Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
What It Will Take to Win the Healthcare Debate
In a speech to a joint session of Congress on healthcare Wednesday night, President Obama briefly alluded to the age-old argument between the individual's desire for freedom and the need for security. He noted there has been a healthy skepticism of the federal government since the nation's founding. On occasion, in reaction to the destructive excesses of this or that Gilded Age, progressives have been able to overcome our natural Jeffersonian inclination to prefer limited government. It is only when levees burst, markets crash, or regulators fail us that there usually comes a brief burst of progressive action. That was what happened in 1933 when Social Security was enacted.
In 1993, the Clinton health care plan was undone by a series of ads featuring "Harry and Louise" who convinced each other that the federal government shouldn't play any role in the nation's health care system. That strategy worked then and the Republicans hope it can work again. They continue to parrot consultant Frank Luntz's line that the Democrats want nothing less than to accomplish a government takeover of healthcare.
We should be clear that the opponents of genuine reform have no comprehensive alternative they can claim as their own. Aligned with the private insurance carriers, their real goal is to maintain the status quo. Their real fear is the realization of a decades-old Democratic dream: low-cost, universal healthcare. They realize that should this dream come true, they will remain out of power for many years to come.
The anti-government crowd, embodied by Ronald Reagan, rode into Washington in 1981. At his first inaugural address on the steps of the nation's capitol, he said, "Government is not the solution to our problems; it's the problem." Today, all too many Americans believe that to their very core. According to data compiled by the Pew Research Center, an astounding 62% of Americans believe that when the government runs a program, it is usually inefficient and wasteful. That's what did in "Hillary care" in 1993. The outcome of the healthcare debate taking place in Congress today will determine if the 28-year conservative stranglehold on Washington is finally nearing an end.
There are two things holding us back as we stand on the precipice of enacting genuine healthcare reform, that is, one that includes a public plan as one among others. First, from 2000-2008, the Bush Administration showed us that it had little interest and limited ability to actually govern. In fact, the monumental incompetence of Bush and his cronies will make the job more difficult, for they failed in ways that have undermined Americans' confidence in the ability of government to solve the country's most pressing problems.
Second, when we speak -- as the President did the other night -- of our willingness to come to the aid of others in need, most people think of individual or organized charity or other acts of kindness. Alternatively, one thinks of "individual" giving and selflessness in times of a national emergency, as was the case with the nation's response to the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York City in 2001. "Government action" - other than a military response -- is not the first words that come to most people's lips at such times. Nor is it clear, as the President maintained on Wednesday, that most people think government should step in when someone is in need of a helping hand. Not yet, at least.
Here, then, are suggestions for the President's next speech if he really wants to change public attitudes on the proper role and size of government in American life.
He should remind us that it was the government of the United States that substantially reduced the number of elderly in poverty, landed a man on the moon, helped conquer fascism, built interstate highways, made loans to homebuyers and students, insured bank deposits, and led the most successful anti-smoking campaign in the history of the planet. And it continues such diverse tasks as making certain that unsafe drugs don't reach the market and providing financial assistance to victims of natural disasters.
In truth, most Americans are slightly schizophrenic about their views of government. They rightly hate red tape, bureaucracy, and waste, but they want the airlines they fly, the products they use, and the food they eat to be safe.
Henceforth, liberal Democrats in Congress and the President need to go on the offensive and ask those who want to keep the public option out of healthcare overhaul a few questions: Do we want the Consumer Product Safety Commission to continue to inspect for lead in imported Chinese toys? Do we want the Food and Drug Administration to check for E. coli and salmonella in the food we eat? Do we really need an Environmental Protection Agency? This is far more effective strategy than simply denying that the proposed healthcare plan amounts to a government takeover.
Finally, the President and liberal Democrats in Congress need to remind all Americans that government has a role to play in the struggle between the people and the powerful, in this case the powerful healthcare industry. In 1941, President Roosevelt described the Democrats as "a party which believes that, as new conditions and problems arise beyond the power of men and women to meet as individuals, it becomes the duty of government itself to find new remedies with which to beat them." Nothing has really changed since then.
- Posted in
22 Comments so far
Show AllRoy Ulrich believes that the dream of the Democrats is to provide "low cost, universal health care" to the citizens of this country. If the Democrats really believed that, then they should have been backing Conyers' and Kucinich's HR 676. Instead, they opted out of a true universal health care system by backing Obama's tepid public option proving, apparently, that the Democrats have no genuine interest in making sure that the basic health care needs of this country are met. That certainly is not going to be done when Obama's less than compassionate plan calls for every American in this country to be FORCED to buy health insurance. That may be compassionate for the insurance companies but not for the citizens of the United States.
If actions speak louder than words, the Democrats' actions have proven that their primary "health care reform" goal is to maintain and enhance the profitability of the insurance industry. Obama alluded to this in his 9/9/09 speech.
We have a problem, and it shows up in the headline to this article.
You win or lose a debate when you are part of a debating club. That's not what this is about. How does 'win' a debate here? When most of the people support public health care, or getting out of a war, or not giving away the treasury to the bankers? Isn't that winning the debate? But it didn't matter -- they make some backroom deals and do what they want anyway. The 'debate' is just a show for distraction.
People have to star dealing with the real issue of who has the power and how to wrest it away from them, and that's not going to happen by debating: win or lose, that's a meaningless circus act. It's power that matters.
bluepilgrim and Erroll are both right. There never was a "debate" about healthcare because the Gang of Six, and Obama, never allowed single-payer advocates a seat at the table. Not for a minute.
So the ony solution to the unending crisis was nullified immediately by our valiant and brilliant president and all his entourage. They guaranteed this thing would fail the moment they set their sights on healthcare "change", one nobody now believes in. The Dems aren't going to listen to Ulrich's sage advice any more than Baucus will listen to Kucinich or Anthony Weiner. Obama's master plan is now a train wreck, and he engineered the train.
No debate, no serious discussion of how we got to this disgraceful impasse and why we're stuck there forever (big insurance and Pharma), just more failure piled upon incompetence piled upon lies wrapped up in greed. Obama's already a lame duck, an utterly failed president, mainly because he can't separate himself from corporate CEOs who decide every policy on the political/economic spectrum. His tireless fealty to that class has disenfranchised the rest of us. I hope they give him plenty of top board positions after he's drummed from office.
Following up on Ephraim's point concerning "debate", I was the recipient of that dubious word this morning. As I was waiting in line in Starbucks at the neighboring conservative town, I joked with the two elderly men in front of me that this was like waiting in line to discuss Obama's health care plan. One of the men, who said he was 75 and had a voice box in his throat, admitted that the insurance companies were not paying for his prescription pills but then bizarrely began railing against Canada's health care system. The other person, who said he was 68, said that this was not England or Japan or France. When I attempted to point out to him that in those countries the citizens do not have to worry about their medical bills being paid, his response was that this is the United States and for me to shut up. I finally realized that it was futile having any kind of intelligent discussion about this topic since those two, like so many other people in this country, seemed to enjoy having their emotions overrule what little brain power that they might possibly possess.
wow, Erroll, "this is the United States [so] shut up." Somebody wake Tom Jefferson up and tell him that one. Evidence that the Tree of Liberty hasn't been fed for a long time.
Please make sure every citizen gets an updated copy of their medical records.
If this citizen can't get help obtaining their healthcare records through the agencies that are required to help them, it's time to develop a new company that will sue companies that provide inaccurate/falsified medical records.
Patient records that aren't updated or intentionally lost in the system need to be accounted for if there is to be any type of reform.
I don't worship the almighty dollar, so I don't believe insurance companies have the right to control healthcare in America. I believe in educating folks, even if that includes finding a way to give all patients who are waiting in ERs a Blackberry, so they can look up info on their conditions and possibly not have to stay at the ER.
Know what I mean?
P.S. The debates/dog & pony show are a farce, like all debates on the hill...
Just a note for correction of fact.
Social Security was not enacted in 1933, as was asserted in this commentary. It was enacted, upon signing by President Roosevelt, on August 14, 1935.
"We" are not even in the debate. The Powers That Be, including the president, are squabbling among themselves to figure out what kind of "reform" package they can put together to take the heat off themselves for this issue without disrupting the huge quantities of campaign contributions they get from the insurance industry.
"We" can go yell at town hall meetings, and send angry emails, and post to blogs and sites such as this, but the people who will ultimately make the decisions will pay no attention to any of that and do what they think they can get away with and "we" will be left our usual unrepresented selves.
What It Will Take to Win the Healthcare Debate ??? Um, changing the pols. Replace Obama with a Nader, Mckinney, Sanders, Kucinich, etc... Or let's talk about Congress first. How about making making Dennis Kucinich SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE and Russ Feingold Senate Majority Leader since Sanders would have to switch to Democrat ? At least Kucinich and Feingold would have the hearts to put single payer first. At least that's a start towards getting a real debate on health care going let alone winning it.
What It Will Take to Get Healthcare For All?
Just extend Medicare to All. Forget the 'debate' and just do it!
We won't get it if our Corporate Controlled Congress wants us to suffer and die in poverty.
The problem is the current US president is on the side of the health insurance industry and has made that clear. Bill Klanton was also on the side of the health insurance industry. He didn't really try to put through even his complicated as hell plan which would have kept the health insurance industry in place. Let's just be clear about that! He turned it over to his wife. No president who's serious about such legislation would do this.
AD
The problem is the current US president is on the side of the health insurance industry and has made that clear. Bill Klanton was also on the side of the health insurance industry. He didn't really try to put through even his complicated as hell plan which would have kept the health insurance industry in place. Let's just be clear about that! He turned it over to his wife. No president who's serious about such legislation would do this.
AD
The present state of this mess is that were all going to get stuck with a so called Forced mandate to BUY PRIVATE JUNK Health Ins. and also be forced to BUY medicines from Big Pharma with NO use of the Feds enormous power to negotiate prices. In other words we've been sold down the Big Corp. river by Mr. Change we can believe in (AKA the 1 termer.)
I fear that you are right, and that Obama etal will claim that the rightwing loonies 'forced' them to take baby-steps by their loud and profane demonstrations.
I recommend that the 'silent majority' of the left that elected Obama take matters into their own hands. We want single payer health insurance (like Canada's or Medicare). What lowers costs in single payer (other than bulk purchasing and non-profit) is lower risk: you make a lifetime commitment to buy into this plan that is run like a public utility, and they make a lifetime commitment to insure you. This means that 'universal' healthcare is a separate matter from 'single payer' healthcare: it means that if the rightwingers want to keep their private insurance, they can do so, but the HALF of america that wants single payer should be given the option of getting it. We need to threaten to STRIKE (not go to work for one day) if we aren't offered the chance to buy into a single payer lifetime health insurance plan. Since there are 150 million of us, such a strike would be plenty of leverage on DC, to get us what we want. The fact that we would be SAVING the country hundreds of billions of dollars every year should sweeten the cake. Only the corporations wouldn't like it. If we don't get our way, we STRIKE again a month later, and keep striking once a month until they give up and give us what we want. Again, rightwing America gets to keep their precious choice. We get to have our 'socialized' solution. And may the best man win... If you're not a health insurance corporation, what's not to like?
RE: In fact, the monumental incompetence of Bush and his cronies will make the job more difficult, for they failed in ways that have undermined Americans' confidence in the ability of government to solve the country's most pressing problems.
The above sentence is representative of author's analysis. He seems to believe that we live in a democracy. The notion that the Bush administration failed is specious. They were wildly successful. The rich got massively more rich during the Bush years (and continue to do so now under Obama). Bush's "failure" was only that he allowed many more Americans to see the "man behind the curtain".
Bush created a crisis of legitimacy for the Empire. Obama was elected with a record corporate campaign chest to try to bring the facade of legitimacy back. There is no health care "debate".
It's all a sham to shaft us again.
NOTE: post is a bit off topic, but certainly related to the credibility of this lawyer author.
"Roy Ulrich is a researcher and writer at Demos. He is a public interest lawyer, consumer advocate, and public radio broadcaster who lives in Santa Monica."
And he is also a hack that infers that those that question the official conspiracy theory of 911 are racists. Lawyers are normally not known for their scientific credentials, but those capable of the most basic logical skills would be able to read Dr. Niels Harrit's paper and the analysis of over 800 architects and engineers at ae911truth.org. Clearly, this gutless swine will swallow just about any nonsense peddled by officialdom, including Obama's lies and wavering on health care.
By the way, this all arises from Ulrich's show friday morning on KPFK 90.7 FM in Los Angeles where he interviews pop journalist Matt Taibi (also not know for his scientific training, or integrity):
http://archive.kpfk.org/parchive/mp3/kpfk_090911_070030mr_fri.MP3
LOL, as they say.
the only "outrageous, ill-thought-out conspiracy theory" is the official one. If you would like a list of professional engineers, scientists who actually know quite a bit of "shit" about the scientific method, go here:
http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=_AES_
Here is the latest, peer reviewed research led by Dr. Harrit, showing the presence of unexploded nano-thermite in the WTC dust:
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
Yes, yohocoma, do be careful about how you judge credible authority, given that the ratio of scientists that challenge the official story to those that support it is at least 100 to 1. In fact, that site you reference doesn't even include the latest NIST reports on building 7, in which they acknowledge free fall speed.
Sioux Rose
AGITKID: Yoho prefers to live within the walled off space defined by and through his ego's insistence on its own claim to 100% intelligence, a self-sustained womb with mirrored contours. Nothing that departs from HIS particular view of reality is entertained with the slightest amount of respect or due credence. When a mind is that closed, only those willing to use their own resources to implement the equivalent of a cerebral explosion of dynamite can potentially get through. Save your effort(s).
These are very strange examples Ulrich uses to promote government programs.
The EPA has become the EDA with D for destruction.
The FDA is hideously understaffed by design so that the manufacturers of products are the only ones testing the products safety.
Likewise our food supply has had one disaster after another.
Obama says increased government involvement is necessary to improve health care efficiency and bring down costs.
Yet, he thinks this will be accomplished without tort reform and without negotiations with the pharmaceutical industry to bring costs down?
He wants to impose the worst parts of European style care on America without any of the good parts.
Frank Luntz is wrong. Anyone who equates health care with health insurance is doing so either through intellectual laziness, or for their own political purposes. The Democrats, of course, don't want a government takeover of health care. I don't want a government takeover of health care either, nor do the TEAparty people and Rush Limbaugh. Everyone seems to agree on that. But I do want a government takeover of health insurance, and I'm not afraid to say so.