EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
"Now Make Me Do It"
Never much of a fighter against abusive corporate power, Barack Obama is making it increasingly clear that right from his start as President, he wanted health insurance reform that received the approval of the giant drug and health insurance industries.
Earlier this year he started inviting top bosses of these companies for intimate confabs in the White House. Business Week magazine, which proclaimed recently that "The Health Insurers Have Already Won" reported that the CEO of UnitedHealth, Stephen J. Hemsley, met with the President half a dozen times.
These are the vendors. They and their campaign slush funds cannot be ignored in the power struggle over the legislation percolating in the Congress. One public result of these meetings was that the drug industry promised $80 billion in savings over ten years and the health insurance moguls promised $150 billion over the same decade. Mr. Obama trumpeted these declarations without indicating how these savings would be guaranteed, how the drug companies could navigate the antitrust laws and what was given to the health care industry by the White House in return.
We have now learned that one Obama promise was to continue the prohibition on Uncle Sam from bargaining for volume discounts on drugs that you the taxpayer have been paying for in the drug benefit program enacted in 2003.
Unknown is whether the health insurance companies were also promised continuation of Medicare Advantage with its 14% added taxpayer subsidy to induce the elderly to make the move out of public Medicare. Also unknown is whether the Medicare public option that Mr. Obama formerly espoused but since has wavered on has been put on the concession table.
The whole secret process is seedy and demonstrates cruel disregard for the millions of American who, whether in dire need of medical services or not, voted in "change we can believe in."
By stark contrast, President Obama has never invited to the White House the leading consumer-patient champions in this country who favor full Medicare and free choice of physician and hospital-often called "a single payer" system. Open to the corporate barons who have failed decade after decade to deliver what patients need, the White House door is closed to the likes of Dr. Quentin Young-a founder of the Physicians for a National Health Program and an old Chicago friend of Obama's, Dr. Sidney Wolfe, who heads Public Citizen's Health Research Group, Drs. Marcia Angell, Stephanie Woolhandler, and David Himmelstein, who are nationally known and accomplished single payer advocates or Rose Ann DeMoro, executive director of the fast-growing California Nurses Association.
Mr. Obama even tried to exclude any advocate of a single payer system-previously favored by Obama and still favored by a majority of the American people, doctors and nurses-from his roundtable meetings convened to receive the views of different constituencies.
"Make me do it" was the advice of Franklin Delano Roosevelt to reformers when faced with legislation he desired but did not have the votes for in Congress. Mr. Obama is not exerting that plea for people power. Were he to do that, he would be encouraging daily public hearings in the Senate and the House on the bureaucratic waste, greed, overbilling, collusion, and fraud that many in the corporate world have inflicted with their costly, pay or die health care industry.
Such publicized hearings would keep him on the offensive. It would arouse the public and focus energies on the main problem-the corporatization of medicine. This commercialism has left tens of millions of people without health insurance, caused 20,000 fatalities a year, and cost Americans twice or more per capita than have full Medicare systems in western countries, which have better health outcomes than the U.S.
Further indication of Obama's corporate dealings is that he never identified himself with a specific bill with a House and Senate number that he could rally the people around. No wonder people are confused, frustrated and angry. President Obama did not stand for an unambiguous proposal.
He thereby emboldened both the cash and carry Blue dog Democrats to rebel and the Republican yahoos to launch their lies and distortions via Rush Limbaugh and similar trash media.
Obama is about to make his biggest mistake to date by favoring the bipartisan deal his assistants are working out with Blue Dog Senator Max Baucus and his Republican counterparts on the Senate Finance Committee. This proposal has no public option, no consumer protections or restraints on the mayhem and skyrocketing charges of the so-called health care industry.
Already the less corporate-indentured bills being reported from the House Committee by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and his allies are getting short-shrift from a White House that clearly views the forthcoming Baucus-Grassley "compromise" as the "more practical" go-to legislation.
There is reliable word that the AFL-CIO will endorse whatever Obama approves, with the exceptions of the California Nurses Association and the Sheet Metal Workers' union. The latter, through their president, Michael J. Sullivan, announced in late July that it was suspending all future campaign contributions to any candidate for Congress or the Presidency.
Already over sixty progressive members of the House, headed by Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) have declared opposition to these unacceptable compromises moving forward in both the House and the Senate.
So is gridlock around the corner? Will there be a health insurance reform of any stripe signed into law this year? It depends on the alliances that settle for the lowest corporate denominators being blocked by the unyielding principled stands of the progressives who want something that puts patients above the failed profiteering vendors.
The guess here is that Obama will sign anything which squirms through a cowardly Congress that cannot give to the American people in 2009 the health care system Congress stopped President Harry Truman from establishing in 1950.
It is up to the people of our country to "make him do it" whether this year or next. A mere one million immediate calls to members of Congress by one million assertive citizens will start sobering up these legislators who think they can get away with another sale of our public trust.
The Congressional switchboard is 202-224-3121. The full Medicare, single payer bill (backed by nearly ninety legislators) is H.R. 676. The go-to citizen group for your sustained engagement is singlepayeraction.org. The rest is up to you, the majority, who want to put the people first.
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...
182 Comments so far
Show AllNicely said Ralph.
When it comes to the visionary left: Nader, McKibben, Hedges, and Goodman, Obama puppets the refrain, "Make us do it." But when it comes to the parade of his corporate handlers through the White House, Obama asks, "How much do I write the check for?"
Where is the moron RSJ who a few months back was asserting Obama was for single payer?
RSJ?
One reads this excellent by Ralph Nader and thinks of the paradox of a Michael Moore whose film Sicko brilliantly documented the health crisis in this country while also noting the rapacious nature of the insurance companies. But while clearly advocating a single payer system in this country Moore inexplicably backed Obama during the 2008 campaign knowing full well that Obama not only rejected a single payer system [while even now proclaiming that it is off the table] but also wished, as Nader correctly points out, to keep the insurance companies and their profit making ways in his health care plan for Americans.
As Nader writes, it is now up to Americans to call their representatives in the faint hope that they may actually listen to their constituents. The irony is that while the fanatics of the far right accuse Obama of being too tough on health care, those on the left are not doing enough to tell Obama and their representatives that single payer should be an option that should be most definitely on the table.
It's not a "faint hope" if we all do it. It's as easy as making a phone call. One million phone calls will work.
Hell, let's have 1 million phone calls every bloody day...that's if you can tear comatose Americans from the crap on TV.
By the way, am I the only one who seems to sense that Brrack Obama appears strangely detached, without emotion, even as he holds these "townhall" meetings on health care reform?
Bet'cha twenty he's drugged up. ;)
"The irony is that while the fanatics of the far right accuse Obama of being too tough on health care, those on the left are not doing enough to tell Obama and their representatives that single payer should be an option that should be most definitely on the table."
That depends on which "left" you're referring to. There's a fake "left" and then a real one. The fake one loudly opposes the Republicans and yet when push comes to shove, supports their policies because a Democrat is doing them.
Maybe the real left might not be doing enough but it's also possible that they've done everything they could but little more can be done from their end. I've met plenty of people who support single payer or at least describe what they would want health care reform to be like closely resembling single payer but life isn't always easy for them. Some people have to work longer hours or spend more time helping their family out because something's up in the family. I may be a single woman free to talk and bug my reps when my work load doesn't get too heavy on a given day but if I get married the next day and even become a mother, it will be virtually impossible for folks like myself to bug our representatives to do the right thing. Nader is correct up to a point that we need to hold our reps' feet to the fire by sending them a message (phone, email, or mail) but at some point the pols have to show their part. Why should we pay them taxes to "make them do it" ?
"Moore inexplicably backed Obama during the 2008 campaign knowing full well that Obama not only rejected a single payer system [while even now proclaiming that it is off the table] but also wished, as Nader correctly points out, to keep the insurance companies and their profit making ways in his health care plan for Americans."
Michael Moore has become a very wealthy man. And, he continues to make money off of his films. Don't get me wrong -- I don't begrudge him a good living. He's a very creative guy, and he should, for his hard work, earn a very good living.
Personally, I thought that Michael Moore, and his producers, should have offered the film, SICKO, to PBS to broadcast -- at this point, free of charge. This idea came to me when I was listening to an interview by Bill Moyers with Wendell Potter, on his Journal. Maybe, some of you saw the program. Mr. Potter is an ex-employee of the health industry company, CIGNA. Now, Mr. Potter is speaking out about the injustice of the health care industry, and has also testified before congress about his inside knowledge. In the interview with Bill Moyers, Mr. Potter stated that Michael Moore, with his film SICKO, had "hit the nail on its head," so to speak. In other words, Michael's film told the truth.
An interesting panel would be Ralph Nader, Wendell Potter, Michael Moore, and Bill Moyers as the moderator/interviewer. And, the film, SICKO, could be broadcast -- as educational, and a gift to the public interest. Anyone who has a TV could tune in -- PBS is available to the public. Of course, some PBS stations might not choose to sign onto the venture, but unlike ShowTime, where the film is now shown, "we the people" could have access. Maybe, the program could be streamed on the Internet so more people could tune in.
I'm just thinking of ways to make noise, out-of-the-box, but I have no contacts with any of these people, and the idea might not be feasible, either. However, if the event came to pass, it would be a huge news-getter!
I also thought that Al Gore should do the same thing with his film about the environment -- An Inconvenient Truth.
Jeevee
EXCELLENT IDEAS! NOW LET'S PUT THEM INTO ACTION!!!
How about strategically giving away several million bare-bones DVD, simply packaged copies of the (SICKO) film? Also, grant the right to free showings so many others could see it?
Look, these things cost pennies to make...PENNIES. Given the stakes, seems like Moore and his buddies in the film industry could take one for the team, and saturate the land with this important message.
As for Ralph Nader, I shudder to think what we'll do when he's gone. I can't fathom an America without him.
Thank you Ralph for all of your work over the years.
Gotta know where to look :-)
http://freedocumentaries.org/theatre.
php?filmid=133&id=966&wh=1000x720
I shared this site with my progressive/activist student org from college, they should make good use of it. You should do the same...Netflix is useful for documentaries too, and the cheapest plan is less than $10 a month, depending on taxes.
Exactly so. Especially the one million phone calls idea. I'm making a few on Monday.
Two-thirds of Americans want a single-payer system, and that's in spite of the industry PR campaign and AstroTurf actions.
Let's make Congress do what we, the vast majority, want. Make your phone calls!
"Let's make Congress do what we, the vast majority, want. Make your phone calls!"
Good luck with that. We tried that on stopping the 700b bailout last year and look where all that went. I'll give it one more stab but only because for once Congress is set to vote for 676.
There was no two-thirds majority opposing the bail out.
But there was a strong enough majority and it's beyond just the polls.
Thank you RichM. Sometimes, I get so sick and tired of people saying that we're not doing enough to make the pols do it. I also realize that some things are beyond our control and that's where the pols' responsibilities come into play. I wished more people were smart like you.
That's right. The bailout was opposed by Amerikans by like 98% of the people. It was astounding.
Supposedly these legislators got more calls, emails, and faxes AGAINST the bailout than they had with any other issue in MODERN HISTORY.
Yes, Obfraud went and pushed for the bailout, and they all supported it.
Surprisingly enough, my Congresswoman, a Democrat, and my Democratic senator both voted against TARP...I called their offices to thank them for it.
""Make me do it" was the advice of Franklin Delano Roosevelt to reformers when faced with legislation he desired but did not have the votes for in Congress."
THANK YOU ! From the moment Obama won the presidency and gave his victory speech, he and his bot brains have repeated the "make me do it" mantra to evade leadership responsibility. Not only that but they're also trying to make it look like the Democrats are being controlled by the GOP on votes even when the Democrats have a filibuster proof majority but are inventing lame brained excuses for playing kissyface with the GOP !
Never before have we had such an abusive leader tell the public to "make him do it" and then go right behind closed doors and show what a corporate slut he really is for Big Insurance/Pharma ! I've written and emailed enough letters to my representative and two senators and with no responses or very lame corporatist responses, I think enough already for the most part. My representative is a hardcore Republican who has shown his anti-single payer hatred. I guess I should have stayed in the city instead of moved to the suburbs for slightly better representation. But I don't know because it doesn't matter who's the rep. They all dial for the same corporate dollars.
And let's face it. Whether unemployed or employed, chances are most people are busy working longer hours because they might get let go off or their desperately trying to find another job sooner because the longer they're unemployed, the tougher it is to get their next job. I'm lucky to work from home up until the end of summer but even I don't know my fate as to whether I'll be as lucky to get enough time to even read here let alone post. I'm tired of trying to convince pols who are already "fixed" puppets for Big Money. We can talk all we want about "democracy" but for paying our taxes, don't you agree that the burden of responsibility lies on those pols instead of just us when it comes to enacting legislation?
Oh for God's sake, if you're too tired to make a phone call the LEAST you can do is STOP DISCOURAGING the rest of us!
Oh for God's sake, you sound like an Obamabot ! I'm not discouraging anyone. There are those of us who've already done all that and look what happened? I'm just pointing out what has happened so far and I even mentioned that I'd give it one more go but only because 676 will finally get a vote. If we had people like Ralph Nader in the White House and pols similar to him in Congress, we the people wouldn't be burdened with having to "make him do it". How do you like paying Congress to do their dirty work? "Happy" now ?!?
Bring America Back !!!!.........!....You're right JB, of course !
....But, Please read my post above. If you want to behold a modern day avalanche, just convince Ralph Nader to register Democratic, then watch a whole bunch of
Us Unhappy Progs show America just what Reform means !!!
****Look, Nader just can't win as a minority candidate, his many attempts and
failures belie this conclusion. But, if he swallows some bad fish and works
from within the system, I guarantee you a massive tumult for the next three years, and an upset in the next Election !
***Can you just, Imagine, yep like Lennon, giving Peace a chance, giving us free
meds care simply as human citizens, getting sanity back to the White House and
Congress. Nader getting bigger crowds than Obama, more TV News Conferences,
more solutions, Stop War Pledges, watch us go, man !! Dudes !!
***My other suggestion was for Dennis Kucinich to register as Progressive, but
then can he face getting re-elected from his own home state ? Ralph Nader does NOT have that problem . GO Nader, GO Democratic !!!! Can you just even think that they would dare to keep a Democratic Nader off of a Presidential Campaign Debate Panel, as they did to Kucinich ???? And, Nader cannot get there as a 'Green'.
Today, in the spirit of WOODSTOCK, imagine Nader as our next Democratic President.
There's a disconnect in what you've written. Perhaps you can clarify why it would be good for Nader to accept a (D) label, and for DK to abandon it.
If Nader's politics aren't good enough by themselves, and DK's aren't good enough even WITH the (D) label, then what makes you believe making your suggested change would suddenly remove the relentless corporate opposition they both face?
That is a bold idea and I think it would change the political landscape.
Nader is doing the best he can do now encouraging People to speak to the leaders in charge.
He is showing LEADERSHIP!
We all need to get more involved, private citizens and leaders and let them know the heat of public opinion that is changing daily.
I don't think Jennifer's doing what you think she's doing.
Would you two get a room or something. You are both right. Keep it up.
laffingbear? Now that makes me laff ! LOL ! Ok, just kidding. But what's your point?
Jennifer,
I agree with every one of the points you discuss in your very well-written post. By now, I have no idea how many letters I have written to my senators, and my representative over the past couple of years -- on this very subject, as well as on countless other issues. Like you, I haven't received responses from them. In addition, I have signed one petition after another, as they have dropped into my e-mail box. Like you, I have made phone calls. I will make another phone call, and I hope that it makes a difference, but as far as I'm concerned, there seems to be less than a thread of hope. I HOPE I'm wrong!
"They all dial for the same corporate dollars." -- Exactly!!
As for "Make Me Do It" -- if that were true, Obama, or someone within the workings of this group of activists, would have organized his e-mail base, and that could make a difference, too. But, as far as I know, that is not happening! Obama is a "master of deception," speaking out of both sides of his mouth, sometimes within the same speech. However, most of my friends are still enamored, despite evidence to the contrary.
BTW, where is MoveOn on the issue of health care? Long ago, I took my name off their list, after becoming very disillusioned with some of their choices of action, or, I should say, inaction. For me, they were a big disappointment. MoveOn, too, has a list of names, and e-mail contacts that could be helpful. I'm curious if anyone knows if that have activated their list for this issue.
"We the People" are weary in our bones! Most of us have been spending every possible waking hour trying to keep informed, contacting our elected officials on a VARIETY of crucial issues, signing petitions, marching and attending rallies whenever possible, etc. If my actions, even once, made a serious difference, I could re-energize, but, time-after-time, I feel marginalized, and helpless, as if I am invisible, unseen and unheard.
I'm leaving you to make those phone calls!
I also wonder where MoveOn is on the antiwar front.
The antiwar faction in this country is essentially dead. That happened after the "Democrat" got elected. They are nowhere to be found.
Many many "progressives" are imperialists. They support empire building, racism, killing innocent civilians, and escalations in aggression and war if it is "their" guy who is doing it. Bill Clinton's presidency was a good example of this.
Jeevee
All we'd have to do, as a nation, is to stop telling other countries what to do with THEIR problems.
PEACE
As Jesus truly said, "You cannot worship both God and money!"
Jennifer and Kay,
I agree also. Last year, my representative Cleaver voted yes for the bailout bill even when 99% of those who contacted him voiced strong opposition to it.
http://www.allbusiness.com/government/elections-politics-politics-political-parties/12100254-1.html
Asked about it, he says out of "fear and education" !
But who am I kidding, he was reelected with 64% of those who voted in the district and I was one of those fools. Maybe we need to also focus on who we want to really represent us the next time we choose who to send to Washington to represent us.
Stanley1979,
I understand your frustration!
I think several people have mentioned that it's important to begin to consistently vote 3rd party, regardless.
In the last election, I voted for Ralph Nader. In NY state, I have been voting for 3rd party candidates for senate, representative, etc. Still, the incumbents have the edge -- they are already in the seat.
Of COURSE the burden of responsibility lies with the pols. And the lobbyists know that only losers think that pols are going to do their jobs. Get real. YOU have to do something, not wait for them!
Please, you sound reasonable, but you unfortunately haven't learned that if you leave anything to "them" it won't happen!
Excuse me but at some point our attempts can only go so far. Pols have a R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-I-L-I-T-Y. Why should I pay them taxes to do their DIRTY WORK?
There are only 60 Congressional Representatives signed on for HR 676 and only two labor groups (California Nurses and the Sheetmetal workers) supporting single payer. We need to make the phone calls to Congress, but we also need to pressure our labor organizations to heed the voice of their members and support HR 676.
We also must remember the vote of our elected officials on health care reform. If your Rep does not vote YES on HR 676 I plea that you NEVER VOTE FOR THAT PAID MERCENCARY OF THE CORPORATIONS AGAIN.
If you are a loyal Democrat---rethink your position. Did your Rep vote to continue and expand the wars? Did your Rep vote for the Wall St bankster bailout? (you are in debt to the tune of $42,105.00 for the finacial bailout) If you vote for that person again you must be brain dead.
My Rep - Henry (the so-called Mustache of Justice) Waxman voted 'yes' to the questions in your final paragraph. He's been in there for 17 long terms (since 1975) and he runs UNOPPOSED.
Now what? ('Representative democracy', indeed!)
Then you should run against him in 2010.
We are now in debt, each of us -- to the tune of $42,105.
Interesting -- I was just thinking about that number -- $42,105. Not long ago, I read an article that made the arugument that the $42,000 should have been sent out to each and every citizen of this country, instead of shoveled into the abyss, as a total number in the trillions -- $24, to be exact. At the time of the article, I think the number was at $13 or $14 trillion.
The author made the point that the $42,000, if it had gone to "we the people," instead of the banksters, the amount would have saved most people from the weight of their debt, and would have given "we the people" a little time to breathe -- if we found ourselves amongst the unemployed, and/or partially owning a house that wasn't worth as much as what the mortgage payment demanded.
But no, banksters FIRST, "we the people" --- far down the list.
BTW, I just made my phone calls!
Bring America Back !!!!
****If there is still hope for Single Payer, then Mr Nader
gives us the phone numbers and web sites to get active with !
Good effort !
**But, implicit in Nader's recognition of Obama's lie-soaked failures to support grassroots America, in all it's dire needs, is that fact that, after only 7 months we know Team Obama does not deserve another term of Office.
**An innovative approach, an untried path, is needed: Ralph Nader immediately needs to change party affiliations to
Democratic. We need to build a cresendo of grassroots support for the next 3 years for Nader==working from within instead of from the minority Green, or Progressive, or
Independent affiliations he has had!!
**Nader working from within the 2 party structure is the only way to change it !!!! He and We must know that by now, and give reality its due! Can you imagine the uproar, the blue dogs screaming , the core Dumbacrats shrinking into oblivion, and out of the halls of power !! Can we just imagine Nader getting bigger crowds, bigger audiences than Saviour Obama, for the next 3 years, bringing the issues to bear from the Inside of a Democrat==whether or not he gets the big suits approval or Not !!
**Go Democrat Nader, Now. So we can get to work and stop floundering====I guarantee if you do, articles such as
yours here this morn will be on the Times, Post, and Journal.
**America needs you, Mr Nader, to forego the 2-party bad taste and work with us from within rather than from without, and if you do, you will be forgiven for Gore's Defeat !
*****Do we realize, if Gore had been elected, we would have the blue dogged Joseph Lieberman as our Vice Preident, merely the shadow of Dick Cheney. We cannot thank Nader for "W" Bush, but he just may have had something to do with Lieberman's no longer being a Democrat !!! We should make our calls for Single Payer as he suggests, but I'd rather make calls helping form an avalanche, a 3 year typhoon campaign to get a Real Leader into the White House !! Ralph Nader. Make them do it !!!
Go Nader, register Democrat, save America from itself !
As someone who has worked at the state level in the Democratic party I can tell you that Nader calling himself a Dem will not help get him elected. Party politics is set up to get local and grassroots volunteers to do the work while the "party heads" actually do exactly as they please with the resulting contributions. Never did I see them actually change course in any meaningful way... in fact in 1992 when there was a viable candidate with support of over 50% of our state and an incredible influx of new people and energy in support of change - the party "leaders" sabotaged and end-ran the newly committed activists to make sure that their change was ignored/denigrated/demeaned. They actually went so far as to make sure the reps for change to the national meetings were never called on, or given any committee membership (read VOICE)throughout their two year stint!
As much as I agree that Nader has answers - Neither party will ever give him their support or voice - They will block him at every opportunity, and if he ever made the mistake of trying to work from the inside... they would silence him as a matter of policy.
Live Simply So That Others May Simply Live
Thanks, RichM.
I came across this quote from Noam Chomsky:
"...as long as you have private control over the economy, it doesn't make any difference what forms [of government] you have, because they can't do anything. You could have political parties where everybody gets together and participates, and you make the programs, make things as participatory as you like -- and it would still have only the most marginal effect on policy. And the reason is, POWER lies elsewhere... if we ever had a popular reform candidate who actually achieved some formal level of power: there would be disinvestment, capital strike, a grinding down of the economy. And the reason is quite simple. In our society, REAL POWER does not happen to lie in the political system, it lies in the private economy: that's where the decisions are made about what's produced, how much is produced, what's consumed, where investment takes place, who has jobs, who controls the resources, and so forth and so on. As long as that remains the case, changes inside the political system can make some difference -- I don't want to say it's zero -- but the differences are going to be very slight."
I pretty much agree with the Chomsky quote, but I believe he overstates a bit. I believe the second to last word ("very") should have been dropped. Do remember, there have been times when real changes have been achieved by our government, such as SS and Medicare. I was also thinking that this quote was aimed more at third world nations, where capital flight can quickly devastate.
Frances Perkins, the Secretary of Labor, remained with FDR throughout his presidency, and she championed countless progressive issues. Without her, I'm not sure that the New Deal would have been as successful. She also wanted to pass national health care legislation.
Its important not to get lost in the "good leader/bad leader" hero-class personality game. I'm sure FDR's Secretary of Labor made an important contribution to implementing these programs, but RichM was pointing out the forces behind their implementation in the first place.
Social Security is great. But it only exists because of social, political, and economic Movements among the people which were ready, willing, and able to go much FARTHER than that. Social Security is the COMPROMISE, just as Single-Payer properly is. The difference between the time when Social Security was created and now with Single-Payer is that the Movements that forced the first compromise on the Establishment (if you will) are either not around or too weakened to force the second compromise.
This is also why Social Security didn't evolve into the general Social Safety Net (including Social Medicine) in the U.S. while similar (and even copy-cat) programs in Europe did do so. The Movements that sparked the initial compromise in the U.S. were fading and unable to carry out the intended evolusion and expansion of the program here, but were strengthening and able to do so in much of Europe.
Politics works by first making demands, then showing your power, then comparing that power with others' who have different demands, then compromising based on those power equations.
In other words, if what we as a "Movement" are demanding is Single-Payer, then unless our power is so startingly overwhelming as to completely CRUSH all others', we will ALWAYS get something LESS than Single-Payer from the compromise phase.
The fact is, for proper leftists, Single-Payer IS the compromise that we should be willing to accept. Which means that we should be demanding something to the "left" of that, like Social Medicine or National Health. Which would then allow us to back down from this after everyone's power is shown and compromise at Single-Payer.
On Health Care Reform, even the best of the U.S. Left has once again made the mistake of "pre-compromising" -attempting to guess the end compromise position that works best for us, and fight for THAT, instead of our true wish, as a matter of "practicality".
This mistaken attitude is one feature that has differentiated the U.S. Left from the European Left and others since the post Russian Revolution period to some extent, to a greater one post-WWII, and more and more completely since 1968.
Another difference lies in the U.S.Left's failure to realize that militant Mass Movements -with a clear and unified GOAL (that's for the '60s people)- are the ONLY reliable power that the Left can bring to the compromise phase.
Even Nader is sometimes guilty of this failure. Telephone calls? Will that really be enough? Guess we'll see, huh?
Have Fun,
-matti.
P.S. Remember that Politics is a Machine. It is an artificial contruct of Humankind. It therefore has rules and mechanisms governing its operation. Even if I have decribed these rules somewhat wrongly, the rules still exist. Violations of the rules -such as what I've termed "pre-compromise" will ALWAYS result in unsatisfactory results. Just as putting a low-octane fuel in your gas tank will always result in poorer engine performance.
Matti is absolutely right! I said this same thing in a previous article. Ballots are simply paper substitutes for bullets. If we actually have the numbers and the ballot hasn't worked, demonstrating the number via a threat of the bullet makes a world of difference.
What kills me is that in Fortress Amerika, people look down on those who would use counter-violence to stop oppression but, around the world, people prove every day that it works. In France, if a company was to close a plant and put thousands out of work with no severance or real unemployment assistance, not only would some 'boss' probably get beaten or killed but, there would be millions of working class compatriots out in the streets and behind the barracades. They shut the entire system down when even one group of union members go on strike. I think the French do it these days just to remind the government who's really in charge. Oh, but we can make fun of them. What a joke.
Matti mentioned that there are rules to politics. One major and most important rule is that numbers really do count. I don't mean numbers of phone calls but, actual bodies willing to get down and dirty to get what they need. This counts. We'll see how effective Mr. Nader's request to call our congresscritter or sinator will be.
Exactly. I always try to tell people so "proud" of our progress which came from SS and medicare that these are what I call "rubber band" reforms. When they get passed, it's like stretching a rubber band against the prevailing corporate interests. Immediately work is begun on many fronts to dilute any benefit to the people so the programs eventually return the "rubber band" to the slack position. SS has retained some benefit through the boundless ingenuity of the poor and elderly to stretch a buck. Real inflation has actually given a regular pay cut to SS recipients every year since the 50s. The CPI inflation numbers are always set below the real thing.
The elite will promise anything to get the people off their back but it's always a lie. Hopefully, most people get it now. Expect a fake populist third party to pop up. I'm relying on Ralph Nader, Kucinich and the like to alert us about this.
Chomsky does NOT overstate. And, the quote is aimed at BOTH Latin America and the US.
So, let me clarify and add some context to the Chomsky quote that Old Peculiar reproduced... I am the one who originally copy n' pasted this Chomsky quote in a previous CD comment. The reason I know this is because I purposely left out about 2 full paragraphs that are between the (...) in the middle of the quote. ("POWER lies elsewhere... if we ever had a popular reform candidate")
I got this quote from "Understanding Power, The Indispensable Chomsky" Page 62-63. This book is a Q and A format. The lead in to this particular topic was about democracy under capitalism, social planning, and how capitalism and social planning have "fundamentally different interests."
The question asked in regards to the quote was, "Then what kind of mechanism for social planning do you think would work? Obviously you're not too sanguine about our current form of government."
Chomsky answers (and this works into the beginning of the quote) "Well, there's nothing wrong with the FORM - I mean, there are SOME things wrong with the form - but what's really wrong is that the SUBSTANCE is missing. Look, as long as you have private control..."
The 2 paragraphs that I chose to omit talk about a real case that happened in Latin America. He says, "Well, when popular reform candidates in Latin America get elected and begin to introduce reforms, two things typically happen. One is, there's a military coup supported by the United States. But, suppose that doesn't happen. What you get is capital strike - investment capital flows out of the country, there's a lowering of investment, and the economy grinds to a halt." Chomsky goes a bit further into an example of Nicaragua in 1980's and how the problem is, "the wealthy would prefer NOT to invest unless they have political power." Then he finishes the paragraph with, "I mean, these guys (wealthy) hate democracy as much as Congress hates democracy: they want the political system to be in the hands of wealthy elites, and when it is again, then they'll call it 'democracy' and they'll resume investing, and the economy will finally start to function again."
Chomsky goes on to say (which works into the second part of the quote), "this same thing would happen here if we ever had a popular reform candidate who actually achieved some formal level of power: there would be disinvestment..." He says, "In fact, if you think through the logic of this, you'll see that so long as power remains concentrated, everybody, EVERYBODY, has to be committed to one overriding goal: and that's to make sure that the rich folk are happy - because unless they are, nobody else is going to get anything." He uses an example of how if a state were to raise taxes on a big business that the big business would create a PR campaign stating that if they do raise taxes on them that it will hurt jobs, investment, and how there will be a loss of business confidence, and that the big biz will simply move to a new state that offers better tax rates. (This talk was before NAFTA - April 1989 - so now big biz just takes their capital overseas)
In essence, they (big biz and the wealthy) use their private power to get what they want because "they own the place" so don't piss em off with reforms that step on their feet. That is a fact, and that is where the REAL POWER lies.
Excellent post!
Thanks for the quote! It says it all, doesn't it?
So true what Chomsky says. So we have a representative government--one that represents corporate interests.
I agree about Mr. Nader's age perhaps hindering him running again, but the man has enormous amounts of energy. I watched the video about him, and he is intellectually and physically in terrific condition! :-) It would not surprise me if he ran again.
Having said that, Mr. Gonzalez can pick up where Nader has left off, and I'm sure Gonzalez can also bring in others who are younger and committed to progressive causes. No worries.
The important thing is this: STOP VOTING FOR DEMOCRATS. You are wasting your vote and asking for the same bullshit corruption, war, and destruction of the working and middle class when you do. Register for a third party - Communist, Socialist, PSL, Green, Workers Party of America - just pick one and register and then start voting third party EVERY TIME YOU VOTE FOR EVERY CANDIDATE.
Third parties become viable AFTER people start voting them in, not before. A third party will NOT magically appear, so voting for Dems while you "wait" for another party is a joke. DO IT NOW. Yes, Republicans might win a few election rounds in the meantime, but you have to stop enabling the Democrats, who are Republicans in practice anyway!
I don't know how ANYBODY could have voted for Obama knowing he would escalate in Afghan. He came right out and said he would send more troops to kill people in Afghanistan during the presidential debate. Came right out and said it. It was disgusting and horrifying. I would never vote for someone who said that.
But I voted for the Commie. :-)