Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) is the Poster Lady for Congressional Arrogance
This widely-reported incident, from an August 11 townhall meeting in Houston, featured Democratic Congresswoman Jackson-Lee talking on her cellphone, ignoring cancer survivor Tracy Miller's raising concerns with HR 3200 (i.e., the euphemistically and oxymoronically named "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009"). It just crystallizes the callous disregard of arrogant, publicity-seeking politicians masquerading behind a gimmicky show of pretentious, disingenuous "listening" and "openness" to constituent concerns, but in reality politically exploiting citizens' concerns over the unintended consequences of an unprecedented, unnecessary, unfocused massive federal intervention, the culmination of liberal/progressive paternalism. This country has a history of over 200 years of economic liberty in patients transacting with their physicians without even more intrusiveness and exorbitant costs of bureaucratic rules, regulations, and paperwork of tyrannical, corrupt, self-perpetuating federal bureaucrats in health-related decisions.
It is embarrassing, even pathetic, listening to Ms. Jackson-Lee's state of denial over her boorish, inexcusable, unprofessional behavior, in full display during a subsequent interview with CNN's Rick Sanchez. She just can't bring herself to stop the implausible excuses, to publicly admit that she was wrong and to offer an unconditional apology to Ms. Miller. As a professor, I would never allow a student to disrupt a class with a cellphone conversation, I think cellphone calls and text messaging by drivers are a public safety hazard and should be prosecuted, and I never take a call during a meeting with a user or client: it's a fundamental issue of respect. I realize that it is unlikely that voters in Jackson-Lee's district are going to elect a conservative to the House, but I urge them to consider voting for leadership change next year in Texas' eighteenth Congressional district.
Death Panels? Palin's Failure in Constructive Leadership
As a pro-life conservative, I am pleased to hear the Senate bipartisan Gang of 6 seems to have dropped a mandatory "life counseling" requirement in their attempts to broker a compromise to health care reform. Former Vice Presidential nominee and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has famously and pithily characterized these as "death panels".
We do need to acknowledge the fact that a large amount of medical expenses is incurred near the end of life by a number of elderly patients. There is no doubt that Medicare (and American workers) pay a large percentage of these costs. Especially as Americans live longer lives and encounter such circumstances, we do need to discuss how to control these costs, especially as any reserves are rapidly drawn down during recessionary times. Certainly when we start talking about the use of medical technologies where a person is terminally ill and has virtually no quality of life, one can argue that the patient has a moral right to make that decision. There is a line between a moral right and a moral obligation (to hurry up and die for the benefit of inheritance-seeking relatives or society). Ideally we would prefer individuals to establish "living wills" at times of their choosing, during periods of health and mental clarity, not while ill, emotionally vulnerable, and being manipulated by others with a material vested interest in medical decisions. (Somehow I suspect that "life counseling" is not aimed at encouraging seniors to exercise their rights to extraordinary means for life preservation...)
Palin and Gingrich do a service in pointing out the slippery slope of the government's intrusion into end-of-life medical decisions and the clueless arrogance of American progressive paternalism that government bureaucrats can effectively micromanage health care sector costs. What I would prefer to focus on is not the obvious question of morally unacceptable government rationing (if not elimination) of end-of-life technologies, but addressing research, development and market introduction of more cost-efficient medical technologies and treatment. I would prefer a less provocative approach than references to "death panels" and Nazi genocide to discussing end-of-life issues, but progressives need to address frankly the logical implications of what mandatory "life counseling" means instead of putting lipstick on a pig.
Obama Reverts to Attacking Health Care Insurers, Politically Exploiting His Late Mother, Grandmother
It was just a matter of time before Obama went back into campaign mode, in the face of plunging approval ratings and rising public opposition to the Dems' transparent Trojan horse approach to a single-payer health care system. You see, Obama thought he had it all figured out: what he felt went wrong with the Clintons' politically fatal attempts to nationalize health care was the Clinton Administration's high-profile involvement on the issue. He manufactured a crisis involving a small percentage of uninsured Americans and underestimated the American people's concerns about the impact of a public option on their existing health care coverage: would their employers simply dump their plans as a cost-saving move and force them into a plan even the President and Congress wouldn't want for themselves? Of course, Obama and his progressive allies conclude the issue is not with their "solution" to health care "reform", but with "misinformation" by conservative talk show hosts and Fox News: they need to "educate" (i.e., brainwash) Americans.
The progressives, however, are in a state of denial. They can argue all they want that conservatives are engaged in a politics of fear (now there's the pot calling the kettle black given the extremes Obama went through in promoting a bloated "stimulus" package with only a tiny percentage disbursed over the first 6 months). There is a deep suspicion that the hyped cost savings that the progressives are pushing are ethereal and taxpayers and future generations will end up paying for it, that Medicare cuts will affect senior citizen access to and quality of health care, and the federal government will not be a fair competitor in the marketplace. Despite the national media all but endorsing the progressive agenda and attempting to portray dissenters as chronic unconstructive complainers or extremists, the progressives find themselves with a health care reform package opposed by most voters in recent polls. There are enormous political risks for Obama and Congressional Democrats in pushing a significant reform package without net popular support and virtually no meaningful GOP buy-in. This means, for instance, any significant relevant adverse developments (such as employers dumping their plans or ballooning program costs) could result in a backlash against Democratic control of the Congress and the White House.
The fact is that Obama just can't bring himself towards legitimate compromise. Recall last summer, when gas prices were pushing $4.50 a gallon? Obama was beginning to soften his opposition to offshore drilling--but just as soon as oil prices sharply declined in the aftermath of the economic tsunami, Obama immediately backed off. Never mind the fact that the basic supply-demand equation has not changed, that the developing world's consumption of oil is on the uptrend and the oil exporters' fields are maturing or declining, and America's own production continues to peter out, requiring even more external supplies at a steep price. We are going to see the same old same old play out in the future--the Democrats, who have done nothing since they regained power in Congress over 2 years ago towards expanding local production, are going to AGAIN argue it takes so many years to bring new finds into production--not a word about the fact they've frittered away 2.5 more years on their watch...
The second example is how Obama earlier this year seemed to flirt with the idea of medical malpractice tort reform. Everyone knows he has an issue with a limited supply of doctors to handle millions of newly insured, and there's no question that one of the highest cost factors in health care is defensive medicine, which is strongly related to the issue of medical malpractice. But Obama is so tied to the financial support of trial lawyers opposing malpractice tort reform, he simply can't bring himself to do the right thing. I've outlined a number of things in past posts where he could find consensus with Republicans, including catastrophic health care, improved public access to cost/availability information on health care products and services, expanded immigration quotas for qualified medical professionals, deregulation of the health care insurers to operate across state lines, and reforming and expanding assigned risk pools in states (to handle preexisting conditions).
Obama feels that he has no alternative but to go back to his scapegoating campaign style: he has been unable to sell his health care reforms on their merits. What better way to convince the American people that the "public option" will be a fair competitor to private health care insurers than to demonize the industry? Is it a good political tactic to attack private sector insurers popular with their policyholders? Does Obama really want to bring attention to government-run programs in other countries (like Canada and the UK), where treatment is often delayed and more effective drugs are not prescribed (versus comparable private sector patients in the US)?
Then Obama brings up the facts that (1) his mother had to fight to be covered for preexisting conditions (cancer) and (2) his maternal grandmother died of cancer days before his election as President (re: death panels). Speaking as someone who underwent an outpatient procedure less than 2 months under a new insurer, I had no problem because I was able to show continuous coverage over the two preceding years. The condition was diagnosed under the old provider, but the surgery was postponed because of a transition in my primary care physician.Without knowing the specifics of Obama's mother, I would infer that she had not been enrolled in a health care insurance plan prior to her diagnosis. The issue is one more of fairness to insurance companies, whom feel they are being exploited by last-minute patients dumping their costs onto the insurer, just like coastal homeowners waiting until a hurricane approaches before attempting a purchase of flood insurance. Without some sort of an insurance mandate and/or assigned risk system in place, e.g., BEFORE a woman becomes pregnant, insurers could find themselves saddled with "hit-and-run" policyholders whom only hold coverage long enough to collect during periods of illness, pregnancy, etc. There are ways to handle this WITHOUT resorting to Obama's public option scheme.
As far as Obama's grandmother, this was a thinly-veiled criticism of Sarah Palin; Obama expressed mock indignation that he would be accused of wanting to pull the plug on his grandmother; he also wanted to accuse her of hypocrisy for promoting consideration of living wills as governor. This doesn't wash; it depends on the circumstances of when, how, and with whom living wills are discussed. The issue isn't whether bureaucrats will pull the plug on Grandma but whether Grandma will feel pressured to give her consent. Obama is being disingenuous about the motivation for such a provision is in the health care reform legislation at all. He seems to think voters have forgotten his fantasy over being able to control health care sector costs. Since end-of-life costs are a significant cost factor, is there any question about why such a provision was in the bill in the first place? Surely not because information on living wills is unknown or unavailable to senior citizens...
