Earlier this month, Fort Peck Tribal Executive Board has declared a health care emergency on the reservation. The tribe has asked Congress to look into delivery of medical care by the Indian Health Service. Tribal officials say there is a shortage of money for equipment and personnel, and that many people have to be referred off the reservation for treatment.

The article goes on to state that “Baucus did not detail what he wanted the department to probe but asked for a ‘thorough investigation of IHS and how it keeps America’s promise to its first citizens.’”

This is almost a step in the right direction, but we need more concrete action on this issue. Talk is great as long as it is followed by walk. It’s too early to tell and I’m reserving my judgement, but I do want to see serious action taken and quickly.

One of those moments came today, watching Sean Morrison speak about the need for health care for all Americans yesterday:

Well done, Sean.

[The] Senator whose courtly manner and mossy drawl barely masked a hard-edged conservatism that opposed civil rights, gay rights, foreign aid and modern art… He also introduced amendments to reduce or eliminate funds for foreign aid, welfare programs and the arts… He even used the word “redneck” to describe himself… He fought bitterly against Federal aid for AIDS research and treatment, saying the disease resulted from “unnatural” and “disgusting” homosexual behavior.

Okay, so what exactly did he do? He was a staunch supporter of Both Nixon and Reagan (big whoop), and he was opposed to the “liberal bias” in the media at the time, except for there wasn’t one. Clearly, his time had come. Rest in peace in the globe’s warming; I hope no homosexuals or Black Americans were pallbearers.

(i know - i am going straight to hell).

“I want the Finance Committee to be ready, to be ahead of the curve,” he said. “That’s why I’ve begun hearings, getting the facts out, pushing the edge of the envelope.”

As much as I’d like to believe that Senator Baucus is truly interested in protecting the the 47 million Americans without health insurance, I have to admit that it crossed my mind as I read the piece that Senator Baucus might just be saying this because he is running for re-election. After all, hasn’t he had a few decades in Washington on the Finance Committee to make this happen?

No, instead of being ahead of the curve on universal health care, he’s chosen to be ahead of the curve on incredibly irresponsible tax cuts, Medicare giveaways to giant pharmaceuticals, and protecting the economic interests of struggling farmers to make millions every year. While there certainly have been some positive steps from Senator Baucus, like his work on the SCHIP program, no one can seriously believe that he can be at the forefront of ensuring universal access to health care.

Consider what he said in 1992:

`No more scotch tape and baling wire,” said Senator Max Baucus, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, who spoke at the AAPS regional meeting in Great Falls, Montana, on June 20. “It’s time for fundamental reform, not tinkering.”

Although he does not believe that significant changes will occur in this session of Congress, he thinks they will not be long delayed. . .

Medical insurance as an employment benefit was an “accident of history,” the Senator said, a side effect of the Nixon wage- and-price controls. Increases in health benefits were not counted as a wage increase.

And today? 16 years later?

“Now is the time to seriously address health care reform,” he said. “It’s been kind of simmering around the edges for a while, but it’s close to reaching a boil right now….

“We will have insurance companies in America,” Baucus said. “We’ll have uniquely American solutions.

“Those (other) countries have a different history of the public sector providing health insurance. That’s their history, that’s their culture. We Americans are a younger country, and we’re founded on a principle of independence, on free markets.”

This story illustrates just what is so frustrating about Senator Baucus. He talks the right talk when it comes to Democratic issues, but when it comes to vote, far too often his decisions are the ones that benefit corporate interests, from the insurance industry to major banking interests, often at the expense of individuals.

Just short of 17% of Montanans have no health insurance, one of the highest rates in the nation, and much higher than any of our neighboring states. Promises aren’t going to get them to doctors, promises aren’t going to ensure that they can stay productive and healthy. It’s time to stop the press releases about leading, Senator Baucus, and time to start leading.

Senator Baucus could have such a profound impact on the lives of ordinary, working Montanans and Americans, if he’d invest real energy into health care reform, rather than just talk about it. All these of experience in the Senate don’t mean much if they haven’t taught him who he really represents.¹

1. Standard caveat: If you’re undecided, his opponents will be worse. Just sayin’.

He went on to describe the U.S. health care system as “the best in the world,” noting the advances made in the areas of research and technology, as well as patients’ ability to choose their medical provider. The problem, Rehberg acknowledged, is “it’s getting harder and harder for people to afford.”

A little known fact is that the precise reason why America’s health care is not the best in the world is because so many people can’t afford it. If every American had access to Representative Rehberg’s level of free, government-provided health care his claim might be true, but when 45-50 million Americans lack health insurance, it seems unlikely that our system is the best in the world. In fact, we’re 37th in the world. according to the WHO.

The New York Times explains it best:

Many Americans are under the delusion that we have “the best health care system in the world,” as President Bush sees it, or provide the “best medical care in the world,” as Rudolph Giuliani declared last week. That may be true at many top medical centers. But the disturbing truth is that this country lags well behind other advanced nations in delivering timely and effective care.

So, do we dismiss this as another harmless rhetorical excess by a politician? No, that would be too easy. It matters when Representative Rehberg believes, or pretends to, that all Americans have access to the excellent care he receives. It leads him to claim that reducing “onerous, duplicative paperwork” is one of the most important health care issues facing the nation, rather the the staggering number of Americans who lack access to reasonably priced medical care.

But if commercial surrogacy keeps growing, some fear it could change from a medical necessity for infertile women to a convenience for the rich.

“You can picture the wealthy couples of the West deciding that pregnancy is just not worth the trouble anymore and the whole industry will be farmed out,” said Lantos.

Or, Lantos said, competition among clinics could lead to compromised safety measures and “the clinic across the street offers it for 20 percent less and one in Bangladesh undercuts that and pretty soon conditions get bad.”

We’re getting closer to science fiction every day.

Normally, I’d be tempted to just make fun of the fact that Trent’s disorder seems notably absent from the DSM-IV and criticize a "heartless" Republican for keeping $160,000/year government job while he rails against bureaucracy.  But, here, the hypocrisy goes much deeper. The same Representative who generously gave Mr. Wisecup paid leave has voted quite differently when it comes to American families. In his illustrious career, he has:

• Voted against expanding the SCHIP program
• Voted against the Family and Medical Leave Act
• Voted against insurance parity for mental health

Providing adequate health care and resources for mental illness? Wasteful, socialistic nonsense…unless you are a member of Congress or one of his staffers.

Instead, we heard lots of talk about solutions that would encourage or require Americans without health insurance to buy private health insurance.
A chief organizer of the forum, Montana Blue Cross/Blue Shield — the state’s largest private health insurance company — says it wasn’t trying to control or guide the content of the forum.
Conference organizers identified speakers they felt had both national and state perspectives on health issues and health reforms, and tried to get them on the agenda, says company spokeswoman Linda McGillen.

Right. Maybe I am a cynic, but I have my doubts that Blue Cross/Blue Shield looked too hard for anyone who advocates universal care, given that their business model depends on incredibly priced insurance. I suspect that the Universal Healthcare Foundation, for instance, would have been interested in attending.

It’s probably not a stretch to say that they would love mandatory insurance, because through either legal pressure on individuals or government subsidies, BCBS would likely reap a huge benefit. Why, I wonder, would we want BCBS to create a huge unmanageable bureaucracy with excessive executive pay beyond the control of voters rather than creating a government-operated system?

And don’t let the media and Republican rhetoric confuse you. Americans want universal health care. It’s unbelievable that Republicans, beholden to business interests and Democrats, afraid of their own shadows, are unwilling to see that.

Straight from the Astroturf:

"Kennedy launched a rambling, baseless attack against Montana’s Congressman Denny Rehberg on SCHIP – the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which Congressman Rehberg has consistently supported for years. Contrary to Mr. Kennedy’s claims, Rehberg never ‘voted against SCHIP’ nor did he call SCHIP ‘extremist political ideology’.

So he was for it before he was against it before he was for it. Flip. Flop.

As for never calling it extremist? Well, that’s another lie. Straight from Dennis:

Montana kids deserve to have their healthcare needs addressed. However, the House Democrat bill has made the welfare of our children a political issue based on a narrow, extremist political ideology. I’m hopeful that the Senate will move forward its common sense proposal, that the House Republican plan will be given a full hearing, and that we can hold further discussions on what’s best for kids before the final piece of legislation is sent to the President.

Rehberg can pretend that he never opposed SCHIP expansion all he wants, but it’s simply not true. He did vote against the bill, and he did call it extremist.  What I’m still waiting for is an explanation about why the Senate bill is not extremist.  When you use loaded, pejorative language, you’re stuck with it, Dennis.

In today’s Independent Record, Rehberg presents an entirely new set of arguments about SCHIP. After seeing the writing on the wall (that poll showed showed strong support for the bill and that President Bush would veto it anyway), Rehberg decided to vote for the compromise bill.  Despite that, he can’t stop being dishonest about it. 

In the piece, Rehberg lists three concerns that kept him from supporting the bill originally:

1. Illegal aliens would have been able to receive benefits
2. The original bill allowed people as old as 21 to receive benefits
3. The original bill hurt Medicare recipients

Now, had those been Rehberg’s original objections, there might be something to talk about here. What did Rehberg say when he voted against expanding SCHIP?

U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg on Wednesday voted against House Democrats’ bill to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, known as SCHIP, saying it’s based on an “extremist political ideology” to expand government-run health care.

Rehberg, a Republican and Montana’s only U.S. House member, said he supports SCHIP, but cannot support the Democrats’ bill.

“They (Democrats) are pushing forward an agenda of eliminating affordable, reliable health insurance from private providers and shifting to an inefficient, costly, government-run health care plan,” he said in a statement late Wednesday.

So, a relatively minor compromise in the bill changed it from an extremist, government run health plan to something Rehberg supports? A cynic might wonder if Rehberg isn’t just voting for a bill that he knows won’t survive a Presidential veto to score political points. After all, Rehberg might want to show one example of independence from the worst President in modern American history before going back to the voters in 2008.

It seems relatively simple to me. I’ll give my vote to someone who knew from the beginning that providing health care to children was the practical and ethical decision. Bill Kennedy didn’t need to focus group and politicize this issue; why would you want to vote for someone who did?