The Feinstein 1200

The Good News - In a Realistic Light

2010-03-22T13:44:00.000-07:00

Thanks to all who wrote in during the last two weeks that the F1200 newsletter was on leave. During that time, our most active members continued to meet with and plan for an upcoming pre-midterm election "mixerpalooza” that we’re planning with five other local Democratic and progressive groups. Separately, we’ve been developing and pitching the Constitutional Amendment Reality TV show, and organizing our crew for an upcoming educational outreach to conservative groups.

Meanwhile, the Newsletter “bleat” was happy to remain muted for the last two weeks as the President stepped forward ever more assertively to see through his own trademark legislation. At a certain point, it was clear that the legislation would go forward on the leadership of the President and the House, rather than on our deathless phonebanking.

Yesterday, The New York Times reported that this more aggressive and assertive President had strong encouragement from Nancy Pelosi who rejected the “kiddie care” (her term) that the President’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, preferred.

While the legislation is hardly the package we had hoped for, even some of the bill’s most ardent progressive critics believe this could be an important start toward real reform.

But there's another upside: For those of us who came to view the dragged-out HCR process as a lower priority to more pressing economic issues, the last two months signaled Obama’s maturation into his Presidential role. With his stellar academic credentials and considerable presence, Barack Obama has had the misfortune, if you will, of success in his adult life followed by more success in his adult life. But like many first-term Presidents, his initial year in office was a different experience.

In the aftermath of the Coakley defeat last January, our young President has enjoyed the golden opportunity afforded only to those who, if you will, screw up. And as those of us outside the bubble of White House advisers have been urging for the past year, the “cool and diffident” approach wasn’t going to cut it in a crisis.

Thus, his more active role since the Coakley loss was instructive on a variety of levels:

1. It showed his base that he wasn’t so out of touch that he wouldn’t fight;

2. It was a necessary and welcome display of authority;

3. It was a necessary lesson for the President himself – as The Economist Magazine pointed out in the wake of the Coakley defeat, the President himself had not made an effective and consistent argument for reform; he had not campaigned sufficiently in its support; and he appeared unwilling to use the powers of his office. In short, he didn’t appear willing to fulfill the responsibilities of a President in a time of crisis.

So for yesterday’s “start”, let’s raise a glass to Nancy Pelosi, and to the President. And, in a nod to the “wisdom of crowds”, why not toast the voters of Massachusetts, who put a stop to the “business as usual” that had been enforced by the President’s inner circle? (That inner circle should be dismissed for failing to communicate to the President that the message was being lost as the rest of us sweated it out at various town halls all summer and fall.)

I have occasionally signed off with “Keep the faith.” Given the past year, I want to be more specific: “Keep the faith in your collective goals” – but continue to hold your elected representatives’ feet to the fire. Lost in the last-minute drama of yesterday’s vote, and in the circus-like right-wing antics that can only be sustained when strong Democratic leadership is missing, is one simple reality: yesterday’s victory should never have taken this long, been this close, or traveled so far from its initial goal.

In the meantime, thanks for hanging in there.

Feinstein Busts A Move; Spitzer Cautions

2010-02-21T17:28:00.001-08:00

Eliot Spitzer as NY Attorney General in 2001.

This was the headline (with link) from Saturday’s NYTimes blog post:

Feinstein to Propose Federal Supervision of Insurance Rates

“‘Next week I intend to introduce legislation to create a Medical Insurance Rate Authority to prevent egregious premium rate increases, like the one recently announced by Anthem Blue Cross of California, which will raise certain medical insurance premiums by up to 39 percent,’ Mrs. Feinstein said.”

As you know, Senator Feinstein first broached the subject of rate authorities last October. But they were to be state-wide, not federal. This is definitely an improvement, although one might ask why such a nationwide rate authority wasn’t included in the Senate bill. And one of our readers pointed out:

“If I'm not mistaken, Feinstein has talked about introducing this legislation and creating this regulatory entity for some time. It took this rate-raising action to get her to actually commit when she should have already done this work – rates have been going up astronomically for the past few years, known to all. And I have to say, there can really be no satisfaction unless legislation can actually be passed, including a bill to repeal the anti-trust immunity insurers currently enjoy. Sky rocketing rates and the ability to spend a mere 70% on medical expenses in California are bothunconscionable. So what took Feinstein so long to use that word?”

To put a reality check on our previous enthusiasm for Feinstein’s regulatory proposals, let’s review what Eliot Spitzer described as “the Regulatory Charade” just weeks ago during his talk in San Francisco. (The subject was financial sector regulation, but it’s worth considering how an enthusiasm for regulatory fixes absent the political will for enforcement would apply to health insurance reform.)

“What we are doing is what I call the Regulatory Charade. What do I mean by that? After a crisis of this sort – and it doesn’t matter whether it’s the Enron crisis which generated Sarbanes-Oxley or other crises – there is always the rush to pass a law. Why do we want to pass a law? The virtue of passing a new law is that malefactors in the private sector get to say: ‘Go pay attention to passing a new law, but don’t worry about prosecuting us.’ And the regulators who should have done something can stand up and say: ‘We would have stopped it but we didn’t have the power, so pass a new law to give us the power, and then it won’t happen next time.’

“This is all a charade because the reality is the regulators had the power, they just refused to enforce it. And the people who did the bad things should have been prosecuted. What we should have been doing is actually using the power that we had.

“Think of it this way, over the past year the Fed, the OCC, and the SEC have been doing an amazing number of things.” (Editor’s Note: Spitzer emphasized throughout his presentation that these organizations are still far from doing enough with their current power.) “They haven’t been granted new power to do it. They’ve been using the power they’ve always had, but never called upon. Why didn’t they call upon it before?

“I’ll give you an example from personal experience. We tried to investigate sub-prime lending back when I was AG. We went and served subpoenas and wanted to gather the data. I’d written an article in The New Republic in 2004 saying: ‘This debt’s not going to be repaid, this is bad stuff.’

“The OCC and the banks went to court to stop us from serving the subpoenas and getting the information. They said ‘You’re pre-empting.’ We had to litigate all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in order to get the power to actually ask the questions to get the information. But worst of all, it’s not as though the OCC and the other federal agencies said: ‘You stop. We are doing it.’ They just said: ‘You stop.’ Nobody was doing it. So the agencies who had the power simply didn’t use it, and this catastrophe simply grew and grew and grew.

“It’s the Peter Principle on steroids. We all know the Peter Principle, where people are promoted to their level of incompetence and they end there. What’s happened in DC is that people are promoted to their level of incompetence. And now, this will seem harsh, and I don’t want to say anything bad about people, but I will. Because of that incompetence, a huge crisis erupts, and they then use the crisis to argue that they should get even more power. And if you look at who is now in charge, it is basically the people who were in charge of the Fed and the Treasury and the OCC and the OTS throughout the time when this crisis was brewing.”

Shorter Eliot: Feinstein’s proposal for proposing legislation (which is all it is now) will mean nothing without the political will to enforce that legislation. Where will that political will come from, if not from industry (for obvious reasons) and not from our elected “representatives”? Pathetic as it sounds, it has to come from us. I predict that we will see, over the next few years, an increasing level of productive and sound engagement on political issues, especially from highly skilled, recent college grads unable to find employment in a languishing economy.

And having offered that important caution from Eliot Spitzer, I will add that many of us (myself included) are optimistic about the upcoming health care reform summit now scheduled for this Thursday. If nothing else, it provides an opportunity to show the American people how much more the Democrats have to offer than the GOP.

We’ll be catching up with Maggie Mahar (and Liz Warren) later this week.

As always, thanks for hanging in there.

Eva

Meet A Living Civil Rights Legend

2010-02-20T02:07:00.000-08:00

1. MLK Jr.’s Defense Attorney to appear in San Francisco tonight!

2. What Did Maggie Mahar Just Say?

3. Why Can’t You Be More Like Larry?

4. Regulation, Schmegulation

1. MLK Jr.’s Defense Attorney in San Francisco Tonight

Theron had emailed me about Saturday's opening, but I hadn’t realized that living civil rights legend Clarence Jones will be at the opening. (The opening is for a photo exhibit of images of the civil rights movement. It starts at 7 p.m. at 458 Geary, cross-street Taylor.)

Here’s a link to one of the photos in the show – it’s MLK Jr. and Dr. Benjamin Spock marching against the Vietnam War. It’s amazing how vivid and how alive this crisp black and white photo feels.

2. What Did Maggie Say?

“I don’t see how someone as radical as you ever got to be one of Warren Buffett’s favorite financial journalists,” I said last night to Maggie Mahar, after another screening of the film based on her book, “Money-Driven Medicine.”

Mahar didn’t miss a beat. “Because I write about what’s wrong with capitalism. And what’s wrong with capitalism is how Warren Buffett makes his money.”

I did a double-take, and she quickly explained: “He does that by buying companies that are well-managed.”

Got it. She had only meant to reference Buffett's understanding that market inefficiences can sometimes undervalue potentially strong companies. But for a second there it was a real zinger.

All the same, don’t let Mahar’s Ivy League background and her work for Barron’s fool you – this woman will, without warning, channel Upton Sinclair in her championing of the poorest members of society – with details so stark that “The Jungle” will read like “Pat the Bunny.” We’ll have more detail on her appearance in Sunday’s newsletter. (I want to give the two other F1200’ers who went to see Mahar on Friday night, including a nurse and an M.P.H., more time to gather their thoughts on the event.)

For now I’ll just say that, like Andrew Bacevich with his iconoclastic take on the relationship between personal consumption and US foreign policy, Maggie Mahar challenges us to see the larger picture. “A lack of access to health care is actually very low in terms of causes of premature deaths in the overall U.S. population. It accounts for only 10%.” The greater percentage of premature deaths, Mahar says, is due to behavioral coping mechanisms (the largest of which is self-medication) employed by those forced into poverty. Another 15% is credited to environment, which is also linked to poverty.

We’d raced over at the last minute when we heard Mahar was speaking because we needed to hear this extraordinary journalist’s take on the progress of HCR legislation, and that too will be included in Sunday’s newsletter.

3. Why Can’t Everyone Be Like Larry?

F1200’er Larry has allowed me to share his outstanding letter to Democratic leadership. You can read it here. I honestly believe that we cannot just keep giving money to groups that advocate for our causes and expect results. If democracy can be saved, it will be up to people like Larry and like so many people in the F1200 who take a passionate interest in the process and become involved. And from reading email from younger F1200’ers who have recently graduated from college or just finished their Ph.D.s, I honestly believe that the current employment landscape may prove fertile soil for reform - with the younger generation coming up with new solutions and approaches.

4. Regulation, Schmegulation:

The question of the week for our docs, nurses, and health care policy wonks was whether the regulation proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein last October would have prevented the 39% Anthem rate hike. But predictably, the proposed language was so vague that no one could agree! One of our nurses contacted Jackie Speier’s office with the question, and is standing by for a callback. She was dismayed that none of the aides in Speier's office knew - because Speier has an outstanding and smart staff.

In the meantime, Maggie Mahar and Eliot Spitzer have each recently answered the question in their San Francisco appearances by reinforcing the message that no amount of regulation will prevent abuses without aggressive enforcement. I hate to tell you this, but since the industry will never ask for such enforcement, you’re going to have to go and find your pitchfork.

Larry's Impassioned But Common-Sense Letter to Democratic Leadership

2010-02-20T00:32:00.000-08:00

Editor's Note: Normally, I would not include such long letters, but I was so moved by this excellent letter from one of the F12oo that I had to include it.

I was particularly impressed that someone took such care and so much time trying to communicate with the leadership they have supported - especially at a time when so many others have simply given up.

President Barack Obama

Senator Harry Reid

Speaker Pelosi

Subject: Health Insurance Reform

Dear President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi:

I am writing to let all of you know how disappointed and dismayed I am about your approach to Health Insurance Reform since the January 19, 2010 Massachusetts Senatorial election. During the last two weeks, your approach to continuing the fight to reform health insurance has been tepid at best. I think that this is exactly the wrong approach at this time! Health insurance reform is too important for the good of the country to let an opportunity one hundred years in the making slip away. I respectfully urge you to seriously reconsider your current approach to health insurance reform.

Usually, politicians give pep talks to the people to get them educated and “fired up” about particular issues. At this particular point in time, I believe that it is you (the politicians) that need the pep talk from the voters on how to proceed on health insurance reform. This letter is intended to be that pep talk. Please understand that I don’t intend this letter to be disrespectful (I support your positions on most of the major issues facing the country today), but I believe that direct and blunt words are now required on this subject.

It is time to seize the initiative on health insurance reform instead of ceding it to the Republicans by default! It is time to stop cowering in the corner and do something before it’s too late!!!

Following are eight points of emphasis supporting these two summary statements. They include my personal assessment of the current situation and some recommendations for your consideration.

1) Don’t let the Republicans control the Health Insurance Reform Agenda:

While I absolutely don’t agree with their health insurance positions, the Republicans have had better talking points and a better narrative on their health insurance positions over the past year than the Democrats. Yes, they have used gross misrepresentations and fear, but unfortunately it has been effective. You need to develop a strategy and narrative to seize the health insurance reform agenda from the Republicans. In addition, since not one Republican in the House or Senate voted for health insurance reform, there is no longer any need to pander for their support. They have made it clear that their principal goal is the failure of the Obama Presidency, and the best way to achieve that goal is for health insurance reform to fail. This needs to be a key part of your revised narrative and talking points.

2) Develop a better narrative on Health Insurance Reform and Use It Effectively:

You need to focus on developing a better, more compelling narrative and better talking points that effectively counter the Republican misrepresentations and appeals to fear. If you don’t, Democrats will continue to lose ground in the court of public opinion on health insurance reform. Your talking points need to be blunt and hard hitting and they need to point out the inherent selfishness of the Republican’s health insurance positions, the fact that they have not supported any meaningful health insurance reforms, and that their principal goal is the failure of the Obama Presidency. When the Republicans complain about not being included in the House/Senate conference committee, they should be forcefully reminded that not one of them voted for either bill and not one of them has indicated even the slightest willingness to compromise on health insurance issues. Further, you need to continue to emphasize (but more forcefully) that there is agreement on 80 to 90% of the health insurance reform issues, and that the status quo is untenable. Finally, you need to ensure that most, if not all Democrats use these talking points and continue to repeat them often, so that they get sufficient media coverage.

3) Don’t Over Think the Massachusetts Senatorial Election Results:

Yes, the election of Senator Brown was a defeat for the Democrats, but don’t let it paralyze you, and most of all don’t let the Republicans dictate what it means. I think that the election of Senator Brown was caused by a mediocre Democratic candidate, frustration with the slowness of the economic recovery, and Brown’s appeal to voter selfishness on health care (Massachusetts already has health insurance reform in place, so why should they have to support and pay for health insurance reform for the rest of the country?). If the results of this one election cause you to backpedal on your positions on major issues, you will be giving the Republicans exactly what they want, and you will be letting down the people that are responsible for your election.

4) Don’t let a historic opportunity for Health Insurance Reform Slip Away:

You have all stated that the country has been trying to reform the health insurance system for more than a hundred years. You also recognize that this is the closest that we’ve ever come to actually achieving it. To get this close and let it slip away would be unforgiveable! Yes, it has been and will continue to be difficult, but this is one of the reasons we elected you: to fight the good fight for those who cannot. We need to get some form of health insurance reform passed after all of this effort. We need to do it for all of the people who don’t have insurance, for all of the people that have been denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition, for all of the people that have had their coverage cancelled because they got sick, and for all of the people that have gone bankrupt because they got sick. If we don’t pass health insurance reform, this issue is going to continue to be serious drag on the economy for years to come.

5) Move quickly and do whatever it takes to pass a Health Insurance Reform Bill:

Time is of the essence and you all know that! The closer we get to the November 2010 Congressional elections, the less likely it is that a health insurance reform bill will pass. Given how long this process has taken already, we no longer have the luxury of taking more time to start over or pursue significant changes to the basic approaches contained in the House and Senate Health Insurance Reform Bills.

What are the options? There appear to be two main options on how to proceed: (1) The House swallows its pride and votes for the Senate Bill, or (2) Use the reconciliation process to (strengthen the bill.) Health insurance reform is too important to let it die once again. It took 17 years after the Clinton Health Care Effort failed to even try again. Can the country afford to wait another 15 to 20 years for Health Insurance Reform? I think not. Should Democrats unite and do what is right for the country instead of worrying about whether they will get re-elected? Absolutely. It is time to be pragmatic, take what we can get (even though it is far from perfect) and move on to the next issue – reforming the banking system. It is better to get 80% of health insurance reform than nothing!

Another possibility to consider is to call the Republican’s bluff on filibustering a combined House/Senate bill before having the House pass the Senate bill as it stands. As I see it, this would involve forcing the Senate Republicans to filibuster the bill for weeks or months and not doing any other Senate business until they stop the filibuster and allow a vote on the Health Insurance Reform Bill. The idea would be to put pressure on the Republicans and to show the country that they are the obstructionists on this issue. Perhaps eventually, one or more of them would change their mind and allow a majority vote on health insurance reform. I realize that this is an unorthodox and potentially risky approach, but desperate times call for desperate measures.

6) The political cost of failure to pass Health Insurance Reform will be far worse than the political cost of passing an imperfect bill:

You may be worried that health insurance reform is now unpopular, and that if you continue to push strongly for it, Democrats will suffer for it in the next election. I believe that this isn’t true. In fact, I think most people would welcome health insurance reform. I believe that the political consequences of failure to pass health insurance reform will be far greater than passing a bill that some people don’t like. In my opinion, if you lay a goose egg on health insurance reform, none of you will be reelected, and the Democrats will likely lose their majority in the House and possibly the Senate in the 2010 elections. You have far more to lose by your inaction on health insurance reform than you do by forcefully fighting for it and doing whatever it takes to get it passed.

7) Show the country and the people who elected you that you can “play hardball” when necessary:

The Republicans are clearly playing hardball on the issue of health insurance reform. They have stated their intention to make the failure of health insurance reform a significant part of their efforts to cause the Obama Presidency to fail. As part of that effort, not one Republican in the House or Senate voted for the respective health insurance reform bills. While your efforts at bipartisanship are admirable, it is clear that the Republicans are not receptive to it on health insurance reform. Thus, there is no need to pursue a bipartisan approach on health insurance reform any further. Bipartisanship requires a willingness to participate and compromise, and it takes two willing parties to make a bipartisan approach work. If the Republicans are unwilling to participate in the process and/or compromise on any issue, despite your best efforts to involve them, it is not your fault. At this point, continued pursuit of a bipartisan approach on health insurance reform is naïve at best.

In short, it is time to play hardball and do whatever it takes (including some serious “arm twisting” by the House and Senate leadership) to get health insurance reform passed, and not worry so much about what the opposition says or thinks. I believe that the majority of Americans support the basics of health insurance reform, but are frustrated by the process of lawmaking. The truth of the “sausage-making simile” comes to mind here. Unfortunately, the process has been long, tortuous and ugly, and people are tired of it. The majority of the people in the country elected you in part to get this done. It is time that all Democrats come together to agree on some form of health insurance reform. Yes, the House and Senate Bills are far from perfect, but they are both far better than the status quo. It is time for everyone to realize that 80% of what you want is much better than nothing. Standing up for principles is fine in most situations. However, there are times when pragmatism wins out. I believe that this is one of those times, because, like the Apollo 13 saga, “failure is not an option.”

8) Make Health Insurance Reform Happen because it’s the right thing to do and it is what the Country wants and needs:

Do this for your own political future, for all those who voted for you, but do it primarily for those who don’t have health insurance and/or access to quality medical care because the current system is unfair and not properly regulated. Do this to honor the memory of Senator Edward Kennedy who fought tirelessly for health insurance reform throughout his career in the Senate. Please ask yourselves: Would he be proud of your current approach?

But most of all, do it because it is the right thing to do and it is what the people of the country want and need. Thank you for all of your hard work that has gotten health insurance reform to this point. Thank you for your consideration of my ideas on these issues. Now let’s get this done for the American People!

Sincerely,

Lawrence __________

(Editor's Note: I am not disclosing the last name of the sender for his privacy.)

Copies to:

Senator Barbara Boxer

Senator Dianne Feinstein

Representative Barbara Lee

Feinstein's Signature and What It Means

2010-02-18T01:42:00.001-08:00

As many of you have already learned, Senator Feinstein just became the eleventh senator to sign on to a renewed Democratic push to encourage Senate Leader Harry Reid to use reconciliation to pass a public option. (Dr. Dean provides an online format for you to co-sign the letter.)

For the record, Feinstein became one of the first of the "centrist" Democratic Senators to sign this particular letter. But let me offer some caution with this happy news.

This is a signature on a letter. Right now, that's all it is. (And we've had her signature on a pro-public option letter last October, and it got us nowhere.)

Senator Feinstein did not sign this week's letter because 1,200 of us wrote polite letters to her; or put together and attended thoughtful bipartisan policy seminars; or baked cakes for her and her staff; or phone-banked until our fingers went numb. We have done all of those things to no lasting effect.

These are two of the more likely reasons Senator Feinstein signed that letter:

1) The Coakley loss in Massachusetts last month, which made it resoundingly clear that incumbents and Democratic establishment candidates are under attack; and

2) Anthem's recent 39% rate hike, which no doubt generated a large volume of outraged phone calls to her office.

Thusly, if you're thinking of calling Senator Feinstein's office to thank her, let me suggest that it's clear she responds far more actively to negative feedback.

That is understandable. If you want the Senator's respect and cooperation, then remember that she is your public servant and not the other way around. Servants don't respect employers who try to simultaneously give orders and pretend they are also the servant's B.F.F.

So call Senator Feinstein's office staff in San Francisco or in D.C. and be clear about what her job entails. (Separately: It's perfectly appropriate and important to be very polite to her hardworking staff.) Tell the staff that you would like to leave a message for the Senator. Here is the suggested message:

"I find it very interesting that Dianne Feinstein is making a late push for the public option by signing this week's letter to Harry Reid. I understand that everyone from Teddy Roosevelt to Richard Nixon supported national health insurance. And I know that the majority of Americans, including Californians, want a public option.

"But I can't thank the senator without results. As a longtime loyal Democrat, I no longer have any patience for Senate Democrats' antics. I note that Senator Feinstein signed the Brown letter for the public option last October, but she provided so little REAL support for it that Nancy Pelosi was calling it dead as recently as two weeks ago.

"There are eleven signatures on this week's letter to Harry Reid; Senator Feinstein should be twisting arms to get all 51 signatures on that letter. She can start with Senator Boxer.

"Therefore, this is a 'fair notice' call. Senator Feinstein, as someone with enormous unspent influence in the Senate, can make that signature mean something, or she can face a rebuke from this California Democrat. For the Senator enjoys the mind-boggling perks and privileges of her office only AT MY DISCRETION. I am a voter, and I have not yet had all of my electoral power stripped from me."

It would then be perfectly appropriate to tell the staffer that you appreciate their hard work, and that you wish them a nice day. You can even thank them. But don't thank the Senator for signing a lousy letter; thank her when - and if - she delivers the goods.

Yours truly,

Eva

Reich and His Acolytes (Including Us!)

2010-02-10T00:59:00.000-08:00

Robert Reich is one of my great heroes, not least because his smart and compelling arguments for traditional Democratic ideas have such strong crossover appeal. His articles always seem to take into account the reality that at least some conservatives might be swayed – and he is accordingly and sensibly respectful of his political opponents.

But Reich is far less focused in a room full of acolytes. The audience's reverence for Reich made the event feel very much like a kind of secular communion. It also had the uncomfortable feeling of floating in a bubble, a quality which Reich himself commented on.

If you missed the event, here is a summary of Reich's main points:

The Obama administration “overlearned” the Clintons’ mistakes on health care reform in the following ways:

1) Whereas the Clintons handed a complicated HCR package to Congress, Obama gave Congress ownership to build the legislation, which is how Reid, Pelosi, et alia became the guardians - you know the results.

2) Whereas the Clintons let the process drag on until some months before the 1994 elections, Obama has tried to rush it through, at the expense of more pressing issues such as jobs and the economy.

3) Whereas the Clinton plan challenged the authority of pharma and insurers, which ultimately doomed the bill, the Obama team tried to avoid that pitfall by cutting early deals with insurers and pharma, which has created its own problems.

On the HCR spectrum, Reich says there are two poles, with an FDR-style “New Deal” approach on the left, and a free market approach on the right. A brief history:

1. FDR didn’t want to risk his Social Security program by including health care reform

2. Truman tried to pursue national health insurance through the “Fair Deal”; Reich states the difficulty of this greatly harmed Truman’s second term.

3. Eisenhower and Nixon both attempted health care reform along free market ideas. But Ike managed to establish a tax break for employer-provided health care, which is, per Reich, the equivalent of a federal subsidy. Nixon built on Ike’s idea, advocating a “pay-or-play” system for employers, wherein they would either provide health insurance to employees, or would pay into a pool.

4. LBJ was the most successful – because he established Medicare. How?

a) LBJ left the details of HCR to Congress, but he was always a presence, twisting arms, making deals

b) LBJ made use of his landslide victory, understanding that he wouldn’t have much time to push it through

c) LBJ disregarded his own economists.

d) LBJ didn’t have to contend with what Reich calls the current “infrastructure of economists”, which includes the OMB (established under Nixon) and the CBO. These “armies of professional economists” simply didn’t exist at the time.

(Briefly, Reich mentioned the success of GW Bush’s Medicare Drug Benefit, which may have been easier to push through because it actually helped big pharma.)

Conclusion: Reich ended with a message to us – he said that many people who have not been given formal authority actually have more ability to lead than people who have been given such authority. Following in this vein, he described four “work avoidance mechanisms” to which we fall prey – denial, escapism, scape-goating, and cynicism. (As I was typing this, I received an email from another F1200’er who wrote that he thought Reich was perfectly describing Republican errors with the “work avoidance mechanisms” but I’m fairly certain that he was addressing his own acolytes, or at least both sides of the spectrum.)

Reich took approximately 20 minutes of questions, then closed. There was food supplied in the lobby by, of all corporations, Pfizer. We think this is because Pfizer spreads its donations so far, that it often overlooks just whose lecture it is funding.

The best part of the evening: when I initially stepped out of the elevator to go to the Pauley ballroom, there was the tireless UCB student organizer, Robbie Bruens, collecting signatures for the Lakoff Initiative. Between work and school comes organizing - so when does this guy ever sleep? We hope to have more on the initiative and Robbie's progress in coming days.

Tonight: Robert Reich at UCB

2010-02-09T12:14:00.000-08:00

Just a quick note to remind you that Robert Reich is scheduled to speak tonight at 5:30 p.m. at UC Berkeley on "Progressive Leadership in Healthcare Reform."

I just called his assistant to confirm that he will be there, and she said yes. She also mentioned that she was just going through his revised notes for tonight, which means, I think, that this will be a very up-to-date presentation.

The presentation will be at the Martin Luther King Jr. Student Union, which is close to Sather Gate and very easy to access from Bancroft and Telegraph. There's a map included in the link.

Here is the link with the details:

http://events.berkeley.edu/index.php/#26636

If you can't make it to Robert Reich's presentation tonight, we'll have a write-up tomorrow, with extra notes from one of our nurse/researchers on the recent Anthem Blue Cross rate hike.

Healthcare: Robert Reich
Tuesday, February 9 | 5:30-7:30 p.m. | East Pauley Ballroom Martin Luther King Jr. Student Union

In this lecture, Robert Reich, professor of public policy, will discuss "Progressive Leadership in Healthcare Reform." A former Rhodes Scholar, Reich served as the 22nd Labor Secretary under President Bill Clinton. Among his accomplishments were helping to implement the Family and Medical Leave Act, raising the minimum wage and leading a crackdown on sweatshops. He currently serves as an adviser to President Barack Obama.

Your Comments On The Constitutional Amendment Reality TV Show

2010-02-08T11:36:00.000-08:00

There were so many comments about yesterday’s idea to audition telegenic law grads for a Constitutional Amendment Reality TV Show that I decided to run a "top ten" list of comments and links. Included are some of the longer comments, excluded are a ton of brief "thumbs up" (but thanks for those!)

I took the overwhelmingly enthusiastic response as an indication that we're all tired of being outfoxed by Sarah Palin - an adversary whom we'd be well advised to take seriously, despite how vacuous she may appear.

For the record, this was yesterday’s idea in full. And here are your top ten comments in countdown order:

10. What’s the Point of Having a “Liberal Media Establishment” if You Never Use It?

9. And the First Nominee Is…

8. What About That Other Notorious Hollywood Liberal?

7. Eliminate The Middleman!

6. Be Careful What You Wish For…

5. It Ain’t Just Her Wholesome Good Looks!

4. Smart? Who Needs Smart?

3. Gentlemen (and a lot of the rest of us) Prefer A Particular Blonde

2. A Sneak Peek

1. The Number One Comment!

Bonus Comment!

10. What’s the point of having a “liberal media establishment” if you never use it?

I like your idea of the reality show and bringing back Norman Lear to do it right. Hollywood seems comatose since the campaign and even during the campaign, they were out-shone by the grassrooters. Rob Reiner (the producer-director who once played the “Meathead” son-in-law to Archie Bunker) comes to mind, as does Oliver Stone as producers to kick something off.

Creativity seems to flourish when there's a vacuum. And I would argue that that's why Palin, the Tea Baggers and the Fox "Noise" team are all over the news media: the Republican leadership is non-existent.

I would also argue that we already have our telegenic law hero who can summon a media party whenever he wants and he is our President. And his lawyer wife isn't too bad, either. I've been chomping at the bit to create a slide show for him when he's talking over the heads of most of his constituents during nationally televised speeches, like the SOTU speech.

Hear, hear – we can always use more slides... and more Obama appearances. Not least because his appearances crowd out the media images of the tea partiers and Sarah Palin. Some FDR-style fireside chats might buy the administration some necessary time and restore a measure of calm to an anxious public.

9. And the First Nominee for the Constitutional Amendment Reality TV Show Is….

I nominate Kamala Harris - but she may be too old and committed to her campaign?

The initial idea was to pick someone young enough that you could run them ragged 24/7 and they’d not only still look fresh for the cameras, they’d keep on going.

But at 45, the hard-working beauty Kamala Harris looks like she’s never had a bad night’s sleep. What’s more, she’s whip-smart, ethical, and on our side. Downside: there’s no way she’d have time for this.

8. What about that other notorious Hollywood liberal?

Hi Eva. Interesting thought. I don't know if there's any relevance, but I've just learned about the brand new Redford Center, funded by Robert Redford, in the new Brower Building in downtown Berkeley. Dedicated to social activism in the arts: http://redfordcenter.org/. Perhaps you can see a place this might fit in.

Excellent – counting Lear, Reiner, Stone and now Redford, we now have more than a few producer-directors to whom we can present the idea!

7. As Yossarian Once Pointed Out, Why Not Eliminate the Middleman?

As it was the SCOTUS decision that spurred the initial suggestion, another offered this:

Hi - I was listening to Alan Colmes (whose show I hate) on Green 960 the other night. He interviewed a Corporation that is running for a seat in Maryland. The corporation was represented by a publicist and a lawyer. The theory was to get rid of the middleman and just run for office. I liked it. Had you heard about it?

Website with promo video:

www.murrayhillincforcongress.com

Thom Hartman interview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAxbZ67p5pA

There's a lot about it on the Internet. I was surprised. Maybe it's catching on.

Thanks, that was amazing. Worth watching.

6. Be Careful What You Wish For….

Interesting, Eva. I've shuddered at Lawrence Lessig (Harvard Law School) suggesting a Constitutional amendment; I think it's not the time to tinker and open up that can of worms (the right likely has a number of amendments that tea-baggers might help promote). Call me conservative in this respect (perhaps I'll think otherwise at some point), but there are times when you hold, to paraphrase Kenny Rogers.

Also, listening to Lessig on Bill Moyers’ show, opposite a libertarian, I realized that he's not really so progressive -- more concerned because the Court's ruling expanding corporate political ads as free speech may give the appearance of greater corporate power and thus undermine average folks' trust of government, than with the fact that the ruling greatly increases corporate power to corrupt elected officials and subvert democracy.

He's not opposed to considering corporations as persons, with the rights guaranteed people in the Constitution (even thought, from what I've read, the fact that they are treated from people resulted from a questionable interpretation of an obscure legal opinion...)

So: while your idea of a Norman Lear T.V. show is genuinely appealing, I'd much prefer it focus on corporate non-personhood --- someone showing why that old decision was in error, and why the Supreme Court's activism on this issue was doubly erroneous, and how Congress can "fix it" with real campaign finance reform (whatever that entails).

Seriously, these are all excellent points – I think the bottom line is that the reality TV show could just as easily be about any of your other suggestions (“plain English” legislation anyone?) The larger idea is to make sure that traditional Democratic ideas (some call them progressive) find an advocate who generates as much schwing as Palin. A tasteless idea, I’ll readily admit. But the high road has not exactly delivered.

5. It Ain’t Just Her Wholesome Good Looks!

Your idea might work, but keep in mind that the media covers Palin for other reasons as well. I suspect they cover her primarily because she promotes the agenda of big media advertisers. Even if only 1,100 people showed up, those 1,100 are the dupes willing to shout out their message of weak government and its unspoken corollary: total political control by corporate plutocrats.

Excellent point. Then again, they don’t turn out like that for Karl Rove.

4. Smart? Who needs smart?

I agree 100% with your analysis. But why does it have to be a smart law school graduate? All she has to have is good looks and say the right things. How smart do you have to be to compete with Sarah Palin? Her main attraction appears to be that she was a beauty pageant contestant. I don't detect any sign of intelligent life in her.

I disagree that Palin is entirely unintelligent (more on that later.) But point taken - might we actually be working against our goal if we pick someone perceived as too brainy? We should be trying to fight fire with fire, not fight fire with SAT scores.

3. Gentlemen (and a lot of the rest of us) Prefer A Particular Blonde

Enough of you sent in raves about Elizabeth Warren that I’m combining the links. Yes, she’s over a decade older than Sarah Palin. But Liz Warren is someone to consider for far more than a TV show – The Boston Globe is suggesting she should run for the senate as early as 2012. Crossover appeal: like Congressman Eric Massa, Warren is a former Republican. She converted to the Democratic Party in the mid-1990’s.

2. A Sneak Peek

Some of you sent links to Palin’s cheat sheet (scrawled on the palm of her hand for this weekend’s debate) – but please, don’t write Palin off as a joke. We’ve known about what makes her appealing for over a year. And our side hasn’t eventried to present a woman who can give Palin a run for her money, even though our law schools are packed with smart, ethical, telegenic women, any one of whom would barely break a sweat running Palin into a lather.

So who’s dumb – Palin or us?

1. And the number one comment…. (drum roll, please!)

Please take me off your email list. Thank you.

Seriously, in response to the reality tv show newsletter, one person asked to be taken off the list, but no doubt a lot of other people are just holding their tongues (or sitting on their typing fingers.) Apologies – the idea of a reality tv show may sound louche. Then again, it’s all in how it’s done – if it hews to the documentary format, it could well be extraordinary.

Bonus!

Someone just wrote in that Robert Reich will speak at UCB tomorrow evening on the issue of “Progressive Leadership in HCR.” Here’s the link:

http://events.berkeley.edu/index.php/#26636

Thanks for hanging in there,

Eva

The Constitutional Amendment Reality TV Show

2010-02-07T13:34:00.000-08:00

Would it be so hard to find one of these?

Stephanie March in "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit."

In yesterday’s newsletter, we shared one of your ideas:

I'd add one more: a Constitutional Amendment to clarify that all civil rights enumerated in the Constitution and elsewhere, apply only to NATURAL PERSONS-- real people-- and not to corporations or other legal fictions. Passing that would take years, but getting ratified by at least one state might not

take that long.

To which another F1200’er responded:

Great idea. But to get anywhere, ideas such as this must be pushed hard by many people. How is that done? Writing and lobbying reps. Writing letters to editors of popular media. Organizing demonstrations and marches. Running petition drives. Raising funds. Doing all of the above is usually too much for an individual, but an alternative is to support organizations that already work on these issues, such as Common Cause, Public Citizen, and others.

I beg to differ. That’s exactly what we’ve been doing for health care reform. And how has that worked out for us?

Wasn’t Einstein’s definition of insanity “doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results”? Does even one percent of the American public recognize the names of either Common Cause or Public Citizen?

Let’s at least consider trying something else:

Norman Lear is an 87-year-old television producer. He’s the liberal WWII veteran who brought you Archie and Edith Bunker and “The Jeffersons.” He’s a big advocate for civil liberties. I can pretty much assure you that he’s also appalled by the recent SCOTUS decision, and might welcome the idea of the constitutional amendment suggested by one of our members.

Lear is a virtual treasure trove of media connections and American decency.

Why, instead of flailing about writing to our representatives, do we not appeal instead to Mr. Lear to create a reality TV show with an unemployed, telegenic 20-something law school graduate, who will devote the rest of the year to getting that constitutional amendment ratified in the state of California?

I don’t say this without reason. This weekend, there was a "tea party" convention, which on the day of its biggest draw, gathered 1,100 people to hear Sarah Palin speak. Hello, F-1200ers? That’s at least a hundred less than our own group. But they got front-page coverage in The New York Times. Why? In large part because the media swarms like flies to honey whenever the leggy Palin shows up. Because Sarah Palin, like sex, sells.

So why is it, in a recession economy, our side can’t find a far more comely and compelling personality to push an actual constitutional amendment? On reality TV? And I’m not talking about a Sarah Palin clone. I’m talking about a smart-as-a-whip, woman law school grad, who made it through on financial aid, and strongly believes in “people power” vs. corporate excess.

I’m talking about a 20-something someone with better bone structure and better ethical principles than Sarah Palin. I’m talking about The Apprentice with better intrigue, smarter dialogue, and a modicum of dignity.

Are you telling me that with all of our contacts, we can’t find that telegenic law school grad? Or we can’t at least get the ball rolling for the auditions by writing 1,200 letters to Norman Lear to produce a reality TV show that not only people like us would want to watch, but those necessary other people would want to watch, too?

Hey, we can phone-bank until our fingers bleed, and some of us have. But it’s time to recognize that those efforts, while important, are not reaching the audience we need. It’s time to recognize that we can’t fight Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin with Al Franken and Anthony Weiner (no matter how much I love Franken and Weiner.)

I honestly don’t know if a reality TV show would make the difference, but it would be one way to reach a larger audience. And if Norman Lear can’t do it for us, maybe he can refer us to someone with similar values who can.

Thanks for hanging in there. I’ll have more on this, on “plain English pitfalls and benefits”, and more of your comments tomorrow.

Alvy Singer's "Dead Shark"

2010-02-06T14:26:00.000-08:00

"A relationship, I think, is like a shark. You know? It has to constantly move forward or it dies. And I think what we got on our hands is a dead shark." - Woody Allen as Alvy Singer in 1977’s “Annie Hall”

1. Dead Shark

2. Your Idea Finds Support from… The Economist?

3. Your Ideas: An Amendment

4. Historical Perspective

5. Tomorrow: Plain English Pitfalls

1. Dead Shark

Unlike organizations that are sustained by cash donations instead of cups of coffee, The Feinstein 1200 is not obliged to maintain the fiction that health care reform is somehow magically alive. That doesn’t make us right, nor those organizations wrong – as you know, I have frequently featured their efforts in this very newsletter.

But their scramble for fundraising dollars means that long after it is clear to everyone else that what we have on our hands is a dead shark, some organizations will find themselves obliged to say that you need only make more phone calls to “Revive the Fish!”

And for all I know, they are right to do so.

But in the last week, various HCR groups and advocates have strained particularly hard to parse the increasingly vague statements from Congress and the administration on the future of health care reform legislation. Perhaps the most ludicrous parsing came from Jonathan Chait in The New Republic, who desperately interpreted President Obama’s clear statement that health care reform would be scaled back, as an indication that:

… he wants to sit down with both parties, and health care experts, and walk through the details in a methodical way. I'd guess he's imagining a process that might look a little like his back-and-forth with House Republicans -- they present him with wild claims about a government takeover, and he calmly responds. They insist that their ideas are better, and he gets to show that they're not. Then you vote. In other words, a debate in which he gets to take center stage, on top of the kabuki theater of a House debate. That way Obama gets to demonstrate that the plan he has is the product of having considered all the alternatives and arriving at the best way to solve the problem, not just cooking up a backroom deal. The idea seems to be to use his wonky, technocratic style to counteract the process-based objections and sell the bill.

Now, if you believe that, you may well be right, and I hope you are. (A classical skeptic doesn’t maintain that nothing is possible, but that anything is possible.) But it would seem to many of us who have read the statements that President Obama and Nancy Pelosi have made in the past week that it is simply too impolitic to point out that the shark that once energetically flopped over from K Street and into the Senate is no longer moving. (Even during this past week, when Anthem Blue Cross announced a 39% increase in premiums for 800,000 holders of individual policies.)

I am not among those who believe that if the Senate bill fails it will “doom” the Obama presidency to a single term. (I actually feel the opposite is true – the passage of the Senate bill, even with reconciliation, which we now know from Pelosi will not include a public option, may doom the President’s chances for a second term.)

Perhaps it is best that our young President learns from this early failure. Perhaps it is right to let him come back to health care when unemployment is not threatening the country’s stability and the banks aren’t taking even higher risks than before the crash – with the taxpayer and the country’s fiscal future on the hook. In the meantime, I’ll have to take my own lumps as a middle-aged uninsured American.

2. Your Pie-In-The-Sky Idea Finds Support from… The Economist?

If you heard Terry Gross’ interview with journalist Jeff Goodell, you heard a great primer on the distinction of cap-and-trade v. cap-and-dividend, the latter being a particular passion of one of our East Bay docs, as discussed in the “Your Five Big Ideas” newsletter. (And if you’re confused about these issues, I strongly recommend listening to the podcast.) Goodell was realistic about the challenges confronting cap-and-dividend, but now The Economist has thrown its support behind cap-and-dividend – and the woman senator who has been its chief proponent.

3. Your Ideas: One More

I haven’t yet received permission to use this person’s name, but since they sent it in response to your five big ideas, I think I have permission to share the idea at least, which seems to be made in response to the recent SCOTUS decision on Citizens United:

Those are great. I'd add one more: a Constitutional Amendment to clarify that all civil rights enumerated in the Constitution and elsewhere, apply only to NATURAL PERSONS-- real people-- and not to corporations or other legal fictions. Passing that would take years, but getting ratified by at least one state might not take that long.

That last sentence is interesting.

4. Historical Perspective:

Apparently unable to obtain insurance for actual psychotherapy, a number of my classically-bent friends have been gathering in a smoke-filled basement speakeasy (in absence of actual cigars, I’m counting the diffusion of ersatz floral air freshener as smoke), to pore over ancient Greek and Roman texts. (Sadly, there are no drinks and the leg space is beyond cramped, otherwise I’d invite you.)

This month we’re reading Sallust’s The Jugurthine War and The Catiline Conspiracy. There are a number of interesting parallels with modern U.S. politics, particularly the corruption of the senate, and the willingness of certain patricians to whip up the rabble, and how that “tea party-ish” activity might then have influenced larger decisions about policy.

There are many great reasons to read Sallust, not least among them is the fact that in a recession economy, classical texts can be read free online at Project Gutenberg, or easily obtained at your local library, (provided they did not burn all the Greek and Roman texts in some 1970’s-inspired fit of political correctness.) As well, Sallust does not mince words – from the Edmund-like rise of Jugurtha to senatorial intrigue, this text is fast-paced and action-packed. And you’ll never look at Baucus and Lieberman in quite the same way after reading Sallust.

Don’t let the neocons claim the classics for their arguments. Make like Abbie Hoffman and steal this book.

5. Tomorrow: Plain English Pitfalls

Too voluminous for one newsletter…

Happy reading,

Eva

Apolitical Youth? Guess Again.

2010-02-03T00:39:00.000-08:00

1. An Important Message from Deborah Leveen, with link from Paula

2. An Equally Important Message from Don Bechler

3. Who Says Today’s Youth Is Apolitical? Meet Robbie Bruens.

4. I’ll Take Progress Where I Can Find It!

5. The Tea Partiers’ Lost Origins: 1950’s France?

1. An Important Message from Professor Deborah Leveen:

“There is growing consensus among progressive legislators and advocacy groups around the strategy of using Reconciliation to fix the Senate bill and then passing the Senate bill.

“Reconciliation” is the process created to allow legislation with budgetary importance to pass the Senate with a simple majority—51 votes. Reconciliation could be used to incorporate the changes needed to win support from the House for the Senate bill, and indeed the House and Senate negotiators had reached sufficient agreement on the Friday before the Massachusetts election to send something to the CBO for scoring. We really were on the one-yard line.

Now that we don’t have 60 Senate votes to approve a revised bill—the product of House and Senate negotiations—the only option is to use Reconciliation. The support for this strategy is increasing daily.

Because Reconciliation only requires 51 votes, it’s possible to include some provisions that failed to gain support from 60 Senators, most importantly, the public option.

And two freshmen Representatives are gathering the signatures of other representatives on a letter (the Polis/Pingree letter) asking that Majority Leader Reid do just that. They have gained over a hundred congressional signatures and are still working for more.

Paula makes it easy to help Polis and Pingree get the signatures with a great link to "Bold Progressives'" website.

2. An Equally Important Message from Don Bechler

I caught up with Single Payer Now’s legendary organizer, Don Bechler, by phone on Monday. This is a man who has put his whole heart and soul into the single payer movement. I didn't realize how large his group was until I attended their December dinner. Wow!

As you know, Bechler’s group is again hoping to get a single payer bill (this one is SB 810) to the Governor’s desk. Schwarzenegger has twice vetoed single payer bills, but each year there is more public support for single payer, a trend noted in many of your email comments. And quite a few F1200’ers who still hold fast to the public option are recognizing the value of holding tight to an important bargaining chip: If we had gone to the negotiating table with a single payer plan, we might have a public option by now.

There is still work to be done on SB 810, which you can learn more about through http://singlepayernow.net/

And in March, Single Payer Now will be hosting a very interesting training event. As you know, this is the group that flew the passionately Democratic Congressman Eric Massa out last December to speak to a packed house at St. Mary’s. I’m sworn to secrecy on the special guests who will appear the March event, but if you like linguistics and framing, I think you’re going to want to attend. Stay tuned…

3. Who Says Today’s Youth Is Apolitical? Meet Robbie Bruens.

Turns out one of our men at Cal is already working on Lakoff’s initiative, which was discussed in yesterday’s newsletter. Smart, enthusiastic and very hard-working, I’d make note of the name - you may someday be voting for him. Robbie offers to field questions directly from you on the initiative, and adds this note:

“I am a big advocate for majority rule on budget/taxes, and have been volunteering on the campaign for theCalifornia Democracy Act. It's really a great grassroots effort - the Democratic establishment in the state is too cowed to embrace it because of polling (as mentioned in those articles you posted). I have been organizing the effort on the Berkeley campus, and it's an idea that seems to be catching fire among every progressive who cares about the future of our state.

“We just started on campus and we have more than two dozen student petition circulators. We have Majority rule campus groups at every UC except Riverside, and groups are getting started at a lot of community colleges and CSU’s. I also know the state campaign PAC has almost $50,000 raised so far, which is obviously far short of what we'll eventually need but fundraising is just now going into overdrive. Everything is sort of just starting to click, and there's a ton of enthusiasm out there for this kind of initiative that is now beginning to be tapped. The deadline for ballot qualification is April 15th.

“It may be the professional political consultant’s job to make judgments about what's possible and then tell politicians to try to do that, but it's up to the grassroots activists to decide what's essential and then make that possible. My job is to make it possible.”

4. I’ll Take Progress Where Found…

If you’re in the position of possibly dying for your country, shouldn’t you at least be treated with respect instead of shaming? Finally, an Admiral speaks up against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

“No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens,” Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

5. Don’t Tell the Tea Partiers – They Won’t Be Able to Handle It

Many of us in the F1200 interacted throughout the summer and fall with tea partiers at various town halls when we were supporting the public option. So I thought you’d get a kick out of this article in The New York Times which compares tea partiers to a similar movement in France in the 1950’s. (Don’t tell the tea partiers – they’re still trying to get over the shock of learning that General Lafayette came from the land of “cheese-eating surrender monkeys.”)

Thanks for hanging in there, we'll have more over the weekend if not earlier.

Eva

Your Top Five Ideas

2010-02-02T00:42:00.000-08:00

Dear Feinstein 1200'ers:

A month ago, I solicited your ideas by asking:

“Can we pick a small but tightly focused project with a six-month to one-year window? Can we pick a project that will effectively utilize our very talented group of scientists, nurses, M.D.'s, lawyers, writers, small businessmen and artists - and knock it out of the park?”

Interestingly, few of the ideas you submitted addressed health care directly – or at all. The first three ideas you submitted address some of the larger issues we encountered in our “merrily messed-up” pursuit of health care reform. The fourth is a separate idea from one of our East Bay physicians, and the fifth is not a group effort, but a suggestion for individual action.

On Wednesday I will send two more ideas (both directly HCR-related) from Deborah Leveen and Don Bechler.

1. Your Ideas: Plain English Legislation

2. Your Ideas: A Specific Goal for Campaign Finance

3. Your Ideas: Joining George Lakoff’s Initiative

4. Your Ideas: An Exciting Alternative

5. Your Ideas: Move Your Money

1. Your Ideas: Plain English Legislation

“At this point, who can figure out what's in the current legislation? Why does Congress insist on writing 1,000+ page bills with untold amendments that may or may not cancel out something in the original bill? It would be nice to have legislation that is no more than about 20-100 pages and that is understandable by laymen.”

Please excuse my naiveté, but I love this idea. Of course, advocating for succinct legislation written in plain English is hardly a project with a six-month to one-year window. On the other hand, there’s something appealing about such a common-sense idea - it’s the essence of transparency and the antithesis of pork. How could we lose by advocating something so right? (Oh, let us count the ways!) Downside: As far as I can tell, no other group is already advocating this, we’d have to start from scratch. Upside: No other group is already advocating this, it would be an adventure!

2. Your Ideas: A Specific Action with a Specific Window for Campaign Finance Reform

For those of you reeling from the SCOTUS ruling on Citizens United:

“You asked about what we can do NOW. Personally, after watching the health reform battle, I'm re-doubling my efforts in support of public financing for elections. The influence of big money on our government has never been clearer… California will dip its toes in the water when we vote on June 10 regarding public financing for the Attorney General's office. There is CURRENTLY a bill in the national House of Representatives pushing for public financing. While the recent health care affair is still on our minds, there has never been a better time for advancing public funding.

“There are some national organizations and a group (www.YesFairElections.org) here in California that could use help.

(Editor’s Note: Please note that Lynn Woolsey and Jackie Speier are supporters of the California Fair Elections Act that you can read about in the link above – and we like Woolsey and Speier.)

“Other forms of "campaign financing reform" have been tried for decades and didn't do the job. It's time to stop trying to fix such a big problem with a band-aid. IMHO, until public financing is enacted, meaningful health care reform...OR ANY OTHER KIND OF MEANINGFUL REFORM...is just not going to happen.”

Can’t argue with that. And we could just join in on an existing effort.

3. Your Ideas: Joining George Lakoff’s Initiative

For those who’ve had enough of a small minority of lawmakers blocking every decent proposal that comes forward: David’s collecting signatures for George Lakoff’s state-wide initiative to establish majority vote rule on budget and revenue legislative actions in California. Check out the website here and read a straightforward article about it here. This is both more complicated and fascinating than it at first appears - I’d love some feedback from the group on this one. I already heard from someone who warned this may be a 'be-careful-what-you-wish-for' proposal.

4. Your Ideas: Fix Cap and Trade with “Cap and Dividend”

One of our East Bay physicians writes:

“Pres. Obama has again raised the flag in his State of The Union speech for legislation pursuing climate protection through a "cap and trade" bill….

“A key committee in the California Senate working on implementing California's Global Warming Solutions Act, AB32, issued a report last week that recommends "Cap and Dividend," a policy to return revenues from the auction of permits to consumers as dividends.

(Editor’s Note: Cap and Dividend is distinct from Cap and Trade; this brief Scientific American article provides a short and straightforward explanation.)

“Cap and Dividend is also supported by The Climate Protection Campaign, an impressive new environmental organization in Sonoma County. See: http://www.climateprotectioncampaign.org/sonomaccp/index.php

“I propose that the F-1200 commend Senator Feinstein for her support of the EPA and urge her to support for "cap and dividend" -- as recommended by the Climate Protection Campaign and the CA Senate committee. "Cap and dividend" would probably arouse more consumer enthusiasm, and might even garner support from some conservatives.”

And Robert Reich has been endorsing this carbon dividend idea for years now.

I’d like to second the notion that this letter would be a good thing for us to do now. Please let me know your thoughts on this. And as it looks like HCR is now "on the back burner" I’m happy to provide an entire newsletter on Cap and Dividend, if enough people need more info.

5. Move Your Money:

I know most of you have already heard of this, and a good portion of you have already have done it: moved your money out of “Too Big to Fail” bailout banks like B of A and Citigroup, and into more respectable community banks and credit unions who never needed taxpayer bailouts.

The movement even has its own website which is mercifully easy-to-read.

This isn’t a group effort, obviously, since the F1200 doesn’t have its own bank account, but I wanted to pass your idea along to the group all the same. It would be great to hear back from more of you who have done this already. The link provided above includes audio from an excellent NPR interview with Simon Johnson, the former Chief Economist for the IMF who is now everyone’s go-to guy for bank reform.

Many thanks for your brilliant ideas. And please keep 'em coming.

Two Female Physicians Follow the late Howard Zinn’s Advice… and Are Arrested

2010-01-31T16:44:00.000-08:00

1. Doctor Chicks in Lockup!

2. Giant Passes

3. President Obama Finds His Campaign Groove

4. Your Comments: The State Of The Union Address

5. Your Questions: What’s Up With HCR?

6. And yet crowds of people continue to rally in support of HCR….

1. Doctor Chicks In Lockup!

Well, almost. “C” sent me this video of Dr. Carol Paris and Dr. Margaret Flowers of PNHP right before they were briefly arrested last Friday. The reason: for refusing to move their "Medicare For All" banner away from the hotel where President Obama was set to spar with the GOP in the now-historic televised address.

If you think all this single payer activism is crazy, guess again: this week, the California State Senate passed single payer legislation, SB 810, the California Universal Healthcare Act. It will now move to the State Assembly for discussion. After that, it will go to the Assembly Health and Assembly Appropriations Committees before a floor vote. Give credit where it’s due, and if you want to get involved in helping this move forward, please visit the great and patient folk at “Single Payer Now” – their website is: http://singlepayernow.net/

2. Giant Passes

Image above: 2nd lieutenant Howard Zinn in 1945, the flesh-and-blood counterpart to Heller's Captain Yossarian.

I wonder if half of us would even have tried becoming politically active if it weren’t for men like the late historian Howard Zinn, who tirelessly championed the idea that change comes from the bottom up – even against overwhelming odds. As someone who once took issue with some of Zinn’s claims in the much-loved A Peoples’ History of the United States, I was surprised to find myself so saddened by the 87-year-old historian’s death, and shamed by Bob Herbert’s comment on Zinn in the Times. Herbert’s column concludes:

“Mr. Zinn was in Santa Monica this week, resting up after a grueling year of work and travel, when he suffered a heart attack and died on Wednesday…. That he was considered radical says way more about this society than it does about him.”

And from the Times obituary:

“He joined the Army Air Corps in 1943, eager to fight the fascists, and became a bombardier in a B-17. He watched his bombs rain down and, when he returned to New York, deposited his medals in an envelope and wrote: ‘Never Again.’

‘I would not deny that war had a certain moral core, but that made it easier for Americans to treat all subsequent wars with a kind of glow,’ Mr. Zinn said. ‘Every enemy becomes Hitler.’ …Mr. Zinn served on the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and marched for civil rights with his students, which angered Spelman’s president. ‘I was fired for insubordination,’ he recalled. ‘Which happened to be true.’

Now that's another guy who might have earned the Nobel Peace Prize.

3. President Finds Campaign Groove:

No doubt the Republicans regret having invited President Obama to rap their knuckles with a ruler at the Congressional GOP’s televised annual lobbyist-sponsored party this past Friday. It was great (and I mean GREAT!) to see the President reprimand them.

And yet, I couldn’t help but wonder… if he had just schooled the Senate’s blue dog Democrats in the same manner last summer, perhaps we’d have health care reform by now.

Regardless of how emotionally gratifying it was to see the President read the riot act to archetypal jerks within the GOP, let’s distinguish great television from great leadership – we still have a long road to travel. After all the televised pyrotechnics, a reality check: health care remained on ice; Geithner, Summers and Rahm remained protected and on the payroll; arsonist-turned-heroic-fireman Bernanke was re-appointed to the Fed; and the pointless Afghan escalation continues to put us further into debt to China. They say we've been through worse - here's to pulling our country out of the muck!

4. Your Comments: On the President’s State Of The Union Address

“President Obama is so easy on the eyes and the ears that I am lulled into a blissful attitude of calm for about 24 hours. Once the sedative wears off, my brain begins to recalibrate and what I heard was that we are having a health care reform "time-out" but we haven't been told how long this "time-out" might last (until after November elections?)

“Jobs and the economy are Numero Uno, the country is broke, we're bringing troops home from Iraq in August, the war in Afghanistan will go on and blah-blah-blah. Little bits and bites are offered up as tax credits that won't do much for anyone.

“I have the feeling that Obama wishes he had never opened his mouth on health care reform, period, and especially not to have demanded a timetable in the first place.... I have a horrible hunch that Obama knows the country cannot afford the reforms we need and he is somehow involved in the "slow-down" effort. Just a sinking feeling and I hope to God I am wrong.

“So, what to do? Keep the pressure on. Keep writing letters -- snail mail is very productive because someone has to open the mail and they are charged with responding to a hard copy letter. E-mails get lost. Calls and letters are critical.”

5. What’s Up With HCR (this week’s version):

According to TPM, HCR is simultaneously “on life support” and “on the back burner.”

6. And Yet, Crowds of People Continue to Gather in Support of HCR…

Feinstein 1200’er Jeff helped to organize a MoveOn rally last Tuesday night (sorry I couldn’t go – I’d already paid to see Eliot Spitzer at the Commonwealth Club!) I was amazed to learn later how many people Jeff and the other organizers gathered on a dark and somewhat rainy night. If only our U.S. Senate was as on-the-ball as some of the professionals I’ve met who are now working with MoveOn.org. (P.S. Separate thanks to Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health who serendipitously connected me up to an AP reporter to send to the rally.)

“…we had between 200 and 300 people out there, plus at least three reporters. This was despite the fact that (as I learned later) there was a competing demo across town: the SF school district is apparently planning to lay-off ~400 teachers, so many people were there protesting the layoffs.

“Another good thing was that several MoveOn members, including me, had brought extra signs for people to carry; one fellow brought dozens. The MoveOn organizer led the group on the song ‘Where Have All the Democrats Gone?’, then participants stepped up to the megaphone to tell their healthcare horror-stories.”

So health care reform may be both “on life support” and “on the back burner” to the administration, but to ordinary people, it’s still a very pressing issue. More tomorrow.

Thanks for hanging in there,

Eva

Not So Fast, There!

2010-01-25T14:16:00.000-08:00

1. Don’t Forget Tomorrow’s Rally.

2. Special Monday Update from Professor Leveen

3. An F1200’er writes in: “Not so fast there, Eva!”

4. Why This Week Matters for Single Payer in California

5. Leveen’s detailed answer on the National Insurance Exchange

1. Don’t Forget Tomorrow’s Rally.

You keep writing in about how angry you are about the Democratic Party’s disappointing leadership. Well, MoveOn.org is making it easy for you to bring that point home tomorrow. Remind your Democratic representatives just WHO it is who put them in office: YOU!

Put on your Sunday best (or seriously, just show up) and thereby send a message to those Democratic leaders you keep telling me you’re so mad at. The San Francisco event is tomorrow at 6 p.m. at the Montgomery BART station and is titled “Where Have All The Democrats Gone?” Here’s the rally link.

2. Special Monday Update from Professor Leveen:

Some of you have asked why I keep referring to Professor Deborah Leveen. Who is she? As I’ve written before, Leveen is a retired Emeritus professor from SFSU who taught health policy for over 25 years. She’s worked on California’s single payer effort since Prop 186 in 1994, and has been involved in analysis and advocacy regarding the national health effort for the past two years.

I first heard Leveen speak at a League of Women Voters event last fall. I’ve been impressed by her fierce intelligence, and her unfailing efforts (in the face of great discouragement) to keep pushing for reform. I disagree with her on many points, especially the value of the Senate bill, but I value her input and outlook.

Today, Leveen wrote in about three issues:

a. Leveen wanted to forward a link to this letter from 47 top health policy experts urging passage of the Senate bill and using the reconciliation process, requiring only 51 votes, to pass a second bill addressing as many of the key concerns from House members as can be agreed to. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/01/22/health/adopt_senate_bill_final.2.pdf

b. Leveen urges you to use the next 48 hours to contact Reid and Pelosi, because they are now in negotiations. Leveen cites a New York Times article that claims Feinstein’s office is receiving 4:1 calls against the senate bill, so if you want to change that ratio, start dialing. She suggests that you include the link to the health policy experts’ letter. (Editor’s Note: I have to wonder what part of that high “anti” ratio is due to former HCR supporters who are now so distrustful of the White House and Congress’ ability to achieve anything through reconciliation that they’re now calling in against the “senate bill + reconciliation” idea.)

c. Leveen wanted to answer one of your questions about the definition of the national insurance exchange. It’s a detailed answer (Leveen is no slouch!), so I’ve included it at the end of the newsletter.

3. An F1200’er writes in: Not So Fast, Eva!

An F1200’er writes in response to my suggestion that we need to move on from health care reform, now that it looks like the Senate bill is very likely dead:

“I'm sorry, but I became one of the "Feinstein 1200" because I thought Obama and the Democrats actually believed this was an important issue, even a priority issue--despite the hard economic times. Now I discover it was just something to pass the time, to be dropped when it became inexpedient. It sure (doesn’t) make me want to devote my time and energy to Democratic causes to know that politicians in Washington can get me mobilized and engaged on a supposedly critical issue and then just flip a switch and drop the whole thing the moment it no longer suits their political calculations. So, no thanks, I won't be jumping on any more bandwagons for a while.”

Who can blame you? I myself spent a sick amount of time and my own money trying to support a health care reform plan, which the President said he himself supported, even as he was sealing the sorry fate of the public option in a secret deal with insurers. But despite the hopes of longtime advocates like Leveen, the Senate bill appears to be dead on the operating table.

Later, the same F1200’er wrote back:

“It's one thing to lose. It's another to forfeit the game with a 59-seat majority. I believe the Feinstein 1200 should be expressing outrage right now at Obama and the Democrats, and I doubt I'm alone in feeling that way.”

(Editor’s Note: It's more like a 58-seat majority. And no, you’re not alone, judging by the email I receive.)
“They need to know there will be a price to pay for abandoning their base. What I have done, besides contacting my Congresswoman, is to unsubscribe to the OFA e-mail list. They give you an opportunity to explain your reason for unsubscribing, which I have done. Others may be uncomfortable about unsubscribing, but there are certainly other ways for them to convey their feelings.”

Here’s the DC contact information Deborah Leveen included. Depending on where you stand, it’s up to you to urge them to:

a) support the Senate bill + reconciliation package as Leveen suggested (don’t forget the link to the letter she included), or

b) proceed, without passing “Go”, to the next legislative proposal (likely jobs and some diluted version of bank reform), or

c) let them know “there will be a price to pay for abandoning their base.”

If you actually get their staff on the phone, why not go for broke and tell them all three? The last two are virtually guaranteed.

President Obama: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: http://www.speaker.gov/

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: http://reid.senate.gov/

Key committee chairs:

House Ways and Means: Charles Rangel. http://rangel.house.gov

Subcommittee on Health: Pete Stark. http://stark.house.gov

House Education and Labor: George Miller. http://miller.house.gov

House Energy and Commerce: Henry Waxman. http://www.waxman.house.gov/

Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions: Tom Harkin. http://harkin.senate.gov/

Senate Finance: Everybody's Favorite - Max Baucus. http://baucus.senate.gov

Senators:

Diane Feinstein: http://feinstein.senate.gov/

Barbara Boxer: http://boxer.senate.gov/

Local representatives: Barbara Lee: http://lee.house.gov/

4. SB 810 will be voted on this week.

Information from Don Bechler. It’s kind of amazing that it’s up for a vote this week, with so much else going on. Worth it to get involved with Bechler’s group – even if you’re not interested in Single Payer, they get some interesting speakers at their events.

“Senate Bill 810, the California Universal Healthcare Act, is scheduled to be voted upon in California’s State Senate during the week of January 25 – 29. This bill would replace private health insurers with a state-run, single payer system that would a) cover everyone, b) eliminate co-pays and "pre-existing condition" exceptions, and c) save money and cut bureaucracy.

“Sixteen of the 40 State Senators are already co-authors of SB 810. The are Alquist (D-13), Cedillo (D-22), Corbett (D-10), DeSaulnier (D-07), Florez (D-16), Hancock (D-09), Leno (D-3), Lowenthal (27), Oropeza (28), Padilla (D-20), Pavley (D-23), Price (26), Romero (D-24), Steinberg (D-6), Wiggins (D-2), and Yee (D-8).

“Please call your State Senator to vote yes. If your senator is a co-author, thank them for their support and ask them to work hard to pass SB 810. If your senator is not a co-author, please ask them to vote yes on SB 810 and to become a co-author. SB 810 delivers healthcare to everyone, is comprehensive, saves billions of dollars, and is publicly accountable.

“Your state senator and contact information can be found here.

Please call Don Bechler at 415-810-5826 or email dbechler@value.net to let us know how your senator responded.”

5. Deborah Leveen’s answer to your question, What Is the National Insurance Exchange?

We went over this at the seminar months ago, but who can blame you for forgetting? Here is Leveen’s explanation.

“The national insurance exchange included in the House bill represents a vast improvement over the current individual insurance market.

It will have the authority to negotiate contracts with health plans and reject excessive premium increases, and to enforce the new insurance reforms (guaranteed issue, no denials of pre-existing conditions, no premium rating based on health status or gender, etc). As a national exchange, it will represent an enormous pool of customers and thus constitute a market which insurers cannot ignore: it will therefore have substantial bargaining clout with them. The Exchange is also expected to generate price competition among insurers, as they compete for this new market.

“The House bill also includes a new public plan within the Exchange, which will obviously have lower overhead costs than the private plans in the Exchange, generating even more price competition with private plans.

“The Senate bill is not as strong: indeed I would hope that the top two items achieved through a reconciliation bill, in which the House won improvements to the Senate bill, would be higher subsidies (affordability is my top concern--and that of much of the leadership) and a national Exchange--I would hope that a strong argument could be made that it would save money and thus have the budgetary impact required for its inclusion in a reconciliation bill. (Certainly one national exchange would cost far less to administer than 50+ state exchanges, and I assume we would find CBO support for the argument that it would be able to produce lower premiums than the state-based exchanges.)

“Diane Feinstein has really been out front in many ways on health reform. She has proposed a medical loss ratio of 90%--limiting insurer spending on overhead and profits to 10%--vs the current bills requirements of 80-85%. She submitted an amendment proposing a national rate setting authority. I know she was recently quoted as suggesting maybe we need to back off: it was also reported a week ago in the New York Times that her office is getting calls on a 4:1 basis AGAINST reform: we have to remedy that!

“You can check her website for her statements on health reform: they surprised me. Here are two of the key links:

1) Her statement on the Senate bill.

2) An earlier statement from the Senator: “My Current Thoughts on Health Reform. October 9, 2009."

Thanks for hanging in there,

Eva