The Billings Gazette has the story of Joe Reber and his friendship with Kennedy and a bronc ride at the Miles City rodeo; Kossak stef dug up the article from that day and this pic:
Overcoming a history of family tragedy, including the assassinations of a brother who was president and another who sought the presidency, Senator Kennedy seized the role of being a "Senate man.'' He became a Democratic titan of Washington who fought for the less fortunate, who crafted unlikely deals with conservative Republicans, and who ceaselessly sought support for universal health coverage.
"Teddy,'' as he was known to intimates, constituents, and even his fiercest enemies, was an unwavering symbol to the left and the right - the former for his unapologetic embrace of liberalism, and latter for his value as a political target. But with his fiery rhetoric, his distinctive Massachusetts accent, and his role as representative of one of the nation's best-known political families, he was widely recognized as an American original. In the end, some of those who might have been his harshest political enemies, including former President George W. Bush, found ways to collaborate with the man who was called the "last lion'' of the Senate.
For me, a kid who grew up in Massachusetts and whose grandfather was Boston-born Irish and a whiskey salesman, Ted Kennedy was an icon, right up there with Freddie Lynn and Paul Revere. I first got interested in politics by following Kennedy in the mid-1970s, and was pulling for him in 1980. The brothers Jack and Robert were the legends, the demi-gods offstage; Ted was their voice made manifest. He fought for the little guy, and we loved him for it. And who couldn't idolize the person who introduced me to poetry?
Later, of course, came the realizations about the unseemly side of the Senator's life. I don't want to get into that, only to say it never diminished New England's love for the public man. The whole clan was like something out of Greek myth - the ill-starred rulers of Thebes, or one of the too-human kings besieging Troy. Stately, proud, aristocratic, mythic...but oddly prey to common human frailties, enabling us to feel simultaneously in thrall and superior to the family.
The odd thing is all this distracted us all from the actual work Kennedy did in the Senate. By most accounts, he was one of the best: able to cross party lines, form friendships, and build consensus on issues by appealing to common civic virtue. Some today are calling him the best Senator, ever. More graciously, some say he was the best of the brothers. All I'll say is that he was an influence and a hero to me, and I'll miss him.
Now that it looks like a public option is on the table - according to Jim Messina at a recent fundraiser in Missoula, he said that the president supports and is campaigning for a public option - it's time to pay attention to the details of what that public option might look like.
Jhwygirl linked to a Robert Reich blog post, in which he warned us that the insurance industry and Big Pharm, etc & co, are gearing up to kill the public option by giving Americans a watered-down and ineffectual version. To wit:
One of their proposals is to break up the public option into small pieces under multiple regional third-party administrators that would have little or no bargaining leverage. A second is to give the public option to the states where Big Pharma and Big Insurance can easily buy off legislators and officials, as they've been doing for years. A third is bind the public plan to the same rules private insurers have already wangled, thereby making it impossible for the public plan to put competitive pressure on the insurers.
Obviously, none of these types of public plans are acceptable.
Here's what we need:
We need a public plan that puts competitive pressure on private insurers to give better service to its customers. That means offering more competitive prices, and paying out claims.
We need a public plan that's good enough so that any of us can choose to purchase a public plan without sacrificing quality. That means, it shouldn't be burdened by paperwork or limited to cover only a fraction of health care providers.
We need a public plan that isn't simply a holding place for the rejects of private insurance. That is, a public plan should not be a de facto subsidy for private insurers. You know the game: they cover the healthy folks, and taxpayers pay for medical costs of those that are sick.
Bad news:
Max Baucus, Chair of Senate Finance (now exactly why does the Senate Finance Committee have so much say over health care?) hasn't shown his cards but staffers tell me he's more than happy to sign on to any one of these. But Baucus is waiting for more support from his colleagues, and none of the three proposals has emerged as the leading candidate for those who want to kill the public option without showing they're killing it.
The good news is that Ted Kennedy supports a full public option, details of his health plan were released recently. The bad news is that it looks like Olympia Snowe is gearing up to implement a "compromise" that would have a full public option kick in years from now, "but it would be triggered only if insurance companies fail to bring down healthcare costs and expand coverage in he meantime."
Not acceptable for a couple of reasons. First, we need good health care coverage yesterday, not years down the road. Second, you and I both know those kinds of triggers are gamed to favor existing institutions. Big Pharma and private insurers will win the battle of the Trigger.
Of course, we'll have to see what proposals are being batted around for a public option. Keep your eyes open, folks. We need a full public option.
A couple of cool articles on Max Baucus health insurance listening tour appeared in Montana media today. There's the piece by Vince Devlin in the Missoulian about pesky Montanans who want single-payer health care on the table in the discussion on health care reform. John Adams has a similar report on how single-payer advocates across the state are giving Baucus an earful:
"Max is really making me mad now because he's not really trying to change the system, he's just trying to tweak it," said a Helena business owner who drove over for the meeting. "If Max really wants to leave a monumental legacy to show for all of his years in the Senate, then he's going to have to find the courage to tear down (the current system)."
But make no doubt about it. Single-payer health care is off the table. While a majority of Americans would prefer universal, nationalized health care, a bill supporting single-payer health care can't even get off the ground in the House. And that's the more progressive body, by far. Whether Baucus is responsible for that fact, or he's just pragmatic in scripting reform that doesn't consider single-payer health care is moot.
Still it's good to see the anger and mobilization of Montanans. While it's possible the listening tour was intended as a way to placate Montana voters, it's quickly turning into a daily news story about how Congressional health care reform is falling far short of what everyday Americans want. In short, it's one big black eye for the Baucus health care plan.
Again, the real issue at hand is whether there's a robust public insurance option in the proposed health care reform. And I can't help but think that this increasing pressure is making the inclusion of a public option politically mandatory. Details of the health reform plan Ted Kennedy is crafting on the sly are surfacing, and it apparently includes a very strong public option, including opening up Medicare to families of four earning $110K or less. And it looks as if there's going to be a tussle between Baucus and Kennedy in the Senate over the direction of health care, which will be a lot of fun to watch.
A Billings Gazette article reminded us there are other issues involved in health care reform:
That goes especially for health insurance plans, which can be so confusing that consumers avoid making potentially beneficial coverage changes because they don't understand their policies.
"I quit selling (some plans) because I can't explain them," said Webb Mandeville, a Columbus insurance agent....
Several speakers on Thursday complained that the current system is too complicated to be functional. Whatever reform the government implements needs to simplify what already exists, they said.
But not everyone was convinced a government fix could make health care less complex.
That's right. What about the administrative mess our current insurance system creates? It reminds me again of that interview with Princeton health care economist Uwe Reinhardt in which he said that Americans' problem with our health care system isn't the care we receive, but in the way we purchase it. That should be a vital component of any health care reform, but an aspect of health care that doesn't seem to be getting much airtime. Right now, talk about health care reform seems to be concentrating on two things: universal coverage, and reducing costs.
Damn. Last night was big. To some extent, it was the first real win of the primary season on the Democratic side. The rest were basically ties or narrow wins. Last night, South Carolina went overwhelming for the Man from Audacity.
The news gets worse for the Clintons. Even though Hillary is still in the pole position, Ted Kennedy is endorsing Barack Obama. In Democratic politics, there are fewer bigger names.
Right-wingers will no doubt chortle that Ted Kennedy's endorsement could mean anything. Even as modern Republicans occasionally try to claim Jack Kennedy as one of theirs (a bizarre postmortem baptism if ever there was one), they treat his surviving brother as a devil. Strange, one would think, that the third brother of a highly political family would have such different core values than those of his brethren.
Now, I'm not going to claim that Ted Kennedy is an angel. Few of us are. But he is one of the strongest voices of American liberalism and he has been one of its most effective during his time in the U.S. Senate.
Just as noteworthy is why he is endorsing. Long story short: he's pissed at the Clintons' attempts at racial divisiveness. He's not just lending his name, either. He's hitting the road, talking to union members and Hispanic voters in a number of February 5th states. In Massachusetts, which votes on 2/5, this could be game-changing, especially when wedded to the endorsements of Deval Patrick and John Kerry. In California, this will play well (and it comes on top of the endorsement of the highest-ranking Latino in the U.S. House -- Xavier Bacerra).
Long story short, this race is on completely. As I wrote at AOL, I thought Hillary Clinton made a big mistake refusing to offer a real concession last night. The momentum in this race has often gone to the high-road sympathetic figure.
Her "calvinball" approach to whether Florida and Michigan's delegates ought to count ain't helping much either. Rules are only rules and heaven knows they can change, but changing the rules based on the outcome is an awful way to operate.
Update -- And Kathleen Sebelius? Damn. That's quite a pick-up. Kansas also votes on Super Fat Tuesday, so this won't hurt. Plus, Sebelius and Napolitano (and, I suppose, Claire McCaskill) are among the Democratic Party's leading new female faces. For them to endorse Obama is a big statement (think if Deval Patrick had endorsed Hillary Clinton).
Sen. Ted Kennedy has a health care plan to offer -- a remarkably easy-to-understand one to boot: Medicare For All.
It won't be much of a surprise that I think this is a great idea. I recently highlighted a New York Times article that makes plain that the sheer administrative burden of multiple insurers is a major headache. While Medicare for All wouldn't exclude private insurers, it would make dealing with them unnecessary for most physicians. Specialists and high-end doctors could deal with them -- and charge accordingly -- but the rest of us could see significant savings just from having a common plan.
Atrios points out another reason why simply signing people up for health insurance makes more sense than trying to require them to buy health insurance and then offering subsidies for the low-income. Rather than wasting a lot of time on subsidy evaluations and enforcement, you just collect taxes and then provide coverage. Now, under this sytem, the rich would pay a lot more for their health insurance than the low-income would, but since we all subsidize the uninsured who just get their health care at the emergency room, this really isn't a big deal.
Medicare for all is solid. Of course, even if the Dems rallied around it, it would face a filibuster and veto. Frankly, though, all the more reason to pass it. Republicans want to bash on Medicare? Fine, make 'em filibuster apple pie while they're at it.
