Trollish Tirades

Featured

Trolls (Internet):

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2]extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: “That was an excellent troll you posted”. While the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels subjective, with trolling describing intentionally provocative actions outside of an online context. For example, mass media uses troll to describe “a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families.”[5][6]  Source: Wikipedia.

Paul Krugman, (New York Times columnist, professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton University, and 2008 Nobel Prize laureate in Economics), on his NYT blog “Conscience of a Liberal” recently posted a short, curt message regarding the constant flow of comments he receives written by “trolls.” See the above definition.  Still thinking about my previous post “Hospital Food for the Mind: Benanke, Jackson Hole, and the Importance of Being Wrong,” I realized that trolls fall into the category of ignoramuses I referred to there.

Krugman’s ongoing problem with the troll attacks is that he writes as a pundit as well as an economist. His often pointed remarks and his notoriety as a Nobel Prize winner make him a high-profile target for those who do not see eye-to-eye with him.  This is not a surprise.  Trolls have often been historically portrayed as quite large.  All of us familiar with the Lord of the Rings movies, along with the Harry Potter series also know the wide range of images in which they are portrayed. The point being that by their very stature rather than character or intellectual capacity, mythological though they may be, trolls can’t see eye-to-eye with anybody.

Battle Troll from Lord of the Rings. (c) New Line Cinema. Photo: allthetests.com

Since trolls were certain to respond to Krugman’s banning them (the fact that doing so would reveal themselves probably never crossed their minds), I, too, decided to write a comment.  I know what you’re thinking, but I’m not a troll. I’ve have had numerous comments published on Krugman’s blog (22 to date) so I’m a known quantity on the positive side of the equation, even when I disagree with him. He decided, however, not to publish any comments.  I don’t blame him, really.  But I’d written what I though was a pretty good comment, so I present it here.

Reply to “Trolls:”

It seems counter-intuitive–or just odd, if you like—to comment on this particular post.

The trolls (although I fancy your use of the term “ignoramuses” in a recent post) seem to have three flaws in their character. First, they have no capacity to understand either irony or sarcasm.  Therefore, they won’t understand this comment.  Second, because they think they are completely right, they also believe they are clever enough to slip one of their tirades past your anti-troll sensors…or perhaps they are just oblivious to the fact you can read and recognize their M.O.  Finally, they think they are right, not because they have ever studied economics or whatever else you happen to be writing about, but because they can point to who is wrong.  That’s very important.  They know they are right because they know you are wrong. That’s their rule: you have to be wrong.  About everything, it would seem.

Troll from Harry Potter (c) Warner Bros. Photo: http://www.flixster.com/

That creates an interesting dilemma for the trolls (along with certain pundits, bloggers, etc.).  The problem, of course, is that here we have two diametrically opposed solutions on how to fix the economy. Everybody can’t be right.  Somebody gets to be wrong.  Somebody has to be wrong.

This probably keeps them up at night agonizing over the prospect that they aren’t the ones who are right, even though they believe they must be right, because if they get to be wrong, then you get to be right.  And based on the negative reaction to your recent comments about Texas (from not just the trolls, but pundits and certain economists clinging to failed models), it looks like that their growing sense of anxiety about getting to be wrong escalated into a full-blown panic attack.  They, of course, won’t get that either.

Afterthought: Trolls looked a lot different when I was a kid…

Troll Toy (c) RUSS

Boehner Blink?

Featured

Question #1 regarding the Federal Budget Debt Ceiling Limit Talks is are we hurtling toward a disaster on August 2?

Although the actuality for the U.S. Government and economy (depending on which pundits you choose to believe), may be more political than a real fiscal disaster, the political war of words has escalated to an incredible intensity.

Anyone paying the least attention to the rhetorical clashes between the political parties–and their internal factions–knows that the positions on both sides have been hardening, although perhaps ossifying (even fossilizing) might be more appropriate.

August 2, 2011 has become an temporal Great Wall of China (yes, I get the irony of the comparison).  Imagine two opposing armies charging headlong toward it from different directions, oblivious to fact the wall is not going to move.  Even though they hit the wall at the same time, the damage they inflict upon themselves will be enormous.  Evidently, only in the split second after the crushing blow of charging warriors into the wall begins, will the generals of both armies realize the magnitude of their mistake.  The Wall, though, won’t be hurt much at all.

In this game of chicken with an unmovable object, however, something unexpected has just happened.  Rep. John Boehner, Speaker of the House, perhaps, has blinked. The New York Times reports (9 July):

Citing differences over tax revenues, House Speaker John A. Boehner said on Saturday night that he would pull back from joint efforts with President Obama to reach a sweeping $4 trillion deficit-reduction plan tied to a proposal to increase the federal debt limit.

Huh.

Now.  Who’s paying attention?  Will the Republicans, both the Mainline and the Tea Party factions trust Boehner’s judgment and unexpected move?  Is their iron-will to resist compromise, in the end, a strategy they can hold up as a prize, not only in congress but with their base?

Will the Democrats pull back from their headlong rush into the wall as well, and trust that the President’s growing pressure on Boehner to soften his position is having an affect that will meet their political goals regarding the deficit cap, as well as those for the Federal Budget and the economy in general?

We’re going to find out in just a few days.

The Public Plan–Is Obama Capitulating or is This a Feint?

The media is all a-twitter (pun intended) over touting the demise of the Public Option in the Health Care Reform legislation, as if it were sliding toward the edge of the negotiating table ready to dribble over like a melted popcicle.  On the news I must have seen the clip where the President calls the plan just a “sliver” of the whole reform effort a dozen times.  Pundits are in full obituary mode.  Even the New York Times, a staunch supporter of the Public Option, is grief stricken.  Bob Herbert, in his column for August 18th, wrote,

The hope of a government-run insurance option is all but gone. So there will be no effective alternative for consumers in the market for health coverage, which means no competitive pressure for private insurers to rein in premiums and other charges. (Forget about the nonprofit cooperatives. That’s like sending peewee footballers up against the Super Bowl champs.)

It’s over.  The insurance companies are laughing all the way to the bank.  The clink of expensive brandy snifters raised in countless boardroom toasts is reverberating across the country.  The corporate jets are warming up on the  tarmac, ’cause it’s fiesta time for Big Medicine!

Have you heard Rep. John Boehner or Sen. Mitch McConnell whine about anything significant this week?  Have the shout-down disrupters in the Town Hall meetings gotten more strident?  Are the “experts” on Fox and CNN actually agreeing?  I even heard a PBS contributor use the term “panic” when referring to the president’s health care strategy.  Is Tom DeLay going to be on Dancing with the Stars?  I mean, if Tom DeLay “The Hammer” who almost certainly has been consulting with his Republican clients about how to kill the Public Option, has time to, well, uh, trip the light fantastic  on national TV, can there be any hope?  UPDATE: Chris Matthews, host of  “Hardball”  just named DeLay, “Twinkle Toes.”  I’m not kidding–check the transcript on MSNBC  for 8/18.

Hmm.   Well, I’m suspicious.  You see, in the days before the election (when Extreme Thinkover was still in its infancy) I posted a blog stating one of the most difficult things Americans would have to come to terms with, if Barack Obama won, would be the presence of a very smart president as president:

Make no mistake, this will be a shock to Americans if Barack Obama is elected, not because he is African-American, a Democrat, a liberal, or in the eyes of some, the Anti-Christ, but because he is smart.  That’s right, I said it plain and simple.  Barack Obama is a smart person, well educated, and has an intrinsic capacity for deep analytical thinking.

Now, I knew this would be a shock to Republicans, who had basked in George Bush’s inability to compose a coherent sentence, and Dick Cheney’s ability to snarl his victims into stone-like fear for the past eight years.  I, however, underestimated how much of a shock this would be to Democrats, who voted for Obama.  But I admit now that the Democrats in Congress are as much in shock.  They can’t seem to figure out to do with their success, AND a president that thinks complex thoughts and speaks, well, college-level English.

Back to health care reform.  I’m just thinking.  Why would a really smart politician like Barack Obama just waffle around on one of the key ideas of his health care plan?  Yes, I know, he can’t control all the political variables, and having majorities in both houses of Congress takes a while to get the kinks worked out.

So, is the dust-up over the Public Option the result of an inexperienced president, a disorganized president, a whatever president–panicked, sold out, capitulating?

Like John Stewart said, “I can’t tell if you’re a Jedi and ten steps ahead of this thing?”

Or maybe is this president well aware of this game of chess played on a shifting, multi-dimensional board, with changing rules and players, and working out his strategies many moves in advance, letting the different gambits and forays play themselves out, knowing full well what his end game will be and when to pull that trigger?

Capitulation or a calculated feint by a very smart man, who happens to hold the highest office in the land and is determined to get what he wants?

My take: Jedi Master and the Public Option: Yes.

Now is the Time: My Message to President Obama

President Obama, as part of his commitment to secure health care reform published an op-ed piece today in the New York Times, “Why We Need Health Care Reform,” laying out for the American people, and perhaps the world, the case for change.  I am a regular comment contributor to New York Times Op-Ed columns and below you will find the text of my comment.

I ended my comment with the statement: “Now is the time.”  There are times in the history of a nation, that certain reforms, regardless of the opposition, and, yes, even despite the fears of some must be overcome and guaranteed for all as part of the Common Good.  One of those times was the Emancipation Proclamation abolishing slavery.  One of those times was the ratification of the 19th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States granting women the right to vote.  One of those times was Brown v. The Board of Education decision of the United States Supreme Court that revolutionized equality in education for all U. S. citizens.  Many more could be mentioned.

Now is the time for health care to be added to those moments of sublime national change, to join those great reforms, cast as the finest, hardest steel into our Nation of Laws as an inalienable right and an eternal Blessing of Liberty.

Mr. President,

I work in health care, as a hospital chaplain, and I could give you a thousand more stories of real people whose lives have suffered and through their loss of quality of life and productivity America has suffered, simply because they could not afford health care.  I am blessed to work for a non-profit hospital system that treats every person who comes to us, but this is a burden that cannot be sustained.

I support health care reform, universal coverage, and the complete overhaul of our broken and unjust system.  I believe that health care is a constitutional right, just as freedom from slavery, women’s suffrage, and equality in education has become enshrined among the “Blessings of Liberty.”

I urge you to be courageous and strong to fight for every American’s right to medical care, as a blessing of Liberty that will build a foundation for a healthy America into the future.  Now is the time!

Granny’s Safe UPDATED: Rebutting the “They’re Killing Granny” Lie by Health Care Reform Opponents

Me, Uncharacteristically Pertrubed

Me, Uncharacteristically Perturbed

Now, they’ve gone and done it.  I’m perturbed!

One of the provisions in the health care reform bills being worked on in both the House and the Senate is an incentive, to be paid by Medicare, for doctors and other providers to have a conversation every five years with aging patients regarding what they want for end of life care.  That’s the true part.  I discuss that below in detail.

UPDATE:  Oregon  congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-Dist 3) is the author of this section of the legislation. He states that he has been so frustrated by the Republicans’ distortions and lies of what he wrote that he has developed a Myth versus Fact Sheet that can be read by clicking hereRep Blumenauer wrote in his blog:

Those with no solutions and no answers for how to reform our health care system are hijacking positive, bipartisan efforts that have contributed to a strong bill passed out of two House committees. Republican leadership has abandoned all efforts at passing needed health care reform — even turning their attacks to legislation that has been actively crafted and supported by both parties.

One of these outrageous examples is my Life Sustaining Treatment Preferences Act.

GOP leadership has been gravely distorting the truth and misrepresenting the facts about this bipartisan effort, and in the process throwing members of their own party under the bus — those who have reached across the aisle to do something that will help Americans across the nation.

The bill simply provides people with better care as they grapple with the hardest health care issue of all — their final chapter of life. See the Myths vs. Facts sheet on this. CNN reporter Elizabeth Landau does a great job highlighting the benefits of “doctors and family members having more conversations about end-of-life issues,” which my bill addresses.

This bill has bipartisan support (the main cosponsor is a Republican doctor) as well as support from a diverse coalition like AARP, the American College of Physicians, and Catholic health systems. It is an area where — no matter from a red or blue state — many have been able to bridge the divide.

The bottom line: this is a smart and just thing to do for families going through a tough time.

Indeed, it is a smart and just thing to do.  Americans are known to be among the greatest death-deniers in the world.  This is very well documented.  Physicians, as  a profession are generally not trained in medical school to talk about dying with their patients, and the cultural norm “I’m going to live forever!” is especially deeply held by our doctors.  This, too is very well documented. (One exception I have knowledge of is at Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, where medical residents are trained how to talk to patients about end of life issues.  I have seen their video and am well acquainted with the faculty of the Center for Ethics in Health Care.)

But those who are opposed to health care reform are using our fears about death and distorting them into a malicious fallacy about the legislation’s impact on our lives.  One provision is for providers to have a discussion about end of life care with her or his patients.  As I explain below, this conversation is taking place every day thousands of times.  But for the opponents, it’s another item on their list to distort and spread fear to preserve the status quo, mainly their profit margain.

As Charles Blow, New York Times columnist, stated in his latest piece, “Health Care Hullabaloo:”

I must say that this says more about them than it does about any forthcoming legislation. Belligerence is the currency of the intellectually bankrupt [emphasis added].

Trapped in their vacuum of ideas, too many Republicans continue to display an astounding ability to believe utter nonsense, even when faced with facts that contradict it.

This scare tactic is becoming ubiquitous, as expressed by a woman at a Raleigh, NC town hall meeting with President Obama, reported by ABC News reporter, Jake Tapper:

At the AARP town hall meeting last week, a woman named Mary told the president that “I have been told there is a clause in there that everyone that’s Medicare age will be visited and told to decide how they wish to die. This bothers me greatly and I’d like for you to promise me that this is not in this bill.”

“You know, I guarantee you, first of all, we just don’t have enough government workers to send to talk to everybody, to find out how they want to die,” the president said. “I think that the only thing that may have been proposed in some of the bills — and I actually think this is a good thing — is that it makes it easier for people to fill out a living will.”

After explaining what a living will is, and that he and his wife each have one, the president said, “I think the idea there is to simply make sure that a living will process is easier for people — it doesn’t require you to hire a lawyer or to take up a lot of time. But everything is going to be up to you. And if you don’t want to fill out a living will, you don’t have to…But, Mary, I just want to be clear: Nobody is going to be knocking on your door; nobody is going to be telling you you’ve got to fill one out. And certainly nobody is going to be forcing you to make a set of decisions on end-of-life care based on some bureaucratic law in Washington.”

Check out the AARP’s Myths vs Facts site here.

Here’s the text (authored by Rep. Blumenauer) of the proposed “Americans Health Care Choices Act of 2009”  (beginning on page 425), the House version, regarding advanced planning:

‘‘(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the

term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation

between the individual and a practitioner described

in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning,

if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has

not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such

consultation shall include the following:

‘‘(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance

care planning, including key questions and

considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.

‘‘(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance

directives, including living wills and durable

powers of attorney, and their uses.

‘‘(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the

role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.

‘‘(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list

of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers

and their families with advance care planning, including the national

toll-free hotline, the advance

care planning clearinghouses, and State legal

service organizations (including those funded

through the Older Americans Act of 1965).

‘‘(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the

continuum of end-of-life services and supports available,

including palliative care and hospice, and benefits

for such services and supports that are available

under this title.

What got me thinking about this post was this comment by the New York Times columnist, economist Paul Krugman.  In a posting to his blog titled “Even-handedness,” he wrote:

AP: FACT CHECK: Distortions rife in health care debate:

Opponents of proposals by President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats falsely claim that government agents will force elderly people to discuss end-of-life wishes. Obama has played down the possibility that a health care overhaul would cause large numbers of people to change doctors and insurers.

So Republicans are claiming that Obama will kill old people. . .

Having just watched Bill Moyers on his PBS program interview Wendall Potter, former CIGNA executive who just testified before congress on the unconscionable tactics being regularly and deliberately used by insurance companies to deny coverage their insureds have rightfully paid for, but will dent the companies’ profits, and how they are in an all-out campaign to destroy health care reform while duplicitously endorsing it, I wrote a comment on Krugman’s blog.

Well, this time he didn’t publish it (however he had recently published my comments on 1 August 2009: “Health Reform Made Simple.“).  I, however, back up all my comments on various blogs.  Here, then, is what I wrote:

The “They’re Killing Granny” Fallacy:

For over a decade, as a hospital chaplain, I have helped hundreds of Grannies complete their Advance Directives.  Often the doctor requests this conversation take place, because Granny has a medical condition that is approaching end-stage, or is already there.  The ideal is that Granny and her physician have already had a conversation about her declining health. The Advance Directive is one tool for her to use to determine the kind of medical care she wants OR doesn’t want IF she can no longer communicate her wishes about treatment.

The purpose of the provision in the bills is to provide an incentive to medical providers to talk with Granny regarding the choice of care she wants at the end of her life.  Why?  Because Americans are the worst death-deniers in the world.  We’ll do just about anything to avoid talking about dying and death.  And physicians are just as bad as the rest of us.

Let me repeat the purpose of the provision: The Doctor talks to Granny so she has a choice to decide what she wants.  The conversation is a huge benefit not only to Granny, so she can make her wishes known, but also to remove the burden from her loved ones of having to guess about the kind of medical care she wants IF she is dying and cannot communicate by any means.

Generally, the types of extraordinary treatments being considered are:

1. Being placed on a ventilator to support breathing.

2. Being fed through a tube.

3. Being provided medications or procedures that are specifically designed to cure the disease, or to artificially prolong the person’s life.

Here are the facts (and I’m assuming most other states are very similar to mine):

1.  Any person over the age of 18 can complete an Advance Directive.  It does NOT require being notarized, it does NOT require your doctor’s signature, and it does NOT require going to an attorney and paying a fee to fill out the form.  You can download your state’s form online, or pick up a free copy at a local doctor’s office, hospital, or public health office.  Be sure to give a copy to your doctor and to take it with you to the hospital if you have a procedure (my hospital will accept a mailed Advance Directive at no charge, even if the person has never been one of our patients).

2.  The purpose of the Advance Directive is to allow Granny to decide in advance if she wants to have extraordinary medical measures should she be clinically assessed as being in the process of dying AND unable to communicate her wishes by any means.

3. Granny in her Advance Directive can choose to have everything from no extraordinary measures to all extraordinary measures.  If Granny chooses not to have extraordinary measures, she will still receive full palliative care measures to keep her comfortable, clean, and to die as peacefully as possible.  Granny, hopefully, will have access to hospice to provide this care; it is already paid for by Medicare.

4.  Granny has the choice of appointing a Health Care Representative (usually a family member or very close friend) to be her “health care power of attorney” to speak on her behalf if she is too ill to communicate (but perhaps is not in a terminal condition), or to consult with her physician if she is in the process of dying.

5. Here are some of the key rules:

a.  Granny has the  right to decline to talk about her end of life with her provider.

b.  Granny has the right to decline to fill out an Advance Directive.

c. Granny must be mentally clear (alert and oriented to time, place, and self) to fill out the Advance Directive.  If Granny is suffering from dementia, or is confused or delirious due to some medical cause, she is not considered competent (at least in my state) to fill out the Advance Directive at that time.  If she clears mentally later, she may can complete the document.  If Granny’s condition is diagnosed as permanent (such as advanced Alzheimer’s), then the family may need to consider a guardianship, but that is another topic.

d. Granny’s doctor, or if she is in a facility, a facility employee, CANNOT be her Health Care Representative, to prevent any conflict of interest in determining her treatment.

Being at the bedside of a critically ill patient, likely to die, and supporting the family through the decision-making process of what to do, when Granny never talked about it is agonizing for everyone.  One conversation would have spared all concerned the pain of indecision and second-guessing.

The AARP states,

Bottom Line: Health care reform isn’t about putting the government in charge of difficult end of life decisions. It’s about giving individuals and families the option to talk with their doctors in advance about difficult choices every family faces when loved ones near the end of their lives.

That is compassionate health care.  It is no slippery slope toward euthanasia, and it is not killing Granny.  It is, however, a provision (already in place in many places around the country), to ensure that the majority of America’s Grannies, truly die in peace and dignity.

A Caveat: Yes, I live in Oregon, which has the ignominious distinction of being the first state in the country to permit suicide with the assistance of a physician.  I personally oppose the legalization of suicide by this means (or any other, for that matter).  My hospital, being a Catholic institution,  does not encourage or participate in assisting terminal patients to commit suicide.  But that is a topic, perhaps, for another blog in the future.

The moment Sen. McConnell and Rep. Boehner realize the "They're killing Granny" distortion has seriously backfired.  Photo: Life Magazine Archives

The moment Sen. McConnell and Rep. Boehner realize the "They're killing Granny" distortion has seriously backfired. Photo: Life Magazine Archives

They Judge Themselves

This level of greed and deceit is by no means new.  The actions of insurance company executives, strategists, and lobbyists, as well as the politicians who parrot their lies are condemned in this passage from the Book of Proverbs in the Bible:

A scoundrel and a villain, who goes about with a corrupt mouth, who winks with his eye, and signals with his feet and motions with his fingers, who plots evil with deceit in his heart–he always stirs up dissension.

Therefore disaster will overtake him in an instant: he will suddenly be destroyed–without remedy.

There are six things that the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him:

  1. haughty eyes
  2. a lying tongue
  3. hands that shed innocent blood
  4. a heart that devises wicked schemes
  5. feet that are quick to to rush into evil
  6. a false witness who pours out lies
  7. and a man who stirs up dissension among [others].

Proverbs 6:12-19, NIV

In the article about the Seven Deadly Sins, regarding greed/avarice, Wikipedia writes:

In Dante’s Purgatory, the penitents were bound and laid face down on the ground for having concentrated too much on earthly thoughts.

“Avarice” is more of a blanket term that can describe many other examples of greedy behavior. These include disloyalty, deliberate betrayal, or treason, especially for personal gain, for example through bribery .

Take a look again at the section of the bill I quoted.  Read it over several times if you like.  Do you honestly see anything that even hints that the purpose or outcome of that provision will endanger Granny?

Granny is going to be so much better cared for under the new legislation.  Those who oppose health care reform and are lying to get it defeated are the ones who need to be worried.  Very worried.

Greed & Avarice.  Dante's Fourth Level of Hell.  Wood-cut Print, 1476

Greed & Avarice. The sixth of the Seven Deadly Sins. In this depiction, the damned are being boiled in oil. This image appeared in 1496 in Le grant kalendrier des Bergiers, published by Nicolas le Rouge in Troyes, France

I should say in conclusion that both my wife and I have advance directives.  So does my mom, the best grandma in our arm of the galaxy.

Sniffer Report: Health Care Nuclear Option Radiation Detected

To my Dear Readers: Just wanted to let you know this is the first in a series of reports.

Here is my first Sniffer report in which I suggest I have detected indicators (radiation) that the opponents of health care reform are going to try to kill it.  I call it the “nuclear option,” an all out, once for all attack that will destroy any chance of true health reform being implemented, and to ensure that Universal Health Care never becomes a reality.   As I stated in my earlier post, I assumed the opponents would operate behind the scenes as they have always done.  So to provide myself a reasonable boundary against common every-day paranoia, I decided to search for evidence of what is not being revealed by sniffing for the presence of influence not being stated, which should have a distinct “odor.”  I can’t prove I’m right, of course, but I can look for the radiation being emitted as the nuclear weapon is assembled and prepared for deployment.

My exhibit “A” is this snippet from New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, posted on his blog on July 17:

Will the destructive center kill health care reform? It looks all too possible.

What’s especially galling is the hypocrisy of their claimed reason for delaying progress — concern about the fiscal burden. After all, in the past most of them have shown no concern at all for the nation’s long-term fiscal outlook.

One sign of radiation is applying a delaying tactic.  The opponents want more time to not only maneuver, but to try to sway public opinion.  In this case they are desperate because they know 72% of Americans support health care reform that includes the public option.

Stuart Rothenberg of the Rothenberg Political Report told ABC News on July 19,

“The deadline is artificial but it does reflect a reality and the reality is the longer this drags out, the less likely that the president will get exactly what he wants and all that he wants,” Rothenberg told ABC. “Look, there’s still a very good chance that we’re going to get a health care bill either later this year or a next year bill.”

“There’s going to be some sort of reform, I think most people believe, but in terms of the dramatic program, policy changes that the president wants, the longer this lasts the less likely that something dramatic is going to truly be passed and be signed,” he added.

Rothenberg, writing in his Report on July 16 stated,

Fundamentally, Republicans believe that while the Obama White House has been politically astute in promising that people happy with their current health care plan can keep it and that any new program won’t add to the deficit or require a major tax increase, the Obama plan will result in nothing less than government takeover of health care.

And Republicans think that time is on their side, which is why the Castellanos memo insists it is crucial for Republicans to slow down what it calls “the Obama experiment with our health.”

“Even voters who support a ‘public plan’ think Obama and Congress are moving too fast, with reckless speed, risking a huge part of our economy and our health care, when they don’t know what reform would really bring,” the memo says. “If we slow this sausage-making process down, we can defeat it, and advance real reform that will actually help.”

You can read the Republican Plan (all three pages of it) and come to your own conclusion about “reform that will actually help” by clicking here.  I thought the underlining was particularly helpful. . .

CNN reported on July 16, in an article titled “Real Battle Over Health Care About to Begin,” corroborates Krugman’s assertion:

Even some Democrats are up in arms over a recently unveiled health care reform bill in the House.

A leader of the conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats told CNN on Wednesday that he and other group members may vote to block the House Democrats’ health care bill from passing a key committee if they don’t get some of the changes they want.

Asked whether the Blue Dogs on the Energy and Commerce Committee are considering voting as a group against the bill if it remains unchanged, Ross replied, “absolutely.”

“We remain opposed to the current bill, and we continue to meet several times a day to decide how we’re going to proceed and what amendments we will be offering as Blue Dogs on the committees,” said Rep. Mike Ross, D-Arkansas.

Ross said the bill unveiled Tuesday by House Democratic leaders did not address concerns he and other conservative Democrats outlined in a letter late last week to Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The conservative Democrats don’t believe the legislation contains sufficient reforms to control costs in the health care system and believe additional savings can be found.

CNN goes on to report that the Soft Drink Industry is planning ads to oppose the legislation:

Special interest groups are also affected.

Beverage companies are running a TV ad opposing one congressional proposal that would pay for reform, in part, with a soft-drink tax.

“This is no time for Congress to be adding a tax to the simple pleasures we all enjoy … like juice drinks and soda,” the announcer in the TV ad says. “Taxes never made anyone healthy.”

This next item comes from the Insurance & Financial Advisor Web News.  They quote Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, from an interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on June 7, 2009:

“If you think the government can’t run General Motors, why would you think they can run health care?…[A government-sponsored insurance company is] just the first step toward a national health system,” he said according to a transcript of the program. “I mean, they will absolutely use that model… to destroy all the insurance companies and get to a national health system.”

And now, an introduction to Rick Scott, who is very publicly leading the charge against any form of Government subsidized health care and health care reform.  This is from Washington Post staff writer, Dan Eggen:

The television ads that began airing last week feature horror stories from Canada and the United Kingdom: Patients who allegedly suffered long waits for surgeries, couldn’t get the drugs they needed, or had to come to the United States for treatment.

“Before government rushes to overhaul health care, listen to those who already have government-run health care,” intones Rick Scott, founder of a group called Conservatives for Patients’ Rights. “Tell Congress to listen, too.”

Scott, a multimillionaire investor and controversial former hospital chief executive, has become an unlikely and prominent leader of the opposition to health-care reform plans that Congress is expected to take up later this year. While disorganized Republicans and major health-care companies wait for President Obama and Democratic leaders to reveal the details of their plan before criticizing it, Scott is using $5 million of his own money and up to $15 million more from supporters to try to build resistance to any government-run program.

The campaign is being coordinated by CRC Public Relations, the group that masterminded the “Swift boat” attacks against 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry, and is inspired by the “Harry and Louise” ads that helped torpedo health-care reform during the Clinton administration.

In this piece, from MSNBC/Associated Press, Rick Scott’s “Swift Boat” ad is mentioned as well as two more players, Art Pope and James Miller:

The ad with Shona Holmes — who says she borrowed and saved money for a crucial operation in the United States — exemplifies how groups are intent on bending the debate toward their agendas.

Its sponsor, Patients United Now, is an offshoot of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a privately funded, Washington-based conservative group that believes in limited government and cutting taxes. Among its directors are businessman and conservative activist Art Pope and James C. Miller, a top Reagan administration official.

Slippery slope?

The group says it has spent nearly $1.8 million running the ad in Washington, D.C., and 11 states with senators on committees writing health care bills or ones seen as wavering. Patients United spokeswoman Amy Menefee says the ad is fair because giving government more control over health care would be a slippery slope toward increasing the federal role, and because some Democrats still favor government-only insurance.

Dominating the spending among opponents is Conservatives for Patients Rights, led and largely financed by Rick Scott, who was ousted as chief of the Columbia/HCA health care company during a fraud probe that ultimately saw the firm plead guilty to overbilling charges. Spokesman Brian Burgess says the group has spent over $4.5 million on TV ads that have run hundreds of times this year, mostly criticizing public health coverage.

Incidentally, The Canadian Broadcast Company (CBCnews.ca) ran this same AP story under the headline, “Canada Again Cast as Villain in U.S. Health Care Fight.

USAToday published an article, “Advertising Wars Escalate in Health Care Fight” that provides more details of the players entering the field in opposition to  reform in one respect or another:

This week’s entries have been the most pointed so far this year. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce ran a full-page ad in Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper, opposing the employer mandate and public insurance plan. “Health care reform that punishes employers would be bad for the economy and jobs,” the ad warned.

The National Federation of Independent Business ran an ad in The Hill, a similar publication, and plans an Internet ad next week. “We need to make it really clear that a mandate will kill jobs,” spokeswoman Stephanie Cathcart said.

The GOP ad ran Wednesday on cable TV as ABC aired a town-hall-style meeting on health care from the White House. “When he says ‘government option,’ that means putting government bureaucrats in charge,” the ad intoned.

So far, insurers have kept their money on the sidelines. “It’s still early in the process,” says Robert Zirkelbach of America’s Health Insurance Plans. “We haven’t taken anything off the table.”

A group called Conservatives for Patients’ Rights, headed by former Columbia/HCA Healthcare executive Richard Scott, is launching a round of 30-second cable TV ads in 11 states next week. The ads target 14 senators who could help decide the fate of Obama’s public option. Scott’s group has spent more than $1 million a month since March, much of it his own money.

Last month, a group called Patients United Now joined the ad wars in opposition. It’s backed by Americans for Prosperity, a conservative group headed by political strategist Tim Phillips that claims more than 22,000 donors. One of its founders was David Koch of Koch Industries; two of its current directors are Art Pope, a North Carolina conservative activist and businessman, and James Miller, former budget director in the Reagan administration.

It’s clear a lot of people are ponying up a millions of dollars to oppose either the parts of health care reform that will affect their industry, or are in opposition to Universal Health Care.

Here is my Sniffer “Radiation Detected List” for this post:

  1. Blue Dog Democrats wanting to slow down the process or expressing “concern” over parts of the bill.  How much of that is genuine–the bills are massive documents–and how much of that is lobbying influence to give the opponents more time to prepare the Nuclear Option?
  2. The so-call advocacy groups, like Conservatives for Patients’ Rights, Patients United Now (backed by the conservative group Americans for Prosperity) are ramping up their ads to influence public opinion and have, in the “Shonna” ad,  even succeeded in really irritating the Canadians.  There appears to be LOTS of money coming from somewhere and it is likely from donors with big bucks who don’t want their identities ever revealed.
  3. Americans Against Food Taxes is not a grass roots organization, but a huge corporate consumer advocacy group encompassing virtually the entire Grocery Industry, their national associations , plus the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  To their credit, however, they list all their members on their web site.  Their combined lobbying influence is simply huge.
  4. But here’s the comment in this post that sent the Sniffer Radiation Detector into the alarm mode:

So far, insurers have kept their money on the sidelines. “It’s still early in the process,” says Robert Zirkelbach of America’s Health Insurance Plans. “We haven’t taken anything off the table.”

The words, “We haven’t taken anything off the table” sent chills up my spine and set off the Radiation Sniffer like a red alert on the bridge of the Starship Enterprise.  Just what are they planning?

So what’s missing here?  Big Medicine.  And, yes, I’m aware the AMA has announced it is coming on board in support.  But should I say I’m just more than a bit skeptical about their sudden conversion.  Watch for the next post!

The Sniffer at Work.  Photo Credit: Smith Detection, Inc., U.K.

The Sniffer at Work. Photo Credit: Smith Detection, Inc., U.K.

Post Script:  Sen. Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, was on NBC’s “Meet the Press” this morning.  The New York Times reported that he said:

Mr. McConnell declared that the United States already had the best health care in the world and did not need an approach that would have the country’s hospitals and doctors “working for the government.”

Here’s the actual quote from the Meet the Press transcript:

Let me, let me just tell you what I think, David, if I may, is flawed about the whole approach. They don’t seem to grant that we have the finest health care in the world now. We need to focus on the two problems that we have, cost and access, not sort of scrap the entire healthcare system of the United States.

Sen. McConnell–If you don’t have access to the finest health care in the world, then you don’t have the finest health care in the world, regardless of cost.