(First, let me make my position on health care reform clear: I am and have always been for health care reform, the concept. I think everyone is, especially those who have experienced unexpected health care costs, and seen that most of the money goes to the insurance companies, and less to doctors and hospitals, which is why doctors and hospitals have to charge so much.
I get that. I am for the public option, too. As matter of fact, that's the only form of health care reform that's acceptable--universal health care for every citizen of this country, if they can't get it through their employer or if they are unemployed or don't get health insurance through their jobs, and if universal healthcare doesn't impact the policies that people have and are happy with, those 18 people in the US who aren't govt employees...
What I am totally opposed to, however, are the reform bills proposed by the house, the senate, and the one proposed by the president. All 3 suck and the differences between them are virtually insignificant.
First of all, they all mandate health coverage be purchased by every citizen. No! That does nothing to address the problem that health care coverage--even under the proposed bill--is priced out of range of poorer Americans. Unless you are below the poverty line where you get it for free (under the new plan), you still won't be able to afford health insurance for your a family of 4 without making $40K/yr or more, just like now. So, if the only job you can find in this economy is a part-time job at a record store that doesn't provide insurance for part-time employees (like practically every company out there), you are no better off than you were before the new plan, and are about to be assessed a fine by the govt for not purchasing insurance under this new plan.
Also, regarding being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, all 3 say they eliminate that huge indiscretion that is the current practice of health insurance providers. But they don't. What they do is make it that the insurance companies have to provide you coverage, but your pre-existing condition will be factored into what you pay for coverage AND what you pay for individual procedures, tests, prescriptions, etc. And those rates are not capped, either. So, if you have had breast cancer, or if you are HIV positive or recently developed Type II diabetes, they can charge you whatever they want to per month, and basically price you out of affording health insurance. And don't think they won't do that either, and they'll have the blessing of the govt when they do it under the new plan.
The object of health care reform was to lower costs, because at least half of all medical costs go to admin costs: billing, processing, admission, prescriptions--all the stuff that has to do with how they get paid, not with your medical condition. None of the plans address that problem, and they all basically increase the number of enrollees for the health insurance cos because of the mandate that we all buy it. It does very little to address prescription costs (which are ridiculously overpriced, undertested, and recklessly approved: the fast track process is ridiculous, and why Vioxx and those similar to it were pulled from the market--fast tracked drugs are less adequately tested than non-fast tracked drugs, which are also not adequately tested), very little to contain the out of control admin/bookkeeping/billing costs, and nothing more to protect patients when a procedure or treatment goes wrong above the current "ambulance chaser" system we have currently. Health care will remain the pyramid, for profit scheme it is currently under each plan, so there is no point to it.
I thought the object of health care reform was to make affordable health care for all. But none of those bills come close to that goal. None of them are "better than nothing" or a "good start in the right direction" like some of the politicians who once championed the public option are now saying in order to tow the party line. All it is is a political football that each party needs to gain possession of in order to defeat the other party. That's all the health care reform bill will be whether it passes or not: a hollow political victory heading into the midterms. And sorry, I don't believe Obama when he says he will address the public option down the road once this bill is passed. Bullshit!
First of all, it wouldn't be addressed again in this term, for sure, and he's probably just a one term president. Even many of those who campaigned for Obama are turned off by his pro-corporate agenda he has had since taking office. More people are disillusioned with Obama than those who outright hated Bush from the beginning. And the fact that Obama's term so far has been labeled Bush's 3rd term says more about Obama than it does Bush. Obama has not come through on anything he promised yet, and his overcommitment to the myth of bi-partisanship has made him even less effective. It is extremely disappointing to many who voted for him that the first black president is nothing more than the average Washington politician who places the will of the banks and corporations--those who paid to get him elected--before the will of the people. Many thought he was another MLK. He has more in common with Charles Rangel than MLK.
Secondly, no one in congress is going to want to go through this process again as long as they are in office. This whole battle between the Dems and Reps has been an embarrassment for both sides, especially the Democrats who--with the super majority they had before Kennedy died, still couldn't get anything passed. The Republicans are ridiculously opposing everything regardless whether it is good for the country or not, and with the smallest minority caucus in decades, they have kept the upper hand and are soundly thrashing the Democrats in every aspect of the political process, especially in the PR arena. Plus, the Democrats are sure to lose seats in the upcoming midterm elections, so this was their one chance that meaningful health care reform had a shot, and they BLEW it monumentally. Factor in the fallout from the SCOTUS Citizens United decision, and health care reform will never again be brought to the floor of congress once health insurance companies have packed both houses with their own candidates (they own the GOP and most of the Democrats, but soon they'll own all of them). If anything, whatever bill they pass this year (if it indeed passes) will be rolled back after ten years when by that point, every politician in DC will be bought and sold by the corporate power structure.
And all this is with the clear fact that both parties already play for the same corporate team. Imagine how bad it will be in 10 years...the corporate power structure, as powerful as it is already, will be invincible in a decade. And we let it happen. See below.--jef)
***
By ANTHONY DiMAGGIO
Mass solidarity is absolutely vital to the success of any social movement.
It is precisely the lack of such solidarity, however, that’s prohibiting mobilization in favor of socialized medicine. Rather than demand meaningful reform, Americans have left the question of whether there will be a public option or Medicare for all system to politicians – the vast majority of which are reluctant to fight for universal health care.
Congressional Democrats are set to pass a health care bill within the next month through the “reconciliation process” – which seeks to merge competing versions of health care reform previously passed in the House and Senate, and also allows Democrats to circumvent any possible filibuster attempt by Republicans. President Obama postponed a trip to Indonesia and Australia in order to lead a last PR effort to win over those in the general public who are still undecided on health care. Obama recently explained that “The United States Congress owes the American people a final, up or down vote on health care... It’s time to make a decision. The time for talk is over. We need to see where people stand.”
Whatever compromise is achieved by Democrats in the final House and Senate bill, it may not contain a public option, and undoubtedly will not include a provision establishing a single payer, Medicare-for-all system. It’s worth reflecting upon why Democrats consider universal health care to be beyond reach. It should be noted that opposition doesn’tspring primarily from the American public. Most Americans have long supported the idea of a public option. Additionally, universal health care programs such as Medicare are widely popular among a majority of the public. Primary opposition comes not from the grassroots level – as the tea party would have us believe – but from political officials and corporate America. America’s political-business class views progressive taxation in the name of universal health care as an unfair burden on the wealthy. It is this group that has led a successful media coup to convince a growing number of the middle class to oppose reform.
It is increasingly the case that elitist values are supplanting those of the middle class, as recent public opinion surveys demonstrate. I dub this the empathy problem – average Americans are sympathetic to health care reform in principle, yet they oppose health care reform more generally, and are unwilling to participate in a mass social movement to force officials to implement universal health care. Increasingly, the well off – those with decent to well paying jobs and with medical coverage – are taken in by fear mongering about health care “rationing,” “death panels” and government socialism (see “War of the Words: How Town Hall Crashers, Media, and Pollsters are Transforming Public Opinion”). These individuals do not represent the heart and soul of corporate America. Nonetheless, they are being used by the wealthy to stifle any changes that would cost the leaders of corporate America a significant portion of their wealth.
As recent public opinion polls demonstrate, those who pay closer attention to the media’s reporting on the health care debate in Congress are not only more likely to be confused about the specific reforms being proposed, they’re also more likely to oppose the health care reform (see the Pew Research Center health care surveys from July 2009, September 2009, and March 2010). In short, reactionary officials and media are actively manipulating Americans into opposing even limited health care reform. This is all the more disturbing considering that polls show that, while Americans increasingly oppose health care reform, they support the specific provisions promoted by Democrats, including establishing a public option, providing government subsidies for those who can’t afford health care, prohibiting insurance companies from dropping customers for pre-existing conditions, requiring employers to provide health care to all employees, expanding Medicare to cover those 55 and over, expanding state child health insurance programs, and expanding of Medicaid (see Kaiser Foundation Aug. 2009 polling, McClatchy & CNN’s polling from November 2009, and Newsweek’s Feb. 2010 polling).
The indoctrination of middle America on health care reform is evident in public opinion surveys. Some quick statistical work, employing surveys produced by the Pew Research Center over the last year, put this problem into better perspective. These surveys demonstrate that there are systematic differences between middle America and those who are struggling to get by:
-Those who have no problems paying for their medical bills or for prescription drugs are more than twice as likely to deny that the medical system needs to be “completely rebuilt.” In terms of the hard numbers, 59 percent of those with trouble paying for drugs want to see health care completely rebuilt, while just 31 percent of those with no prescription problems feel the same way. Similarly, 63 percent of those with problems paying for medical care more generally support completely restructuring health care, but just 29 percent of those without problems support such restructuring (see the June 2009, Pew Research Center health care survey).
-Those that already have health care coverage are consistently more likely to oppose Congressional Democrats’ and Obama’s efforts to promote health care reform. The insured are more likely to oppose a government plan or public option, and less likely to trust the government in general in dealing with reform. Opposition to reform reaches a majority for the privileged, with 57 percent of those with health care coverage opposing reform, and 60 percent of the uninsured supporting reform (see the July 2009, Pew Research Center survey).
-Following the 2008 economic crisis, wealthier middle class Americans are consistently more likely to oppose increased government spending on social services. While 55 percent of those making less than $30,000 a year support increasing social services, support declines to just 34 percent among those making more than $50,000 a year. Wealthier Americans, in addition to the highly educated, are more likely to put their faith in “free markets” over the government when it comes to interventions in their personal lives (see the March 2009, Pew Research Center survey).
The empathy problem extends beyond the figures above. Privileged Americans tend to think the economy is in better shape than those who are struggling to get by. This problem is not new, as President Harry Truman famously said about the public’s perceptions of troubled times: “It’s a recession when your neighbor loses his job; it’s a depression when you lose yours.” Public denial about the dire economic state of contemporary America is strongest among the privileged:
-As of early 2009, Americans who reported strong personal finances and no credit problems were consistently more likely to be optimistic about the future of the economy. Wealthier middle class earners were more likely to be angry at homeowners for taking out sub-prime mortgages they couldn’t afford, and more likely to be angry about the budget deficit, but were no more likely to harbor anger about the bank bailout. These trends are precisely what one would expect in a country where well off middle America is indoctrinated by upper class propaganda. Paradoxically, wealthier middle class earners are enraged about the budget deficit (a common feeling among political and business elites), but not about the bank bailout that contributed greatly to the deficit. Increasingly, wealthier middle class earners are turning their anger toward social welfare programs – such as health care reform (see the statistics on public opinion and health care above). This is a common strategy among business and political elites – direct public outrage toward budget deficits that result from social welfare spending, cry and moan about the unsustainability of “entitlement programs,” and direct attention away from growing deficits that are fueled by corporate welfare.
-As of mid 2009 (more than 8 months after the economic collapse), a substantial minority of Americans (39 percent) still thought the U.S. economy was in fair shape. Those who had no problems paying for medical bills and those who reported stronger personal finances were consistently more likely to say the economy was in decent shape. The gap here remains tremendous – with those enjoying “good” or “excellent” personal finances nearly twice as likely to think the economy was in “fair” shape when compared to those with “poor” finances (June 2009, Pew Research Center).
Unfortunately, public opinion polls in the United States do not effectively distinguish between well off middle class earners and the decadently rich. Survey questions about individuals’ family income contain seven different categories measuring those who make between $0 and $100,000 a year, and no categories distinguishing those who make more than $150,000 a year. As a result, we are left to assume that a well off married couple – for example two well established public school teachers making a combined $150,000 a year – are to be counted the same as the average CEO making $10.9 million in 2008. Assuming that the two cases are the same is absurd, although this isn’t widely acknowledged by pollsters. Current measurement methods in public opinion surveys do, however, allow us to measure how well business elites’ values are reflected in the general population, and among those who are relatively more or less privileged. My analysis has shown that the values of business elites are very much transferred to the wealthier part of the middle class. This is a tremendous problem for those seeking progressive reform, since those who make less than $150,000 a year share far more in common with the poor and disadvantaged than they do with the richest 1 percent, made up overwhelmingly of corporate executives and investors. Even well off families are in danger of losing their jobs in a bad market. They’re susceptible to the same economic hardships that plague the poor, considering that unemployment brings with it a loss of health insurance coverage and an inability to pay one’s mortgage and bills.
It’s no longer enough to say that the majority of the public supports health care reform. It’s one thing for an American to admit in a telephone survey that they think health care for all is a good idea in principle; it’s quite another for them to go out in the streets and to the voting booth and actually fight for that reform. As progressives, we need to recognize that a mass movement for health care reform should begin with the poor and disadvantaged, but also must win over a majority of those who are relatively well off – those in middle America who are well paid but have much to potentially gain from universal health care. Developing and maintaining mass support for real reform is absolutely vital come election time. Grassroots pressures for socialized medicine need to be backed up by electoral retaliations against any officials who oppose reform. Until we get past the empathy problem that afflicts the American public, there will be little hope for radical change.
No comments:
Post a Comment