Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- When You're Cutting Social Security, 'Wealthy' Begins at $25K
- In Blind Poll, Republicans Choose Progressive Budget Solutions Over Their Own Party's
- Not Guilty By Virtue of Videotape, Which, Unlike the Police, Doesn't Lie
- The 'Land of 10,000 Lakes' Is Running Dry
- Manning: Before Wikileaks, Leaked Docs Offered to NYT, WaPo
- Yoga Wlll Turn Kids Into Godless Sun-Worshipping Pagans, Lawsuit Charges
- The 'Land of 10,000 Lakes' Is Running Dry
- Big Winner in Italian Election? The Five Star Movement
- A Better Plan Than 'Endless Growth': Enough Is Enough
- In Blind Poll, Republicans Choose Progressive Budget Solutions Over Their Own Party's
Popular content
Today's Top News
Health Care's Enigma-In-Chief
That was the little-noticed message from the made-for-TV spectacle administration officials called a health care "game changer": In saying they can voluntarily slash $200 billion a year off the country's medical bills over the next decade and still preserve their profits, health care companies implicitly acknowledged they were plotting to fleece consumers, and have been fleecing them for years. With that acknowledgment came the tacit admission that the industry's business is based not on respectable returns, but on grotesque profiteering and waste -- the kind that can give up $2 trillion and still guarantee huge margins.
Chief among the profiteers at the White House event were insurance companies, which have raised premiums by 119 percent since 1999, and one obvious question is why -- why would Obama engage those particular thieves?
It's a difficult query to answer, because Obama is a health care mystery, struggling to muster consistent positions on the issue.
Listening to a 2003 Obama speech, it's hard to believe he has become such an enigma. Back then, he declared himself "a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program" -- i.e., one eliminating private insurers and their overhead costs by having government finance health care. Obama's position was as controversial then as today -- which is to say, controversial among political elites, but not among the general public. ABC's 2003 poll showed almost two thirds of Americans desiring a single-payer system "run by the government and financed by taxpayers," just like CBS's 2009 poll shows roughly the same percentage today.
In that speech six years ago, Obama said the only reason single-payer proponents should tolerate delay is "because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House."
This might explain why when Illinois contemplated a 2004 health care proposal raising insurance lobbyists' "fears that it would result in a single-payer system," those lobbyists "found a sympathetic ear in Obama, who amended (read: gutted) the bill more to their liking," according to the Boston Globe. Maybe Obama didn't think single payer was achievable without a Democratic Washington. And when in a 2006 interview he told me he was "not convinced that (single payer) is the best way to achieve universal health care," perhaps he was following the same rationale, considering his insistence that he must "take into account what is possible."
Of course, even as a senator aiming for the "possible" in a Republican Congress, Obama promised to never "shy away from a debate about single payer." And after the 2008 election fulfilled his single-payer precondition of Democratic dominance, it was only logical to expect him to initiate that debate.
That's why the White House's current posture is so puzzling. As the Associated Press reports, Obama aides are trying to squelch any single-payer discussion, deploying their health care point-person, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., to announce that "everything is on the table with the single exception of single-payer."
So it's back to why -- why Obama's insurance industry-coddling inconsistency? Is it a pol's payback for campaign cash? Is it an overly cautious lawmaker's paralysis? Is it a conciliator's desire to appease powerful interests? Or is it something else?
For a president who spends so much time on camera answering questions, these have become the biggest unanswered questions of all.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
29 Comments so far
Show AllObama is showing himself to be the ultimate LIGHTWEIGHT.
He is the proverbial 98lb weakling at the beach getting sand kicked in his face by every large interest group.
LIGHTWEIGHT. LIGHTWEIGHT. LIGHTWEIGHT.
They must be laughing behind closed doors at how easy it is to steamroll the guy. They say BOO(rak) and he jumps.
President Change (his position on everything) is easier to manipulate than the dimwitted alcoholic who preceeded. And he had a limited understanding of ...well...everything.
What's a matter Barack? Didn't you know they play hardball?
Are you prepared to stand your ground on anything? Anything at all?
If you can ask a solider to die for no real reason, if you can sit by while families are kicked from their houses and forced to live in the park, if you do nothing of substance while 50 million citizens live in fear of ever getting sick ...WHAT ARE YOU PREPARED TO RISK PRESIDENT BARACK?
When will you put yourself on the line and stand up to the bullies?
Asking "Why?" you have been betrayed once again is the palliative question asked by perpetually ineffectual whiners. It's only purpose is to relieve or sooth the symptoms of a disease or disorder without effecting a cure. Until your "society" storms the White House and ships its occupants off to a dank cell in Afghanistan, the rest of the world doesn't give a shit about your "difficult query to answer."
Good point(s).
I've been on both sides of the equation - both as a Democrat voting for Democrats, then as a Green voting for Greens and Independents. I have seen no difference in the outcome. Democrats will be Democrats - mealy-mouthed go-alongs, and Greens and Independents won't make it past their state legislatures because of their militant contingents who won't take any other side into account. It's a true conundrum.
This time, as an Independent, I voted for the Democrat, mostly as a tactical measure, but also with some hope that function would follow form, and also as a defensive move against McCain/Palin.
The differences in all the above are by degrees. We are all inculcated in a culture of acceptance and "gratefulness for what we have" and it is hard to separate one's self from it. At this point, it looks like storming the White House may be one of the few options left. This won't happen of course, because few really want to die for the cause. What I see is a continued devolution of our freedoms, rights, and ideals, into a morass of self-serving "laws" that continue to divide the people to the elite's benefit. I see a bifurcated nation - a small minority living behind gated and armed walls, and the rest of us living in squalor and desperation (quiet or otherwise).
Unless...
Re Ted Markow May 15th, 2009 9:39 am, who complains of "their (third parties') militant contingents who won't take any other side into account."
As a third party activist since 1980, I'd like to suggest that at least some of those militants---doctrinaire, won't even take MAYBE for an answer, we've all met them---were infiltrators and provocateurs, whose job it is to monkeywrench progressive movements before they gain any traction.
Take this to the bank: if third-party movements didn't represent a serious threat to the elites, they wouldn't go through all that trouble.
That's all the motivation I need to keep on keeping on.
"militant contingents who won't take any other side into account."
That's our job, Ted. It's the real reason you joined us in the first place.
Which "other side" are we supposed to "take into account.?" The sickness insurance companies? The Corporate Party?
You complain about the "culture of acceptance and "gratefulness for what we have"", then complain because the Greens aren't part of it. It isn't "all"; some have separated themselves from it. And that's what you criticize us for?
Now I have to go remind everybody that the Green Party is the only one campaigning for single payer healthcare: the kind that 2/3 of the people want.
Life is tough, when you are NOT part of the "culture of acceptance."
Oregoncharles
"The differences in all the above are by degrees. "
Ted Markow, can you be specific?
If McCain had been elected what do think the specific policy differences would be?
One is confused at David Sirota's confusion since it would appear that Obama had been in a quid pro quo arrangement with the insurance companies and that arrangement was that if the insurance companies donated a significant amount of money to his presidential campaign [which they did to the tune of approximately $1 million] then Obama would take care of them after he was elected president. This is certainly what is happening now as Obama has made sure that the insurance companies have retained their favored status of reaping huge profits from the American public who have little choice if they wish to have their health needs met in a country where the rich get richer and the poor and the working class get poorer and sicker while also going bankrupt because they are unable to pay their insurance and health costs.
Barack Obama-the agent of hope for the big corporations but not for the poor and working families of this country.
The more things "change" the more things stay the same.
Ah, the enigma of the Left being confused from the bamboozlement. "Why Obama's insurance industry coddling?" Let me walk you through it, David.
Q:" Is it a pol's payback for campaign cash?"
A: Yes, and oh hell yes. Not just the cash but the selling, too.
Q: "Is it an overly cautious lawmaker's paralysis?"
A: See above.
Q: "Is it a conciliator's desire to appease powerful interests?"
A: See above.
Q: "Or is it something else?"
A: I could give you the short answer here, but I'll seize the moment to reframe how healthcare is looked at. Healthcare is an industry. As an industry, it is subject to the same monopoly structures as other corporations. When we discuss healthcare, we are discussing corporations whose lines of work include defense, banking and other lines of insurance. It might be helpful to keep that in mind while you wonder why Obama would be protective of an industry that admits to stealing billions from the sick and dying. Think of the Wall St. bailout and the war industry's seamless move to Pakistan and think of corporations that blur the line between defense and "healthcare" - like Abbott Labs or General Electric - and then you won't be so confused.
Yes, but don't let Sirota co-opt the Obama sell-out, because Sirota himself is just another Democratic apologist when push comes to shove. When the Democrats regained the House, he was in the forefront defusing the anti-war movement, and very successfully so.
For all his hand-wringing, he's like the NY Times - decries the problem, but never seems to endorse the candidates that will push for the solutions. When he endorses Nader or McKinney, then I'll listen to him. Until then, he's a concern tro.
The latest outrage as reported in today's paper is that the House Democrats would REQUIRE "all Americans to carry health insurance." Has anyone in our less than intrepid media asked Obama or his press secretary how working families and the poor can possibly afford to pay for mandatory insurance when they can barely scrape together enough money to put food on the table and to pay the rent each month? How does Obama propose that the unemployed or people who have lost their jobs obtain insurance since the vast majority of Americans obtain their insurance through their employers?
I believe that these are extremely important questions that need to be answered. Again, just how does Obama expect people to pay for insurance if they do not have the money or if they are not working which then eliminates their employer from providing them with the means of obtaining health insurance? All of this should demonstrate that Obama offers absolutely no hope [to use one of his favorite words] for the working class and the poor in this country.
"How are "offenders" without mandated health insurance in Massachusetts punished?"
You get fined in MA for not having insurance. The amount goes UP every year. They enforce it at Tax Time. In MA you have to fill out a form and submit it with your State Income Tax Return. On the form you have to list your insurance carriers for the year. If you weren't covered, you pay.
'Don't get fooled again' - Pete Townsend
Erroll
You've got their number. Just look at who is so in favor of this plan.
Hope you can believe in for dopes stupid enough to believe it.
We all know what it is.
Just a reminder: The Green Party is the only national party campaigning for single-payer, universal healthcare, and have been all along. If you're serious about it, join us and help make it happen. www.gp.org
Oregoncharles
The Green Party is also the party that spurned Ralph Nader to run a cipher ini 2004 in order to shore up the prowar candidacy of John Kerry; the party whose 2008 presidential candidate, Cynthia McKinney, made clear her own personal semi-endorsement of Obama during her stealth campaign; a party that squandered the huge gains made during the 2000 Nader presidential campaign by the past eight years of equivocation-to-sniveling before the Democratic Party.
Green Party members need to challenge their own national leadership to get serious about becoming a truly independent left movement, not merely a left appendage to the Democrats.
Cynthia Mckinney semi-endorsed Obama? Proof please.
Here is McKinney's semi-endorsement--more like a full endorsement--of Obama:
"On Saturday, June 7, 2008, Hillary Clinton announced that her 2008 presidential
bid is over, making Barack Obama the first-ever Black presidential nominee of a
major party in the history of the United States.
Congratulations to Senator Obama for achieving such a feat! . . .
Coming from Barack Obama, the word 'change' did not appear as just
another empty campaign slogan. It galvanized millions of people - mostly
young people - to register to vote and to get active in the political
system. The U.S. political system needs the energy and vision of all is
citizens participating in the political process. Citizen participation is
always the answer."
For the whole abysmal, obsequious, illusion-sowing speech, go to the following link:
http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=node/10657
Single payer healthcare sounds like an excellent idea since I'm to believe that I can eat an extra dose of beef lasagna a week and government will pay my health bills. However, since I'm employed and covered well, why should I fight for it other than worrying about needing it should I be unemployed? I've been able to hop from job to job and even temporary jobs that don't give benefits give pretty good pay. Plus, I can still eat, sleep, and watch aplenty like Garfield the fat cat so what difference does single payer appear to make anyway? If it means being able to eat more and even keep some more supply in my hummer while I watch cartoons on my way to work, then let's advertise it like that. So far, single payer doesn't look as yummy as more tax cuts which actually stimulate the economy and we could receive more tax cuts if we'd cut back all that wasteful war and bailout spending. However, after every war victory, the price of gas drops so hey, maybe tax cuts and some war spending do stimulate the economy at least some, do they not? Ok, maybe I'm bloating so feel free to see where I'm going wrong on this there thing.
I still harp on the near plane disaster on the Obama compaign which forced a landing in St. Louis, last summer...things changed then, his support for the FISA, various promises broken, Biden picked as VP(Delaware, bank and insurance company heaven), and on and on...was he threatened?(raising eyebrows to each new pronouncement or allegation) Is that what Cheney is doing now, enforcing the threats by his presence...there is too much to speculate on...besides I don't make enough money to afford health insurance and have anything left over to live on...Danish anyone?
Re yohocoma May 15th, 2009 3:04 pm
Yes. Massive noncompliance is the way to go. If the purchase of private, for-profit health insyrance becomes mandatory, refuse.
Don't fill out the form. Don't write the check. Don't carry the card.
While we're at it, since state governments require us to have auto insurance, let's make it illegal to charge us a profit on it.
Let's shake these ticks off our backs once and for all.
Just think, if we had a National Initiative enacted, we could write and vote on legislation for single payer, nonprofit insurance for cars, life, businesses and homes, equitable tax laws, free education through college, no more funds for war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pass the EFPA by initiative. We could turn our country into small business heaven.
The National Initiative specifies that those collecting signatures cannot be paid so that cuts out the corporations writing initiatives. Sweet. We have about 7,000 signatures so far. We only need about 6 million more. Get busy.
www.NiFD.org or www.vote.org Either one gets you there. The "leadership" of this country needs to get slapped around or at least unemployed.
concerned, I hadn't correlated Obama's backtracking with that incident, but I'd like to see some time frames on his backpedaling. I just thought it had more to do with the corporate money pouring in. Around that, I knew he was on a spot. If he stuck to public money the Republican swiftboaters would swamp him. If he took corporate money he would have to sell his soul. Not to say that doublecrossing them wouldn't be risking his life. They play for keeps.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
If the only enforcement of mandatory insurance is an addendum to your income tax, state or federal, what would "they" do to those of us who don't make enough to pay any tax? Since there is no form to fill out there can be no penalty other than getting no care which we all don't have anyway. The whole idea of mandatory health insurance is beyond a ludicrous, mean joke. We need health "care" not "insurance". Single payer is the only answer.
bird, not to worry. If the insurance industry gets their bill, they will find a way to get your money. Unless you're able to go totally under the table. No bank account, the works.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
As a radical, I'm hoping they try to forcefeed us mandatory health insurance. They'll keep the initial costs low to make sure there's not a huge amount of resistance outside of the already marginalized but, like auto insurance now, the prices will climb steadily until the insurance sector regains their former levels of profitability and then some.
Bush was good for business for those of us on the left, and Obama is going to be, too. Especially if he tries to make the MA plan go national.
After more than a half century of dormancy and supression, I think this will be what kick starts the reemergence of an actual left in the US, and then with some fortune we'll start to see a more coherent agitation and activism that begins to challenge the free market system to its core instead of this piecemeal policy by policy resistance dance we have now.
Bring it on, Obama. And sow the seeds for your own demise.
Whatever President Obama's reasons for shutting single payer health care out of the debate, by doing so he'll be killing some of us. Why? Because that's what privatized health care systems do. Initially by leading to two tiered helth care, with most of us receiving suboptial care & but an elite few receiving the best care possible. On account of corporate greed, however, the two tiered system will go broke, like whats happening with privatized health care for all in Massachussents. Then what'll happen is that opponent's of government involvement in health care will say "See, told you so, government's the problem, not the solution" and we'll be back to square one, stuck again not only with the greed and wastefullness of privatization but with a resurgence of the take care of number one mentality.
Thanks a lot, President Obama. Alas, as some progressives predicted, you're turning out to be nothing but a shill for the powers that be.