Excellent

Ted Kennedy's coming back to the US Senate.

Sen. Edward Kennedy’s brain cancer is in remission and he is expected back in the Senate after the Memorial Day recess to spearhead healthcare reform, according to Democratic colleagues.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday that he spoke with Kennedy’s wife, Vicki, in the past few days and was told the 77-year-old lawmaker is “doing fine.” [...]

Kennedy, the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, has been mostly absent from the chamber for the past year, recovering in Florida and Massachusetts.

He is expected to lead a markup of highly anticipated health reform legislation in his first month back - one of the biggest bills of the year and a signature domestic initiative for President Obama.

Not only is it great to see Ted Kennedy back up and around, we sorely need his leadership on health care reform. We need a Ted Kennedy to balance out a Max Baucus. I'd like to see Teddy bring his moral authority to bear on these financing options for health care, for example. Right now it's sealed off - the health care system is paying for health care reform. And that might work in the short term. But when the industries involved fail to cut costs, or the numbers don't add up, someone in the room will need to talk about the need for those who use the commons the most, the wealthiest among us, to kick in. Similarly, we need someone with authority to tell the unions to back off of Democrats trying to figure out how to fund this thing, for example by capping the tax exemption on employer benefits.

That man is Ted Kennedy. And he's our best hope for really getting this done sensibly. It'll be good to see him back.

Specter Walks It Back

Yesterday, I mentioned the crassness of Arlen Specter putting together a site that looked like a plea for money for cancer research, when in actuality all the donations went toward his re-election campaign. Turns out his campaign was sufficiently embarrassed by the criticism surrounding this that they quietly changed the language, foregrounding the ask of donations for his re-election.

Ultimately, I think these astroturf sites don't fool anyone, and manufacturing a scandal based on people who may have given money expecting it to go to cancer research is a bit of a stretch. But politicians, take note - this kind of stuff makes you look terrible, and it's not worth it.

Next Up, Specter Steals Candy From Baby

Even for someone as unprincipled as Arlen Specter, this is cynical:

He's touting--and raising money from--a website called specterforthecure.com, which he describes as "a bold new initiative to reform our government's medical research efforts, cut red tape and unstrangle the hope for accelerated cures."

But the money he's raising isn't funding research grants, or advocacy, or treatment for patients who can't afford it. It's funding the Senate re-election campaign of one Arlen Specter.

He will be running for in Pennsylvania as a Democrat in 2010 in what could be a fraught and dramatic campaign, and if he's primaried, he may need buckets full of money to prevail. This is one...creative...method of raising that money.

Brian Beutler is being far too charitable. The site, while specifically describing that money raised would go to Specter's re-election, has the look of a charity for cancer research. There's also the false notion that cancer research dies without Arlen Specter guiding it in the Senate.

Lots of politicians build these websites around particular initiatives of theirs that are actually list-building tools and donation-grabbers. I haven't seen one quite as egregious as Specter's, essentially saying "Vote for me or your mom will die of cancer."

All the more reason why we need a primary in PA-Sen next year. The PCCC is running an online straw poll over whether "a Draft Sestak movement (should) be created to take on Sen. Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary?" The poll's running about 88% yes. Add your voice to it.

...let me re-emphasize that Sestak is not great. He voted for the FISA Amendments Act and war funding and is wavering on a public option for health care. He's a fairly moderate to conservative Democrat. But that beats a Republican pretending to be a Democrat to keep his job, in my book.

Elizabeth Edwards' Grace

Judging from the last couple days on the site, and the endless stream of diaries about how to properly imagine other people's opinions of cartoons, or how to properly eulogize a political opponent, I think it's more proper, actually, to recognize this editorial opinion from Elizabeth Edwards on the death of Tony Snow. Edwards and Snow are linked by virtue of being diagnosed with recurrences of their cancer within days of one another in 2007, and the news of his death clearly came to her as chilling and sad. In the article, Edwards reveals some universal, human truths, which often get lost in the clatter of political warfare, not limited to this site. I want to excerpt a bit:

Last week—when Tony was still alive and I was not so afraid—I rode my bicycle in a small Fourth of July parade at the beach to which we have gone for close to two decades. When I got to the celebration and stepped off the bicycle, an older man approached me. I hope you are doing well, he said, and then he added—oddly, it is more often the case that people do feel obliged to confess the gap between us—"although we don't agree on much of anything." I thanked him for his good wishes and then I added—as I often do—"and I suspect we agree on more than you think." He smiled, I smiled, and that was that. And then Tony died. And I thought more about the things on which we agree and the things on which we disagree. And as with my parade companion, I suspect Tony and I agreed on more things that we might have guessed.

We each chose to reach for something larger than the life and body with which we were saddled when we kept our course after the last diagnoses. We did it because we thought it was important and because (although it is chic to say that one detests politics) we actually loved the give and take it, the struggle to find what you think is right and the imperative to make others understand and agree. But what, in the end, does it tell us about what we each found to be really important? I am guessing it is not school vouchers or the expensing of stock options or class action lawsuits about salacious material in video games. It was that woman who stood with him years before and promised to love him in sickness and in health; it was those children, whose births marked the very best days of his life. And it isn't so different for any of us, is it? [...] Can't we start with something easy on which we can agree? That no one should die of a disease we can find and stop? And when we agree—and agree to do something about it—then we can move on toward those fault lines, like Tony, not taking no for an answer.

This may be too "post-partisan" a message for this venue - whatever that means - but it's pretty powerful. Once you understand that everybody has intimations of their own mortality, and that everybody knows someone in their family or their circle of friends who may be struggling with an illness or worse, you can see the perfect simplicity in Edwards' words.

My dad's in his fifth day of radiation treatments right now. He got the same type of cancer his father got, which is the same cancer his father's brother got, and I suspect it'll be the same cancer I'll get someday. There isn't an insurance agent, conservative activist or Republican politician alive who can tell me that they disagree with the imperative of keeping alive those who we have the ability to treat. It's an argument without a rebuttal, at least without one that is cruel or evil. And when we reach out, even to those political opponents, through common experience, and common cause - that's actually how we become a more progressive nation. We have a tremendous empathy deficit in America - the inability to stand in the shoes of our brothers and sisters. Edwards' expression of empathy is an object lesson.

When you face a conservative movement that is wholly dedicated to putting up roadblocks and turning off the spigot of empathy, making this a cruel and angry and paranoid and fearful nation, it can be hard not to fight back in the same manner. But I think, while engaging in the fight is fundamental to the survival of this democracy, occasionally we have to step back and recognize the human truths. Elizabeth Edwards is heroically battling on the front lines for reforming our broken health care system. But she hasn't forgotten that the issue goes beyond spreadsheets and mandates - it's about fathers dying young, sons without treatment for their ills, mothers who can't afford their pills. It's about healing. And you can only be on one side of that debate.

There's no calculation in these remarks. They are simply truths. It so happens that these truths, and the courage and bravery exhibited in saying them, are unquestionably progressive.

Snowed Out

Tony Snow made it official, he'll be stepping down in two weeks. I can't believe that the traditional media is going with this story that it's for financial reasons. The guy made millions for a decade on Fox News, and as a former White House press secretary he can ride the wingnut welfare train for tens of thousands of dollars per speaking appearance.

No, the real reason is clearly the grind of the job for someone undergoing chemotherapy. He didn't look that well today, and I don't understand why that's hard to say. He's battling cancer and he needs to pay attention to that. No need for a cover story.

I wish him well in his battle against the disease. It's fitting that this week saw the Lance Armstrong Livestrong Cancer Forum. Tony Snow could do something very positive by coming forward and giving more attention to something that affects practically every American, either personally or through a friend or family member.

The $168,000 Poorhouse

I thought the same thing as Atrios when I heard Tony Snow's admission that he'd have to resign because he can't afford to stay as Press Secretary. It may be a government job, but doesn't the Press Secretary at the White House make a lot of money?

The answer is yes, he makes $168,000 a year, as much as any senior staffer in the executive branch.

But I think there's a teachable moment here. There's only one reason that a man making $168,000 a year would have to leave his job to look for something higher-paying; it's because he has catastrophic medical bills. If someone making that much per year can't keep up with his medical payments, especially when he has the best coverage money can buy, then we truly have a crisis in our health care system.

(adding, he probably doesn't have to pay much of anything for his medical care, being a cabinet official the government sucks up the cost, so more likely it's just one man being impossibly greedy, so let him come out and say that, and in so doing defend a government-run, government-administered health care program. See what I'm getting at here?)

UPDATE: Good question by this commenter:

I understand Tony Snow’s health is a prime consideration. But “when my money run’s out”? Is it that his health insurance benefits as an employee of the President don’t cover his pre-existing condition?

That would just be priceless...

UPDATE: I think it's legitimate to wonder if Tony Snow was denied coverage from his employer due to the risk of his recurring cancer. Now, HIPAA does provide protections for patients with pre-existing conditions.

HIPAA limits the time you can be denied coverage for a preexisting condition under your employer's health insurance plan. Under HIPAA, an employer health insurance plan can deny coverage for a preexisting condition only if the employee or dependent is diagnosed, receives care or treatment, or has care or treatment recommended in the 6 months before the enrollment date. Note: Pregnancy cannot be denied as a preexisting condition by an employer's insurer. In addition, preexisting conditions cannot be applied to newborns, adopted children under age 18 or a child under age 18 placed for adoption as long as the child become covered under the health plan within 30 days of birth, adoption or placement for adoption, and provided the child does not incur a subsequent 63-day or longer break in coverage.

The length of time coverage can be denied for a preexisting condition under HIPAA is limited to no longer than 12 months (18 months if you are a late enrollee). This time can be reduced or eliminated if you were covered by previous health insurance (which qualifies under HIPAA as creditable coverage) and if there was not a break in coverage between the plans of 63 days or more.

Snow took the job on April 26, 2006. He revealed his cancer recurrence on March 27, 2007. Press reports at the time state that he had beaten colon cancer two years prior, in February of 2005. So if he was still receiving treatment in November of 2005, he could under the law be denied coverage, depending on the enrollment date.

Now look at this quote from Dana Perino, which is a little obtuse:

Snow is ensured the best treatment, at a hospital he wished not to disclose. "Tony Snow is paid the salary that he's paid, and he has health insurance," said Dana Perino, filling in for him at the White House. "And I'm sure he's taken care of that way."

Note that she says he "has health insurance." It's a funny way of describing it, as if it were separate from the employment, no?

It would be the height of crassness for the White House's health care administrator to deny coverage to Tony Snow. But what other explanation can their be for his fear that he would "run out of money" if he continued in a $168,000 a year job?

Snow on Edwards

"As somebody who has been through this,'' Snow said, "Elizabeth Edwards is setting a powerful example for a lot of people, and a good and positive one. She has been on top of diagnosis and follow-up. When you have cancer it's very important to keep checking. She's being aggressive. She's living an active life. And a positive attitude, prayers, and people you love are always a very good addition to any kind of medicine you have. So for Elizabeth Edwards, good going; our prayers are with you.''

Tony Snow had the benefit of experience to see clearly that you don't have to crawl into a corner and hide from the world because you get sick. Now Snow has had a recurrence of cancer and I hope to see him at the podium just as long as he is able. We have a deviant relationship to sickness in this country, even though it eventually affects all of us; we seem to think that our life-force will be drained away if we come in contact with an ill person. We want them to hide like we want all of our problems to hide, to go out of sight so that they're also out of mind. The sick should not be forced to be entombed before their time, and the so-called healthy need to get over their sickness aversion.

Ezra Klein wrote a piece for the New York Sun that was about Elizabeth Edwards, but it applies here as well.

Americans have a strange relationship with illness. It was shocking when Mr. Edwards forthrightly said that Elizabeth's cancer was treatable, but not curable. In other words, it will kill her.

That is, dare I say it, un-American. In this country, we make people better, or they die while we're trying. Illness is something you fight, not something you stall. And so we are not used to accepting it as a constant presence. The sick retreat to sanctums and hospital wards to do battle with their ailments, and they either emerge or they do not.

That, it seems, is what many wanted the Edwards family to do. I received countless e-mails arguing that he should have dropped out and wondering if, given the early support expressed for his projected decision to withdraw, there would be a backlash against his choice to continue on. Such questions ask more than they realize. They ask that the Edwardses allow the cancer to force them off life's stage. They ask that they accept death for Elizabeth before it has been decreed [...]

Mrs. Edwards's sickness scares us, and we do not want to be faced with it. That something is killing her reminds us all that we are dying, as are our loved ones. But we soldier on, and live on, and continue trying to change the world and make our dreams manifest. The Edwardses deserve the chance to do the same. They don't deserve special consideration while they're doing it. But that is not what they are asking for.

For the record I thought Katie Couric's performance with the Edwardses on 60 Minutes was somewhat regrettable, but it also gave them the stage to amplify these views. And I hope that these dual events will show to everyone the importance of cancer research and how we need to put the full force of the medical community to stop this disease in its tracks.

Tragic

Elizabeth Edwards' cancer has returned, and that is a true shame. She joins the millions of families who fight long battles with this disease all over the country. She is in all of our thoughts.

John Edwards is not dropping out of the Presidential race as a cause of this. He described the cancer, which moved from Elizabeth's breast to her bones, as his doctor described it, not curable but completely treatable, like living with diabetes. And he said that "The campaign goes on strongly".

That's good for the country, but this is not a day to talk about politics in the context of John and Elizabeth. Best wishes.