1 Out of 7

One out of seven Americans lacking health insurance isn't just a statistic, it's a tragedy. The American Medical Association has a powerful group of ads running to make that case. I don't know why I was surprised to find the AMA telling us to "vote with this issue in mind." It is logical that doctors would be allies in the fight to make sure every American has access to health care. Not only is this position consistent with their mission, uninsured patients are costly to medical providers. A friend who works in hospital management told me that when an uninsured patient presents at their ER, there's a greater than 90% chance the hospital will never get paid. In these ads, the AMA has done a superb job of making the issue personal and emotional without pandering. Excellent. The Democratic Party needs to hire their ad company. Click here to view of these powerful ads.

Sphere: Related Content

Glenn Beck Completely Missed the Point

Writing about the uncaring medical staff he encountered during recent surgery on his rear and the "excruciating pain" that followed, CNN personality Glenn Beck observes that what we really need in health care is people who "care." Sure, that's important, but completely moot for the forty-seven million Americans who lack health insurance. Before you can evaluate the demeanor of the medical staff, you have to be able to get in the front door of the hospital. The "secret" is both access and care.

He goes on to say:

That's why I don't want to hear anymore about universal health care or HMOs or the evils of insurance companies until each and every hospital in this country can look me in the eye and tell me that they their staff is full of truly compassionate people who treat their visitors like patients, not products. Hire and train the right people, and then and only then come talk to me about everything else you need. Our politicians are right; we do have a health care crisis in this country. But it's not going to be fixed by them, it's not going to be fixed by some government agency, and it's certainly not going to be fixed by throwing more money around. No, if you really want to fix our healthcare system then look no further than the word "healthcare" itself because the secret is right there. The secret is "care."

Sphere: Related Content

"The Courage to Think Anew"

Political history doesn't turn on the amount of money you spend, but the courage to think anew. (The Argument, Matt Bai)

A year ago tonight-about right now-Daryl and I were at the Ritz Carlton in Montego Bay-an idyllic, perfectly calm setting for some badly needed rest. Little did we know, that was all about to change. About the time we were having dinner, my brother-in-law, Larry walked into his living room to find my sister, Ava, who had been just fine moments before, slumped over, unresponsive. I didn't find out until the next morning, but a large aneurysm had ruptured in Ava's brain. She was in ICU, on a respirator, clinging to life, against the odds.

In the days that followed, I traded a hammock by the beach in Jamaica for a chair in the ICU waiting room in Charlotte where I learned about things like "grade five bleeds" and "vasospasms." After three weeks in ICU, two surgeries (one that caught the aneurysm just before it "blew" again), weeks on the neuro floor, a month in the rehab hospital and months more of recovery at home, she didn't just survive an event that most do not-she survived with little residual impairment. She still plays the organ at her church and still serves on the planning and zoning board in her community. Amazing really. People, including her doctor, readily use the word "miracle" when they talk about her. She believes that it just wasn't her time to die. God's hand was with us, but there were other more earthly things at work as well.

For, example, Ava was close to a major medical center (Charlotte) with a specialized neuro ICU. She had excellent doctors. And, because Larry is one of those now-rare individuals who has worked for the same large company most of his adult life, she had excellent health insurance, and he had the leave he needed to be with her-especially after she came home.

Anyone can be just fine one moment and in need of state of the art medical care the next. When I talk about access to health care being a fundamental, civil right, it's because I believe everyone deserves the same shot at life that she had. To make that happen, in this new economy will certainly require that we have the courage to "think anew."

Sphere: Related Content

Is the NYT Shrill, Too?

Writing today for the New York Times, Paul Krugman, says

Senator Clinton delayed a long time before coming out with her own plan — a delay that created a lot of anxiety among health care reformers, and may, as I’ll explain in a minute, be a bad omen for the future. Still, this week she did deliver a plan, and it’s as strong as the Edwards plan — because unless you get deep into the fine print, the Clinton plan basically is the Edwards plan.

Over the last week, the Edwards campaign has been effectively holding Hillary Clinton's feet to the fire on health care. The issue is not the substance of her plan, but, rather, the timing of her plan. The truth is that John Edwards led on this issue in February-just as he has led on virtually every issue. While Hillary Clinton was talking about incremental steps, John Edwards published a comprehensive, workable plan to cover every American. Now, Clinton, seven months later, published a plan-one that is remarkably similar to the Edwards' plan. Any why not? It's an excellent plan. The Clinton campaign appears to be pushing back by focusing, not on any plan, but instead, on Elizabeth Edwards suggesting that she is "attacking" Hillary and is becoming "shrill." (For those of you who don't know, "shrill" and "attacking" are words people toss about in an effort to shut up strong, smart women-especially when they are both right and effective.) So, is Krugman "shrill," too?

It's not a problem that Clinton's plan so closely mirrors what Edwards proposed seven months ago. The Edwards plan is the best plan, and it makes perfect sense for her to emulate it. The question is, why did it take her so long? Krugman has a thought about that as well:

...even if the Democrats take the White House and expand their Congressional majorities, the insurance and drug lobbies will try to bully them into backing down on their campaign promises.
That’s why the long delay before Senator Clinton announced her health care plan made supporters of universal care, myself included, so nervous — a nervousness that is not completely assuaged by the fact that she finally did deliver. It’s good to know that whoever gets the Democratic nomination will run on a very good health care plan. What remains is the question of whether he or she will have the determination to turn that plan into reality.

For the first time in my memory, in John Edwards, we have an opportunity to nominate a Democrat who is both the most electable and the most progressive. John Edwards is not in bed with the lobbyists for the industries that hope to derail universal health care. Hillary Clinton is still taking their money. She says that the money won't impact her resolve to reform health care, but you have to wonder. With Edwards, there is no question about his resolve.

Sphere: Related Content

They're Speaking Our Language

If Democrats have learned anything over the last eight years, we have learned that once we use their language, they have won the debate. Well, Republicans are now using our language. This week, the Bush Administration used the words "universal health care," and for the first time in my memory, no expletive followed. Here's the quote from TPM Cafe:

Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said President Bush wants to achieve universal health care before he leaves office.
Leavitt told the USA TODAY editorial board that Bush will veto a Democratic plan emerging from Congress that would add $35 billion in taxpayer subsidies to the Children's Health Insurance Program over five years. In doing so, Leavitt said, Bush will urge Congress to join him in seeking coverage for all Americans.
"He'd like to see the larger debate begin," Leavitt said. "The very best opportunity we have may well be in the next 15 months."

I'd say that this idea is now officially mainstream.

Sphere: Related Content

John Edwards : We Didn't Get Healthcare, We Got NAFTA

Today, addressing the Laborers Leadership Convention in Chicago, John Edwards pressed Hillary Clinton on her newly unveiled health care plan. Today, Clinton became the third Democrat to unveil a plan for universal health care. Sen. Edwards led on this this issue by being the first of the candidates to announce a plan and provide the details. Today, Edwards took Clinton to task for continuing to take money from some of the same interests who help derail her 1993 plan. Edwards said:

"The cost of failure 14 years ago isn't anybody's scars or political fortune, it's the millions of Americans who have now gone without health care for more than 14 years and the millions more still crushed by the costs."

Edwards was referring, of course, to Clinton's typical "I have the scars to prove it" retort when challenged about her failed efforts on health care in 1993 and her advocacy for inviting special interests to the table now. To the labor union audience, Edwards pointed out that in 1993, the President (Clinton) strongly supported universal health care, none the less, thanks to the influence of lobbyists and special interests, we didn't get health care, but we did get NAFTA.

Edwards attempted to put bite in his growl today by saying that when he is elected, he will submit legislation that ends health care coverage for the president, all members of congress and all senior political appointees on July 20, 2009, unless we have passed universal health care. I don't imagine he's going to find a whole lot folks in Congress lining up to support that legislation....but, he made his point. What's good enough for the rest of us, is good enough for politicians in Washington.

Sphere: Related Content