The reality of the healthcare debate

Posted on December 22nd, 2009 by ecthompson md

Progressives are now having an identity crisis. Are we going to support this bill that is a mere fraction of what we wanted? Maybe it is better to kill this bill and start over? Again, I would go back to some of my posts earlier in the year — what were our goals? I thought the goal of healthcare reform should be to provide accessibility, portability and cost-effective medical care for all Americans. Neither the House nor the Senate version would provide that.

I think, when you look at this legislation, it is filled with a bunch of half measures. In reality, this is Congress. Whether it is a Republican or Democratic league control Congress, this is what we’re going to get. If we scratch what we have now and start over again, why would we end up in the same position? Congress is controlled by special interests. I don’t think that these large corporations wanted to get into politics, but I think they had to get into politics. These large corporations are all about profits. How corporations have changed over the last 30 years is a subject for another discussion, but we should all agree that corporations have become profit-making machines. If these corporations can influence rules and regulations, they can improve their profit margin. Therefore, they had to get into the business of lobbying, and lobbying effectively, for their corporations or they would lose out to their competitors.

It should have been clear to everyone before this debate started that the balance of power in this country has tipped towards the corporations. The fight in this healthcare legislation has not been over conservative versus liberal ideology. Although this is what the media has been selling, this is 100% wrong. This fight has been between major corporations (pharmaceutical companies, hospital associations, the American Medical Association and insurance companies) versus the American people. As I see it, there’ve always been two problems that Progressives have not been able to solve in this debate:

  • the American people have a very short attention span. Because of this, we are not going to be able to exert the type of constant pressure on our congressmen that is needed to pass significant healthcare legislation.
  • Very few large corporations were going to win if significant healthcare legislation was passed , so there were no corporations with corporate money supporting reform, while there were millions of dollars trying to kill reform.

Now, I think the whole debate becomes clear. Until we in the progressive movement change the equation, we’re not going to be able to change the outcome. Starting over from scratch would be an exercise in futility. We need to increase legislation, which decreases the power of corporations. Until we’re able to do that, we’re not going to be able to pass any significant healthcare reform. Single-payer remains a dream until we’re able to control corporations. We should have no lobbyist or corporate paid expert testify on Capitol Hill. If Congress can’t find an expert who’s not in the back pocket of a corporation, then they just have to fly by the seat of their pants. We need to decrease the influence of money in elections. Elections must be publicly financed. Once were able to control this beast, then, and only then, should we read address healthcare reform.

Tags: Healthcare // 18 Comments »

  • askcherlock

    Lobbyists have become such an integral part of Washington that they are now consulting on policies. It is an abysmal affront to the primal definition of Democracy. These lobbyists are embedded into the system and we are worse for it.

  • Joe White

    “Elections must be publicly financed”

    Why don’t we just let the bureaucrats cast our votes as well?

    Is there anything you DON’T want the government to be in charge of?

    There’s a good reason we don’t want the government holding the purse strings to our election campaigns or the purse strings to our health care.

    If you haven’t figured it out, there’s an old saying ‘He who pays the piper, calls the tune’.

    Americans don’t want Congressmen swapping funding for medical equipment and specialists in massive pork spending bills and doling it out to powerful politicians, leaving the rest of us with crumbs.

    And Americans don’t want Congress to be able to finance their own re-election with taxpayer money.

    You’re so busy worrying about corporations that you’d accept a government savior that controls every aspect of your life.

    Why don’t Democratic millionaires and billionaires like Alan Grayson, Al Gore, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Jane Harman, Claire McCaskill, Barack Obama, George Soros, Warren Buffett, Stephen Bing, and the rest of the Hollywood elite all buy up an insurance company?

    Show us how a corporation is ‘supposed’ to be run by drastically slashing premiums.

    C’mon Democrats.

    Put your money where your mouth is.

    Democrats have had many years since the previous failed attempt at ‘reform’ to buy an insurance company and set the example.

    Where have you guys been all this time? How come you’re not out in front, matching the talk with the walk?

  • ecthompson

    Joe - 

    Because I’m slow, explain to me how we can decrease the influence of big corporate money in our election process. I’m sure that you believe that we are a democracy of some sort. Democracy should be about its people and not its corporations, right? So, what tool do we have as people to make our voices heard?

  • ecthompson

    We need to act like surgeons and excise them from our government. Lobbyists and their money are drowning out the voices of the people. 

  • MH

    This is NOT the end of healthcare reform just this one bill. You can always tweak it after this one takes effect. They do it Utah all the time. They write pass a bill and figure out it had a different effect it was suppose to so they tweak it. They do this all the time in the other states. Orrin Hatch allowed the drug companies to keep their patents for an extra 5 years so they can compound their profits. Now i am not against profits but when you don’t have any kind of competition you can set the price at what you want. Same thing with healthcare.

    Utah is trying to set up one of the co-op’s they are talking about. But when you factor in the insurance broker and his office expenses on top of the insurance premiums. Everyone needs to make a profit. There will now be more and more middlemen. Just like the Mortgage brokers who made all the money of the bad loans. The new thief will be insurance brokers who will swindle the unsuspecting person.

    Too big to fail will be the indermediate insurance companies. If they had gone to single payer this would have been eliminated. They can still do this. I am hoping for the tweaks.

  • Kevin Schmidt

    “Why don’t we just let the bureaucrats cast our votes as well? ”

    If you haven’t noticed, the majority of voting machines in the country enable the bureaucrats to do just that. Actually, they have been doing just that for quite some time. 

  • Joe White

    Candidates should only be allowed to accept contributions from individuals who are qualified to vote for the same candidate. i.e. if I live in the 3rd District, I can donate to 3rd District candidates, but not to candidates of the 1st , 2nd or 4th Districts, and not to out of state candidates.

    As it is now, candidates for a House seat in Illinois fly to Florida and New York to raise funds. This should not be legal. The citizens of one state should not be able to swing elections in other states.

    Of course organizations (such as corporations and unions) are not legal voters, and should not be able to donate to candidates either. Individuals within those organizations can donate using their own personal funds.

    This will probably be opposed by both parties, so it will need to be put on the ballot by citizen Initiative or Petition.

  • bigbillhaywood

    This argument is DEAD WRONG! here’s the quote that matters from an insurance company hack-

    “”If healthcare goes down this year, you are going to end up with single-payer care much sooner than anyone expected,” said Jeffrey Miles, a health care analyst with  Los Angeles insurance brokerage firm.

    KILL THE BILL!

  • ecthompson

    BigBill - 

    I would ask you to step back and look at our political landscape. If you believe that the American people are going to rise up and hit the streets, I think you’re mistaken. Hundreds of thousands of Americans protested against the Iraq war and nothing happened. Why would this time be any different? I would love to believe that the American people would suddenly smacked their forehead and say I wish I voted Democratic but I don’t think that’s going to happen.

    I think it is incredibly important for us to change the equation. We need to weaken corporate influence. This tilts the balance towards the American people. Right now, our voices are drowned out by thousands of lobbyists handing out hundreds of thousands of dollars. Once we get meaningful legislation that curbs this practice then, and only then should we come back and try and tackle significant health-care reform.

    Thanks for your comments.

  • ecthompson

    So, let me see if I understand you, you are suggesting that the government passes laws that restrict the freedom of citizens to vote for whomever they choose even if they’re not in the same district? Interesting. I find that very interesting.

    Thanks for your thoughtful comments. You have surprised me again.

  • Joe White

    No, I said nothing about restricting the freedom to vote.

    That is already restricted. You can only vote for the candidate from your district. You can’t go to another district or state and vote for them.

    What I’m talking about is applying the same principle to campaign donations.

    If I live in the 3rd US Congressional district in the state of New York, I should not be able to give donations to a candidate in the 5th US Congressional district of Florida. He’s not gonna be my congressman.

    I shouldn’t even be able to donate to candidates from the other US Congressional districts in NY. Only mine.

    Same thing with Senators, except they represent the whole state. So if I live in Michigan, I should be able to donate to a candidate for the US Senate from Michigan. But I should not be able to donate to a candidate for the US Senate from Missouri or Texas.

  • Pingback: Where’s the Outrage? » Celebration: Senate Passes Healthcare Bill!!

  • bigbillhaywood

    Actually EC, I think you missed my point entirely. This bill perpetuates and GUARANTEES continued corporate influence. It’s matter of PROFIT…the insurance leeches were LOSING their influence through the loss of their consumer base. And that loss of consumer base caused by price will soon be dwarfed by retiring baby boomers leaving the market and going on medicaire when they hit 65 in HUGE numbers.

    No, this bill does nothing to decrease corporate influence in health care. If you don’t believe me please check out the recent spikes in insurance company stocks. The parasites are celebrating this bill with gusto…from now on, they will have a captive consumer base and a direct funnel from the US treasury tofurther pack their pockets. This bill sets back TRUE reform (single payer) by decades.

  • ecthompson

    Big Billy — you are right, I completely missed your point. Sorry about that. You are 100% correct. Corporate influence is written all over this bill. I think, because of lobbyist and corporate money if we would kill this bill, we would end up with exactly the same thing. Read to reform the banks then take corporate money out of elections.

    I have talked about a single-payer system on a number of occasions. It is the most cost-effective method of delivering healthcare. I know that I’ve asked on this blog and the number of others would value as insurance companies add to healthcare and nobody has been able to give me a satisfactory answer.

    Thank you for your insight.

  • ecthompson

    very interesting. The more I think about this idea the more I like it. How do you propose to get around the Supreme Court’s decision that basically states that money is equivalent to speech. And by restricting donations to other districts you are restricting a person’s freedom of speech. (Since no right in the Constitution is absolute, I have no problem with restricting speech in this way but I like to hear your thoughts.)

    Finally, after hundreds of comments, you finally come up with something I find very intriguing. Thank you.

  • Joe White

    Well, voting is also a form of free speech. But we have no problem restricting that by saying you can only vote for the guy from your district.

    Have a Merry Christmas, Dr Thompson.

  • ecthompson

    Merry Christmas to you too!

  • Pingback: Where’s the Outrage? » This ain’t the 1990’s

« »