Over the last few days/weeks/months of health care reform..well lets be honest. It's descended into a massive pie-fight, generally between pragmatists who think this is the best that can be done right now, and idealists who think that it should all be gotten in one go.
This diary is not about that.
This diary is about one limited aspect of this debate, although often it's what takes it over and becomes the dividing line. As the title says, the term "corporate", as in being a corporate stooge or a sell-out or being corrupt or whatever. That's the accusation that's being thrown about left, right and center.
But is it accurate? Could there be something else that leads to this behavior? I'd argue not just a yes but a big emphatic YES to that. The problem is not in our stars, but in ourselves.
Let's imagine, that we could pass either a single-payer or a dominant public option (Both are policies that I not only support, but I think are in the long-run essential, as in US existential essential, as in US as a second-world economy/society without single payer). What effects would this have on the society at large?
#1. Sad corporations. Boo-hoo. Who cares? Sad Shareholders. Oh well. You took a risk, it didn't pan out. Don't bet money you can't afford to lose. But that's not really the way it is, is it? People have retirement funds, college funds tied up in that money. That money is supposed to be safe, growing, infinite. It's not, and we know that. But remember, even progressives use the DOW as a sign of the greater economy.
Also, you're also removing one of the biggest sources of investment income in the system. Generally how investment works, is that they take those premiums, invest them, make the payouts, and basically pocket the returns (that was the case until several years ago). So that means less upward inflation on investments, meaning that the upper middle class doesn't have as much of a lavish retirement. To me? Boo-fucking-hoo. But to the middle classes? This is a nightmare.
#2. Massive efficiency in the health care sector. We all know this is true. We all know that the maze of rules, regulations, approvals and rejections is a huge factor in the out of control cost of health care. In fact, some would argue that this is THE major money sink in the system. It requires millions of man-hours on both sides, both the insurance AND the provider side.
So get rid of most of those man-hours. Congratulations. You just eliminated hundreds of thousands of jobs. Not just slimy evil jobs either, but people working in doctor's offices to get people the health care they need. These are good, well paying middle-class jobs.
#3. Entitlement. People like to think that because they are successful, that they are entitled to better health care, and to be able to use those resources to jump to the "front of the line" in a million different ways. Real health care reform would eliminate that. In fact, I'd go as far as to argue that it's this lack of Entitlement that has Stupak's dander up (The Family is a group that if you really look at it is lobbying to maintain the privilege of "God's Chosen". Needless to say the poor are not chosen)
In fact, middle-class entitlement really is the factor that's making HCR so difficult. Knowledgeable politicians such as Obama, need to balance the requirement for health care reform with the entitlement expectations of the middle class. This is an impossible feat.
So this is just something to think about. When you're thinking "corruption" or "bought out" take a step back, and think of these pressures that must politically be balanced, even if they are not apparent.