WASHINGTON, D.C. — Rep. Barney Frank has been right on many things during his 32 years as a champion of the underdog in the House of Representatives, but he was dead wrong when he recently remarked that Democrats acted precipitously by rushing healthcare reform into law at the start of President Barack Obama’s first term.
The remark has angered many congressional Democrats, some of whom wasted no time in suggesting that Frank’s gargantuan-sized ego had been bruised by the fact that his party sidetracked his sweeping financial services reform bill to pass the unwieldy and widely unpopular ObamaCare.
Unfortunately, Frank, who is retiring at the end of the year, fails to recognize the realities facing his party at the start of 2009. With dominant majorities on Capitol Hill and a promising new president in the White House, the Democrats had little choice but to “seize the day” and pass the bill that would become the signature legislative achievement of Obama’s first-term.
In doing so, however, their Congressional leaders lost their nerve — failing to realize they and they alone held the upper hand. Instead of passing a simple and straight forward single-payer healthcare law, they decided to further load the deck by offering juicy incentives to Big Pharma and Big Insurance in the form of an additional 19 million new customers.
As a result, they produced a dysfunctional bill of more 2,700 pages weighed down with hundreds of often conflicting requirements — a veritable “dungeons and dragons” labyrinth where untold dangers lurked behind every turn.
Passage of a single-payer — already working well in Canada, across much of Europe and in most other advanced countries — finally would have brought 21st century medical care to the United States. That would have eliminated the costly tons of paperwork and volumes of confusing rules that now befuddle — and all too often — bankrupt Americans in need of quality care delivered in plain Anglo-Saxon English.
Sadly, then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., simply lost their nerve and ignored the advice of such experienced legislators as Reps. John Dingell, D-Mich., and Jim McDermott, D-Wash., — trading principle and practicality for the prospect of campaign contributions from the likes of Pfizer, Humana, Cigna and United Health Care.
Democrats as a whole would have been better off, if they had taken the advice of legendary Tammany Hall boss George Washington Plunkitt, and indulged in a little honest graft, once described by Plunkitt as pursuing “the interests of one’s party, one’s state, and one’s personal interests all together.”
Still, Barney Frank is blatantly wrong in his assertion that the Democrats should have waited before passing a major health care reform package. Such legislation was vitally needed at a time when many millions of Americans were without health coverage and many millions more drastically under covered and vulnerable to continual rounds of soaring costs.
Ironically, the Supreme Court likely would do Democrats a favor at the polls in November, if — as expected — they strike down the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, thus pulling the bottom card from Reid and Pelosi’s hastily constructed “house of cards.”
If that happens, the progressive forces that now constitute a majority of Democratic congressional candidates could seize the day and run on a platform making “single-payer healthcare legislation” their top priority.
Such a move would instantly undermine the fear mongering by “know-nothing” Tea Partiers and could well attract more than a modicum of support from independents, moderate Republicans and even some traditional conservatives, who would like to get the contentious issue off the table and move on with more pressing issues.
In many respects, passing a reasonable “simple-payer” bill could be the one action that revives bipartisan civility and helps restore the U.S. to its traditional role as world leader.
• Madsen is a contributing writer to the Online Journal and an author of several books with a progressive perspective.
Comments (66)
Add commentPassing something is not
Passing something is not better then passing nothing.
If your going to overhaul the medical system do it right. This crap is not right in anyway.
For round 2? Single payer system or nothing.
SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM!
Abolish Obamacare.
Lower the age of Medicare to everyone.
Problem solved.
This author must be drunk on
This author must be drunk on his progressivism. What a load of bs and lies.
And then his entire ounce of credibility goes out the window with this fabulous, intelligent zinger -
"Such a move would instantly undermine the fear mongering by “know-nothing” Tea Partiers ..."
Atleast this confession is true - "the progressive forces that now constitute a majority of Democratic congressional candidates..."
But then he expects to "attract more than a modicum of support from independents, moderate Republicans and even some traditional conservatives" with a single payer plan put forth by these far left progressives?
What a hot mess of an article!
Yee Gods, pathetic
trying to explain HOW it happened by reverse-engineering the "should'ves" amounts to EXCUSES. "Sorry" doesn't even enter their minds because they "had to do something"? WHO compelled them to do something? Not their constituents, so it must have been a) their collective conscience or b) POTUS.
Rule out a) -- they're a den of snivelling bastages. So b)...No wonder they won't even return his phonecalls.
we
have to pass it to find out what's in it
now that we know its gota go
As I recall, single-payer had
As I recall, single-payer had already been considered and the powers that be decided it wouldn't pass at all (which is probably true), and so they preemptively compromised by taking what was essentially the Republican alternative to single-payer.
Obamacare is better than the status quo. Let's hope it's a stepping stone to single-payer.
re: Obamacare
If you needed a house, and the architect told you it would cost 900K to build - but this is all the stuff you'll get in this house, you might balk when your spouse says NO, but tell the family We're building anyway. Then the contractors tell you it's really going to be twice that, you won't have as much stuff, and it'll be ready in 2 years. Then the site inspector tells you, "Buddy that house will fold on itself in no time."
Build it anyway!!
Grendel, your analogy is
Grendel, your analogy is accurate if the alternative to the overpriced, inferior quality house is to freeze on the streets.
Of course single-payer would be superior to Obamacare, but then you'd scream "socialism!" and ignore the fact that it works.
slow down 2P
there are so many ways to skin this cat. As you well know I am not in favor of govt stepping in because they'll only ball it up at any level of participation. But I am a proponent of taking the problem a step at a time, as was mentioned in the PRO piece.
The problem needs focus. Affordable does not mean universal, which is where your "socialism!" screech comes from.
And as we've already
And as we've already determined, based on easily obtainable facts and figures, single-payer is far cheaper than what we pay for healthcare, with equal or better quality care.
There really isn't a good argument against single-payer, unless you happen to work for an insurance company.
And the conservative solution is...
crickets STILL chirping
@PP
the argument is conditional: sure government can offer a health insurance option, much like it backs home loans (in theory); BUT do not ram-feed to the citizenry as the only option, nor regulate the begeebers out of the industry to force the option.
In short, any sort of single-payer must be self-supporting, like a consortium with federal oversight. The feds want to subsidize something, subsidize Medicaid.
@Lat
1. Greetings - been a while;
2. the progressive/conservative scenario is what got the country into this dog-knot;
3. the problem has not been articulated. "Healthcare is too expensive" is not an articulation of the problem any more than "single-payer is THE solution" is the, well, solution;
4. IF the problem is, for example, "there is no universal standard of health" then we got something to chew on because then the feds can justify the $$$ to meet that standard. THAT would be a start insofar as it pulls the argument out of the health=insurance realm. But even then I don't like the feds meddling in areas they have zero expertise.
Fair enough, grendel
But conservatives still have not articulated a solution (or the problem, if you must). And I'd sure as hell prefer the government define it than Gracie Marie from the Galan lobbying group.
One aspect of the problem, as I understand it, is that the national cost of healthcare is rising at an unsustainable rate.
Either we deliver it more efficiently, or we deliver less of it (via Sarah's death panels).
Obamacare doesn't solve that problem. The private sector is not motivated to solve it. What's your solution?
@Grendel: you do realize,
@Grendel: you do realize, don't you, that single-payer does not involve government officials taking over the duties of your physician? I assure you, Mark Begich will not give you a prostate exam.
Single payer systems provide cheaper, more effective healthcare for more people in pretty much every country in which it has been instituted.
The problem hasn't been identified? Ignoring, for a moment, the problem of millions who don't have health insurance (which means they have to rely on the ER, which not only costs society as a whole but also doesn't treat chronic illness or provide preventative care), there's the problem that we have a suboptimal system and we know there are more efficient systems out there.
There is no debate on this, only ideological bickering, ignorance, and greed on the part of certain industries that don't turn a profit in Canada.
Lat, then 2P
My solution: set the standard; kick it to the states to come up with the Plan to meet the standard; offer paying HALF. Who knows -- Wyoming and Montana and North Dakota might develop incentives to move there based on outstanding healthcare.
2P -- you're what I'm talking about with the problem. You cant just throw $$$ at it and HOPE it will CHANGE. Health does not equal Insurance.
Luckily, Grendel, my plan,
Luckily, Grendel, my plan, which is the one that has worked for every other developed nation, doesn't involve throwing money at anything. In fact, it costs less, so it's a lot like having money thrown back at me.
It's funny the things you refuse to acknowledge so you don't have to cede your point.
The 2Plan: legacies of success
1. Canada: like your kid brother, he knows you will protect him;
2. UK: floundering in debt & high unemployment, but they have socialized medicine;
3. France: overrun by muslims with no desire to integrate into French society and out-babying the natives 4:1, but even THEY have socialized medicine;
4. Scandinavia: who cares?? They'll gladly give up 55-70% of their income to be state pampered (also overrun by Somalis for some weird reason);
5. PIIGS: Haah! no comment...
who did I leave out?
You left out anything of
You left out anything of substance. Between casually dismissing certain countries and mentioning criticisms that have nothing to do with socialized healthcare, I'd say your argument can best be summed up thusly:
1) Socialized healthcare doesn't work
2) ???
3) Profit!
You are a hoot!
have you ever had to manage a budget? Even a household one? Because it sounds like money is no object, especially when it's not YOURS. Do their citizens get the care? Yes; Will the country be solvent in 3-6-10 yrs? NOT at that rate.
Once again, Grendel,
Once again, Grendel, socialized healthcare is cheaper than privatized healthcare. In fact, it was mentioned a few posts ago, on this very page, to you directly.
You have a short memory.
Too bad we don't have socialized medicine--you could get yourself a CAT scan and see what's wrong up there.
cheapskate
you have nothing to back up that it's cheaper, but like the subject itself, you get what you pay for
Nothing would be better if HCR hadn't been passed
The current bill is NOT good enough(the Right and the corporate wing of the Dems should never have blocked single-payer once it became clear that it had majority support among the population, as the polls show it still does).
And it's not "Obamacare". Passing HCR was never about President Obama's ego, and it's silly to imply that he was the only person in the country who wanted the healthcare system changed.
Healthcare should be health CARE...it should be a service we all have access to by right, not a commodity affordable only to the privileged few(and no, despite Rush Limbaugh's Viagra-fueled lies, going to the ER is not an acceptable alternative).
All human beings are of equal worth and have an equal right to be healed with sick or injured...all deserve easy access to medical care when they need it...it's simply not decent or moral to have a system(our current system, which could be fairly called the Medical-Insurance-Complex)that acts as if the rich deserve to live and the poor don't.
Civilized countries don't do economic triage on healthcare.
Grendel
Actually, I do, and I have posted it before. Charts, links, all kinds of good stuff. Plus, you have Google at your disposal, and given that this "debate" was settled a few years ago, if you were actually interested in honest debate, you have all the resources you need to fact-check your own position, which you should have done in the first place, before posting on the subject at all.
But you won't. Because then you wouldn't have a point to argue anymore. And Grendel likes to troll. That's why you chose your screen name, isn't it? Because Grendel really was the original troll? Showing up and crashing Heorot's mead hall party like one evil [filtered word]! But at least he didn't clutch onto an argument long after it was dead and mummified.
The fact that the Republican party did NOTHING about healthcare
during its entire twelve year run of effective control of Congress
from 1994 to 2006, is proof by itself that the GOP, the party of the Medical-Industrial-Complex, NEVER cared about the issue.
The "right to life" party doesn't actually think people have the right to life once they've been born. They think everyone should have to spend every moment simply struggling TO survive...even though forcing people to do that means forcing them to live utterly meaningless lives.
And you - PP?
from the stalk that can be quoted, "We have to pass it to see what's in it."
I dont care about your charts, sock-puppets, or social theories. Take a look at the bigger picture: how does it fit into a BUDGET. Those tiny European populations are on par with MassCare. Massachusetts @ $9/ga gas and $6/ga milk. And I dont have to tell you why they arent worried about defense spending, do I?
Kenb41
You got valid points. Here's another angle: what would make you think that those who are so dismissive of the rights of the unborn would have any less interest in the rights of the old and diseased?
p, you're the one that needs
p, you're the one that needs a scan because we've beaten this healthcare horse over and over and over and I'm pretty sure it should be dead by now. We'll just have to wait for some politicians to come along that can propose real solutions and have a majority go along. No fair handing out Nebraska kickbacks and bribes for the votes, though.
You just keep repeating the same old leftist rhetoric. There have been many solutions put forth by the "evil" conservatives. You just don't like them because they don't fit your beloved top-down, nanny state idea of euphoria.
It's so frustrating - LISTEN...
Why in the heLL would you want to load up the medicaid roles with even more citizens like BOCare will do when the current system is going broke? That's just stupid. Or are you thinking "the rich" will gladly funnel more taxes into the rat hole?
Not gonna happen.
And the number of uninsured in America is much, much less than you tout. Lots and lots of those people CHOOSE to not get health insurance. But that's exactly why BOCare has the mandate - it'll force those young, healthy citizens to pay for the sick. Income redistribution is a wonderful thing until you run out of other peoples' money.
Why do you suppose a doctor would want to work under a socialized medical environment when the state dictates his reimbursements? He won't and we'll end up with rationing. Do you realize that a medical office is like a small business? There are tons of expenses besides a doc's salary. No, you wouldn't because you don't understand small businesses or even like them.
And socialized medicine is cheaper than privatized, you say? It's not cheaper, the docs just get paid less and how long could that go on before the practioner says, 'the heLL with this' and closes up shop? How long do you suppose your wait would be for that scan? Look to Canada for the answer.
You are so annoying - liberalism might really be a mental disorder?
Private healthcare needs to quit paying for everything under the sun with just a copay. Have you ever looked at the bill and seen the giant discount applied after the initial billing for the service? What's that all about and how does that affect insurance rates?
Strep tests and ear checks can't be that expensive. We need to be paying for those out of pocket.
And call me whatever, but how do you suppose 20M illegals using the emergency rooms are affecting our private insurance rates?
Viagra-fueled lies?
I listen to Limbaugh, and while I do not agree with everything he presents I find him very entertaining and informative. (I have little patience for rude bashers.) Yet I have yet heard a specific lie put forth by those who are constantly calling him a liar (yet do not, would not, listen to him). Most everything is innuendo and demeaning. "Viagra-fueled" is such an example. Exactly what does that term mean to you?
I would love to have national health care. But believing in unicorns do not make them real and I have yet seen any program that the federal government has succeeded at. Any takers?
ken, it's hopeless to have a
kenb, it's hopeless to have a discussion with you. All you do is spout leftist talking points that have little to no facts. You don't care to listen. Just push granny off the cliff, right?
kend - but when the left runs out of cogent talking points they resort to mocking and bashing. They're funny that way...not!