Faith v. Constitution

Patrick Kennedy, representative from Rhode Island and son of Ted, was refused communion because of his stated position on abortion rights. Refusing communion for approving gay rights or gay marriage next? Can any Catholic be allowed to run for public office if faith must trump constitution? What happened to all that theology about helping the poor and downtrodden that Ted Kennedy worked to embody? Why aren't they refusing communion to pedophile priests? JFK, our only Catholic president, said,

"I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters — and the Church does not speak for me."

Do we trust them to do the right thing?

Helen, of Margaret and Helen -- two ladies old enough to speak their minds without caring of the consequences, has a few things to say about the rowdy town hall meetings. Helen comments that most of the loonies that are being the most disruptive are appear to not bother educating themselves. Perhaps freedom of speech should be restricted to those with a minimum education. However, this is the comment that got me laughing:

Margaret, I don’t know what plans you’ve made up there with Howard, but down here with Harold, we have living wills to determine how we will leave this world when the time comes. Mine states that unless the feeding tube is large enough for a piece of pie, I don’t want to be hooked up to it. Harold, of course, says his can only be connected to him if the other end is connected to a bottle of single malt scotch.

Helen points out how ridiculous the idea of death panels is, then observes:

By the looks of the American citizenry turning out for these town hall meetings, we’re doing a fine job of killing ourselves with fast food, cigarettes and an overindulgence of ignorance.

Charles Blow of the New York Times notes that some of the crazy ideas about health care -- care will be rationed, taxpayers pay for abortions -- are being held by more than just the GOP and the fringe. Like a third of Democratic voters. Why? Gullibility? Resent a black man as president? Perhaps more. Perhaps a distrust that government can do the right thing.

A recent study of polling data notes that when a GOP president takes office he gets a high score for trust in doing the right thing. When a Dem president takes office, the score is usually low. The data:

Carter -- 35% believe government will do the right thing.
Reagan -- 51%
Bush I -- 44%
Clinton -- 24%
Bush II -- 55% (poll taken just after 9/11)
Obama -- 20%

Blow concludes that the country just doesn't trust Dems to do the right thing. Especially since Dem voters also strongly don't trust Dem presidents.

I don't completely buy his conclusion. Then again, I'm likely biased.

If we don't trust the guy to do the right thing (apparently true for 80% of those polled) why did we vote for him? Why not vote in the GOP guy whom we trust?

I propose another conclusion, based on the fact these polls are from the first few months of a president's tenure and not at its end. That means the newcomer's score is partially based on his predecessor.

Carter came after Nixon and Ford. Nuff said.

Clinton came after Bush I earned a 91% approval rating for the Gulf War and squandered it so thoroughly he was booted out of office 20 months later.

Obama comes after Bush II. And I've ranted enough about him.

After 8 years of Georgie, 80% of the country doesn't trust the government to do the right thing? Big surprise.


But another take on the health care debate made me go back and add a word to the above sentence "I don't buy his conclusion." Alas, Dems are piling up a strong record of being a bunch of wimps. So while I believe a strong component to Obama's score is Bush's abysmal record, there really are some trust issues over Dems doing the right thing.

The big idea thrown into the health care debate comes from Ted Kennedy's passing. A lot of talking heads noted that Ted frequently passed as much of an idea as he knew he could get votes for and came back for another chunk later. Ted had been working on health care issues since 1964 when he had a great need for medical services after a plane crash and an early chunk was Medicare and Medicaid.

So if we can't get all of health insurance reform passed now, let's scale back the package and come back for more later.

Bad idea.

The GOP is already making lots of headway by telling middle class folks the bill will do nothing for them, only require them to pay more taxes to give health care to poor people (who tend to be Those People). Alas, the bill has already been scaled back and some provisions don't show up until after the next prez election and in the meantime those who hurt because of no insurance still hurt. Scaling back the package even more means the middle class parts of the bill will be cut entirely, which means the GOP will be correct. Which is why the GOP is proposing the idea in honor of Ted. Such an honor.

This is another case in which the GOP doesn't have to be in power (not even close) to get the Dems to roll over and play dead -- and do whatever the GOP wants. Lob some more teabags and soon the country will believe that as bad as the GOP is, at least they aren't as lame as the Dems.

Resume of a fierce advocate

Fierce Advocate? Definitely. This is a comprehensive list of what Ted Kennedy has done for us gays over the years. Obama, are you paying attention to how it is done? Alas, the lion's den now sits empty.

A lion and fierce advocate

On the death of Ted Kennedy I note the current president was about a year old when Teddy took office. I'll make my tribute short. I've been impressed that Ted didn't hold office to line his pockets, but to actually do something meaningful for those at the lowest levels of society. A lion indeed.

Tributes flow, of course, from national and international figures. Accolades also come from the gay community. We've had lots of talk over the last year about a fierce advocate for gays. Turns out it wasn't Obama, but Ted.

The cause of his life

Two articles in the latest Newsweek about health care. The shorter one is by Jacob Weisberg and discusses how America's health system projects (or doesn't) its values. Yes, a country's values influence its health system -- a writer takes an old injury to doctors around the world and gets a variety of responses, from nothing (Britain) to one that works (India).

The current system doesn't match our morals, economics, and sociology. Morally, we accept inequality too easily, yet the unfairness of death caused by inadequate insurance is something that offends us. The bills in the House and Senate appear to deal with this issue well.

Economically, we have the most expensive system and the current bills don't have the incentives to deal with this issue.

Sociologically, we've missed the target completely -- we insist on sticking to a employer funded system. When people held lifetime jobs, this may have made sense, but we're now it a time when people change jobs every couple years. Yet, the proposal to change the source of funding is being ignored.

I'm personally puzzled why there are no loud voices talking about how health care funded by employers is an unseen tax on everything we buy. Tax people directly and the price of goods can drop -- and we get to see the true price of health care. Maybe that's what scares lawmakers.

The big article is by Sen. Ted Kennedy (and his speech writer). He talks about the times he needed health care -- his 1964 plane crash, his son Teddy's bout with cancer that took his leg -- and was glad his insurance covered all he needed. He became quite aware that other patients didn't have it so well. He also talks about the frequent battles over universal coverage starting with Teddy Roosevelt (!) and Harry Truman and on through the various efforts he had a hand in. He calls health care, "The cause of my life."

He also lists what he feels must be in a new bill. He is quite aware that he may not get it all in this round and new efforts can come every few years. Alas, I think that means some congressmen will say, "We've already solved that issue." Kennedy's requirements:

* Universal coverage.

* To accomplish this we must cut costs, and that requires a public option.

* Replace the system that rewards doctors for the number of tests with a system that rewards for the quality of outcome.

* Social justice and economics mean long term care that allows seniors to stay in their own homes.

* Don't disturb the coverage we already have (contradicting Weisberg above).

* Emphasize prevention over cure.

Kennedy ends by saying what we have now is not sustainable.

A few thoughts of my own. A lot of the stories about the GOP are about how racist the remaining party supporters are. The biggest roadblock currently is cost. That makes me think about one of the reasons GOP congressmen don't want to raise taxes and don't want programs that in any way help the poor -- we don't want any of our money going to help Those People.

What it means to be a progressive

Blogger Terrance Heath has some nice things to say about Ted Kennedy as the senator contemplates battling a brain tumor. Kennedy led, or at least had his fingers in nearly all of the progressive policies that came out of (and some that died in) Washington. The list is quite long and includes Medicare, Medicaid, and stopping Robert Bork. Terrance is a gay man and was working on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (which has been introduced in Congress every session for a long time) and shook hands with Kennedy at a hearing for ENDA. This is what impresses him about Kennedy:

I thought to myself that this wealthy, heterosexual, white male certainly didn’t have to care about those of us standing in line that day, for a hearing on a bill about our equality. He wouldn’t have suffered for not caring. But he did.

If there is anyone whose career distills what being a progressive means to me — caring about and standing up for people and issues you don’t have to care about, and that your circumstances don’t require you to care about — Ted Kennedy is one such person. His career in the Senate, and his political commitments are proof that one can be elite — born to privilege, wealth, and power — without being elitist. One simply has to care, as Ted Kennedy has and does. He could have spend most or all of his life coasting on the wealth, power, and influence of the Kennedy name. He chose not to do so.

So, get well soon, Senator. You have fought and still fight the good fight, but there several rounds left to go. Perhaps it’s selfish to say, but we still need you, and many more like you too.