Skip to main content

View Diary: If this bill is so good for insurers and so bad for Dems ... (204 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  One answer to why Repubs.... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Seneca Doane, Onomastic, Birchwood

    not supporting it.  

    Diary based on Harper's Magazine Article.

    •  OK, I read it, and it was interesting, but (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sebastianguy99, Birchwood

      I don't think it quite answers the charge I make here.

      •  I wish they had it open on line... (0+ / 0-)

        what they say is that the Dems and Reps are vying to be the party of the health care industry.  So, since this is the Dems bill, the Reps want to stop it.

        It is an ultra cynical analysis, but I fear it contains a good deal of truth.  

        It's not only the campaign contributions, it's jobs for family and friends while in office, and good positions afterwards.

        But many Senators are rich enough not to need such emoluments.  I actually think it's a combination of the two.  Since they probably aren't going to print it let me copy the letter I sent them on the article:

        To the Editor:

        Re: Understanding Obamacare

        Conceptual overviews that reduce the complexity of politics to digestible human terms, such as greed, deceit and betrayal, require careful rebuttal, not to refute but to sharpen the argument.  A political party can usefully be conceived as an institution that is motivated by self perpetuation, and to achieve this must ally itself with the most powerful corporate forces such as health insurers, among the other groups in the Health-Industrial complex.  And as Mitchell points out, what better way to do this than under the guise of regulation, which through "regulatory capture" is really submission to the will of these interests.

        As useful as this conceptualization of political party as amoral self perpetuating entity is for analysis, it has its limits.  A party is also the vehicle for enhancement of life, and redress of suffering, by the people-- demands that a party must satisfy in order to exist. Howard Dean's erroneous inclusion by Mitchell as one of the sellouts to insurers is illustrative.   In reality he has recently excoriated the Democratic effort, demanding a public option that would ideally eliminate private insurers in order to provide affordable universal health care.

        The failure of this Democratic Reform effort is in attempting to both satisfy the actual suffering of those lacking or fearing the loss of medical insurance, without disturbing those that need to be disturbed to achieve this, the existing medical power structure.

        The impossibility of this approach will only slowly become apparent years after this legislation is is signed into law.   The fatal flaw is, just as Republicans promised a quick, successful no cost war in Iraq, the Democrats are promising virtually universal high quality care, also at no cost.   Senate leaders are quoted in editorials in the New York Times distorting CBO reports to say that insurance will be cheaper in a decade.  When such prices go up, as actually predicted,  and the diminution of service for Medicare, which in spite of conservative hyperbole happens to also be predicted, becomes apparent,  the satisfaction in creating this reform will be replaced by grassroots anger towards the sponsoring party that all the financial appreciation of private insurers will not be able to obviate.

        While this will harm the Democratic party, even worse is contemplation of how our country survives when both of the two parties have been tainted by their own flagrant betrayal of the public trust.  


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site