OlsonOnline

Worth reading --health care, Iran, charter schools

A medical hiatus starting tomorrow means this is my last post for awhile.  So read these, if you please, during my absence.

On health care:

• Dave Lindorrf writes that Obama's "unwillingness to lead" on the issue of single payer health care will lead to his "Health Reform Waterloo."

• Pierre Tristam claims that Obama "...plays into the rhetorical ambushes of reform's enemies..." when he says stuff like this to the American Medical Association:

"...there are countries where a single-payer system works pretty well. But I believe ... that it's important for our reform efforts to build on our traditions here in the United States. So when you hear the naysayers claim that I'm trying to bring about government-run health care, know this: They're not telling the truth."

In other words, Obama himself conflates "single payer" with "government run health         care."  

• Meanwhile, a New York Times/CBS poll finds that most Americans "support" a "government-run health insurance option."  That means "single payer."

On Iran:

• Most discerning news readers know that the Khamenei -Mousavi stand-off in Iran does not herald the beginning of the overthrow of Iranian theocracy.  Mousavi was, after all, a principal player in the 1979 revolution that brought the mullahs to power. Phil Wilayto offers an economic -and class-- perspective to the conflict:

"Why is there so little discussion of the issue of class in this election? Is it because so many professional and semi-professional commentators on Iran are themselves from the same class as Mousavi's supporters, and so instinctively identify with them?"

What Wilayto means is that Ahmehdinijad appeals to poor Iranians, Mousavi to the wealthier and better educated.  He also points out that Mousavi is for more rapid privatization of the economy, which puts him in conflict with the Iranian Constitution.  It decrees that all "large scale industries", like oil and gas, should be owned by the state, which enables the government to "fund a vast social safety net" for the poor.

On charter schools:

• Another study shows that charters do worse than their traditional public school counterparts in raising the achievement of students.

• And Caroline Grannan, in a comment to my last charter school post, argues that charters, at least in California, serve a much smaller percentage of special needs students than traditional public schools.  And they often get more money per student than the publics.

That's it for now.

Health care on 'The Stump': It's single payer, stupid!

You've heard all the stories about how Medicare and Medicaid are on the ropes, that doctors refuse to see patients from Medicaid because its reimbursements are so paltry, that both programs are essentially being SUBSIDIZED by the private insurers because they spend far more money than they take in, and so on and on and on.

Bottom line, say the critics, is that government-funded health care, a public option or single payer, would give us more of the same --a massive government bureaucracy that would collapse under the weight of its obligations.

Pure and utter baloney. 

There are only two problems with the existing public health programs:

• They're underfunded.

• They serve the poor and the elderly, not the young and the healthy.

That will change --dramatically-- once the for-profit insurers are pushed aside by a far more efficient public entity --think Medicare with a 3% administrative overhead (and NO profits)--  where all Americans, the healthy and the frail, are in the same insurance pool.

How can the cost of health care not go down?  The for-profit health industry skims $350 billion off the top for its investors before any health care at all is delivered!

Dr. Peter Mahr, over at 'The Stump', asks:

"So what do we do with a health care non-system that is a big money maker for insurers, some hospitals and the pharmaceutical industry but leaves one in seven people lacking insurance and most with insurance that is too costly and inadequate? How do we repair a delivery system that is expensive, focuses on moneymaking services rather than primary and preventative care and has little emphasis on evidence-based medicine?"

The answer is simple and straightforward:  Single payer, stupid!

And a few days ago on 'The Stump', Stephen Gregg, a self-described "free marketer", called Medicare a "very sweet deal":

" ...the initial Medicare signals seem favorable, bordering on a breath of fresh air:

--Stable premium increases.
--Ubiquitous access to almost any provider in the country.
...

--Ability to switch carriers, no questions asked, once a year.
--So far, decent public-private customer service throughout.
--Very little uncertainty as to whether I am covered for all the possibilities.

"It's a challenge to argue that Medicare is an inferior alternative to a more responsive and dynamic private sector."

So there you have it.  Both 'Stump' posts, needless to say, brought out the anti-government critics.  But national polls indicate that single payer, or at the very least a public option, have the support of a majority of the American public.

Now its up to the the pols --and Obama-- to see it through.

The truth about taxes in Oregon

From Sunday's Oregonian:

"Oregon businesses will continue to enjoy one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation even after the Legislature voted last week to raise their taxes."

That doesn't matter to Republicans who call any business tax increase a "job killer."  Or to Democrats like Mark Hass who howled that the tax increases should be temporary.

Temporary?  That simply means that in short time, the regressive Oregon tax code would revert to this:

"...individuals now carry nearly two-thirds of the state and local tax burden."

It wasn't that long ago that the income tax, Oregon's primary revenue source, was split about evenly between businesses and individuals.

And remember this:  poor Oregonians pay a higher share of their income in total taxes than the richest Oregonians.  That's the very definition of a regressive tax code.

When the anti-taxers fume about an overhaul of Oregon's system of taxation, what they're really talking about is making the system even more regressive than it already is.  Tax reform to them means a sales tax --the most regressive of taxes-- and a cut in the income tax --the most progressive of taxes, especially if it's done right. 

The legislature's move to raise the marginal tax rate on couples making more than $250,000 was a step in the right direction, a step toward tax fairness. 

*************************************

The mantra of the anti-taxers, like Russ Walker's FreedomWorks Oregon, is this:

"Only by reducing taxes and regulations, and making Oregon a more business-friendly state can we achieve the goal of real economic growth, and real prosperity for Oregonians."

"Only by reducing taxes... ."  That worked well under Reagan and Dubya, right?  Well, maybe not so much.  Here's a comment from a recent Blue Oregon post on taxes in Oregon:

"Yes, cutting taxes always results in drops in unemployment. I mean, look at 1982, after the Reagan tax cuts of 1981. The national unemployment fell from 7.6% to 9.7%.

"And look at 2002 after the Bush tax cuts of 2001, then the unemployment rate fell from 4.7% to 5.8%.

"All I can say is, God save us from any similar drops in unemployment."

It's nice to have those stats at your finger tips.  But then again, all you have to do is read the newspaper to realize how disastrous Republican tax and economic policies have been.

***********************************

And then there's the O's Susan Nielsen throwing fuel on the anti-tax fire that still burns hot in Oregon.  Here are some comments from her latest column:

"Democrats also are pushing their luck on taxes."

"They open Democrats to criticism that they're too eager to confiscate people's earnings. They also make the Democratic party (not to mention the state itself) less attractive to doctors, lawyers, potential business recruits and other professionals who are already worried about higher federal taxes -- and who get wet whenever anyone decides to 'soak the rich.' "

I probably don't need to remind you that Nielsen is on the editorial board of Oregon's largest daily newspaper.  Her Sunday column certainly found favor with the rabid right.

Just read the comments.

Dems versus Dems, redux

On Monday I wrote that the "real obstacles" to health care reform are corporate Democrats, not Republicans.

Chris Bowers agrees:

"Stop telling me how bad Republicans are--we don't need a single one to pass the public option. ...

"...until then, I really have grown sick of progressives telling me about the latest stupid thing that fell out of Limbaugh's mouth. He is not the problem right now. Democrats like Evan Bayh, Ben Nelson, and Arlen Specter are. If the Democratic leadership is either unwilling or unable to pressure enough of those types of Democrats into passing the lowest bar of progressive governance, then it is time to redirect our activism into less partisan and /or less electoral directions."

Amen!

Maybe we should add Ron Wyden's name to the list of problem Dems on health care reform.

(Speaking of backsliding Dems, what's with Oregon State Senator Mark Hass*?  First he threatens to blow up the legislature's tax increase on corporations and wealthy individuals, then he backs down.  Constituent pressure?  Party pressure???) 

*(Is Hass the new Senator from Nike?  His opposition to the "permanent" tax increases echoes the postion taken by the old Senator from Nike, Ryan Deckert, now head of the Oregon Business Association.)

Why charter schools can NEVER be models for school reform

Let me be more specific. 

When I say "models for school reform," I mean the reform of American universal public education.  Although charter schools are technically "public" schools, they operate outside the system.  That means, unlike traditional public schools, they are under no obligation to serve all students.

And they don't.  Despite lotteries and laws that prohibit selective enrollment by charter schools, "creaming," as the skimming off of better students is called, is built into the charter school application process.  Even to enter a lottery, parents must take the time and effort to "apply."  They must show an interest in enrolling their child in an alternative to the assigned neighborhood school.  That in itself narrows the range of students likely to enroll in a charter school.

How likely is it that children with parents who don't give a damn will become charter school students?

In a comment to the PPS Equity post "Charters and PPS", Rose cites other hindrances:

"The lottery system itself automatically excludes large populations: poor families without fixed addresses ... foster kids, homeless families, parents who are ELL or illiterate, and of course all those who are too busy, overwhelmed, or not sophisticated enough to stay aware of mandatory meetings, deadlines, and application processes."

As does Ken:

"Considering the lack of transportation to charter schools, parents must either live within walking distance, drive their own children, or find a carpool. This is simply impossible for many families: single mothers, some working families, families without access to individual transportation methods (cars), etc. Expanding charter schools would almost necessarily leave these children behind... ."

Nationally, the problem of charter school "creaming" is more apparent.  Two parent school activists from the San Francisco Bay area have written that charter schools "exclude the most challenging students" (and here):

"Enrollment at all charter schools is, by law, entirely by request. No student is assigned to a charter school by default. That means 'self-selection' occurs at all of them, inherently, by definition.

"That is, parents who care about their kids' education enough to make the effort to learn about and request a school are the ones whose kids attend charter schools. Parents who don't have it together ... do not choose charter schools. Thus their kids -- ...likely to be the most challenged and challenging -- are left in the traditional public schools."

In their second post they say that it's "...amply documented that charter schools all over the country... dramatically underserve special education students... ."

That's certainly true here in Portland. 

Initial enrollment is only part of the problem with limiting the range of students in charter schools.  There's also the issue of "attrition."

Caroline Grannan, one of the Bay Area activists, claims that the nationally renowned Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP) charter schools, particularly the nine operating in California, lose a good chunk of their students each year, presumably their most problematic students:

"...any school that loses 77 percent of its most academically challenged subgroup, its true target students, is not solving the problems of public education. And any school that could keep 23 percent of a subgroup and disappear the rest could easily see that subgroup's achievement soar, no matter what pedagogical methods it used."

Grannan, citing an SRI International study, repeats the claim here:

"Sixty percent of the students who enter the Bay Area KIPP schools in fifth grade leave before the end of eighth grade ... . And the study also confirms what some might suspect -- it's consistently the lower performers who leave."

So there you have it --"creaming" and attrition should be reasons enough to discount charter schools as models for reform.

Someone please tell Barack Obama and his Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, both big fans of charter schools. 

A shout out to Pink Martini

In the spirit of the O's ex-movie critic, Ted Mahar, who used to say, "And now for something completely different," here's Barry Johnson on the multiple virtues of Portland's own Pink Martini:

"I've always admired this band -- for its rhythm, classical music virtuosity, party spirit and deep knowledge of seldom-walked paths of pop music history. But for me, they were one more pleasant diversion in an Age of Excess, with its billionaires, luxury goods, gigantic corporate expense accounts, casual greed, corruption and conspicuous consumption. ...
"But in the wash of sound and beat Tuesday, I realized that Pink Martini meant something new to me now. It offered a ticket for a couple of hours to an imaginary place where everyone looked great, knew how to dance, understood several languages and worked together harmoniously."

That's right, Barry. 

It doesn't hurt that Thomas Lauderdale and China Forbes write some really good songs, too.  Like this one:

Dems versus Dems on health care

Who are the real obstacles to overhauling the American health care system?

If you say Republicans, you're wrong.  There aren't enough of them left in Congress to affect the outcome of pending health care legislation.

No, the real obstacles to effective and affordable health care for all Americans are ...Democrats!  Not all of them.  Just the "moderate" or corporate Dems who oppose single payer or even the possibility of a government-backed public option insurance plan. 

The Associated Press says that the two factions are on a "collision course" when it comes to health care reform:

"The conflict between the liberals and moderates is over the contours of a new public insurance plan that's likely to be included in a health care overhaul. ...

"The disagreements underscore steep challenges ahead as Congress rushes to meet Obama's goal of passing a health care overhaul that keeps down costs and extends coverage to 50 million uninsured Americans."

Single payer advocates, who want to take the profit out of health insurance, are skeptical of the public option.  As long as the private insurers are still in business, they say, a government-backed insurance program is likely to attract the least healthy Americans, thereby driving the cost of the program up.  

According to Helen Redmond, that's what happens when you mix private and public insurance programs.  She quotes the founders of Physicians for a National Health Program on the impact of private insurance impact on Medicare:

"A quarter century of experience with public/private competition in the Medicare program demonstrates that the private plans will not allow a level playing field. Despite strict regulation, private insurers have successfully cherry picked healthier seniors, and have exploited regional health spending differences to their advantage."

Single payer advocates, says Redmond, also object to a public option for other reasons.  Among them:

• It doesn’t make health care a human right that can never be taken away.

• The system would continue to have multiple payers and therefore the complexity and gaps in coverage that are inevitable when there are numerous bureaucracies to navigate.

Speaking of the public option, Robert Reich reports that the moderate Maine Republican Olympia Snow has convinced some Dems, including Oregon's Ron Wyden, to sign on to a plan concocted by "Big Pharma and Big Insurance" for the public plan to "kick in years from now,"  but only if the private health care industry fails "to bring down healthcare costs... ."

Reich says that " 'years from now' in legislative terms means never."  

"Everybody in, nobody out!" Video of Kershner's arrest at single payer protest

"Everybody in, nobody out" is the chanted slogan of the single payer movement.

Opponents of single payer have turned that around to mean everybody (if they're single payer advocates) out of the town hall meeting with Blumenauer and Howard Dean.

But maybe they mean everybody in jail.

And speaking of timid Democrats...

I have to hand it to the Democratically-run Oregon legislature for pushing forward with legislation to raise the Oregon corporate minimum tax, the marginal tax rate on the biggest Oregon corporations, and the marginal income tax rate for wealthy individuals.

It's about time, I say.

Republicans call the tax increases "job killers."  I beg to differ.  Not raising state revenue is the real job killer  --think corrections workers, teachers, and others in the pubic sector whose "jobs" are on the line if the state budget is drastically cut.

Republicans, of course, don't believe that government jobs are real jobs.  That reminds me of a conversation I has a few weeks ago with a relative of my brother-in-law, an ultra-conservative who happens to be a well-off dentist from the Puget Sound area.

He claimed that government workers don't produce anything of value, therefore they don't contribute to the economy. By "value" I assume he meant commodities that can be bought and sold.  If so, what I should have said in response, but didn't, is, by that definition, many private sector workers produce nothing of "value" either.

Like dentists.

Like lawyers and accountants, dentists provide services.  So do teachers and other government workers.  One can debate whether dentists provide more economic bang  for the buck than teachers, but few would argue that teachers are simply drags on the economy.  Like dentists, they pay taxes and buy stuff --commodities-- that keeps the economy moving.

Oregon Democrats would do well to ignore Republicans until they have something reasonable to say about the realities of modern economies.

Harry arrested at single payer protest

Word comes from my friend Anne Trudeau that Harry Kershner, radical leftist (although he calls himself a centrist in step with the majority of Americans) was arrested at yesterday's single payer health care protest at Portland Community College, Cascade Campus, where Earl Blumenauer and Howard Dean were speaking.  (Or as Harry would say, "lying their asses off".)

Say what you want about Harry, who many view as a dogmatic ideologue.  But never deny that Harry Kershner has the courage of his convictions:

He walks his talk. 

That's more than can be said about most of us who share his views on health care, American foreign policy, and the disgusting timidity of our elected Democratic political leaders.