I credit Howard Dean with my passion and belief that WE HAVE THE POWER, empowering words as the predecessor to Yes We Can. There is no one I would love to follow on the Single Payer Universal Healthcare crusade more than Howard Dean. I have never heard him come out in favor of the Single Payer initiative, and hope he would be supportive of the whole kit and ka boodle-we cannot afford to negotiate with our selves on this-we must push for the complete program, eliminating the for profit health insurance industry from the mix or the reform will never succeed. If Howard is on board with this, i am on board with him

I know Lani.  And Lani is always right.  We should all send messages to the appropriate Senate committee and to President Obama (!) asking for Howard.  Walter Ebmeyer, Upper Merion.

For example, Laura Walker's sublimely ignorant opinion piece at Salon, written days after the election, calls out Daschle and Dean as two bad choices to head HHS, stupefyingly listing almost all of the problems Daschle will encounter in the confirmation process, a month before the administration goes ahead and nominates him.

More unbelievable still, in her abjectly stupid analysis, she describes Dean as the worst of the two:

Where do I start to disabuse President-elect Obama of any notion about Howard Dean as HHS Secretary?

While Dean is widely credited with the vaunted "50-State Strategy", it is Rahm Emanuel, the President-elect's newly-named Chief of Staff,  who turned the House and Senate blue in 2006 and paved the way for larger gains in 2008.  Dean himself admits that the 50-state strategy would not have worked had Barack Obama not had the funds and foresight to organize and place offices in all 50 states.

Dean also allegedly was ineffective in generating income for the DNC after the 2006 midterm election, which left them financially on the brink at the close of this year's primary campaign.

There also remain questions about Dean's unwillingness to step in and speak up about the sexism and racism that flamed throughout the primary, as well as a ton of bad will between Hillary Clinton supporters, Dean and the DNC because of the sexism and Dean's perceived tilt toward Sen. Obama during the primaries.  

Finally is the attitude. At once irascible and over-the-top (the "Dean Scream"), there seems no middle ground in his temperament. And political analyst James Carville has called his management style  "Rumsfeldian", because of its over-control and less-than-democratic style.

Add to this mix the fact that Vermont's population -- where Dean was governor -- makes up approximately one-fifth of even a small Southern state, and that in spite of Vermont's children's health care program, which was signed into law under Dean, Massachusetts, another New England state, has health care for its entire population and serves as a model for Obama's own health care proposal. 

Sure, I have some grudging respect for Dean. He did, after all, shepherd Democrats to a presidential victory this year. That doesn't mean I think he automatically deserves consideration for or title of HHS Secretary. After all, there's a big difference between running the DNC and running the nation's most prominent agency. 

Grudging respect?  What a bunghole.  As you will notice, people in the White House actually admire the work of Emanuel and Carville.  I don't feel that I'm going out on a limb by predicting that Dean won't be joining this administration any time soon.

In his book "Critical", former Senator Tom Daschle argues the federal government should shrink away or rather, shirk the power vested in it and delegate the administration of the nation's healthcare insurance to private interests.  He would if he gets his way, place in charge the very same private interests that are currently responsible for the dysfunctional tripartite between the patient, healthcare provider and the insurer. 

The system he touts would in form resemble the current Federal Reserve System that arose out of the great compromise of 1913.  He proposes "a Federal Health Board, modeled loosely on the Federal Reserve System . . .  It would create a public framework for a largely private healthcare delivery system.  Its main job would be to develop standards and structures for a health system that ensures accessible, affordable, and high quality care."  He argues that "like the Federal Reserve, the Federal Health Board would be composed of independent experts insulated from politics."  He envisions either extending the current Federal Healthcare Benefits Program to all Americans or creating a group purchasing pool akin to it. 

Sound good – not so fast!  This is not Single Payer (SP).  This Federal Health Board would offer a menu of "private" healthcare plans from the current gaggle of healthcare providers.  You know, the same folks whose for-profit business models do well by providing us less care. 

In a pure SP environment the government is the insurance company.  It would be an extension of our current Medicare system with one big difference, the government would have free reign to collectively bargain with pharmaceuticals and healthcare providers.  There are some things the government does well and given its track record with Medicare and Social Security, I would say it should be able to effectively and efficiently deliver health insurance.   The streamlining of administration alone could generate as much as a 20% reduction in overall healthcare costs.  SP would remove the counter productive influences of the private insurers all together. 

The to question to ask is why is Tom Daschle so gung ho on a system modeled on the Federal Reserve?  I believe there are two reasons. 

First and foremost, he finds "a pure single-payer system to be politically problematic in the United States, at least right now."  He states that even though Americans have a highly favorable opinion of Medicare, they fear the "S" word – SOCIALISM.  I would argue that any American who has been in for surgery in the past ten years and inevitably wrestled with their coverage is probably ready for a little bit of socialism.  The second reason is he seems to be suffering from the delusion that the Federal Reserve System was and is some kind of panacea for the nation's monetary woes.

If I may digress, what many Americans fail to understand is that the whole idea of a "Federal Reserve" was not conceived of by economists, bankers, treasury officials, or scholars.   Rather, it was conceived in the late 1800's by barefoot farmers suffering under the practices of Eastern bankers such as J.P. Morgan and an inelastic monetary system that when combined deflated the prices of their crops.  What these early Populists had devised according to William Grieder in his book, Secrets of the Temple was a new monetary system for the nation that would create "money" in the name of the whole people.  This system would ensure ample credit for productive enterprises and free producers from the control of commercial bankers.  The plan was a radical one, perhaps too radical for the times.  But many years later, John Maynard Keynes postulated it would have probably worked. 

So what happened?  Well again, according to William Grieder, "the money system that was adopted in 1913, instead, preserved the banking system as the intermediary that controlled the distribution of new money and credit.  When the Fed expanded the money supply, commercial bankers decided who would get to use it and also how much it would cost."  

In much the same way that the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 neatly rolled the banks that were guilty of being part of the highly exploitative "Money Trust" into the new monetary system, so will Daschle's Federal Health Board allow the current group of insurance companies that we fight with over our coverage today to continue to profit from us. 

This is a real boon for the private insurers.  Under the auspices of the federal government, these companies will be able to greatly expand the pool they cover while being only nominally answerable to the people. 

After all, it probably makes a lot of sense in their eyes.  The insurance companies by now have figured out the average American is only going to get poorer, so what could be better than getting the government to compel all its citizens to pay them their premiums albeit, smaller premiums per capita. . . .  Ah, the best government money can buy!

Perhaps I am being a little conceited here, but if I am going to pay an insurance premium to the government, I do not want those monies finding their way into the pocket of a private for profit firm whose first (as should be expected) priority is to its shareholders.  No sir!  I believe this country not only needs but is ready for a SP.  Daschle argues that his Federal Health Board will ensure that Americans will not be underinsured, denied the care they need or be "forced to run up huge medical bills."  But so will SP, and SP will do it more effectively and efficiently than some quasi public/private system. 

Next week the Senate will move to confirm Daschle as Secretary for Health and Human Services.  There is going to be a lot of talk about the "Critical" issues affecting healthcare delivery.  We are going to hear the term "affordable" healthcare bantered around a lot.  But let's be very clear on one thing – affordable does not equate to SP.  If SP is what you want then let your voice be heard in the Senate chambers!

Cheers,

Kevin Lynn

Dachle's out. Perfect opportunity to nominate Dean now. I disagree with those who believe he wouldn't  mount an effective nomination drive. Obama and the rest of the dems can thank Dean and his "50 state" drive for the positions they hold today. This is not just about payback however -- he's an excellent candidate for the job with the right set of qualifications. He's a leader and will work tirelessly to make health care work in America.

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/groups/2873-howard-dean-for-secretary-of-health-and-human-services