Protests at Home and Abroad?

Robert Reich's Blog post of November 17th: Obama, China, and Wishful Thinking About American Jobs is very interesting. You can find it here

He quoted Pres. Obama: “We cannot go back...”
“...we're taking out a bunch of credit-card debt of home equity loans, but we're not selling anything to them.” Dr. Reich is discussing here the wish that the many Chinese will become consumers of American goods and services.

He went on to describe one reason the Chinese government will not, cannot, let that happen. Why they are building more factories to produce more than they can consume. If they do not create more jobs for the poor that are heading for the factories, they face possible “massive disorder”.

Thus China wants American “know-how”. So in order to sell products in China, US companies must cut deals to make goods in China not in the US. He ends this blog post with the following:

Both societies are threatened by the disconnect between production and consumption. In China, the threat is civil unrest. In the U.S., it's a prolonged jobs and earnings recession that, when combined with widening inequality, could create political backlash.

Why is it that in the U.S. The fear is only of political backlash? Why isn't there more “civil unrest” here? Of course civil unrest here doesn't need to be the same as in China. We don't need to worry about deaths to the demonstrators. We don't need to worry about trials for the demonstrators. Well mostly we don't have to fear these reactions. Why?

There are many questions in that paragraph. Maybe you have some good answers? Here are a few of my thoughts.

Maybe we are getting older and lazier? Maybe we are too busy watching TV? Maybe we are just too depressed to march? Maybe we no longer feel we have any way to make changes- “Our government doesn't listen no matter what we do.” ? Maybe we don't have the money to make the trip to ...? Maybe we have so much going on, or not as the case may be, we are in a state of confusion? (Sometimes that is me) Too many groups asking you to email, write, call, or march about so many good causes?

As for the last Why: Maybe the government and the politicians have figured out that if you let people march in protest without a lot of push back they won't get much coverage and they will pack up and go back to their meager little lives after their little protests. Think about it.

With all these questions and the many answers, the vote becomes more important than ever. My idea is that maybe instead of dread and disgust with politicians and politics we should start to study them now.
Remember 2010 could get very interesting.
Don't forget Vote Smart. It is a good way to keep up to date and keep track.

Photo is an edited photo taken by my Baby Brother.

Health Care Plans Again

I am sorry but this is a long one.

Historically health care plans seemed doomed to fail. Will they again? I researched some history of previous attempts. I learned that no matter which period of time, or which party, the arguments against the plans sure sound similar. The arguments for health care plans are similar. It is just that as time progressed the costs and the problems grew. So put it off again and let's talk about the costs to our kids and grandkids.

"When on July 30, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Medicare into law at the Harry S. Truman library, he said that it "all started really with the man from Independence".**

*Poen, Monte M.,"National Health Insurance", in The Harry S. Truman Encyclopedia, ed. Richard S. Kirkendall (Boston: G.K. Hall & Co, 1989): 251 http://www.trumanlibrary.org/anniversaries/healthprogram.htm

The above website is excellent for research on former President Truman's views and ideas on health care in the U.S.

Here is the similar health care plan:

“The most controversial aspect of the plan was the proposed national health insurance plan. In the November 19th address, President Truman called for the creation of a national health insurance fund, to be run by the federal government. This fund would be open to all Americans, but would remain optional. Participants would pay monthly fees into the plan, which would cover the cost of any and all medical expenses that arose in a time of need. The government would pay for the cost of services rendered by any doctor who chose to join the program. In addition, the insurance plan would give a cash balance to the policy holder to replace wages lost due to illness or injury.”

Here is the similar argument against it. Just not the communist part. Now it is the we don't want to be European stuff.

“...The American Medical Association (AMA) launched a spirited attack against the bill, capitalizing on fears of Communism in the public mind. The AMA characterized the bill as "socialized medicine", and in a forerunner to the rhetoric of the McCarthy era, called Truman White House staffers "followers of the Moscow party line".* Organized labor, the main public advocate of the bill, had lost much of it's goodwill from the American people in a series of unpopular strikes. Following the outbreak of the Korean War, President Truman was finally forced to abandon the W-M-D Bill.” (same site)

Another piece of history:

“...Going as far back as pre-Revolutionary War America, virtually the only support for primary care services to the poor in the United States came via local government in the form of either payments to private physicians or the hiring of a nurse or part-time physician within the local public health department.”

Article: the AMA Faces Down FDR and Wins Physician Executive, Jan-Feb, 1993 by Norbert Goldfield

found here http://www.bnet.com

Very good articles from Norbert Goldfield on health care. I recommend you read them all. In another I found this synopsis on Eisenhower's plan.

In particular, Eisenhower recommended the "establishment of a limited federal reinsurance service to encourage private and not-for-profit health insurance organizations to offer broader health protection to more families.

...It indicates why the President of the AMA warned in his annual address to the House of Delegates that "our economic problems are not solved....As a matter of fact, these problems have increased. The socialistic trend and government intrusion into the business and affairs of the people have shown little evidence of change. The greatest battle for the preservation of democracy is yet to come.

For another, easier way to follow basic history of attempts to have any kind of health care insurance whether government or the business sector try this site: http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/history.htm

I refer again to Norbert Goldfield writing in another history of health care article in 1992. On Nixon's attempt to reform health care:

“Nixon's proposal, Family Health Insurance Plan (FHIP), called for a subsidized program for basic private insurance for low-income families and for all employers to provide private health insurance for employees and dependents. Nixon's employer mandate proposal may sound familiar, as it is very similar to Senator Edward Kennedy's current legislative proposal. When asked about this odd juxtaposition, Kennedy stated that he simply wants some form of health care legislation enacted into law.”

According to Mr. Goldfield's historical health care articles Nixon actually left much of his domestic policy to others as he felt foreign affairs were his strong suit.

The same old socialized medicine arguments came up along with others.

Health care became an issue for Reagan by the time he ran for President. Read debates with Pres. Carter for some. He was at one time hired to read a script for the AMA against Medicare and Medicaid. President Reagan did make cuts to the Carter health care budget. I found that somewhere. President Reagan is hard to research-his acting gets in the way.

So now I think I see that no matter how much the “middle-class” wants health care for all and is even willing to pay for it not much gets done. Mr. Goldfield discusses the reasons using the book, Thinking in Time; the Uses of History for Decision makers, by Richard Neustadt and Ernest May. Go to the 1992 article on Nixon and health care to get an overview of some of the book and the theories and recommendations. http://www.bnet.com

The way I see it this is like putting off so many things. Maybe like not weatherproofing or not putting in a new furnace. I could go on but let's use the example of a needing a new roof for a house for many years.

If you had done it when you first knew there was a problem (let's say 15 yrs.) it would have cost $6000 for the whole roof. You were probably better able to afford it then. Now, it will cost $6000 for ½ of the roof and the $6000 is very hard to come by. At least it would be for me. In the meantime, you lived with leaks and a yearly do it yourself sort-of fix. A ceiling may be partially ruined and you probably have mold hiding somewhere.

If you still don't fix it, your investment is going to drop even more than it has and your kid, the one that inherits, is at best ending up with less. At best he/she will end up spending more money than they can get back.

How is that for a scenario of “put off 'till tomorrow what you could do today” and the costs. So think about that scenario when you hear about the costs to future generations. And remember the “socialist” argument has been around forever in one flavor or another. It used to be called communistic now that isn't useful so it is just the dreaded socialism. And costs go up and profits go up and fewer people get health care.

Your insurance company, if you have one, is already telling you and your doctor what procedures you can or can not have. Sometimes you are the one paying them to tell you. The drug insurance, if you have it, is telling you and your doctor what drugs you must “try” first before you can take what you and your doctor have decided is the best for your body. Your doctor, if he or she is a decent one, is putting up with insurance companies not paying them for weeks. Your doctor, if he or she is not so decent, is charging more to make up for that and more. If you live in a rural or outlying area you don't always have good access to health care because there aren't enough of you to make it pay or you don't have the facilities and equipment.