As promised, our new address is http://seminal.firedoglake.com

Update your bookmarks and we’ll see you all over there!

Via Greg Sargent, quoting Senator Lincoln:

Health care reform must build upon what works and improve inefficiencies. Individuals should be able to choose from a range of quality health insurance plans. Options should include private plans as well as a quality, affordable public plan or non-profit plan that can accomplish the same goals as those of a public plan.

We’re pleased Senator Lincoln is moving in the right direction. With four out of the five committees in Congress supporting real health care reform, I know where the momentum is.

(also posted at the NOW! blog)

That’s basically the argument of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board today:

Speaking to the American Medical Association last month, President Obama waxed enthusiastic about countries that “spend less” than the U.S. on health care. He’s right that many countries do, but what he doesn’t want to explain is how they ration care to do it.

Take the United Kingdom, which is often praised for spending as little as half as much per capita on health care as the U.S. Credit for this cost containment goes in large part to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, or NICE. Americans should understand how NICE works because under ObamaCare it will eventually be coming to a hospital near you.

…

The NICE precedent also undercuts the Obama Administration’s argument that vast health savings can be gleaned simply by automating health records or squeezing out “waste.” Britain has tried all of that but ultimately has concluded that it can only rein in costs by limiting care. The logic of a health-care system dominated by government is that it always ends up with some version of a NICE board that makes these life-or-death treatment decisions. The Administration’s new Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research currently lacks the authority of NICE. But over time, if the Obama plan passes and taxpayer costs inevitably soar, it could quickly gain it.

Mr. Obama and Democrats claim they can expand subsidies for tens of millions of Americans, while saving money and improving the quality of care. It can’t possibly be done. The inevitable result of their plan will be some version of a NICE board that will tell millions of Americans that they are too young, or too old, or too sick to be worth paying to care for.

So, because the Wall Street Journal thinks that at some point in the distant future the Obama health care plan could possibly start to look like England’s, Americans should have health care reform? Really?

What about the care that’s rationed in this country every day? What about Maureen’s story? Maureen’s insurance company intentionally delayed her care (rationed it) because it was too expensive. She almost died. Check out the video of her story:

Think of how many stories you hear in the media about people skipping their doctors visit because they can’t afford it. Or hospitals or insurance companies denying care because of some esoteric rule in a patient’s health care plan. The reality is we ration care in this country, and there is already a bureaucrat standing between you and your doctor - an insurance company employee who’s job it is to deny as much care as possible to save the company money.

These practices, right here in the USA, must stop. That’s why we need reform. Don’t let the fear-mongers scare you into losing sight of that.

After voluntary deals with the health insurers and the drug companies, Senators and the administration reportedly has a deal with hospitals:

With health care legislation at a crossroads, the nation’s hospitals are near agreement with a key lawmaker and the White House to pick up part of the cost of President Barack Obama’s plan for expanded coverage, officials said Monday.

The precise size of any deal was not available, although several days ago, talks were focused in the area $155 billion over a decade. These officials said under the emerging agreement, hospitals would accept lower-than-anticipated payments under Medicare and Medicaid, the federal health care programs for seniors and the poor.

To which I say, like I’ve said before, great! Now let’s just write all those deals into law to make sure we’re not hanging our hopes on voluntary measures that never come to pass.

But there’s more at work here than just the policy. Obama has clearly decided that he wants to keep these large industry players at the table, and he’s keeping them there by making these kinds of deals. It’s a high-stakes strategy, because these players would just as soon keep the status-quo if they could, but so far it seems to be paying off, seeing as they understand status-quo is dead. Hospitals, drug companies, and insurers are still saying they are pro-reform, and more importantly, they have not poured their huge coffers into paid media advertising against reform. Keeping them at the table means they can’t spend a lot of time or money attacking other elements of reform. That’s a big deal.

Of course, keeping these people at the table carries the risk that the final product will be influenced by their interests, which makes it more likely the final product won’t actually provide quality, affordable health care to everyone. (And indeed, there is an understanding in this deal that the new public option would pay higher than Medicare and Medicaid rates - a win in that hospitals are tacitly agreeing to a public option, but with a caveat.) But, while the industry is spending $1.4 million a day, that money is just barely keeping them in the game. Reform is moving forward, and four of the five committees with control over health care in Congress are supporting a strong public health insurance option, the thing these interests fear most.

I’d agree with Jon Cohn about the big picture:

[Congressional and administration staff] suggested the political upside of these deals was considerable: “The more people are making deals,” one Hill staffer told me, “the greater the sense of inevitability that this will happen and the greater the momentum.” And while these sources understood the groups could simply walk away from the deals anytime–and declare, in effect, that their pledges of support were null and void–these sources noted that reformers, starting with the president, could do the very same thing.

Keep in mind these are deals with Baucus and, via his proxy, the Senate Finance Committee. But whatever comes out of Senate Finance will eventually have to be combined with the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee bill. The combination, in turn, will have to be reconciled with whatever comes out of the House. That creates quite a few opportunities for modification–and improvement.

Keeping these people at the table makes reform more likely, and if you can keep them at the table while still writing legislation that lowers cost and gives good health care to everyone - something these groups don’t really want to do - more power to you.

(also posted at the NOW! blog)

One of my all-time favorite Supreme Court decisions is West Virginia State Board of Ed. v. Barnette, a 1943 ruling that it was unconstitutional for the West Virginia Board of Education to require public schoolchildren to salute the flag.  The case was brought when Jehovah’s Witnesses (who have initiated several important cases involving constitutional issues) objected to the Board’s order, which required schoolchildren to make a “stiff-arm” salute, raising their right hand, palm up, while reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Several children had been expelled for refusing to salute the flag in school, and parents had been prosecuted for promoting delinquency.

I have nothing against patriotism; what bothers me, and what bothered the Court in Barnette, is compelled patriotism, where the state requires a show of patriotism, and punishes those who do not want to comply.  It’s always seemed odd to me that some people think patriotism can be mandated.  Forced shows of patriotic feeling make me think of Orwell’s 1984.  It seems especially ironic for a country that subscribes to extremely worthy ideals of freedom to seek to compel patriotism from its citizens.

The Barnette Court ruled that West Virginia violated the childrens’ First Amendment free speech rights by trying to force them to utter a “credo of nationalism”; by compelling speech they did not believe in.  The Court’s opinion contains a number of profoundly worded statements, but the one that always gets me is this: “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”  That pretty much sums up what it means to be free in America: the government cannot force us to believe what we do not believe, cannot force us to say what we do not want to say.  This is freedom of thought, freedom from Orwell’s thought police.

It’s always been odd to me that one of the places where you’re most likely to run into a required show of patriotism is at a baseball game.  I’ve been a baseball fan since I was about 7, and it’s always seemed odd to me that everyone is required to stand for the National Anthem.  I just don’t like compelled displays of patriotism, and I’ve noticed that people who don’t stand, or don’t take off their hats, sometimes get a talking to from an usher (it happened to a friend of mine a few weeks ago).

Now, that’s relatively minor stuff, and doesn’t implicate the First Amendment–by definition, only the government can violate the First Amendment, and most ballpark ushers either aren’t government employees or are off the clock.  Sometimes, however, constitutional issues do crop up at the ballpark.  Last August, a fan at a baseball game says he was kicked out of Yankee Stadium by a police officer because he left his seat to use the bathroom during the seventh inning playing of God Bless America.  The police officer, unlike the usher, is a government agent, so the fan had a basis for claiming that constitutional rights were at stake.  Today, it was announced that the lawsuit was settled, though the city did not admit liability.

I do not begrudge the fan his $10,001 recovery or his attorneys at the NY Civil Liberties Union the $12,000 they will receive in legal fees (based on the 9 years I spent as a litigator, I’m pretty confident that fee is not excessive based on the time the attorneys must have spent on the case).  However, it might have been nice to see an eloquent court opinion in this case, quoting the Barnette decision.

On June 25th, Maureen came to Washington, DC from Pennsylvania to lobby her Members of Congress on health care. The Campaign for America’s Future documented the trip, and her story.

The insurance company literally tried to kill her, delaying her routine care because they didn’t want to pay. She suffered permanent harm as a result. But she survived, and thrived, and was able to tell a crowd of thousands why health care can’t wait anymore.

Watch:

Maureen Kurtek Goes to Washington from AmericasFuture on Vimeo.

Last week, I wrote about workers who were fighting back against Wells Fargo after the bank cut off credit to Quad City Die Casting factory on Moline, Ill., causing the factory to close. This week Wells Fargo has cut off health care benefits to the workers, which the workers say violates federal labor laws.

The United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) Local 1174, which represents the workers, has responded by filing charges today with the National Labor Relations Board. The company also informed employees that Wells Fargo would not approve the expenditure of owed vacation pay, and the company has refused to pay a 2 percent wage increase due the employees under their legally binding collective bargaining agreement.

As Wells Fargo cuts off credit to Quad City and forces it to break its collective bargaining agreement with its workers, the bank has $25 billion in federal bailout funds that were intended in part to make credit more available to businesses.

“Wells Fargo first ends financing, forcing our company to close, and now they won’t pay us what we are owed by law. To us, our vacation, insurance and wages mean everything to our families. But to Wells Fargo it’s pennies, not even a blip in their billions. Yet they choose to cheat us out of what we have earned.” said Deb Johann, a union member employed at the factory.

According to management officials, Wells Fargo approves all expenditures by the company on a weekly basis. Workers are calling upon federal officials to investigate the practices of Wells Fargo.

The UE that represents workers at the plant is the same union that occupied Republic Windows and Doors last summer. Its members are engaging in direct action against Wells Fargo, calling on the bank to keep the plant open. Workers continue to demand that Wells Fargo do what is necessary to keep the company in business until a sale of the company is finalized. According to parties familiar with the discussions, there are currently several interested parties looking to make a bid to purchase Quad City Die Casting.

The union says that after having received $25 billion in bailout money, Wells Fargo has an obligation to promote economic recovery by keeping the plant open. UE Director of Organization Bob Kingsley said, “We can’t let this giant bank default on its obligation to the American people and the people of the Quad Cities. Wells Fargo is a roadblock to economic recovery.”

Growing up the son of a union organizer in Pittsburgh, PA, Mike Elk has been a part of the labor movement for nearly his entire life. Currently, he works on the health care reform team at Campaign for America’s Future. He has worked as a union organizer for the United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers (UE) and the Obama-Biden Campaign. Mike served as a research fellow at the Instituto Marques de Salamanca in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil helping to set up worker run cooperatives. When Mike is not scanning a twenty blogs at a time, he enjoys jazz, golden retrievers, and making friends of stranger. He blogs at Yinzer Solidarity.

In response to the hubbub today:

Richard Kirsch, National Campaign Manager, Health Care for America Now:

“Today, President Obama unequivocally reaffirmed his commitment to a public health insurance option as part of comprehensive health care reform this year. We believe too that a national robust public health insurance plan that is ready on day one is central to lowering costs, injecting competition into the health insurance market, ensuring access to care in every corner of the country, and keeping the insurance companies honest. We look forward to working with the President and Congressional leadership to accomplish these goals.”

Just so you know what kind of public option we’re supporting…

(also posted at the NOW! blog)

We’ve got some big news: By the end of this weekend, The Seminal will be part of the Firedoglake family.

This move has been in the works for quite some time, and everyone here is very excited about it. We will be joining the community site currently knows as the Oxdown Gazette (the name after we move over will be The Seminal).

Oxdown is a special place. First, it’s a community blog platform, which means anyone, not just designated authors, can write posts (called “diaries”). Those posts are displayed for all to see and comment on, and they can be put directly on the front page of the blog by editors for extra promotion. That means everyone here who currently reads and comments will be able to write their own blog post if they choose, meaning a lot more meaningful interaction both with folks here and folks already participating in the Oxdown community.

Second, Oxdown is connected to the larger Firedoglake ecosystem. Firedoglake is an extremely well respected progressive blog run by Jane Hamsher. She already has a pool of stellar writers working with her, and in short order, she’s built an extremely active community and a voice known for rebel rousing, pushing the progressive envelope, and moving elected officials to do the right things - all of which fits squarely within what we’re trying to do at The Seminal. Being part of Firedoglake also means particularly noteworthy posts of ours can be featured on the front page of Firedoglake, a huge platform with the means to drive media narratives, affect policy, and engage with a huge audience.

In short, we’ll be able to do two things better at the new Seminal: We’ll be able to reach a larger audience, and we’ll be able to grow a bigger and more vibrant community.

So, when you come to this site later this week and are redirected to our new location, don’t be surprised. We’ll all still be writing over there, just with more means at our disposal. And we look forward to hearing from you on the new platform, too!

Our new URL will be http://seminal.firedoglake.com

We’ll see you there!

As I noted last week, the overwhelming majority of Americans favor substantial change to the health care system, including the public option.  Even though Republicans are taking the unpopular position of opposing the public option, even though Republicans have no plan of their own to fix the problems millions of Americans are dealing with, they do have a few things going for them.  First, drug and insurance companies are spending millions of dollars on lobbying aimed at scuttling the public option and influencing members of Congress.  Second, the traditional media is failing to report fairly and accurately on debate.

I noticed one more problem tonight: even supporters of reform who favor a public option don’t know how to play the rhetoric game.  Republicans are masters of this–they have made phrases like “tax and spend liberals”, the “war on terror”, and “socialized medicine” into effective rhetorical tools in the health care context and beyond.  Supporters of reform need to stop accepting the Republicans’ terms of debate.  On tonight’s “The Ed Show”, Ed Schultz and Katrina vanden Heuvel, two supporters of the public option, lost a rhetorical battle with Republican Sen. John Barrasso, who opposes the public option.  Several times, Sen. Barrasso charged that health care reform promises a “government takeover” of the health care system, even suggesting that a single payer system is in the offing.  Pure fantasy.    No one on the Democratic side has managed to make single payer part of the debate.  The question is whether reform will include a public option, which would allow Americans to choose a government plan, but would not require it.  If people are happy with their current health insurance, they can keep it–whether it is provided by a private or public insurer.

Schultz and vanden Heuvel failed to make this point.  Schultz debated Sen. Barrasso directly, and simply failed to point out that Barrasso was creating a straw man by insisting that reform is about single payer and “government takeover” of health care.  Vanden Heuvel came on just after Sen. Barrasso finished his rhetorical sleight of hand and she too failed to point out that the senator’s argument depended on a red herring.

I’m no expert on health care reform, but I know that if supporters of the public option allow opponents of the idea to frame the debate in terms of a threatened government takeover aimed at socialized medicine, they have given up ground unnecessarily.  It’s time to call opponents of reform out and insist that debate is based on facts, not fantasies about proposed reforms that are simply not on the table.