What would Ted Kennedy have done?
One of the great sideshows of the Senate’s passage of a health care reform bill is the question, “Would Ted Kennedy have supported the Senate health care bill?”
In today’s Huffington Post, Washington Note publisher Steve Clemons writes-
Had Ted Kennedy been alive today, either Ben Nelson would not have been able to undermine women’s health care equities and move his anti-abortion beliefs into national consequence or Joe Lieberman would not have been able to get included in the health care bill nearly whatever the big insurers wanted — no matter how much these positions conflicted with earlier Lieberman positions.
Via Huffington Post
How Clemons knows this is a complete mystery – and he is not the only writer pretending to channel the Senator.
By any objective standard, Clemons would seem to be completely wrong although nobody -either supporter or detractor – can really know what might have been different had Kennedy lived.
Senator Paul Kirk, the long time Kennedy aide and political confident appointed to Kennedy’s seat specifically because he would vote as Kennedy would have voted, doesn’t it see it as Clemons does.
He’s having a merry Christmas in heaven,” said an emotional Sen. Paul Kirk, D-Mass., who was appointed to fill the seat after Kennedy succumbed to brain cancer in August. Kirk said it was an honor to essentially cast Kennedy’s vote as Democrats passed the Senate’s version of a bill that would extend insurance to 30 million Americans.
“It’s the proudest public moment of my life,” Kirk said.
Via Huffington Post
That is hardly the statement of a man who believes he sold out the principals of his long time benefactor. And for the more jaded among you, Senator Kirk is not running for re-election in Massachusetts. He has absolutely nothing to gain by voting contrary to what he believes Senator Kennedy might have done.
It is also not unreasonable to expect that Senator Kennedy’s wife, Vicki Kennedy, would have a better grip on what was in her husband’s mind than the rest of us.
In an op-ed piece written by Vicki Kennedy and published in the Washington Post, Mrs. Kennedy made it clear that her husband would have supported the Senate bill. While I recommend you read the entire piece, here is a glimpse-
Ted often said that we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. He also said that it was better to get half a loaf than no loaf at all, especially with so many lives at stake. That’s why, even as he never stopped fighting for comprehensive health-care reform, he also championed incremental but effective reforms such as a Patients’ Bill of Rights, the Children’s Health Insurance Program and COBRA continuation of health coverage. The bill before the Senate, while imperfect, would achieve many of the goals Ted fought for during the 40 years he championed access to quality, affordable health care for all Americans.
Via Washington Post
Mrs. Kennedy then lists the positive measures of the Senate bill, clearly putting her stamp of support on the legislation.
The truth is, we will never really know what might have been had Kennedy survived just as we will never know what would have been in the Senator’s mind as the process unfolded.
What we do know is that those who would use the late Senator as a rallying point against the health care bill are simply projecting their own anger onto the Senator without Kennedy having the ability to voice his own.
Sadly, the senator whose voice carried the most weight on the issue of health care reform is not here to play his part. But if his closest confidants and family tell us that the Senator would have been pleased with whatever percentage of a loaf has been accomplished, I think we should accept their view on what Senator Kennedy would have thought about the legislation and leave him alone.
Let’s not mess up the moment for those people who worked so hard for so long with Kennedy’s to accomplish what he considered to be his life’s mission. That’s the one thing we can be sure Ted Kennedy would not have wanted.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by rickungar, E T Boney. E T Boney said: http://tiny.cc/ia0Lb TIMEWhat would Ted Kennedy have done?True/Slant… ha.. http://bit.ly/4mMJcP #playedout #Xmas [...]
I cringed everytime another liberal plank was tossed overboard to placate Lieberman and his fellow insurance industry whores. I wanted a single-payer system. Then I wanted a government option. Then I wanted an expansion of medicare with a buy-in. Then I wanted an expansion of medicaid to be comprehensive. Then I ranted and raved and threw things (soft things) at the TV and agreed with every bit of hyperbole on MSNBC. Then I recalled the famous quote from Maeterlinck “At every crossroads on the roads that lead to the future, each progressive spirit is opposed by a thousand men appointed to guard the pass.”
I don’t think there is any question that Ted Kennedy would be applauding the bill and would have led the charge. He was the ultimate pragmatist and would have recognized early on that traditional “deal-making” on something of a 50-50 basis with the Republican leadership and its “just say no” policy was dead in the water. He would have done “whatever it takes” to get the job done but there is no way he would have been able to work his perceived magic on Nelson or Leiberman. The Democrats still have a broad inclusive tent even as the Republicans are heading in the direction of purifying their membership into fundamentalist lockstep. Democrats have members who are Republicans in all but name but one can search in vain for examples of what used to be referred to as “Rockefeller Republicans”. They have become extinct. When Kennedy was successful in hammering out deals using one-on-one charm and a sense of collegiality, he was dealing with Republican leaders who were proud to be Americans first and Republicans second. I think it is clear that Kennedy realized that such is no longer the case. Your analysis of the circumstance is rational, compelling and spot-on.
Funny. As I was reading your comment I was thinking that I don’t recall ever seeing you here before but what a superb, well-stated comment this is. Then I got to your last line and saw you felt the same way about the post. Either we have both grasped this correctly or we’re both wrong. I think we’re right.
In response to another comment. See in context »I went through the identical process as you. I wanted a single-player, etc., etc. I knew that most of these things wouldn’t happen – including the public option. I will admit to being particularly disappointed that the medicare buy-in could not succeed as I’ve always viewed this as the most rational thing we could have done. When it looked like it might go forward, I was pleased that all the hub-bub actually would have led to the right conclusion. But, not to be.
Nevertheless, as I have long suggested, single-payer (with a private policy availability for those who can afford it) is an inevitability, whether people like it or not. Ultimately, it will be the only choice available to us as a nation as the middle-class gets priced out of the private health care insurance model.
Rick, great post. I know you know I’ve been talking about pragmatism a lot over at Political Pulse, and here’s my latest:
http://trueslant.com/justingardner/2009/12/24/the-realities-of-passing-health-care-the-risks-of-not/
Essentially, Dems had one shot at this and the litany of things they were able to accomplish is incredible. And remember, we weren’t just talking about Nelson and Lieberman. We also had Baucus, Byah, Carper, Conrad, Landrieu and Lincoln. Single payer was never on the table and the public option had an initial, early shot, but after the CBO’s scores came in, it was dead in the water. So what to do? Compromise.
However, I don’t think single payer is an inevitability. Especially in America where we have plenty of folks who would take to the streets to prevent that from ever happening.
Something along the lines of Wyden-Bennett bill would be much better for the marketplace, and since it’s a VERY pro business move, Republicans could get behind it. If Republicans want to reclaim this debate, they need to get behind that, and fast.
Again, great post!
In response to another comment. See in context »Hey Justin -Thanks you..and I have been following your pragmatic posts! Have a great holiday.
In response to another comment. See in context »Rick, You don’t recall seeing me here before because I just joined yesterday and have been over-dosing on a smorgasbord of intelligent commentary ever since. What a treat! My metaphor for the health care issue is the Titanic. Plenty of lifeboat space and life-vests for all the passengers in First (including the rarified “Captain’s Table Group” and Second Class but not enough for those in steerage. There were no passengers in steerage who survived even though there were plenty of “high priority” women and children. The owners, crew and those in first and second class all felt that they had the best survival system in the world. No one asked the passengers in steerage. Thank you for your kind and generous comments and for your well-reasoned positions.
Nice to have you and I hope you keep coming back. You’re comments are an excellent addition!
In response to another comment. See in context »As Arnold would say…and has said repeatedly…”I’ll be back”.
No one is really thrilled about this bill, but as you stated, these are not like days gone by when we had “loyal” opposition. You look at the Democrats today and it really is almost amazing they got 60 votes for anything. This is a good start and hopefully we can build on it’s good parts. Aetna and the other arrogant insurers are going to feel the wrath of the population in the coming years as they continue to raise rates far in excess of inflation. My guess is Americans will support more controls on the insurers even if we never get to a single payor system.
Agreed with that last statement. Americans HATE the insurance companies, and with good reason. Their practices have literally killed people for profit, and 50 years from now I hope we look back on this time in our history the same way we look back on the lack of proper labor laws to protect workers.
In response to another comment. See in context »These 60 senators are either all idiots or all criminals….i don’t know which it is……what would teddy have done? What did teddy ever do for america?
Will someone spell out what this reform bill is specifically reforming?
30,000,000 americans without health insurance, will suddenly have it in 2014 when this bill kicks in? I think not.
What ried and pelosi have done is put to trains on the same track headed toward each
other…..and they will hit in 2014
yawn…and learn how to spell “Reid.”
In response to another comment. See in context »Most people have no idea who reed is…believe me, they only know what they are fed in a five minute news cast…..
Yawn, what is in this heavily taxed health care bill, run by the feds…that is better than untaxed health run by the private sector?
Now, you can live free and not even carry a health insurance card….under obamacare, starting in 2014, that freedom ends….for the good of the collective
In response to another comment. See in context »Ted Kennedy? (appealed to people’s “better side”)
This bill isn’t that, so much as it’s you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.
We’re paying the premiums for those who lost their jobs, thus replenishing the health insurance cartel’s patient populations.
But, their costs would have been shifted to those paying premiums anyway.
In return, Bernie Sanders, Barack and Michelle Obama, and yes, EverNewEcoN, are happy to see poor folks, including poor Chicagoans, covered,
and their costs were shifted to you and me all along; plus, they can get less expensive and earlier entry care this way.
The four people mentioned would like greater use of cooperatives and physician-conceived approaches to more cost effective and clinically rational care, but it’s the insurance companies’ system of we’ll pay you for doing this and then doing that which was preserved.
Perhaps coop expansion can be successfully encouraged.
You see, disease processes bear no relation to price elasticities. (Aside from that EverNewEcoN is the epitome of a walking talking capitalist.) That addressing unhealtful habits requires health education is old news.
I would have considered instead eliminating the health insurers’immunity to antitrust laws combined with providing indigents with pre-vouchered care as likely preferable so as to provide a dash of free market, so long as that’s the pretense of what we have.
Competition could provide a dose of cost rationalization, eventually including by way of
discovering that what’s in the patient’s interest actually saves money over the long haul.
The quasi-utility route does no more, or less, to eliminate the problem: if we provide preventive care, our competitor may ultimately derive the benefit.
On the other hand, so long as medical service ratios are going to be controlled, insurers could yet be forced to each devote a percentage of premiums received to preventive services, and thus to universally realize the long term savings.
I don’t have a problem with mandatory participation. That’s a free nation maturing, getting educated.
Today’s young can still face catastrophic costs now but will also surely need help when they’re older. It’s a fact: they will get older the easy way or the health intervention way. Beating back the usual course of having babies, seeing them to independence, and dying, is expensive, and all hands are needed on deck.
The fact that everyone ultimately gets really deathly sick is something Medicare usually bears.
economics
health care
climate change
new developments
more
next sign
http://sites.google.com/site/evernewecon
(NOT RELATED TO ANY SHAVING CREAM BUSINESS)
In response to another comment. See in context »meant to identify the Ted Kennedy reference, not
to spam
skipping to this should cure it:
http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2009/12/24/what-would-ted-kennedy-have-done/#comment-3306
EverNewEcoN:
(In response to personal email as to
Congress’ addressing of clinical cost.)
Yes, there are disincentives as to solo
practice and outlyer users of expensive
clinical options.
These process controls, I concede, may
(or may not, in the net) lower cost.
Coop’s in the patients’ interest come built into them incentives to do what’s best at
the lowest cost. So I think the structural
fix would be far more meaningful both clinically and economically.
http://sites.google.com/site/evernewecon
Insofar as one’s most immediate, personal
interest is concerned, if it’s a case of
the proposed law or no change whatsoever,
you sure have to go for the new law if one
way or another you’re an ongoing paying
health insurance customer.
Otherwise, you’ll bear the full brunt of cost-shifting of not only the people who go to emergency rooms for care not paid for, but for the care of those recently laid off and going bankrupt from having just gone “naked.”
http://sites.google.com/site/evernewecon
I
One practical note on why the mandatory participation clause in the health bill:
You obviously can’t delete the insurance company cherry picking and exclusions for risk of having to pay for sickness without also imposing the mandatory participation.
Otherwise anyone could just game the system, buying insurance only when something’s wrong.
http://sites.google.com/site/evernewecon
P.S.
I’ve of course offered multiple thoughts today.
I earn a regular living during regular work days, and I in no way consider this personally gainful work. Indeed, EverNewEcoN is all about economic rationality consistent with compassion.
Therefore, no one should feel offended that I have engaged in this on Christmas day.
RE:One practical note on why the mandatory participation clause in the health bill:
It is in there for only one reason….the bill was written and approved by fascist pigs….who by the way exempt themselves from the bill.
Twas the day before Christmas
and all through the senate and the house
Liberals and Progressives were selling us out
You see the companies making contributions to conservatives really have the legislative clout
Unfortunately, most progressive and liberal outsiders haven’t figured this out
To leave these companies alone will just seal our fate
where we progressives and liberals do not carry much political weight
but if we join together and boycott conservative funders asses
We’ll get real progressive legislation that passes.
If you want to solve the problem of too much company influence over legislation see my profile. Just click on the FDR coin icon.