Get FREE BuzzFlash News Alerts

Email:  

Dave Lindorff: Say 'Goodbye' to the Nice Health Care Reform, Kids!

Of course I could be wrong. Congress could turn around and pass some cockamamie scheme to kick the issue of health care reform down the road, offering some kind of minimal insurance coverage to a few million more people, and cracking down on this or that particularly egregious health provider ripoff, and then staging a "mission accomplished" photo op.

But real health care reform of the kind that Democratic candidates were promising during last year's presidential campaign is dead, killed by the timidity of the promiser-in-chief, President Barack Obama (and by the massive corruption of the Democrats in Congress, who have accepted the tainted coin of the health care industry).

Obama could have come to the American people as a newly elected leader and addressed us as adults, saying: "Look, we know what needs to be done. Plenty of countries in Canada, Europe, and elsewhere have figured it out already. They set up the government as the single payer to health providers -- doctors and hospitals, etc. -- and the government bargains and sets the prices those private providers of health care can charge. Of course, that means you'll all pay higher taxes to finance such a plan, but the record of all those countries shows that you'll be saving money overall, because you won't be paying for health insurance, your employer won't be paying for health insurance, you won't be paying co-pays and deductibles, and you won't be getting gouged for drugs or hospital stays or doctors' bills. You won't be paying state taxes for Medicaid either, nor will your insurance and local property taxes have to subsidize the hospital care of indigents. On balance, you'll all be saving money, and you'll never have to worry about disease or injury bankrupting you. Nor will employers be able to hold you hostage any longer. The reality is that the countries that have a single-payer plan are spending half of what we spend per capita for health care, they have no uninsured citizens, and their health overall, as measured by such things as longevity, infant mortality, etc., is better than ours."

The president could have said all this and rallied the tens of millions of Americans who desperately want a health care system modeled on the single-payer idea to his side, forcing Congress to go along or pay the price in 2010.

Instead, this president who, in years past as a senator, as a state representative, and as an activist had praised the idea of single-payer, has taken to saying it's important to keep the private health insurance industry in business. Instead of inviting Canadian administrators of that country's successful system down to talk about how it works up there, he barred even American advocates of single payer from speaking at his talk-fests on health care reform at the White House. Instead of taking an axe to the U.S. Medical Industrial Complex, he has pretended he could reform the current profit-crazed system we have in the U.S. without raising taxes. Instead of pointing out that we already have a well-functioning single-payer system for our elderly and disabled in the form of Medicare, he has spent his time badmouthing the single-payer idea, even claiming that it's not part of our "American" tradition.

But let's note that Obama's sellout on health care reform was aided and abetted by the progressives, the left groups, and political organizations and the unions that failed to hold him to his earlier espousal of single-payer, that instead of calling him out on his cave-in, bought into his initial compromise of a so-called "public option" insurance alternative, and even into his subsequent backdown to an even more watered-down version of possibly state-run or "cooperative" plans.

Now his political cowardice and mendacity have caught up with him. His "plan," if it can even be called that, of mandating employer health coverage and then adding a government-run alternative "public option" to existing private insurance, has understandably failed to excite the public, while still arousing the passionate opposition of conservative Republicans and conservative members of his own party, and meanwhile does nothing to limit soaring health costs that already eat up a fifth of the entire gross domestic product of the nation, requires an increase in taxes and reductions in Medicare, will probably, if established, lead to more companies actually dropping their current benefit programs in favor of a cheaper, stripped-down government plan, and yet will still leave millions of people unable to get access to timely, quality, affordable medical care.

Furthermore, his apparent failure to deliver on this key initiative will deal a body blow to his political clout on other initiatives, such as tackling climate change and dealing with an acute economic crisis.

If I'm right that health reform is dead, so is Barack Obama's presidency. President Bill Clinton's new administration foundered early on following his shameless backdown on a pledge to guarantee the right of gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. It never recovered. President Obama's new administration is foundering on his equally shameless backdown on a promise to establish a system of quality affordable health care for all.

 

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist. He is author of "Marketplace Medicine: The Rise of the For-Profit Hospital Chains" (Bantam Books, 1992), and of "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net.




Oh the irony

When Obama got elected, the right wingers freaked out ("oh my gawd, Martha, they've elected a black man--let's go buy some ammo"), thinking that Obama would institute some apocalyptic radical changes (of course, they think that of all Dems), and instead Obama's just going to play the boring ineffective Democratic president (a la Clinton) who uses the word "change" occasionally but doesn't really want to rock the boat. Sigh. And Obama is such a good orator...he could have totally gotten the American people behind single-payer if he'd tried just a little.

Say hello to the Plutocracy Party, part GOP, part DEM!

"Now his political cowardice and mendacity have caught up with him."

Really?

What caught up with him was the upper 1% plutocracy and their pockets deep enough to buy anyone's soul!

To me,

the most disgusting failing of the DLC/ Democratic Party is its willing de facto minority party status regardless of which party controls Congress or the White House. They're just second class Republicans vying for second class bribes from corporations that always prefer to spend their money on their Republican mistress rather than their Democratic whore.

A good start...

Great article, but it's incomplete.

You've correctly identified that the corrupt Democrats are not an alternative to the corrupt Republicans. They're both on the same corporate payroll. We see this selling out of citizens' interests to corporate interests repeated again and again in various domains; health care is simply one example.

You didn't take the next step, and follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion: We must replace the Democratic Party (which couldn't function without the steady flow of corporate cash) with a party that represents citizens' interests.

Two possible candidates are the Green Party and the Socialists. Neither accepts any corporate money. The Green Party has been demanding single-payer health care from the beginning.

The people that reject third-party votes on the basis that they won't win the next election are usually ignorant of the fact that 5% of the vote will get the Green Party Federal funding, and a guaranteed place on the ballot. I've never seen this fact mentioned in decades of browsing the corporate media. They're afraid of people finding this out, and realizing resistance to the corporate power structure ISN'T futile.

Just a few percentage points of the vote to the Green Party will be a wake-up call to the Democrats, telling them that their business-first agenda will cost them. It's speaking the only language they understand: Taking their votes.

i agree but...

1. The Greens, in particular, have a problem that I think limits their potential to become a mass party, and that is an obsession with ideological purity and a failure, probably related to this, to link to the labor movement, such as it is. You cannot hope to have a mass party if your membership has to agree to a whole slew of smaller single-issue positions. Just take abortion rights as an example. If a third of the working class is Catholic, and feels abortion is murder, and you make abortion on demand, no restrictions, a sine qua non of candidacy in your party, you are not going to get support from a third of the working class. I could go on. The only way to create a new mass party is to start from broad perspective--supporting the rights of unions, calling for steep progressivity in taxation, calling for a drastic cut in the military budget, etc. When that kind of a party is formed, and gets the support of even a significant portion of the union movement, it will blossom and become a contender. DAve Lindorff www.thiscantbehappening.net

"That kind of party" is already here!

The Green Party doesn't exclude the labor movement; where did you get that idea? One of their key values is social justice, and the Green Party explicitly states they:

"Mandate and protect labor's right to organize, create unions, and negotiate with management..." http://gp.org/platform/2004/2004platform.pdf

The rabid anti-abortionists are going to vote Republican anyway. The rest will have to choose between abortion and a government that represents citizens' interests. My point is that currently there is no choice -- Citizens' interests are NOT being represented.

The Green Party has been demanding the military budget be slashed for a long time. So "that kind of party" is already here.

It would only take a few percentage points for the Greens to strike fear into the hearts of the corporate Democrats. They currently feel people will vote for them no matter what they do, because they're not Republicans.

As a result, we have Democrats that protect anti-worker trade agreements like NAFTA, allow illegal wiretapping of US citizens without any kind of restrictions, allow indefinite detention of suspects without charges, give away hundreds of billions of dollars to corrupt banks with no oversight, allow lawyers to pervert American laws to permit torture, and sell out OUR health care to fund THEIR campaigns.

By voting Democratic (for whatever reason) YOU ARE SUPPORTING ALL OF THE ABOVE.

New Party---YES!!!

I agree with Lindorff at 2:32 and with AlanB at 4:20------but with reservations: Having any clout and any momentum from the existing Greens at what 4% of the voting population is a frogs dream. We do need a new party but how and where do we start? Easy! Its called a "takeover"! The corporate raiders of the past have shown that getting 4% of the company stock was all they needed. There is, right now, more than 4% of the Demo party in damn near revolt, that's what got Obama the nomination and the win. The Greens should take their voting block and move into the Demp party and unite with the unhappy Demos and revamp this party. I think a concentrated core would and could remake the party, toss out the Republican tainted demos and inspire a large number of indemendents to come together and rescue this country before it is too late.

Call it the Demo-Greens

Rather than offer a vague 'Hope' and a more vague 'change'==We all know what has to be done, spell it out in clear language and the people will flock to the New Party, and when they do 'what has to be done will be done!.