- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Business
- Politics
- School Zone
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
Joe Conason: Understanding Our Hollow ‘Centrists’
The puzzling thing about politicians of either party who claim to be “centrist” or “moderate” is how much they sometimes sound like party-line right-wing Republicans. Distinguishing among these species of politicians can be almost impossible during the current struggle over health-care reform, especially when a senator such as Blanche Lambert Lincoln of Arkansas tries to explain herself.
Like so many of the Republicans they try to emulate, the conservative Democrats claim to worry about spending and deficits — except with respect to programs that benefit them, their favorite constituents or the lobbyists who pay their campaign expenses.
Facing re-election and plummeting poll numbers, Lincoln voted to commence debate last weekend. But then she turned around and warned that she would probably join a Republican filibuster against the Democratic health-reform bill. Why? Because the Democratic legislation, favored by a clear majority, is likely to include a public option.
Last July, Lincoln published an essay on the op-ed page of the largest daily paper in Arkansas that stated clearly why a public option should be part of a broader reform plan: “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 nonprofit plan that can accomplish the same goals as those of a public plan.”
That makes perfect sense in her state, where Blue Cross-Blue Shield controls 75 percent of the insurance market, and throughout much of the South, where similar monopoly conditions prevail.
But over the summer, Lincoln and certain other members of her party were simultaneously spooked by low poll numbers and persuaded by big insurance and pharmaceutical donations. So more recently, she has learned to parrot the Republican talking points about the public option and the general topic of health care. The fact that those talking points are largely untrue doesn’t seem to trouble her or the other nominally Democratic senators who have likewise threatened to join the filibuster.
“For some in my caucus, when they talk about a public option, they’re talking about another entitlement program, and we can’t afford that right now as a nation,” she has said. “I would not support a solely government-funded public option. We can’t afford that.”
Yet if Lincoln has actually read the Democratic health-care bill — and the analysis provided by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office — then she knows that none of those complaints are valid. The public option is not an entitlement program, although the health-care bill would provide subsidies to help families that cannot afford health insurance to buy either public or private plans.
Second, the public option proposed in either the Senate or House versions of the bill would not be funded solely by the government, because both bills require the plan to be supported fully through premiums paid by the insured.
Third, the proposed bill is not only deficit-neutral but is estimated to reduce the federal deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next two decades.
Now, of course, Lincoln — just like her fellow self-proclaimed moderates — is well aware of all those basic aspects of the bill because she insists that she has read every word. Still, she tells the world that we cannot afford real reform.
What can we afford? According to these worthy senators, we can afford to spend a $1 million per soldier to send another 40,000 soldiers to Afghanistan — an amount that would add up over the coming decade to about $400 billion, with no obvious benefit. And according to Lincoln, who chairs the Senate Agriculture Committee, we can afford to spend $14 billion a year or more on subsidies that mainly enrich corporate farms and wealthy growers.
Back home in Phillips County, Ark., for example, where her family owns considerable acreage in rice and soybeans, big farmers have cashed U.S. government checks totaling more than $300 million over the past 10 years.
So when these centrists warn that we can’t afford health-care reform, double-check their facts — and ask why they prefer to spend tax dollars on wasteful wars and corporate subsidies rather than health care for every American.
— Joe Conason writes for the New York Observer. Click here for more information, or click here to contact him.
Comments
Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use.
» on 11.27.09 @ 08:30 AM
“Public Option” is not an entitlement because some talking point list says it is so!
Watch carefully. The government is going to provide (unlimited) healthcare to some 35 million more people and will not cost me anything. My medical costs (insured and not-insured) will not go up. My taxes will not go up. In fact, my taxes will actually go down. I will have better access to doctors and I will be able to keep my current medical program.
It will pay for itself. Yeh, right, just like Medicare and Social Security are paying for themselves. Any government plan will become an entitlement with rapidly increasing benefits because it helps the incumbents to get re-elected. Why should anyone believe that this is going to be different? It is the same for Republicans, Democrats, aristocrats, tomcats, muskrats and other lowlife. There is only one true party in Washington, and it is the “I am entitled to re-election” Party.
Over the last 40+ years I have watched Social Security benefits get enhanced during election years. This year is different. It is not an election year, but the SS beneficiaries are getting a bonus payment anyway. It is now only 100% likely that the weasels will issue a new SS bribe/bonus just prior to the 2010 elections. Will this payment be another withdrawal from the empty Social Security Lock Box, or will it just be added to the current year Federal Deficit?
These behaviors demonstrate the same government “values” that give taxpayer money away for another Louisiana Purchase, Bridge to Nowhere, and Farm Subsidy. The governments pick my pocket and then present me with a “gift” of some of it while they keep the rest. There are no ethics in the Capitols. They appear to actually believe that the bribes hidden in 2000 page bills are legitimate horse-trading. The biggest horse-trade was when they traded their souls for political power.
We have the government we deserve. I believe that I am entitled to government that is better than this. I hope that you agree. If so, then:
Throw all of the Bums out! Start Over!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 11.27.09 @ 11:14 AM
Right on Gary! A politician is just that. It doesn’t mean a thing which party they belong to or what religious ideology they bray, it’s still lying, cheating and stealing with these guys.
Joe makes goods points, for a left wing toady, too bad he did not read the bill he thinks no one else has read either. Some of us have read it Joe, and no we are not fooled by it at all. Some of us Joe are not blinded by party loyalty or ideology and can see snake oil when we read it. Some of us Joe know that more services consume more wealth and our economy is sliding into a wealth neutral or wealth negative service economy from a wealth creating manufacturing producer economy. That means Joe for all you idiot socialists out there that there will be less and less stuff to go around a greater population.
When Joe and his limited intelligence friends (you listening ‘Local’?) realize you can have all your stupid bad behavior enabling coddling nanny state bleeding heart feel good crap when you decide to work for it then we can have a conversation about your left wing adolescent form of compassion. Until then get your butt back to work and if your job is in services, any services (that’s you mister banker man and lawyer) we no longer have any social use for you at all. You are a drain on our economy, but I hear China could use your kind of help ( Joe the commies would really love you over there. They just love your redistribution of wealth philosophy, except unlike you they realized they needed to make the wealth they want to redistribute and that is best done by a capitalist economy, get a freaking clue loser!)
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 11.27.09 @ 04:23 PM
The dirty little secret in ALL the proposed health care plans is that they plan to reduce Medicare and Medicaid funding in order to help cover the costs of the plan. HOWEVER, Medicare and Medicaid already UNDERPAY the actual suppliers of services by some 40% (see recent interview with the head of Cottage Hospital). California’s reimbursement is even less. Where, might you ask, does the difference come from? Out of the premiums of those who pay for private health insurance.
How do you know a politician is lying?
.
.
.
.
.
His or her lips are moving.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
Weather: Fair 41.0º
Search Noozhawk »
