Defeat Health Care Reform
THIS DUDE is mad as hell:
Dr. Paul Hochfeld: This is a government giveaway to the insurance industry, with or without the public plan option.
This public plan option, at least as it’s written in HR 3200, is a lame, failed, designed-to-fail public plan option. It’s not available until 2013. When it’s available, it’s not available to people who get insurance from their employers. Those are healthy people. It’s not available to people who are upper middle class or wealthier. Those are healthy people. So the public plan option is designed to attract the sickest, most expensive people. And when it fails in 2017 or 2018, by design, the insurance industry is going to point at it and say, “See, the government can’t do healthcare.” And it’ll be the wrong lesson. And I just–this whole thing is being manipulated by the industry with our legislators being complicit in this process. [Democracy Now!]
He goes on to say that health care is a right. I’m not so sure. But aside from that, good stuff, Dr. Hochfeld.
While health care probably isn’t a right, it is, however, a moral imperative. Especially in a society that places the utmost importance on individuals’ right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, (assuming we still do.) “Life” depending on “survival” as much as it does, and “happiness” being as affected by “good health” as it is.
One way to persuade someone on this point would be to ask them, “If someone in your church were ill, and unable to afford treatment, and you could afford to do so, would you feel obligated to contribute to a fund to help pay their expenses?”
And, “Furthermore, knowing that your church provided this kind of help, would you feel that such a contribution was a wise investment if you knew the same would be done for you in a time of need?”
This is just an example, replace “church” with just about anything: neighborhood, family, union, club, circle of friends, motorcycle gang, maybe even town. It seems more likely that people would answer the two questions in the affirmative when conceptualizing about an affinity group they belong to. Puts the issue on a scale where it becomes tangible, where folks start thinking about it in terms of the people they see in their daily lives.
For some reason, or some combination of reasons, this feeling of solidarity toward an affinity group doesn’t translate to the nation as a whole. A Mainer might bristle at the idea of their money going to pay for some fast-driving flatlander’s or, worse, some Yankees fan’s medical bill. The rich man wonders why the fruits of his entrepreneurial expertise should benefit the health of some grunt can’t rub two quarters together. The worker doesn’t see why the cubicle denizens should get healthy off the labor of their strong back. Regional differences, religious beliefs, race, economic disparities, the urban/rural divide: all of these divisions play their part.
Living in a culture that obsesses over such divisions, there will always be a loud subset of Americans who can be relied upon to angrily resist solidarity on health care at the national level, and the media can always be counted on to amplify that dissent.
This is how politicians are able to say socialized health care, or single payer insurance, or price controls on medical services just aren’t ‘politically feasible,’ and instead reel off legislation that amounts to a bonanza for health insurance companies.
While the ideal solution I would conjure up in the anarchist utopia in my brain isn’t the single payer insurance this guy advocates, his defeatist approach toward the current health insurance legislation, with or without a so-called public option, is admirable:
Kevin Zeese: My preference would be to see this bill defeated. It does more harm than good. It empowers these corrupt corporations in ways that we don’t need. So let’s see this bill defeated and start over and make the next election about a national healthcare plan. [Democracy Now!]
Faith in the electoral system notwithstanding.
Stump Lane 