Or so I’ve been hearing listening to “debate” on healthcare insurance reform for the last seven hours. And so the right would have ya believe. As the roll call for the health insurance reform bill approaches,there are actual Congresspeople standing on the floor ranting about stalinism. Never mind that the damn bill doesn’t even include a public option. Meanwhile, the far left would have you believe that this pretense of reform is nothing but a major handout to private insurance companies–and neglects to mention the dozens of actual benefits the bill provides.
It wasn’t what anybody wanted. But to my mind, the first element in any definition of democracy is that no one gets what they want. You go in with a swagger, you bluff and deal, and when the rubbers hits the road, you grit your teeth, make the deal, and you hope you’ve helped people just a little bit. You don’t get what ya want, ever, but if ya try sometimes, then, yeah, maybe ya get what ya need. Here and there, anyway.
This isn’t a bad bill.
If there’d been no hoopla, if it were introduced as a minor tweak rather than comprehensive, grand-scale reform, the opposition wouldn’t be nearly so extreme as it is. Progressives, who WANT to see true reform, are disappointed by what the bill isn’t. But the fact that the votes weren’t there for the public option makes Obama’s strategy in not pursuing single-payer perfectly understandable. It’s up to Green and progressive Democrats to make the case for, and to continue to shout from the rooftops about the practical advantages and moral imperatives of single-payer. It’s not the job of the President to waste a year on obviously quixotic crusades and to end up falling on his sword. That makes for great drama and piss-poor politics.
Unfortunately, this thing was billed as comprehensive healthcare reform, and not simply as making some genuine improvements in the existing insurance system. False expectations were raised. Look at it for what is is and be glad it passed. Keep on working on behalf of what it isn’t.
But be realistic. Face the reality of the political landscape. If a Green had been elected President in ’08, s/he would have made some noise about single-payer–then did pretty much what Obama did. Including making those nasty back-room deals with pharma and insurance. Reality sucks, but fantasy’s deadly. And that’s the difference between politics and moral crusades. Between progress and stalemate. Between the perfect and the good.
This bill isn’t perfect, and I hope to live to see my fantasy healthcare bill signed into law. Is it good? Damn right. It’s probably good for me, but it’s been so long since I’ve seen a doctor that I can’t hardly say. But I can say without hesitation that it’s definitely good for my kids, my wife, and my family: there are clearly demonstrable benefits to each. It strikes me as insane to fuck them over in pursuit of the perfect, one reason why I was dismayed with the seeming satisfaction some on the left experienced over the Brown win. That was NOT a good thing, folks. Hell, just this second the Republicans are bursting into applause as some damn fool makes the case that the Brown election represents America’s rejection of “failed european socialist reform.” The ultimate vote tonight will represent a lovely “fuck you” to those who dreamed that Brown’s ascension would kill the bill.
Would we be better off with single payer? Sure, and I intend to continue to work for it. But don’t bitch about a bill that, in fact, helps out those of us who don’t have the luxury of waiting for the perfect. Argue away, right up to the moment of inevitability–but recognize, at least, the reality of American politics (notably the fact that landlocked western states have as much power in the Senate as do the coasts). This bill helps both my dad and my daughter in the here and now. I’m down with that. 100%.
I don’t actually believe that we will get single payer under the existing system. Ever. The system needs to change. Clean elections and a representational system in the Senate are essential prerequisites.
(Sheesh, I’m listening to some jacklass on the floor suggesting that this bill is resurrecting the ghosts of Communist dictators. Where the fuck does the GOP find these people?)
In any case, I’m damn glad this thing is over. Endless bitter squabbling on the part of a right-wing that’s gone practically berserk over a bill that ain’t nearly so radical it might have been has grown tiresome beyond belief. While I hope that those dedicated to single-payer over the long-term keep up the good fight(‘cuz it gonna be a long slog and it’s gonna take real dedication, especially once the spotlight shifts), those of us who found that unrealistic this year have only watched with dismay as this bill became an all-consuming obsession on the part of seemingly everyone. The war, civil rights issues, and the environment haven’t simply taken a back seat–they’ve been bound, gagged, and left in the trunk. Time to address them.
Oh, and maybe to make the case for quality, affordable … marijuana. Right, Barney?
In all seriousness, I’m impressed with the way the Congressional leadership worked this. Love Nancy or hate her, she’s good. The evolution of this bill was about as attractive as is the making of sausage, hence Bismarck’s advice about not looking too closely at either.
I like sausage.
#
Probably dozens of reasons. But the main one to this stylist’s thinking is that after the fetus comes into personhood, the communists (and the socialists, too) would have the crazy notion that that person ought to have enough food, clothing, and shelter to lead a dignified human life. And that would mean more taxes. And taxes must be avoided at all costs – even at the expense of a friendly, sane world. Larry Ely
#
OK, maybe this bill helps your daughter and your father in the short run, in the here and now. According to the Christian Science Monitor, these are the provisions that take place right away:
I hadn’t known about that last one, but, W T F?!!! The United States of America, socialist bastion, will pay to insure high risk Americans with pre-existing health conditions?!!!!! I can’t think of a clearer example of socializing risks and costs and privatizing profits.
First of all, it would be nice if you actually knew what was in the bill, but I doubt even the most sincere and hard-working Congresspeople, Kucinich included, really know what’s in this monstrous bill, and I am certain you don’t either.
Second of all, this bill has so much that will anger the people of this country, that it’s almost an anti-government manifesto in disguise. This will sink any sense that government can be part of the solution and drive people to the most reactionary movements challenging this fraud, with the docile Left scratching their heads and apologizing for government crossing the line into our lives in the worst ways. This bill makes it all personal. All the corruption that characterizes government of, by, and for private industry (some call that fascism) is now about to get up in people’s faces and force them to atone for their inability to work the system to their benefit. “That money we’re using to fund the most destructive endeavors on the planet… well you can’t have it for healthcare because we need it to kill people!”
This segment on Democracy NOW! captures, I think, the end of the fight within the Democratic Party. Dennis Kucinich, pathetic again (remember those delegates he won, bullied by the Democrats into casting their votes for pro-war John Kerry), sounds so uninspired and defeated and weak, while Nader is crystal-effing-clear and livid… EXACTLY what we need right now:
The apologists are losing touch with just how badly their story holds up to reality. Kick the can down the road. We’ll continue the fight for single-payer. Let’s take it to the state level, instead of naming the corruption that has infiltrated our supposedly democratic institutions. The whole game is a fraud, and your acceptance of its major premises is discouraging.
“The votes weren’t there” as if anyone was really trying. “It’s not the job of the President” as if the man didn’t base his whole campaign on trying to change the political landscape towards moral imperatives and democratizing our government. That a Green President would have been making nasty back-room deals with the health industry, as if Greens would have gotten elected with corporate support the way Obama did, running on a platform of individual mandates to buy health insurance (why his supporters thought he’d go beyond that is beyond me).
If this bill is good for your family in the short term, it is almost assuredly not good for them in the long term. This unaccountable mess is one giant concession to an entirely unjust, for-profit, wildly subsidized health system. I think you’re buying into the lie that the Democrats are trying for real reform while the Republicans are thwarting it. GOP tactics look brilliant when their opponents don’t even begin to clarify the astonishing absurdity and irrelevance of their games. Alan Grayson seems to be the only Democrat who can outplay the Republicans… perhaps because he, unlike most of his colleagues, actually gives a damn about the people he represents. If the Democrats adopted his approach, the Republicans would be exposed as the joke that they are. There are so many countless tactics that the Democrats don’t avail themselves of (that is, if they gave a damn about the things they pretend to) that it’s bizarre you give them so much credit.
This thing ain’t over, no matter how badly you’d like it to be. This is the beginning of something far worse than having this bill go down in flames… they’ve actually succeeded on pushing bad government down the American people’s throats. The only thing I can hope for is that enough sane, compassionate people get serious enough now to organize well for the inevitable backlash so that it doesn’t simply fuel the reactionary forces that just got the biggest gift since Wall Street bailouts. But I’m afraid this will be one big placebo pill, with a misguided “glad this thing is over, those tea party arguments are tiresome” sentiment. I hope to hell that I’m wrong…
Now that we’ve ignored the broken system, let’s move on to address the war, the environment, and civil rights issues through its distorted lenses! Seriously?
Either we fight or we don’t. Kucinich gave in big time. That’s what Progressive Democrats do. The discourse is polluted, and the Democrats run away from anything that would make their case. Here’s just one fact from Chris Hedges’ great condemnation of this bill as the Health Care Hindenberg, which sums up the fraud pretty neatly:
If only we’d heard such a juicy tidbit from, say, President Obama, perhaps we’d be having a different conversation right now…
#
then this is still an entrenchment of the corporate government complex. Congratulations!
If the yard stick is human decency well then this is a further entrenchment of the corporate government complex. Bah!
Part of me was in some way elated, though that’s the same part that also can get itself to tear up during a Disney movie.
“But be realistic. Face the reality of the political landscape. If a Green had been elected President in ’08, s/he would have made some noise about single-payer–then did pretty much what Obama did. Including making those nasty back-room deals with pharma and insurance. Reality sucks, but fantasy’s deadly. And that’s the difference between politics and moral crusades. Between progress and stalemate. Between the perfect and the good.”
NOOO! Beltway logic! Yes, the reality of the Democratic Party and the associated interest groups has given us this. You know how the Germans got universal healthcare? They had a growing movement of people threatening to take over the factories and destroy an entire class of military bureaucrats, landowners, and factory magnates. Bismarck created the first universal healthcare system. Tada!
Political “reality” is a fickle thing. People are not passive spectators, they can be political and social actors. If you assume the former, and act as if it were true, then you will be stuck compromising ad infinitum. If on the other hand, you strive for the latter and innovate in the ways you engage and excite people to political consciousness then that fickle “reality” might begin to shift.
#
Patrick: of course I’ll be compromising forever. I live in a pluralistic democracy. Without compromise, you get nothing except the sense that you’re principled. You cite Germans taking over factories, but in America, unions are losing members. Yes, some folks in Chicago took over their workplace. No, I see no indication that a revolution’s brewin’. And I don’t see many Greens working in factories.
I’m ALL for shifting reality. But until I achieve something in that regard, I’m responsible for the well-being of three kids and three old people (the latter of whom recently got themselves a much better deal–thanks to Democrat Ed Rendell, another wheeler dealer). Spend as much time as we do poring over the stacks of medical bills and literature and you’ll see why I think this is a small change for the better. I’m pretty wholly committed to long-term change precisely because of those kids, but, while it’s easy to damn my “beltway logic,” I’m in no position to eschew better/any coverage for them while waiting for the revolution. Life just gt more humane and more decent for some people. Question for you, though, before I continue: do you have coverage? Is is through your employer, and if so, what percentage of your premiums does it cover?
Eli: Those six benefits cited by the CSM sound good to me. They’re an improvement. Yes, the system sucks, and no, I’m not a fan of for-profit healthcare. I also have a sucky car. No one’s gonna get me another. But I can get some more mileage out of it, I’ll accept the help. Question for you: how many people in your congressional district suffer from pre-existing conditions that could have an adverse impact on obtaining insurance? I know of one in mine, and this bill will change her future. That can be said about many of those you just counted to boot. Yeah, I know how weak this sounds in the eyes of the ears of the uncompromising warriors in the party, but I’m actually truly fucking grateful that the government is enacting that regulation (and yes, I know that it came with a price tag–like everything in life). As I’ve said, I don’t have the benefit of the “long-term.” Hmm–actually, I do–I don’t spend a lot of time with doctors. But I live with some who sees one doctor or another pretty much every week. The plan that both you and I want to see enacted would do even more to improve her life. But that plan wasn’t gonna fly. Don’t think that given our circumstances I’d be, uh, mildly insane to oppose this one???? “Sorry, babe, you gotta stay where you are–let’s put that farm fantasy on hold. Because maybe by the time we’re dead something better will emerge.” Supporting single payer does not preclude supporting this bill!
I’m confused about inciting ire on the part of reactionaries. I thought Democrats were traditionally pilloried for fearing to do just that. And if you think this inflamed people, just imagine the words “single payer” emanating from Obama’s mouth in this climate.
And no, I really don’t feel like I’m buying into any lies–I DON’T think the Democrats were trying for real reform. If I believed that, I’d be a Democrat. But I do think of a hell of a lot of smart, hardworking staffers cobbled together something that actually helps people in the here and now, and I definitely do NOT share your perception that all elected Democrats, with one or two exceptions, don’t give a fuck about their constituents. I’ve met too many of them to believe that. There are weasels, to be sure, but disagreeing about whether this is an effective and achievable plan does not make them moral monsters any more than it makes them godless communists. They use the same damn rhetoric, calling Greens callous and indifferent, smug and self-righteous and uncaring because they forgo the compromises that make life better for people. A slur I find just as invalid. I was forever disappointed by the Democrats-until I learned to expect nothing and jumped ship. I don’t loathe Obama because he didn’t break my heart–I expected very little and, trust me, he’s by and large lived down to my expectations. But when the Democrats do something–however ineptly, messily, and imperfect–that improves the lives of my family, then I’m going to express a modicum of happy surprise.
I don’t vote for Democrats, and I by and large don’t fight for their policies–I’ve written plenty about why Obama should be signing HR676, and not this, into law. But I still don’t see anyone explaining to me how, when even the measly and well-night meaninglesss public option couldn’t win the approval of Democrats, single-payer stood a chance in hell. If it did–this year–than I’d be steamed at teh Dems who passed what they (and no, I don’t call it ‘Ramming it down the public’s throat–don’t you think that identical term would have been applied to single payer-? trust me, it will be). So at the end of day, yeah, I’m glad this went through. Because I had zero illusions about single payer getting off the ground.
And to suggest,as some do, that this closes the door on further progress in that area strikes me as sour grapes (Because I strongly suspect that you aren’t about to give up). IF I did believe that–and I’ve pondered it with an open mind–I would join you in firmly opposing this. Fact is, if Obama hadn’t brought this whole thing up, a damn sight fewer people would ever have even heard of single payer. It’s actually become a viable issue as opposed to a concept whispered about at leftie conferences. No, it didn’t even make it to the table–but that’s OUR fault. We got a whole lotta educatin’ to do before people demand this of their leaders. I’m willing to play a part in that.
But I do feel as though I bought into some rhetoric that I’ve become less comfortable with, and my mind has changed somewhat: no, I don’t agree that this entrenches insurance companies forever–I don’t think, even with the mandate, that it makes any real difference in that regard. And I’m eschewing rhetoric that’s quick to damn any accommodation with people with other ideologies, with corporate capitalists (and “corporate” isn’t a bad thing, and “corporations” are not, essentially, bad things–simply slapping on the word “corporate” as an adjective doesn’t, to my mind, modify the noun in any meaningful way whatsoever), with people whom, willy nilly, ARE major players and stakeholders. Yes, I’ll sleep with anyone if it improves my family’s well-being. I’ve never been very good at purity, and I know what I smell like. But I’m not ashamed. And I don’t want my leaders to be pure-hearted virgins, either. Sometimes it’s the whores who deliver.
Do I like that? Hell no. But that’s the difference, as I’ve said before, between politics and moral crusades. I assume you’re a fan of the Civil Rights Act of 1964–look at all the dirty pool played by LBJ getting that passed. I’m not interested in moral crusades–I’m interested in getting the best deal I can for those who need it.
As for not good in the long run–there are a hell of a lotta people in the here-and-now who don’t have the luxury of waiting for the long-run. You want them to wait until we have our Green plurality in Congress, or do you wan to extend them the option to buy into a healthcare-reimbursement system that sucks–but that, hey, maybe THEY’D like a crack at anyway? Seriously, how long you think it’s going to be until we have the votes in the Senate?
I do not see what’s gained by savaging a bill that extends protections in the here and now. You see corruption, fascism, and pollution. I see some people I know who didn’t have coverage having it. And no, I’m NOT about to sacrifice their well-being on the altar of idealism.
If single payer stood a chance–a CHANCE–I’d happily join you in damning Kucinich. I’m not sure what he would have gained by opposing a bill that WILL provide a degree of relief to many of his constituents. But Obama doesn’t have a magic wand and he doesn’t have the muscle. Whether we like it or not, rather more conservative states also elect Democrats.
And yes, too, deals were cut. But that’s learning from the past. The Clintons tried to go it alone, and Harry and Louise sank them. So tell me: by some miracle, a Green is elected to …an executive office. How does s/he work within the current system to get anything done (god willing, that’s a question we may have to answer!!!)? I’m guessing you don’t want to wait for systemic change before trying to occupy that same office–so, what DOES a Green do? Refuse to deal?
Single payer will have its day. Despite all the overheated doomsday rhetoric from both extremes, this bill doesn’t slam the door shut on systemic evolution. And no, I don’t see, under the current system of campaign finance, winner-take-all electioneering, and disproportional representation, anything along those lines happening any time–i DO think you have to exchange the political SYSTEM before you’re going to enact any truly meaningful reform in a good many areas. And I don’t think most Democrats see or agree with that-which, is again, why I’m not among them.
But in the mean time, in the here and now, how increased government regulation of a business sector you apparently loathe is such a catastrophic evil I still don’t quite get. And I’m not seeing any specifics as to how this bill is bad in the long-term for the people I know who will be better off in the short-term.
As for me, personally, I plan to keep working on those systemic changes that will, god willing, someday allow us to make the legislative changes that might actually add up to real reform. I don’t expect to accomplish that overnight, or this year, or next year, or the year after. But I know people who could REALLY FUCKING USE some of the benefits extended by this bill–it’s actually going to change my life, and, esp., my daughter and my wife’s lives over the next two years–meaning that, believe it or not, it might actually help me to be able to move, and to get into the small, localized farming I want to engage in. (Speaking of which, that credit for small businesses ain’t small potatoes, and IS an essential part of any real relocalization project!).
I’m tired of biting off my nose to spite my face, telling the hungry they can’t have the crust because they deserve the loaf. The old folks I know and whom we are responsible for can’t wait. (I know what they freaking deserve. I’m putting in my share of dreary grunt work on behalf of that too).
Are you going to be the one to tell someone who’s been turned down because of a pre-existing condition that it’s all for the best, because this bill is nothing but a polluted sell-out to fascist corporatocracy? Or that, hey, it socializes the risks and privatizes the rewards, so best that they, uhh, wait till the world is ready to embrace our plan? I wonder what their reaction would be.
I’m asking them to support the continued and, I hope, growing movement for single payer. But I’m not asking THEM to wait. I wouldn’t have the balls.
#
Myths About the Bill.
Hamsher and FDL have been excellent and virulent critics of the bill. She’s given me plenty to think about the past few months–and she’s been fierce. (And while I’m glad the thing passed, I’ve been more than busy elsewhere explaining to any number of ecstatic people that this bill is NOT the “reform” they think it is!).
And I concur with most of this (though there’s something a bit disingenuous about putting the genuine benefits in small print).
The key point is, to my mind, that no real cost controls were implemented. That was, no doubt, part of the deal. Without it, the insurance companies would have made sure that there was NO Senate version. Sucks, but that’s the reality. But that’s going to be real tricky, and I’m not sure Congress can actually implement that (there are any number of constitutional issues at play moving ahead).
My take is–I’m down with all this. I didn’t actually hear many of these myths, and I was pretty clear on most of them (although no one knows what the real numbers will be, and I notice she leaves the CBO estimates off here…). But it still doesn’t sound disastrous to me–just sounds as though it falls way short of our ideals. I’ll grant you that. So we STILL have to change the climate. But criticizing the Democrats for being Democrats isn’t going to be all that productive. We need to arouse the populace first.
Meanwhile…
There are productive things Greens can do right here in the state of Massachusetts. They’re not as sexy as universal healthcare, but they’ll provide real benefits to real people. For example: push the legislation mandating that insurance companies operating in the state cover hearing aids (they’re not covered, they’re expensive, and a whole lotta people who need them go without). That’s a non-ideological position, one we can actually WIN on, one that has zero downside for taxpayers. It’s just one of innumerable examples of exactly the kind of thing I’d love for the Greens to get involved in. Local, achievable, practical, concrete.
I’m not suggesting that we as individuals abdicate our responsibilities within the national framework. You’re probably more wonky about national healthcare than I am; my own focus is on the wars. But when it comes to issues like healthcare, I’d like to see the State party continuing our trend of addressing those specific issues upon which we can actually have a direct impact, upon which we can deliver–and win some hearts and minds while we’re at it, and not those of partisans and ideologues–just those who need some help (GRP activity on behalf of MAAPL and City Life Vida Urbana is another excellent example, though we need to step our involvement and support up big-time).
Fix the potholes, get the team uniforms, pay for hearing aids: all politics IS local.
#
I should say that I do not think anything better could have happened given who was in the driving seat, thus my statement:
“Yes, the reality of the Democratic Party and the associated interest groups has given us this.”
Current political reality more or less demands using large corporations, government agencies, and market mechanisms to accomplish anything. If a Green were elected to an executive office, then yes, if they did nothing else, societal constraints would demand they cave to using these policy instruments and conform to that status quo.
The German example I used was not meant to be a direct comparison, but an illustration of the point that politics reflects what is going on in society. Even Bismarck’s social legislation was a compromise and reform, it kept the current system intact, and tried to strengthen it at the expense of the labor movement and the Social Democratic Party.
Here’s the key difference: the Social Democrats and the labor movement said, “Fuck the Empire” and kept agitating and organizing to elicit further social changes in line with their broader vision.
For the hell of it I’ll extend this history a bit. Eventually the Social Democrats did cave. By supporting the Great War they lost the legitimacy and popular support to enact their long term programme. So by war’s end rather than wiping out or weakening the institutions of the German Empire (Junker aristocracy, the military, wealthy industrialists, etc) they asked for their support to put down the widespread agitation coming from below. Those same institutions that were left intact facilitated the collapse of the Weimar Republic and Hitler’s rise to power.
Back to the healthcare issue: Does this law help some people? Sure. Would carbon trading reduce carbon emissions? Maybe. Could you create jobs through tax credits to large corporations? Perhaps.
Does that mean you should applaud any of the above or call them steps in the right direction on those issues? As a Green? I say no. The means used strengthen the existing system of power rather than begin its dismantlement. Democrats can tinker away at the current set of institutions with no particular ends in mind. I think Greens need to stay out of that framework.
Compromise in and of itself really isn’t the issue here. This is an issue of power and vision. The Social Democrats had power from labor unions and the committed community fostered through their political organizing. They could and did offer alternative visions to the existing system of affairs because the sources of power they held were set against or contrary to that existing system. And with this vision and power they could win on those reforms and practical issues where people needed immediate help and support.
Right now the Green-Rainbow Party has little to no power and is not embedded in any particular forms of life to which large segments of the population subscribe. We could adopt a bunch of rather complacent constituencies and institutions to gain power and then go on tinkering. Or what we could do is create the ground for people to organize themselves in ways not beholden to large corporations and government bureaucracies and enable active deliberation over the kind of society worth living in.
In different ways the labor, peace, feminist, racial justice, LGBTQI, student, anti-prison, housing and foreclosure, anti-poverty, religious left, conservation, climate, alternative energy, organic and local farming, and so many others are movements or groups which are in their essence prefiguring a different kind and set of social relations and institutions from the ones we currently inhabit. As caricatures they do not appeal to a majority, but when explained and promoted as a whole (thus, Green-Rainbow) I think that most people can see themselves in these movements and understand their vital importance. Inspiring involvement and identification with social movements is what builds the power and facilitates the vision which will shift “reality” and lead to empowering and prefigurative “compromises”.
#
In my view, pragmatic answers to real-life crisis actually make a dent regarding said crisis. Your context for this political victory, or affirmation-in-government-taking-steps-to-help-real-people is that times are rough and this bill lightened the load just a little bit. My context for this bill is that there are converging crises and we are in the eerie calm before the storm. Your mockery of my alarmism is fair. But my alarmism is grounded in physical, social, economic and political realities that must be confronted on an unprecedented time scale. Let’s wrap those 4 realities into one term: ecological reality.
The physical realities include things like growing epidemics of chronic disease, depletion of fresh water resources, and a fossil fuel supply roughly at the midway point of extraction. The social realities include things like the stockpiling of ammunition, failing educational systems, and the triumph of individualism turning into a rank failure of an experiment. The economic realities include things like the growing piles of national, state, municipal, and household debt, the UK and the US being warned they might lose their AAA credit ratings, and one man (Bill Gates) being richer than the bottom 40% of Americans combined. The political realities include things like entrenched lobbyists, a pro-big-business media echo chamber, an increasingly disillusioned public, and a strengthening right-wing fury.
If you want to isolate one problem and discuss progress on a solution for it, be my guest. But as long as that’s your framework, we will take 10 or 100 steps backwards for each step forwards. Pragmatically speaking, whether the Democrat-Republican spectrum of ideas wants to acknowledge it or not, we are racing to the edge of the cliff. The health crisis is one small piece of a self-reinforcing, multi-dimensional crisis. The economic crisis, the environmental crisis, the energy crisis, the housing crisis, the prison crisis, the war crisis… all of these work to reinforce each other. And the more time we spend ignoring them (which this health reform does), the more ugly we make the gathering storm. The bailouts and stimulus ignored the converging crises. Wall Street reform will ignore them. Congressional climate and energy legislation will too.
My point is that we cannot afford to continue digging the hole we are in, but this healthcare reform continues to dig it. You want specifics? Physicians for a National Health Program lays these out:
But really what I’m getting at is a more holistic, ecological, and less single-issue approach. The health system we are further advancing is unsustainable for a number of reasons, largely 1) the profit motive, 2) the reliance on overstretched and over-indebted individuals, businesses, and governments to pay for these spiraling costs, and 3) the explosion of chronic disease and sick-care that our food, energy, and transportation policies have created.
I think we have a whole lot of organizing to do before we can do the educating that you’d like to do. The moneyed interests have their think tanks and their advocacy arms, and they’re playing the Two-Party system like dueling banjos plucking to an inevitable outcome that furthers their interests. I agree we need to address real-life, real-world concerns in the here-and-now, but not by trumpeting false solutions at the expense of real ones. If we can’t think out-of-the-box and summon the great-yet-dormant problem-solving talents and ingenuity of the American people, then I don’t think we have what it takes to enact the life-saving reforms we desperately need.
Facing the ecological realities that are already killing several hundred thousand people a year is not an ideological, intellectual, or purist endeavor. It is pragmatic in every sense of the word. I think what upsets me most about your rhetoric is its approval of a slow-and-steady approach which we no longer have time for. As the market collapse should demonstrate, we are operating in uncharted waters, and revolutionary events can happen quite rapidly. The less we’re prepared for them, the less relevant we become. Most Americans are tragically dependent on a fragile ponzi economy, and the sooner we get down to earth, the sooner we can get to work building our future. Cheering on reforms that are simply adding to the house of cards might sound practical, but I really think it ignores the life-and-death realities of the unraveling scaffolding all around us.
I’m not telling anyone not to eat the crust because they deserve the loaf. I’m screaming “look out for the bus!” In other words, this isn’t a moral crusade, but a practical one. We need to find a way to inject an ecological critique, and an ecological alternative vision, into the national consciousness. And we don’t have a lot of time to do it. I agree with you that we can best do it locally. And there’s probably some middle ground which can embrace the gains and their impact on people’s lives (to the extent that insurance practices actually do change), yet use this type of legislation as a tool for spreading Green ideas and growing our numbers. State-level single-payer advocacy would be one approach, and an arena in which we can actually have more of an impact. But we need to blow open the corporate-Democrat-Republican control over the spectrum of political discourse.
[no, “corporate” isn’t necessarily evil, but “corporate” as a pejorative modifier means something different, and is singling out large corporations that poison the political system and distort our democracy so it bends around their thirst for profits]