Andrew’s Analytics

A report from the National Intelligence Director’s Office claims that then Minority Whip Nancy Pelosi was briefed on interrogation techniques used on Abu Zubaydah in September 2002.  Pelosi claims that the only briefing she received was in regards to the Bush administration’s opinions on the legality of such techniques. If the report is accurate, this could explain a lot about the Speaker. Perhaps this is why the Speaker took impeachment off the table during the 110th Congress. Perhaps this is why the Obama justice department is reluctant to investigate these crimes.

For years, Pelosi has publicly opposed Bush’s methods of conducting the “war on terror”. Now we find out that she knew about some of the most controversial methods long before her fellow citizens did. She appears to have repeatedly lied to her constituents and the American people regarding her knowledge of these events. If she knew of the torture while Bush was still in office, as the most powerful member of the House, she surely could hav initiated a Congressional investigation. Why didn’t she?  Why is Majority Leader Steny Hoyer defending Pelosi? These are not the progressive values that we voted for in 2006 when we decided to give the House back to the Democrats.  In 2008, electing Barack Obama to the White House, and increasing Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate, we were sending a signal to Washington that we wanted accountability for the last 8 years of a Republican adminstration that was above the law. Why don’t they listen?

Apparently we can’t reform the health care system in this country without giving more money to health insurance companies. One of the things that President Obama ran on was to create a new health plan administered by the federal government. At a town hall meeting in New Mexico, the President said that he supports a bill by the blue dog Democrats in the House that would mandate private insurance for all Americans. Obama’s campaign position, while not ideal, would at least be a step towards separating our health needs from insurance companies that make a profit by denying claims. The opposition argument to this plan has always amazed me. According to Libertarians, on the one hand, everything the private sector does is inherently more efficient than a government run program. On the other hand, a government run program would have an unfair competitive advantage against private insurers because they could provide care for less money than an industry where around a third of each dollar spent goes to the people who decide what claims will be honored.

Obama claims that this will be a “vast improvement” on our current system that has seen costs skyrocket in recent years. In addition to mandated coverage, the plan will impose a payroll tax on employers that do not provide health coverage. This money would help pay for lower income Americans to buy private insurance. The insurance companies would be required to implement some minor consumer protections such as an annual out of pocket limit.

In 1917, an editorial in The Progressive magazine called for nationalized health care. President Truman failed to implement nationalized health care. In more recent memory, Bill Clinton’s health care reform fell flat early in his first term. With huge majorities in both houses of Congress, the time will never be better for the Democrats to implement health care reform that will put our health above corporate profits. Despite the fact that most Americans support moving towards single payer health care, the lobbyists are still winning this battle.