The time has come for me to say a temporary ‘so long’ to the readers who have made my time here at True/Slant so enjoyable.

For me, the experience has been nothing short of wonderful. The interaction with the editorial staff has been superb and I want to publicly thank Lewis Dvorkin, Coates Bateman and Michael Roston (who has tolerated my tendency to engage in perfectly awful spelling with far more patience than I deserved) for the opportunity.

I also want to thank all the readers, so many of whom have come to feel like friends over the time we have communicated with one another. I very much hope to see each of you at my next destination for continued discussion, disagreement and all the other interactions that make blogging so much fun.

With regards to that next destination, I am barred from making any announcements regarding the future due to ongoing contract negotiations. However, let me just say that I look forward to joining my new home sometime around the first of September and hope to be reunited with some good friends that I have made here at True/Slant.

Again, it’s been awesome and I hope to reconnect with you all in September.

Let’s answer the question so we can get this over with and move on to Charlie Rangel, the next distraction sure to capture our undivided attention while derailing the White House from focusing on jobs for yet another week or more.

There was no “teachable moment.”

Is there anyone out there who did not already know that Fox News, Breitbart, and others of their ilk would pollute and twist a story in order to better meet their political objectives? Because if this comes as a revelation to you, than you simply haven’t been paying attention and any teachable moment will likely be fully lost on you.

Is there anyone out there who did not know that when it comes to both the right wing agenda and the defensive political stance of this Administration, an intelligent, effective and well-meaning woman like Shirley Sherrod is completely expendable?

Two words  - Van Jones.

When Glenn Beck and company went after Mr. Jones, also an effective and highly capable member of the White House staff, the White House folded like a cheap suit and sent Mr. Jones packing. Obviously, that ‘teachable moment’ didn’t result in any accumulation of knowledge given the Administration’s willingness to throw Ms. Sherrod under the bus. She – like Jones – was politically inconvenient and, thus, completely expendable.  So, exactly what is it that we are to learn from the current experience that we failed to pick up on during the last such event?

Is there anyone out there who did not know that this White House has a tendency to freak out when it comes to issues regarding race and react without all the facts? Two more words – Beer Summit.

Did anything happen this week that revealed something new about race in America and those who would exploit it in the effort to attack –by proxy- the nation’s first black president while, at the same time, revealing this administration’s tendencies to fumble the ball when race is the issue?

A nation polarized by ideological politics has little interest in teachable moments -unless the teacher is an approved source of knowledge and information for your particular way of thinking. If you believe in the truth of Fox News, than you very likely feel exactly the same after Sherrod as you did before Sherrod. If the truth for you comes from the mouth of Keith Olbermann, same result. Nothing will have changed for you having lived through the week that was.

As for those without the commitment to one ideology or the other, let’s face it – most are not listening.

And those who are listening probably already knew to beware of Andrew Breitbart and his propensity for dishonest journalism, the political weakness of this White House when it comes to such issues, the state of race relations in America, and how people will hurt a nice woman in Georgia when these people -whatever side they play for – perceive it to be of benefit to their own personal goals and desires.

I will, however, admit to learning one thing.

CNN’s Kyra Phillips is not very bright.

Phillips’ ‘teachable moment’ led her to the conclusion that bloggers need to be legally regulated, despite the fact that her own cable TV news organization is not.

Appearing on CNN with co-anchor and her husband-to-be, John Roberts, Phillips had this to say –

There’s going to have be a point in time where these people have to be held accountable. How about all these bloggers that blog anonymously? They say rotten things about people and they’re actually given credibility, which is crazy. They’re a bunch of cowards, they’re just people seeking attention.

What is amazing about this comment is that were we to take out the words, “anonymous bloggers”, I would have assumed Phillips was discussing on-air television and radio “news” reporters and talkers such as herself.

Phillips continues-

…there’s going to come a point where something’s going to have to be done legally about anonymous bloggers… There has to be some point where there’s some accountability. And companies, especially in the media have to stop giving these anonymous bloggers credit.
Via Business and Media

Again, take out ‘anonymous blogger’ and insert ‘cable news’. It fits to a tee.

While I too disapprove of bloggers who take shots and don’t put their name on their handy work, I also disapprove of clearly identified bloggers, like Mr. Breitbart, who lie and disparage people unfairly just as I disapprove of TV and radio talkers who do the same. Did Ms. Phillips forget that Nancy Grace works for the same network that employs Ms. Phillips and her fiancé as did Glenn Beck before he was lured away by Fox? Did Ms. Phillips forget her own network’s propensity to spend 45 minutes out of an hour covering such important ‘news’ as Michael Jackson’s troubles du jour, airplanes landing at Atlanta’s airport with a blown tire (a complete non story as they always land without incident) and Phillips’ own memorable broadcast from the bathroom where she trashed her sister-in-law on an open mike during a broadcast?

I suspect that Ms. Sherrod is actively taking a look at her legal opportunities to “regulate” Mr. Breitbart by way of a law suit based on slander. Let him have to pay her a few million bucks and I think he’ll have his teachable moment.

As for Kyra, might I suggest that what she took from this week would be of greater value when applied to her own business and industry. Clean up cable-tv news and then you come and clean up our business. 

Anyone who has ever been responsible for the supervision of others in the workplace knows that there are a few rules that must be followed when terminating an employee.

You never fire an employee – any employee – until you’ve gathered and documented all the facts, making damn sure that every “i” has been dotted and ‘t’ has been crossed before you hand out that pink slip. You do this because you owe it to the individual whose job you are about to take away and because you just never know when you may have to defend your decision in a court of law.

You never fire an employee until you’ve given that person a full opportunity to tell their side of the story.

And, for heaven’s sake, you don’t instruct an employee to pull her car off to the side of the road and then force her resign via her Blackberry without giving that person a moment to consult an advisor, speak with human resources, etc.

This stuff is about as basic as it gets. It’s Management 101 and anyone who doesn’t get it has absolutely no business whatsoever being in a management position – especially when the organization under management is the government of the United States of America.

At this point, it would be hard to find anyone who supports the firing of Shirley Sherrod, the USDA employee forced to resign after a partial clip of her speech before an NAACP group was aired by Fox News and on Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government website.

The clip revealed a black woman telling the story of how she had questioned whether she wanted to help a farmer (26 years ago) when she was in a government position that obligated her to provide that help. Her lack of concern for this farmer was based on his being white and the ‘superior attitude’ he adopted when dealing with Ms. Sherrod.

Clearly, the video clip revealed that Ms. Sherrod was treating this man differently because of his skin color. By any definition, it was a clear-cut example of racism.

Except that it wasn’t.

As we now know, the video clip was a serious – and likely intentional – mischaracterization of the story. When the entire speech is viewed, we discover that Ms. Sherrod was documenting her personal growth from bias towards white people (her father had been murdered by a Klansman) to understanding that she needed to help all those in need – whether they be black or white. Her story is a wonderful, inspirational tale of a woman who overcame her racial biases and went on to help many farmers in rural Georgia, regardless of their race. It is a story made all the more poignant by the stepping forward of the white farmer in question who credits Ms. Sherrod with saving his family’s farm and being a good friend.

The Administration would have known the full story and avoided a serious error had they been capable of following the basic rules of employments listed above.

I suspect that things are going to turn out well for Shirley Sherrod now that the country has gotten behind her. I certainly hope so as she got a very raw deal. However, I wonder whether things will turn out well for the rest of us?

While Agriculture Secretary, Tom Vilsack, is taking the bullet by claiming he made the decision to fire Ms. Sherrod without checking with the White House, we all know that this is nonsense.  For starters, the deputy Agriculture Secretary who was in communication with Ms. Sherrod in the effort to obtain Sherrod’s quick resignation, flat out told her that this was coming from the White House. And while this matter was not likely one that would make it to the President’s desk, there is no way that Vilsack would have taken such a step without first checking with the Administration where someone instructed the Agriculture Secretary to get rid of Sherrod- and fast.

Sadly, we have a White House that that is building quite a track record when it comes to ineffective and inept management.

Screw-ups will happen. When they do,  you take your lumps and move on – resolved to do a better job in the future. But this White House seems to make the same kind of silly mistakes over and over again in a seemingly endless loop of management ineptitude. Whether it’s flying a plane at low altitude over New York City for a photo opportunity, scaring the hell out of everyone when the White House could have accomplished the same effect using Photoshop, or jumping into a dispute between a police officer and a Harvard professor before having all the facts, the President and his staff have not done well when it comes to avoiding unforced errors.

With a few notable exceptions (Katrina comes to mind), the previous administration was very effective at managing government to accomplish their agenda. Of course, the agenda they pursued was, in my opinion, extremely detrimental and dangerous to the interests of the nation. But they certainly knew how to get where the were going.

This administration has a very different problem. While I might be more sympathetic to the objectives of the Obama presidency, the inability to manage even the simplest of situations reveals that it is hard to imagine this government coming to a happy and successful ending.

Who can forget Obama coming into office promising not to be swayed in his decisions by the 24 hour news cycle? Yet here we are, just eighteen months later, watching this administration fire an employee based on an incomplete film clip and doing so without benefit of a hearing because they wanted her out before Glenn Beck began his show on the day in question.

According to Sherrod, she was given no chance to explain herself. “They asked me to resign. And, in fact, they harassed me,” she said about a series of phone calls from USDA Deputy Under Secretary Cheryl Cook. Sherrod was in the middle of a long road trip, but pulled over after Cook insisted that she write her resignation via Blackberry. She remembers being told, “You’re going to be on Glenn Beck tonight.

“
Via Huffington Post

This White House has a personnel problem – one that is brought into stark relief by Ms. Sherrod’s situation. And while the firing of a USDA state director may not rise to the importance of health care and bank reform … Afghanistan and Iraq… or any number of critical policy issues that the President must deal with each day, sometimes the smaller things present the largest opportunities. President Obama should take advantage of this latest screw-up to make some management changes in his organization before the Obama White House becomes someone else’s White House.

It’s no secret that I like and admire the President. However, there are many people I like and admire whom I would never consider putting in charge of my business, which brings us to the next rule of good management – surround yourself with top notch people. No boss can be everywhere all the time. If you don’t have competent folks helping to run the store, the store is going to fail.

This president is in bad need of chief operating officer – and he needs to find one quickly because, as much as it pains me to say it, failing a more competent management team in this White House, I can only come to conclusion that Barack Obama may be better cut out for the life of a legislator where we can all benefit from his many talents without burdening him with the responsibilities of management and administration that come with the job of being the nation’s chief executive.

It’s not.

This descriptor is employed as regularly in left leaning publications – such as The Huffington Post – as it is used by the Wall Street Journal. And it is every bit as ridiculous when suggested by the left as it is when used by the right.

That the financial companies do not like Professor Warren makes infinite sense. It was Warren who first floated the idea of a federal consumer protection bureau and then went on to play a leading role in making it happen. As a result, life will be considerably more difficult for the credit card companies that have long gouged the American middle class and, in no small measure, they have Elizabeth Warren to thank for their troubles. The banks have every reason to believe that Warren will be tough on them and are having the expected allergic reaction to her taking charge of the agency she is largely responsible for creating.

But what’s up with this whole ‘darling of the progressives’ description?

The tag implies that only progressives have been plagued by the unsavory and predatory business practices of those credit card companies and other unscrupulous lenders who have been taking advantage of their customers for so many years.

I cannot imagine a more ridiculous assertion. Warren is not the darling of the left or a favorite of the right. She’s proven herself to be a champion of all the middle class. As such, she has earned the respect of everyone in the middle class who has ever been played by a financial institution.

Nobody should kid themselves. Money in the hands of a conservative is the identical color as money in the hands of a liberal. And when the financial institutions try to separate you from that money through usurious loans and predatory practices, they couldn’t care less about the ideological sway of that money’s previous owner. They have but one concern – making your money become their money.

While there may be few things left in this country where conservatives and progressives can come together, this has got to be one of them. The desire to have someone looking out for the consumer’s interest by protecting the middle class against the powerful financial institutions easily trumps our polarized politics.After all, stopping a credit card company from ripping off a liberal means that the same credit card company will be prevented from ripping off a conservative.

This is precisely why the notion circulating today that suggests that Warren can be – and should be – appointed without a Senate hearing is a terrible idea.

I can’t imagine a better opportunity to discover who in our government stands up for the people who put them there (whether Democrat or GOP) and who stands up for the financial institutions who pay the bills of our politicians.

There is only one possible reason why a United States senator would vote against Elizabeth Warren to run this agency. That would be the banks.

I cannot recall the GOP complaining as Warren emerged as one of the key critics of the Obama Administration’s bailout of the banks. I can understand Secretary of Treasury, Tim Geithner, complaining – as he has -about Elizabeth Warren. She has effectively been serving as the ‘shadow’ Treasury Secretary and making life tough on Geithner in her effort to police the bailouts. But how could this lead to a GOP filibuster against Warren’s appointment to this new agency? She’s been a bigger problem for the Democratic administration than she has ever been to the GOP.

Given that only the banks have a reason to object to her appointment, it will only be those Senators who serve the interests of the financial institutions who can object.

What a moment!  Will there ever be a clearer line of delineation between the politicians (including President Obama) who vote the interest of their constituents – both conservative and liberal- versus those who vote the special interests of the industries that line their pockets with campaign contributions?

It won’t just be GOP senators who have a problem when faced with a vote on Elizabeth Warren. Indeed, Democratic senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn) is already trying to protect his Democratic colleagues in a comment made yesterday suggesting that Warren would not be approved by the Senate.

Dodd, speaking on National Public Radio’s “Diane Rehm Show,” said there were questions over the support for Warren, who chairs a bailout watchdog panel and is considered a top candidate for the post.

“Elizabeth could be a terrific nominee. The question is, ‘Is she confirmable?’ And there’s a serious question about that,” Dodd said.
He declined to specify why he believes Warren might have difficulty winning Senate support, saying, that’s “what I’m picking up.”
Via Reuters

Talk about trying to stick the knife in the back of a nomination.

Elizabeth Warrens don’t come around everyday. The opportunity to put both the Administration and the Senate to the test of exactly who they stand with does not come along everyday.We simply can’t let this moment pass us by.  If Elizabeth Warren is nominated by the Administration by taking advantage of language in the financial reform law that suggests the Treasury Secretary can make an interim appointment to this job without submitting it to Congress, it will only mean that Obama has bailed out the Senate so that they might avoid the wrath of their bank contributors.The good news, of course, would be the appointment of Prof. Warren. The bad news would be another instance of the President passing up another opportunity to show the public who he sides with and who those senators are that are with the special interests.

And if the President fails to nominate Elizabeth Warren? In my opinion, this would be one of his most significant political errors to date.

Image via Wikipedia

I can think of no surer way to show the American public that the creation of a Federal Consumer Protection Agency was all spit and no juice than to deny Elizabeth Warrant the role of leading our new consumer protection agency.

Of course her appointment will guarantee a fight on the Hill. The banks know that Warren could spell big trouble for them so it comes as no surprise that the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala), and all the usual suspects, are completely opposed to her nomination.

But isn’t this precisely the fight that the Democrats should be begging for as they head into election season? Isn’t this exactly the type of battle that would expose who actually has the interests of the American public at heart and who is standing up for the monied financial interests that run the nation?

Warren is a tough, poor kid from Oklahoma who grew up to be a distinguished professor of law at Harvard where she spent the last 30 years studying the economic conditions of the American middle class. As a result of her expertise, she was chosen to be the chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel created to investigate the bank bailout (TARP).

And what a job she has done.

Anything but shy when it comes to riding herd over the Department of Treasury, Warren has succeeded in gaining the confidence of the nation simply by telling Americans the truth about what had happened, what continues to happen and what we can expect will happen in the future if the banks are permitted to continue doing business as usual at the expense of the American middle class.

Playing the game with honestly and fearing no reprisal when it comes to speaking the truth to her fellow Americans, it is not particularly surprising that the Obama Administration’s financial Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum – Tim Geithner and Larry Summers- also oppose Warren being tapped to run the consumer protection bureau- the very agency that she is largely responsible for bringing into being.

The fact that Geithner and Summers are not fans of Professor Warren have not  prevented the President from pushing Warren’s plan and taking advantage of her good stead with the American public at every politically opportune moment. As a result, Obama owes Warren this job as much as we need her in the job.

Still, the Administration is clearly not ready to stand up for Elizabeth Warren.

Speaking on a conference call with reporters this morning, White House senior advisor, David Axelrod, said –

Elizabeth Warren is a great, great champion for consumers and middle-class families across the country. She has helped inform this effort greatly and what has been done here in many ways reflects something she’s been advocating for years and years and years, so she’s obviously a candidate to lead this effort.

But, then, Axelrod went on to say -

There are other candidates as well but Elizabeth is certainly a candidate to lead it and one thing I know for certain is however we move forward she’s going to be a strong voice in helping shape this and make it the most effective voice for consumers that it possibly can be.

Via Huffington Post

That sounds a lot to me like ‘thanks for everything and please leave your keys at the door on the way out. ”

It is no secret that the White House wants to appoint someone that can step into the job as soon as possible with the minimum amount of stress being created by the Senate. And appointing Warren will surely create maximum stress in the Senate.

But there is no other candidate who has earned the job in the way that Elizabeth Warren has earned it. And for the White House to fail to acknowledge not only her incredible work to date but the strong bond of honesty and trust she has built with the American public would be just one more example of the Obama Administration taking the political way out rather than doing the right thing.

Can the Administration really afford another sell-out?

This is a fight worth having, not only because Warren is worth fighting for but because it is a fight that could pay huge political benefits to Democrats in November.

Obama needs this battle. The Democrats need this battle. And the nation needs Elizabeth Warren to get this important new agency off on the right foot. Americans need to know that the new consumer protection agency is there to serve and protect their interests – not simply serve as some strawman existing only to keep the peace with the financial community.

When the President signs the financial reform bill next week, Elizabeth Warren should be standing right there next to him as Obama announces her as his appointee to be the first Director of the Federal Consumer Protection Agency.

Anything less would be a slap in the face to all Americans, a lost opportunity for a Democratic party badly in need of creating some good will and proof positive that the Obama Administration has become so mired in keeping the peace that it has lost all touch with the concept of how doing the right thing can, on occasion, produce a political win.

No longer do our politicians – or their followers – put what is best for the nation at the forefront although many believe they do so by taking strong, unyielding partisan positions.

Today, it’s all about how a policy plays out for the party – not the country.

Does anyone really believe that the Obama win, cool as it may have been for those who supported his candidacy, has turned out to be a victory for the nation? Does anyone really believe that the two terms of George W. Bush was a victory for the nation?

Yes, I know…Obama’s problems are the fault of a GOP minority in the Senate hell bent on stopping the president no matter what he attempts to do. As for Bush, it was all about oil, right? While Obama’s hidden, nefarious agenda involves the pursuit of socialism in America, Bush’s master plan was to further the interests of corporations and the nation’s wealthiest citizens.

Guess what? George W. Bush contributed more money to fight AIDS in Africa than any president in our history. In the real world (the one where politics is not reduced to a football game), an evil man who cares nothing for the disadvantaged and only works to benefit the privileged just doesn’t do this.

Here’s another shocker.

If you actually believe that Barack Obama is pursuing a socialist course for this country, you are either completely ignorant of facts or need to return to high school and pay attention the day your civics class teacher discusses what socialism actually means. While facts can be inconvenient, President Obama has, so far, turned out to be a pretty conservative president – certainly far more conservative than most who supported his candidacy expected.

The truth is that an American president can no longer succeed on behalf of the nation because whoever is on the other side of the aisle believes they have too much to lose in that success. It’s not about the country – it’s about the success of the team for whom our politicians and their followers play.

The inevitable result is the loss of logic and good sense in the national debate. And when good sense is lost for too long, history tells us that nobody wins the game.

We have GOP senators running around making the case that the nation’s jobless be damned because the deficit can’t handle further payment of their jobless benefits unless we can find the money elsewhere so as to avoid increasing the national deficit. To back up their position, they try to sell us on the notion that the unemployed are only unemployed because, content to take the taxpayers’ money and watch TV all day, they don’t really want jobs. Of course, the fact that statistics make clear that there is only one job out there for every six trying to get it is of no consequence.

At the same time, these identical senators pitch the notion that we should continue the Bush tax cuts despite the treasury’s need for a little help from the nation’s wealthiest in order to conquer the deficit – no offsetting money required to keep the deficit at even.

In what logic system does that add up?

The Democrats are hardly immune from the loss of good sense. Robert Gibbs goes on television and makes a dramatic statement of the obvious by pointing out that the GOP could retake the House this fall. Wow…who would have thought that was a possibility? Apparently, Nancy Pelosi figured that there was still someone left in the United States who didn’t already know this provocative bit of information when she publicly beat up on Gibbs for having spoken the obvious to avoid looking like a complete dunderhead before the nation.

And then there are the whack jobs. Michele Bachmann wants us to believe we are being turned into a nation of slaves. The tea party hangs up billboards comparing the President to Hitler because, somehow, this is good for America. And yes, liberals made some similar accusations against President Bush that were just as stupid.

Ultra-progressives insist that unless we get a health care program that includes every single thing they want, we should have no reform at all. The uninsured will just have to tough it out until the progressives get their all or nothing solution. Of course, most of those who take such a position do so with the comfort of having their health insurance policy sitting comfortably in a file somewhere. They will also tell you that faith based distribution of aid to the needy is a bad thing because it mixes church and state. I’m sure that argument comes as great comfort to families without food who only want a sandwich and don’t really care who gives it to them. But then, a hungry child’s stomach has yet to be indoctrinated into partisanship. To such a kid, food provided by a conservative or a liberal, a church or a government welfare program, is still just badly needed food.

So, I’ve got an idea.

If you live in a blue state – whether you are a Democrat or a Republican – look for a Republican who is moderate to the point that you can swallow hard and vote for his or her candidacy. Look for the Snowes and the Collinses out there. Maybe even the Scott Browns.

Best of all, look for folks like Charlie Crist.

These are the candidates who actually use their brain instead of their party affiliations and aren’t afraid to be supportive of a president from another party if what that president proposes is good for the candidate’s constituency.

If you live in a red state – vote Democrat. No, it doesn’t have to be a progressive or a liberal –a more conservative Democrat will do just fine.

In other words, let’s move our politicians towards the middle. While it won’t satisfy the deeply committed progressives or the equally committed conservatives, it may do something much more important – create a government that is capable of actually governing.

Sound radical? Think about what voting ideologies has done for us so far. Democrats are still blaming Bush (not that he doesn’t have it coming) and conservatives are convinced that Obama is the anti-Christ. Congress is incapable of acting in a rational, meaningful way to solve any of our problems because the leadership on both sides doesn’t allow governance – they only allow votes that are likely to deliver the desired result in the next election.

Here’s a new flash. Running a government is pretty much like running any other type of organization. There can be different opinions as to which may be the better plan to get the job done but, at the end of the day, what is most important is that the organization picks a direction and goes there. Mistakes will be made- but they can be corrected when they show up, if it is about running the government to the best interests of the country and not in the interest of political elections.

If the electorate delivers more Republicans in a given election year — assuming they are rational Republicans — then let’s do it their way and see how it goes. If the electorate chooses more Democrats then they get to steer the ship, so long as they do so rationally.

Given the state of our politics, this can only happen if we  put our attention to solving problems – not pursuing ideological agendas. This means choosing candidates focused on problem solving and problem solvers tend to be moderate, deliberative people. They aren’t people who suggest that the president of the United States wants to put our children in camps or make us slaves. They are not people who compare American presidents to the most heinous villain in modern history. They aren’t people who pretend that unions are always right in every opinion and position, even if they are supportive of the right of workers to unionize. And they certainly are not people who suggest that the American government wants to create death panels to decide when our seniors should die.

While it is true that dinner party conversation may be less interesting and cable news shows might drop a few rating points, I think this is a sacrifice we manage in order to preserve the nation.

I would also nominate Charlie Crist to be the poster boy for this movement.

A lifelong Republican, Crist was drummed out of his party for seeking to do what was best for his constituents, whether they be Democrats or Republicans. Those of you who read this blog know that I tend to lean in the direction of the left in my own approach to problem solving. So, my putting up a life-long Republican as the leader of this strategy may appear odd.

However, my interests are for the country – not for a political party. I respect a man who put his state first even if it meant giving the president a (gasp) hug in front of the camera. After all, Sammy Davis Jr., a life-long Democrat, hugged Richard Nixon for the cameras and I didn’t think any less of him for it.

Running the greatest nation on earth like a football game isn’t working out very well so let’s institute a new player draft system designed to even up the teams. Let’s go for moderates, whether Democrats or Republicans, who are more interested in governing than scoring touchdowns.

It has worked well for us in the past ad it might just may save the nation in the future.

To illustrate the point, one need only examine the organization’s complete and utter ineptitude at handling the most important issue facing American physicians – the ever present axe that hangs over their heads as they attempt to fight off the 21% reduction in Medicare payments payable to doctors willing to treat the nation’s elderly.

It’s not like they haven’t had their chances.

The first misstep came with the AMA’s willingness to accept and support the Obama healthcare plan without gaining anything in return. Surely, a promise to deliver on a repeal of the law that is producing the threatened cuts – or at least a commitment to table the cuts for a meaningful period of time – could have been accomplished in exchange for AMA support of the health care reform bill.

But then, when it comes to politics, one must ask before one can expect to receive. And when asking politely doesn’t work,  one must be prepared to threaten with the checkbook.

But not so the AMA.

The AMA says it endorsed reform because the law would help doctors and patients by expanding coverage, adding it never took part in a quid pro quo to support the bill.

“We make no apologies for our strong, principled advocacy on behalf of patients and physicians,” Cecil B. Wilson, president of the AMA, said in a statement to POLITICO. “We have been vocal advocates for covering the uninsured since before the last presidential election — before the issue became divisive and politicized.”
Via Politico

I suppose I can respect such a noble and principled approach. But then, I’m not a physician struggling to keep my office open while accepting elderly patients on what little Medicare already pays, let alone trying to do it with a further 21% cut in pay.

Having let the moment pass them by at the outset of reform, the AMA determined not to make the same mistake twice. Last month, they went full force for a complete repeal of the threatened cuts – a repeal that would cost  the national treasury some $240 billion. Once again, a noble objective. But in an election year where Democrats are already getting their heads handed to them for ballooning deficits, it doesn’t take a strategic genius to understand that such an approach is not going to succeed and that an unwillingness to compromise is just plain stupid – especially when Congress offers a reasonable compromise.

And that is precisely what Congress did.

Unable to push through an expensive repeal of the law, for all the obvious reasons, Congress suggested a five-year fix that would have given the docs a little breathing room while we see how reform develops. But the AMA refused. Instead, they launched a multimillion – dollar television campaign attacking the U.S. Senate for walking away from the problem.

What did the AMA win for their efforts? Rather than the five- year deal they had within their grasp, they achieved only a one-month reprieve. That’s right – having turned down a five-year deal, they spent millions of dollars only to end up with just 30 days until the ugly problem raises its head once again. Does it get any more embarrassing for a political lobbying group? Is it any wonder that membership in the AMA has dwindled to a mere fraction of what it once was?

For those physicians who continue to belong, I can only hope that they show better judgment when cutting us open than they do when it comes to political decision making. While taking a principled, all-or-nothing approach may be admirable – it is usually the province of interest groups who seek only to be heard in the press and on cable TV rather than those who actually mean to accomplish something in Congress. Our collective health demands much more. Medicine in America is very much about politics. And if the physicians can’t handle it, you and I will pay the price.

It is worth keeping in mind that the AMA is the very same organization that has managed to get its way on healthcare policy since first taking on Teddy Roosevelt to defeat a national health insurance program. Indeed, they have defeated every single president they’ve taken on when it comes to healthcare proposals that did not meet with their approval.

But those days are over.  The time has come to pronounce the AMA dead and hope that the nation’s physicians will respond by creating an organization with the requisite skill and courage required to represent their interests.

Why do we care? Because while you may have gripes about how much money physicians earn (and I hear them all the time), I assure you that the interests of America’s physicians are very much tied to our own. You simply cannot have a health care system without the doctors who diagnose the illnesses, dispense the treatments, work the cures and alleviate our pain. This is not an abstract proposition. Should you or a member of your family become ill, it won’t be politics or disgust over how much the other guy earns that is on your mind. You’re going to want a doctor and you’d better hope there is a competent one available to provide what you need.

The AMA has given a whole meaning to the adage, “Physician, heal thyself.” The nation’s doctors would be wise to take the advice and get themselves properly organized before it’s too late- if it isn’t too late already.

I was busy at work when I received a phone call from my health insurance company, Aetna Blue Cross of California. The insurer, best known for attempting to raise premium rates into the stratosphere and a history of seeking to deny coverage to those often in the greatest need, was phoning to invite me to participate in a program they are offering to their customers with chronic health conditions – such as diabetes and heart disease.

Sadly, such a program very much includes me.

The offer included a weekly phone call from one of their health care aides along with 24/7 access to their nurses, pharmacists and nutrition experts. And…get this… all at no charge to me whatsoever.

While I tend to stay very much on top of my chronic conditions and have a pretty healthy knowledge and understanding of how to properly care for my “issues”, I decided to play along. After all, I’ve been arguing that this sort of program is precisely the sort of thing that will, in the long run, save health insurers a lot of money, improve the health of their customers and, as a result, bring down premium costs for payers everywhere.

I could hardly turn them down.

The conversation took awhile. After a preliminary discussion with the individual who made the initial contact, I was turned over to a health specialist who presented me with a long list of questions designed to work out where I could use a little help or motivation to keep the blood sugar under control and the coronary arteries from suffering any further damage.

The questions were relevant and on point. They knew what they were asking and why.

Based on my answers, the consultant suggested a few things that I was welcomed to accept or pass on. For example, I agreed to the weekly phone call from one of their nurses, mainly because I want to see how well the program functions. I passed on the opportunity to speak with the nutritionist, taking the opportunity to relay the tale of how I was forced to see a hospital nutritionist prior to being discharged from my triple bypass surgery adventure only to find that the nutritionist was a three hundred pound woman who clearly was not prepared to practice what she preached. Despite Aetna’s assurances that their nutritionists were all committed to healthy eating, I really do know enough to understand when I’m eating poorly so I decided to save their nutritionist’s time for someone who could better benefit from the service.

Kudos to Aetna Blue Cross of California.

While these programs may be baby steps in the direction of getting the cost curve under control, they are important steps just the same and should be encouraged.

I’ll report back on this subject after my first telephone conference with the insurance company’s nurse.

Twenty-nine states have informed the federal government that they will operate their own program with the assistance of federal money. Twenty–one states have opted to allow the federal government to operate a high risk pool on their behalf. The remaining states, including California and New York, are expected to have their programs up and running by the end of the summer.

The high-risk insurance policies will be available to those who have been uninsured for six months and can show proof that they have been denied health coverage due to a pre-existing condition. For those who may desire to gain coverage from the program, note that you are not obligated to prove that you have been turned down by every insurance company on the market. You need only prove – by presenting a written letter of rejection – that one such company has denied coverage.

For those who live in a guarantee issue state where insurers are not permitted to deny coverage, providing proof that the premium charge you would be obligated to pay is well above the charge from the high-risk pool will qualify you for entry.

Applicants who get their paperwork in by July 15th will begin to receive coverage as early as August 1st.

While the launch program will come as truly welcome news to many of our uninsured, there remains great concern that the funding available to operate the program – totaling $5 billion – will not be nearly enough to provide insurance coverage to everyone in need. While the Secretary of HHS has the right to cap the program at any time, the government is currently accepting all applicants. Accordingly, those who wish to take advantage of the program would be wise to get their applications in as soon as possible.

You can get all the information required –for both state and federally operated programs – at http://www.healthcare.gov which goes on-line today.

Image via Wikipedia

California has an efficient system for getting cash to those participating in the state’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program – the welfare program providing money for food and clothing to California’s needy. Participants are issued an ATM card, allowing them to access their monthly allotted funds through the state’s network of ATM machines – machines operated pursuant to a contract with the independent Quest ATM system.

While the use of ATM’s allows welfare recipients to access the funds when needed, it turns out that the ATM machines capable of accessing the welfare accounts are turning up in gambling joints and strip clubs – not exactly the best locations to dole out welfare cash and not really what California taxpayers have in mind when we provide our taxes to assist those in need of help.

Last week, we learned from the official website listing the locations where welfare recipients can go to access their accounts that more than half of the casinos and state licensed poker rooms in California are on the list of approved locations. It turns out California’s neediest citizens haven’t been afraid to tap the accounts when they feel an inside straight coming on.

Today brings the news that 17 adult clubs are also on the list.

Spokesman for the Department of Social Services, Lizelda Lopez, had this to say:

We’ll take a wide-ranging look and apply some common sense to the list of outlets where cash assistance should not be withdrawn.
Via Los Angeles Times

Good idea.

Who says California doesn’t run an efficient government?