By Yury Konnikov

Despite its unprofessional and disrespectful nature, Republican Rep. Joe Wilson’s, “You lie!,” outburst at President Obama was an exclamation point on the overly hysterical theatrics of our nation’s only official opposition party. In fact, its a revealing episode in just how weak of an opposition party the Republicans are. They are kicking and screaming to stop healthcare reform, but have absolutely zero substantive alternative proposals. The entire strategy of this “opposition” party, without alternatives, is to regain the majority of seats in Congress by scaring away enough “swing” voters from Democrats to tip the electoral scales their way by 2% to 5% in the 2010 election. They hope to accomplish that by railing against change, ignoring the status quo, and reusing tired, Cold War era labels to describe proposed reforms. Socialism, communism, Marxism, you name it, they’ve got it, but alternative solutions to healthcare’s problems, none.

This is symptomatic of an opposition party that is not held accountable for its role. Being one of only two parties permitted to play in the sandbox they have created for themselves, they do not need to be a credible opposition party complete with innovative policy proposals. The Republicans neglect their duty because they have no threat of being replaced as the largest and only opposition party by smaller parties able to effectively take on the role. The two party nature of our political system means that it is only a matter of time before the Democrats incur enough scandal to push the see-saw the other way. Republicans are seeking to speed it up by fearmongering and drawing nonsensical comparisons to foreign health systems.

This type of hollow opposition can have fatal results. In 2003, the Democrats’ disintegration as the “opposition” party on the issue of the Iraq War, despite having facts on their side, is still costing lives today. The Republicans’ kicking and screaming in defense of the broken healthcare system, while offering no alternatives, is also costing lives.

By Robert Watson, Ph.D.

That we are desperately in need of a complete overhaul of our health care system would seem to be a no-brainer. We have the highest health care costs in the world (no other country is even close), yet we rate toward the bottom of industrialized nations in almost every quality of life and health care indicator. Over 50 million Americans lack health insurance and millions more lack adequate or affordable health insurance, and our businesses – large and small – are having trouble staying afloat in trying economic times, in part, due to the costs of providing employees and retirees with health care. For instance, the U.S. auto industry is about to go the way of so many other industries in America, in part because there is more health care in each Chevy Malibu than there is steel or anything else. Our German and Japanese rivals benefit from government-provided health care.

However, Republicans are framing health care reform as socialism. This worked to defeat similar efforts by Truman, Nixon, and Clinton, and fear-mongering seems to be the GOP’s playbook of late. And it shows signs of working. So, Obama has dusted off his formidable grassroots network that helped elect him and is employing his personal likeability and oratorical gifts to reclaim the tone of the debate.

As someone who struggled without health care while getting my graduate degrees; as a son who lost his mother to a long-term battle with a disease that bankrupted her; as a father of two, I find it hard to sympathize with insurance companies. As a historian, I would look to Teddy Roosevelt, who used to say that the best decision was the decision he made, the second best decision was the one he didn’t make, but the worst decision is not to make a decision. Republicans want to do nothing while the ship of state sinks.

By Yury Konnikov

In mid-August, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich provided insightful commentary on Marketplace regarding a closed door compromise between the White House and the pharmaceutical industry lobby. In the deal the Obama administration agreed to exclude re-importation of drugs from Canada or allowing the federal government to negotiate lower drug prices for its programs from any future healthcare reform bill. In return for these concessions the pharmaceutical industry, “Big Pharma,” would support the administration’s healthcare reform efforts with $150 million in TV ads. Professor Reich rightfully suggests that this negative precedent can lead to big industries and their lobbyists wielding great power over the writing of legislation and public perceptions. It can even be legitimately argued that this situation already exists. However, Professor Reich fails to address the root of the problem; the two-party system which monopolizes our political culture.

The two-party system insures that lobbying is a safe investment with predictable results. Gerrymandered districts, improperly regulated campaign finance, and two-party control over electoral regulations insure that 87% of incumbents have been re-elected to Congress over the last 44 years, on average. Even in the historic 2008 election, 94% of U.S. House incumbents were re-elected. The Washington Post reported in late July that during 2007 and 2008 healthcare providers, including hospitals and insurers, invested $170 million into federal lawmakers with 54% going to Democrats and 46% to Republicans. The opposite was true when Republicans were in the majority. In April, May, and June when the healthcare debate was heating up the pharmaceutical industry spent $40 million in just three months to lobby Congress.

In this stagnant political environment, investments such as those demonstrated above are worthwhile to the special interests. Concentrating investment into a few key players in only two viable political parties provides desired results regardless of which party has the majority. For example, Senator Max Baucus (D-Montana), Chair of the Senate Finance Committee and Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking Republican, have been receiving the greatest portions of these contributions. The Senate Finance Committee plays a vital role in drawing up healthcare reform legislation. The dynamic on the House Ways and Means Committee is the same. There is no threat of a drastic or total loss of votes to other competing parties that have much to win by criticizing this behavior and offering different policy alternatives.

In a highly competitive, pluralistic democracy, the variety of choices, policy proposals, and less predictable decisions of voters would make such large investments into influence buying risky. Would an industry special interest group be as quick to spend millions on politicians whose re-election is not a foregone conclusion? Would they be as quick to spend money on lobbying five parties while smaller competitors call out those parties for every special interest dollar they take? Probably not. Certainly in a more competitive democratic environment politicians would have much more to think about before taking money from these groups. Suddenly, without the oversimplified, two-party, liberal vs. conservative framework it becomes very difficult to simply assault the airwaves to pressure a politician or persuade the public.

Professor Reich concludes his commentary by stating, “I want universal healthcare. But I also want a thriving democracy.” Indeed, in order to have a thriving democracy we must not merely identify the problems within the current system. We must improve upon and resolve the problem that is the current system.

By Yury Konnikov

Given the fact that a serious campaign of misinformation is being waged to strike up fear about healthcare reform, it is important to understand what IS and IS NOT actually being proposed. The BBC has an interesting article providing a summary comparison of how healthcare systems in the U.S., U.K., France, and Singapore operate. Notice that France, commonly referred to as “socialist” by American right wing punditry, has private insurers and services within its healthcare system. More interestingly, Singapore’s dual system features competitive private and public sector healthcare, compulsory savings, and price regulation while most primary care is handled by the private sector. Singapore has  the least government spending while maintaining the lowest infant mortality, high life expectancy, and providing universal access to healthcare.

What must be understood is that in reality President Obama’s healthcare reform proposals are not aimed at universal healthcare. Instead, they are simply aimed at providing health insurance coverage for all Americans including the 46 million currently uninsured by the private sector. This is why the public option is so essential to Obama’s proposal as it is the only means of insuring those that the private sector will not, while spurring competition to lower costs. Additionally, the reforms seek to end the discrimination practiced by private sector firms in rejecting those with pre-existing conditions or cutting off the very ill from their insurance policies.

Aside from intentionally hysterical criticism about “death panels” there have been more substantive arguments against President Obama’s reforms. John Stossel, for example, recently aired an opinion piece on 20/20 attempting to tie the Obama administration’s healthcare reforms to flaws in the Canadian system. However, Stossel failed to mention that Obama is not proposing a Social Insurance system like the one in Canada. There is no expansive infrastructure of federal healthcare facilities to support such a proposal anyway. It should be noted that in the same piece, Stossel highlights the criticism that Obama’s healthcare proposals will stifle innovation. However, at no point has the Obama administration proposed government taking ownership over research and development. In fact, they are not even proposing changes to the nature of private sector activity or seeking to nationalize any of healthcare’s means of production and distribution.

President Obama’s healthcare reforms are not nearly as radical as media sensationalism and Republican obstructionism make them seem. The fact that Republicans have not offered any alternative solutions demonstrates that there is no opposition beyond the hidden agendas of special interests.

By Nick Tilsner

The President has reversed another bad policy of the previous eight years, ending the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell lines for research. Introduced by President Bush in 2001, the previous policy only allowed funding for existing stem cell lines, rendered basically useless by the scientific community.

President Obama’s lifting of the ban on funding for embryonic stem cell research is a good first step. We should follow up on this opportunity by looking for left over cells in any fertility clinic. The choice is simple; use these discarded cells for promising research or throw them away. Despite the rhetoric of right wing pundits, we are not talking about creating cells just for the purpose of research. Some of these children can be adopted in the clinic before they are implanted in the mother’s womb. However, we are still left with the reality of left over cells that will be discarded after the fertility process. Additionally, this cannot be compared to cloning. Cloning involves creating a person and this does not.

Funding research on embryonic stem cells can lead scientists to find cures for many diseases like Parkinson’s, diabetes, and various spinal cord injuries. Adult stem cells are useful, but embryonic cells can replace any cell tissue in the body, whereas adult cells can only replace tissue from its original location in the body. This research will take five to ten years to fully develop. The longer we wait the longer it will take to help a man with Parkinson’s, or a child with diabetes. America, it is time to look to our future, and this, along with so many other issues, is a starting point.

Congress can work out the key aspects of funding and guidelines with science as a guide. I predict we will know what the Congress will do sometime this year. I would like to see doctors, scientists, and politicians on a board discussing these key aspects of the policy. All views need to be heard. No one will change the views of many of the Republicans, but it is still important to debate policy for our respective causes.

We know most people would not mind a small sin tax of two to three cents on tobacco or alcohol to pay for this research. My only request related to this is that it be done federally. We don’t need a fifty state battle on policy or funding grounds. This research is all about helping people with serious illnesses. President Obama knows that, so I believe science now rules over ideology. We still have work to be completed by Congress. One thing is for sure, people dealing with various illnesses can rest assured help is finally on the way.