Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Health Care Industry's PR Scam: Will Obama Fall for It?
In a much-anticipated statement [yesterday], Barack Obama announced what is largely a public relations end-run by the health care industry, designed to trim a few scraps off of the nation's porcine health care budget, while preserving its basic system of medicine for profit.
In a letter to Obama that was released over the weekend, executives from the Advanced Medical Technology Association (the medical device manufacturers lobbying group), the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, America's Health Insurance Plans, and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, as well as the Service Employees International Union, pledged to "do our part" to reduce health care costs. Their vague, pie-in-the sky promise amounts to just a 1.5 percent reduction in the growth rate of health care spending. Such is the explosion in health care costs that even this miniscule reduction represents a potential $2 trillion saving over 10 years. But there's no guarantee this figure will be achieved. As the Washington Post points out:
The groups did not spell out yesterday how they plan to reach such a target, and...they offer only a broad pledge, not an outright commitment....In addition, White House officials said, there is no mechanism to ensure that the groups live up to their offer, only the implicit threat of public embarrassment.
"Public embarrassment"? From Big Pharma and the health insurance companies--two of the most shameless industries in the history of corporate capitalism? In any case, even if the $2 trillion reduction is achieved, it clearly won't come out of industry profits. The Post reports:
Signers of the letter said that large amounts could be saved by aggressive efforts to prevent obesity, coordinate care, manage chronic illnesses and curtail unnecessary tests and procedures; by standardizing insurance claim forms; and by increasing the use of information technology, like electronic medical records.
So let's get this straight: Saving all this money depends on getting Americans to eat less? Good luck with that one. And the other brilliant cost-saving measures involve getting doctors to create computer records of all the overpriced drugs they prescribe, and giving patients easier forms to fill out before they get turned down six times by their private insurance companies?
Do you see a pattern here? None of these changes would make a dent in the industry's bottom line--and what's more, they could even enhance profits, by encouraging government-funded programs to help private companies streamline their bloated bureaucracy (much of which would instantly become superfluous under a public, single-payer system). The letter to Obama suggested this when it said: "We are committed to taking action in private-public partnership to create a more stable and sustainable health care system." We all know by now that "private-public partnership" usually means public investment for private profit.
It all adds up to a brilliant move, when you think about it. It makes the private health care companies look cooperative and proactive, rather than like the greedy obstructionists they really are. It gets these companies on the inside track with the administration, and creates common cause with the unions. In particular, it establishes a solid place at the table for the health insurance industry, the blood-sucking middlemen who ought to be kicked out of the health care system altogether.
And what might the industry get in return for this generous "cooperation"? The Kaiser Daily Health Policy report today rounded up the possibilities:
The [Wall Street] Journal reports that although the groups did not ask for anything in return for the pledge, many of the factions are looking to prevent regulations that could "pose new burdens" or affect their profitability. For example, the health insurance industry is seeking to offset any reductions to their payments by obtaining new rules that would require all U.S. residents to have health coverage, according to the Journal. The Journal reports that health insurers have made several concessions intended to prevent a public option - which they fear could affect their profitability - as part of reform legislation (Wall Street Journal, 5/11). According to the AP/Philadelphia Inquirer, drugmakers are hoping to avoid a requirement that new drugs pass a cost-benefit test before receiving regulatory approval. In addition, hospitals and physicians are looking to avoid a system in which the government would dictate their payments for all patients, not just those under Medicare or Medicaid (Alonso-Zaldivar, AP/Philadelphia Inquirer, 5/11).
In other words, the underlying purpose of this PR stunt is to slow or block any meaningful health care reforms, which could actually improve care while reducing the price tag by a lot more than 1.5 percent. These include regulating the cost of pharmaceuticals and medical devices, curtailing or eliminating the role of the insurance companies, or introducing single-payer, which allows other developed countries to deliver superior health care for 20 to 40 percent less--all of which make $2 trillion in weight-loss programs and paperwork reduction measures look pretty pitiful by comparison.
All we can hope for is the possibility, remote as it may be, that Obama himself is also playing a PR game--making nice with the industry shills while planning some kind of genuine reform that will hit them in the only place that counts, and the only place where truly meaningful savings reside: their profit margins.
56 Comments so far
Show AllIt's the old bait and switch tactic. 'Threaten' the medical industry with single payer, and discard it once they act contrite and promise to reduce medical costs. If they do reduce costs, it will likely result in more substandard care. Doctors need to be making medical decisions, not insurance companies. If Obama agrees to this nonsense, things will only get worse, not better; the insurance companies will cut costs by denying care. One can envision a bunch of vultures (insurance providers) circling a dying carcass (the US health care system in a crumbling economy), waiting to grab whatever pieces remain. They will not be satisfied until they've stripped all the flesh from the bone--our bones.
Way back to sabocat: yeah, Mother Jones has hit some ridiculous lows this year, though it occasionally beats the pants off the mainstream field.
1. Like Utne Reader and the Nation, it always has ads for "American Spirit" cigarettes, a nice, liberal way to die from nicotine addiction.
2. Craven puff-pieces abound on Reagan-era monsters like James Woolsey and Ronald Reagan.
3. "Humanitarian" interventionism gets the thumbs-up. Obama was slathered in liberal deification.
The only power we have in this country is to disassociate, so it's a hard one: $10 or not for a subscription? I ahve produly divested myself from the Progressive (9th rate), DEtails, Esquire, and now the Nation.
Lastly, I am forming the Crisis Management Party (CMP) as a rejoinder to Democrats, Republicans, Greens, and Libertarians. They all are pathetic.
armybrat---
While several others have contributed important observations at this post, I find your conversation on the nature of "conservatism" most interesting. While I consider myself a "radical," I find your posts most refreshing. Would you see any value in something called "radical conservatism"? Here, I do not propose the "extremism...is no vice" of Barry Goldwater, but rather a conservatism that would recognize that ALL the corporate bailouts, starting with Paulson last autumn, probably going back much farther come to think of it, constitute an economic disaster...that Jefferson et al were right about avoiding "foreign entanglements."
-30-
Fortunately for my profession, the AMA membership is a minority of physicians and declining. I cancelled my membership about 35 yrs. ago when I realized "organized medicine's" main purpose was to preserve the members' income. They are among like-minded constituencies again now. Sad and still embarrassing.
And Gabrielina, Google "Luntz memo" to read the script the swift boaters have prepared for all true anti-reformers to regurgitate at every opportunity.
Actually, I see a little further than you do as this statement says it all in my view:
"Signers of the letter said that large amounts could be saved by aggressive efforts to prevent obesity, coordinate care, manage chronic illnesses and curtail unnecessary tests and procedures; by standardizing insurance claim forms; and by increasing the use of information technology, like electronic medical records."
This means that they will deny more, pay less, charge more, give less. They won't even be paying for testing anymore or routine exams, much less costly treatments or hospitalization. They'll cut costs alright from not from their bottom line from what they are already not giving us. If y'all think it's bad now, just wait, it's gonna get even worse!
My solution to this mess is a real simple one: we, the sheeple, have to take matters into our own hands and drop all insurance coverage, no more payments, period. Any time we get sick, don't feel well, have a hemorrhoid or diarrhea, we all go running to the emergency room till they're filled from coast to coast and we create a real crisis and bring them all - from the hospitals to the insurance companies - to their knees. What do you think they'll do then?
If any of you want a good way to get people as mad at the health insurers as they are at the bankers have them google Dr. William McGuire. He was the CEO of United Healthcare. He was responcible for an average increase of 30% each year for the companies stock. Don't ask me how he did it. I suspect a few claim denials here and there, a little price gouging on premiums, who knows? Unfortunately when he tried to increase the value of his own stock options by backdating them, and those of other company executives, he actually woke up the SEC. In 2006 he was given options that at one time were valued at $1.7 billion dollars. Other executives received over $2.5 billion also backdated. He was forced out of the company and eventually the poor guy had to return $600 million of his hard earned options. Oh, and of course the rest of the stock had tanked a bit too. Now how can a guy handed $1.7 billion dollars get greedy and think it's not enough?
"My solution to this mess is a real simple one: we, the sheeple, have to take matters into our own hands and drop all insurance coverage, no more payments, period."
Here again the oligarchy has stacked the deck. As long as people's pension plans, mutual funds, retirement funds and other obligations are also invested in insurance companies, most of these people will hesitate to participate in this otherwise very promising action.
People might also consider that we got along just fine without all this healthcare nonsense - like running to the doctor every time you bruise your elbow, scrape your knee, or catch a cold. A lot of people use to call me and ask if they needed to go to the doctor (or take their kid to the doctor) since I did veterinary work as well as being a senior-care advocate. That's conservatives for you - never spend a dime unless you damned well have to in order to avoid bigger expenses later... too many sissies and hypochondriacs in this country right now, and every time I flip on the TV (rarely) I am blasted with drug ads - no wonder people think they're sick all the time - they're being indoctrinated with sophisticated advertising to line the pockets of big 'healthcare' corporations.
Quick, name a party that supports Single-Payer unconditionally. Which one supports investigations and prosecutions for crimes with the war and with the Bailout?
Republicans screw us. Democrats take those who don't like that and silence them or keep 'em busy during elections. Between 'em, they silence nearly everyone. Decades have been wasted by "progressives" trying to "take over the Democratic Party from the inside." They will never let that happen. Always making little promises to keep "hope" goin', they are worse than ever now. They participate in the biggest corporate heist in history and keep mum.
Whether you believe in them now or not, time is ripe to support the Green Party, the best "3rd party" chance we have. It really the second party.
Small chance is better than NO chance.
As soon as I read the headline, which I assume is the thesis of the article, I saw no point to read any further. Obama is not falling for the health care scam, he is one of the engineer's of the health care scam.
I strongly suggest that all of you that post on CD, and the other places that you post, out your reps. and senators that have not signed on to Senator, Bernie Sanders, single payer plan, and the house's plan(HR676)
My rep. Steve Kagen refuses to sign on to HR676.
Senators, Kohl and Feingold will not back Senator Bernie Sander's plan.
We must overthrow this Big Corporate Health Care Cabal and start all over with Single Payer (government) Health Care. Congress must do it's job and protect Americans from the corporations.
Let Congress clean up our air and water and food and environment or pay for remedial health care.
The sick and the dead pay few taxes. We must overthrow the idea of 'Personhood' for Corporate Vampires. Should any of this fail, We-The-People have both the right and the duty under the Declaration of Independence to overthrow this tyrany that we find ourselves suffering under and start our Republic anew.
James Ridgeway wrote:
"The Health Care Industry's PR Scam: Will Obama Fall for It?"
_______________________________________________________________________________
Of course he will fall of it. Or to be exact he is participant in this
bull-shitting.
Obama is big Money/Business favoured man. They selected him and financed
his election. So far it was a very good investment and Obama disappointed
no one except the hapless voters who voted for him expecting CHANGE.
I bet, they are getting slowly a very painful rude awakening.
What "Health care Reform"??!! Single payer sytem is even allowed to be discussed. People got arrested trying to draw attention to that.!!
Single Payer is off the table because taxpayers of the USA like to get ripped off?
It’s beyond laughable that the corporate health insurance companies are offering to reduce
their possible profits. Oh, that’s really believable!
Over and over again, the corporate health insurer representatives say,
“Americans don’t want single payer.”
It’s the old marketing technique, “Say it enough times for it to sink in.”
Polls show that even the majority of doctors want it, besides the rest of us who
have been exploited by the heartless health insurance companies.
There have been countless studies proving single payer is the most economical system.
I don’t understand why business’s are not publicly endorsing single payer.
They could save money.
What is there for high-IQ Obama to "fall for" in this utterly transparent charade? The very question of his possibly being fooled by the health care industry is itself a transparently-red herring.
Since even the stupidest segment of the public would find it hard to deceive itself about this little PR gambit our president has just performed for the corporate health industry, the next question is:
Is perhaps Obama clinically delusional enough to believe he's instead fooling that next-largest segment of the US public -- the sub-stupids?
But even here, I would say NO. I don't think anybody's deceived or even deceiving.
I think Obama is simply acting out of that worst kind of cynicism a public official can; a cynicism that believes you can propagate a charade which the whole public knows is a charade, and still count on getting away with it. Not because so many people are stupid, but because so many are politically dis-empowered and too apathetic to re-empower themselves.
Apathy not automatically being the same thing as stupidity....
I can't help but think of Obama as being lost in a dreamworld, awed by the fact that HE is actually LIVING in THE WHITE HOUSE - kinda like Clinton, although he was used to living in the Arkansas trailer-park. The idea of Obama being 'serious' or 'studious' or 'sophisticated' is such a ridiculous idea that it just bowls me over. As for 'intelligent' - maybe, in a very limited sort of way (again, like Clinton) but the guy has NO MORALS. Shouldn't that make a difference when you elect anyone for public office? It's my Number One question whenever I'm faced with choosing people to represent me - are they moral? Do they have integrity? Do they seek excellence? Are they of impeccable character? Imagine somebody like Lincoln trying to get elected today... quite a stretch, isn't it? (I think Lincoln was autocratic criminal, I'm just commenting on his appearance and demeanor.)
Let's face it - Obama 'won' on great eloquence using empty rhetoric and undadulterated sex appeal - like any other Hollywood 'star' - and nothing of substance, and certainly not an iota of character, integrity, or competence (at anything but winning popularity contests). People like that don't have 'moral standards' - they don't have scruples of any variety. They're just empty suits (or empty bikinis, for the opposite gender). He's a great talker - he can say nothing with the fanciest words, and look like he knows what he's doing - in other words, walk and chew gum at the same time. But run a country? GIVE ME A BREAK !! So how is that any different than the 'Aw, shucks' sales-pitch engineered for Bush II? Elections are now just TV game-shows - nothing else. (It didn't hurt to have that self-destructive bitchy character-wife running against him - she had all of his qualities - to a lesser degree, but screeched on too many nerves - like fingernails on a chalkboard.)
Yeah, Ralph Nader is just plain-Jane ordinary. Never mind that he has character, intelligence, integrity, and competence earned by relentless education, self-examination, and investigation. So he doesn't have 'star quality' or 'sex appeal' or P T Barnum's knack for wowwing the audiences - that's his shortcoming. He isn't ready for prime-time - and never will be. But that's the only kind of people that will ever change the way things run in DC - and we have about 500 people to replace before we can expect any kind of progressive measures to even be brought to the table. Start with your own town, city, county, or whatever - and go from there to your state representatives and governor - and then you can think about DC. It's a long hard trail, and it might take decades - but consider the alternative - doing nothing, and getting more of the same. Do you have that kind of discipline? Do it for your kids.
I guarantee that if you get good government at the local level, people will notice - and they'll want what you have. That never fails to attract attention - there's nothing like 'success' to convert the masses (they're already way past 'ready for change' so it won't be hard to get them on board). But you'll have to settle for incremental change, and forestall gratification - something conservatives know all about. And you'll have to use rigorous discipline to stay on track - another conservative trait. You could learn a lot from conservatives - as soon as you stop confusing us with the fascists...
-He isn't ready for prime-time - and never will be. But that's the only kind of people that will ever change the way things run in DC
I agree, but most Americans thought that they could just "click on" the Democrats and the problem would be solved easily. Are they learning? I don't know yet. I'm still marvelling at how the US has gone this far with only two parties represented in congress.
-You could learn a lot from conservatives - as soon as you stop confusing us with the fascists...
armybrat, I'm interested in your definition of conservatism. Conservatives play a valid role in the debate but I'm not sure how Cheney or Rush Limbaugh fit into conservatism.
jlocke123: It isn't 'my definition' that matters as much as what type of conservatism I represent. I guess I'd say more along the lines of Eisenhower, or Buchanan - although you must realize there is a broad continuum with individual differences in the degree to which any of us accept the popular tenets, and conservatism evolves and branches, like any other belief-system. Of course, the very meaning of 'conservatism' varies with the times and regions in which it is applied - often associated with a person who exemplifies a certain perspective, ie, 'Goldwater conservatives' or 'Eishenhower conservatives'. American conservatism is much different from other regions (I have a European bias) although there are a few common factors - law & order, tradition, strict and narrow social definitions, social order, class distinctions, etc. However, my conservative friends and family could probably be defined as rejecting 'liberalism' and the emphasis on the individual, rather than collective society - this seems to be a complete reversal in contemporary America, where individualism is stressed. All of us are cautious about radical changes - such as those embraced by the GOP in recent decades and the DFL in prior decades (before Reagan). We value education, class identification (social heirarchy), property, and traditional moral values such as 'family values' (that have been distorted in recent times to mean just the opposite), discipline, loyalty, thrift, integrity, ethical behavior, honesty, and a rejection of the 'instant gratification' prevalent in the '60s and onward in the US.
We generally reject militarism, consumerism, and various aspects of globalization - such as cross-culture marriages, for instance, as well as 'foreign entanglements' such as NAFTA and other binding treaties. Eisenhower called it 'dynamic conservatism' - but I call it 'progressive conservatism' - although none of us hold to the religious aspect of other conservatives. We're pretty much all atheists, and adhere to a similar world view and style of living that renounces greed, finds ostentatious living repulsive, and condemns the beggar-thy-neighbor business model. It's all about fairness, honesty, and egalitarin opportunities - which flies in the face of religious conservatism, where a fantasy 'god' makes all the rules. I guess our basic idea is 'all things in moderation' and that we have a responsiblity to work for the greater good of society - that's the 'progressive' angle. Like all Eisenhower conservatives, we don't believe in large military budgets, foreign adventures, or drastic social changes, but embrace social spending to give all citizens a decent standard of dignified living - without indebting the country.
That's a tough agenda, and too many Republicans got too greedy, adopting neo-fascism as their model. Also, Eishenhower, coming from a Quaker background, injected his superstitions into politics - imagine how that went over with atheists! Also, he supported 'big business' which inevitably led to corporatism - the bane of our philosophy because it impoverishes the collective society and inevitably leads to moral and fiscal collapse as in Nazi Germany and Franco Spain.
Cheney is a fascist - unapologetic corporatism melded with militarism equals fascism. As for Rush, I'm not all that familiar with him, other than being aware that he is a loud-mouth entertainer with a regular radio program primarily concerned with spewing hateful rhetoric - much like the Nazis. He may well be a fascist, but I don't know anything about his personal beliefs. Most of the others claiming to be conservatives in the GOP today are religious zealots, with no interest whatsoever in providing opportunity for the disadvantaged, let alone being concerned with prosperity and opportunity for all - that I find reprehensible.
You'll find I grate harshly on 'liberal' social engineering, and they probably don't appreciate my class-conscious arrogance and dim view of 'democracy' - but the hard-line Right Wing extremists consider us to be either apostates or heretics. But we have similar goals, so right now I'm more comfortable with this group. Most of the people where I live consider themselves 'conservatives' although I'd label a lot of them as fascists. (Fascists invariably inject religion into politics to justify their war-mongering, as well as demeaning the working classes.)
Maybe I'm getting too old for my age but isn't it possible to take the compromise plan and lobby for making it closer to single payer? I too want single payer to pass but I don't see any chance of it passing right now. Maybe it will pass somewhere within the next 20-30 years that I still have a chance to live but we gotta something somewhat good worked out. I had two shake my head when I watched all the dispute go on yesterday between compromise vs none. I have heard suggestions of trying to pass single payer on the local and state levels first but no way will it pass in Mississippi. There's so much discrimination within the whites itself as to who deserves it and who doesn't and don't get me started on the blacks. None of poor souls out here in this miserable economy MS have a chance of seeing it. We need a federal version just like the Civil Rights Act of 1965. I'm just as disgusted with all that Obama's doing on this issue but we need to keep the pressure on Congress to get them to come anywhere closer to single payer. Can we not silently reform their compromise package closer to single payer?
-Maybe I'm getting too old for my age but isn't it possible to take the compromise plan and lobby for making it closer to single payer?
HI Dennis. The "compromise plan has the insurance companies "pledging" to shave a couple percentage points off the INCREASES to your medical bills. Compare that to single payer, which would, as it does in democracies around the world, cut your expenses in half. see the difference?
-I too want single payer to pass but I don't see any chance of it passing right now
When do you see it passing, under the presidency of Bush III perhaps? You need it now.
-I had two shake my head when I watched all the dispute go on yesterday between compromise vs none
No I have to shake my head at you, reducing the choices down to so called "compromise" vs. "none".
-I have heard suggestions of trying to pass single payer on the local and state levels first but no way will it pass in Mississippi
Maybe that is one of the reasons why a federal program is the better option, hmmmm?
-Can we not silently reform their compromise package closer to single payer?
How do you suggest Americans "silently" reform "their comprimise" package? Do you intend to "silently" lobby for single-payer? Polls show that Americans want the cost savings and improved health outcomes that single payer affords. Now would be a good time to demand it.
Dag nabbit ! I said I supported single payer. However, given the recent events, what in the hell are the chances that HR 676 will pass? NONE NADA ZILCH ! And of course I'm upset and mad as hell. However, even a modest improvement to pass I want to see our children and grandchildren be able to at least thank us for trying. I understand the loopholes and the weakness of the current compromise plan which is why I think we need to counterlobby to strengthen it for us and not them.
Can he fall for it if he leads it?
Go single payer.
"The Health Care Industry's PR Scam: Will Obama Fall for It?"
Why not? He apparently believed 8 of the country's top bank execs when they promised the Senate that they would be good boys from now on...
And that's workin out all kinds of good, eh?
BO would've probably believed the tobacco execs when they all swore they didn't believe cigarettes were addictive or that they caused cancer...
I had to finally agree with my young friend, an Iraqi war veteran, who keeps telling me that "Obama is not 'the man', he's working for 'the man'"...but, but, but...aurgh...still am hopeful (though probably duped)...hope feels better...so does faith and love...
-PR Scam: Will Obama Fall for It?
I agree that the premise is faulty, Obama IS the scammer himself, obviously.
But to interject a note of optimism, perhaps Obama is right, perhaps Americans can boost the profits of the insurance companies by introducing more saw-dust into the their diet.
"Americans can boost the profits of the insurance companies by introducing more saw-dust into the their diet."
It's things like this that keep me being what some would call a healthcare vigilante. That is taking healthcare matters beyond the prescriptions and slipping in the natural and sometimes even forbidden but truly healthful substitutes.
Obama fell for it a long time ago. He's been on board with Big Pharma and Insurance from the git go. As Pelosi and Baucus have declared, single-payer is off the table, and no one on the Obama team is working to get it on the table. The culprits who have debased and corrupted this healthcare industry are the only ones being called upon for "solutions", exactly as it's been in the economic meltdown counsel rooms. Only the criminals are allowed into the sanctuaries of policymaking. The rest of us, all the victims, that is, are shut out of the discussion, and Ridgeway knows this. Obama isn't playing some PR game with these assholes, intending to turn the tables on them when they're not looking. He'll take their 1.2% solution and call it a Great Victory for the American People, just as his office demands of him. We'll keep bitching about poor health care while the MSM tells us daily what a milestone of reform Obama has given us and how grateful we should be. The Grateful Dead.
Ephraim, very well said. However, on the last point, we all can be healthcare vigilantes even if we're called "criminals" by Big Pharma/Insurance. See my post in this thread for details.
'The Health Care Industry's PR Scam: Will Obama Fall for It?'
This is a silly question since Obama is the PR Scam, for the health care industry, the military-industrial complex industry, and the financial industry. We're the ones who mainly took a 'fall for it'...
No single-payer health care, no justice, no peace--no real hope for the thinking man to believe in--REVOLT NOW!!!!
I forgot to mention one more thing in yesterday's healthcare debate. I'm what some would call a healthcare vigilante. See, thanks to no single payer healthcare and phoney "compromises" designed to keep the healthcare industries in a win-win and the rest of us in a lose-lose, some of us don't like the ways our folks, friends, neighbors, etc ... have to get ripped off by Big Insurance and Big Pharma. So, in addition to myself taking the natural and even forbidden healthy products that contain the natural vitamins, minerals, and even chemicals (kind of like Lorenzo's Oil), I'm not afraid to share my ideas with others and help them get off those poison meds being fed to them. Maybe that makes me a "criminal" but Paul Kersey of the Death Wish movie series, Ralph Nader, Robocop, MLK, etc ... didn't care and they prevailed. So how about the rest of us doing the same? 50 years ago, there was more healthy food and not so much fake crap. The "compromise" plan Barry Obama plans to introduce will only keep the phoney care status quo alive. That is why we the bravehearts who fight for single payer will refuse to settle for phoney substitutes.
I understand your anger and I've been through all that as well. Getting this angry and vengeful does not help us or even yourself. You were posting calmly and beautifully before. What happened to you? We the elderly love you young ones out there and truly want to help you out. We're just gonna have to try different strategies and trial-and-error until we make it. I wished this all weren't so difficult but you know them politicians are always eager to make too much of something out of nothing. We love your courage and all but please don't take it too hard on yourself or us. Sioux Rose, if you read what she posted on the other article from yesterday wants you and other progressives and liberals to be united.
No, James, this is not all we can do: "All we can hope for is the possibility, remote as it may be, that Obama himself is also playing a PR game-" The first step is to end the denial and admit that liberals who supported Obama where conned. The second step is to work to tell everyone that our president is another corporate shill just like the last and that nothing gets better for us citizens until we challenge the corporations for control of our government. I can't think of a better battle to fight that over right now than healthcare. It is seldom so clear when our representatives act against our own interest in order to deliver to the people who paid for them to be elected.
This health care dispute between for profit health care or the single payer plan with for profit insurance companies not involved is a dispute, not about health care, but about DEMOCRACY. We the people want our government to administrate a health care system that will care for all the people in our nation with one health care system for us all. All of us get the SAME LEVEL of care. One program for all.
This is what the great majority of the people want but Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives says it can't pass and is advising Democrats not to support HR 676. Who are the 'representatives' we elect to Congress? Are they servants of the people, or paid mercenaries to assist the corporations to maximise their profits?
You must contact your representative to find out which group he/she belongs to. Phone, write, email, fax, sign a petition to tell your representative you want a YES vote on HR676.
Then pay attention!! Was your advice followed? If not, DON'T VOTE FOR THAT PERSON AGAIN AND CONSIDER IF ANY CANDIDATES OF THAT POLITICAL PARTY IS WORTH YOUR VOTE. It is your responsibility as a citizen to involve yourself in our government. Elected officials need your advice. And you need to hold them accountable if you think they are not representing you.
Same goes for our President. Talk during the campaign season with all the PR hype is just that--talk. Now it is your duty to watch and see what is really going on. Are the decisions made by President Obama in keeping with your hopes for change you can believe in? If yes, praise him, but if not let him know you are getting angry and want real democracy where our elected officials vote to represent their constituents---not their pay masters.
I voted for Nader again last year and for very good reasons with single payer being a strong one of them. Mccain and Obama made it crystal clear that they don't support it but most of the voters were seduced somehow into accepting such phonies. There were partisans in both parties doing their dirty work too but Nader did not deserve be pushed down to far fewer votes. As long as our electorate continues to keep deluding themselves into accepting fake "compromises" and unwilling to shoot for the real deal, it's all a lose-lose. I used to settle for fake food when I was young but eventually grew up and learned to strive for real food which may explain why I switched from conventional corn-fed milk to grass-fed milk and haven't gone back since. The same thing with healthcare. Shoot for the real deal and stop settling for phoney "compromises". Then everybody's a winner !
CNN went to a moment of coverage of the single payer advocates being arrested today at the Finance Committee's We-Can't-Hear-You Hearing. CNN, the most trusted name in news, took a wild guess at what was going on and said the protestors were protesting government run health care.
SHAME ON YOU CNN.
Pitch Fork, that's hilarious. Tragic but hilarious. I can just see Jon Stewart with that one. Talk about getting caught with their pants down!
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
"The [Wall Street] Journal reports that although the groups did not ask for anything in return for the pledge, many of the factions are looking to prevent regulations that could "pose new burdens" or affect their profitability. For example, the health insurance industry is seeking to offset any reductions to their payments by obtaining new rules that would require all U.S. residents to have health coverage, according to the Journal."
We've all seen how well corporate "pledges" work! Think "self-regulation" of the major industries that are responsible for our global econonmic collapse. Feel better now about this deal?
Secondly, with major job losses and wage reductions, how in hell do these idiots expect people to come up with the money to pay for health insurance? Maybe they forgot that it's illegal for Joe average to own a money printing press.
Only in America will you see this stupidity!
The Health Care Industry's PR Scam: Will Obama Fall for It?
__________________________________
FALL for it?
He's SOAKING in it!
· Yr Obd't Servant
You mean, "Is he complicit"?...Of course. If he's that naive, he needs another job.
Why wouldn't Obama fall for this ploy of the economic Empire?
After all, he fell for the banks' even stinkier garbage and said ... NOTHING!
This is what I said to Paul Krugman regarding Obama's recent 'cat got your tongue' silence about the banks' refusal to even consider 'mortgage debt reform':
“You can’t handle the truth”.
From “This Week” (5/3) —– Obama’s video clip, and Krugman’s comment:
OBAMA: “I don’t want to run auto companies,” the president says. “I don’t want to run banks. I have got two wars I gotta run already; I’ve got more than enough to do.”
KRUGMAN: “I can’t predict, but right now, let me tell you, they really don’t want to run banks. They so badly don’t want to run banks, I think it’s actually kind of hamstringing their ability to deal with them. Because they don’t want to go where they just went with Chrysler on the banks. And this is definitely not a socialist-minded administration.”
Any intelligent person, let alone a Nobel economist, reading Naomi Kline’s “Shock Doctrine” detailing the history of the modern global ruling-elite Empire’s economic mechanism for smothering and diverting the disruptions of popular democracy, could not help but understand that the economic shock induced on 9/15 (08) with the overt decision to intentionally collapse Lehman was clearly the “second shoe dropping” (or more wryly ‘second shoe bomb’) after the 9/11 shock doctrine. As many in the ruling-elite ‘corporate financial Empire’ hiding behind the façade of its two-party ‘Vichy’ sham of democracy slyly acknowledge — “Never waste a crisis”.
And so, Paul, there should be no surprise that Obama did not publicly object to the quiet back-room legal tyranny of the economic Empire any more than the personable, Scotch-drinking Mbeki did not publicly object to the deals he had made with the ruling-elite economic Empirists of South Africa which collapsed Madela and the ANC’s ‘Freedom Charter’ from a serious and indivisible political-economic declaration of social democracy into a rancid corporatist tourism “show”.
No, Paul, as Margaret Thatcher infamously said, “TINA” (there is no alternative) to the economics of empire. There will be no endearing call for ‘debt relief’, nor for ‘mortgage relief’, nor for ‘health care reform’, nor for ‘land (nor certainly asset) reform’ — despite the irrefutable truth that the GINI indexes of wealth and income inequality in our shining democracy on the hill are fast approaching those of South Africa, Chile, Russia and all the other success models of the Chicago Boys’ shock therapy for establishing flowering ‘democratic capitalist’ free market states (whatever that oxymoron means).
Like the dutiful Marine Commander that Gen. Smedley Butler was NOT, Obama is just too consumed and dedicated to fighting the wars that Wall Street and big oil started abroad for their Empire to worry about interfering in the domestic tyranny of their economic Empire at home.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Is there some unwritten law for those who write for "progressive" media like Mother Jones that any Obama-critical article has to end with an expression of "hope, however remote," that Obama will end up doing the exact opposite of what he began doing before he was in office and has continued doing ever since? Any diehard "progressive for Obama" (and they apparently DO die hard) can read into these epilogues a justification to refrain from pushing their demands on Obama on the ground of the "remote hope" that, if we just give him our continued support, he will get round to being able to do what we want him to do. I've seen this pattern over and over and have to wonder at what point will Obama be held accountabile for what he DOES, not what he says he is going to do (or even worse, what his supporters HOPE he is going to do).
Mother Jones magazine sold out long ago. Through the 1990's it openly mocked those opposed to invading Serbia, and
It is the magazine of the effete, elite, Whole-Foods shopping, anti-union, yuppie-stock-portfolio-liberal left. It should have been sued for defamation by the estate of Ms. Mary Harris Jones long ago.
Bingo.
Or, just to finish that thought, if I'm Charlie Brown, how many more times do I let Lucy Van Pelt hold the football while I fall on my rear when I try to kick it?
I can think of several writers regularly published here who are caught in that "High Hopes" spin. I won't Name Names-- at least not all at once-- in case the censors are sensitive about having their "guests" denounced en masse.
But I experienced something akin to your point when I saw Norman Solomon's column about Marcy Winograd challenging Jane Harman.
That's all well and good, and I'd love to see Harman unseated.
But I was struck by the instant cheerleading in the comments, because they echoed all of the usual expectations that more & better Democrats really are a solution.
I am well aware that I'm exceptionally cynical, but this reaction strikes me as so 2006.
Maybe I'm still terminally disgusted that the Wicked Witch of the West rolled over Cindy Sheehan. But it seems as if people are doomed to lapse in to the same hopes and expectations no matter how they are dashed. When all else fails, there's always "Gotta support the team!"
· Yr Obd't Servant
YOS, your comments are appreciated as usual. Everything seems to be relating to every thing else this morning. On the Hayden and Gerson piece on CD this morning I posted the first comment, expressing "dismay" that the congressional Progressive Caucus will not "oppose" the AfPak escalation. If not those Democrats, then who are the "more and better Democrats" who are going to come forward? m and b-dems is the political agenda of the Progressive Democrats of America, of which Ms. Winograd is President of a California chapter. Norman Solomon's piece on Winograd is on the PDA website this morning. Maybe before other progressives join Solomon's "cheerleading" for Winograd they might want to ask some very pointed questions about whether she would be more progressive than the Progressive Caucus on isses both domestic and foreign. I had the same reaction to Solomon's call for money to help her campaign and the knee jerk response of some of the commenters and I said to myself "wait a minute, is she for real and another prospective member of Congress who would want to "protect the President?" So 2006 indeed and 2006 was exactly when my lifelong addiction to the Democratic Party was cured.
From the article:
"All we can hope for is the possibility, remote as it may be, that Obama himself is also playing a PR game--making nice with the industry shills while planning some kind of genuine reform that will hit them in the only place that counts, and the only place where truly meaningful savings reside: their profit margins."
Anybody who thinks Obama will threaten FIRE-sector profits is living in a happy dream. To reach single-payer, we'll have to repeal both corporate personhood and the SCOTUS ruling that money=speech, and then replace those empty suits in Congress with real citizens.
Whether Obama has fallen for this BS or not is irrelevant. I'm sure that he understands that this "agreement" involves no real change but he also knows where his campaign money came from.
q
Given the large amounts of money that the financial Industry including all facets of the Health Care Industry put into Obama's campaign it is pretty safe to assume he is in their pockets. He couldn't have been more generous to the bankers and he took Single Payer out of the mix once he decided to run for President. Now if he really wants to make sure his buddys in the Health Care business are well taken care of he has to take out the one person who could really mess up their plans. Hillary Rodham Clinton in 1993 attacked the Health industry for gouging and profiteering. As a powerful senator who may or may not have revenge on her mind, she would still have quite an incentive to take up the cause of a single payer system. She could possibly even upstage Obama and put quite a feather in her hat. What to do, what to do? Just a thought!
Sioux Rose
JOHN G: Sharp strategy, however, would she risk losing that sizable source of campaign "contributions" by not advocating for the insurance vultures were she to run against Obama in 2012?
Yeah Sioux Rose, I think she would have. She has never been the darling of the health care industry. It could have given her a platform to embarrass Obama while looking like she was on the side of the angels. I think she had to be given something big to nuetralize her. You have to admit she hasn't said boo about health reform since she became Secretary of State.
There will be NO health care reform until we introduce
single payer and non-profit health care.
Anybody with half of Obama's IQ should understand that a 1 1/2% reduction means nothing if you have no established base cost to start from. The "industry" sets the prices, so they can increase prices 3 1/2%, knock off 1 1/2% and still be 2% ahead.
raydelcamino, good point. The stores do it all the time with their super sales.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Exactly. Why is this sick charade even being seriously discussed?