Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiNot Enough Audacity
When it comes to domestic policy, there are two Barack Obamas.
On one side there's Barack the Policy Wonk, whose command of the issues - and ability to explain those issues in plain English - is a joy to behold.
But on the other side there's Barack the Post-Partisan, who searches for common ground where none exists, and whose negotiations with himself lead to policies that are far too weak.
Both Baracks were on display in the president's press conference earlier this week. First, Mr. Obama offered a crystal-clear explanation of the case for health care reform, and especially of the case for a public option competing with private insurers. "If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care, if they tell us that they're offering a good deal," he asked, "then why is it that the government, which they say can't run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That's not logical."
But when asked whether the public option was non-negotiable he waffled, declaring that there are no "lines in the sand." That evening, Rahm Emanuel met with Democratic senators and told them - well, it's not clear what he said. Initial reports had him declaring willingness to abandon the public option, but Senator Kent Conrad's staff later denied that. Still, the impression everyone got was of a White House all too eager to make concessions.
The big question here is whether health care is about to go the way of the stimulus bill.
At the beginning of this year, you may remember, Mr. Obama made an eloquent case for a strong economic stimulus - then delivered a proposal falling well short of what independent analysts (and, I suspect, his own economists) considered necessary. The goal, presumably, was to attract bipartisan support. But in the event, Mr. Obama was able to pick up only three Senate Republicans by making a plan that was already too weak even weaker.
At the time, some of us warned about what might happen: if unemployment surpassed the administration's optimistic projections, Republicans wouldn't accept the need for more stimulus. Instead, they'd declare the whole economic policy a failure. And that's exactly how it's playing out. With the unemployment rate now almost certain to pass 10 percent, there's an overwhelming economic case for more stimulus. But as a political matter it's going to be harder, not easier, to get that extra stimulus now than it would have been to get the plan right in the first place.
The point is that if you're making big policy changes, the final form of the policy has to be good enough to do the job. You might think that half a loaf is always better than none - but it isn't if the failure of half-measures ends up discrediting your whole policy approach.
Which brings us back to health care. It would be a crushing blow to progressive hopes if Mr. Obama doesn't succeed in getting some form of universal care through Congress. But even so, reform isn't worth having if you can only get it on terms so compromised that it's doomed to fail.
What will determine the success or failure of reform? Above all, the success of reform depends on successful cost control. We really, really don't want to get into a position a few years from now where premiums are rising rapidly, many Americans are priced out of the insurance market despite government subsidies, and the cost of health care subsidies is a growing strain on the budget.
And that's why the public plan is an important part of reform: it would help keep costs down through a combination of low overhead and bargaining power. That's not an abstract hypothesis, it's a conclusion based on solid experience. Currently, Medicare has much lower administrative costs than private insurance companies, while federal health care programs other than Medicare (which isn't allowed to bargain over drug prices) pay much less for prescription drugs than non-federal buyers. There's every reason to believe that a public option could achieve similar savings.
Indeed, the prospects for such savings are precisely what have the opponents of a public plan so terrified. Mr. Obama was right: if they really believed their own rhetoric about government waste and inefficiency, they wouldn't be so worried that the public option would put private insurers out of business. Behind the boilerplate about big government, rationing and all that lies the real concern: fear that the public plan would succeed.
So Mr. Obama and Democrats in Congress have to hang tough - no more gratuitous giveaways in the attempt to sound reasonable. And reform advocates have to keep up the pressure to stay on track. Yes, the perfect is the enemy of the good; but so is the not-good-enough-to-work. Health reform has to be done right.
95 Comments so far
Show AllVote third party (except Libertarianism which is a religion).
A third party will get us nowhere, unless it is ready to roll over an established party.
Many Blue Dogs come from conservative districts. Before they overran the Republicans the Republicans held those seats. What will progressive third parties do there, in those districts? Nothing. Except help the Republicans regain the seats they lost by splitting up the vote.
What I offer is not a very cheery prospect, to be sure. What can we do? Help educate as many people as possible, and whittle away at the conservative dogma which has taken hold in this country. Such as, government can do nothing right and is part of the problem.... etc.
But what about the Christian fundamentalists, the "family values" and 2nd Amendment types? Well, we can hope there are some among them who are sane and will wake up. Other than that, pray.....
"Sharply observed and succinctly stated" describes all of these posts.
Mr. Krugman makes the same mistake so many U.S. journalists have made: he remains in stubborn denial about the fact this country’s one inviolable rule of governance is that all legislation serves the interests of the capitalist ruling class, maximizing their wealth and power even as it subjugates all the rest of us.
From this perspective -- not cynicism but bitter truth -- everything President Obama has done since taking office is readily identified (and thus explained) as diligent service to the plutocracy that owns 90 percent of the nation’s wealth and 100 percent of its politicians (all members in good standing of the one Ruling Class Party no matter whether they hide behind “Republican” or “Democratic” labels): such is life on the Big Plantation of the neo-manorial, neo-feudal United Estates.
What this means for “health care reform” is the same thing it means for “Employee Free Choice” or the end of the Homeland Security Administration (and its replication of the Reich Security Administration) as the de facto secret police: it won’t happen. Not by accident or political struggle, but because it was never intended to happen. Just as Obama has actually increased HSA’s national secret-police power and refused to arm-twist for EFCA, so will the public health insurance option either be strangled at birth or passed in a form so crippled it will be useless.
Medicare offers the perfect model for the latter ploy: on paper it is a wonderful plan, but in reality it’s co-payments are so outrageous -- officially 20 percent but in truth 50 percent or more and always cash (no checks or plastic) in advance -- it is useless to low-income people and is therefore in effect yet another gift to the rich.
Bottom line, though I voted for Obama, I can no longer doubt his promises were never more than Big Lies -- except of course for the ruling class, for whom “change (they) can believe in” is proving to be just exactly that: ongoing fulfillment of the national purpose -- the protection and propagation of capitalism (no matter the cost) -- whether by accelerated looting of the treasury (“bail-outs” too small to work but big enough to fill executive treasure chests) or by a bogus “health care reform” that has but two purposes: our total and inescapable enslavement by the prescription drug lords and the hospital and insurance barons (mandatory health insurance), and continuation of the unwritten but obvious national policy of euthanasia by abandonment and neglect (elimination of unprofitable peoples -- those of us no longer exploitable for profit whether because of age, disability or simply the mindset of chronic poverty -- by denial of health services and medical care).
A former mainstream journalist myself, it is both amusing and painfully familiar to watch Mr. Krugman grapple with these realities, not the least because his formidable intellect denies him the more common remedy of lying his morals and ethics into submission. Mr. Krugman is too brilliant not to see and understand what is happening -- that “health care reform” is ever more obviously both a Big Lie and a deliberate act of spitting in our faces. It will be very interesting to watch what he does when at last he comes, as he surely will, to the fork in the road so aptly described by that long-ago song of the Appalachian coal wars: “which side are you on?”
I don't agree with your assessment of Mr. Krugman's grasp on reality. I believe he was a single payer supporter who felt that it would not go through, much as it was the best approach. As a result of his take on the industry, he supported the Clinton/Edwards health plan, and wrote a column on it during the primaries, saying that, if Obama were chosen by the Democrats, a health care plan might not go through at all. Essentially, because Obama wasn't facing reality and making the hard choices that needed to be made.
I had no illusions when I voted for the Democrats in both the primaries and the general election. They are all accepting large campaign contributions from the industry. And the American public is, for the most part, unfocused and unorganized in any practicable way. Hillary Clinton was in the position whereby she was most obligated to deliver and had a plan that could really drive through, if she had the votes and people behind. She already had the industry in her pocket.
Obama supporters couldn't accept that ALL of their major candidates are sold out, and long ago. They NEEDED to have a messiah who would deliver them. Rather than face the reality about both candidates, and decide which one could ruthlessly get us through this catastrophe called the healthcare road we went down 50 years ago, they decided that Obama was *pure goodness* and Hillary was the "pure evil wicked witch" who had been bribed and bought.
Obama's campaign was filled with inspired, but also delusional supporters, mobilized by just causes as much as they were mobilized by their fantasies, instead of reality. This was especially evident in healthcare, where people *intuited* he *really wanted* single payer, schizophrenically supported an entirely different platform, while lowering themselves to Harry and Louise techniques in Ohio advertisements on mandates in healthcare, which are you unfortunately need, if you're going to go the route they appear to be heading in.
The Obama campaign essentially indicated that if the single payer people could get enough support there, he would sign. But the American people are not like the Europeans, who pour out into the streets over social security issues that directly affect their lives, and unapologetically so. The American people, I am beginning to think, are escapists. We like issues that help us get away from reality, or help us put the blame anywhere else but on ourselves, whether it's obsessing about other nations far, far away, or suddenly being so crushed by a glaring reality about their candidate that was there all along. And then, deciding that his failure to deliver on something he always said we had to deliver on, first, is all his fault.
I never had any illusions in this respect about Obama. I supported Clinton, then I supported Obama, and I have supported single payer relentlessly, prior to, and following, his election. I have been laughed at, taunted, and unable to, essentially, engage my fellow Americans in the kind of posting required to show our officials what they should be doing for us, their electorate.
Krugman has supported the right course of action each step of the way, while stating the realities at the same time.
Don't bash Krugman's grip on reality, either.
Call your representatives and tell them to sign H.R. 676 or you won't vote for them next time. That 105,000 Americans have died every year for the past five years because they're not doing a thing about healthcare. That you know they're bribed by the insurance industry, but you're not, and, without healthcare passing as it should, there's not a significant enough difference between Democrats and Republicans.
My apology to Ap for taking so long to respond. I have been busy dealing with another of the permanent deficits that not only demonstrates the extent to which the United States is truly Moron Nation but also distinguishes the infinite barbarism of the U.S. from the blessed civilization elsewhere: the fact that -- despite the obscene wealth of the national ruling class -- we working-class folk are eternally afflicted by the worst, most miserly public transport in the industrial world. Hence two simultaneous flat tires -- the byproduct of the destructively potholed streets of Tacoma, which are becoming the modern equivalent of the neglected avenues of Dark Ages Rome -- left me without an operational vehicle. Which multiplied by a factor of at least ten the time required for various errands: thanks to the Puget Sound area’s savagely xenophobic, “we-don’t-wanna-be-like-Jew-York” hostility to mass transit, a 30-minute shopping trip by car becomes a five-hour odyssey when one is dependent upon the herky-jerky local bus service -- and I was thus effectively imprisoned in a miasma of slow-and-exhausting until a friend and his truck were available to facilitate the tire repairs.
That said -- and with all due respect (not the least because, despite my disagreement with Ap about Mr. Krugman’s conjectured state of mind, I cannot fault Ap’s presentation of facts) -- I think Ap missed my point. I was not attacking Mr. Krugman; I was in fact empathizing with him. A former journalist myself -- “former” because (despite a history of breaking significant stories and winning notable state-level awards), my chronic refusal to ignore the inherent evils of capitalism got me blacklisted long ago into total and irremediable oblivion -- I recognize all-too-well the symptoms characteristic of Mr. Krugman’s dilemma. On the one hand he is utterly dependent on ruling-class largesse for his livelihood; on the other he is entirely too bright to remain oblivious to what obtains: that capitalism is infinite greed and limitless selfishness defined as maximum virtue, and that its logical (and now clearly unavoidable) result is reduction of our world to a slave-planet (at best) and more likely to total extinction. But if Mr. Krugman were to incorporate such awareness into his writing or teaching, he would soon be banished to nowhereland and nonpersonhood. Hence my deliberate use of the term “denial” -- an act that can be either conscious or unconscious depending on both its context and the relative erudition of the denier.
amendment to 372.14 after shooting said attorney five hundred
yards from hospital chain saw off legs and order them to walk
to said hospital! sioux rose what government? thats been
closed until further notice. its been renamed the
NATIONAL CANDY STORE AND ICE CREAM PARLOR FOR CORPORATIONS.
no goody or sweets are out of the question and you get served
served by the public servant of your choice! just remember
to tip generously!
A BILL TO BE PROPOSED TO THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO REGULATE THE
HUNTING AND HARVESTING OF ATTORNEYS
372.10 Any person with a valid U.S. weasel or rodent hunting permit may also hunt and harvest attorneys for recreational and sporting (non commercial) purposes
372.11 The taking of attorneys with traps, deadfalls, snares, spring guns or stink bait is permitted. The use of United States currency as bait is prohibited as non-sporting.
372.12 The willful killing of attorneys with a motor vehicle is prohibited, unless such vehicle is an ambulance being driven in reverse. If an attorney is accidentally struck and killed by a motor vehicle, the remains should be removed to the side of the roadway and the vehicle immediately washed and disinfected.
372.13 It shall be unlawful to shout “whiplash,” “workers comp claim,” or “free Scotch” for the purpose of trapping or herding attorneys.
372.14 It shall be unlawful to hunt attorneys within 200 yards of a hospital, singles bar, courtroom, traffic accident or burning building.
372.15 If an attorney gains elective office, it is not necessary to have a license to hunt or trap attorneys, or to possess the same and further, that no season or limit shall apply in this case.
372.16 It shall not be deemed necessary for an attorney-hunter to wear orange safety clothing but it shall be unlawful for a hunger to disguise himself/herself as an accident victim, physician, chiropractor, pimp, drug dealer, child-molester or tax accountant for the purpose of hunting or trapping attorneys.
372.17 The daily possession limits are:
Yellow-bellied sidewinders 2
Two-faced tortfeasors 1
Back-stabbing divorce litigators 3
Skinny horn-rimmed cutthroats 2
Honest attorneys 0 (Protected as an endangered species)
Sioux Rose
AGG: Adorable! I love 372.13! This post made me laugh, and I needed that!
Good start. Just extend it to cover all "special interest" lobbyists with a special bounty on their bagmen and beneficiaries and you might actually have a chance to re-introduce the concept of representative democracy for non-corporate persons.
The Canadian system is vastly cheaper than the present US system for two primary reasons: The entire medical insurance is eliminated completely, and provincial health plans can bargain effectively with the drug companies for cheaper drugs.
That is a vast savings that filters down through the whole economy and makes all the nation's industries more competitive.
When there is no risk of being unable to afford health care, there is no reason under the sun for a redundant insurance industry.
Spending one third less on the health system has no cost to patients, because the insurance system doesn't contribute one iota to positive health outcomes. In fact insurance company decisions likely cost health and lives.
Administrative costs in America eat up one in every three 'healthcare' dollars, while in Canada it's only 1 in every 100 dollars.
Its important, here in America, to pay corporate CEO's to burn the midnight oil figuring out extensive reasons to deny people coverage they thought they'd been paying for. Its difficult work, but someones got to do it...
The problem is the criminal under-capitalization of the Insurance & Pharmacuetical Services industries. Only with massive infusions of taxpayer funds can these sectors of the economy regain their Health and thus serve us to their fullest capacities.
There are two Paul Krugmans.
One won the Pulitzer.
The other pretends he doesn't quite get how corporate-owned government PR operates.
It's called bait+switch.
BO touts a 'public option' but then works to keep it from happening; he touts a 'tough' economic stimulus bill and rants about greedy execs then delivers a weak bill and ignores greedy execs as they pocket more than ever; he promises no more torture and lets torture continue as ever; he calls mountaintop mining a crime then allows the criminals to operate unfettered.
And on. And on. And on. Pick any topic, compare the end of the story to the beginning - and you'll see the bait+switch nearly every time.
One PK knows, the other should know better.
Right on. Good post.
The “reform” of our health care system is proving to be a sham. Under the nurturing hand of Senator Max Bogus, chair of the Senate Finance Committee (a health care industry shill who purports to represent the people of Montana), our bought-and-paid-for legislators are on a mission to preserve at all costs (literally) a private insurance model that systematically cherry-picks the healthy (to overcharge them for medical risks they’re unlikely to face); underserves the poorly insured, at a dear price, by denying their claims for medically necessary treatments (to save money); and overserves the richly insured with one “fee-for-service” billing after another (to run up obscene profits). This moneymaking machine will continue to shake us down until it is replaced by a taxpayer-funded, privately delivered single payer model whose object is to maintain our health rather than the profits of the predatory health care industry.
The “reform” of our health care system is proving to be a sham. Under the nurturing hand of Senator Max Bogus, chair of the Senate Finance Committee (a health care industry shill who purports to represent the people of Montana), our bought-and-paid-for legislators are on a mission to preserve at all costs (literally) a private insurance model that systematically cherry-picks the healthy (to overcharge them for medical risks they’re unlikely to face); underserves the poorly insured, at a dear price, by denying their claims for medically necessary treatments (to save money); and overserves the richly insured with one “fee-for-service” billing after another (to run up obscene profits). This moneymaking machine will continue to shake us down until it is replaced by a taxpayer-funded, privately delivered single payer model whose object is to maintain our health rather than the profits of the predatory health care industry.
"Not Enough Audacity"
Krugmun the pot calling O'Bamba the kettle black. BUT! Lord have mercy! Surely Krugmun's personal financial goals are achieved in the process, so that's sump'in! Ah liberalism! In the land of the prosperous, home of the complacent! Paving new roads over the graves of one million dead Iraqis! Go Demoks!!
Obama is acting gingerly, like a referee instead of doing what his supporters elected him to do. It's too big a burden and too dangerous to make powerful enemies.
We need to bypass Obama and bought politicians direct democratically with the voter initiative and referendum. http://ni4d.us/
No, Obama is moving as aggressively as he can to box in and neuter the groups he opposes.
The groups he opposes are the ones who got him elected.
Krugman, like other corporate-liberal mystagogues of the "public option," hawks this term like the snake-oil salesman who never divulges the "secret" ingredients of his product.
So let's put this "public-option" potion (the one being peddled Waxman, Rangel, and Schumer) in the test tube and find out what's really in it:
Unlike the nonprofit, single-payer plans in place in Canada and Europe--and unlike Medicare--this "public option" would charge premiums and impose deductibles; unlike them, it could not accept government funding (after the initial infusion), and so would have to be self-sustaining. Moreover, it would likely be saddled with the oldest, sickest, and thus most expensive cohort, and would have to offer higher fees than Medicare--so no cost savings, none of the cost efficiencies of a single risk pool; it would be competing with 1,300 private HMO risk pools, which would aggressively market the youngest, healthiest, and thus cheapest and most profitable cohort.
This is consumer fraud that retains the HMOs' dysfunctional vice grip on this system.
Public-option plans have been tried in several states and have failed to reduce costs or substantially increase coverage. The only PROVEN way of accomplishing both goals--based on a half-century's track record in Europe and Canada--is nonprofit, single-payer Medicare for all.
For further analysis:
http://www.commondreams.org/print/43440
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#public-option
America was founded by very religious people who had faith in an invisible friend and were pliable and dumb enough to bow down to authority, cause God put them there. Thank God Australia got the convicts and America got the puritans.
Dear Koala -
Nice quip about the Puritans. But the American colonies got a very substantial portion of their early settlers courtesy of the English criminal justice system and debtors' prisons, in the form of indentured servants. Where Australia got most of their immigrants as convicts under sentence, many early American colonials were folks essentially expelled from pretrial incarceration, the defendants' opting to accept deportation across the Atlantic and functioning as an escape valve for the British isles' penal facilities.
There were many factors later in play, but this history of aversion to the cruelties of the British justice system became a big influence in passage of the Bill of Rights. Veterans of the Continental Army could vote, even if they lacked property. What constituency do you think was most concerned with banning things as cruel and unusual punishment and unreasonable bond, and insuring the right to jury trial, notice of criminal charges, and an opportunity to be heard and present a defense?
Inclusion of these "criminal defendants' rights" safeguards into the Bill of Rights helped to eventually get the US Constitution ratified by the necessary number of states.
Happy Fourth of July, everyone - including you Aussies down under.
Bill from Saginaw
And a fine "escape valve for the British isles' penal facilities" it turned out to be in "the greatest democracy on earth" where sovereignty resides in "the people", or so they say.
Of course, there is that small matter of indefinite detentions without trial making that nasty old British Magna Carta and "quaint" notions like habeus corpus null and void. Not to mention the great escape from constitutional monarchy to unconstitutional presidency with combined C-in-C/Head-of-State/Head-of-Government and non-accountable war powers that would have made George III green with envy. As for "taxation without representation", the current governmental representives of paid sponsors won't even put the needs and wishes of their alleged human (i.e., non-corporate) constituents "on the table."
Happy 4th of July indeed, but you might want to ask yourself exactly what revolutionary achievements you've preserved and are celebrating. Unfortunately, a second revolution against imperial tyranny seems unlikely.
The dems won in 2006 by default. It's not that they had anything better to offer it's just the voters had had enough of repub rule. The lying, the wars of choice, torture, tax cuts for the ultra-rich, and pandering to religious nut jobs. Now it seems as though the dems are doing the same thing. I want more than anything to be wrong, but if I'm not then I'm afraid that in 2010 the r's will not only win by default, but they will also have the luxury of not having to change their policies or rhetoric one iota and we will have more of the same from the last thirty years or worse.
This article is completely laughable as far as the author's assessment of Obama is concerned. Obama promised nothing on healthcare and on stimulus, he promised nothing before. The stimulus package was already another giveaway to the already well to do and very little to repair our crippling country's infrastructure. I remember Thomas More, and I miss him btw, discussing how it was nothing more than a lumped up package when he could have dealt with it all issue by issue spread out. If the Republicans don't accept the phony stimulus package, regardless of their reasons I will applaud that decision. I am already well aware that if Mccain were president that they would accept it regardless. No sane person in their right frame of mind would accept it.
As for health care, Obama never supported single payer or anything close. Back when he was interviewed about his take on the issue in 2006, he sounded like coming up with a "faith based" idea in the Senate which sounded more like throwing money at Big Insurance and Big Pharma and "trust" that they'd reform themselves.
Obama has more than enough audacity alright. It's just that he's spending that capital in the wrong places such as more war spending, more bailouts to Wall $treet, and now fake "public option" plans. He has in fact been copying Dubya's tactics of bullying and armtwisting members of Congress.
if you miss Thomas More, check out the recent postings by Henry8...can't help but notice those two are never in the same room together...
I'm not so sure Henry8 resembles Thomas More. However, I would say that having read through the archived comments of the past month, maxpayne looks like a better replacement for Thomas More. When I read that maxpayne worked for DoD, I felt scared of him. He was mean to Sioux Rose and others at first but at least he gave up attacking her on her spiritual postings unlike some creeps. Here are some similarities I noticed between the two.
First, I saw that Chavez and Iran post and I noticed that maxpayne repeated Thomas More's talking points on Chavez being anti-democratic to his own people. Thomas More and maxpayne have no problem sucking the oil out of Chavez's home country but they have a problem with Chavez doing a lot to help the poor unlike Dubya and Barry.
Second, a similarity I noticed between TM and mp was that when it comes to blaming, they always say blame the pols, not the troops or the contractors. While the pols deserve the top blame, what these two fail to realize are that the enablers even if they are pawns are making it too easy. I have met former soldiers who gave up fighting for criminal wars when it occurred to their senses and I even have coworkers who gave up working for defense contractors because they knew that they were being stressed out completely and that their efforts would only go towards harming not only the American people but other sweethearts abroad.
Third, while I agree with the two that regulated capitalism is better than unfettered capitalism, I cannot understand why those two have the nerve to attack socialism even when the poor seriously need it.
Finally, despite those three similarities they can be fun to listen to when they say that Obama and Congress are trying desperately hard to defeat themselves by 2010 and 2012 and that they'll lose the center if they don't pass single payer healthcare.
Thomas More may sound heartless at first especially on immigration but when you really get him on the issues deep down, then he'll admit the cruelties being done against the poor and the defenseless on both sides. I'll have to wait and see how maxpayne turns out. He doesn't show up as much as Thomas More would.
Oh boy, here we go again. No, I am not Thomas More. I did have disagreements with him such as gun control. He believes in none of it while I believe in reasonable measures. I don't call for outright gun banning and I know where to distinguish between gun control and gun banning. On illegal immigration, I lay the blame on various business factors especially "free" trade and union busting. However, I have seen immigrants come illegally and make themselves look like big shots so I have mixed thoughts on the issue. I have already discussed about my work and the fact that I do not have the authority to completely control how our pols and top management use it just like soldiers do not have the full authority to take on the generals and pols. In the end, the pols choose how to control how the wars keep going and that's why I would much rather we keep trying to toss out bad pols and elect new ones. I also recommend that we pay attention to our local and state level pols which even you have admitted is worth looking into. In another post, you say we reap what we sow. If that's the case, then shouldn't we be paying equal attention to local and state level elections? After all, the more good pols we bring up on the local and state levels, the more of them we all can send to Washington. As much as Obama has turned out to be a complete mess ever since he entered the US Senate in 2005, part of the reason was he probably felt really helpless that most everyone there was just too established to budge and that maybe he can only go so far. While I would have appreciated that he at least stand out in a bold and progressive way, I understand. Suppose that next year, we the voters put in 50 House members and 10 new senators who are bold, progressive, independent, and come straight from the local and state legislatures. Congress might be heading for a new direction and even Obama won't be able to play the Bush bullying game for more war funding and corporate bailouts for long.
Sioux Rose
Who's the psychic here? (LOL)
Well, some of us are disappointed. We had hoped Obama would end capitalism by decree the day he became President. We had hoped he would demand a tithe from all rich, to the government, times nine. We had hoped he would send large stimulus checks to all non-millionaires. Oh, cruel, cruel world, I...,I...
Greg R, don't be disappointed, if you read Mendacity for Dopes you'll see that he never promised to do all those things the day he became president. In Mendacity for Dopes he makes it clear he will do it incrementally and will accomplish all those things by the end of his second term. You just need to keep your hopes up and make sure to do your part to see he gets reelected. Okay?
End of his second term...what second term? If affordable health care fails, Mr. B>HO's finished.
Given the number of mushy-headed Obama fooled me posters here...
they're basically showing that they're easily fooled. And apparently aren't all that upset about it.
Obama is in for sure for a second term.
No, all that some people hoped is that he wouldn't be an almost 100-percent shill for corporate interests. In this we were disappointed.
You apparently are quite satisfied. This makes you a corporate shill as well.
Yes two Obamas: Audacity of Hope and Mendacity For Dopes
"You might think that half a loaf is always better than none - but it isn't if the failure of half-measures ends up discrediting your whole policy approach."
In other words, the triangulating incremental approach, now with a new whitewash of bipartisanship, not only squanders opportunity but ultimately costs the farm.
"So Mr. Obama and Democrats in Congress have to hang tough -"
Thats a joke.
OBAMA had the AUDACITY to run for President in order to Become the Audaciously Great Compromiser.
So far I don't even see much compromising--just complete sellouts to the corporate agenda, right down the line.
Sioux Rose
VANMUNGO: That's what I see, and Frank (a post above) explained quite incisively the reaons why.
"And that's why the public plan is an important part of reform: it would help keep costs down through a combination of low overhead and bargaining power. That's not an abstract hypothesis, it's a conclusion based on solid experience"
I'm not so sure. If Krugman was talking about single payer, this would be true. But "public plan"? Has anybody seen this plan yet? I didn't think so. I suppose it will be cobbled together as soon as the new military commissions are re-rigged.
"A joy to behold". I think that says it all. He seems to be a Public Relation's dream.
"The mendacity of hope".
Are we now left with only the nightmare scenario that the first "Black Prez" is a major sellout?
That this well-spoken and charismatic man who talked incessantly of change and his credentials as a 'community organizer' is a corporate shill?
I think even many progressives are going to hold out their hope till it is hung by a rope. They will even go so far as to say that Obama is planning his own okie doke on the system, I am sure.
I can only hope that there is a major backlash and people of color will be appalled that their first black prez is nothing more than a tan Clinton who sells out their cares and conerns.
He seems to just love the limelight, like an actor. I think we all saw this coming but it is painful nonetheless.
I think progressives need to really organize now. We need a Main Street Party. We are so divided. What gives?
Progressives need to understand that it is our responsibility to inform the public anyway we can. It is not enough that we come here and write erudite comments.
It is not cool to constantly disparage those who are ignorant. There is too much at stake. They have children.
Knowledge also imposes responsibility.
jasondylan.wordpress.com
"People of color will be appalled that their first black prez is nothing more than a tan Clinton who sells out their cares and concerns."
You may have been hanging around with Clinton-haters too much. Clinton-haters are full of sh*t.
Under Clinton, the African-American poverty rate dropped from 33.1 percent in 1993 to 26.1 percent in 1998 -- the lowest level ever recorded and the largest five-year drop in African-American poverty in more than a quarter century (1967-1972). Clinton's approval ratings among black Americans were sky-high.
Perry-
Are you talking the welfare to work programs? Figures can lie and you may be right but I believe you wont find many civil rights leaders or social workers for that would agree with your point of view.
And mon dieu! You sure are proud of a 7% drop, numbers do lie, almost as much as people.
or 100,000 more cops on our streets to arrest african americans, sending them to one of america's burgeoning prisons.
...peace...
Re June 26th, 2009 12:54 pm
"Clinton-haters are full of sh*t."
Chelsea, do you kiss your mother with that dirty mouth?
highkarate, good points ---- all.
you note, "a Public Relation's dream", "this well-spoken and charismatic man", "love(s) the limelight, like an actor", "a corporate shill?"
Of course, highkarate, the ruling-elite 'corporate financial Empire' that controls our country behind the facade of its two-party 'Vichy' sham of democracy knew it could no longer get away with the old tried and try trick of simply casting a former corporate (GE) spokesman and 2nd rate actor like Reagan as the next president --- because the American people, while born at night, were not born last night, and have already seen that un-reality show.
Nor could the Empire simply cast a vacuous celebrity as the final winner of "So you think you can be president" (although the campaign came close to such a charade).
And the George Schultz trick of jetting to Texas and picking the spawn of ex-CIA chief was not going to work again.
So between the non-starter of simply appointing Billy May as the president, and shooting all who objected, or doing some very sophisticated private/secret run-off screen tests at an elite Virgina resort between the female and male stars of the, sure to win Demo studio, the Empire had no choice but to cast the O-man --- and they seem to be pleased with his performance.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Outside of the Sotomayor nomination, this is essentially what the government would have been like under McCain.
Actually I think McCain only paid lip service to health care reform during the campaign and then would have no intention of even touching it once in office. Not that his proposals were anything to take seriously. I believe it was a $5000.00 tax credit for anyone who buys health insurance. Assuming they can afford it that is. I don't know which is worse. Empty promises or someone who seemed to really want to reform health care and then hearing endless debate about it with no real reform in sight.
Except we'd already be bombing Iran, expanding Guantanamo, taxing existing health care benefits, and bailing out the Wall Street and corporate big boys in an entirely opaque, behind-closed-doors fashion without even whispering about regulatory reform of the financial markets.
Bill from Saginaw
In his laughably desperate attempt to make Obama seem different from McCain, Bill claims that under McCain, "...we'd be bailing out the Wall Street and corporate big boys in an entirely opaque, behind-closed-doors fashion without even whispering about regulatory reform of the financial markets."
- So the difference is apparently that Obama "whispers" about "regulatory reform"? That Obama lets the Wall St firms themselves draw up toothless plans for fake reform, while posturing as an advocate of serious reform? Bill leaves untouched the fact that under Obama, the "whispering" (such as it is) is done strictly for public consumption.
Re "...expanding Guantanamo, taxing existing health care benefits..."
- Actually, On June 10, Obama did a 180 & said he was open to taxing health care benefits, even though he'd attacked McCain for suggesting it during the campaign.
See http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/health-care/obama-to-endorse-taxing-benefi.html
- And as for Guantanamo, everyone knows Obama is doing absolutely nothing to halt US practices of torture & CIA dark sites. Even if he was serious about closing Gitmo -- which he's not -- it would be merely symbolic, without accompanying action to shut down the other hell holes, & to hold torturers accountable for their crimes.
Obama is not trying to "stop" this stuff, he's merely trying to apply a more "civilized" veneer to the most prominent excesses.
Big difference Bill, you are bombing Pakistan, expanding Bagram prison oh and the "open government", my word! Have you found out who is visiting the white house yet?
Only in America would health care be seen as a commodity for insurance companies to exploit for a profit. And only in America would the illogic of the argument against a "public option" Krugman cites at the top be allowed to pass, over and over again, unchallenged.
We are such Orthodox Capitalists here in the United States that the proposition that profit is more important than healthcare is considered sensible. And though opponents of single payer constantly point out its faults in other countries no one in those other countries would ever trade their system for ours. And this misrepresentation too is commonly allowed to pass. Yes, simultaneously, we boast of being the "best" and "greatest" in the world, while falling far behind other countries in health statistics. And if we are the "best" and "greatest" can't we then improve upon other universal systems, eliminating lengthy waits, etc.? Keeping such problems in mind as we develop our own system?
Yes, I wish Obama would fight harder. And would take these issues to the American people, courageously untangling the lies and distortions. And perhaps even call for voter retribution against Blue Dogs in his own party who stand in the way.
"Only in America would health care be seen as a commodity for insurance companies to exploit for a profit"
The mafia works just like insurance companies except the commodity REALLY IS the health of the business owner. It's called a protection racket. It can even be said that our illustrious representatives in congress are running a protection racket on the insurance companies. If the company doesn't "donate" to tha pac, well, you know, no ticket, no laundry.
AGG & QUINTY- GREAT points!!
Your insights and explanations should be on a flyer and millions of copies dropped from an airplane to blanket the country.
(I guess that would that be bad environmentally-speaking?)
How about shouting it from the rooftops?
What would it take to get a consensus going in the US Congress on making REAL changes in healthcare delivery?
The Republican minority is still crooning Tax Cuts and Less Regulation, with thunderous arias on Immense Deficits which will Bury our Grandchildren under Debt. While Pitch Fork is right, that a large percentage of Americans want universal care, the news hasn't reached the Congress. And there are many Blue Dogs who support the Republicans.
This being the USA, I would be satisfied (almost) with just about any universal plan. There are, by the way, some excellent public/private national healthcare systems in other countries.
Instead of saying "no," let's say "yes." Let's do what Taiwan did. Let's examine all the other national healthcare systems in the world. Let's copy their best attributes and improve on their failings when needed. (After all, if we are the "best," that shouldn't be hard to do.) And if many other countries, far less wealthy than the United States, can afford a national program then can't we (as the "best" and "greatest") afford to have one too? Or will we always be second class?
But let's drop the orthodoxy (government is bad, government can't solve anything, government is wasteful and expensive - well, it is, if you don't believe in it. If, like George Bush, you see it as a pot you and your friends can exploit) and begin to provide decent healthcare for all. After all, won't this make our country a better place to live in? Or do we wish to constantly lag behind the rest of the world?
Great ideas, Quinty!!
I'm with you.
Studying how other countries provide this is a great start.
Although, they do not have as bloated a military budget as we do here.
For me, that is the obvious place to begin cutting. It's about priorites.
Death or life? An easy choice, one would think!!
"Fund human needs, not (defense contractor's) corporate greed" - isn't that how the chant used to go? Maybe we need to revive that one!!
Remember the "peace dividend?" Under Clinton that meant a drop of a billion "defense" dollars or so, down to approx. 397 billion. Bush more than doubled spending. Since military spending appears in so many places in the budget it is difficult to come up with a fixed figure. But it is at least more than 700 billion today.
So, we're not an empire, are we? So what do we need this gross expenditure for? We could easily cut down to 200 billion and still provide for our nation's "defense." Or is this bloated budget, which few in Congress question, required for upcoming wars?
If we took 500 billion from "defense" would that cover a national healthcare program?
Quinty,
I like that idea of examining other systems around the world and taking the best of them and finding out strategies for improvements. This is what Congress needs to be doing for all our taxes we pay those weasels rather than toying around with our low esteem and pushing our buttons at our expense.
Here's how it's done in some other countries.
The site discusses Taiwan's approach.....
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/
sickaroundtheworld/countries/
Sioux Rose
AGG & QUINTY: Excellent posts!
The recent NYT poll showed that only 20% were orthodox capitalist and thought the free market was health care's best solution. I think the perception that the public is evenly divided on this isn't accurate. Obama is not making a move to the center but a move to the right that is more at odds with public opinion than single payer advocates.
Yes, I know. And a vast majority of Americans favor a nationwide program. By about %70. But this majority is not reflected within the Congress, where the votes are needed to get anything passed.
A very FUNNY look at the "crafting" of a healthcare policy!
Funny? Yes.
http://www.culturekitchen.com/khalper/blog/a_behind_
the_scenes_look_at_people_against_health_care_reform
"When it comes to domestic policy, there are two Barack Obamas.
On one side there's Barack the Policy Wonk, whose command of the issues - and ability to explain those issues in plain English - is a joy to behold.
But on the other side there's Barack the Post-Partisan, who searches for common ground where none exists, and whose negotiations with himself lead to policies that are far too weak."
--------------------------
When it comes to Paul Krugman, there are two Paul Krugmans. The first portrays himself as a progressive out to change the system for the benefit of humanity. The second is the REAL Paul Krugman - a capitalist economist who supports the system and is out to confuse the working class that capitalism can be reformed to better serve their class interests. Both of these Paul Krugmans need to be totally rejected and ignored by the working class.
I agree, but would add that I don't think Krugman is intentionally & consciously "out to confuse the working class." He doubtless believes he's doing his best to tell the truth, as he sees it. He doubtless does believe that "capitalism can be reformed to better serve [working] class interests."
In the big picture, of course, it's not important whether the deception is intentional or not. If Krugman weren't a dedicated supporter of capitalism, he'd never have been given an NYT column in the first place. From the viewpoint of the NYT -- the same paper that gave Wm Kristol a column, for much of the past year or so -- it's even better that Krugman should be sincere in believing himself "a progressive out to change the system for the benefit of humanity." That feeling of sincerity makes Krugman's column much more appealing, & hence more effective as pro-capitalist PR.
What's important is whether Krugman is right in his implicit contentions that capitalism can be reformed to serve the interests of the majority of the population; & that the Democratic Party can be a vehicle for such reform. When Obama winds up abjectly capitulating to the health insurance lobby in the current "debate" about health care "reform," we'll see once again how hopelessly wrong these contentions really are.
i agree that Krugman "believes he is doing his best" and that "capitalism can be reformed".
The thing is, i often think Obama also sincerely believes in his own role as a great speech-maker and politician who will get the "best possible deal" (under the circumstances) for the people and the Earth. i tend to think he's a tragic fool, rather than an evil monster. This allows me to believe that, at some point, Obama may become aware of the hopelessness of the path he's on, and finally put his foot down on a particular issue like health care...
i'm probably just a tragic fool...
Krugman occupies his seat at the NYT for good reason. To keep the rich & powerful, rich & powerful.
Don't expect a successful outcome to single-payer.
Do expect 15+% unemployment by midnight, December 31st.
There are two Barack Obamas, all right -- the one who got elected with clever hot air about "hope and change"; & the one who is actually just a Trojan Horse for the Established Order. There is Barack the smooth talker; & Barack the Oval Office occupant who ensures that "business as usual" will win the day, every time, without even working up a sweat.
Krugman writes, "So Mr. Obama and Democrats in Congress have to hang tough..."
- Sure, Paul. That will be the day. Just like they "hung tough" in ending the wars, holding Bush admin criminals accountable for torture & wars based on lies, and cracking down on the banksters.
Re RichM June 26th, 2009 11:23 am
...and just like they "hung tough" after having the White House stolen from under them twice...
I wish they'd fight the Rs even half as hard as they fight the Greens.
They WOULD, if they were as THREATENED by the Rs as they are by the Greens.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Re Obedient Servant June 26th, 2009 12:15 pm
Sharply observed and succinctly stated.
This administration's idea of "health care reform" is to throw a few trillion dollars at private insurance corporations every year.
It's an ongoing bail-out of perfectly useless private fiefdoms.
As has been apparent for some months (beginning with the pick of Biden for VP), Obama speaks with forked tongue. What else is there to say? And who knows why he is so spineless.
While I like Mr. Krugman immensely he fails to realize that the current debate is nothing but theater.
If Mr. Obama had hoped to hoped to achieve a pure public option, a center-of the-road program, he wouldn't have jettisoned single-payer in the early stages of his presidential run.
Nobody goes into a negotiation and cedes all their leverage with the hope of achieving middle-ground.
If I wish to buy a car for $10,000 I don't make my first bid at $9999. I start my bidding at least as far under $10,000 as the seller is above it.
That's precisely what Mr. Obama did by tossing single-payer in the trash in mid 2008.
He voluntarily gave up all his leverage.
Predictably he's the first to blink in the fight for the mushy center, which has now been pushed rightward to the Republican plan featuring co-ops.
If it weren't so tragic I could get a good laugh out of it.
Cygnus - Good post, good analogy.
The dynamic you identify - if Obama truly wanted a national health care system "he wouldn't have jettisoned single-payer in the early stages of his presidential run" - is coming back to haunt the administration on several issues and on several different fronts now that they've won the nomination and won the election.
Had Barack Obama taken the pristine progressive position during the primary season that he was drawing a line in the sand for a single-payer, genuine national health system to "put an end to private health insurance as we know it", he would have made himself vulnerable to relentless attack first by Hillary, then by the Republicans in the general election, as a reckless, big spending advocate of socialized medicine. His Democratic and Republican critics could and would have demagogued to the deepest fears of each major component bloc of the existing health care system (doctors, insurers, hospitals, health care workers, big pharama, consumers already covered by existing private plans, etc.). He suffered significant risk of suffering the death of a thousand cuts.
So Barack and his strategists avoid that pitfall by taking single payer off the table and going for the moderate, mushy middle. The move "works" politically, in a narrow sense. But in the big picture, now that Barack grasped the gold ring outside the carousel, it turns out to be worth nothing more than tin.
The same general sapping of progressive political potential took place on ending the occupation of Iraq, having an exit strategy from Afghanistan, energy policy, tax reform, and of course re-regulation of the Wall Street financial system that caused the global meltdown and collapse of the domestic American economy. Obama gave away the store by limiting his options early. He reaped the immediate advantage of not alienating moderate middle swing voters and potentially hostile corporate interest groups. But in the long run, he's now on record as opposing precisely the sort of fundamental change(s) the country so desperately needs.
FDR dealt with this problem by bringing a significant leftist faction of advisors into his inner circle, arguing that as the depression worsened, his New Deal reform measures had to become much more far-reaching. Perhaps Barack Obama can still do something similar, but the signs certainly are not promising.
Like you say, he gave up his leverage early on. The only way to ever get it back is to broaden his base towards the grassroots left. Virtually every major advisor in the administration's inner circle will throw a shit fit if Obama tries.
Bill from Saginaw
Sioux Rose
BILL: If one sees Obama as sincere and a good man who is genuinely interested in change, and needs cooperation from the Republicans, then your post makes sense. Or one could see him as a con-man, there to do the whole tap dance routine that makes all these options seem well, hopeful, only to then put the needle into his own balloon ultimately to satisfy those whose tune he's really marching to. I see the latter, and the reason is, if he were truly about bipartisan team-spirit, then we'd see SOME compromises. But every major announcement, be it about torture, holding the Bush crime-team accountable, the banking bailout, and now health care "reform," ends up following the same script. It gets pretty canned after you've watched the moves two or three times. I'd like to be surprised, but there's so much water under the bridge now. Having given all that loot to the theft-class, now they're talking about this "treatment" not working? As if there is more to give? Each time they start spinning the money presses our dollars are worth less and less; and the intelligent folks in other nations ARE paying attention. We have been conned big time, and some will have heart attacks as they watch their life savings become worth less and less; and on top of this trespass sponsored by the illicit marriage between business and state officials, those same individuals will be turned away from necessary health care by the for-profit insurers who seem to think they are the most honored (and privileged) guests at the nation's funeral.
Paul is absolutely right that “there are two Barack Obamas” (but not just on domestic policy, there are two on foreign war policy also).
Paul is also absolutely correct that Obama, as a brilliant policy ‘wonk’ can understand and clearly articulate the differences between good and bad policy.
However, Paul is dead wrong that some “Post-Partisan (angst) causes him to search for common ground where none exists.”
In reality the “two Obamas” are much more clearly explained, Paul, by simply admitting that the real Obama is selling out the American people to the ruling-elite ‘corporate financial Empire’ that controls our country behind the façade of its ‘Vichy’ sham of democracy, and that this real Obama continues to use the guile, deceit, bamboozling, and ‘oki-doke’ skills of his own ‘front-man’ Obama phony public puppet to serve his real masters.
Regardless of whether the policies in question are domestic economic, health care, or environmental issues, or whether they are foreign war expansion, spying, torture or geo-strategic brinksmanship issues, the real Obama is fully aligned with the interests of the real Empire --- while the phony Obama talks a good game with the people he is knowingly deceiving.
Admit it, Paul, Obama ain't going to push universal health care.
Obama doesn't have the guts to fight for anti-war sanity.
And Obama won't even mention the fact that our government is controlled by a ruling-elite 'corporate financial Empire'.
Face it, Paul, your supposedly nuanced Obama (just like the triangulating ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton) is no Senator Bulworth, speaking truth to power and taking-on the insurance industry, the oil industry, the weapons industry, nor certainly the banking industry, as the fictional “Bulworth” did in this video clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6ag_2dg8nI
In fact, Paul, here's a clip of the polished clipster himself warning us about the dangers of 'others' who would run that old "oki-doke" against us to fool us (which he would obviously never do himself):
It certainly looks like Obama's campaign warning of "don't let them run the old 'oki-doke' on you" was right on target, and quite prescient in this campaign video OF HIM.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh69Zi2rV-U
"he doth protest too much"
This video certainly seems to support psychologists’ suggestions that one who focuses excessively on a negative point in others may often be projecting their own faults.
The only thing is that now that he's president, he's the one running that old 'oki-doke' on all of us while providing MORE WAR, MORE OIL, NO HEALTH CARE, MORE BANK HAND-OUTS, and FULL SUPPORT OF THE RULING-ELITE EMPIRE.
Paul, it's not an issue of Obama having "Not Enough Audacity" --- but having too much audacity in fooling the American public!
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
"Paul, it's not an issue of Obama having "Not Enough Audacity" --- but having too much audacity in fooling the American public!"
I'm of two minds about Obama. First, I voted for him with, yes, hope. Not the hope that a Democratic president would actually defend Democratic principles, but the hope that he would inspire enough people to dig in and demand and work for change.
Second, I voted for Obama for the cynical reason that I didn't want what surely would have been worse had he lost.
I've actually grown a third mind since (no comments on my male mind, please). I now know without a shadow of a doubt that the political situation in this country is so utterly broken that no one person can fix it. No politician, be they Kucinich, Nader, McKinney, Paul, et al, stands a chance of going to Washington and making inroads against the entrenched and implacable system that is there. That system is alive. It breathes and thinks and sees and reacts, and no one person has a shadow of a hair's chance of changing it. So, all pleas for Obama to change are wasted, dessicated, dead.
So, we've been fooled again. As the song goes - Yeah, so what are you going to do about it? Guess what?, vote for x, y, or z, and we're still going to get fooled. So, what are we really going to do?
I don't know. Well, I know what I believe, but most people don't want to hear that. See, it involves...(looks to the left, then the right)...getting involved. Doing things. Work. Talking to others. Growing things. Buying less. Driving less. Being ethical. Demanding the same from others. And a million other things.
No, Obama doesn't give me hope. What gives me hope is the thousand small acts that people do every day even though Washington does not support them. What gives me hope is the struggle that people go through every day to rebuild their lives after this system has let them down. What gives me hope is the fact that people actually can change, and do.
So yeah, I'll vote for hope again. Cynicism is too callous for me. I'll vote for hope and keep working and breathing and living because that's the only thing worth doing it all for.
If you voted for Obama once, you lost all credibility.
If you'll vote for him again, you are hopeless beyond all belief.
Pathetic.
"No, Obama doesn't give me hope. What gives me hope is the thousand small acts that people do every day even though Washington does not support them. What gives me hope is the struggle that people go through every day to rebuild their lives after this system has let them down. What gives me hope is the fact that people actually can change, and do.
So yeah, I'll vote for hope again. Cynicism is too callous for me. I'll vote for hope and keep working and breathing and living because that's the only thing worth doing it all for."
Ted, I was reading a couple of chapters today from a Norman Vincent Peale's "A Guide to Confident Living" and your comment here that I had read earlier came to my mind. I thought about the lives of families struggling in those poorer neighborhoods out in St Louis City and putting this all together, I now understand that they're trying not to allow their plights to overwhelm them even if they get nothing in return for the hope they put forth. It's starting to get clear as to what is behind the "hope and change" pixy dust they tricked enough of the electorate with and Mccain too was copying Obama on that.
i agree w/ 8thAvatar, excellent comment especially...
"...the real Obama is selling out the American people to the ruling-elite ‘corporate financial Empire’ that controls our country behind the façade of its ‘Vichy’ sham of democracy..."
obama is the person running the show, but i seriously doubt any single person could change the course of america at this point. america requires a thorough house cleaning if any semblance of democracy will be restored to it's people (and it is debatable whether we ever actually had a small 'd' democratic government in this country).
the corporations and the insatiable pursuit of money dictate policy. the people be damned as they always have been exploited in this country, but the pace of the empires demise is accelerating. examining our current cultural values/ideals, it appears unlikely the american people will have the courage to stand up and demand a new system of government that truly would meet the people's needs.
i'm not holding my breath.
...peace...
>>To finance any new healthcare system, the Obama administration has already pledged to cut more than $600 billion from the Medicare and Medicaid programs. In the name of universal healthcare coverage and reform, a drastic rollback in healthcare for the vast majority of the working population is being prepared, in which they will receive inferior, second-rate care, and the quality of life—particularly for older patients—will deteriorate.
This from the article linked to. Clever. Very Clever. The elites have long sought to get rid of medicare and Social Security so that thsoe dollars can go into their pockets.
Obama comes along with the promise of "Improving the health care system" and providing Universality. To do so he will weaken medicare to ensure BOTH fail.
This will then open the door for the Private Industry to replace Medicare.
Welcome to 1934.
$600 hundred BILLION in cuts to Medicare?!
Oh, great plan.
I'm liking the new Pres. less & less each day (and it was already an iffy start back in November 2008).
People do need to rise up!
People must (somehow) overcome huge personal issues and barriers (lack of a job, the burden of direct family care of children and aged parents, our own poor health) and (somehow) get organized in a big, new, way.
Tackling local policy change is one way to (eventually) affect what happens in D.C. but, having been down this road myself as an organizer, it's an exhausting amount of work. And no one is going to fund you to do it, either. The sacrifices are many (socially, financially) and can make you bitter.
At the same time, there's not a more satisfying way to live.
We just need to roll up our sleeves and get going!!
What is holding us back? Too much time behind the keyboard?
Sioux Rose
GW NORTH: I think you are right on! And it's like a continuation of the Bush legacy, or should I say curse! "The Prescription Drug BENEFIT Plan." A benefit to whom? Only the insurance companies. "No Child Left Behind," left behind in terms of what, testing? "Healthy Forest Initiative," yeah, if killing every tree qualifies. And how about "The War on Terrorism," as in becoming that image and likeness. So, yeah, in this TV-consumer-culture nation, I suppose coming up with an impressive slogan is all that's needed, as the money is stolen from the treasury to yet again be passed onto the worst of the worst offenders. It's hard to believe that this fiscal rape is taking place in broad daylight as $ is thrown at war contractors whose accountability doesn't even meet the criteria of being questionable, it's utterly debased. And those bankers, the chutspah to give themselves bonuses all over again, as they are clueless to the PAIN they have cost/caused SO many! And the list goes on and on. It's a bonfire of the most depraved vanities, and one of the only things that keeps me sane is knowing that sooner or later Karma will catch up with them. To the lives ruined in the interim, I can only extend my deepest sympathies.
alan,
Excellent comment.
also, I was wondering for both , Mr. Krugman and Mr. Obama , is it even feasible to admit the facts and go public ?
for Mr. Krugman, to admit that Banks "owns and runs" this country and write it in New York Times ? President and Congress posses hardly any power, they are just serving their sponsors and not citizens.
what if Mr. Obama wearing his Audacity cap goes public clearly suggesting that insurance industry, the oil industry, the weapons industry and the banking industry has too much control over US government ? What would be the reaction to that ?
What Krugman says is true but it really adds nothing to the discussion. We've been excoriating Obama for his timidity - among other failures - on this site for months.
It would be much more meaningful if Krugman tried to shed more light on the malevolent (i.e. corporate) forces of which the President is so afraid. Examining the links between Wall Street's greed and the failure to reform would be very helpful for any efforts to change the paradigm.
q
"What will determine the success or failure of reform? Above all, the success of reform depends on successful cost control. We really, really don't want to get into a position a few years from now where premiums are rising rapidly, many Americans are priced out of the insurance market despite government subsidies, and the cost of health care subsidies is a growing strain on the budget."
I'm a bit confused by this paragraph. Is Krugman saying that we're not already seeing premiums rising rapidly and that more people aren't already being priced out of health insurance? If so, this is laughable on its face. Just about everyone I know who is not retired is facing higher premiums or the inability to get health insurance at all. We are already - right now - in a crisis situation regarding health insurance. We don't need to wait one more day - we are in crisis now!
Simply put, Congress is bankrupting the American people. First it was with massive bailouts, and now with massive giveaways to the health care and pharma industries.
I understand that things move slowly in Washington, but sometimes that slowness is intentional - manufactured to keep funneling wealth up while heaping the hurt down.
If there is any single issue that will force Americans to finally rise up in fury, it will be this health insurance Ponzi scheme.
Your point about the intentional slowness is right on the button.
Leaders & ordinary people, working in grassroots orgs & coalitions are hard-pressed to maintain the stamina and focus (and years of securing financial support) that it takes to see an issue (any issue) through to ultimate progressive change.
It's an easy way to keep us down- they just wait us out.
Then, we are lucky if we don't get co-opted along the way, or our legislation un-tampered with by the time it gets to a vote in Congress.
We need new strategies, new ways of organizing.
As others have said, the people WANT single payer, over 70% agree according to some polls. Why are we not in the streets??
"Congress is bankrupting the American people."
Yep, the truth and it fits on a placard.
You're 'right on', Ted --- and right in the company of the prescient Simone Weil.
Cost containment on surplus people is fine, but keep the big bucks rolling for the OIL industry, BANKS, Insurance, Pharma, tax cuts and subsidies for the rich and ALL BIG corporations, and above all WARS ---- yes, war(s) in the plural, which Obama will keep giving us in increasing numbers and costs --- because WARS, as always, are key in the "vital interests" of the fascist Empire.
"What a country calls its vital... interests are not things that help its people live, but things that help it make war." Simone Weil.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
BTW, Here's a fantastic, but chilling, article in WSWS (by Kate Randall) about the truth of the 'killing fields' coming to America by 'staying the course' of for-profit corporate medicine and Dickensonian 'out in the street' insurance squeezing of the vulnerable public.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jun2009/heal-j26.shtml
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Agreed. Thanks for the link. If more people would see what is planned, they would act more rationally in the face of this onslaught with such well funded PR to confuse people about whether that something they see coming is respect or recission.
Kate Randall's article focuses primarily on "end of life" care, for which I've seen Canadian figures that the cost is 50% of the system cost. While this is indeed an important issue raising ethical dilemmas my understanding of the US situation is that mid-life catastrophic health care issues are the major problem for the un(der)insured.
"You might think that half a loaf is always better than none - but it isn't if the failure of half-measures ends up discrediting your whole policy approach." Agreed and well put.
Stimulus, healthcare, climate change. On issue after issue Obama is offering a middle way. But the corporations know the 'center cannot hold', that's why the 'middle way' is perfect for them. It allows them to fragment it, and so kill it 'in the details'. The middle way is filled with loopholes, so that rightwing corporations can claim they are doing something, when nothing gets done.
These issues, so pressing, so urgent, require unified solutions. Ironclad and in-your-face. Unambiguously pro-government stimulus (if private sector stimulus worked so well, how did Bush end up doubling the debt?). Single payer universal healthcare (we privatized 30 years ago. If private sector insurance worked so well, why is there this overwhelming problem?) And a carbon tax (phase it in to reduce economic dislocation effects, but its time to realize that half-measures are going to ruin the planet).
I think your point is most relevant today - half-measures, compromise, "balance", bipartisanship and all that has only been a liability for the people and a benefit for the elites.
The elite strategy is to marginalize dissent with the combination of half-measure policy reform and nationalist pride. The pride serves to build hope and thus consent for the half-measures. USans asre proud of some of their nation's legacy and the elites feed/exploit this pride to the hilt. The elite rackets easily withstand the half-measures until public attention is deflected away from the issue and the half-measure festers into yet another failure for the people.
The half-measure cannot be considered a moderate policy because it's designed to fail completely. And even if it succeeded in moderating the elites' class war assault on the people, what exactly is so great about a moderate level of class war oppression? We want zero oppression. Full emancipation is the ideal. Who's afraid of it? C'mon people, take a walk on the far-left side.