 |
| California-Rejected "Radical" health care for all. |
WHAT IS RADICAL NOW WILL SEEM INEVITABLE AND REASONABLE IN HINDSIGHT
During the passage of the 13th , 14th and 15th Amendments to the US, which sought the freedom and further, the equality of African Americans, those who stood most solidly in the corner of this progress were termed "Radical" Republicans. After the civil war, the political establishment gradually moved towards settling the issues of equality behind doors instead of out in the open, but from 1863-1877, the "Radicals" had their way of fighting for equality for freed slaves, and thus for the equality of all people in the United States. This was the beginning of the Progressive movement, the end of slavery and equality for all. The earliest progressives, like Thaddeus Stevens, weren't afraid of the "term" radical. As Barry Goldwater said, extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Those who would value their political power, the centrist democrats who stand in opposition of a health care for all system, risk the danger of being on the wrong side of history, like those who opposed the "radical" vision of equality for all after the civil war.
 |
| Leaders Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren stand up for the "Radical" idea of Health Care for All |
THE RADICAL VISION OF HEALTH CARE FOR ALL VS. OBAMACARE
I would argue now that the Conservatives in the GOP have impaled themselves on their Pickett's Charge of their failing ACHA bill , the time is to move beyond the moderate reforms of Obamacare towards a more radical vision of equality: real health care for all. Call it single payer, Medicare for all, Canadian style system, it doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is this about the status quo of health care and our political tug-of-war with the defenders of our grossly inadequate health care system:
1. Obamacare didn't go far enough: even it's (More honest) defenders admit it doesn't cover millions of people. Millions still are priced out of the system all together.
2. Obamacare didn't deal enough with costs. As many experts on the costs in the current system will tell you, the pay-per-service system winds up adding huge expenses that wouldn't be necessary in a system where costs are abated universally.
3. Millions of people have health care they can't afford: millions of people are still priced out of getting good care because of copays and deductibles.
Progressives like Bernie Sanders have long stood up for moving forward on a comprehensive Health-Care-For All system (like Canada's) that would reduce the overall costs that puts our market based system at the bottom of the advanced economies of the world. Today, Elizabeth Warren has made what should be the obvious point that if Democrats made a more progressive platform, they might perform better in 2018 and 2020 then they have, now, at their lowest point of political power since the 1920s. “President Obama tried to move us forward with health-care coverage by using a conservative model that came from one of the conservative think tanks that had been advanced by a Republican governor in Massachusetts,” Warren told The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday.
“Now it’s time for the next step. And the next step is single payer," she added.
 |
 |
| Democratic Leader Pelosi is Obstructing Health Care for All |
WHY DOES THE DEMOCRATIC CENTER OPPOSE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL?
So why does the Obstructionist center of the democratic party refuse to discuss these issues? Why would they prefer to keep the discussion about the incompetent GOP plans to move backwards?
UNKNOWNS AND PROBLEMS WITH SINGLE PAYER NEED TO BE WORKED OUT AND DISCUSSED, NOT PUT ASIDE AND BURIED
Who knows for sure? One can only speculate, really. In California the center of the Democratic Party just blocked further discussion of Single Payer(SB 562), in spite of it having passed the house. Perhaps it has something to do money going to the likes of Democratic Speaker of the CA House Rendon from the Insurance industry. Why is Nancy Pelosi against it? Why are countless centrist democrats against even a discussion of it? Planned Parenthood helped block debate and discussion by having it tabled in California, arguing that in California, " under the structure of a totally state-funded health care system, the only way women could obtain an abortion is if they paid out of pocket. " This certainly is an important consideration that must be worked around, a lot more so than Rendon's argument that there was no indication of how the measure would be funded. The abortion issue must find a solution, as I'm sure the vast majority of the advocates of radical equality in health care would agree: no progressive would want to see poor women lose access to abortion or other reproductive services. We are all fighting for access to those services! So why would Planned Parenthood simply block debate and movement of a bill from ultimate passage without such a discussion? PP, Rendon, and the LA Times (subtle subtext) all make a false argument that this discussion is still ongoing. Rendon pleads, "I didn't kill the bill." Obama might have said he too didn't "kill" discussion of single payer. But advocates of single payer know this: it won't go anywhere if there isn't some legislative movement. Rendon, Planned Parenthood's, and the LA Times slash piece on Single Payer notwithstanding, the centrists tabling of SB 562 is just like the many sandbags that opponents of a good Civil Rights bill did for years, including lots of people of otherwise good will who ultimately supported the Civil Rights Bill of 1965. Why?
HEEL DRAGGING BY THE POLITICAL CENTER
If it didn't make one sick, it might make one nostalgic for the heel dragging of another era in American politics, when the recidivists in the Democratic party dragged their heels and through legislative procedure dodged debate and discussion of Civil Rights. One of the greatest advocates for civil rights, LBJ, dragged his heels with the best of them for years until events and pressure from Civil Rights groups forced his hand, and he acted progressively with aplomb.
FEAR OF LOSING POLITICAL FOOTING GUIDES THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE CENTRISTS
Politicians hate to relinquish power, and LBJ was no exception. After passing the Civil Rights Act of 1965, he famously groaned that the Democrats would lose power for a generation.
The Centrists in the Democratic party have held power since the 1990s, when they chased away the vestiges of the New Deal with the new "3rd Way" political philosophy, now known better as "neoliberal" economics. The centrists are afraid of anything which suggests even the mildest forms of socialism, unless these programs are already part of the political bedrock of US politics, to the point where even the GOP avoids the appearance of grabbing too tightly to a 3rd rail.
OBAMA AND THE CENTRISTS BLOCKED DISCUSSION OF SINGLE PAYER
But this hovering around a political base centered on treasured chestnuts instead of a vision for how to progress further, has led to fraying around the edges. Obama famously squelched discussion of Single Payer, arguing instead for some kind of compromise position that the GOP might support, which never materialized. Instead he compromised without need, and avoided the "radical" label which frightened him. He compromised on Social Security, allowing the COLA adjustments to be watered down as well. At the end of the day, Lincoln like, he did support some progress on health care, albeit in a cautious way designed to avoid the wroth of the right wing. Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has solidly blocked discussion of Single Payer, fighting against it being in the Democratic Party Platform, in spite of a 2016 Gallup Poll showing 58% public support for replacing Obamacare with a comprehensive federally funded health care system. Likewise polls this year in the Washington Post and Politico have indicated a majority of Americans support such a system.
THE LAST HURRAH OF THE GREATEST OBSTACLE TO HEALTH CARE FOR ALL: THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY AND THEIR ALLIES
This misplaced coddling only emboldened the right wing and empowered the Insurance industry to hang on for this, another round where their influence can be keenly felt to be restraining a "radical" solution: health care for all people, where costs are controlled by eliminating the "need" for profit and recoupment by a health care system which is still being inadequately funded. The problems and shortcomings, including the abortion issue with Single Payer and other details still need to be worked out. They can't be worked out without discussion and debate, especially one that would naturally follow if the legislative process had been allowed to be continued in California by debating the issue in the house. Of course, keeping this debate allows craven democratic politicians to avoid having their name attached to any particular position. For those who support the "radical" idea that all US citizens, including the middle class, should have access to health care they can afford without ridiculous copays, premiums, and deductibles, will have to fight the "well meaning" obstructionists in the center who are afraid of the political fallout which might ensue from such a discussion.
Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don’t stand in the doorway
Don’t block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There’s a battle outside and it is ragin’
It’ll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin’-Bob Dylan
No comments:
Post a Comment