Barbara O'Brien

Barbara O'Brien
Location
New York, USA
Birthday
October 01
Bio
Barbara O'Brien blogs at Mahablog, Buddhism.About.com and the Mesothelioma and Asbestos Awareness Center.

MY RECENT POSTS

JUNE 21, 2009 10:16AM

Healthcare Reform Theater

Rate: 4 Flag

The New York Times reports that a whopping large majority of Americans want the government, not the private insurance industry, to take charge and address the health care crisis. The New York Times/CBS News poll found that most Americans –

  • Think the health care system needs to be fundamentally changed or completely rebuilt (85 percent).
  • Would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance (57 percent).
  • Want a government-administered insurance plan that would compete for customers with private insurers (72 percent).
  • Think government could do a better job of holding down health-care costs than the private sector (59 percent).

Given these poll results, I believe that in nearly any other industrialized democracy in the world politicians would be tripping over themselves in the rush to provide universal health care coverage for citizens.

But not in the United States. In the U.S., politicians pat us on the head and tell us we’re confused. What we really want, we’re told, is to keep the private for-profit system that allows increasing numbers of Americans to fall through the cracks.

In the United States, the will of the people means nothing any more. What was once a vibrant democracy has been riddled with parasites sucking democratic values, not to mention wealth, out of it. These are special interest groups, big corporations and a small but well-funded — thus overrepresented in government and media — extremist Right.

In Washington today, just one lobbyist can cancel out the will of hundreds of thousands of voters.

For years the only point of view on health care presented in electronic media has been that of the parasites. The private interest, right-wing perspective has been preached at us incessantly on radio and television for years. I cannot recall ever seeing a balanced, substantive discussion on health care on American television, ever, and I gave up on radio years ago. Print media may sometimes present more substance, but it is usually in the form of showcasing “both sides,” that of the medical-industrial complex and that of an advocate for universal care side by side, with no attempt at editorial refereeing to sort the facts from the propaganda.

At this point, most of us fully expect that President Obama’s health care proposals — which were moderate and centrist to begin with, not nearly the total overhaul most of us wanted — will be watered down and compromised away to nothing but a collection of minor tweaks. And when the health care “reform” bill is signed into law there will be a great ballyhoo about it, but the American public will see no real difference. And the struggle will continue, and the Right will argue that we tried a progressive option and it didn’t work.

So we’ll continue to see charities established to deliver health care to third-world nations coming to the U.S. to provide health care to Americans. We line up for makeshift free medical clinics set up in old animal pens. Our young working adults set their own broken bones. More than one-fifth of Americans now are struggling, or failing — to pay for the health care they need. After a big hoopla about reform, these things will continue.

Years of government that cannot be made to respond to the will of Americans has resulted in political enervation. We’ve become resigned to an ever-encroaching shabbiness, an increasingly instability. None of the promises of reform made to us by the politicians we elect are ever kept to any meaningful extent, and we no longer expect them to be kept. Instead, we get reform theater, and nothing changes. That’s just how it is.

That wasn’t always the case. I am old enough to remember the attitudes of my Greatest Generation parents and their friends, who grew up with the New Deal and fought World War II. They came out of that era believing the American people, through their government, could accomplish anything. Now we’re grateful if our lights come on and our bridges don’t collapse.

Sorry if I’m feeling bleak today, but a number of news stories say the Democrats are going to be forced to compromise away the public insurance option — you know, the option that 72 percent of Americans support — to get a health care bill passed. And as far as I’m concerned that’s the only part of the package that really matters. It’s not a perfect solution, but it would make a real difference to millions of Americans and put us on the road to more genuine reform in the future.

And of course we may ask, with such broad public support for the public option, who is forcing the Dems to compromise? And the answer is, well-funded interest groups, the over-represented Right, and Big Money generally. We won’t get the reform we need, because it would cause a few well-connected people to lose money.

We’re told as if it were holy writ that health care reform would be bad for small business; I understand small business says otherwise. But the Powers That Be don’t listen to small business, either.

We can write letters and make phone calls and even hold massive rallies until we all grow feathers and fly. It won’t matter. We know that, because we’ve tried these things in the past, with this and other issues, and were ignored. That’s why so many of us have given up.

Some of us slog on, of course, because we have no alternative. As long as there is even a remote chance that the people’s will might be respected, we keep trying. What else can we do?

In the early 19th century, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote of Democracy in America: “The people reign over the American political world as God rules over the universe. It is the cause and the end of all things; everything rises out of it and is absorbed back into it.” Not any more.

(Cross-posted at The Mahablog.)

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
there is something else you do. american women did it when they got the vote. they amended the constitution. the amendment was ultimately unsuccessful, but life is not always successful.

americans today can bring democracy to the nation by a concerted 'vote against the incumbent' program, to force the establishment of democracy through citizen initiative.

with citizen initiative, health care can be solved, and a great many other injustices resolved as well.

or you can just sit on your ass and whine.
Al, you're dreaming. This mess can't be solved at state level, and a constitutional amendment would be an even bigger hurdle than just getting a bleeping law passed. Congress still has to vote on it, and the states have to ratify it. It's a nearly impossible process.

I don't know what you mean by "the amendment was ultimately unsuccessful." We did get the vote, you know.
http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archives/11774-New-York-Times-McCain-Voters-Not-Americans.html

http://documents.nytimes.com/latest-new-york-times-cbs-news-poll-on-health#p=7

You're being lied to again. The NY Times/CBS poll is a fraud.
Yes, blackflon, I saw those right-wing posts last weekend. And you might have a little bit of an argument, except several other polls show the same trends. See Nate Silver, "Public Support for Public Option."

BTW, are you being paid to haunt comment threads and post right-wing propaganda? If you aren't, you might as well be. If you aren't -- that's really pathetic.

For more on why blackflon is a brainwashed tool, see Nate Kilgore, "Grassroots Bipartisanship on Health Care"; Nate Silver, "Special Interest Money Means Longer Odds for Public Option"; "Nate Silver, "Lazy Sunday Linkage: Public Option, Iran, Nate v. Karl Rove."
Right wing posts? For your information the second link is from the NY Times and how they conducted the poll.

My point was that the NY Times/CBS poll is a fraud based on how it was conducted. Nothing new for the Times.

Of course lots of people will be for health care be cause they are ignorant. As long as they can get the government involved in theri lives they won't have to take responsibility.

Your insults pretty don't help your cause.
"Of course lots of people will be for health care be cause they are ignorant."

You should have thought about that a bit before you keyboarded it.

"As long as they can get the government involved in theri lives they won't have to take responsibility."

The Obama health care plan wouldn't get government "involved in our lives" any more than it is already. But if you're against health care I can see why you'd be against health care reform.
"The Obama health care plan wouldn't get government "involved in our lives" any more than it is already"

The above comment is why some people should not be allowed to vote in this country.
"The above comment is why some people should not be allowed to vote in this country."

Your petty insults don't help your cause. :-) Do you want to share your fevered misconceptions about how you think government would get "more involved" in our lives than it already is if we implemented the Obama health care plan? What exactly do you think government will do that will "involve" it in our lives?
People like Blackflon have never been able to explain why it is a good thing that for-profit companies are in charge of making health care decisions. He acts as if, as long as you have insurance, you can see any doctor you want and have any procedure you want, and it will all be paid for. This is most emphatically not the case.

Private insurance companies have to answer to shareholders and show a profit. How is this compatible with providing health care to people who are sick?

Maybe the problem is the word "nonprofit". Maybe people assume that, in a nonprofit system, people won't be paid. This is not true. Lots of people work for nonprofit organizations, and they are paid salaries. They might not get rich at it, but so what? No one should be getting rich off of health care. I am all for doctors being paid well. But, they are not entitled to get rich. And that goes double for insurance company executives.
From an outsider's perspective, living in a country with government-paid (not RUN) health care, I see the problem as one of your form of government. You have parties, yes, but they are composed of autonomous individuals, each of them susceptible to pay-offs. In our parliamentary system, the members of parliament vote as they are told by the prime minister (or they resign, change parties, or sit as independents). Sounds awful compared to the oh-so-lower-case-democratic independent legislators you have, perhaps - BUT THINGS GET DONE, DAMMIT! If the people don't like the things that get done, they vote the party out. Since government-paid universal health care was brought in (over the usual objections) half a century ago, neither major party has tried to repeal it - there'd be riots in the streets.

As there may be riots, or possibly SHOULD be, in the U.S. about the health care scene, where congressmen and 'representatives' have the finest of health care but are denying it to the people who ultimately pay their salary (and health care).
The above comment is why some people should not be allowed to vote in this country."

Your petty insults don't help your cause. :-)

Touche!!!

Barbara, knowing how our politicians operate is the first clue about how this healthcare idea will work. they cannot get single payer the congress so they start with the 50 million uninsured(which is really a bogus number because of people who choose to be uninsured as well a person who is uninsured for even one day is counted in the stats).

Obama wants a "public" plan which will compete with the private insurers( why in the world do we want the government to be in competiton with private enterprise?).

The next step will be for corporations to drop healthcare. This will force people into the "public" program.

Voila!!! Single payer!!

Here are some more figures for you to munch on.

Since 1970 -- even without the prescription drug benefit -- Medicare's costs have risen 34% more, per patient, than the combined costs of all health care in America apart from Medicare and Medicaid, the vast majority of which is purchased through the private sector.

Since 1970, the per-patient costs of all health care apart from Medicare and Medicaid have risen from $364 to $7,119, while Medicare's per-patient costs have risen from $368 to $9,634. Medicare's costs have risen $2,511 more per patient.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=480067

If anything, I would prefer to see Mediacre for all. Of course there is that pesky little thing about how to go about paying for it.
"Obama wants a 'public' plan which will compete with the private insurers( why in the world do we want the government to be in competiton with private enterprise?)."

The public plan is an essential to controlling cost. Paul Krugman spells it out in this column. One of the reasons the recent CBO estimate on the cost of the Obama health care proposal was that it left out the public plan part.

See also Ezra Klein :

"The private insurance market is a mess. It's supposed to cover the sick and instead competes to insure the well. It employs platoons of adjusters whose sole job is to get out of paying for needed health care services that members thought were covered.

"Moreover, public insurance is simply more efficient. Medicare holds costs down better than private health insurance. The substantially public systems employed by every other industrialized nation cost less and cover more than the American model. So the question became how to marry the policy need for public insurance with the political need to preserve the status quo."


That last part answers your last comment. Yes, Medicare has gone up. Private health insurance has gone up more (the stats you provide are wrong). Private insurance stays in business by refusing to cover people with preexisting conditions and kicking people out of their coverage if their care gets too expensive. Medicare doesn't do that, and it covers the elderly, a group most private insurance wouldn't touch with a ten-foot thermometer. Medicare is more cost-effective.

Please read the rest of Ezra's column to learn why the public insurance plan is essential to cost control; I don't want to repeat the entire column here. And please don't do what you did with the last post, which is parrot right-wing talking points without addressing the issues I brought up in the post. If I see you haven't read Ezra's column, I will delete your comments rather than respond to them.

"The next step will be for corporations to drop healthcare. This will force people into the "public" program."

Interestingly, that's what many Republicans want. That was John McCain's health care plan in the 2008 campaign -- remove tax incentives for offering health care to employees, and force everyone onto the private market. The Obama plan is more likely to preserve private health insurance than the GOP plan.

The thing is, if private insurance is willing and able to streamline itself to bring costs down and be competitive, then private insurance will stay in business.

"Voila!!! Single payer!!"

Yes, the ultimate evil. But then you say ...

"If anything, I would prefer to see Mediacre for all."

Um, dude, that would be a single-payer system. What do you think "single payer" means?