I’m worried. The health care reform debate is nearing closure, and it looks increasingly likely that a version of the Senate and House bills, leavened by some 11th hour Presidential proposals, will become law.
And yet, I see that Dennis Kucinich, who voted no on the House bill last November, has recently been threatened by Markos Moulitsas –if he doesn’t come around on the final product, Kos promised him a primary challenger. Never mind that Kos himself, as late as last December, essentially repeated Kucinich’s objections to the basic premise of the Democrat’s “reform” agenda: requiring Americans to buy flawed, overly expensive, and ultimately useless health insurance (h/t to Peter Fisk in the comments on the article @ the Huffington Post for pointing that hypocrisy out). Never mind that Dennis Kucinich was one of only two progressive Democrats, out of 70-plus who had earlier objected to any bill without a “robust” public option becoming law, to maintain that position during the final vote (I won’t mention the other one). If you’re off the reservation now, you’re persona non grata, as they say, in polite (?) society.
But I agree with the Congressman from Ohio. I understand that whatever law the Democrats enact will extend “coverage” to roughly 95% of Americans under the age of 55 who are not illegal aliens. I’m glad that the President is at least making noises about greater oversight of the insurance industry. But it’s not a lack of coverage, per se, that’s killing Americans by the thousands. It’s a lack of health care. And the for-profit health insurance industry makes money by denying us health care. They are the (terrifyingly) real “death panels.” And their business practices will, by and large, be given the Federal government’s stamp of approval.
I just don’t see this ending well. Some make the comparison between the enactment of Medicare in 1965 and the current reform effort. But I’m afraid this has more in common with the Clinton-era initiative known as “welfare reform.” The difference between Medicare (a program that Republicans now support) and any bill likely to be passed by Congress in 2010 is that Medicare established a right –an entitlement for crying out loud– to health care. And that’s exactly as it should be. The amount of health care anyone deserves is not the amount they can afford, but the amount they need. Full stop.
The Democrats’ proposals make the fundamental mistake of mistaking “coverage” for “care.” They are NOT the same thing. I agree with Dr. Angell, that the future of health care under this regime will only get worse, not better. If you read only one of the links in this post, please read hers. And remember, the health insurance industry already has “oversight,” in states like California. How well has that worked out, Anthem policy holders?
Like the 1990s version of welfare reform, the House and Senate bills take away rights –the right of States to enact single-payer programs, the right of people to choose from a public option, etc.– and will end up further segregating Americans into “worthy” and “undeserving” classes. This is a bad deal, and gives “reform” a bad name.
Let’s hope that me and Mr. Kucinich, and Dr. Angell, and every other principled-objector to the insurance industry bailout is staggeringly, stupefyingly wrong. Remember hope?
Recent Comments