Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Unbearable Lightness of Reform
That wickedly satirical Ambrose Bierce described politics as "the conduct of public affairs for private advantage."
Bierce vanished to Mexico nearly a hundred years ago -- to the relief
of the American political class of his day, one assumes -- but in an
eerie way he was forecasting America's political culture today. It
seems like most efforts to reform a system that's gone awry -- to clean
house and make a fresh start -- end up benefiting the very people who
wrecked it in the first place.
Which is why Bierce, in his classic little book, The Devil's Dictionary, defined reform as "a thing that mostly satisfies reformers opposed to reformation."
So we got health care reform this week -- but it's a far cry from reformation. You can't blame President Obama for celebrating what he did get -- he and the Democrats needed some political points on the scoreboard. And imagine the mood in the White House if the vote had gone the other way; they would have been cutting wrists instead of cake.
Give the victors their due: the bill Obama signed expands coverage to many more people, stops some very ugly and immoral practices by the health insurance industry that should have been stopped long ago, and offers a framework for more change down the road, if there's any heart or will left to fight for it.
But reformation? Hardly. For all their screaming and gnashing of teeth, the insurance companies still make out like bandits. Millions of new customers, under penalty of law, will be required to buy the companies' policies, feeding the insatiable greed of their CEO's and filling the campaign coffers of the politicians they wine and dine. Profits are secure; they don't have to worry about competition from a public alternative to their cartel, and they can continue to scam us without fear of antitrust action.
The big drug companies bought their protection before the fight even began, when the White House agreed that if they supported Obama's brand of health care reform -- not reformation -- they could hold onto their monopoly. No imports of cheaper drugs from abroad, no prescriptions filled at a lower price by our friendly Canadian neighbors to the north.
And let's not forget another, gigantic health care winner: a new report from the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity says the battle for reform has been "a bonanza" for the lobbying industry. According to the Center's analysis, "About 1,750 businesses and organizations hired about 4,525 lobbyists, total -- eight for each member of Congress -- and spent at least $1.2 billion to influence health care bills and other issues."
But while we're at it, a cheer for the federal student loan overhaul -- Democrats managed to pass that reform with an end run around powerful lobbyists, cleverly nestling it in the health care reconciliation package.
Nonetheless, under pressure from the lending industry, it, too, was watered down from its original intent. The three Democratic senators who voted against -- Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor -- have all received campaign contributions from Nelnet, the student loan company based in Nelson's home state of Nebraska, or its lobbyists.
(And would you be amazed to learn that one of the student loan industry's lobbyists used to be Blanche Lincoln's chief of staff? The Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call described Kelly Bingel as Lincoln's "alter ego," and cited a former colleague saying Bingel was "first on the list of the Senator's callbacks," words that would sound like heaven to any Washington lobbyist's ears.)
Another case of reform gone off track: this week, a year and a half after Wall Street brought us so close to fiscal hell we could smell the brimstone, a crippled little financial regulation bill seems to be hobbling out of the wreckage, but still faces an array of well-armed forces gunning for it.
No wonder. In the 2008 and 2010 election cycles, members of the Senate Banking Committee -- which sent the bill to Congress this week -- received more than $39 million from Wall Street and the banks; members of the House Financial Services Committee raked in more than $21 million -- so far. Just how serious do you think they're going to be about true reform?
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd of Connecticut has sounded like a champion of reform ever since he announced he will not run for reelection. It's about time. Since 2005, his top ten campaign contributors have included Citigroup, AIG, Merrill Lynch and the now deceased Bear Stearns, all front-line players in bringing on the financial calamity.
Then there are the Republicans, shamelessly hawking their favors en masse to the highest bidder. The website Politico.com reports that the reelection campaign of Tennessee Senator Bob Corker -- who's one of the key negotiators on financial reform -- sent an e-mail to Wall Street lobbyists and others soliciting contributions of up to $10,000 for a chance to meet or grab a meal with the senator.
Informed of the e-mail, Corker was shocked -- shocked! -- saying the e-mail was "grotesque and inappropriate." But did House Republican leader John Boehner think it was inappropriate last week when he advised the American Bankers Association to fight back against the proposed rules and regulations?
This is, of course, the same John Boehner who in the summer of 1995 walked around the floor of the House of Representatives handing out checks to his fellow Republicans -- checks from a tobacco company. And the same John Boehner who was the grateful recipient of campaign contributions from the four Native American tribes represented by Jack Abramoff, the corrupt lobbyist currently cooling his heels in a Federal corrections facility.
So wouldn't it have been fascinating to have been a fly on the wall earlier this year when Boehner sat down for drinks with Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase? Reportedly, he invited Dimon and the rest of the financial community to pony up the cash and see what good things follow.
According to The Wall Street Journal, Republicans already were receiving an increasing share of campaign contributions from the Street. In the game of reform, it's the political version of loading the dice.
We can't know for sure what Ambrose Bierce would have made of all this; what The Devil's Dictionary author would say about the current DC scams. But he might have agreed that the only answer to organized money is organized people. That would be one hell of a reformation.
176 Comments so far
Show AllAnother story about the rabid SEWER RATS who are running our government!!!
Is anyone surprised????
Does Moyers really believe the kudos he gives Obamacare in the 5th paragraph.
They all appear to be ambiguous regulations written by the industry that will easily tweak those regulations when push turns to shove.
If BO calls this health care reform, well, then, it's our funeral.
"[T]he only answer to organized money is organized people."
Very true, but organizing people requires resources and those who possess the "organized money" also control most of the available resources. For some strange reason, they seem to prefer keeping those resouces totally devoid of organizational potential while using them instead for diversion, superficial distractions, and the promotion of divisive "special interests."
"the bill Obama signed... stops some very ugly and immoral practices by the health insurance industry that should have been stopped long ago"
You use that word "stop". If you asked a train engineer if his freight train can stop, and he says "Sure, it stops just fine. Except in specific instances outlined in the last 300 pages of the operator's manual, but you don't need to worry about that." Ask Toyota how picky people can be about the adherence to the idea of "stopping."
This is getting tired and old. Even as commentators criticize the bill, they give it false praise. THE BILL IS BAD. Quit talking out both sides of your mouth and call a turd a turd.
to: Frank S.
How dare you insult sewer rats. They don't accept campaign contributions (BRIBES) or kill innocent civilians halfway around the world. All they do is lurk in the sewers and mind their own business.
I stand corrected, Eagle! I probably should have said the shit that sewer rats leave behind.
As is typical of his insight of today's political scene, Moyers pulls back the curtain on the corruption that permeates the US legislative system. The democratic form of government as set forth by the nation's founders has failed. Politicians who are addicted to cash from Big Business and their lobbyists have sold out the nation's future for their own personal gain.
The entire governmenental structure needs to be abolished and a new government that represents the interests of We the People needs to be established. In order for this to happen the People need to demand that laws that inhibit third-party candidates be eliminated. The People need to cease any support of Democratic or Repuplican parties who have together and in conjunction with their whoremasters, the giant corporations, have turned our nation into a warmongering evil empire that benefits only the plutocracy that owns most of its wealth.
The VOTE is more influential than money. If people want better honest government they have to meet with their local legislators, decide if they will vote in the public interest instead of the special interests, and them VOTE. Problem is that there is not a consensous of interest. The right to life people insist on no abortion but make little provision for help to families with sick children. Same for jobs. We waste most of our money on worthless defense to create jobs and immense profits at the expense of building infrastructure, schools, health care,etc.
It's not how much money a politician gets. It's the VOTES! So in effect those we are complaining about got in office because they were voted in, not bought.
What you say seems a bit naive. First of all the politicians--if they even care to give anybody who is not a lobbyist or a rich potential doner the time of day--will do just as Barack Obama did. That is talk a political rhetoric that will get him elected while at the same time be making backroom deals with the corporations that fianced his campaign.
Furthermore, the money influences voters by slick and expensive advertising campaigns that sell politicians the same way the corporations sell beer, cars or dishwasher soap. Most voters make their decisions about which politicians to vote for by watching 30-second sound bites on TV.
So you're conclusion doesn't follow your premise. The system is corrupted by money that is each day in increasingly fewer hands. The plutocracy that runs this nation is in total control of the politicians and the voters as well. Unless the entire system is toppled, it will only get more repressive as democracy steadily devolves into dictatorship.
Good article. Another reason to vote third party.
"Another reason to vote third party."
True, the reasons keep piling up don't they? But just wait, just around the corner will be caveat after caveat: The Republicans are soooo much worse, they SCARE US! THIS TIME we must stick by the Democrats, even though they are imperfect. LATER, we can build a grass roots party or system ... or something .... but NOT NOW, this is TOO IMPORTANT!
"Later" always comes around, people open their bleary eyes and notice that they and the other tendrils of the "grassroots" had gone back into hibernation. They expected that someone else would do the work, and when that someone else couldn't handle it all on their own, these hibernators will say, "A Third party is not viable! See, THEY didn't organize!"
This will go on for decades.
"Whenever we compromised, we lost." -- The Arch Druid, David Brower
Common Dreamers: We are a currently a nation of 307+ million.
435 Representatives, 100 Senators, one President & VP, and 34,750 lobbyists cannot control 307 million human beings, unless the 307 million let it happen.
Yes, currently, these leaders are in the back of the boat, clutching the tiller & thinking they are in control, but ... the 307 million can choose to steer the boat by other means.
The simple act of 10% of us redirecting our money and/or attention, for example, can act like a strong tide that causes the collective boat to change course, independent of who thinks they are steering. And it only takes a small group to initiate that tidal change, by coming up with a simple idea that seems more practical and fun to 10% of 307 million.
So, let's tune into our common dreams, note what resources we do have, and depth-study the tide charts. There may be a simple way to initiate a change that we have been overlooking.
That's the ticket!
Award winning writer, Arundhati Roy has suggested similar thinking/strategy. She writes (essentially): Why should we keep playing their game, where they make all the rules and they have all the power? There are far more of us than there are of them. Why not make our own rules, force them to play our game!
We could do it if we were organized. MoveOn was supposed to be an organizing tool but then we realized, early on for me, that they're just an arm of the duopoly's multi-tentacled, two headed beast.
Read my next comment for a link to a new idea recently sparked by a few progressive activists.
I once heard that even Mexico offers its citizens some form of universal health care unlike the US. Maybe that's what Bierce also predicted. I don't care anymore about this Republican or that Democrat on health care. Is there anyone from Mexico who can tell me their experience with Mexico's health care system? I don't mind learning because we Americans should be ashamed of putting ourselves into corporate prisons with glee and still believing that insurance isn't scam.
I think that the immigrants should do what Bierce did now that Washington just passed another severely regressive act of more corporate fascism. I can't help but ask myself "Do these immigrants coming from Mexico know anything about health care?". I feel sorry for all the immigrants coming from Mexico thinking that they will get a slice of the American dream pie when they'll be lucky to fight for crumbs. The cost of mandatory purchase of health insurance will eat into their wages so much. I hope that makes them rise and join the fight against this regressive scam but something tells me that these bad employers hiring them won't make it easy for them to rise and fight. Maybe we should give amnesty and legalization to that "immigrant" and abolish Obamacare provided that Mexico's healthcare system is better of course.
Unfortunately, Stanley, I believe the legislation forbids "illegals" from purchasing insurance through the exchanges.
Perhaps there should be a national movement by the states to have the new program declared unconstitutional -- not because it violates the 10th Amendment as the Republican attorneys general now suing say -- but because it violates the human rights of American citizens and residents and is fiscally irresponsible because the money it saves is a mere shadow of the $400 billion per year to be saved by a Medicare-for-All program.
For now, the legislation at least needs to be amended to allow those states that wish to establish their own single-payer systems to do so immediately (the law now says 2017, three years after the exchanges have been given an opportunity to fail). Minnesota, for one, is ready to go as soon as we get rid of our anti-tax/anti-government/anti poor people, etc., governor and replace him with one who will push for passage of the Minnesota Health Plan for universal care, publicly financed and privately delivered.
"Perhaps there should be a national movement by the states to have the new program declared unconstitutional "
That is what I believe that some of the state attorney generals are doing trying to take this to court. My Lt governor is joining in on it since the AG is playing partisan politics being a Democrat. I sent my angry letter to my AG and I hope enough of us Missourians can force him to listen.
I had finally found the provisions in the bill that forbid it. The next time I see another Democrat tell me that he or she will fight for single payer, I will question them on their party's shutting down states' rights to provide single payer for its citizens.
It is true that Mexico offers universal health care to its citizens and visitors both. It is also true that many nations around this world do so as well, and at a much less expensive cost than our own incomplete care charges.
It is also true that the 30 odd million who will now be covered by this "scam" and those millions whose preexisting condition formerly barred them from obtaining health care at all are going to benefit.
Small steps are still considered progress.
"It is also true that the 30 odd million who will now be covered by this "scam" and those millions whose preexisting condition formerly barred them from obtaining health care at all are going to benefit."
Like I said, there's no guarantee and just what is that number based off of? 30 million is too high a number.
"Small steps are still considered progress."
Only as long as it doesn't involve a giant leap backward to render those small steps useless. If that's what you call "progress", no wonder our side is embarrassing !
doubledee
I hate to mention this, but all reports and evaluations show there will still be around 30 or so million that will not be covered under this bill.
I believe going forward you will see as more is revealed, exactly how big a step backward this is.
doubledee 11:28 am
30 million will be "covered?" Coverage means insurance. The 30 million will be required to buy their own insurance. THAT's what the scam bill does.
As to "those with preexisting conditions formerly barred them from obtaining health care," you're wrong again. They were formerly barred from obtaining health INSURANCE, not health care. Under the Obama scam bill, they will no longer be barred from buying health insurance. In fact, they will be REQUIRED to buy health insurance. And, they will be required to buy it at whatever price the insurance companies charge. The scam bill does nothing to cap premiums or regulate premiums in any way.
If a mandate-to-buy health insurance would really "benefit" people, then we could benefit the homeless and hungry by mandating they buy their own apartment insurance and grocery insurance. Do you thing such a mandate would be "progress?" Or, do you think it would be a scam that would really only benefit insurance companies?
Naturually and Veritas,
Excellent responses and I couldn't have said it better. I tell you, people will never get out of thinking that insurance is not the same as coverage until it gets rejected by the doctors and hospitals in their moments of critical needs.
Maybe each politician should be required to give up their special care and see how they feel when they lose a loved one or one of their children because their insurance gets rejected. Make them limp from doctor to doctor until they suffer an irreversible disability or death and see how many of those politicians continue to do business with Big Insurance after realizing that all insurance is scam.
Sioux Rose
NATURALLY: Great post!
RICH M: Likewise. (Above)
My Friend, Health Insurance is pre-paid Health Care with agreed upon caveats. Your argument here is baffling.
You call the SOP of "delay, deny and hope you die" an "agreed upon caveat?" Health insurance is a defective product. It doesn't work.
The ongoing healthcare crisis that precipitated this regressive deform bill is centered around the issue of insured people whose needed healthcare has been wrongfully denied by insurance crooks. The personal testimonies to that, in the Congressional Record, in the media and elsewhere are endless.
I'm sure you're being obtuse with that comment, but in case you're naive I suggest you see Michael Moore's documentary "Sicko."
The bill also curtails the insurer from denying care due to preexisting conditions. No one denies that this is an imperfect attempt at health care reform, but you deny any benefit from it whatsoever. You are simply wrong.
The "curtailment" is a $100/day fine. It's not going to change insurance company behavior. For $100/day they can still delay, deny and hope you die. And, besides that, there is no agency to enforce even that tiny fine. You have to go to court. It's a sham. Obama sold you a sham, just like he sold himself in 2007.
sierra7
From reading countless Letters to Editor experiences of world class sailors they have nothing but praise for the Mexican healthcare system as compared to the US one. That goes for most of those sailors who additionally sail to other countries elsewhere......It seems the poorest of the countries bend over backwards to provide decent, affordable (I really mean affordable) health care; not an arm an a leg or your childrens' future.
So many other countries do have "private" health care, but they are through non-profit companies; that makes a huge difference.
Also, it should be said, if the British or Canadian system is "failing" it's because since the age of Thatcherism both systems have been increasingly starved of funds, making it almost a foregone conclusion that their systems will eventually fail. That's a tragedy that the MSM doesn't tell you about.
I'm disappointed in Bill Moyer even authoring this piece.
He should be ashamed.
Why if there are basic "reforms" to be made such as have been pointed out in this piece does it take a 2,400 page piece of legislation???????? WHY???????
The answer is in the question.
sierra7
While its true that the British system is failing and in desperate trouble, I don't know that Canada is in the same shape.
They are two different types of systems, could you reference where you got the information that the Canadian system is failing?
Even then, I'll take the British system over the American one any day. I thought that both Canada and UK do single payer so both must be the same.
The British system is socialized medicione and its terrible. People will try to tell you how good it is, but I know far too many Englishmen to buy that.
I wouldn't trade our system (before Obama screwed it up) for the English system...EVER.
Now that you mentioned socialized medicine, for a moment let us forget about insurance. Thanks to capitalism, bad medicine is the norm because profits come first. Without capitalism, better quality medicine would get a say. I thought that requiring good medicine was what socialized medicine was all about. What is it that you don't like about socialized medicine because I think this country needs it more than anything?
Single Payer like Canada has is not socialized medicine. Single Payer is a method where the government pays for all medical coverage but does not own or employ the providers.
Socialized medicine like England has is a method wghere the government pays all bills, sets all prices and employs all Doctors and owns the facilities. Its the worst of all worlds.
We need Single Payer, however its been killed by Obama.
I wouldn't want government setting unaffordable prices but hiring good doctors and making sure that all public facilities are well maintained can't hurt. I know this assumes that our politicians are not corporate devils but don't you think that it would result in preventing bad doctors who are either greedy or poorly trained? But if government sets prices, wouldn't it then just pay itself? I'm a little lost here.
Stanley1979
Socialized systems like Englands don't hire good Doctors as a rule. Nor are their facilities very good. Nor treatments delivered in a timely manner. You are a number.
The government determines what the Doctors are paid because the Doctors are government employees as are the nurses, etc. Hospitals/Clinics are owned by the government. There is no incentive to better serve the patients other than the individul professionalism of some staff.
The government determines what treatment is approprioate for a diagnosis, not Doctors. The results have always been bad in a socialized setting.
Single Payer seems to work best to cover everyone.
I see and thanks for helping me out on this. At least you are giving good reasons why socialized medicine is not necessarily a good thing unlike some conservatives who misuse the term to demonize single payer.
One question though. Community health clinics are supposed to be great for the uninsured but thanks to this legislation, not even the recent funding for them that Obama provided might hold if too many people are forced to turn to them because paying the fine turns out to be cheaper than purchasing insurance by law. Would community health clinics fit the definition of socialized medicine?
Stanley1979
"Would community health clinics fit the definition of socialized medicine?"
No idea. That was stuck in to soothe Bernie and the structure is and service are not defined, it simply says so many $$$ for "Family Health Clinics"
Like most of this shoddy bill which is ill constructed and not a comprehensive anything but rather a cobbled together package of pork, it leaves the question up in the air.
If a student brought something like this for grading they would get an F for content and structure/clarity.
This bill raises more questions than it answers.
Michael Moore visited Britain for his documentary "Sicko." According to the doctors, patients and politicians he spoke to there, the doctors are well paid and the public is happy.
The Brit's system is described as having originated in the aftermath of WWII when so many desperately needed healthcare. It has been so overwhelmingly popular that one astute observer said any attempt to abolish it would be met with armed resistance.
See "Sicko." The DVDs are loaned by many public libraries.
I saw the movie and I thought that it was still true. The same thing could be said in America. If you remember that guy who disrupted a town hall meeting asking government not to take away his medicare, it goes to show that even conservatives can love socialism even if they love it for selfish reasons. I wished that the same young people who mobilized in masses to get Obama elected would do the same on getting Medicare for All enacted but I guess I understand that most of them know nothing about Medicare or Medicaid and will succumb to anything their glorious figure says. It's funny how most conservatives never realize that socialized medicine would actually enforce personal responsibility in the long run. By keeping medicine and doctors socialized, people realize their limitations with grace and won't allow insurance coverage to spoil their thinking and then nobody can claim that single payer will cause taxes to be raised because society would not be craving for expensive care with socialized medicine. I can't believe that even progressives and liberals won't be nice to the concept of socialized medicine in conjunction with single payer. It is as if all they care about is insurance more than actual health care.
Correct - even Thatcher could not mess with it. It is quite popular.
Thanks for the explanation, Veritas.
Sierra7, some people will say that health care in Canada and UK are failing but they are unable to admit the embarrassment the US system is and further will be thanks to this scam. jlock123 gave me somewhat of an insight into how insurance is looked at in other countries. Maybe I'm going too hard on capitalism but here in the US, it's all for-profit on steroids and putting down people who think ethically. I put up with dumbos who complain about waiting times in other countries. In this country, people have to limp from doctor to doctor because thanks to insurance exploitation bad doctors can wash their hands off or use lack of sufficient coverage as an excuse to charge being what one can afford to do even a simple treatment or procedure. If we would have even a non-profit style health care or single payer altogether, millions of innocent victims wouldn't have lost their lives and left their loved ones and/or children in pain, suffering, and possible loss of health due to grief. But what do the Obamacare hooligans care? I hope they suffer the consequences of their foolishness.
Make sure your funeral insurance is current, if you use the public health care services in Mexico.
I have use Mexican doctors, but they have private practices. I have to pay them. Most private doctors are competent because they were trained in University National Autominous Mexico or in the USA.
I would not use public hospital services unless I was unconscious and near death.
Because corporations dominating our country define what solutions are "possible" within the present system, we are not getting real health care. We are not getting useful market reform. We are not honestly addressing climate change. There is much righteous anger in our country and much of it is manipulated and misled by corporate fronts, ergo, teabaggers proliferate. If we are to be effective in bringing change, we need to publicly focus on the essence of the problem which is the takeover of our government by corporate interests and build a movement to take our country back from these greedy self-serving bastards. All other issues are subservient as they boil down to public interests versus a destructive corporate agenda.
"And imagine the mood in the White House if the vote had gone the other way; they would have been cutting wrists instead of cake."
instead the fascists in the White House cut OUR wrists!
Never Again!
"Friends don't let friends vote Democrat - or Republican"
AS long as people say a 3rd party can't affeect change it WON'T!
voting your conscience is NEVER a wasted vote......
and voting for the lesser of 2 evils is STILL evil - and an increasing level of evil every time!
VOTE 3RD PARTY!
what do you have to lose?
I recently returned a solicitation for campaign contributions with a note saying I'm voting third party "even if the candidate is a squirrel on water skis." If there is no third party candidate, I'll write one in. I'm going to vote no matter what, but never for a corporatist.
the Obomba WHite House and the other fascist democrats have now redefined CHANGE
as giving 98% to the Corporations for 2% change....
all that guarantees is that EVERY SINGLE TIME we end up futher and further behind.....
That's a losing strategy....
but hey Dodd and Obama et al will get their payoff after they leave government....
and the official white house view of progressives.....
"retards"
The "logic" in this article is dumbfounding. First the authors say "Give the victors their due: the bill Obama signed expands coverage..." But, in the very next paragraph they say the insurance companies "can continue to scam us.."
What good is "expanded coverage" (mandate-to-buy insurance) if there are no caps on premiums, co-pays or deductibles, and the insurance pirates are still free to "delay, deny and hope you die?"
Next they say, the bill "stops some very ugly and immoral practices by the health insurance industry..." But, there is no mechanism to enforce the new rules, and the penalties provided are so small as to have no effect on insurance company practices.
Then, they ask us to "cheer for the federal student loan overhaul" included in the bill. That's a "sweetener" used to mask the bad deal the public is getting with this regressive bill. To wit, we'll give you (a "watered down" version of) student loan reform, if you agree to a massive transfer of wealth from the people to the coffers of the insurance pirates and drug cartel.
Also "cleverly nestled" in the student loan language is a provision to provide grants—not loans—to illegal migrants for college and trade school, and to bestow U.S. citizenship on any who complete two years of school. That's yet another subsidy for the labor costs of our worst scoff-law employers, and yet another recruiting tool: come to the U.S. and work in our plant for slave wages and no benefits, and your kids will get free education and citizenship courtesy of our silent partners, the U.S. Treasury and the Corporatist Party.
With this kind of twisted logic coming from "liberals," Obama will soon lock in corporate socialism for Wall St. and call it "financial reform," corporate socialism for the nuclear power industry and call it "green energy," and privatization of Social Security and call it "Social Security reform."
Expect the corporatists and their minions to tell us the most important thing is to give Obama a "win."
Not really sure they care very much about an Obama "win" either, except in terms of maintaining the popular illusion that the "two-party" facade actually matters.
Fact is: The healthcare bill is an improvement over the status quo. It enriches the pharmaceutical companies and the healthcare insurers, but it also covers more people under Medicaid, offers subsidies to the working poor to buy insurance, deals with pre-existing conditions, fills the "doughnut hole" in Medicare drug coverage, ends annual and lifetime caps in payouts, puts at least some limits on the percent of insurance profits that can go to administrative costs, and more. My family gets helped by this bill and many progressives writing so angrily here get helped, too.
Go ahead and vote Green in November, but consider the consequences. Will your vote let in a fascist politician (and I mean I real fascist--a Brown Shirt who will secretly work to imprison you or worse)? Will your vote mark the end of what environmental protection is still left after Bush II? Will it mean the end of Social Security? Most of the poor, minorities, and workers are not with you in supporting a third party. They are not with you because they know better: a little reform is better than nothing. The progressives writing here are standing by yourselves--mainly a bunch of educated white guys--and whatever you do won't make a rat's dropping's difference in how things turn out.