My take on health care reform

For months I have been assiduously avoiding commenting on the current national health care reform debate. My reasons for this were many: I was too busy; I was cynical about the chances and didn't want to dampen anyone's spirits and most of all, I was out-of-loop and ignorant and didn't want to face the barrage of correctional comments I would invariably receive since, given my background, if I waded into the water of health reform I would be unable to restrain myself from acting like I knew something.

What do I know? Oh, everything and nothing. See my little profile to the right on the blog page if you're not familiar with my background. Suffice it to say that I was a Washington lobbyist for national health insurance in Washington in the early 90's when Clinton tried to pass it and I've worked for arguably the four strongest single payer health care organizations in the country: Public Citizen, Neighbor to Neighbor, California Nurses Association and Physicians for National Health Plan.

Since 2002 when I left the California Nurses Association though, I have floated more and more to the fringes of health politics. Like so many before me, I have believed that we simply can't pass meaningful health care reform in this country without finding a way to counteract the effects of big health care industry campaign dollars on the parameters of the possible. Hence, I have largely confined my efforts to pass national health reform to a) working to pass public financing of elections and b) prayer.

Nonetheless, I couldn't resist a lump in the throat and a feeling of excitement this week as the health care headlines sailed by. From what little I know, I think it's a huge stretch to compare this legislation to Social Security, but it is historic. It's historic largely because it actually passed and for generations little else has (Children's Health Insurance Program and Health Insurance Portability Act notwithstanding).

My standard rant on this subject is that Democrats will never get anywhere on health care reform as long as they run away from government. Obama's effort proves that no matter what the specifics of the bill, Republicans will campaign against it as if its single payer national health insurance. It may be (and to me it looks like this largely is) basic no-brainer insurance reform mostly to increase access, without any major diminution (and perhaps a slight increase) in private sector power/profit and influence and the GOP will still call it socialism, government takeover, government taking away your doctor.

The thing is that if it really is single payer you can counter back with things like: yes, but every man, woman and child cradle to grave will have full health care coverage for the same amount that we're paying now to cover a fraction of the population. No matter where you work or live or who you're married to or what money you make we'll all have an insurance card and we'll take it to any doctor and we will all get coverage of everything we need. I don't think you can say that here. I don't think you can say it by a long shot.

This time around despite (or maybe because of) the win, I am enjoying being peripheral to this process and out of the loop. My strong guess is that if I were working for Public Citizen now I'd trade in the lump in my throat for a pit in my stomach. I can viscerally recall the contempt that familiarity with the Clinton administration bred in me and so many others. It can really be comforting to know nothing.

Watching State of the Union with the fam...

Bill came home from work tonight with a story that studies now show that most of the younger voters who engaged in the Obama campaign/win are now completely uninvolved in the political process. To remedy this, the four of us listened on the radio to Obama's State of the Union Address while we ate dinner, then retired to the tv room to watch the rest.

The kids paid close attention, indeed, our 15 year old son shushed me and his sister as we repeatedly made comments about some of the congress people's clothing (I'm trying to teach my daughter to value flash over substance, o-kay?).

As I sought there, watching the speech and thinking back to the campaign, I flashed to that election night where practically our entire cohousing community of some 45 people was crowded into the small living room of one of a one-bedroom apartment to watch the coverage on our neighbor's widescreen tv. The excitement was over-the-top with everyone, including the communists and green party activists who may or may not have voted for Obama.

I resolved to create a wild State of the Union party for the next Obama speech and started planning the snacks, but then remembered that I was watching this speech now and focused. The speech was by and large excellent. The man can talk, and his people can write. He snuck in some good jokes, and some self-effacing, crow-eating moments. He blamed the previous administration copiously, but not in a mean way. He announced some doable and admirable initiatives, mostly to create jobs and boost the economy.

3 things stuck out at me from the speech:

1) Obama bashed the Senate more than I've ever seen one President bash a particular body of the Congress. Consciously praised the House, bashed the Republican minority for forcing a supermajority to get anything done, bashed the cowardice, bashed them for stopping health care, bashed them for stopping financial reform package, bashed bashed bashed. Clearly a decision was reached to make the Senate the scapegoat. Safer then bashing the whole Congress--after all only 1/3 of the Senate is up for relection this year, while the whole darn House is up--too risky to lay the blame on the whole institution. Plus the House has delivered and the Senate hasn't. So bash he does...

2) Obama announced a (probably modest) return of protectionism. I counted 4 instances when he talked about initiatives to save American jobs, export more, enforce more sanctions on international trade, etc. Maybe I'm wrong but this seemed like a different strategy than Clinton, and plays well with labor of course, and probably is popular generally. Maybe this is a way of playing to the public mood for isolation at the same time as he's gotta fight a war. Let's be isolationist on the economy, if not on security.

3) In the last 5-10 minutes of the 70 minute speech, almost in an instant, the whole room changed, both on the screen and at home. The assemblage went from watching a politician give a speech and playing their respective roles of clapping, booing, cheering, or being bored at certain parts, to listening. Speaker Nancy Pelosi over Obama's left shoulder lost her frozen deer-in-the-headlights grin and dropped her jaw. Tears came to her eyes as Obama spoke of the way the nation had pulled together to get through crises before and we could do it again.

For a few minutes, he was the Obama we voted for, the Obama who can change the world, the Obama we trust. And we were all Americans listening to our President.

Strickland or Webb for Obama

I can't take credit for this at all. I'm basically just parroting my husband--but he knows everything.

Bill says that Obama should consider the following two people for veep:

1) Ted Strickland, Governor of Ohio:
pros: could swing Ohio; minister (Obama could say he's got a new minister!), centrist, Hillary supporter (unify the party), white male, he's a GOVERNOR not a Senator, has foreign policy experience.
cons: hmmm, well, white male, centrist, Hillary supporter (but that's just me).
Bill says just leave him to do the business of Ohio and campaign only in Ohio and neighboring key states, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky. All Obama has to do to win is hold all the states Kerry won plus Ohio.

2) Jim Webb, Senator from Virginia:
Pros: popular, Bible thumper, could maybe bring Virginia, centrist, is he another Hillary supporter?
Cons: another senator.

Okay, that's all for now. Trying to get back in the blogging game.

Obama's Coattails for Peace

People need to start recognizing that Obama is the best nominee, not just because he is more likely to beat McCain in November, but because he is more likely to beat him big, bring new voters into the process, thereby positively affecting the downticket races.

Donna Edwards is the first exciting case in point. Yesterday, Democrat Donna Edwards (who happens to be a former Congress Watch colleague of mine) pulled off a stunning upset against 6 term incumbent congressman Al Wynn (D-Maryland) in Maryland's fourth congressional district (a hybrid of Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties in suburban DC).

The margin of victory? 20%! Completely unheard of for a primary challenge against an incumbent not currently under indictment. Hmmm...Who else won his Maryland Democratic primary by 20% on Tuesday?

Three guesses and the first two wear bold colored pantsuits.

This is no joke. Maryland's appear to be the first congressional primaries of the year (February is very early). Donna is part of a slate of Democratic challengers across the country running against Democrats who supported the war and continued military buildup. And she won, not a little bit, but huge, with the exact same margin of victory as Obama.

People who know Maryland's fighting 4th tell me the little old lady faithful stayed with Winn. They've voted for him for years and saw no reason to change. So what made the difference for Donna is not the party faithful but new voters, or occasional voters; people who don't usually come in in droves in primaries.

We all know about the Clinton coattails (in his second presidential bid, Clinton not only maintained his loss of Democratic control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 50 years, but Democrats lost gubernatorial seats and control of state legislatures across the country).

I love the idea of peace candidate Obama first sweeping in new peace Democrats in the primaries, and perhaps adding to the Democrats' margin in November, transforming it in the bargain from a majority of Democrats, to, dare I hope? a majority of progressives.

California Dreaming in the New Hampshire Primary

Not knowing (but suspecting) what may happen in the New Hampshire primary today, here are my musings on the way things are shaping up:

Despite my support for Edwards, it is hard not to get swept up in Obama fever. I suspect that if this is true for someone like me who has followed the elections closely, and educates herself about the candidates, it is doubly true of the average voter.

Watching Obama's victory speech last Thursday in Iowa (Obama, not I, was in Iowa--I try to keep as far away from Dubuque, Des Moines, Davenport, Marshalltown, Mason City, Keokuk, Ames, and Clearlake as possible), I had this strange feeling: pride and a lump in my throat. If I had ever known, I had forgotten what it was like to be truly inspired by a presidential candidate (I was born while JFK was in office and was 7 when Bobby was shot).

That feeling of remembering a forgotten dream is very powerful. I want to be part of history. I want to stand on my feet and vote for change. I want to forget that Obama's sweeping rhetoric seems to mask a haziness about policy details. I want to forget that he has repeatedly voted to fund a war he says he doesn't support. I want to forget that I really know almost nothing about him. That part of his growing appeal is that corporate America is comfortable with him. That he wants the health insurance industry to play a role in ending the health care crisis....whaaaaa?

So I suspect that the people of New Hampshire will do the same. I suspect that Obama fever will/has spread to California. And I wonder what the dream of a new America will bring?

Could Hillary's Attacks on Obama Help Edwards?

In what is seriously a 3-way dead heat in Iowa, Edwards may be the beneficiary of the animosity between the two presumed front-runner camps.

Thanks to Vince Marchand of Sacramento (I say that like I have readers all over the country and as if Vince isn't one of my best friends) for sending me this Dave Corn column on Hillary's attack on Obama dubbed "Kindergate." Apparently Hillary's camp viscerally hates Obama and has released devastating evidence that proves conclusively that Obama has been planning to be President since he was in Kindergarten--gasp!

The most damning thing the Clinton camp has to say about Obama according to Corn? "It's his presumptuousness," according to one Clinton operative Corn talked to. "That he thinks he can deny her the nomination. Who is he to try to do that?"

I doubt whether Kindergate will hurt Obama, but repeated negative attacks might eat into his support. The attacks may also backfire on Clinton. Who stands to gain? John Edwards, that's who.