in effect? Even if true, that doesn't rule out building a significant consensus among the vague groups you call "stakeholders", and using the power of that limited consensus to take on the power of some of the stakeholders, in a Constitutional fashion. Obama did make lip-service about reducing the impact of lobbyists. Some criticism of his public efforts so far has been justified, some not.
Your letter could remind him about the evils of lobbyists and encourage him to reaffirm his position on this. Reduce their power to let the voices of the people be better heard.
Let's also not confuse economic wealth/income with political power, when talking about making some people poorer.
June 25, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
WE HAVE A WINNER!!!
Robert Reich is the 1,000,000th stooge for Obama who has quoted this stupid quote...
"Maam, I want to do those things, but you must make me."
It isn't Obama's fault!
It's some old lady in fucking Peoria!
She didn't make him do it!
What a bad, bad, bad old lady she must be!
"Make me do it!"
"I'm just the President of the United States!"
You are a little old lady in fucking Peoria!"
"It's all your fault!
Harharharhar!!!
June 26, 2009 1:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's also not confuse economic wealth/income with political power, when talking about making some people poorer.
They're pretty much the same thing eds.
And no, it's not a zero sum game. But parts of the political culture appear to be in a great deal of denial about some elementary economic realities. It seems to be agreed all around that medical care is too expensive, and that meeting the goal of insuring everybody requires cutting health care costs. But anywhere there is an expense that can be cut or eliminated, there are some people receiving money, and cutting our health care costs means reducing the flow of money to those people. If we cut the costs of prescription drugs, then we cut the revenues received by drug companies. If we replace expensive diagnostic testing with less expensive diagnostic testing, then we decrease the revenues received by the people running the current tests and manufacturing the technologies they employ. If a revolution in preventive care substantially decreases the demand for expensive surgeries and remedial care later, then we are going to put some of the excess surgeons and remedial caregivers out of business. That's the point.
I didn't invent the term "stakeholders". It is being used everywhere in this debate, often in ways that suggest the person using it thinks that we can magically drive down the costs of health care while at the same time leaving everyone who is soaking up all that revenue just as well-off as before.
June 26, 2009 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great comments - I wish I had said all of that!
June 26, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto. Trimming the fat means that someone is getting leaner.
June 26, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it means the economy is getting leaner but that doesn't necessarily translate into more unemployment.
It could translate into shifts in waste and shifts in economic and other value systems.
June 27, 2009 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which means that someone is getting leaner in some way, shape or form.
June 28, 2009 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
The economy is not a "someone" and in fact it is possible to slim down an economy without any individuals in the economy having fat trimmed.
You're confusing individual effects with ensemble effects, micros with macro. The system itself can lose fat independent of the per capita fat content of the people in it. Of course an economy generally includes people who are gaining or losing fat for other reasons so you have to look beyond such distractions.
In a bounded economy health care is provided by finite persons in the economy for finite individuals in the economy (corporations are not health care consumers as people are, they are at most intermediaries and are not 'someones' either).
June 28, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
There you go splitting hairs again with no goal other than to confuse the issue.
Corporation are most certainly "someones" under our laws. They also are comprised of individuals who will be affected by efficiency measures meant to make health care cost less and provide more value for that money. Further, some companies may go out of business altogether because their business model relies on the ability to kick people off their plans whenever they get sick or exclude them from coverage for pre-existing conditions. I suspect that with even minimal regulation of health insurance, these companies will become non-profit as the only way to compete with a public plan. Perhaps even out-compete a public plan.
The reason health care isn't already realizing the benefits of its advancements is because the insurance industry is fucking up the equation.
June 28, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
More mirror for you:
"There you go splitting hairs again with no goal other than to confuse the issue. "
Unsupported dogma already disposed of:
"The reason health care isn't already realizing the benefits of its advancements is because the insurance industry is fucking up the equation."
June 28, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is the consensus of just about every expert in the field. You disposed of nothing but your willingness to debate with intellectual honesty, if in fact that was something you ever possessed.
June 28, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
More unsupported allegation from jason, along with no reasoned reply to arguments put forth showing how insurance "overhead" alone doesn't begin to cover the alleged price increases.
June 29, 2009 4:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
More unsupported allegations by eds. Irresponsible health consumers alone doesn't account for the increase.
June 29, 2009 6:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
"irresponsible" is your word, but the point is that 30% overhead doesn't begin to account for factual doublings in costs, so you have to show other bases. OTOH, if consumers stopped buying overpriced stuff, the prices would fall or the market in overpriced stuff would dry up. Really simple, jason.
June 29, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since we are talking about consumers who can't consumer without permission, you are still blaming the victim. It's not just their overhead costs that increases the cost of health care. It is denying care early, only to have it be way more expensive later. It is a whole host of issues which you refuse to acknowledge in your haste to turn this into a "free" market issue. It isn't a free market issue.
It is an issue of an entire industry built on rotten foundations. We may need to strengthen the existing system because it is too late to start from scratch, but giving the main instigators of that rot a free pass is, once again, intellectually dishonest. You must have stock in health insurance companies, because I have yet to see a single rational defense of their shady and corrupt practices.
Are you sure you aren't a neocon? You sound just like them sometimes.
June 30, 2009 6:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was reading "stakeholder" as a political reference to people trying to maneuver Congress such as lobbyists representing pharma, AMA, etc.
When a Good is too expensive, prudent people stop buying it even if it means a value-system shift (like a paradigm shift). So you have a paradox if not an outright contradiction in your view.
Otherwise you are voicing something I've been pointing out for quite some time in other areas too, there is a conflict between "the health of the economy" and "the health of people in the society". If some people cut back on spending, the people who have been living on (in the loose sense) our spending will have to cut back or will have to find new consumers.
In health care, if we cut out the fat in alleged insurance company overhead, those cash flows can be redirected to providing added health care services, thus keeping the net economy more or less intact except for temporary dislocations and marginal profit margin shifts. Paper pushers in insurance get jobs in the fundamentals. Investors in private insurance companies are okay because the slimmer private insurance isn't as wasteful.
Of course that's only one narrow slice. And obviously there isn't necessarily a requirement to keep any private business IN business, so if some private businesses fail, that's just the marketplace.
But explain about how zero sum is not a pretty good understanding, please. Other than imaginary values, the realities seem to dictate something like conservation of energy here.
June 27, 2009 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
eds, the people referred to as "stakeholders" in the current debate are all of the people who are currently getting any kind of piece of the action in our health care system: doctors, HMO executives, insurance company claims adjusters, medical equipment suppliers, phramaceutical manufacturers, pharmacists, EMTs, accountants, ambulance drivers, paper pushers, etc., etc., etc. The economic interests of those people consist in, at the least, not losing their jobs or income. And like everyone else, they hope to make even more money.
But any systematic change in our health care system that brings down the aggregate cost of health care, and thus has the result that as a society we spend less money on it, is going to have the result that less money goes to some stakeholders somewhere. Every expenditure of money is an exchange between people. Even if all we did is eliminate some paperwork so that some forms are only needed in duplicate rather than triplicate, that will mean we order less paper, and the folks who supply paper to the health care industry will he hurt. But hopefully we can achieve even more substantial savings than that.
Here's why that fact of life is not the same thing as saying that these economic exhanges and decisions are "zero-sum". when resources are shifted from one kind of expenditure to another kind of expenditure, the ultimate traedeoff is not necessarily 1 to 1. The new expenditures may be more productive than the old expenditures. If we take funds that are currently going into unproductive and wasteful areas with low economic multiplers and put them into areas with high economic multipliers. If we spend less money overall on health care and put some of that money into other sectors, some of the health care stakeholders will suffer. But people in other sectors will benefit. And due to difference in the productivity of the expenditures, some of the benefits derived from those other sectors may be much greater than the losses incurred by the health care stakeholders. So it is not a zero-sum system.
Consider a company that decides they are spending way too much on shipping, and decides to do something about it. Typically that means that some people in shipping are let go, or given fewer hours, or replaced with people who pull down lower salaries. Or at least some truck drivers, dxelivery copmpanies or suppliers are paid less. Every expense is a purchase of some kind from someone. The company's shipping operation has certain stakeholders, and some of those stakeholders will suffer. However, the company makes these changes for a reason, to increase overall profitability. The money they save from shipping will be invested in other departments where, so the executives's reasoning goes, it will be more productive. That means that the loss of income to the stakehholders in the shipping department will be more than offset by more income elsewhere.
In my view, we are wasting a lot of money as a society on an inefficient and byzantine health care system, in part because we are failing to take advantage of of our collective purchasing power to drive down prices by driving a hard collective bargain. Another of the problem is that the business-based health insurance system, where most people are insured by group plans provided through their employers, ends up anchoring employees to firms in ways that are not economically efficient at the social level.
June 28, 2009 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is a pretty good answer but why don't you list consumers as stakeholders? Leaving us out means treating us like sheep to be sheared, but we nominally get benefits too, in fact most people seem to want more benefits.
Even if private insurance is "wasting" 25% of total health care costs being handled by it, that fraction doesn't begin to account for the alleged huge increases (doubling in CA in under a decade). It was probably about 25% in 2000 if it's about 25% now.
So "private insurance" seems to be a whipping boy for a lot of folks who don't want to talk about fundamental values and problems in other areas of the larger picture.
I don't know about economic multipliers here. I was suspicious of them in re the Stimulus bill and as suspicious here (moreso actually). I agree that one can burn money and that one can invest it with more risk or less risk. And I know that people can work more productively or less so, and that technology can increase individual productivity at the cost of the jobs of others. And of course the split between labor and capital is variable.
"the ultimate tra[d]eoff is not necessarily 1 to 1"
If money is conserved, how does routing it differently create more of it? Sure *debt* can circulate and vary (we had a debt bubble), imaginary wealth can be created (market capitalizations for instance), and risky loans can be, or could have been, made. There's a feeling of handwaving here.
I'm not saying we would not be better off without private insurance, I'm not sure of it either way. I do agree that individual policyholder is better served by a more efficient insurance company (other factors held constant), as it the investor who underwrites the insurance (given genuine competition). There is a point at which efficiency isn't the highest good and I'm struggling to conceptualize that in this scenario.
June 28, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
If money is conserved, how does routing it differently create more of it?
Eds, I'm not sure I know exactly what you are asking, but there is no money "conservation" law in a normal economy. The money supply is allowed to rise in response to wealth creation.
Most of the returns people receive on their investments don't come from Ponzi investments a la Madoff, although we obviously had a lot of that going on during the Bush years. Most of the returns come from investments in real economic production. That production is funded by capital. The same amount of capital can generate more wealth if used for some forms of production rather than others.
June 29, 2009 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
ME - Let's also not confuse economic wealth/income with political power, when talking about making some people poorer.
Dan - They're pretty much the same thing eds.
No, they are very different both in principle and in fact. Sure, sometimes money buys a vote even though it's illegal. And yes, businesses don't vote but they do exert pressure on politicians and voters. The point is that "stakeholder" is a vague buzzword here.
You wondered aloud what to say in your letter. I replied in re that.
June 27, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan said:
Isn't that what you need to be writing to him about, then, Dan? After all, he said during the election that he wanted and expected people to hold his feet to the fire; I don't see why this issue is any different.
June 26, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but in this case it's really Congress and the National Democratic Party that needs the pressure.
June 26, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're probably right, Dan, and personally I've focused on writing Congress so far. But Robert Reich's post and yours make me think that from now on when we write our legislators or the DNC we should be copying Obama. That way he can better know what kind of support he has for pressuring Congress.
I'm sorta hoping that Obama's dispatched Emanuel to work behind the scenes, knocking Congressional heads over the public option in healthcare issue.
June 26, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've done everything you suggested Mr. Reich and I do trust him - more than his critics because he has proven himself where they haven't.
Now here come the usual comments............
June 25, 2009 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, what can you do. I mean we are so screwed it is impossible to use civil language to describe it. According to the following Kerry is suggesting a TEN YEAR TRIGGER on the public option! What is this!! What's next - a TEN YEAR WAIT for HEALTHCARE? You could not make this stuff up (though I suppose Huff Post might). How can you take any of them seriously as anyting other than a bunch of millionaire and billionaire plutocrats? A TEN YEAR trigger is fine for Senator Billionaire. Do you believe this? I campaigned for this turkey. I door knocked for this turkey.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/25/kerry-pushes-for-public-o_n_220822.html
"Under the plan floated by Kerry, a public health care option would only be triggered by private insurance companies failing to meet certain criteria after ten years."
June 25, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The ten year trigger is fine for the old rich fart. Also the Kennedy plan exempts the satraps of congress from having to be part of a public plan. They can keep their Cadillac Plan and we get the moped plan someday.
When do we take to the streets? Come on Sheeple.
June 25, 2009 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I so hate that they're defending their own rights to the congressional plan. That alone undermines the whole public health argument -- if our congressman won't use the public plan, then the public plan isn't good enough.
But no public plan should be any less generous than the congressional plan. If it is, it's a riposs.
June 25, 2009 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Taking to the streets is exactly what has to be done. If we are serious about wanting health care to be considered a right, not something to be purchased if and when you have enough money, then we need to express our outrage over the foot dragging in the Senate. Let the Iranians be our guide. They knew what had to be done, and they are doing it at a huge cost to themselves. I admire them.
June 26, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's rich isn't it? By the time it kicks in a good portion of the baby boomers will already be dead, probably including Kerry himself! What a load of bullshit!
June 25, 2009 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
As someone who is both a truster and a cynic (sometimes even at the same time in the same way), I appreciate that you offered the clear distinction here.
"Obama -- can't get a thing done in Washington unless the public is actively behind him"
Getting things done in DC doesn't require public backing for the Pres., but public backing can help (and vocal public opposition can be ignored too).
It's true that those who care should not slack off by falling into the quicksand of either the disbeliever or the believer.
June 25, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dr. Reich,
I am an Obama loyalist but have always been a cynic - it is my nature. You vote for change and you get "status quo ante." In the case of President Obama's administration, they are relying much on previous policies of the Bush era - some which remain controversial.
On the health care issue however, President Obama and the Democrats must not compromise. 72 per cent of the American people want an affordable public health care system. Further, Democrats control two important branches of government: Congress and the Executive branch, but may also have the opportunity to break the tie in the Supreme court. Thus, the nation is at a crossroads in history, the planets are aligned and we must not squander the opportunity.
But as you suggest, we must all do our part to make our goernment work for us. Yet, constituents who placed President Obama in the White House also expect him to stand resolute on this very important health care issue.
Joseph Chez
June 25, 2009 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joseph,
Do you really wonder what effects we can have on Obama? Consider the conditions he is operating in.
The government bureaucracy operates the way the law is written and was previously implemented. The President can only change that by decree around the edges (by Executive Order.) Making changes to those procedures and processes is a slow, painstaking process no matter what it might look like or what politicians promise. That's what protected most of America from the great mischief that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld conducted for as long as it did.
Only those things that are high priority get changed. That is true for both good and bad changes. If the President doesn't put the spotlight on a change they want and hold the light there, the change does not happen. By law, tradition, and operational necessity the bureaucracy will revert to the previous methods unless continually pressured. Routine always predominates in EVERY large bureaucracy, public or private. Since the President and his staff have limited time, energy and expertise to expend on making those changes only the highest priority items get their attention.
The job of making changes is most difficult for the federal government. The federal government is the largest bureaucracy there is. That's why big organizations are not as innovative as smaller ones are.
That inertia in bureaucracy is what protected most of America from the great mischief that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld wanted and conducted for as long as they did. But they had eight years to conduct their mischief, so they were able to do a lot of damage. Besides, starting a war is something that could be done rather quickly by the President. Note that the media focuses on the changes. The things that stay the same aren't reported on, so all we in the public learn of are the changes and sometimes the big failures. That makes the operations of the President seem a lot more dynamic than they really are.
What's that mean to Obama and the many things we want from him? Don't forget that Obama was handed two badly prosecuted wars and a level of economic collapse unforeseen this time last year to deal with. Those HAVE to be his top priorities right now, followed by getting health care passed. He doesn't really have a lot of leeway to take care of items of lesser priority to the nation as a whole.
So what can we do to get Obama to change things? We have to flood his office with demands that the change be made. That way we get to change the priorities of the Office of the Presidency. That's what Bob meant when he quoted FDR saying "Maam, I want to do those things, but you must make me." If we don't change Obama's priorities, then lobbyists, his kitchen cabinet and other politicians will.
June 26, 2009 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Like Joseph, I'm also a loyalist, believing compromise is not an option! What good is a bipartisan decision that leaves us no better off than we are now. We know we are on the right side of history.
Since writing the Whitehouse & Congress daily the polls have steadily changed in our favor. the more people that particpate the better. The power of people can only help. It certainly got us a Democratic President at long last. It will take all of us, we have so much to lose if the American people don't help, Obama has told us over & over none of this is easy, he needs our help.
June 27, 2009 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget to add to the list that Obama is escalating the war in Afghanistan significantly with no end in sight and that there will be no end of the Iraq War while Obama is President or that he is continuing the Republican policy of bankrupting the nation with annual "defense" aka "War" budgets of $650 Billion which is more than all the other countries on earth combined.
Come to think of it, that might just make a few people cyncial huh?
June 25, 2009 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure if we just explain to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda that we don't want to spend so much money on the military budget, that they would be understanding and agree not to strengthen their power in Afghanistan or take over Pakistan to secure nuclear weapons for the purpose of using them against the citizens of the U.S. I don't know why President Obama just can't see this with your simplicity.
June 26, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
As FDR said . . . .
"O may aspire to FDR’s greatness and legacy, but it is wildly obvious that when it comes to either economics or financial regulations, O is no FDR." Barry Ritholtz author of Bailout Nation
June 25, 2009 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for giving us the Big Picture. (o;
June 26, 2009 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I very much appreciate your posts, Dr. Reich, especially of late on HC. But I really don't understand the assumption here that the President doesn't already have overwhelming public support for reforms. His approval ratings have alternated between under 60 to 65% or higher. Those are top marks that have only faded when he has veered or neglected programs and issues he was elected to change. But on HC, support has held steady between 70 and almost 80% for a public option or single-payer, which is about as solid a public coalition as you’ll come by.
To repeat, that's 85% of the public in favor of overhauling HC. You’ve been in public service for a long time, Dr. Reich. Can you recall any issues more contentious on Capital Hill but more agreed upon out here in the real world? Have you ever seen 85% agreement on a complete overhaul of anything? Maybe there is a difference in the way public support is voiced. Perhaps you mean that instead of writing our representatives maybe we need to be squeakier wheels, take to the streets, demonstrate, civil disobedience, or what?
I know that there are sad, tragic examples of our failed HC system everyday. There is no dearth of heartbreaking stories that demand we do the right thing by working America. They also make for good TV as verified by our "news shows" like Dateline that constantly focus on intimate and tragic human interest stories. But we don't see these stories much.
I think vast public support is there and it is vocal (though not always publicized as it should be in our traditional press). A public mandate for a public option is known in DC, but it is, quite simply, being totally ignored by the dealmakers. They are going through the motions of a rigged debate to ultimately come up with the thinly disguised status quo "compromise" that was decided on long ago. Am I cynical? Damn straight.
June 25, 2009 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is a normal executive and merely human. He has limited attention and energy to give and one Hell of a lot to do. He will tend to give his priority actions to those items that he is informed should have the highest priority. Changing his priorities means more than just polls. Polls are passive. They have relatively little effect on executive priorities. To change those priorities means high energy activism. We have to really care and we to act like it.
If we don't kick in with the needed high energy activism we will deserve the crap that results because the lobbyists, politicians, corporations and wealthy individuals (mostly conservative) will.
Letters. Phone calls. Money to action groups. Even demonstrations (that get media attention.) All of these will effect Obama's priorities. If the public doesn't demonstrate the public interest, he will have to act as others who actually do those things and get his ear want. Like the Health insurers, the drug companies and their hired politicians.
June 26, 2009 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok who wants to have a good Old Fashioned 60's march on Washington? July 30th in DC.
http://www.healthcare-now.org/campaigns/single-payer-rally/
ROAD TRIP!!!! :)
June 26, 2009 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Already here, but I am down with a march.
June 26, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
A march is a great idea, It might just make the difference. Something has to wake up these naysayers!
June 27, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate to be a wet blanket, but there was a big march on Washington for Healthcare this past Thursday. Did you hear anything about it, either before or after?
They made mention of it Friday night on the Newshour (PBS). Otherwise, I don't think it got any coverage anywhere. (Of course, Michael Jackson died, so that was bad luck...)
Last Thursday's march was organized by HCAN (or HCAN't, as some supporters of single-payer call it). Here's their site:
http://www.healthcareforamericanow.org/
HCAN says they had 10,000 people. PBS said "hundreds rallied".
I like this other group (healthcare-now.org) better (the group marching July 30th), because they explicitly support the single-payer bill. But I don't think their march will change much either. It takes thousands (maybe millions) in the streets to get anybody's attention anymore. And I don't think most people are all that motivated yet.
-- ARG
June 27, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn straight Don Key. Obama has all the public support he needs, and then some. And members of Congress are not worried about opposition to reform from the public. They are worried about the health care industry and health care special interests and power brokers who own their asses.
Listen to how shameless and brazen their appeal is: "If there is a public option then we will have to compete with it, and that in turn means we will have to offer our customers better service for less money." Boo hoo! But do you hear our Senators say, "Well that's tough. But getting my constituents more for less is what my job is all about?" No, instead they are fretting about making sure that nothing significant changes for the current stakeholders as a result of health care legislation.
The private sector has been telling us for years that the reason they should do everything is because they are so damn efficient compared to the public sector. But now they tell us that it is unfair that they should have to compete with the public sector? Why? Because the public sector can do some things more efficiently?
Democrats are still terrified of being branded as socialists. They need to get over it. You can't overhaul health care and get anything close to what the public is demanding without socializing something or other.
June 26, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I did this evening -
I was right in the middle of reading a letter from Evan Bayh to his constituent declaring that heathcare should be available to as many Americans AS POSSIBLE while expressing his satisfaction with the current system. I was getting ready for a good rant on the reality that having about 50 million Americans without healthcare coverage and 20K or so deaths a year is about all that Senator Bayh believes is POSSIBLE for the world's leading superpower capable of conducting multiple wars on multiple continents for muliple worthless excuses. I mean what is the life of an American at home worth when you consider the alternative use of funds for waging gloriously futile wars abroad?
The phone rings. It is the Democratic Party. What do you think the Democratic Party wants? MONEY. I told the caller that it would not be POSSIBLE for me to give the Democratic Party another dime until it delivered on universal healthcare.
Fortunately, they call often. I suggest this to others. When they call asking for money tell them no but make them listen to you tell them why. I find the person calling is generally quite willing to listen to why you will not give them money.
June 25, 2009 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
This works on the "please send us money" crap that comes in the mail as well. As for on-line responses to pleas --- not so much.
I responded to a request I received today that a) I was not giving $ [for just the reasons you stated]; and b) I was pissed that, while said Congressperson had been -- and continues to be -- oh so willing to solicit my $$$$, he limited incoming messages on his web site to those possessing a zip code within his distreict. He was not so pure when soliciting cash.
The DSCC, DCCC and DNC have all programed their messages so that you can't reply -- other than to "donate." But with a little work you can find an address to which you can send them an explanation of your reluctance.
June 26, 2009 4:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not particularly enamored of any politician; they are a dirty, objectionable lot.
But posts like these always devolve into Obama critics vs Obama fans. (There is nothing inherently terrible about either camp, though i tend to find myself in the former). Whatever Obama is, he is: we can object to it or not.
Regardless, what we need to be doing is fighting tooth and nail for what we want. It isn't about Obama; it's about getting things fixed.
Most of us here are putting quite a lot of effort into bringing about these changes through various means. We all still have an opinion about Obama, but i'd like to make sure the important issues aren't lost.
(Though the platitudes may still be galling).
June 26, 2009 4:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hate to say it, but I feel this is going to be Obama's first big loss as president. It's hard not get discouraged as an "ordinary citizen," since we're up against insane amounts of power and influence. I'm sorry, but Bill Maher is right. The Democrats are the new Republicans. Get a spine! The Repubs just need to mention socialism and everyone gets paranoid. No one seems to point out the "socialized" police force or the "socialized" firefighters. How about "socialized" road construction and bridges? I haven't seen a whole lot of Repubs trash their taxpayer funded health care either. Give me a break. Obama needs to set up a prime time address on all the major networks and let the public have it. He needs to deliver the speech of his life. Otherwise, we are all going to be hurting.
June 26, 2009 4:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Partisan-L's are a gullible lot; and that's a lot like Partisan-R's. Imagine that, Platformers Gone Polar.
June 26, 2009 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have heard former Bush-haters making unfavorable comparisons between Obama and Bush. As in, Bush at least clearly laid down what he wanted and promised to veto anything that fell short. Had Obama laid down a similar marker on the public option, and told Congress they would have to answer to voters if they failed to deliver, the parameters of the debate would be very different today.
I stopped believing that Obama knew what he was doing when dealing with Congress after the stimulus package. The idea that he deliberately undersized it, expecting Congress to inflate it, is just pathetic. This is someone who has no clue about business negotiations.
He will not be remembered as a great President. And I say that with a great deal of sadness, because of what could have been.
June 26, 2009 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
What CAN I do? SERIOUSLY Robert! I really want to know. Because your answer doesn't work.
I used to believe in calling and writing my republican congressmen to get them to change things. I don't any more. During the height of the Iraq war, I hand wrote letters to each U.S. senator and congressman every single day (except Sunday) for 5 months. Well over 400 letters. Every day. And probably 100 phone calls.
And you know what I got? Nothing. A handful (maybe 10?) boilerplate reply letters that promised nothing. And every time I called, a simple "okay." And every vote went unchanged.
I doubt any of my letters even got to the elected official; probably all were opened by staff and simply tossed. I doubt my calls did anything but put a "tick mark" on some ledger.
So I don't write, and I don't call any more. It's a waste of my time and money. There must be another way, I just don't know what it is.
It seems that the only time Congress acts is if the media manages to do their job, which is pretty rare. Maybe instead of writing my congressmen, I need to write my journalist.
June 26, 2009 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, this is why I blog. People say it is pointless and no one listens. But they can't listen LESS than the people in Washington who as a taxpayer I am paying to represent me. If 10 people read what I say here, it's 10 more than would read a letter from me.
Plus, I think people need the reinforcement to know that they aren't alone in feeling disenfranchised and unrepresented. I believe we need another way to have organized influence. I don't know that another party is the answer but a more formal progressive faction in the party may be.
June 26, 2009 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Write your letters to the editor(s) of any/all local newspapers. That will give you more bang for your buck. You can CC you congresscritters, if you want. But if any of your letters get published, you can be sure the office holders will read them.
-- ARG
June 26, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
People must understand. Bill Clinton said it himself, all Presidents try to do what they campaigned on. Obama can't wave a magic wand and get things done, we have Dems in Congress beholden to Insurance Industries and that totally disgusts me we must get the message across "you vote against a public option, WE WILL PRIMARY YOU AND WE WILL VOTE FOR YOUR OPPONENT."
June 26, 2009 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
A typical Senator, let's call this senator Feinstein, for example, owns great wealth, largely in the form of investments in businesses. A decision they make that might reduce the income of those businesses might cost them a million dollars or more. If I refuse to donate a dime to this senator, it has cost them about $500 maximum. So, is it hard to believe that my threats to stop donating arouse only laughter?
Now, suppose 5 million of us descend on Washington DC, a mob so big it is visible to the Space Station. Let's also suppose that the Capitol Police, as police usually do, lose their cool and riot, resulting in the deaths of a hundred or so of the mob. This will not arouse any laughter among our Senators. And this is the power of non-violent protests.
June 26, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Iranians were talking about a non-violent general strike. That's always a possibility.
June 26, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we want to defeat the lobbyists then the masses must be heard over them. There needs to be rallies in every city. There needs to be a huge rally in D.C. That's a right that we seldom use anymore and that's why the lobbyists/corporations win. We're too dang quiet.
Obama never said "elect me and I'll deliver change." He made it clear that it would take commitment and work from all of us to achieve change in D.C. We have to get in the battle. If you choose to sit on the sidelines, then don't complain when you don't like the results.
So I will donate money for ads and fliers, call my representatives, talk to my family, friends and coworkers, plan/attend meetings and rallies. If we lose, then at least I will know I joined the fight against the corporations and interests who plan to defeat this again.
June 26, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post and exactly right.
We need engagement and to press for our agenda. Look, the lobbyists aren't letting up. Neither should we.
p.s. Don't forget to also keep pressing our view to the media either!
June 26, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some of you on this site have thrown in the hat way too early. It's like watching an NBA game where one team walks out or gives up in the first quarter because they haven't scored yet. Even a team down by 12 points in the last few seconds plays as if they could still win. It's astonishing that Obama's presidency is being called a failure already - he's no FDR - No kidding! FDR wasn't even FDR when he was President. These people we call great don't get recognized until long after they are dead and long after their time in office. FDR can be judged because enough time has passed to see the results of his policies. We are also able to judge Bush's, but the same cannot be said of Obama in his first 6 months.
He's not perfect. He will make good and bad decisions. There will be mistakes and missteps. Some of his policies will have unintended consequences and at different moments of his term, he will disappoint and anger a lot of people. This is true of all politicians and everyone in our lives and to expect anything more than that is unrealistic.
June 26, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The trouble is, Obama really warned us about staying involved -- much more involved and active than we're being at present. In fact, I've been a little startled by the low ratio of action to words post-Inaugural. As Don Key points out above, a huge percentage wants reformed healthcare. But wait! is the same percentage -- or even half that -- making its concerns known to anyone but the anonymous pollster?
As one smart person on maybe the Diane Rehm show said the other day, there many differences between what Obama said on the campaign trail and how we perceived him. Many read into this guy "solid progressive" and went into a swoon over their imagined candidate, having made up their minds about who he would be as a president without listening closely to him. Others seemed to be more perceptive and more attentive to what Obama actually said. They're the ones who figure a) he's a real mixture of progressive and conservative, and b) he's an institutionalist by nature. Probably better not to blame him for our somewhat romantic view of him during the campaign.
Those who are deeply engaged are urging us to remember that emails and phone calls aren't enough. Too cheap and easy. Snail mail is more effective, more apt to get read, they say. Handwritten makes a greater impression. As far as Congress goes (and they're the real culprits) still more effective is showing up -- at your rep's or senators' regional offices. Most effective is showing up there by appointment with a small group of others who feel the same way and who are informed and rehearsed and articulate and courteously succinct about a specific issue.
Be grateful, they say, when as much as 1/3 of what you hoped for gets done. It's not going to get much better until we work together effectively to change Congress and campaign finance -- America's own Augean stables.
Big pooper scoopers needed for 2010. Oh, and I'd settle for removing "personhood" from corporations. Just a small request.
June 27, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Professor Reich, you are too young. I can remember, even as a child, being impressed by Harry Truman's campaign in 1948. His favorite line was, "and help me by getting rid of the know-nothing, do-nothing members of the ___th congress!" We've still got a Senate that is in Know-nothing, do-nothing mode and our President refuses (on the grounds of graciousness, yet)to call them out on it. Forget Roosevelt, he had a congress begging for programs. Always quote a fighter when referring to Obama. We may make one out of him yet!
June 28, 2009 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Obama started backing the banking industry he stopped protecting me from THEM.
When Obama started compromising with the insurance companies, he threw ME under the Bus.
The only time you’ll get the sense these jokers really care for the little guy, is when they need your vote. Otherwise WE THE PEOPLE, are a PITA.
It is all about the Bankers, and that Government of the Wealth and privileged class, by the people of the Wealth and privileged class, for the people of the Wealth and privileged class., shall not perish from the earth”
http://www.nps.gov/history/logcabin/html/tr3.html
"As President, Roosevelt saw himself a representative of all the people, including farmers, laborers, white collar workers, and businessmen. Roosevelt therefore was focused on bringing big business under stronger regulation so that he could effectively serve all the people he represented. ……… Earlier Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890 to maintain economic liberty, and to eliminate restraints on trade and competition. This act came into play during Roosevelt's trust busting activities.“
I have watched as the white-collar bankers got billions, while the blue-collar worker got pink slips.
The last Election was class warfare, despite attempts to soften the message; the imagined General of the movement was unwilling to cut the enemies supply lines.
MGen George B. McClellan was credited a superb organizer of troops, and was beloved by the men of the Federal Army of the Potomac, but he seemed to lack the "killer instinct" needed to destroy the enemy.
I am afraid Obama doesn’t appreciate who the enemy is.
“It was the peoples fault, they took out loans they couldn’t afford”
I suppose it was the people’s fault wages have remained stagnant? It was the peoples fault companies got tax breaks to move oversees?. It’s the peoples fault big pharma or oil companies gouges the people? Hhedge funds for the wealth and privilege class(You can't expect them to live on pass book savings rate, can you?) You can't expect them to Pay as a high of interest rates can you?)
Now I suppose it will be the peoples fault as Sec Reich is propounding, because?
Excuses will not win the war. People voted for a leader, NOW lead.
Our leaders capitulated. They won the election for the Clan, but not the WAR.
What excuse will they use when the mid term elections embolden the enemy, because our leaders were too timid?
Both Republican and Democrat throwing the people into the pit of despair, only to bring us out when they need our votes.
There will be a day of reckoning. It may be impossible to reason with the common people, when they realize, there is NO REASON to listen.
Our house is divided, The Haves and the Have Nots. Is that Class warfare?
June 28, 2009 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think we need to call Congress often and forcably to tell them what the American people want 1.800.828.0498!
Both sides of the aisle need to be reminded of the will of the people and who got them their seat and who can and will take it away!
When 76% want a public option on the table and the Conrads and cronies still have not produced ..They need to be called on it>
Obama needs to continue to hammer the Congress but remember THEY WRITE THE LAW not the President...
June 29, 2009 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink