alibi online

Free Will AstrologyAlibi's Personals
 
 V.18 No.35 | August 27 - September 2, 2009 

Feature

Single Payer: A Slow Train Coming

 
 

It’s all noise. Every word, every decibel. This is all just white (and black) noise on a long, messy trail called health care reform. Gray-haired misanthropes are screaming down elected officials; House leaders call them un-American. Whatever. All noise.

Later this year "something" called health care reform will make its way to the president's desk, to much fanfare and with formerly mortal enemies gathered around the president for the signing, warbling about how the process “worked.”

It’ll all be noise then, too, because the only thing that’ll have happened is that the greatest progressive opportunity in two generations was completely missed.

It’s called—here it comes—single-payer health care.

That proponents of a morally based system of health care for everyone in this nation are now miscreants and fools is the surest, most precise read on the nation’s moral compass we’ve had in forever. It’s all on the table now.

The greatest progressive opportunity in two generations was completely missed.

Fine, naysayers. You’ve won the battle. But I’m telling you this: We whom you deem mad are going to win the war. The battles along the way will be as nutty as this one is, but this 2009 version—like 1993 and all those health reform efforts before it—are part and parcel of a long arc that will take no less than another two decades to resolve.

The country will come to a moral conclusion, ultimately. It will come when every other “fix” has been tried and disregarded.

Let’s stop screwing around on the language here. The public option is the point now, and it will be the point 20 years from now when single payer is seriously engaged.

Every movement needs a moral affront, an indignation. All it needs is a face and a voice. I wish it could have been under the first black president, but a new reality has walked in the door on that, too.

You’ve won the battle. But I’m telling you this: We whom you deem mad are going to win the war.

Barack Obama’s flip-flop on single payer, his willingness to play footsy with—of all cretins—Billy Tauzin and the pharmaceutical industry he represents, and an agreement to “cap” prices sealed it. Did a slice of business actually just walk into the White House of the United States of America and have the impertinence to dictate terms?

It should have been the grand wake-up call. Nope. Yes We Can. Right.

Is this why we hired Barack Obama? Where was the consciousness-raising that should have come first?

It’s troubling, but when you back up from it, it’s clear what was missing for the man to work with: a people’s movement. A loud public demand before the fight.

Working (or not) poor blacks, whites, rural independents, legal immigrants, First Nation, middle class of all stripe, the whole American lot, would have rallied behind a very simple idea: You show up at the hospital, you wait for a long period of time—just like you do now—you get fixed, you go home and you don’t get a bill. Ever. Now we have a fair fight.

Is this why we hired Barack Obama? Where was the consciousness-raising that should have come first?

Instead, we got dragged into the muck of “no we can’t,” and that was all she wrote.

Look, for anyone who has been behind the idea of single payer, admit it, we screwed up. We ignored all the signs that Barack Obama was not going there early in the campaign.

We sat back, and before we could raise our hands from the back of the room, the health insurance industry dished out the candy. To the tune of a million dollars a day in lobbying money to Capitol Hill the second quarter of this year.

Result? Go dial up Business Week's Aug. 6 cover story, “The Health Insurers Have Already Won,” a rather astounding recap of how the health insurance lobby has literally shaped the current legislation working its way to the president's desk to its liking.

This health care reform sham is also a proxy that, in my view, will be the shorter (but tougher) fight—an internal battle within the progressive community on its value system. Health Reform 2009 brings to mind something one of my old man’s work friends used to say back in the ’60s: That “nothing will straighten out a radical quicker than a kid and a mortgage.”

Too many progressives don’t want to get their hands dirty. Especially if they’re making bank.

The bad news is a lot of progressives over the last few years have been straightened out. While screaming about Bush and whatnot, they efficiently earned a crap-load of money in an overheated market themselves. At the same time, the blogging culture has successfully rolled out the idea that railing with an anonymous name on Huffington Post is tantamount to action.

What kind of circumstance do we have when stalwarts of the progressive community like Dennis Kucinich, Dr. Cornel West and even Carol Miller here in New Mexico have been reduced to delusional cranks who can’t come to grips with “reality"? Why is New Mexico, which has something near 40 percent of its workforce on some sort of government-run health plan, not leading the charge on the idea of what government can do?

It’s because too many progressives don’t want to get their hands dirty. Especially if they’re making bank.

Dr. West has it exactly right when he points out (in multiple interviews) that a people’s movement is the only viable answer to true health care reform. That’s the mandate. And he has history on his side.

First, can we all kindly walk away from this romanticized notion of Barack Obama being the second coming of FDR? The comparison just does not hold water. Roosevelt was in fact pushed to the wall by a people’s movement. There were more than 400 labor “actions” (people in the streets) preceding his administration’s landmark legislation.

West points out that the Great Emancipator, Abraham Lincoln—another alleged Obama archetype—was no enemy of slavery until a people’s movement pushed him there, led primarily by Frederick Douglass. Voting Rights Act? Hello? Another people’s movement.

Is anyone not embarrassed that a bunch of 75-year-olds have been hitting the streets with a people’s movement of their own? How is it that progressives have gotten smacked down—thus far—by their own tried-and-true tactics? Why were there not progressives spilling into the streets instantly? Was saving the public option not enough?

Apparently not. Or at least it wasn't for a critical window of time in the first weeks of the August break. But it looks like progressives are getting it together, finally. Organizing for America (the Democratic National Committee’s grassroots arm) and Health Care for America NOW! are planning to hold more than 500 events, phone banks and the like, including a few in Albuquerque.

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich called for a people’s march on Washington in support for a public option on Sept. 13. Why Sept. 13? Because there’s a planned tea party march in D.C. the day before, a big one, organized by FreedomWorks, the shamelessly disingenuous political jackboots run by Dick Armey.

Let’s put it this way: If tea baggers get their jell insert-filled sneakers on the ground en masse in Washington, and if they’re not trounced—not just answered—then a very singular slice of “the people” will have spoken. Again.

Can we finally stop being mesmerized by their audacity? Yes, the Armey clan is convinced the progressives’ bite is not quite matching their bark on this one. But let’s take up the challenge and spin this around. Because if not, any remaining leeward wind Obama had from the campaign will be illusory as far as Capitol Hill is concerned.

Holding firm on a public option is right in the short-term for a semblance of reform—but more important is 20 years from now, when a moral movement for single payer health care may well be in full swing.

Hopefully, it’ll be the last one.

Public Comments (8)
  • The other side  [ Fri Sep 4 2009 11:23 AM ]

    Hey, Gene, hopefully you realize that all of this insurance-company lobbying is The Barack's escape hatch should "public option" get signed into law and turns out to be the disaster that we on the other side say it will be. He'll just say that "If I didn't include part of their terms, we would have never gotten it passed," and then blame it on "special interests controlling Washington."

    If you think "single-payer" (taxpayer-pays) is such a great idea, why bother trying to get it passed here? Why not just move to Canada or the UK, where it's already there, and has been for decades? Surely they've had the time to work out the bugs by now. After all, I and my fellow libertarians, Tea Partiers and such aren't keeping you in the States at gunpoint, are we?

  • Well, Guns,  [ Fri Sep 4 2009 12:33 PM ]

    if a public option is passed and you don't like it, how about you find another country to live in?

    What a stupid argument. It's not like anyone is going to take away your private insurance. Why so vehement?

    Anyway, if you think a public option is such a bad idea, here are lovely statistics:

    Funny, in that sample of G8 countries the one without a public option spends more of it's GDP on health care than those that do and still has a lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality rate.

  • Well, "Madmammajamma​"  [ Fri Sep 4 2009 12:52 PM ]

    if a public option is passed and you don't like it, how about you find another country to live in?

    As soon as I can afford to do so, I will -- I'm looking at possibilities now. This of course means that there will be one less tax serf to pay for your "public option."

    What a stupid argument. It's not like anyone is going to take away your private insurance. Why so vehement?

    That will be the net effect, as the "public option" system will not only be able to operate in the red far longer than any private system, using tax dollars to buffer its losses, but will also be able to charge less than the private system, using tax dollars to make up the difference.

    Funny, in that sample of G8 countries the one without a public option spends more of it's GDP on health care than those that do and still has a lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality rate.

    If public health care is so great, then why are Canadians who can afford to come to the US for health care doing so instead of staying up there? There's a rather healthy strip of medical clinics along the U.S.-Canadian border that cater to Canadians. How do these places stay in business if Canada's "single-payer" system is so great?

    If "single-payer," er, I mean "public option" is such a great deal, what about the cases in the States where it's already been put in place -- the Indian Health Service and the Veterans Administration? Why aren't you citing these as examples of how things should be run?


    Last edited [9/4/09 12:54 PM]
  • "People" Speaking  [ Fri Sep 4 2009 1:19 PM ]

    Let’s put it this way: If tea baggers get their jell insert-filled sneakers on the ground en masse in Washington, and if they’re not trounced—not just answered—then a very singular slice of "the people" will have spoken. Again.

    All the Tea Party people want from the system is to left alone to their own devices when they're not hurting others, to fend for themseleves, and make their own way. They have no problem at all helping others in need with voluntary charity, but aren't too thrilled to say the least about being forced to "donate" via taxation.

    This of course stands in sharp contrast to the people who are turning out to support the ObamaCare plan and its "public option." The Obamatons think of other peoples' property and money as their own, to be taken and spent as "the people" dictate -- "the people" of course being the Obamatons. Tea Party people, libertarians, free-marketers, agorists, voluntaryists, etc., don't seem to really qualify as being part of "the people" in Obamatons' minds.

    Of course, Obama supporters will say I'm deluded on this. Then why do I keep seeing YouTube clips of Tea Party protesters being physically attacked by ObamaCare supporters (many wearing union T-shirts) for the "crime" of holding signs outside "Town Hall" events held by politicians supporting ObamaCare?


    Last edited [9/4/09 1:19 PM]
  • Welcome to America, my friend.  [ Fri Sep 4 2009 1:47 PM ]

    As soon as I can afford to do so

    That sounds a little low rent for someone who, I presume, can afford the exorbitant rates of a private health care plan.

    the "public option" system will not only be able to operate in the red far longer than any private system, using tax dollars to buffer its losses, but will also be able to charge less than the private system, using tax dollars to make up the difference.

    Realistically, this is paranoia. If you investigated any of the health care systems of the other G8 countries you will see that the majority of them have both private and public options. The main attraction of a public option, in my opinion, is to force the insurance health industry to be more competitive by putting them up against a bottom line that is accessible to the least of us.

    Canadians who can afford to come to the US for health care doing so instead of staying up there

    Because of the great fucking Doctors. The same reason people travel all across the US to see one specialist.

    Blah blah tea party blah blah protest blah blah physically attacked.

    Yup, it's the same for every side on every issue. We're a bunch of assholes too busy spewing our own rhetoric to listen to any semblance of logic regarding any side of any issue in this country. 'Buncha ignorant hill-billys too busy investing in killing off the rest of the world to educate ourselves. But that's not the argument I want to have. Let's stay on topic

  • Maybe they think "the people" means voters  [ Fri Sep 4 2009 1:49 PM ]

    Tea Party people, libertarians, free-marketers, agorists, voluntaryists, etc., don't seem to really qualify as being part of "the people" in Obamatons' minds.

    Why should any politician consider people who don't vote, to be included in "the people?" The teabaggers' classic mistake is that they think their speeches alone, without ever stepping into a voting booth all their lives, counts as a "voice."

  • Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.  [ Sat Sep 5 2009 12:52 PM ]

    As soon as I can afford to do so

    That sounds a little low rent for someone who, I presume, can afford the exorbitant rates of a private health care plan.

    I'm one of the "47 million uninsured" that Obama & Co. keep harping about. Right now, I'm working at a discount store for 10 bucks an hour. All I can see from this plan is more regulations, taxes and subsidies that will drive health care costs up even further.

    Maybe I'm wrong -- what existing restrictions on health care does ObamaCare repeal?

    Back in August 2007, I had strep throat and paid 80 bucks cash for the doctor visit and prescription (amoxycillin). A week later I developed an allergy to the amoxycillin but was able to fix that with over-the-counter Benadryl -- no paperwork, no run to the emergency room, etc.

    Realistically, this is paranoia. If you investigated any of the health care systems of the other G8 countries you will see that the majority of them have both private and public options. The main attraction of a public option, in my opinion, is to force the insurance health industry to be more competitive by putting them up against a bottom line that is accessible to the least of us.

    If you're dead-set on the public option, why not set it up as a non-profit 501-c-3 outfit, then push for Obama to get rid of regulations propping up drug prices, existing HMOs, etc.? That way you get something to compete with the for-profit companies without the top-down coercive approach favored by Washington DC politicians.

    But that's not the argument I want to have. Let's stay on topic

    You didn't answer the question --

    If "single-payer," er, I mean "public option" is such a great deal, what about the cases in the States where it's already been put in place -- the Indian Health Service and the Veterans Administration? Why aren't you citing these as examples of how things should be run? What about the Massachusetts mandatory-health-insurance law?

  • Tea Partiers as non-voters?  [ Sat Sep 5 2009 12:55 PM ]

    I was at the 15 April Tea Party centered around the Independence Grill -- there were quite a few people there who said they voted for Obama and that his post-election policy stands were NOT what they were voting for.

 
Join our mailing list for exclusive info, the week's events and free stuff!
 

  • Select sidebar boxes to add below. You can also click and drag to rearrange the boxes; minimize, maximize and close using the little icons on each box. To re-add a box you closed, return to this menu.
  • Because you are not logged in, any changes you make to these boxes will vanish as soon as you click to another page. If you log in, the boxes will stick.
  • alibi.com
  • Latest Posts
  • Most Active Stories
  • Latest User Posts
  • Highest-Rated Posts
  • Most Active Users
  • Web Exclusives
  • Latest User Blogs
  • Latest Chowtown Reviews
  • Recent Rocksquawk Discussions
  • Recent Classifieds
  • This Week's Alibi Picks
  • Albuquerque
  • Duke City Fix
  • Albuquerque Beer Scene
  • What's Wrong With This Picture?
  • Reddit Albuquerque
  • ABQ Journal Metro
  • ABQrising
  • ABQ Journal Latest News
  • Del.icio.us Albuquerque
  • NM and the West
  • New Mexico FBIHOP
  • Democracy for New Mexico
  • Only in New Mexico
  • Mario Burgos
  • Democracy for New Mexico
  • High Country News
  • El Grito
  • NM Politics with Joe Monahan
  • Stephen W. Terrell's Web Log
  • The Net Is Vast and Infinite
  • Slashdot
  • Freedom to Tinker
  • Is there a feed that should be on this list? Tell us about it.
    Three String Bale
    Three String Bale5.26.2013