I am a practical political sort of progressive, and understand why saving the health bill may require jettisoning public option. Indeed, as stalwarts like Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Schumer of New York have acknowledged, the tradeoff between a weak public option and robust new provisions that extend Medicare (on a fee basis) to Americans between 55 and 64 may be a trade-off that actually does more to cover the currently uninsured than a public option would -- and offers tacit ongoing competition to the private insurance companies to boot (they have to compete with an expanded Medicare program).
What troubles me, however, is that the "public option" provision to be traded off was not just one version of a technical fix that Medicare expansion will replace, but a crucial rhetorical feature of the legislation, perhaps the only place in the bill where the rights and interests of the 'public' are publicly recognized.
And since the battle of the Republican Right -- sorry, that's redundant, of the Republican Party -- against health care, climate change legislation and financial regulation all turn on a pernicious assault on the very idea of public goods and the public interest, health care is effectively being saved by deep-sixing the principle that justifies it and a host of other vital democratic programs.
We win the health care bill but lose the war of words -- and words are crucial. By making it a pejorative, the Republicans turns Public into a synonym for "bureaucratic," for liberty-corroding statist, and for "socialist" -- finally, for "un-American." Ironically, the "Republic" (our things of the public or "res publica") that is the etymological root of the Republican Party is now, in their churlish lexicon, a reference to treason.
We are about to rescue a decent health care bill and win a crucial battle by ceding the rhetorical ground and losing the war of words that will decide the outcome of the long term struggle against democratic public life. This may be a necessary compromise, but it's also an abject surrender whose price will be paid again and again down the line.
Follow Benjamin R. Barber on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BenjaminRBarber
By narcissism I mean the overvaluing of the mind over the emotions, or the mind over the soul. Narcissism runs the gamut from a lightly worn modality of thought to the rigid malignant narcissism of Peck's People of the Lie. Narcissists lose the ability to communicate to non-narcissists because they are totally alienated from the "motivations of the soul." Thus the Democratic Party, by and large, has lost the ability to connect with the working class and vast swaths of middle America.
"What's wrong with Kansas" is not merely a question of what's wrong with Kansans but also a question of what's wrong with the Democratic Party that can't reach Kansans. People will simply not vote for individuals they can't relate to or who are unable to speak to them in ways that make sense, both intellectually and emotionally. So the conartists of the Republican Party step in.
The war-of-words is lost on too many Democrats (it's all "bloodless" negotiating to them) as great opera is lost on the tone deaf.
http://pathwhisperer.wordpress.com/
The health insurers are getting a great deal. In exchange for letting the oldest, sickest, uninsured non-customers buy into Medicare, they get mandates for all young and healthy people to purchase insurance from private monopolies that are allowed to raise premiums and deductibles as high as they want and cap benefits as low as they want.
Medicare will not be expanded. Insurers will not let captive, profitable customers go. Politicians who were too cowardly to enact real reform with the momentum reform had will not do so when an even richer, more powerful lobby stands before them. Consumers who will be destroyed by paying skyrocketing premiums or facing the collection arm of the insurance industry, the IRS, will not trust anyone who claimed to be a "reformer" this time around.
This was an opportunity for Democrats and they blew it. Leadership could have taken away chairs. The party could have taken away election funds. The President could have used the oratory he used on behalf of Lieberman, Wall Street bonus contracts, Rick Warren and keeping Guantanamo open on behalf of real reform. "Progressive" senators could have filibustered. The Progressive Caucus could have voted against the House bill. Everyone except for Rep. Kunich and Sanders is in on it. Every Democrat, save one, is complicit.
public option then I simply will not support the people in power any longer. And frankly, why should I even care or pay attention any longer to what goes on in government if it is corrupt. I shouldn't and neither should you. If congress doesn't do what is right then don't vote. It is the only way to send a message.
If people stay home in 2010, they'll say it's just the economy. The only thing that will help is primary challenges. People feel noble when they get around to sending an email - do you really think the people on this board get out and support a primary challenger?
Remember - the President and Harry Reid supported Lieberman over the progressive challenger who won the Democratic Primary in Connecticut.
My business and education is in P&C insurance....and if it were my insurance company, I'd drop that market as soon as the government stepped in.
Medicare will not be expanded. Insurers will not let captive, profitable customers go. Politicians who were too cowardly to enact real reform with the momentum reform had will not do so when an even richer, more powerful lobby stands before them. Consumers who will be destroyed by paying skyrocketing premiums or facing the collection arm of the insurance industry, the IRS, will not trust anyone who claimed to be a "reformer" this time around.
-No anti-trust law
-No public option
-Rationing expenditure for health care
They should better start all over again. The House is not going to accept this junk.
I posit that it would be cheaper for this nation to pay for all campaigns out tax funds than to keep allowing the rich to buy politicians to protect them from the miserable poor and middle class whose labor created the wealth held by the rich.
If a contributor gains from a legislator's vote, make a law that ANY conflict of interest (including campaign contributions) would be a criminal offense with a mandatory prison sentence.
The German High Court recently banned electronic voting:
http://www.inteldaily.com/news/173/ARTICLE/12343/2009-10-23.html
I have a simple public option plan:
1) Decide what benefits are to be provided.
2) Create a national sells tax on gasoline.
3) The money collected can only be used to pay health care bills.
4) Create tough and enforceable civil and criminal penalties for abuse.
5) If an individual can show that they (or family) have had private health insurance for the entire year, this person is entitled to a tax credit.
6) The medical bills are paid in the same method as Medicare.
It's disgusting.
This mantra makes no sense without some qualification. Just because there's a public option in name doesn't mean that it constitutes REAL reform. The pipsqueak PO, that was offered in the Senate version of the bill will not give us REAL reform in contrast to medicare expansion, which on the face of it is more promising. However, with medicare expansion, as the author points out, we lose the war of words until it sinks into people's minds that medicare is a public program--or a public option. For now the omission of the word "public" gives conservative Dems cover if and when they vote for the bill.
And they still may not vote for the bill. They neither deserve nor, as DEMOCRATS, should require "cover" to vote for Democratic platforms.
This is bigger than any few individuals or few states. This is about the GREATER GOOD FOR ALL OF AMERICA.
Never has the phrase "you are either with us or with the [insurance industry] terrorists" had more meaning.
We need Medicare for All, the real public Medicare plan, not a privately concocted one.
We need to hear more, much more about this "trade-off" made in the Senate.
And the antitrust provision has to be NON-NEGOTIABLE, a sine qua non.
Charity is a voluntary action, generated by one's relative sense of obligation and desire to share. It is rightfully the province of private individuals & foundations.
When charity (wealth redistribution) is undertaken by governments, the "voluntary" aspect of the giving is eliminated, and the recipients become targeted based on perceived political advantage.
It's one thing for me to offer to help someone in need, it's quite another for the needy to come to my home and use the government's (figurative) gun to take it from me.
If we are to speak in theoretical ideals (because that's the approach you've taken), let's extend it a bit.
A representative Government, such as the one we are purportedly living in, decides what is in the Public Interest by majority consensus. If charitable giving in the form of Social Programs takes place, it is because WE decided collectively that it is the right thing to do.
The reality is quite different. Campaign financing, special interest groups, and lobbyists have skewed
our Government to the point where "percieved political advantage" boils down to who contributes the most for a given concern. If that corruption can be undone, then we might be free to adhere to your
lofty philosophical ideals. That's what you want, isn't it?
We already have financially unsustainable social programs (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, S-Chip) that not all Americans support, but are legally bound to contribute too. Let's not add a new one.
Having read Atlas Shrugged, you surely know that insurance did not exist in Galt's Gully, "government" sponsored or otherwise (although there was a bank (what did that produce?); bet they would eventually mutuallize risk somehow, no?).