Pecunia Regnum!

I'm getting sick of hearing it. The official version of reality, which is being bought by a lot of people who should know better, is that the health care reform bill in the Senate right now is somehow a victory for us all.

Bullshit.

The party line, as per the guidance of David Axelrod and the gang, is that, given the realities in Washington, the bill was as good as it could be, and that considering the alternative we should be grateful for it.

Bullshit.

They tell us that the good things in the bill outweight the bad, and that we all need to just get on board with it and stop complaining.

Bullshit.

What they don't discuss much is how the bill will impact people at the street level, people who were counting on a bill designed to help them, not one which amounts to a further empowerment of insurance companies, companies whose stock is now soaring by the way as Wall Street rubs it's hands in glee.  As the vultures on the Hill croak about what a victory this is, they don't mention that they'll continue to receive their platinum-grade government supplied insurance while millions of regular citizens will be mandated to purchase tarted up versions of  the same dodgy policies they couldn't afford before and which will be no more affordable now.

Could someone please explain to me how this is a victory?  How is a bill which forces me to purchase insurance I can't afford from the very same predatory companies which the supposed "reform" was meant to reign in progress? How is a bill which introduces no competition into the market progress? How is a bill which will do nothing to lower costs for health coverage progress? How is a bill which is basically a giveaway to the medical industrial complex progress? And how is Obama giving up the fight before it even started progress?

It comes down to this; there were two possible ways the president could have approached the goal of health care reform:

1. He could have taken a case to the American people that a single payer system, or at least one which had a strong public option, was in their interests. He's the president; no one has a stronger bully pulpit from which to speak, and he could have used it to great advantage, going over the heads of corporate interests to convince the public, who wanted real reform anyway, that serious change was necessary and desirable and possible. This is the route that would have gotten us meaningful reform, and which I at first expected him to go.

2. He could go the route favored by Rahm Emanuel and his corporate sponsors, the route of never even putting single payer on the table, and of only paying lip service to the notion of a public option, thus ensuring the support of the corporate sector, of insurance companies and big pharma and the like.

The latter route, though it guaranteed a shitty bill with no real reform in it, is the one Barack Obama chose. Why should any progressive, or any working American who's going to get stiffed as a result of this bill, call it a good thing? It is not a good thing, nor is it a victory; it's a sell out, plain and simple.  

So to all those who tell me that this is the best we could do, and that I should just unquestioningly bend over and take one for the team, I say:

Bullshit.

Unwavering loyalty in the face of betrayal is fine for dogs or herd animals, but I'm not down with it, sorry.  They can piss on my head and tell me it's raining if they want to, but I know the difference between the two.

image ©2009 by nanatehay