While the Republicans are grandstanding and talking a good game about "moral values" and proposing gimmicks like the Flag Burning Amendment, Russ Feingold is all action. He is engaged in the business of the American people by introducing a pilot program designed to bring health insurance to all Americans.
The plan is the first in a series of proposals to address the domestic issues that his constituents care about and that the Republican leadership ignores. The difference between us and them is simple -- we're the ones who put the money in; they're the ones who take the money out.
Since 1980, the conservative ideology has dominated the political scene, with Republicans racing to downsize the federal government for the sake of doing so and the Democrats saying, "me, too!" But now, the failure of the Iraq War and the Katrina disaster has shown the utter bankruptcy of this ideology.
The problem with the conservative ideology is that it blames others for their problems instead of taking responsibility for it. So, when Bush bombs Iraq into the stone age, it is the Iraqis' fault for not building it back up again. So, when Bush takes away all the money from lower and middle class residents and then a disaster like Katrina strikes, it is their people's faults for not rebuilding their lives again. So, the choice is clear -- Feingold wants to build America up; the Republicans want to blame America first.
And while the Bush administration is off feeding big oil and the military industrial complex, the number of people uninsured in this country has risen to 46 million, from 35 million in 2004. That is an increase of 11 million in two short years. This means that even a $65,000 a year income can be wiped out overnight in the event of a medical emergency. Or, people will resort to alternative health care like my new stepmother does, which may or may not be effective.
Feingold's pilot program sets up five pilot programs that will last for five years. At the end of the five years, Congress will review and evaluate these programs and select the best one. It would be overseen by a task force and contain minimum requirements for covering people with low incomes. All of the states would design health care plans; the five best ones would be selected.
Here are the facts on the plan:
Feingold's State-Based Health Care Reform Act:
--Authorizes funding for pilot projects so that a few states can ensure health care coverage to all their residents.
--Gives flexibility to the states to use their own approach to achieve health care coverage for all their residents.
--Instead of requiring states to follow a certain program, Feingold's bill gives states the flexibility to achieve expanded coverage through any system deemed appropriate by a Health Care Reform Task Force.
Overview of Project:
--The pilot programs would last for five years and would be funded through a grant application program overseen by the Health Care Reform Task Force established in the legislation.
--The Health Care Reform Task Force would evaluate state applications, select state projects, and oversee implementation of the states' proposals.
--Participating states will be required to submit an annual report to the Task Force detailing their progress.
--The Task Force will be a committee with members appointed by the Government Accountability Office's Comptroller General. The Task Force will be housed under Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Secretary of HHS will be a member of the Task Force.
--The bill will cost $32 billion over ten years and is fully paid for through offsets, making funding available right away and allowing the program to take effect immediately.
State Plan Requirements:
--Coverage must meet certain minimum standards and must include protections for low-income people.
--Once approved by the Task Force, a state will be required to provide some matching funds.
--States are expected to improve the efficiency of health care spending and work to lower health care costs.
Congressional Action:
--The Task Force will be responsible for submitting an evaluation of all pilot projects to Congress at the end of the initial five-year grant period.
--The recommendations will be based on states' experiences, and the bill requires congressional debate of these recommendations and findings.
This is all a matter of priorities. Do we live in perpetual fear, engage in nonstop limited warfare, and issue nonstop terror alerts to keep people in bondage while ignoring the rapidly growing costs of health care?
People may argue that we need a more centralized approach. But even in places with universal health care, more and more emphasis is being placed on local control of federal funds. This is not a partisan issue; in the UK, for instance, all three main political parties are making an issue out of it if their rivals have too much state control. Here in this country, more and more regional cooperatives comprising certain sections of states are forming to apply for competing funding; the best plans get the money.
We can't simply wave a magic wand, declare that the whole country now has universal health care, and declare victory. That would be a disaster. Who is in a better position to make decisions about local resources -- someone in Washington, D.C., or someone in the area who is familiar with the needs of local health authorities?
This will not happen overnight; this is a process that will not end with the passage of the bill that comes out of the pilot program. The goal is to get to a state where we continuously bring down the numbers of uninsured until we reach zero.
The nature of Liberalism is that we do not have to accept the Conservative status quo, where insurance companies can gouge patients and we depend on the market to provide health insurance. We cannot place a price on human life.
But we have two choices. We can say, "Hey, vote for me; I'm for Universal Health Care" and not have a plan to implement it. But that is not a realistic way to solve our health care crisis. That is not consistent with our values or beliefs because it promises easy answers and no way of implementing them. We all agree on that as a goal -- the question is who controls the purse strings -- federal or local authorities?
The other choice is to recognize this as a process with the end goal as universal health insurace for all Americans. Once we reach that point, we can decide where we go from there.