A special comment from me.
I've gotten some heat from a few progressive websites about a CBS Evening News piece on the angry weekend protests at constituent meetings in Pennsylvania, Texas and elsewhere. Speaking for myself here, and not for CBS, I think the piece is exactly on point. Correspondent Wyatt Andrews noted that conservative websites had organized some of the crowds, but also that the anger reflected in some of the barbed questioning reflects a reality: there is anxiety in the nation about health care reform.
A majority of the public supports reform in principle and, broadly, in practice, but they are also worried about more government control, about the costs of reform, and whether they'll see any benefit. These aren't dumb or unfounded worries. It's not surprising that the meetings tend to attract those who oppose reform, and these formats generically attract louder, less shy voices. No doubt: some of the loudest voices were prompted to attend the rallies because they hate Obama and want him to fail and because they were asked to do so by conservative groups.
That doesn't make the protests illegitimate -- and it doesn't make the protesters any less legitimate either. In the tech age, grassroots, grasstops, organic and spontaneous are concepts that no longer describe discrete realities. The goal of interest groups -- liberal and conservative -- is to reflect, simplify and magnify complex policy messages. Pointing out that FreedomWorks is funded in part -- by -- gasp -- a stakeholder in the debate -- does not in and of itself say anything about whether anxiety exists. Who pays for what and who influences whom is relevant, but the short CBS story was about the reality of anxiety -- regardless of whether FreedomWorks ever existed, the White House still wanted a bill by August. Pointing out that the leader of FreedomWorks was trained by Lee Atwater is probably a compliment.
The fact is that the Democrats and the White House are not yet winning the battle over health care on their own terms. The Republicans have succeeded in twinning the Democratic "side" to the ugly process of Washington sausage-making. The White House messaging has been a bit inconsistent. And Democrats -- as Taylor Marsh pointed out to me -- "looked positively stumped" when it comes to figuring out a message on their own.
Okay, anxiety exists. But is that anxiety grounded in reality, or is it merely the result of dishonest fear-mongering?
It's the media's job - your job, Marc - to sift through the debate and separate fact from fiction. By refusing to do this, by covering these protests as shallow spectacle without delving deeper into what the protestors' specific complaints are and whether they are in fact valid, you are doing a grave disservice to the state of political discourse in this country.
Hear, hear.
I wish people like Marc and others in the media would cover (or care about) the anxiety of people like me. I have a chronic health condition, and have years of experiences of trying to get coverage, trying to get enough coverage, worrying about losing coverage, etc.
Evidently until I'm willing to act the thug at a town hall meeting, my concerns aren't "valid".
KatR,
That's a straw man argument. Just because Marc has a post about the legitimate concerns of one side of the debate, that doesn't mean he can't appreciate and coomprehend the bigger picture. If this were easy, it would have been done by now.
the point is, though, that they're NOT legitimate concerns. the concerncs are astroturfed and paid for by lobbyists to disrupt any form of discussion or debate, hoping to defeat any kind of reform and maintain the status quo which, by the way, will BANKRUPT this country unless we change it...
Read the bill. links are on the Drudge report. Rationing and a direct attack on Medicare are there in plain print.
Yeah! As a 67-year-old, I am worried. I'm still working, but may get dumped into a "cheaper" and really cheap public "option" and invited to suffer and die because my life or mobility is not deemed cost effective.
I don't think we should let a clone of the fish and game department run a key part of our lives. Ask fish and game about the welfare of an individual animal, and they don't care. They only care about the welfare of the species.
I second Darius.
Darius above has it exactly right: Ambinder and others keep commenting on the sidelines but do not "inform": they don't reveal untruths, they don't explain, they simply don't do their job. And please, Marc, don't give me any "we report, you decide" crap.
Well put Darius.
Of course many 'journalists' view this 'battle over healthcare' as a game. Who will win? The Obama Admin or the crazy teabaggers?
This isn't a game for your amusement Marc.
I completely agree. Marc, stop the false equivelence and start trying care what the facts are. If journalists aren't going to do there job MSM deserved to die.
The irony of all this is that these very same people should have zero credibility with anyone of at least average intelligence. These are the "flowers and candy", "heckuva job" folks who have done little but ignore real problems or create new ones for the last eight years. These are the same people who believe wholeheartedly in the free market fairy and who try to assert that many of our current economic woes stem from the fact that the rest of us just didn't BELIEVE enough. These people were perfectly happy to see us go from a national surplus to a national deficit as long as the top 2% could get a few more dollars shaved off their taxes. And here they are again--framing the debate, which is pretty much the only thing they know how to do. But it appears to be enough.
Marc:
Usually you are right on point nad the reason that i enojoy sifting through the different posts to get to yours in the insight that you provide. Buy Darius is right above...so is Josh at TPM....
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/08/whos_he_arguing_with.php#more?ref=fpblg
you are not just a stenographer...that is not the job of a free press in this country...my 2 cents...for what it is worth.
George
I think there's a disconnect in your analysis.
There is anxiety about healthcare reform, largely because there is a multiplicity of plans proposed and there is a lot of disinformation being bandied about, but anxiety is not what is being expressed by those who are disrupting townhalls. If you're anxious about something unknown, you don't ask a question of someone in a position to explain and then prevent them from giving a response.
Its organized intimidation, pure and simple, and to use your time on national television to link these tactics to reasonable concerns about healthcare reform gives them a democratic legitimacy I don't think they've earned.
the protesters just want to be listened to. It's amusing to hear liberals complaining when people who oppose their ideas using the same tactics of intimidation. Of course both the boorish factions are wrong.
But on the issues, the protestors on the right are right.
Look at England and Canada folks. their plans add up to Stalinism without Stalin.
Let's learn from their example and solve particular problems with particular solutions that work without denying and delaying care.
This is a little bit of tough love from Ambinder, and it's obviously receiving some heat from the usual sources.
The White House hasn't done its homework in putting together the health care reform package, and they haven't figured out how to communicate the necessity of that deeply imperfect, but still very important, health care reform package.
The reaction of the White House to its detractors is to write them off as loons... which misses an important opportunity to counter their arguments (done simply enough, even if it won't perfectly silence all detractors.)
And of course writing the whole group off as loony only makes the larger group of more rational opponents to health care reform more entrenched.
Let's face it, any reform of health care will involve some pain. Reform is necessary, but it's loony per se to pretend it won't be a difficult -a very difficult - transition.
I'm concerned that the "write them off as loons" technique is a mirror image of the Bush administration's "write them off as non-patriots."
Obama can do better. And he must if he is to do well for the Democratic party in the 2010 and 2012 elections.
The problem is that the loons are the loudest. Where are the legitimate questions? Most have been addressed by the White House and Congressional Democrats. If skeptics still have doubts and worries then need to address them civilly. The point of these town halls is to give the rational opponents and undecideds a chance to ask questions. But the loons hijacked these town halls, meaning the real questions will go uncovered by the media - and unanswered in the town halls.
Members of Congress need to ditch the bogus town halls and hold smaller, living-room style meetings. They should make sure to hear the voices of skeptics. But no rational discussion is taking place at town halls. And what's worse for the skeptics, the members of Congress can easily ignore the opposition. As Lloyd Doggett said, "All they said was "Just Say No." Well, that's not surprising from the Party of No."
I address my concerns civilly and no one responds.
The current package does nothing to rein in health care inflation.
It treats real preventive measures dismissively.
I don't disagree with you that the tea partiers are not entirely honest in their tactics. Then again, when it's Code Pink, I excuse it.
So... let's face it, if we're not there to counter it, they seize the discussion.
And IME, too many liberal people typing, not enough liberal people showing up.
Real anxiety also existed in 2000 over whether Bush voters would get a fair shake. They just happened to be Republican staffers in that spontaneous, televised-all-over appearance. Apparently half of Southern Republicans are anxious over the prospect of having a Constitutionally ineligible President.
Of course the White House isn't shepherding whatever legislation is going through, and the disapproval ratings show that, but to pretend that the screaming igits are representative of substantive criticism or a viable alternative is nutso. And yet they're getting 10 times the credo of tens of millions of worldwide pre-Iraq War protestors. Oh well.
Sorry Mr Ambinder, but you deserve the heat you are getting.
Over here we have an organized, well-funded campaign engaging in systematic disruption of public events. Meanwhile, over here we have, according to the media, "some" people with "worries" about healthcare reform.
In your reporting, you have - without providing any investigation, evidence, facts, research or context - conflated those two groups to the point that they are apparently equal and indistinguishable.
It may very well be that these protests are a sign of major public discontent with the health reform packages, but we would have no way of knowing that from your reporting. You openly admit that you have no idea how legitimate or important these protests are, and then, in the very next breath, you argue that they are in fact legitimate and important.
Is it any surprise that you getting critisism from this?
Though I agree with what you sya, I actually don't even see where Ambinder is getting the heat? The only link he has posted points to a Hamsher article which doesn't even mention Ambinder.
There was plenty of anxiety back in the 80s over expanding the roles of women in the military, too.
Norbizness,
I'm a lifelong Democrat, and am holding my nose to support this health care reform package, which is, IMO, too much of a gift to insurance companies and big Pharma.
So if you think there isn't legitimate opposition from people who are not as invested in this administration as I am (I worked for last fall's victory), e.g. from Republicans, I think you're being willfully and stubbornly naive.
The screaming "igits" are thankfully not the face of legitimate criticism, but that does not deny that they are indicative of a deeper well of legitimate opposition.
And if they're getting a disproportionate amount of media attention, do me a favor, do all of us a favor, go out and bring your voice to the Town Hall meetings.
They get attention, because you're typing from home.
I think I just missed my chance with Lloyd Doggett's, but I wonder how I can compete with that guy with the SS-inspired graphics or the giant Lloyd Doggett devil-head-on-a-poster? Should I pen an anthem to single-payer, get the remaining members of Pantera to record it, and blast it over the guy who, in a hypnotic trance, is screaming "JUST SAY NO" over and over again.
Krabappel: Then let us take our case directly to the townspeople.
Chalmers: Oh, yeah, that'll be -real- productive. Who do you want to talk to first? The, the guy with a bumblebee suit, or the one with a bone through his hair?
They are sort of dumb and largely unfounded. If you're currently uninsured, "more government control" is not a threat. If you are insured and like your coverage, you don't have to join the public plan. And we're already incurring the costs in the form of uncompensated care at hospital ERs and in the resulting higher reimbursement rates for covered services that are needed to pay for it.
People are entitled to their opinions. They're not entitled to their own facts. It used to be a journalist's job to say, "These people are worried. But the thing they're worried about isn't a real risk." Now it's "Shape of Earth: Opinions Differ."
Also, citing Taylor freakin' Marsh for criticism of something Obama does is like citing Randall Terry for criticism of something Planned Parenthood does.
People are entitled to their opinions. They're not entitled to their own facts. It used to be a journalist's job to say, "These people are worried. But the thing they're worried about isn't a real risk." Now it's "Shape of Earth: Opinions Differ."
You are so right. This was a key feature of Campaign '08 and it has continued. I happen to think there are real concerns by real people about the cost of health care reform.
But, that does not negate the 'journalistic' trend you identify. Look at the 'birthers' - why is any news organization or blog even covering them? They are not a legitimate political group because they have been disproved. Period. End of story.
You identify the most serious issue facing journalism today - not the decline of print, blah, blah, blah but the willingness of so-called journalists (or commentators) to repeat items that have been proven untrue - or to report them in the first place.
Marc,
What about the peril for conservatives of having their legitimate concerns or anxiety conflated with vapid rabble-rousers such as the tea baggers?
Why is everything always a problem for Democrats, but never for Republicans?
Or perhaps I jumped the gun on your next post, where thoughtful HCR critics complain about the disruptive tactics of FreedomWorks as "distracting from their core message."
FWIW, I agree with Mr Darius and friends. This amounts to hundreds of sock puppets being disruptive as hell and thinking that therefore democracy triumphs. It doesn't.
Also, Marc, if you're setting up a "Dems failed to sell this plan well" storyline in the eventuality organized rightwing fear-mongering succeeds in killing off the public option, don't bother. It will be the fault of the people who are lying, not the ones who are telling the truth.
Uh, I think its more accurate to say the GOP indulges these screaming mi-mis at THEIR peril. These are people in the middle of toddler-level tantrum crying about the future coming. Name the politician in the GOP who can both acknowledge these people and distance himself from them at the same time. I'll wait........
I'm an American, I voted for Obama and I've been living in Paris, France for about 30 years. It is really disheartening to witness the ugliness and the craziness in America, as represented by the Teabaggers, the incredibly venal members of Congress, and the dumbed-down US media. Over here EVERYONE has medical coverage. A good friend of mine died a couple of months ago from a very virulent cancer unfortunately diagnosed too late. He had THE BEST of medical care for 5 years and money was NEVER a question, period. Is the system perfect? No, but compared to the nightmares my U.S. friends describe to me, it's fantastic. Over here, NO POLITICIAN (sorry for the caps, I'm a little overwrought by this) who opposed universal healthcare could be elected to any office. Only the lunatic fringe could propose dismantling the public healthcare system. I'm actually starting to feel sorry for Obama, President of such a dysfunctional society. How about you Marc, how's your healthcare coverage?
Woah. Does Mr. Ambinder have a response?
Maybe if you're lucky or wealthy enough to be able to afford any type of health insurance for yourself or your family, then you don't have a dog in this fight. Unfortunately, I am self-employed and my health insurance premiums have more than doubled in the past four years. So, for me this is not a who's up-who's down, inside baseball, typical inside-the-beltway brawl. This is my life and the quality of it is threatened each time I experience any strange pain. I know that I am one major illness away from financial catastrophe.
Mr. Ambinder, rather than make your point to your colleagues, why don't you make your point to your readership through more incisive, more honest, more indepth coverage of health care reform? Approximately 52 million uninsured and millions more under-insured Americans need clear, unbiased voices in this debate. Let us hear yours, please.
No offense guys, but all of you have proved Marc's point. Of course, anyone who actually opposes Obama's health reform must be cruel/insane/bigoted/etc., right? Why can't Marc see that there's no 'real' anxiety behind the opposition?
Well, for starters:
1. Even the cheapest health care reform plan currently making rounds will cost $900 billion over the next 10 years.
2. Funding the plan with a surtax on the wealthy, as the House bills call for, removes one of the most potent weapons against reducing the general deficit, instead of the entitlement deficit, and will not provide the same means of self-sufficient funding that worked so well for FDR's Social Security legislation.
3. A public option that is not subsidized through general revenues but instead is self-sufficient through premiums, is no different than most standard Blue Cross/Blue Shield plans. Look what those have accomplished.
4. The CBO has stated that most, if not all, of the provisions currently under discussion will not bend the cost curve, except in the wrong way.
5. Polls have consistently shown over 80% of Americans are satisfied with their current health coverage. If the insurance companies really were that evil, no one would buy their product.
We're either in a recession, or are just starting to get out of one. We've just spent $700 billion on TARP, $787 billion on Stimulus, and have a budget spending twice as much as it's receiving in revenue. If these aren't real concerns, then you guys are worse than the FreedomWorks people.
And PS - to the American expat living in France, if you're disgusted with our tea parties over health insurance, what about those riots over the bad treatment and chronic unemployment of ethnic minorities in France's cities a few years ago?
And another thing. The claim that the opposition has no reform plans of their own?
Look at the Healthy Americans Act, proposed by Senator Ron Wyden (D) from Oregon with 14 co-sponsors in the Senate, half of which are Republicans.
Look at all the proposals Reps. Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor are churning out.
Look at proposals floated by John McCain's campaign that called for ending the tax subsidy of employer-sponsored health coverage and replacing it with a tax deduction or refundable tax credit. This is one of the few proposals that even the CBO agrees will actually bend the cost curve in the right direction by removing the veil from American's eyes regarding the true costs of their health care.
No one's saying that reform is needed. No one's saying they support the status quo. The problem is Obama's reform plans may make the situation worse than it is presently. Yes, that is possible.
@ Joseph: Who called Marc "cruel/insane/bigoted" ? I simply would like for him and his colleagues to do their job and report. Reporting involves researching and talking to people outside politics and the media. Are there no health care experts these journalists can turn to? Why is health care reform positioned as a Democrat vs Republican battle?
Also, you noted that some polls indicate up to 80% of people are satisfied with their current insurance. What about 52 million Americans who do not have health insurance and use the ER as their health care stand-in? What about the small businesses who can barely afford health care coverage for their employees?
If the current health care situation in this country is financially untenable, how long can we just kick this can down the road? Where is the hue and the cry regarding the costs of the military budget? It's a given that America needs to spend as much as possible to be able to bomb other countries into the Stone Age. However, when almost one in four Americans does not have health insurance, well that's just too expensive to tackle right now.
atlantapril,
Two of the three people who posted before you called detractors of Obama's health reform plan part of the "ugliness and craziness in America," contributing to a "dysfunctional society," and engaging in "toddler-level tantrum crying." My post did not state that you guys had called Marc cruel and insane, only opponents of Obama's health reform.
And yes, what about those 52 million Americans without coverage, or small businesses, or those with high premiums? Remarkably, many of them still stated they were satisfied with their health care, or else the 80% number would be lower. Additionally, much of that 52 million number represents individuals without coverage only for a few months at a time; not all 52 million are chronically without care.
It would be great for your insurance premiums, as a self-employed individual, to decrease or at least stop increasing. But take a closer look at the plans currently making the rounds in Washington, and you'll realize they won't accomplish anything of the sort. We still have a long way to go.
Joseph,
I never said that everything was rosy in France. I said that everyone has guaranteed healthcare. There's a word in French that expresses the effort individuals make to help assure the common good. The word is "Solidarité". I don't think a translation is necessary. It's human to grumble about paying taxes to support social programs. Most people here accept that it's the price to pay for a certain type of civilization.
Not even left-wing people over here approve of people burning down their own neighborhoods, by the way.
The American expat living in France
PS. Try to find one American who's moved back to France who will diss the French healthcare system. They'll bitch about plenty of other things, but not that
Having lived in France, I concur that the health care provided by the French is excellent.
But I would also posit that the French do a great deal of "self-regulation."
An obscene amount of our health care inflation problem is due to diseases that accrue once a patient becomes obese, or develops obesity-related illnesses diabetes type II and heart disease.
These are not such a big factor in France, largely thanks to a high level of social pressure not to be a "gourmandise."
Taking care of your own body, which includes not putting on an excess of fat, is an essential component of preventive care.
I wish that Obama's plan followed the French model more closely - both in terms of covering everyone, and in terms of preventive care.
I understand you never said everything's rosy in France. I was just making sure there wasn't any condescension from across the Atlantic over some peaceful protests, though your statement on the altruism of the French people makes me suspicious again.
And yes, in France everyone's guaranteed health care, but only to a point. There are many treatments and surgeries that are either not available or very hard to get in France, that are more accessible here. Granted, many Americans don't have health insurance. But they are guaranteed healthcare, to a point, when they walk into a hospital.
Our healthcare systems both have flaws, as you've pointed out. And I can tell you, as an American who actually lives in America, even those protesters care about the common good.
I'm going to be away from a computer for awhile, but I just want to say that I've enjoyed participating in this discussion. But I have to once again disagree with you Joseph. Several members of my family are health care professionals. I know of no one who has been treated only up to a point or denied any kind of care . My dear departed friend actually breathed his last in the cancer ward of one of the most modern hospitals in Europe. This was far more expensive to the system than had he died in a hospice. But as he was somewhat in denial about his state, his doctor kept him in that ward where he felt most secure, as his treatment had started there, five years before.
Where the system fails is mainly in the non-technical aspects of care, such as psychological, logistical and spiritual help for the seriously ill person and his family . Such care IS available but the doctor/technicians don't always make the patients aware of it, maybe because they don't have much regard for this type of care.
As for condescension toward protesters, I plead not guilty. On the other hand when I see people shouting down speakers at town meetings, I can't help but suspect there's an overlap with the birthers, anti-abortion activists etc. This is undemocratic behaviour and yes I will once again say I find it both crazy (ie. irrational when it comes to health care reform) and ugly.
I think you've missed the point Joseph. The critisism isn't on the relative qualities of this or that reform package. The critisism is Ambinder's reporting.
These protestors are not asking questions or discussing information or engaging in dialogue. They are instead engaging in a concentrated effort to disrupt public events and physically prevent discussion and dialogue from interested citizens. And there is signifigant, irrefutable evidence that many, if not most, of these protestors are organized by professional astroturfers and funded by the health insurance industry.
Now in the scheme of things that's perfectly acceptable: people can protest whatever they want for whatever reason they want. It's a free country. But it's the news media's job to provide facts and context to the discussion.
For example: I'm a Red Sox fan. If I go to Yankee stadium and boo the Yankees lustily, well, that's fine. I bought the ticket, I can do whatever I want. And if there's evidence that the Red Sox are paying me and hundreds of other fans to do that? Well, that's fine too. It's a bit unsportsmanlike, but the Sox can spend their money on whatever they like.
But what if journalists start reporting our booing as legitimate complaints from Yankees fans about the direction of the team? What if reporters take this booing as evidence that the Yankees are in danger of alienating their fans? That would be foolish, and that's what Ambinder has been doing.
Marc's article acknowledged that. He stated that industry groups were behind many of the protests.
The point of his article is that there is real anxiety behind opposition to Obama's health reform plan, for reasons I mentioned and others. He wasn't arguing that all the protesters at the town halls and Q&A's were innocent, concerned citizens. I'm afraid many of your fellow critics committed the red herring fallacy in warping Ambinder's argument into one regarding the innocence of some protesters, and used it to score points against any sensible opposition.
So even though I am a Red Sox fan and I appreciate their incorporation into the argument, the analogy misses the point of Marc's article.
Marc,
Yes, there is real anxiety. But these are townhall meetings for constituents of particular Congressional districts. Are these "concerned citizens" even constituents of the Congressmen they are harrassing? I'd like to know. For that matter, how many of them have attended more than one townhall? If they are being bused in (and travelling around from Congressman to Congressman) all this anger is a much less important and much less impressive than you are making it out to be. By taking them at face value, these questions are left unasked. Which is exactly what they want, by the way.
DanG,
What concerns me is that the discussion has once again been hijacked -
from how the reform package could be (and seriously needs to be) improved and strengthened, to keep it from being such a boon for pharma and insurers,
TO:
"lookit the tea party igits"
Obama is (so far) letting the corporations run the show, from failing to initiate real bank reform, to letting health care get hijacked by big pharma,
And the worst part is that people who should be putting pressure on Obama to act more decisively are simply content to shift the focus to tea partiers.
People, the tea partiers are not the problem. Obama is not even the problem.
WE are the problem for failing to apply pressure on Obama to hold to his ORIGINAL single-payer idea. And to real reform of a democracy that's been hijacked by the big corporations.
We wouldn't even care about these tea party people if we knew we had a solid package on the table. You know it. I know it. And the rest of America knows it.
That's what the discussion should be about - fixing it - not propping up a failed system.
plutarchos,
1. Obama never proposed any single-payer plan. He said if he were starting from scratch, that would be his preference, but that's a long way 'his original idea.'
2. "Big Pharma" making big profits is a good thing. That implies that people are buying their product at high numbers. Again, if the system has completely failed, then why are over 80% of Americans consistently satisfied with their own health care?
3. "And to real reform of a democracy that's been hijacked by the big corporations." Any evidence of this? Or just more irrelevant anecdotes and logical fallacies, with some "Big ____" name-calling tossed in?
Joseph,
1) Obama did propose a single payer plan back when he was younger and smarter - in Chicago.
2) No, big pharma making big profits is NOT a good thing. And it's not just me who is concerned, ask Dr. Marcia Angell, the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine who has written extensively about the abuses of the pharmaceutical industry.
The lack of restraint shown by big pharma - coupled with its obscene spending on lobbying and marketing - in orders of magnitude at this point over the amount they spend on research - is a deep problem in this country.
If you don't acknowledge that it's an issue, then you obviously don't read The NEJM, The Wall Street Journal, The NYTimes, The Economist, The Financial Times, or the Washington Post, to name just a few publications which have addressed this issue.
As a former health care worker (I left in the middle part of this decade), I can report that the "80% of Americans consistently satisfied with their own health care" is a gross overestimation.
3) Ask Simon Johnson of the IMF why we can't get banking reform. Ask Marcia Angell why we can't rein in big pharma. Ask the Innocence Project why we can't reform the prison system. Ask a VA doctor why Blackwater and Halliburton make billions while our soldiers go without.
They'll all tell you the same thing. In essence, it's regulatory capture by corporations.
But I have a question for you: how do you rein in health care inflation, after you end the insurance companies and rein in big pharma? Do you think the AMA may have resisted measures that would restrain health care inflation?
Or will it all be fixed by insisting 80 percent of Americans are "happy" with their own medical care.
plutarchos,
1. You're probably right, I haven't researched Obama's proposals all the way back to when he was a state senator in Chicago. He was younger, smarter is arguable, but I'd say he's wiser now in that he understands Americans won't go for a single-payer system. When the Postal Service is running a $7 billion deficit, lines at the DMV are terribly long, and students graduate public high schools without being able to read at a 8th grade level, it's very unlikely this country will go for either a single-payer or British-style single-provider system.
2. I know many people are concerned over big profits at the pharmaceutical companies. These are the same people who get upset at ExxonMobil for doing a great job cutting costs and reaping great profits as a result, etc. I'm just saying they don't know what they're talking about.
It's common sense: if "Big pharma" is so abusive, if their products are so expensive that most people can't afford them, then why are their sales numbers so high?
And fyi, many pharma companies haven't been doing so hot lately, there's been several mergers and takeovers in recent years as the pipeline of new drugs is starting to dry up. Possibly thanks to efforts at the FDA to 'rein in' Big Pharma.
3. I can't speak for all those areas. Reforming the prison system and the controversy surrounding Blackwater and Halliburton are off in different realms, you're casting too wide a net with one accusation.
However, problems reining in Wall Street and Big Pharma may be due to the fact it's not the government's responsibility to rein in entire industries. The Sherman and Clayton Acts were targeted at monopolies, the Securities Acts were targeted at accounting fraud etc, and protections exist to guard against collusion. Maybe your banking reform really isn't reform at all.
Your implication is just because these companies make a lot of money, they should be 'reined in.' If that position held, you wouldn't even be able to post comments such as these on a Internet message board such as this one.
4. I don't believe big pharma and insurers need to be reined in too much to bring down health care inflation, though protections are needed against denying coverage for reasons such as PEC, etc. However, I already made a post above about the many alternative proposals floating around in Republican and moderate Democrat circles that go farther than Obama's. No one's expecting the conversation to end at the 80% statistic.
"It's common sense: if "Big pharma" is so abusive, if their products are so expensive that most people can't afford them, then why are their sales numbers so high?"
Well, if you'd read Dr. Marcia Angell of The NEJM, or the Financial Times, or The Economist, or The New York Times - again, all publications that have covered this issue ad nauseum -
then you would know that those sales numbers are so high because they are essentially buying off physicians, because we live in a pill-happy culture, and because very sick Americans can't be persuaded to make essential changes to their lifestyle because their doctors tell them they just need a pill.
On the other hand, if you want to keep pushing the talking points of PhRMA (I'm sure you're familiar with THAT lobbying group) you're doing just fine.
PhRMA has spent 40 million on lobbying since January. Salud! I hope they're paying you well!
"And fyi, many pharma companies haven't been doing so hot lately, there's been several mergers and takeovers in recent years as the pipeline of new drugs is starting to dry up. Possibly thanks to efforts at the FDA to 'rein in' Big Pharma."
If that's so, how did they manage to spend 40 million on lobbying since January through PhRMA?
Bear in mind that number is independent of the millions of dollars that individual pharmaceutical companies have spent this year. And kid, the year ain't over.
Here's a little note from Marcia Angell that may explain why the pipeline of new drugs is starting to dry up:
"Benjamin Zycher's "Drug Development Needs Private Industry" (op-ed, June 28) aims to refute my statement, which he accurately quotes, "The drug companies do almost no innovation now [italics added]." But the examples of innovation he cites date back to the 1980s or earlier. Moreover, he doesn't tell the whole story even about these older drugs. For example, Amgen did not work out the synthesis of Epogen on its own; it licensed the basic technique from Columbia University. Nearly every top-selling drug today has progenitors dating back many years, often based on NIH-funded research in universities.
"Even Mr. Zycher found that of the 35 drugs he reviewed, "private-sector research was responsible for central advances in basic science for seven." That's not much of a yield. (Mr. Zycher should have mentioned that the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, with which he collaborated, is largely supported by the pharmaceutical industry.) Far from doing scientific innovation, the large drug companies license or otherwise acquire discoveries from universities or small biotech companies, then develop them for commercial production and sponsor the clinical research necessary for FDA approval. That's expensive, but hardly creative in the scientific sense. As one senior executive told Journal reporter Gautam Naik (Feb. 13, 2002), "We're not going to put our money in-house if there's a better investment vehicle outside."
"The problem with this sequence -- publicly-funded innovation handed off to the drug companies -- is that the industry expects to be rewarded as though it were the source of innovation, pricing drugs as high as the traffic will bear and doing everything possible to extend its exclusive marketing rights. The only really innovative thing about this industry today is the claims of its apologists.
Marcia Angell, M.D.
Harvard Medical School
Cambridge, Mass.
Back when I was in college it was generally (no: exclusively) leftwing fanatics who used these tactics, disrupting speaking engagements, debates and public meetings when anyone whom they disagreed with was featured. Conservatives, rightfully, complained and I recall the label "Little Stalins" being applied to such people-- some of whom graduated on to the fullscale violence that has marked WTO meetings and the like. is that next on tap for these Teabag Bacchantes-- broken windows, torched police cars and maybe a bleeding body or two?
These sorts of tactics are simply illegitimate, no matter what the cause. And if these folks did have an honest grievance they have rendered it irrelevant by carrying on like this. Spoiled five year olds are better behaved. Someone should send these overgrown brats home and put them to bed without their suppers.
"Back when I was in college it was generally (no: exclusively) leftwing fanatics who used these tactics, disrupting speaking engagements, debates and public meetings when anyone whom they disagreed with was featured."
An excellent point, but it's worth noting that your timeline and your geographic line is fairly specific.
There were right-wing fanatics engaging in such behavior during the 1960's in Argentina, in Chile, in Greece, et cetera. In Greece, those right-wing fanatics were often funded by our government, in an effort to combat communism. (Our government's behavior was bad, but the Soviet Union was doing worse in Greece during that time - not to excuse EITHER; it was an ugly time.)
Having said that, I believe the mandate to keep the protest outside and the discourse inside is reasonable and valid.
I think the reason that groups like Code Pink started bringing it inside is because they found they couldn't get media coverage even if they lit their hair on fire.