The K.F. Stone Weekly

National Health sCare

   The following has actually been said for the record on Capitol Hill:

• "Without question, there is a deliberate attempt to retard recovery. . . We have charged the administration with planning to impoverish the country in order to make its communistic experiments acceptable."
• "There is an organized effort to protect the first Communist president of the United States . . . against adverse criticism."
• "The nation may require a more blistering rebuke from the Supreme Court and the pressure of an aroused and enraged public opinion to restrain this Congress from continuing to be the tool of those who would destroy the Constitution.  But the time is not too distant when those who believe in constitutional government will speak with force and finality."
• "The people of my district elected me to represent all the people of this country, as is the case with all the other members of this body.  And in order to do this they intended me to be governed by reason, and not by propaganda, and to use my own best judgment; and before I will fail in that duty and violate the oath I took by voting for and helping to fasten upon my country which would destroy its economic system, a thing which I know to be unsound, I will, if necessary, let the people retire me at the end of this session."
  
• "To pay the medical bills and hospital bills of individuals . . . is socialism.  It moves this country in a direction which is not good for anyone . . . . It charts a course from which there is no turning back."
• "No one can doubt for a moment that this is simply another step toward the neutralization of private responsibility which will eventually end when the Government assumes complete control over the destinies of all our citizens from cradle to grave.  The principle established here, when carried to its logical conclusion cannot fail also to be damaging to two segments of our free enterprise system -- our physicians and our insurance industry."

   

"Blah, blah, blah," I can hear you responding.  "Big deal!  You can hear all this puerile claptrap on CSPAN every day.  And the stuff you hear on talk radio is even worse So what else is new?"

   What else is new?  Sorry to burst your bubble, but we're not even within 45 years of what's new.  For you see, the first three quotes are taken from the floor debate over the Social Security Act of 1935; the last two from the July 1965 debate on Medicare and Medicaid.* And you thought all this was said last week! 

    In comparison to the dire warnings, predictions and base scare tactics being used here and now in 2009, not much has changed.  Oh perhaps the term "communistic" has been replaced with "socialism" and today there are tales of all those poor abused Canadians who must travel to Washington, Michigan or upstate New York just to get a boil lanced; but aside from a few style points, the  nature and content of opposition are basically the same.

   What has undoubtedly changed is the willingness of the "loyal opposition" to be "loyal," let alone civil.  You see, despite all the negative verbiage and dire predictions, Republicans were one heck of a lot more supportive of the Social Security Act of 1935 and 1965 (the one that created Medicare/Medicaid). In 1935, 16 senate Republicans joined 60 Democrats in voting "aye," as opposed to a mere 5 voting "nay."  Over on the House side, 81 Republicans voted for Social Security as opposed to a mere 15 voting against.  Then too, in 1965, 13 of 43 Senate Republicans voted in favor of Medicare, and 70 of 138 House Republicans. The current health care proposal will be lucky to get even two Republican votes in the Senate or as many as five in the House. 

   Another difference is that as opposed to 1935 and 1965, much of today's opposition and "scaring the pants off the public at all costs" has more to do with keeping the well-heeled happy than basic political philosophy. Without question, there are powerful interests groups with extraordinarily deep pockets who are willing to do whatever it takes to keep their clients -- insurance companies and hospitals in the main -- happy, healthy and profitable. On the other hand, there are lots of politicians -- mostly Republican but Democrats as well -- who are seemingly more concerned about winning the next election than supporting that which a vast majority of the public wants -- some form of national health care. (Don't take my word for it; a recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation  survey reveals that 72% of those polled "favor increasing the federal government's influence over the nation's health care system in an attempt to lower costs and provide health care coverage to more Americans," as compared to "27% who oppose such a move."  

   The campaign we choose to call "National Health sCare" has put the words "Socialized medicine" on the lips of people who haven't the slightest idea of what that term really means. Let's be clear: physicians are not going to be  employed by the federal government; health care decisions are not going to be made by nameless, faceless bureaucrats with 9th grade educations; health care is not going to be rationed. 

   The campaign has also convinced a solid minority that President Obama's proposal is more plot than platform; that it is merely "one more step" in "a concerted effort "to have "the federal government take over virtually everything."  Back in 1935 -- and to a lesser extent 1965 -- many of those who expressed grave doubts -- even fundamental opposition -- to extending the reach and influence of the federal government nonetheless voted to give the president what he wanted. Today?  Not a snowball's chance.

   I doubt there is one amongst us who does not have a story to tell about  how a health crisis turned our family, our finances, our future, topsy-turvey.  About how the ever-rising cost of health insurance and health care is giving us sleepless nights and knotted intestines. About a loved one who has become impoverished due to their need for extended care.  

   We cry out for assistance.  We understand that no program will be perfect, but that having no program is not an answer.  Despite it all, we maintain the firm conviction that in America, we are not on our own; we all in this together. 

   And no National Health sCare campaign will ever convince us otherwise.

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

* In order, the speakers and Congressional Record references are:

• Sen. Thomas Schall, R-MN (1878-1935) 6/13/35  p. 9,539 col. 2.
• Rep. Daniel Alden Reed, R-NY (1875-1959), 4/17/35  p. 5,891, col. 1.
• Rep. Frederick James Sisson, D-NY (1879-1949) 4/19/35 p. 6,049, col 2.
• Sen. Carl Curtis, R-NE (1905-2000), 8/8/65 vol. 111 part. 12 p. 15,870.
• Sen. Karl Mundt, R-SD (1900-1974), 8/9/65 vol. 111, part 12 p. 16,122.
•    Anyone interested in reading the debates can go to Congressional Debate on Social Security
  

Henry Waxman: The Moustache of Justice

On November 19, 1945 -- barely 6 months after the death of FDR, President Harry S. Truman gave a major address to both houses of Congress.  Unbelievably, his subject matter was neither war nor peace, economy nor education; it was the urgent need for a . . . NATIONAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAM!  Yes, you read that correctly: a NATIONAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAM!  And this was 1945 . . . nearly 65 years ago. 

   In his speech, the president argued that the federal government should play a major role in health care, saying "The health of American children, like their education, should be recognized as a definite public responsibility."  After addressing five areas of concern -- including the lack of doctors, dentists and hospitals in rural and otherwise depressed areas of America -- Truman got to the controversial meat and potatoes of his talk: NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.  The plan that Truman outlined that day long ago called for a NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE fund, to be run by the federal government.  This fund would be open to all Americans, but would remain optional. 

 Truman's health care proposals came to Congress in the form of a Social Security expansion bill, co-sponsored by Democratic senators Robert Wagner (NY) and James Murray (MT), and Representative John Dingell (MI).  For this reason, it was known popularly as the "W-M-D Bill."  (In light of the fact that today, "WMD" refers to  "Weapons of Mass Destruction," the acronym is more than a bit haunting.) Predictably, the AMA characterized the bill as "socialized medicine," and as a forshpize (Yiddish for "appetizer") to the rhetoric and inanity of McCarthyism, called Truman White House staffers "followers of the Moscow party line."  Eventually -- and despite his prescience -- Truman was forced to abandon the W-M-D bill. 

   Harry Truman was certainly not the last president or national political figure to seriously ponder or propose a system of NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.  In the 1960s JKF and LBJ got America part of the way there with the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid -- two programs, which despite being disparaged in some circles as "socialized medicine," have both weathered the test of time.  In the 1990s then-First Lady Hillary Clinton came up with an ambitious NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE proposal which, due to a series of clumsy, ham-handed political maneuvers, died  not with a bang, but rather a whimper. 

   Now, after many years of relative silence, a NATIONAL HEALTH CARE proposal has made its way back to center stage.  But this time it feels different; this time it has a couple of added ingredients:

• A widely supportive American public, a growing percentage of which, can no longer afford health insurance.
• A highly popular, politically deft president who is willing to spend a good portion of his "personality capital" on behalf of something he believes in his heart of hearts is "a right, not a luxury." 
• A business community that is not quite as vociferous or venomous in its opposition as in times past.
• A loud-mouthed opposition that is finding fewer and fewer takers for its dire warnings of "socialized medicine" and other slippery-slope prognostications; and last but certainly not least,
• Representative Henry Waxman.

   How's that?  Henry Waxman?  Why Henry Waxman?

   Henry Waxman has been involved in health issues ever since 1969 -- the year he was appointed to the California State Assembly Health Committee.  A member of Congress for 35 years, Henry is, to my way of thinking as a Congressional historian, one of the five most important and significant people ever to serve in that body -- and that's out of more than 11,000.  It is also likely that Henry Waxman has been responsible for more successful health care legislation than anyone in American history. He has been the sponsor of such measures as:

• The Ryan White CARE Act.
• The Breast and Cervical Cancer Mortality and Prevention Act.
• The Safe Medical Devices Act.
• The Orphan Drug Act.

   Over the years, Representative Waxman has successfully led the fight for improved prenatal and infant care for low-income families, and for more services in the community for people needing long-term care.  He has been an advocate for prescription drug coverage in Medicare for people with high drug expenses, and has long pushed for a system of NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE. And now, as chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Waxman may finally see his dream come true.

  Ironically, the man Waxman replaced as chair of the committee --  the legendary John Dingell, Jr., -- is the son of the representative who sponsored President Truman's original HEALTHCARE PROPOSAL back in 1945. (The Dingells, pere et fils, have represented Michigan's 15th District since 1933. John Jr., first elected to replace his deceased father in 1955, has now served in Congress longer than anyone in American history.)  Unlike John Dingell, Jr., whom President Bush once called the "biggest pain in the ass" on Capitol Hill, Henry Waxman is well-liked, well-respected, and well-known not only for his tough, principled stands, but for his relentless investigations.  Turn on the TV news almost any night, and there will be Henry Waxman, investigating everything from the use of steroids in Major League Baseball, electrical problems in Iraq, governmental secrecy, and U.S. trade agreements, to military contracts, Medicare fraud and "shortcomings in the third-party food safety audits performed on behalf of the Peanut Corporation of America." If there is one common thread in the myriad issues that capture Representative Waxman's attention, it is justice.  As a short, myopic, unprepossessing man who grew up over his parents' grocery store in a Jewish section of Los Angeles and now -- ironically -- represents some of the richest, most glamorous folks in the world (his district includes Beverly Hills), Henry Waxman has always been on the side of the little person.  To some, he is a self-serving political pariah; for many, he is both a revelation and a legend.  Even Waxman's moustache has a nickname: the "Moustache of Justice."    

   To be certain, there are those who proclaim Waxman to be nothing more than a diabolic, demagogic Democrat -- a man who can barely contain his enthusiasm for having the government "take over" everything from the day-to-day operation of G.M. to health care.  According to these finger-pointers, if Waxman and "his kind" have their way, then health care will become "substandard, subordinate, and apportioned . . . just like Canada and Britain," and "it will be up to some petty bureaucrat whether or not you can see a specialist." Funny, they never say anything about the insurance company wage-slaves who do the same thing -- for the sake of corporate profit.

   The lack of affordable health care has gone beyond the crisis stage in America.  Nearly 50 million of us go without; even a basic HMO-insurance plan now costs more per month than the mortgage on a quarter-million dollar home.  And for many within this group, the only place they can go when they become ill or fall victim to an accident is to the emergency room at the local hospital -- where medical care is not always the best, generally it is the most costly and is always covered by the entire community. Then again, how about all those "preexisting conditions" that health insurers won't cover?  Isn't it wonderful to learn that although they absolutely will not cover you for the high-blood pressure, bad back or digestive tract problems you've had [and could be in remission], they will gladly pay all the costs for anyone contracting Chistosomiasis, Dengue Fever or the Yaws?

   For too many years, our leaders, our legislators, were scared away from promoting -- let alone enacting -- meaningful NATIONAL HEALTH CARE legislation by that great phalanx of lobbyists and interest groups that could make or break them.  And, for far too many of the uninsured, they were told in so many words that NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE was something straight out of the Marx and Engels rule book. Or, if not "socialistic," then a luxury that  one could either work hard enough to afford -- like a Cadillac -- or else admit that the lack of was their own damn fault.   Well, times and understandings have changed.

   Thanks to people like Barack Obama and Henry Waxman, word is fast getting around that NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE is a right, not a luxury.  Thanks to a new generation of activists, NATIONAL HEALTH COVERAGE is going to be enacted.  Thanks to "we the people," the dream of Harry Truman is going to become a reality.  And who knows; perhaps Representative George Miller (CA) and Senator Chris Dodd (CT) will join Henry and make up the new "W-M-D Bill."

   My money is on Henry, so please, let us all pray for the health and the success of the Moustache of Justice.

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

Please note that I am now on both Twitter and Facebook.  Hope to see you there as well!  Twitter entries are on the right-hand margin . . .